Sitting of 9 June 2004

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

  NHS Waiting Times
  Andrew Selous: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales about progress in reducing NHS waiting times. [177354]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I regularly meet the Assembly Fiat Minister, and the health service in Wales is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.
  Andrew Selous: Given that health spending in Wales constitutes a higher proportion of the gross domestic product than it does in either France or Germany, why have waiting lists increased by 80 per cent. in the past five years? Given that one of his own Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)—said that the NHS is in need of urgent reform, and given that a 69-year-old Swansea man has waited more than three and a half years for a hip operation, will the Secretary of State agree to meet Conservative health spokesmen to discover how Opposition health reforms could benefit the people of Wales?
  Mr. Hain: There is a convention in the House whereby Ministers agree to receive delegations from Members, but I am not sure that that one would be very productive. It would take us back to the past and to a Conservative record in Wales that was awful. Seventy hospitals closed, more than a third of general and acute beds were lost between 1979 and 1997, and nursing and midwifery training places were cut. However, in Wales we are now moving ahead. We are recruiting more consultants and more nurses, waiting times are coming down and more hospitals are being built. The health service is improving under Labour, just as it was cut under the Tories.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the gloomy views expressed by the Conservative party as part of a last-minute effort before tomorrow's elections, the facts speak for themselves in my local trust, the North West
  256
  Wales NHS Trust? Its consultant orthopaedic surgeons are able to offer treatment within six months, and in dermatology 96 per cent. of patients are seen within three months. According to The Sunday Times, it is the top performing trust in Wales, and for the fourth year running one of its hospitals is among the top 40 best performing hospitals in the UK.
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend speaks for Wales, and for north-west Wales in particular, in a way that the Conservatives cannot, because they have no parliamentary representation in Wales. As she accurately points out, things are improving. They have to improve a lot more, but there is more investment, more nurses, more doctors and more provision to ensure that such improvements continue. In particular, waiting times for cardiac surgery, orthopaedic treatment, cataract surgery and angiograms are improving.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is an insult to the 302,730 people on a waiting list for the Secretary of State time and again to make incorrect claims about my party and our policies. He should know, because the information has been published, that we have promised to spend £68 billion on schools and the NHS in Wales.
  Let us get on to what is happening. Ten per cent. of the population—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman has got to do is to ask a supplementary question.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State tell the House why The Western Mail reported that at an Assembly Cabinet meeting on 19 January, Ministers secretly discussed the way in which NHS waiting lists in Wales are calculated? The Labour Assembly seems to be more concerned with fiddling the figures than with reducing the actual waiting times that people are suffering. It appears that Assembly Ministers are anxious to present an improved list of waiting time figures to disguise their appalling record on health and to appease their party's MPs, who are already rightly panicking ahead of the next general election. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Welsh Assembly will not be changing the way in which waiting lists are calculated, in order to fudge the figures?
  Mr. Hain: Talking of fudging figures, if I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he just said that he intends to spend an extra £68 billion on health and education in Wales.
  Mr. Wiggin indicated assent.
  Mr. Hain: He nods his head, but the current entire budget for Wales is £13 billion, which means that he is going to spend some five times as much as that. In the light of that Mickey Mouse figuring, is anybody taking seriously anything that he says about these issues?
  Mr. Wiggin: I stand corrected—the £68 billion figure applies across the whole of the UK. I rather wish that the Secretary of State was always as helpful to me when I am trying to get answers from him. On waiting times in Wales, perhaps he can explain why the figures for this

  257
  April show an increase of 8,487 people, compared with March. Of course, they are among the 302,730 people—one in 10 people in Wales—currently on an in-patient or out-patient waiting list.
  There are more people waiting this year than last, and waiting lists have increased by 80 per cent. since 1999.
  Wales has the highest waiting list, not just in the UK, but in the whole of Europe. Despite that, Jane Hutt clearly said that her policies were "having an effect". Is the Secretary of State happy with the effect of the Government's policies, and does he think that Jane Hutt is doing a good job?
  Mr. Hain: I am very happy with the progress being made in comparison with the dreadful record under the Conservatives. We inherited that legacy. Just look at the figures. There are 4,000 more nurses in Wales since Labour came to power; 300 more whole-time equivalent consultants; waiting times for key procedures are coming down; 10 new hospitals are either being or have already been built; and there are 178 more acute beds. That is all progress, which is resulting in better health provision for Wales. That is why the people of Wales will continue to back Labour and continue to reject the Tories.
  Albert Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) was right to point to the fact that the North West Wales NHS Trust is the best performing trust in Wales in respect of out-patients and in-patients. However, despite the fact that many nurses train in the locality, the ratio of nurses to beds is one of the lowest because they often move to other parts of Wales and, indeed, to England. Will my right hon. Friend meet the appropriate Welsh Assembly Minister to ensure that local nurses are allowed to remain in the area and work for the local NHS?
  Mr. Hain: I meet the First Minister regularly and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary meets the Minister for Health and Social Services regularly. It is certainly a matter that we can draw to their attention. My hon. Friend will be aware that more and more nurses are being recruited. He will also be aware of my response to the previous question and know that 250,000 more patients are being seen in the Welsh health service under Labour than under the Tories. That is an indication of the way standards are going up and of how people's needs are being satisfied and their relief of pain met.

  Civil Contingencies Bill
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met the First Minister to discuss amendments to the Civil Contingencies Bill specifically called for by the National Assembly for Wales' Local Government and Public Services Committee; and if he will make a statement. [177355]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the First Minister and Welsh Assembly Government Ministers regularly to discuss a range of matters, which has included the Civil Contingencies Bill.
  Mr. Llwyd: I acknowledge the Minister's response, but it does not address the question that I tabled. The
  258
  question was about the information given by the Welsh Assembly to the Minister during the passage of the Civil Contingencies Bill. The Local Government and Public Services Committee requested two specific amendments and they have been dispatched by Westminster. The Minister often refers to a partnership in respect of legislating, but that does not sound like a partnership to me. Frankly, it is rather one-sided.
  Mr. Touhig: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, and on Third Reading he raised a number of important points about the Bill. I can tell him that, personally, as a Minister, I have not received any representations about amendments from the National Assembly's Local Government and Public Services Committee. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), has rec rived them and he will reply. I am prevented by time constraints from giving the hon. Gentleman a more detailed response, but if it would help him—I know of his particular interest—I will write to provide him with further information.
  Lembit Öpik: The Minister will know that 300 Tetra masts are being installed for Welsh police communications. Is he aware that they are a cause of local concern in communities such as Llanidloes, where local people simply do not feel consulted? They are angry that council officials are threatening to use the Government's emergency powers legislation to force mast installations, regardless of local feeling. Are those officials allowed to do that; and, if so, what rights do local citizens have to stop unwelcome mast installations?
  Mr. Touhig: I was not aware of the issue until the hon. Gentleman just raised it as a matter of concern in his constituency. I will look further into the matter—I understand that he has spoken about his concerns to my officials this morning—and I will write to him about it.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wale; on the provision of local drug rehabilitation services in (a) the Cynon Valley and (b) Wales. [177356]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I regularly meet the National Assembly's Social Justice and Regeneration Minister and tackling substance misuse in the south Wales valley communities is a subject that we frequently discuss.
  Ann Clwyd: I recognise the Government's record level of commitment to funding for this problem, but may I point out that in the Cynon Valley there is a long waiting list for rehabilitation facilities, and urge my hon. Friend to press upon the First Minister the importance of increasing rehabilitation facilities for those who are seeking treatment for that problem?
  Mr. Touhig: Access to treatment is a priority, which is why £2.5 million of funding has been provided through community safety partnerships in Wales in order to

  259
  target the availability of treatment services. I am aware that there have been a large number of applications for treatment in my hon. Friend's constituency. A number have been from women who are pregnant, so they cannot receive treatment at that time, which has created a backlog. As I say, I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and I will bring it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.
  Chris Bryant: It is good to see my hon. Friend the Minister in fine health, which just goes to show that the NHS in Wales is doing a very fine job at present. However, has he had an opportunity to visit the new mental health unit at the Royal Glamorgan hospital, which serves both the Cynon valley and the Rhondda, or the mental health unit at—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the question.
  Mr. Wayne David: My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that the Rhondda Cynon Taf local authority has a poor record in supporting drug rehabilitation initiatives, in the Cynon valley and the locality generally. However, is he aware of the Kaleidoscope project in Newport? It is an innovative project, based on respect for individuals, and it ensures that treatment is given within one week, if possible.
  Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for saving me from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) that I am aware of the matter that he raises, and that the Rhondda Cynon Taf community safety partnership has received more than £600,000 for its substance misuse action plan. I am also aware of the Kaleidoscope project, which I visited with the Welsh Assembly's Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration. I was very impressed with the work of the project, which provides a service for a range of different people. The project is known nationally and internationally for its pioneering community-based drugs treatment programmes. I commend it to other areas for examination, as it is a pioneering project that is breaking barriers and pushing forward the agenda involved in tackling the problem of drug misuse.

  Miners' Compensation
  Huw Irranca-Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect o the deduction of contingency fees from miners' compensation awards. [177357]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on coal health compensation matters, and I also attend the national monitoring group chaired by my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend convey my thanks to his counterparts in the DTI for their efforts in
  260
  working with the Law Society to put pressure on those lawyers who, scandalously, have sought to deduct contingency fees from the compensation rightfully paid to miners, their widows and their families? However, does he share my dismay—not to say disgust—that other lawyers in south Wales continue to deduct contingency fees or part payments from money that rightfully should go to miners and their families?
  Mr. Touhig: Yes, I most certainly share that disgust. Claims handlers and others who take a slice of compensation meant for miners and their widows are, in my view, nothing but parasites preying on the fears of elderly and vulnerable people. My message to them is simple. It is, "Give the money back. It does not belong to you; it belongs to the miners."
  Mr. Roger Williams: Yesterday, I was contacted by my constituent Mr. Davies from Abercraf, who is conducting a claim on behalf of his late father. He is furious about the service that he has received from his solicitor, who has taken a long time to settle the claim, and has also submitted copies of wills and probates that refer to a claim being made by another family. Solicitors involved in such matters receive great fees from the DTI: when will those fees be deducted to reflect the poor service that claimants receive, and the stress that is caused to them when they do not get the money that they are due?
  Mr. Touhig: On the whole, most solicitors handling miners' compensation claims have acted very well and have sought to process the claims as speedily as possible. However, I am aware that some solicitors are not in that category and that they have caused enormous grief, to my constituents and to those of other hon. Members. I shall bring the details of this particular case to the attention of the Law Society, as I have done on a number of occasions previously, and I shall ask it to investigate the problems that the hon. Gentleman's constituent is having with that firm of solicitors.
  Denzil Davies: Given that the activities of the claim handlers seem to generate claims and therefore more work for solicitors, would it not be fairer if their fees were paid out of the solicitors' pockets, and not by the unfortunate claimants?
  Mr. Touhig: I have sympathy with that view. Indeed, I have written to the Law Society on behalf of a couple of my constituents who have paid £5,000 to claims handlers. When I wrote to the solicitors handling the claims, I was told that they dealt merely with the process of the claim and that my constituents had signed an agreement to pay that money to the claims handlers.
  I have asked the Law Society to investigate the matter because one part of the agreement that my constituents had to sign states that the payment is needed to meet any legal or medical fees. In fact, claimants have to pay no such fees, as the Government are meeting them all. The solicitors know that, and they should act appropriately. I have every sympathy for the point made by my right hon. Friend. Solicitors should be encouraged to help get the money back.
  Adam Price: In the Minister's discussions with the Department of Trade

  261
  and Industry, did he also ask why it is financing the miners' compensation scheme from the surpluses it receives from the miners' pension fund? As the Minister himself said, "Give the money back. It doesn't belong to you; it belongs to the miners."
  Mr. Touhig: Plaid Cymru is taking an interest in miners? There must be an election on. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue recently and gained much publicity as a result. He has created alarm and concern among miners and their widows, who think that their pension fund is at risk because of the issues he has raised. He has not discovered anything new: the issue that he raises was made public by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) on 8 December 1999. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the guarantee. At the moment, the miners' pension scheme is in deficit and the Government are putting in millions of pounds to overcome that deficit. If he asks any miner in Wales, they will tell him that the guarantee of their pension security is a godsend. They welcome it, and they know that it guarantees that their pensions are safe.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales about funding for the NHS in Wales. [177358]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I regularly meet the Assembly First Minister and the health service in Wales is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.
  Mr. Swayne: The Audit Commission reported in April that the NHS in Wales was unsustainable, out of balance, unable to meet the needs of the future, and applying the wrong remedies in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. What can it possibly have meant?
  Mr. Hain: The Audit Commission made some recommendations that the Welsh Assembly and the Minister for Health and Social Services are now implementing. It also recognised that great progress has been made by the health service in Wales, some of which I identified earlier. The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate, as a Conservative Member, that the people of Wales know that they face a choice between cuts, privatisation and charges under the Conservatives, or increased investment, more provision, more nurses, more doctors and a better health service under Labour.
  Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the funding for NHS breast cancer surgery will spread much further because of a pioneering new technique developed by the University of Wales College of Medicine, in my constituency, that reduces the need for drastic and invasive surgery when cancer has spread under the arms into the lymph nodes? Will he join me in congratulating the staff involved on a tremendous achievement, which means that Wales now leads the field in that area?
  Mr. Hain: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the staff of the university on their
  262
  fantastic, innovative and pioneering research and their contribution to tackling a serious problem that has affected far too many women over the decades. We now have the opportunity to introduce a proper, preventive strategy to provide the protection to which women are entitled.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Bellingham.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I have made a mistake. I call Mr. Wiggin.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I sympathise, Mr. Speaker, and so should the Secretary of State. His hearing is not up to much because he did not hear the points that I made about spending. He said that great progress had been made, but can he explain why hospital activity has increased by only 6 per cent., the backlog of maintenance on NHS buildings in Wales has increased by £147 million, and the total repair bill now stands at £465 mill on? There is a chronic shortage of consultants, with the British Medical Association estimating that 150 posts are unfilled. What has Labour done with the money? Could it have gone on the doubling in the number of civil servants in Jane Hutt's Department, or the 96 administrative bodies that she has set up since 1999? Labour's policy of taxing and spending and failing is letting Wales down.
  Mr. Hain: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his enthusiasm for coming back for second helpings, even if the recipe was the same. He ignores the fact that the health service in Wales is now seeing 250,000 more patients—a quarter of a million more—and that is where the money is going. It is going into recruiting 4,000 more nurses 300 more whole-time equivalent consultants and building more hospitals, compared with the 70 closed under the Conservatives. That is where Labour's investment in health is going, compared with the cuts, cuts and cuts that we had under the Tories.

  Small Businesses (Tax)
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: What recent representations he has received from small business organisations in Wales on the subject of the tax treatment for small incorporated companies. [177359]
  The Secretary of state for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I have regular meetings with small business organisations. The Government and the Assembly have created an extremely supportive environment for small businesses to prosper in Wales.
  Mr. Bellingham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of small companies in Wales went to substantial expense to incorporate as a result of tax incentives brought in by the Budget two years ago? Those excellent initiatives, which were widely welcomed by small business groups in Wales, were removed in this

  263
  year's Budget. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that U-turn, which has angered so many small businesses in Wales?
  Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, things are not quite as he suggested. As he also knows, small businesses in Wales are doing much, much better than ever before. The Royal Bank of Scotland reports that the economy will grow by 3 per cont. and that Welsh business activity grew for the 13th consecutive month to April 2004. A recent CBI survey also showed that business confidence in Wales stands at its highest since 1995, and the latest quarterly business survey from NatWest reports that 68 per cent. of Welsh small businesses noted significant improvements in their sales in the past year. That is the most positive response for a long time—thanks to Labour's excellent policies.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. John Smith: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the take-up of tax credits in (a) Wales and (b) Vale of Glamorgan. [177360]
  Mr. Martyn Jones: What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues concerning the take-up of tax credits in Wales. [177361]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Two hundred and forty-five thousand families in Wales are receiving tax credits, including almost 228,000 families with about 400,000 children.
  Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that for the first time in a generation not a single family in my Vale of Glamorgan constituency would be better off out of work and dependent on benefits? Will he give me an assurance that we never return to the absurd situation where benefits become a perverse incentive for people not to work?
  Mr. Hain: I certainly will give ray hon. Friend that assurance, provided of course that the people continue to vote for Labour in election after election. Instead of the billions of pounds being wasted by the Tories to keep people on the dole, where there is no hope and no future, we have invested to help people who want to work and to make work pay through the working tax credit and the child tax credit. That is benefiting hundreds and thousands of people right across Wales.
  Mr. Jones: What effect has that encouraging take-up of tax credits had on our desire to eliminate child poverty in Wales?
  Mr. Hain: It has had a significant impact, because it has occurred alongside record increases in child benefits. We are committed to eliminating child poverty right across Wales. We have made massive strides in that direction, again with policies that would be cut under the Tories in their programme of cuts and cuts and cuts, driving the people of Wales and the children of Wales back into the misery of the 1980s and the early 1990s.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Alan Howarth: What discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) National Assembly for Wales Ministers concerning measures to tackle antisocial behaviour in Wales. [177363]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues and Assembly Ministers to discuss matters affecting Wales.
  In March this year the police were given greater scope for combating antisocial behaviour when the third set of new powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 came into force. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) to put his supplementary question.
  Alan Howarth: Has my hon. Friend noted that reports of antisocial behaviour and disorder in Newport have fallen by 25 per cent. over the last year? Will he congratulate Gwent police and Labour-led Newport city council on working in increasingly effective partnership? Has he also noted that absolutely no ideas of any interest or use on the matter of antisocial behaviour have been put forward by any of the other political parties?
  Mr. Touhig: The Government are cracking down on those who make life a misery for hard-working families. Those families expect us to do something about that situation and to act against those who commit the quality-of-life crimes of intimidation, petty vandalism, yobbery and so on. I am delighted about the real progress that has been made in Newport through the partnership between the Gwent police and the Labour-run Newport council, which after the election tomorrow will still be a Labour-run council.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Q 1. [177335] Mr. Ken Purchase: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9June.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply.
  As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G8 summit in Georgia and will then go on to attend the state funeral of the former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.
  I take this opportunity to express our deep sadness at the death of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, Jim Marshall. He was a popular figure in Parliament and locally, and a great advocate for his constituency. He will be sadly missed.
  Mr. Purchase: All of us, both here and in Jim's former constituency, would wish to echo those very fine words.

  265
  Does my right hon. Friend recognise the good sense and decency of the people in my borough of Wolverhampton, where not one single person has been persuaded to stand as a British National party nationalist, fascist candidate in tomorrow's city council elections? In this special week when we remember the Normandy landings, which became a real turning point in the fight against racism and fascism, will my right hon. Friend implore and demand of the voters that tomorrow they follow the example of Wolverhampton and make our country a racist-BNP-free zone?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that the House will agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. The people of his city have shown good sense in many ways, not least in sending him here as their Member of Parliament.
  My hon. Friend is right. too, to draw the House's attention to the dignified ceremonies that took place at the weekend to mark the courage and sacrifice of those involved in the Normandy landings 60 years ago. It is because of their bravery and sacrifice that we have the right to vote in the elections that are taking place tomorrow. I am sure that the House will want to urge all those taking part to turn out and to maximise the vote.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I join the Deputy Prime Minister in his tribute to the late Jim Marshall. I believe that we will all miss him in the House.
  I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will also wish to join me in paying tribute to the late Ronald Reagan, a great President who challenged the march of communism and won. After all, how can he and I not pay tribute to a man who was known as the great communicator?
  Does the Deputy Prime Minister now regret ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission and going ahead with postal voting in four regions?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made clear his judgment about President Reagan in the debate on foreign affairs on Monday. For my part, whatever people said about President Reagan at the beginning of his regime, I remember that he contributed to reducing weapons of mass destruction, which assisted in world peace today. [Interruption.] Well, people can make judgments, but I give my judgment as best I can. I remember the many cynical comments that were made about that man, but he did contribute to reducing the cold war. [Interruption.] I can only give the House my view and live with whatever people think about it.
  As for all-postal ballots, let me make it clear to the House that the evidence is that the number of people participating in the elections is significantly higher than it has been. It must be the wish of everyone in the House that as many people as possible vote in elections. The returning officers are positive about the elections and say that they are going well. By last night, turnout had already increased by 6.8 per cent. in the north-east, by 6.1 per cent. in the north-west, by 8.6 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humber, and by 7.3 per cent. in the east midlands.
  266
  That is nearly an extra 1 million people participating in the vote. That must be a welcome factor, and I think that my judgment in asking for the four areas to be considered as all-postal ballot areas was right.
  Mr. Ancram: The Deputy Prime Minister's complacency is breathtaking. Where has he been for the past few weeks? Thousands of electors have had postal votes sent back because they have failed to complete them properly, one council is having to operate three emergency polling stations because thousands of voters have not received heir forms in time, and voters in another area are being invited to go to the town hall. One in seven voters in the four regions said that they had not received their ballot papers by last weekend. On top of that, today we hear allegations that substantial numbers of voters have been intimidated, and that one employer told his staff that he would sack them all if they refused to support Labour. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the chaos that he is causing, and the worry and upset to all the voters who think that he is effectively depriving them of their votes?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: A number of those allegations were made in 2003. The Electoral Commission looked into them to see whether there were any examples of bad practice or fraud, and after the investigation into the 100 pilot areas in 2003 it said that there was no reason to believe the pilot schemes had
  "resulted in an increase in the incidence of electoral offences".
  That was the Electoral Commission's judgment then, and it will conduct mother review in the present pilot areas. Most of what we have heard is allegations. Let the proper investigation take place, and the House will have a chance to make a proper judgment.
  Let us be clear: more than 1 million more people have participated in the elections already, and if we get the same rate of return t tat we had in 2003, that figure could become 2 million. I hope that many more people will vote by the end of the elections on Thursday night. That should be welcomed We shall conduct a review, and any electoral mispractice or fraud should be harshly dealt with. Indeed, Members will recall that in the past few weeks we read in the papers that in a postal ballot—although not in an all-postal ballot area—a Conservative councillor was jailed for forging ballot papers.
  Mr. Ancram: The Deputy Prime Minister's complacency will send its own signal to many people in the country. He talks again about turnout, but this is not just about turnout; it is about the integrity of the system, confidence, trust and lack of corruption. Above all, it is about people being able to exercise their vote. The chaos of the past few weeks has been bad enough, yet the right hon. Gentleman still appears hellbent on holding all-postal ballots in his three regional referendums this autumn. Will he now abandon those plans, and will the Labour party stop playing fast and loose with democracy and restore to people the right to vote at the ballot box?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls this, but there was no dispute between us that postal ballots and all-postal ballots should be encouraged. All parties have

  267
  supported that principle; the only dispute is whether the allegations are correct. The pilot schemes will be reviewed, and the House will have proper time to consider a proper judgment made by the Electoral Commission. That is right, but let us celebrate the fact that a million more people will participate—indeed, already have participated—in the elections; the final figure may be greater than that. That should be a matter for celebration. It is not, as the leader of the Liberal party has said, a democratic disgrace.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Do we need more single-sex Muslim schools?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that a number of the local education authorities, which have the right to make that choice, have decided that there will be some of those schools—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me, there are five. It is for the local education authorities to make such decisions, and we should leave it to them.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes paid to Jim Marshall, a Member who was much respected in all parts of the House? Of President Reagan, may I say that whatever one's differences with him may have been, he will undoubtedly take his place as one of the most notable Presidents in American history?
  However, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he agrees that the proposals at the G8 summit on improved debt relief for poverty-stricken African countries should stand alone and rot be dependent on the writing off of Iraqi debt? Will the Prime Minister take that position in Georgia?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, and they do stand alone.
  Sir Menzies Campbell: That was the shortest and, perhaps, the most acceptable answer that the Deputy Prime Minister has ever given. I doubt that I shall be so lucky the second time around.
  On Iraq, given that the new United Nations resolution mentions neither weapons of mass destruction nor the Iraq survey group at all, and in view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that Saddam Hussein had what he described as "strategic intent" to develop weapons of mass destruction, are we now to understand that the Government accept that there were no actual weapons of mass destruction and that none are likely to be found, or. in the words of Dr. David Kay, are the Government still being delusional?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are all waiting for the final report on those matters. [Interruption.] I thought that we sit up reports to find out facts so that we can then debate them. It is right for me to say that we should await the n port. It is a pity that he has not really congratulated the United Nations on arriving at its unanimous agreement last night. Everyone in the House has been calling for that, so I should have thought that we should all welcome it,
  268
  rather than giving out the party political stuff that we heard from the right hon and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), which was a disgrace. Given that such a fundamental decision has been made about Iraq, we should all welcome the fact that the UN is now playing a major part in finding a solution, which our Prime Minister has tried to put in place. A council is being formed and there will be elections in June. I have listened to many debates in the Chamber on Iraq, so is it not time for us to celebrate the fact that the UN is involved and we now have a satisfactory solution for not only coalition forces, but the Iraqi authorities, which very much welcome it?
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Labour's tonnage tax has given a massive boost to the British Merchant Navy and has been of huge benefit to British shipping. Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my dissatisfaction that that boost and expansion has not been matched by an increase in jobs for British seafarers and has not provided the training places that were promised?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. He welcomes the fact that there has been more than a three-times increase in tonnage due to the change o the taxation arrangement to which the Chancellor agreed a few years ago. That has meant that this island nation now has its island fleet back again, which is welcome. However, the system was different from other tax arrangements because it included the condition that there had to be training for officers and crews. There has indeed been extra training for them, but I was disappointed that my union at the time, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, did not take up the training arrangements for all British crew members aboard the ships. In fact, its own training arrangement was set up, which has meant that fewer British seafarers have been involved on the ships. However, we should welcome the fact that the decline of the British merchant fleet that had gone on for decades has been reversed due to another of the Government's successful policies.
  Mr. Ancram: In February, the Party of European Socialists issued a political declaration for Europe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister support it?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the document was released in February. A great deal of fuss was made that it had not been given a public release, but it was released in February. It is a statement by the socialist parties in Europe on what they feel that the effects of globalisation will be on European policies. They made judgments on the economy, welfare and so on. I note that their judgment on the economy is close to the Maastricht policy introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous Administration.
  Mr. Ancram: Once again. the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the question. The document, which was signed by the Minister for Europe in that capacity, calls for new European taxes, a common immigration

  269
  policy, a single welfare system and the surrender of Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council. Does that represent Government policy: yes or no?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give a proper interpretation of what was said or, indeed, meant. It is not Government policy, either.
  Mr. Ancram: That is quite extraordinary. We have a document, which is signed by the Minister for Europe in that capacity, not any other. I am looking at his signature: "Denis MacShane MP, Minister for Europe". Does he speak for Europe on behalf of the Government or is he out of line? In the latter case, why is he still Minister for Europe? Is not the document Labour's real policy agenda for Europe? Is that not why the Prime Minister has not made a single speech on Europe during the campaign and has, indeed, been the invisible man of the campaign? Is it not now clear that the only way to put Britain first in Europe is to vote Conservative tomorrow?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: It may give a lot of heart to the Tory Opposition to pick out a document that we have said does not represent Government policy, but that is all to do with their fear of the United Kingdom Independence party position on withdrawing from the European Union. Why have they suddenly focused so much attention on European policy? It is because their polls tell them that people will not vote Tory but UKIP. That is why it is being said that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is not leading his party properly or setting out a proper position on Europe.
  Even Conservative Members are beginning to dispute that position. A Tory peer, Lord Willoughby—a proper Tory, and like the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) a proper Lord—branded his party's renegotiation policy as absurd. He said:
  "Expecting to renegotiate the EU treaties on our terms is like going to MacDonald's and ordering Lobster Thermidor."
  As he continued:
  "It would be nice to have it, but it is not on the menu".
  I do not know what it is about seafood and politics, but I could not have put it better myself.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: My question follows on from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). When my right hon. Friend attended the ceremony for the launch of the new Queen Mary, he was right to say that it was a significant day for the revival of the red ensign. However, does he share my concern and that of my constituent who wrote to me to say that he contacted Cunard asking for a job as a British rating on its ships, but was told that it is not employing British ratings? Will my right hon. Friend personally intervene with the companies and the British Chamber of Shipping to ask them to honour their position on the tonnage tax and employ British ratings on their ships?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I must tell my hon. Friend that it is simply not true that the companies are not employing British ratings. When I attended the
  270
  Queen Mary II launch, I talked to several of them. I also talked to them on the Queen Elizabeth. The companies employ British ratings and I do not know why they say that they do not. My hon. Friend has a deep interest in the subject and I shall take up the matter that he raises but I emphasise that the companies are employing British ratings.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: In 1999, the Prime Minister promised that, by 2001, everyone would have access to a national health service dentist. It has now become impossible to register with a national health service dentist in the New Forest. Those who were registered increasingly find themselves deregistered. When will the Government's policies stop making matters worse?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am well aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions because I have experienced it. My dentist declared that he was going private and I declared that I could not stay with him. Many of our constituents have faced that problem. As the hon. Gentleman said, each one of us has been confronted with it. However, it is a bit much for him to get up and speak about it when he belonged to the previous Administration, who closed down the dental schools for training dentists, cut back on all such services and believed in a private health service—Conservative Front -Bench Members have made it clear that they want to dismantle the national health service.
  Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the number of national health dentists has gone up by 10 per cent. since 1997. There are 36 more consultants than there were in 1997 and the medical school intake has increased by 60 per cent.—[Interruption.] Well, it does take a little bit of time to train dentists. If the Conservative had not closed the dental schools down in 1993, we would not have the problem that we have today.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Deputy Prime Minister might know that, in a singular act of compassion, this Labour Government introduced an ex gratia payment scheme for those people in the haemophilia community who have contracted hepatitis C. Sadly, however, it was decided not to include in that scheme the families of the 232 people who have died from hepatitis C. Will the Deputy Prime Minister get together with my eight hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether we can find the money in this budgetary year to give the families of those 232 people ex gratia payments in line with those being given to the rest of the haemophilia community?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: To be honest, I do not know the exact details of the point made by my hon. Friend, but I can give him a promise that I will have a talk, as he suggests. The Chancellor is considering all these expenditures, and I do not know exactly what is being said or done, but one thing that I can promise is that a lot more money is being put into the areas that my hon. Friend is talking about. He has asked a specific question, however, and I shall have a look at this and write to him about it.
  Mr. John Maples: I join the Deputy Prime Minister in welcoming

  271
  yesterday's unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq, but I am sure that he would agree that much more needs to b done to rebuild the unity and cohesion of the transatlantic alliance. Will he tell us what specific issues the Prime Minister will try to persuade his European counterparts to rebuild that unity around?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: To be honest, I am sure that that will be one of the questions that the Prime Minister will address when he appears before the House on Monday. He will make a statement and that is one of the matters that he can deal with—[Interruption.] Yes, I may well be the Deputy Prime Minister, but I want to be honest with the House and I think that hon. Members would want to hear it from the Prime Minister himself, as he makes these decisions. I try to put these answers as clearly as I can, and I think that honesty is important in politics.
  I remember that, when the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was the vice-chairman of the Tory party, he produced the Maples report back in 1994. That was 10 years ago, and he gave an opinion about the Tory party at that time. In it, he said that people thought that what the Tor es were saying was
  "completely at odds with their experience, which led them to conclude"
  that the Tories were "out of touch", "lying", "stupid" and "didn't care". Is that still his view?
  Ms Meg Munn: In Sheffield over the last four years there has been a fall of more than 16 per cent. in deaths among those under the age of 75, including a fall of more than 23 per cent. in deaths from circulatory disease. Does this not show that Labour's investment in the health service is not only changing people's lives but saving hundreds and thousands of lives across the country? Are these not the kind of statistics that the Opposition would rather we did not talk about?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: On of the most pleasing aspects of the amount of resources going into the health service is the changes that are taking place. They take some time, however. The Black report on health showed some time ago that the differential in death and mortality rates between the north and the south was unacceptable. We are trying to correct that by putting greater resources into those areas and I am pleased to hear that that has happened in Sheffield. There is also evidence of it happening in Hull, and I am sure that it is happening elsewhere.
  The thing that must be worrying most of our constituents, however, and which we should particularly bear in mind this week, is the announcement made by the shadow Chancellor that he envisaged the national health service vanishing in the next five years. That shows the difference between us, and the choice that we have to make. When the Conservatives say that they are going to do that, it will make the differentials in mortality rates and health between the north and south worse. That shows the considered indifference of the Tory Opposition.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Deputy Prime Minister find
  272
  time today to pay tribute to the National Neighbourhood Watch Association, which is the UK's largest voluntary movement and is doing first-class work in his constituency and mine? Is he aware, however, that it faces imminent closure, because the Home Office is preventing it from signing a five-year commercial sponsorship agreement? That will be a disaster for tens of thousands of volunteers. Will he consider the issue very carefully? What does he have against this organisation, which prospered under the Tories, just as it appears his own NHS dentist prospered under the Tories?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: First, everybody in the House will agree that the neighbourhood watch has been a very successful operation. It involves local decision making and involvement, and it has been good in helping to reduce crime. Alongside that, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will well recognise, there is now a record number of police :in Norfolk—1,500 officers in December 2003. While the neighbourhood watch is very important, so is the number of police, which was reduced under the previous Administration but has been increased by 1,500 officers. In Norfolk alone there are 70 more than in 1997, as well as 34 community support officers, which is an improvement in those programmes. We have seen a reduction in the crime statistics, and that is largely due to the Government's policy in increasing police and, at the same time, the good work of local initiatives in neighbourhood watch.
  Jim Sheridan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that many of our indigenous industries are now the victim of employers exploiting cheap labour markets abroad. Just yesterday, an established factory in my constituency, Sara Lee, announced 162 redundancies. What measures are in place to address that situation and, in particular, the situation that affects communities such as a deprived area in my constituency, Port Glasgow, which is suffering from a great many job losses as we speak?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The first point for me to make is that this Government have been very successful in increasing the number of jobs in Scotland, Wales and England. There are well over 2 million more jobs—a rate that has been considerably increased and something to be welcomed by all that is largely due to the stability in the economy.
  I must also say that there are people who attempt to organise, and I saw them on my visit to Glasgow. The jobcentres themselves are putting about 4,700 people in work every day, so they are quite successful in that. I was impressed not only by the new deal, which has helped about 100,000 people back into work in Scotland, but by a group in Scotland, which started 28 years ago, so not under this Administration, and which should be given some consideration—the Wise Group. It has had quite a lot of money and has been getting people back to work very successfully for 28 years. I noticed also that there was a tremendous amount of money going into it from the European Community—vital funding of about £3 million in 2003. That reminds us when people are talking about these European elections that an awful lot of our

  273
  jobs and training money are related to Europe. That is an important factor when the Opposition are really advocating that we should withdraw from Europe, which would have unemployment consequences.
  Mr. John Greenway: If the people of Yorkshire and Humber vote no in the regional assembly referendum in the autumn, can we keep our two-tier local government in North Yorkshire?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: We have made it absolutely clear that if the people vote against any changes in the regional referendum, none of the local government organisation changes, as recommended in the referendum, will take place. They can say yes or no; if they say no, there will be no change and things will stay exactly as they are. However, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, who has made it clear that even if the vote is successful, he might not necessarily take any notice of it. That is hardly a democratic decision, but it is what I can expect from the Tory Opposition. They should keep working on their leader and at least get some honesty into the politics.
  Laura Moffatt: What would my right hon. Friend say to constituents in Crawley who face changes to their emergency services? Despite unprecedented spending on health locally, senior doctors are recommending that those services should change. Will he ensure that I get access at the highest level to discuss this matter?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and assure her that we are indeed taking this matter very seriously, as is the case with those at local level. I know that the Secretary of State for Health has been in touch with her, and he assures me
  274
  that he will be very happy to meet her to discuss the matter on any occasion she chooses. He is available to do so. My final point to Members and voters in their constituencies, and the advice I would give them, is vote Labour.
  Mr. James Paice: Now that the Deputy Prime Minister proposes to allow the building of 18,000 new houses on green fields in Abington in my constituency, and has already overruled the local authority by allowing Travellers to develop greenfield sites in open country, is it any surprise that the local Labour party is so embarrassed by his actions that tomorrow it is not even contesting seats that it currently holds?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: On the factual point, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in the three northern areas alone, 90-odd per cent. of Labour councillors have been nominated and are fighting these elections, compared with 70-odd per cent. for the Tories.
  With regard to housing, we are committed to providing housing for people. Particularly down in the south-east, it has N en denied to them for too long, either because it is too expensive or because we have not been able to build sufficient amounts. I have announced to the House a tremendous increase in such programmes, and we will continue to meet the needs of people, so that they are not told, "Go north, because there is no house here," and they can have a house near their parents and near where they have been brought up.
  As for the planning. issue, I note the hon. Gentleman's point, but I give him the same answer that everyone gives from this Dispatch Box, from whatever Government. As I am one of the Planning Ministers, I cannot comment on the issue, as I might be making a decision at the end of the day. That is my obligation and my responsibility, and I will face up to it.

Darfur
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the humanitarian emergency in Darfur.
I returned this morning from a Visit to Sudan, where I saw at first hand the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Darfur, western Sudan. This is the most serious humanitarian emergency in the world today. The UN estimates that more than 1 million people have had to flee their homes and that a further 130,000 refugees have crossed into eastern Chad. I visited the Kalma camp in south Darfur and the el-Meshtel and Abu Shouk camps in north Darfur, where tens of thousands of people are facing a precarious existence. I spoke to men and women whose homes have been destroyed, villages burned, and whose communities have been the victims of killings, looting and rape.
The humanitarian needs are enormous. Traditionally, Darfur has a hungry season between May and September, during the rains and before the harvest. Because of the conflict, there will be no harvest this year. Added to the long years of drought, communities are unable to cope. The rains have already started in Darfur. They will bring flash goods, make roads impassable, increase the risk of disease and render the delivery of assistance more difficult.
This is a severe crisis, which will last well into next year. Dealing with it will require action by everyone, including the Government of Sudan. The changes made to visas and travel permits for UN and other relief agency staff are now having an effect. Yesterday, the Government gave me a firm commitment that they would fast-track both the delivery of assistance, so that relief agencies can bring in food, medicine, vehicles and other supplies quickly, and the registration of new relief agencies that want to come and help. I will maintain a close interest in the implementation of these arrangements.
The number of humanitarian agencies on the ground is limited. We need more. I have also been concerned about the adequacy and speed of the UN's response, although this should now change. The UK has been supporting the people of Darfur since the autumn of last year. We have already provided £19.5 million to UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and operational non-governmental organisations. We have seconded staff to the Office f m- the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Joint Logistics Centre to help co-ordination of the relief effort. During my visit, I announced a further commitment of £15 million, which will take the total humanitarian assistance contribution by the U k to more than £34 million. That includes the airlifting of blankets and shelter materials. The UK, the US and the European Commission have to date provided three quarters of the international response and there is an urgent need for other donors to do more.
The main cause of the crisis is insecurity. Despite the 8 April ceasefire, fighting has continued and villages have been attacked by armed militias. Yesterday, I raised with First Vice-President Taha the urgent need for the Government of Sudan to rein in the janjaweed and other
276
militias, condemn the acts of violence and provide adequate protection for displaced people. Equally, rebel groups must observe the ceasefire.
The deployment of the African Union ceasefire monitoring team is therefore urgent. When I met military observers from the team in el-Fasher, they told me that they planned to deploy their team of 120 observers as quickly as possible. The UK will contribute one of the six observers requested from the European Union and I hope that other contributing nations will get their observers there soon. The Government of Sudan have promised full support for the monitors and the UK has provided £2 million to help the African Union team to set itself up. In addition, the United Nations will deploy human rights monitors throughout Darfur with British financial support.
The resolution of this crisis requires a political solution. The protocols signed in Naivasha on 26 May are a significant and welcome step towards a comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan. I call on all the parties involved in the conflict in Darfur now to engage in discussions to find a peaceful way forward.
We are in a race against time in Darfur. The United Kingdom remains committed to doing all that it can to help those affected and to work for a just and lasting peace for its people.
Mr. John Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for the respect for Parliament that he has shown in coming to deliver it immediately on his return from the Sudan and for his characteristic courtesy in providing advance sight of it. I also welcome both his financial commitment and his energetic diplomacy.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is clear about the fact that the janjaweed militia is responsible for massive violence, that a climate of impunity prevails in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan permit the janjaweed to exercise a reign of terror over the people of Darfur. His report last month, and those of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group, have all painted a consistent and unmistakable picture. The victims of the crisis in Darfur have suffered grievously. They need help—help on a huge scale, and help now.
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the ceasefire monitors to be deployed? Can he confirm that they will cover el-Geneina in the west, el-Fasher in the north and Nyala in the south? Does he agree that when the Sudanese Government are urged to provide immediate and full access for aid operations in Darfur, pressure could usefully be applied for the opening of the rail line so that the United Nations can make massive deliveries of food and medicine from Port Sudan?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of assurances about fast-track delivery. Given that the UN emergency coordinator noted earlier this week the Sudanese Government's imposition of new obstacles to aid—including an insistence that all medical supplies be tested in Sudanese laboratories and that all supplies, including food, be carried in Sudanese trucks and distributed by Sudanese charities or Government agencies—will he satisfy himself that those obstacles have been removed, or will be as a matter of urgency?

277
Will the right hon. Gentleman underline the important point that the rebel forces, notwithstanding their deep sense of grievance, should themselves admit all humanitarian aid facilities into territory that they control, including from Government-controlled areas, provided only that those deliveries are not accompanied by Government military forces?
What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman offer that forcible repatriation of refugees will not take place, given the palpable lack of security that they would face? In a letter to me dated 25 May, he said—and he reiterated it today—that the United Kingdom expected the Sudanese Government to "rein in" the janjaweed militias. Does he accept that reports that the Sudanese Government are simply incorporating the janjaweed into the country's formal police and security structures offer scant reassurance to those who are only too well aware of their wanton savagery?
Given that it is vital that the impotence and passivity of the United Nations in the face of genocide in Rwanda are not repeated in Sudan, does the Secretary of State accept that he needs to press for a robust United Nations Security Council resolution that explicitly condemns the Government of Sudan for the ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Does he further accept that the Security Council should appoint a high-level panel to investigate possible war crimes in Darfur, hold the culprits to account and deter the commission of further atrocities?
The UN rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Asma Jehangir, is reported on the BBC website as saying of Darfur that
"Numbers are staggering, the situation is terrible…There is no accountability and in some areas the Government are in complete denial."
Again, the rights of innocent African people have been violated upon a scale so grotesque as to defy all but the most lurid imaginations. The Secretary of State knows that the world has a chance to ensure that Darfur does not descend into genocide. More lives are lost as each day passes. There is not a moment to lose. Our duty in terms of humanitarian aid, diplomatic contact and unrelenting moral and political pressure is clear. In standing up to evil, rescuing its victims and ensuring the guilty are brought to book, the Secretary of State will receive stalwart and unflinching support from those on the Conservative Benches.
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman both for his kind words and for his searching questions. I will do my best to answer each of them.
I can confirm that the African Union monitors will be located in el-Geneina, Nyala and el-Fasher, where they are planning to set up their base, and three other places in Darfur. They told me the night before last that they were hoping to deploy within four to six weeks.
My understanding is that the World Food Programme is currently using the rail line to deliver some supplies, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that all possible means should be used to ensure that the supplies that are required get to those who need them.
I specifically raised the question of obstacles to the delivery of relief supplies and medical supplies. The answer that I was given was that testing is not required
278
for drugs that are already on the formulary list and it is required only for new medicines. I sought clarification on that point. The Government of Sudan announced that, from now on, customs clearance would be achieved within seven days and that non-governmental organisations importing humanitarian supplies for Darfur could do so by sending the documentation direct to the department for humanitarian affairs, rather than through the custom department, which represents a step forward. The Government also assured me in respect of new NGOs seeking to go to help to deal with the crisis in Darfur that, whereas currently it can take six to nine months to register a new NGO in Sudan, upon receipt of an application, a response saying yea or nay will be given within 10 days. As long as that is followed through, that will represent a big step forward.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of rebel forces in ensuring that access is permitted to all areas As for assurances on repatriation, from my conversations is with the refugees, the displaced people in the camps, it is clear that they will not go. Time after time, when I asked who was responsible for the attacks, they said, "The Government." It was a feature of their stories that assault by air was followed by militias turning up on camels or horses attacking their villages.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about policing and security, one person said to me that putting a badge on the janjaweed would not give people a sense of security. In the Abu Shouk camp, the Government have deployed additional police. The people I spoke to there said that there was a greater sense of security. It is important that the Government of Sudan deploy police forces to provide security, because, as I think we both recognise, that is the fundamental cause of the problem.
Do we need a Security Council resolution? As the hon. Gentleman will know, one is planned in relation to the signing of the Na vasha protocols and it is essential in the Government's view that that should include a reference to the crisis in Darfur.
The protocols pro side a framework for the start of political discussions, which are needed to solve the problems.
I, too, have read what Bertrand Ramcharan had to say about human rights abuses, and that certainly reflects what I saw with my own eyes, including a number of burned-out villages as we flew into el-Fasher, standing out starkly from the brown of the desert, pitch black and destroyed.
Three actions have been determined on. First, there has been agreement that an independent expert, approved by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, should be appointed to investigate human rights abuses throughout Sudan, including Darfur. Secondly, the Office of the UNHCR has recommended the appointment of an international commission of inquiry, but that needs to be implemented. Thirdly, the monitors are to be deployed, and I took the decision that the UK would fund those, because that seems to me a very practical contribution that we can make.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, there is no doubt whatever that the Government of Sudan have been in denial about the scale of the crisis. That is certainly what

279
I found when I was Khartoum last December. I do not think that they are still in denial, but time is not on their side—or ours.
Tom Brake: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House so soon after his return and for his courtesy in providing an advance copy of the statement. There is clearly a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions emerging in Darfur and I congratulate him on the role that he has played in drawing it to the attention of the international community. What additional measures can the UK Government take to encourage the Sudanese Government to issue forthright statements condemning the murders in Darfur and to issue the military orders that are needed to bring those killings to an end? Can we also perhaps provide some training for the police who will have to be deployed in the area to ensure that they are properly representative of the communities and therefore not seen as a threat to the displaced people when they return?
What action can the UK Government and the international community take if the Sudanese Government do not respond to those requests? Does the Secretary of State agree with the definition of ethnic cleansing deployed by the Sudanese Foreign Minister, who believes that it is not currently happening in Darfur?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman asked what more the Government could do. They can do what they have tried to do up to now, which is to say to the Government of Sudan that they bear the primary responsibility. To be frank about the current problem, we know that there was a rebellion, which started th s whole process off, that the Sudanese Government had some difficulty in dealing with and therefore invoked forces that they now have some difficulty in controlling. It is their primary responsibility to use all their influence and power to rein in the militia, provide security and deploy police.
I must say that I do not think that it would not be the best use of our resources currently to train the police. The responsibility for effective security rests with the Government of Sudan and there are enormous humanitarian needs that will still need to be met, which is why I announced the further substantial commitment of money from the UK when I was in Khartoum yesterday.
I have read with great care, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, what Bertrand Ramcharan said about "massive human rights violations"—largely ethnically based—
"perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and its proxy militia, many of which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity."
In some senses, this is a conflict that has got out of hand. The Sudanese Government have come to realise that a military solution will not work, which is why I found in my discussions yesterday a greater willingness to consider the need for political talks, building on what was achieved in Naivasha. One of the tragedies is that the real and substantial political achievement, which the whole House will recognise, of negotiating the framework agreement, bringing the hope of an end to the longest running civil war in Africa—that negotiation took great courage and commitment on both sides—has now been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur.
280
Yet if the same spirit of partnership, of give and take and of discussion that has characterised that agreement can be shown by the parties to the conflict in Darfur, there is hope of trying to deal with the agony that the people of that part of the country face.
Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that he has taken, which is extremely important and will make a real difference to the lives of many people. I spent a week in southern Sudan last month looking at some of the problems and I was strongly lobbied about actions in the Shilluk kingdom that have been similar to those in Darfur, but on a smaller scale.
Based partly on that experience, and partly on information that my right hon. Friend has provided, I urge three things on him. First, will he continue to put maximum pressure on the Sudan Government, who have at worst fomented, and at best permitted, some of the devastation? Secondly, will he look urgently at the UN's capacity to deal with the crisis? From what I saw, it does not have the kind of resources needed to deal with the scale of the problem. Thirdly, I urge him to ensure that we consistently fund the rebuilding of Sudan, both to deal with the humanitarian problems and to enable local capacity building for the transition to peace. In the long term, what is happening in Darfur and the rest of Sudan will be resolved only if there is a lasting peace so that people can start to rebuild their lives, and some of the awful wrongs and sufferings can be put right.
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the visit that she undertook and I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss with her further the details of what she saw in Sudan. I undertake to continue to put as much pressure as I can on the Government of Sudan to fulfil their responsibilities. As I expressed in my opening statement, I share the concern at the lack of speed and urgency with which the UN has responded to this crisis. I think that that is beginning to change, however, and I met Kevin Kennedy, who is in Sudan in an acting capacity and will be replaced during the next two or three weeks by Eric de Mul. There is now a much stronger sense of urgency on the part of the UN, and we must build on that and make sure that it turns into action on the ground.
On my hon. Friend's third point, I could not agree with her more. One of the tragedies of Darfur is that we are having to spend money—although rightly—on dealing with the humanitarian crisis when, if there were peace and stability in Sudan on the basis of the Naivasha agreement, we could use those resources to help the development of this desperately poor country. She is right to draw attention to the problems in other regions of the country. As well as the historic north-south conflict, there is a problem between the centre and the periphery of Sudan. That is why a solution has to be based on the principles that have been so carefully negotiated in Naivasha.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I, too, pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the interest that he, like his predecessor, has shown in Sudan. That is to their credit. Does he agree that the Government of Sudan have form? At the very time when they were discussing

281
peace at Naivasha, they were employing exactly the same tactics in Darfur as those that they have employed over a number of years in the south and in the upper Nile, including using helicopter gunships and armed mounted militia trained or sponsored by the Government. Can anyone have faith in the Sudanese Government and can the people of Darfur trust them ever to provide security there after the way in which they have behaved?
Hilary Benn: I apologise for being unable to attend the Westminster Hall debate this morning. I had been very much hoping to participate, but a sandstorm delayed my arrival back in the United Kingdom. As excuses go, that takes some beating.
The hon. Gentleman is right about what one might describe as the instinctive reaction of the Government of Sudan to difficulties that they have faced. However, the fact that the Naivasha protocols have been negotiated, in recognition that it was not possible in the end to find a military solution to the conflict between the north and the south, shows that there is sufficient political recognition in the system that another way forward must be found. I simply express the hope—although I will understand if the hon. Gentleman is sceptical—that exactly that same spirit can be applied to resolving the conflict in Darfur. If it can be done in relation to the north and the south, then I believe that it can be done in Darfur.
Mr. George Foulkes: I commend both Opposition spokesmen for their recognition of the work that the Secretary of State has done. I hope that the Secretary of State will ignore the ill-informed criticism from people who ought to know better that he is supposedly preoccupied with Iraq and ignoring Sudan. The evidence is quite to the contrary.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to solve every problem around the world on their own? The first responsibility is that of the parties to the conflict in Sudan, and the Government must tell us what more can be done to try to find some peace agreement or accord. Further, will there be a donor conference to bring together those countries that are not yet participating? It is not just Britain and America that should provide the resources for dealing with all these conflicts. Other countries have equal responsibility.
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, the two largest bilateral donors in response to the crisis in Darfur are first, the United States of America and secondly, the United Kingdom. That point bears some reflection. On the action that I now propose to take, I discussed the situation in Darfur with my EU Development Minister colleagues when we met in Dublin on 1 June, and I promised them that I would report back to them following my visit. I shall do so as quickly as possible, to make the point that the needs there are enormous and that we must all do more in response to the humanitarian crisis.
My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the meeting in Geneva last week. The UN appealed overall for $288 million for its 90-day plan. The UN in Khartoum told
282
me that it estimates that it is still short of between $80 million and $100 million, although since then the UK has announced a further pledge of £15 million—about $27 million—which will make a contribution. However, I take on board my right hon. Friend's point about the need for others to contribute to solving the problem.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is building an outstanding reputation for himself in the way in which he is dealing with the responsibilities of his portfolio. I commend him fully on the prompt emergency action that he is taking.
May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)? Are the Government of Sudan not responsible for much of the displacement and crisis in Darfur, through the janjaweed militias, which are closely associated with the Government? What further action can be taken b v this country, the United Nations and surrounding countries to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Sudan?
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The Government of Sudan do bear the primary responsibility; there is no question about that. As for the best thing that we can do, we must show the Government of Sudan that the world is taking an interest, and that the world—not just some countries, but as many countries as possible—intends to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to live up to those responsibilities, as I sought to do during my visit. Another point that we must make forcefully is that the Government of Sudan have understandably been looking forward, in the light of the negotiation of the Naivasha protocols, to the possibility that they could now unlock support from the international community for the development -f their desperately poor country. That is something that we all want, because the people of Sudan have suffered too much, for far too long. However, I said clearly to those whom I met in Khartoum that while the situation in Darfur remains unresolved, the prospects of that happening are remote. There is now a powerful incentive for the Government of Sudan to live up to their responsibilities, because that is the key not only to solving the problem in Darfur but to opening up the possibility of a better future for the people of their country.
Mr. David Drew: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for going to Sudan and drawing attention to this scandalous crisis. His analysis of the UN is appropriate. We have been disappointed at how long it has taken for the UN to become fully engaged in the situation.
I am pleased that we are willing to pay for monitors, but does my right hon. Friend accept that we may need to go further, and that there are dangers inherent in providing insufficient resources, as we have seen to some extent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? We must learn from whet has happened in the past, and provide not only funds but the people to bring peace on the ground, because that is the only future that Sudan really looks forward to.
Hilary Benn: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. One of the most difficult aspects of this crisis is the things

283
that we do not know. How many people have been displaced from their villages but have not made their way to the refugee camps or the settlement areas? What is their condition? Do they have access to food, shelter and medical supplies? That sense of uncertainty, which I felt very profoundly when I was there, should urge us to ensure that we do all we possibly can. When we pull back the covers and see the full picture, none of us wants to discover that there are people who have been in desperate need. That requires an end to the attacks, because with security comes improved access, and more money from the international system; but it also requires more people on the ground to make things happen. The non-governmental organisations that I met made that very powerful plea, and all those things need to happen if we are going to resolve this crisis.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join in the tributes that have been paid to the Secretary of State for the work that he has done. In his last response, there was a lack of a real assurance that things are going to move as fast as he would like. Does he agree with me that this House is taking an interest in this issue not, as some cynics say, because we are looking after white interests or particular religious viewpoints, but because the struggle in Darfur is not one th at we ourselves have had a close association with? In that context, is it not about time that the United Nations began to mark the cards of Governments and countries such as Sudan? We need to show that we have learned the lessons of Iraq and Bosnia, and to deal with those at the top, who have given the orders to commit acts of savagery on the ground. Nobody can say that planes were launched without the understanding of their Government, and if their air force and army minions can opt out, it is about time that we tracked down the Ministers who are guilty of grievous crimes against humanity, for that is what is really happening in Darfur.
Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who have committed these atrocities should be called to account for what they hay e done. On action by the United Nations, I hope to speak to the Secretary-General when I have finished answering questions. The UN has an important role to play in ensuring that the attention of the international community remains focused on the situation in Darfur. The UN's voice needs to be heard, adding to the pressure from the UK and other countries on the Government of Sudan, to ensure that they honour their obligations and do what needs to be done.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during this morning's excellent debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), unanimous appreciation was offered for the role that my right hon. Friend has played not just in the past week—important though that has been—but since the first signals of this terrible carnage were given? In the light of what he said about the need for pressure on the Government of Sudan, a view that was widely shared in this morning's debate, will he continue to use his influence not only with the United Nations and its agencies—important though that is—but with the influential United States and the European Union?
We note that my right hon. Friend mentioned the European Union's contribution. In the light of political enlargement and of the need for the EU to play the
284
political role that it is now capable of playing, does my right hon. Friend accept that he will have the full support of the House if he continues to do the very forceful job that he is currently doing, if only because, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly said, none of us wants to repeat the terrible mistakes that were made in respect of Rwanda a decade ago?
Hilary Benn: I will endeavour to do all the things that my right hon. Friend has asked me to do. One practical thing that the EU is doing is contributing, through the new peace support facility, to the funding of the African Union's ceasefire monitoring mission. In fact, this will be the first use of that facility, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the EU commissioner Poul Nielsen, whose idea it was. It is an intensely practical policy that uses resources from the European development fund to back an African initiative. The other organisation that deserves enormous credit is the African Union, which came up with the idea of the monitoring mission and is putting it together. That is a really good example of Africa beginning to build its own capacity to deal with problems of conflict on that continent. The House should unreservedly welcome that because it means more capacity in the system, and who better to take first responsibility for dealing with conflict in Africa than the other nations of Africa?
Mr. John Maples: This crisis and disaster has been known about for months and widely reported for weeks. The Secretary of State says that he is looking for a political solution, but the problem is caused by armed militias, supported by the Sudanese Government. Does he think that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention justifies military intervention in these circumstances, either with or without a United Nations Security Council resolution? I should point out that if the UN fails this test as it failed in Rwanda—whether military intervention is required or not—any faith that anybody has in its ability to deal with crises in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die will be damaged for a very long time to come.
Hilary Benn: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about this crisis being a test for the international community and for the United Nations, but the latter's ability to respond, as he well knows, is a function of the willingness of its member states to will or support such intervention. That is the dilemma that has been wrestled with for a very long time. We look forward with great interest to the report of the high level panel, established by Kofi Annan last autumn, which is grappling with these issues as we speak.
I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a negotiated ceasefire as of 8 April. It is difficult to say that it is largely being observed, but it is clearly being observed in places; however, attacks are continuing. We have evidence from Sudan itself of the effectiveness of ceasefire monitoring missions. For example, in terms of the ceasefire that began the Naivasha process, monitors have been doing an outstanding job in the Nuba mountains. There is one person from either side, with transport, including helicopters, and if an allegation is made that something is happening, they go there quickly and sort it out. The

285
process has been very effective, and given that the African Union monitoring mechanism is now being deployed, the most effective thing that we can do is to give it total support, so that it can do its job of ensuring that the ceasefire actually applies. If the ceasefire applies, circumstances can begin to change.
Ms Diane Abbott: The whole House will want to congratulate the Secretary of State on the lead that he has taken in respect of a tragedy that has unfolded largely as the eyes of the world were on the middle east. The question of military intervention has been raised, and he is quoted in the newspapers today as ruling it out. Does he accept that many of us support him in ruling out military intervention at this point, and that we support the emphasis that he has correctly placed on the responsibility of the Sudanese Government, the role of the UN and the potential role of the African Union? I believe that, in the long run, the only sustainable solution to the problems of that continent lies in the hands of Africans themselves.
Hilary Benn: I can only agree with every single word that my hon. Friend has said. I agree in particular with her last point, which is why I am such a strong supporter of the African Union's initiative on peace and security, the development of its standby force, its current force in Burundi, and the regional initiative taken by the Economic Community of West African States, which first sent troops into Liberia when the fighting and carnage were going on Monrovia. That is exactly the direction in which we need to go, not least because in the past, when the world wanted something to be done, it has traditionally looked to a very small number of countries to do it. One reason why it has been difficult to respond is that that burden has fallen in particular on a small number of countries. Increasing the world community's capacity to take effective action is something that we should welcome, and that is exactly what the African Union is doing.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has managed to read the International Development Committee report on the Sudan, which was produced during the 1997–98 Session? If so, does he share my concern that that report described circumstances very similar to Sudan's in the lead-up to the humanitarian crisis in Bahr el Ghazal in 1998? Does he agree that the only way to prevent conflict and bring about truly lasting peace in the Sudan, which is a huge country and very difficult to control, is to have long-term development and, above all, control over the spread of arms in the country?
Hilary Benn: I have not read the report to which the hon. Lady refers, but I should and I will, and I would like time to reflect on the points that she made. As I said in response to an earlier question, I share her desire for long-term development in this poor country. In order for that to happen, certain other things have to happen earlier. That means turning the Naivasha protocols into a comprehensive peace agreement. In my discussions with First Vice-President Taha yesterday, he expressed
286
his commitment to that, working through the partnership that he has developed with John Garang. That was one of the products of the long period that the two spent together in Naivasha: they have built a relationship of trust hat has enabled the negotiations to succeed. That should be taken forward, but the principles set out in the Naivasha protocol should be applied to the other regional difficulties within Sudan. I genuinely believe that those are the essential preconditions, together with support from the international community, to bringing about longer-term development.
Alan Howarth: Having myself visited Sudan and been horrified by the seemingly interminable history of the legacy of racial and cultural conflict in that vast area, I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his moral and practical energy in dealing with the prevent tragedy in Darfur. Will he tell the House whether there are features of international law that create obstacles to other countries and agencies entering sovereign territory to help with palpable humanitarian crises where the existing authorities in that territory are clearly complicit in the creation of the circumstances of the disaster? What is our Government's policy to ensure that international law is reformed so that, whatever the administrative and political problems within the UN, at least there are no legal excuses for failure to act early and effectively?
Hilary Benn: This is exactly the issue that Kofi Annan's high-level panel is currently considering. The plain truth is that it is one of the biggest challenges that the world faces. V% hat do we do about states and countries that oppress their own people and threaten people in other countries? In a sense, dealing with that problem is what the UN was established to seek to do. There is a record—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) alluded to it earlier—of some successes and some failures. The world must reflect particularly on those failures, because people look at the principles of the UN, find themselves in the circumstances that we are facing today in Darfur and other countries, and ask themselves what those principles mean for them. They ask when those principles will apply to them, and I believe that that is a very pertinent question for people in those circumstances to ask. It is our responsibility to answer them.
Mr. Robert Key: Can the Secretary of State reassure the House—and raise it with Kofi Annan when he speaks to him later today—that there is appropriate satellite cover of Darfur in order to enhance proper surveillance of military activity, the movement of people, better management of agriculture, hydrology and infrastructure and, of course, better communications? That, surely, would be a contribution that the richer countries of the world could and should make.
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which, to be honest, I had not thought about before; but I undertake to reflect on the point.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I add my congratulations to those expressed on both sides of

287
the House to my right hon. Friend and the Government on their commitment to dealing with this crisis. I urge that we should continue to seek to focus the international community on this tragic situation, not least to pressurise the Sudan Government to give active co-operation to attempts to bring peace and relief to the area.
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. What has characterised all the questions asked by Members in response to my statement has been the common view that pressure mast be put on the Government of Sudan to honour their obligations. In the end, the Sudan Government bear the primary responsibility for the state of the country and the welfare of its people. It is their responsibility to do the right things. Given the difficulties in the past about gaining access for humanitarian supplies, it is important to recognise that I noticed some change during the course of my discussions. I believe that that was the result of international pressure and it shows that we can have some impact.
We should acknowledge that the Government of Sudan have recognised the need to deal with difficulties surrounding registration, the clearance of goods, travel visas and so on. Those difficulties were simply unsustainable in the face of the crisis, and the Government have moved on that matter. As I said, it shows that international pressure works and it shows that the Government of Sudan are beginning to recognise the scale of the crisis on their hands.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I too pay tribute to the Secretary of State's work. Eighteen months ago, a number of us visited Rwanda—a country that has already been mentioned—and we were horrified by what we saw. I am sure that the three hon. Members in their places now who visited that country will have been chilled by the Secretary of State's words when he said that there was not much time left to deal with the crisis. We know that in Rwanda a massive genocide took place in a relatively short time. I therefore ask the Secretary of State what lessons the Government—and, indeed, the international community—have learned from the genocide in Rwanda. How can we ensure that the same outcome is avoided in these similar circumstances?
Hilary Benn: The circumstances are not, of course, exactly the same. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the genocide in Rwanda, 800,000 to 900,000 people lost their lives in the course of 100 days. One of the difficulties in Sudan has been the problem of access. In the early part of the year, it was very difficult for anyone in the outside world to know what was going on, because it was difficult to get in. When I visited Khartoum in December, one of the issues that I raised with the Government of Sudan was the need to allow access for humanitarian agencies. At that time, it was very restrictive. That is part of the reason why the world did not see the scale of what was going on earlier. As I have reported to the House, that has begun to change.
Another aspect of the crisis in Darfur is that it is a process that unfolds rather than a particular event. We need to reflect on what has happened and to ask
288
ourselves—the international community, the UN, relief agencies and others—how we can be more effective in intervening earlier.
Finally, it is the degree of uncertainty that causes me the greatest concern. We do not know the full picture, which is why we must strive might and main to ensure that we do all that we can to prevent a catastrophe from occurring.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: When my right hon. Friend speaks to Kofi Annan this afternoon, will he emphasise that a concerted, committed push from a united international community would be enormously helpful in bringing the Naivasha peace process to a successful conclusion after a very long period of negotiation? The African Union, the surrounding African countries and African people living in Sudan and Chad desperately need the support of a united international community to enable them to deal with this crisis. Above all, will he emphasise the utter urgency of the situation? The United States Agency for International Development reports that 330,000 people are facing death within the next three months of the rainy season and it has highlighted the absolute test that that presents to the UN to face up to the problem and bring all its resources to bear on it, brooking no obstacle from the Sudan Government, factors of geography or whatever.
Hilary Benn: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's role as chairman of the all-party group. I know of his close interest in the Sudan and its people. It is a test that we cannot afford to fail. I can put it no more simply than that. There are two things that we have to do. One is to ensure that we do not fail; the second is to ensure that the momentum created by the Naivasha negotiations is continued.
The Sudanese Government have shown that they are able to reach agreement to end a long-running conflict that has hugely affected the country's people. We are trying to achieve both goals at the same time, but I made it clear in all my meetings with Ministers that the problem of Darfur must be dealt with now; otherwise, Sudan will not be able to enjoy the fruits of the Naivasha agreement.
Adam Price: The Secretary of State is right to describe Darfur as the most serious emergency in the world today, but the picture that he paints—of conflict and humanitarian catastrophe—is all too familiar from contemporary experience in other African countries. The specific characteristics of each crisis are unique, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that common underlying reasons exist that are part of a wider pattern of instability in Africa as a whole? We hope that the measures that he has announced will prevent another Rwanda, but how can we prevent another Darfur in the future?
Hilary Benn: I do not think that the continent of Africa has characteristics that mean that it is, of necessity, more susceptible to such conflicts. After all, there have been conflicts throughout the history of our country and the continent of Europe. The question is, what do we do about the conflicts in Africa? How can

289
they be effectively resolved? The essential elements are reasonably clear. International attention and pressure are important, and Governments in the region should take primary responsibility for the welfare of their people. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is no longer in her place, noted, the continent of Africa should develop its capacity to deal with these matters.
That is undoubtedly changing. One of the great things to come out of the AU is a strong determination to use the instruments of the peace and security protocol. I commend Said Djinnit, the AU's peace and security commissioner, for the energetic and visionary way that he is taking forward work that really opens up a new possibility for resolving the many long-running conflicts in the continent of Africa.
Alistair Burt: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that there is a danger that the violence in Darfur may be read across to Chad? It is reported that the Government there is already suffering from some instability because of a divergence of opinion about the amount of support to be offered to the Sudanese Government and the janjaweed. What is the right hon. Gentleman's sense of the likelihood of instability in Chad? Does he feel that humanitarian agencies and Governments are prepared for the potential consequences of that instability?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, but my discussions in Sudan focused on the consequences of the conflict for that country. However, I can tell him that the UK Government have given £3 million in humanitarian assistance to Chad to assist with the very heavy burden that it now faces in dealing with an estimated 130,000 refugees, and that I am aware of the concerns about instability. Much has been said, and rightly so, about the people who have had to flee their homes, but the House should appreciate that the conflict affects other people too, such as those who find that their settled community now plays host to a large number of people from elsewhere. As we know, that creates tensions and difficulties that have to be managed as much as possible. We need to provide support to all those dealing with the consequences of the crisis.

Points of Order
1.23 pm
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way for us to get the Government to make a statement about the remarkable events in Belfast yesterday afternoon? I refer to the Prime Minister's action in sending his chief of staff to Stormont to conduct secret talks with leading members of the republican movement and of the Democratic Unionist party. Those talks were exploited last night by Sinn Fein in its attempt to snatch the Social Democratic and Labour party's Euro-seat. If such a statement were made, the Government might explain how they allowed themselves to be manipulated by Sinn Fein in that way. We might also be able to see the true picture of the positions of the parties involved so that, when the electorate go to vote tomorrow, they will know what they are voting for.
Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. However, the Ministers concerned will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's is comments, and no doubt they will wish to take some action on the matter.
Jane Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A letter in the name of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has been delivered to a large number of my constituents. The letter's content is racially inflammatory and has caused serious offence to my Jewish constituents. Will you rule that such a practice is unacceptable and that no hon. Member should engage in it?
Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the letter, and so cannot comment on it. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to deliver the letter to my office, I shall look into the matter. I hope that that is helpful.

House of Lords (Reform)
1.25 pm
Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a fully appointed House of Lords.
On 4 February 2003, when the House voted on this matter, 245 hon. Members voted aye—among them me, the Prime Minister and 10 of his Cabinet colleagues. Since then, the Government have got into a terrible mess. Proposals for legislation appeared in the Queen's Speech, then the legislation was to be introduced the next day, and then it was abandoned, apparently because of some drafting error. Still later, a Bill was to be brought in some time in the middle of March, and then Lord Falconer told the "Today" programme that he did not intend to bother either House with the matter during this Parliament.
We have therefore gone full circle on this matter. However, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, I thought that I would try to help the Government by introducing a Bill to enable the Prime Minister to have his way. My Bill uses exactly tin same words as the motion voted on in February 2003. I employed this tactic a few months ago in respect of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, and that became Labour party policy about three weeks later. I hope that the same will happen this time. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) opposes this Bill as he did my previous Bill, he is likely to upset the Prime Minister twice in one Session.
I also want to help the Prime Minister, as his Cabinet colleagues seem to be in the process of accelerating his move down the Corridor to the House of Lords. I am sure that he would want to make sure that that does not become an elected Chamber before he gets there.
There are two or three fundamental points to be made about what reform of the House of Lords should be put in place. I believe that an elected House of Lords would be wrong, as it would challenge this House's authority. An elected House of Lords would have democratic legitimacy and so would not feel constrained by the conventions under which it operates at present—that it does not oppose Government business that appeared in the Government's manifesto and that, in the final analysis, it does not prevent the Government from getting their business through. I believe that those conventions would lapse.
Moreover, I believe that an elected House of Lords would seek to overcome the constraints imposed by the Parliament Acts, and that it would eventually succeed in doing so. An election for the House of Lords might be fought on exactly that issue, and I believe that it would bring about a very fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements.
In addition, the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords might on occasion be greater than that of the House of Commons. That could happen at the fag end of an unpopular Government, if that Government tried to introduce unpopular legislation In such a case, the House of Lords might feel a greater legitimacy in opposing that legislation.
I am also concerned about the people who would seek election to the House of Lords. They could include people who cannot get elected to this House, or selected
292
by a party management committee. The hurdle for getting into this place is not exactly of Olympic proportions, so what on earth sort of people would manage to get elected to the House of Lords?
If elections to the Lords were conducted according to the first-past-the-post system, there would be no point to them, as the House of Lords would then become simply a replica of this place, but with rather less able Members, on the whole. On the other hand, if a proportional representation system were used in the elections, we would get a bunch of party hacks.
One thing that we want in the House of Lords is independence. A party list is guaranteed to remove and exclude the mavericks and independents. There are a few such people in this House, who have somehow slipped through the system, and quite a number in the other place. However, there will be none if elections are by proportional representation of party lists.
Elected Members of the House of Lords will want salaries, staff and offices, and they will ask parliamentary questions and write letters to Ministers. My guess is that, as a result, the cost of running Parliament, and the amount of bureaucracy involved, will more than double.
The Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament that considered the issue set out five criteria, which were that the new format should have legitimacy, not be dominated by one party, be representative, be independent and possess expertise. However, those criteria are mutually incompatible. If the new format were not to be dominated by one party, it would have to be elected through proportional representation, which would mean no independence and little expertise. A first-past-the-post system would lead to one-party dominance at least some of the time.
We do not have much legitimacy or representativeness in the House of Lords, but we do have much expertise and independence. Those are the qualities that we lack here. Why should we try to replicate this place? Let us have a House of Lords that provides some of the factors that do not exist in this Chamber.
We cannot have a House that is partly elected and partly appointed. It must be one or the other, because we cannot have two classes of Members. My solution would be to give life peerages to all the remaining 90 or so hereditary peers. No more hereditary peerages would be created—or, at least, none that carried the right to attend the House of Lords—and we would continue with the present system of appointing life peers. That would be in the best tradition of British constitutional reform: it would be minimal and evolutionary.
Why have the Government got into such a mess on this and so many other constitutional issues? They have done so because they have embarked on programmes of fundamental change for superficial reasons and discovered the complexities too late. We saw that with the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. The Prime Minister wanted to have the House of Lords presided over by someone in a suit, not a wig and silk stockings, and to get rid of Lord Irvine. The Prime Minister thought that if he abolished the office of Lord Chancellor, he would not have to get too tough with Derry and would be able to get rid of the wigs. Then he found that the office of Lord Chancellor is so deeply

293
embedded in our constitutional arrangements that he could not abolish it, but the consequences were an afterthought.
It is as though the Government think that history began on 1 May 1997. Some Minister or apparatchik came up with the fatuous phrase about Britain being a young country. Britain is many things, but it is not a young country. However, the phrase betrayed the Government's thinking on so many issues. The foundations of our society have been built up over centuries of evolutionary change, and they include the supremacy of Parliament, the common law, the great universities, independent judges and the civil service. The value of those institutions is in their independence, but the Government have attacked them all in the name of modernisation.
One of the pillars of our society has been the existence of a second Chamber. Its powers were severely reduced in 1911 and there have been endless debates over the past nearly 100 years on what should replace it. However, the Government seem completely unaware of that debate. They lack an understanding of or feeling for history—how and why those institutions have evolved. Those who have no understanding of the past can have no vision of the future. They are condemned to live in the present, which is the most illusory tense of all. This Government live only in the present. They ask how their actions will play with the public, the media and the Labour party today or—if they are looking really long term—at the weekend. That leads to ill-thought-through initiatives and an obsession with headlines. The Government should remember that today's headlines wrap tomorrow's fish. Too many of this Government's fish stink.
The next Government, which I hope will be a Conservative Government, will not have to pick up where this Government leave off—as most do—but where they started, because they will have achieved practically nothing of lasting value in the constitutional arena. I used to wonder what this Government's epitaph would be, but I have concluded that they will not have one—just another day's headlines announcing their passing.
1.33 pm
Chris Bryant: It is ironic that we face a ten-minute Bill from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) suggesting that people should not have the right to vote, because his last one called for people to have the right to vote in a referendum. He had some success in persuading the Government that we should have a referendum on the European constitution—although I suspect that the decision was not directly related to his ten-minute Bill on the subject. He will not have as much success with this Bill.
It is also ironic that the hon. Gentleman suggests that people should not have the right to vote the day before we have elections for the European Parliament and local councils around the country. I am sure that people will notice the reactionary note that he has struck today and will reject his party convincingly tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the 245 Members who voted
294
with him in favour of a wholly appointed House of Lords. Ironically, that was the least popular option in this Chamber by a considerable margin. It is also the least popular option in the country. The people of Britain do not want people appointed for life to decide how others can live their lives, if they are not prepared to put themselves up for election.
The hon. Gentleman advanced the two arguments that can be made for an appointed second Chamber. The first is that appointment is the only way to ensure that the right people become Members and the second is that it is the only way to ensure the primacy of the House of Commons. However, both arguments are fundamentally flawed. On the first argument, the truth is that the second Chamber is at present wholly unrepresentative of the country in which I live. The Lords is full of elderly generals and a bunch of other people who would not be recognised by the wider country.
An appointments system for the second Chamber will always reflect the generation just gone by. It will always appoint people who used to be politicians and captains of industry. The end result will always be a reactionary second Chamber. It is not surprising that the occasions since 1911 on which the Parliament Act has had to be used have all been to counter reactionary moves. The first time was the opposition to the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill in 1914, and the second was the opposition to the change in the age of consent. Now the Lords want to ensure that we do not use the Parliament Acts to push through a ban on hunting.
We know that the second Chamber will always be reactionary while it is staffed solely by people who have been appointed. It is also largely representative of the south-east of England and London, rather than the whole of the United Kingdom. That is what happens when the great and the good appoint the great and the good. They know each other because they live in the same streets in Hampstead and Islington—[Interruption.]
It is also wrong to appoint people for life. We used to have a society in which people were appointed for life as professors in universities or as clergy, but surely we have now realised that the whole idea of patronage for life is not only undemocratic but wrong. The words of Isabella in "Measure for Measure" come to mind:
"But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority".
[Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Chris Bryant: I am glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is close to apoplexy. Those words of Isabella's should apply to all politicians, and we should not have ermine for life.
Debates in the House of Lords, which I urge other hon. Members to attend, are always the last refuge—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Chris Bryant: Debates in the House of Lords are always the last refuge of the vested interest. The hon.

295
Member for Stratford-on-Avon said earlier that the great advantage of the House of Lords is that it is independent and full of expertise and mavericks. However, 60 per cent. of those appointed in recent years have taken a party Whip. That end of the Palace is no more independent than this.
The second reason given for keeping an appointment system for the House of Lords is to sustain the primacy of the Commons. That is simply untrue. How does it best serve the interests of Parliament to continue to ensure that part of it is illegitimate?
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that it would be best to retain that illegitimate situation as it does not challenge the powers of this House, but the truth is that the House of Lords has substantial powers. Because of the way that the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts were drafted, the powers of the House of Lords increase exponentially in the second half of a Parliament and wreak havoc not merely with individual Bills but with the whole programme of an elected Government. That means we have stop-go government and that is unacceptable.
If we want to make sure that the primacy of the House of Commons is maintained, instead of everything being governed by convention, with gentlemen's agreements that were signed in some gentlemen's club back in 1915, we should codify the relationship between this House and the other House. Instead of the 10-minute Bill proposed today, we should have a proper Bill to bring in a new Parliament Act, which would codify the relations between this House and the other Chamber, establish the primacy of the House of Commons and give us proper powers over the second Chamber.
Secondly, such a Bill should establish a proper conciliation process between the two Chambers. We are the only country in the world with a bicameral system that has no proper means of reconciling disagreements between the two Chambers. The current ping-pong arrangements bring the parliamentary system into disrepute.
296
Thirdly, a new Parliament Act should bring in what the 1911 Act promised:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but"—
the Act noted with some irony—
"such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation."
Of course, we need a second Chamber based on a popular system of election—whether direct or indirect election, or wholly or substantially elected. Many Members may disagree, but the whole idea of having an appointed second Chamber must be something for the history books.
I have two further points. First, it is curious that membership of the legislature is still associated with the peerage. Surely, we should be taking titles away from members of the second Chamber. It seems bizarre that we are still living in a country where lords and ladies, barons, dukes and earls still carry titles as they go into meetings as Ministers of the Crown. We should have a more egalitarian system in our second Chamber. The days of 1066 and all that are over.
Finally, many countries in Europe are relatively new to voting. Spain, Portugal, Greece and the eastern bloc have all returned to democracy from dictatorships of the left or the right during my lifetime—many of them during the last 10 years. Few countries in Europe have a constitution that is more than 60 years old. Surely, it is time that we, who have perhaps grown a little flabby in our constitutional arrangements and have got rather over-used to voting, should finally decide for ourselves that we want a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.

Veterans' Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I am delighted to be able to open this debate. This is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate veterans' affairs. It is, I believe, a significant day for the House and it offers us a chance to reflect on not just last weekend but the wider matters relating to veterans' affairs across the United Kingdom.
I have been in post for about a year, and I intend to look back at what we have done during that time and to look forward to future strategies. As I do so, a recurring theme will be partnership—with veterans' organisations as well as across Government—so I am very pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is here today to wind up our debate, showing the cross-Government approach that we take.
I am sure that the House would also expect me first to say something about last weekend. In doing so, I record my certain belief that all of us in the House recognise the huge debt owed to all those veterans who served during the second world war and who did so much to secure the freedoms that we enjoy today.
I recently had the pleasure and honour of attending the 60th anniversary commemorations of the campaigns at Monte Cassino, as well as spending three days in Normandy with our veterans, and I certainly look forward to attending further events leading to the final VE-VJ day commemorations next July.
Last weekend's commemorations of the Normandy landings received huge support from veterans and many other people from across the United Kingdom. We estimate that at least 20,000 people travelled to Normandy for the weekend. I was very glad to be able to provide logistical support from our armed forces to the Normandy Veterans Association in managing that huge and significant event. The result was a weekend of ceremonies that were a fitting commemoration of a most historic event and which will be a lasting memory for all who were there and, I hope, for the millions of people in this country and around the Commonwealth who saw the excellent television coverage.
I know that the whole House, together with the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion, were pleased at the attendance of Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family during the weekend. The success of the events is attested by the words of the veterans themselves, one of whom said to me:
"We have been treated like heroes. It was wonderful to come back here."
The House will recognise that such events are very much a team effort, but I should like to mention a few individuals, in particular the special efforts of General Martin and Leslie Frost, the president and chairman respectively of the Normandy Veterans Association, Air Vice-Marshal Pocock, the Defence Services Secretary in
298
the Ministry of Defence, and Brigadier Shouesmith, Commander 102 Logistic Brigade, whom I thank for all their and their teams' hard work and commitment, which ensured the success of last weekend's events.
During my visits to Normandy and other anniversary events, I had the privilege of meeting a large number of second world war veterans. They are remarkable for their modesty in recalling personal achievements, for their comradeship, and for their pride in the forces in which they served. I was moved by the comment of one Normandy veteran, who said: "I can tell you for a fact that we are not the heroes; it's the chaps who died who are the heroes." Such people are an example to us all, and our society has much to learn from them.
Mr. Paul Keetch rose—
Mr. Andrew Dismore rose—
Mr. Caplin: I give way to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).
Mr. Keetch: Before the Minister leaves the subject of D-day, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the leader of my party and all those from the parliamentary delegation who attended, I want to put on record our thanks to the Minister for arranging for us to be part of that very historic day. Many veterans spoke very highly of him as a Minister. In the time that he has been in that role, he has developed policy very well, and the House should congratulate him personally on what he has done.
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will leave it at that and give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend may not find my intervention quite as helpful, although I must say that he has done a sterling job as Minister and that the Government have done veterans a great service by appointing a Minister with such responsibilities for the first time.
While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the heroes of the second world war, I want to raise two outstanding issues that may seem minor but are very important to the individuals concerned. First, a small number of civilians who were prisoners of the Japanese are still excluded from compensation by the nationality rules. That matter has already been to the House of Lords. In all honesty, it would not cost us a great deal and would beef up the wonderful scheme that the Government introduced to compensate those who were affected.
Secondly, there is the question of people who served on the Arctic convoys. My own late father served on minesweepers out of Iceland; I am not sure whether he would qualify. Those people feel a real sense of injustice that their contribution was not recognised. The answers that I have been given seem a little artificial. Apparently, the King ruled many years ago, in the 1940s, that there should not be a medal for them. The time has come to re-examine that, as we did with the Suez medal.
Mr. Caplin: I intend to deal with medals and other commemorative issues later, so my hon. Friend will have to wait for a more detailed reply.

299
I want to conclude my remarks about last weekend. First, let me relate a story from one of the glider pilots who landed at Pegasus bridge on that famous night. Incidentally, a replica of the Horsa glider has been reproduced there; hon. Members may wish to go to see it at some stage. He told me that the y landed at about 70 mph. When I asked, "What constituted a good landing?", he simply replied, "Everyone had to get out alive."
To conclude on the Normandy events, it would be helpful to give the House some of the statistics that we currently have. I say "currently" because it is only in the past two or three days that we have had the chance to compile them. Some 18,500 people registered with the Veterans Agency for passes to the various events. We estimate that in the bi-national ceremony at Bayeux on the morning of Sunday 6 June, attendance was in excess of 6,000, including 2,000 veterans, and that attendance at the final parade of the Normandy Veterans Association at Arromanches in the evening was roughly 8,000 to 9,000, a third of whom—about 3,000—were probably veterans.
We had to give medical assistance to 73 British veterans or their helpers, and 17 were admitted to hospital. I regretfully have to tell the House that one veteran has since passed away. Our thoughts are of course with his family. The embassy in Paris and the Ministry of Defence are arranging support for the family and the repatriation of his body.
I should like to share some other statistics with the House. The logistical support that we provided to the Normandy Veterans Association included 72 Portaloos, 200 umbrellas and, perhaps most amazingly, 48,000 bottles of water, which were certainly consumed in the course of the day.
Mr. George Foulkes: I had the pleasure of watching—not the Portaloos, but the ceremonies—on television. May I say, in the cross-party spirit that is developing, that the shadow Defence Secretary struck a particularly heroic pose? I was very impressed by his demeanour. However, there was one sour note about the weekend—that the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, opportunistic as ever, sought to make party political propaganda out of it in connection with the attendance or nonattendance of First Ministers from Scotland and Wales. Now that we have the first opportunity seriously to discuss veterans' affairs in this House, where are they? They are absent, as usual.
Mr. Caplin: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point about the nationalists. I do not plan to comment further other than to say that of course Her Majesty's Government invited the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to be represented at the events, and that such decisions on attendance are a matter for those bodies under their devolved powers.
In conclusion on Normandy, it might be worth our reflecting on the extent of newspaper coverage in the week running up to D-day and over the weekend. The souvenir issues and photographs that the British press produced were excellent. It is not often that we say that in this House.
Mr. Dennis Turner: This is certainly not the end of the D-day
300
celebrations. The Minister will grace Wolverhampton with his presence next weekend, when he is coming to celebrate with the whole city. We are celebrating D-day with our veterans, the Suez medals that the Minister played a major part in having produced, and 300 years of Gibraltar. Those three celebrations are combined in one event in the mayor's parlour. The Minister is coming to present Suez medals to veterans. I pay great tribute to him for all the work that he has done on all those fronts. He has done an excellent job of work, and we are extremely grateful to him. We look forward to welcoming him to Wolverhampton—he is as welcome as the flowers in May.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has clearly received the message from Wolverhampton.
Mr. Caplin rose—
Mr. Turner: I should add that they will not be drinking water in Wolverhampton next weekend.
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I very much look forward to meeting him and his veterans next weekend. In France, the D-day weekend is the commencement of 80 days of celebrations, taking in all the other campaigns in northern France and leading up to the liberation of Paris in the third week of August.
I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the Suez medal. I will say more about the current position later, but suffice it to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the decision to award the Suez medal having referred it back to a sub-Committee of the Honours and Decorations Committee.
Mr. Adrian Flook: Last Thursday, when the branch of the Normandy Veterans Association that is most closely associated with Taunton left for Normandy, I waved goodbye to Mr. Ken Prescott and his colleagues—all 50 of them—as they set off. They told me that local newspapers, particularly the Somerset County Gazette, had been vital in raising the £18,000 that enabled the veterans to get across the Channel for the whole weekend at a minimal cost per person. However, it took a lot of effort by local people, as well as, finally, some national help. Does the Minister accept that there were problems in trying to get the Government to acknowledge the likely size of last weekend's pilgrimage, and will he take up the issue? It cannot be allowed to happen again.
Mr. Caplin: I am afraid to say that I do not accept that. I shall say something later about "Heroes Return", which I think had a dramatic impact on the number of people attending. There was a simple way of ensuring that awards were made to veterans' groups. We made it as simple as possible, and to date we have had 12 calls on the helpline since the weekend, with what I would describe as very minor complaints. I have to say they tend to have been caused by people not having read, or recognised, the helpful instructions that the Ministry of Defence tried to give them. That is a pretty small number of complaints to receive given the size of what occurred last weekend.

301
I think that I met the hon. Gentleman's Taunton veterans on the Friday afternoon at the first major event in Caen, and I think that they enjoyed themselves, judging by what I saw of them during the afternoon—[Interruption.] In that part of Normandy, the equivalent of what people drink quite a bit of in Taunton is called calvados.
Anne Picking: Before the Minister leaves the important events of last weekend, may I point out that a constituent of mine, Mr. Jock Wilson, who is 100 years old, is the oldest living survivor of those veterans? He was there at the weekend, and said that it was a very proud moment for him. It was also a proud moment for me to see him being honoured by the Queen, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the Minister for all that he did to allow those people that opportunity.
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful for that. I met Mr. Jock Wilson at Colleville-Montgomery on the Saturday morning when he was taking part in the march-past of veterans. He was determined to participate in his wheelchair, and I know that the Duke of Gloucester was very pleased to give him a salute.
Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Caplin: I am going to move on now. My hon. Friend has already asked me a couple of questions, and he may want to hear the answers later—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has persuaded me to give way to him.
Mr. Dismore: In the same vein, was my hon. Friend as pleased as I was to see the AJEX standard in the D-day parade, with representation from my constituency, among others? Is that not a reflection of the major contribution made by Jewish servicemen, both on D-day and throughout the second world war?
Mr. Caplin: Indeed, I was pleased to see that. I certainly recognise the role of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women in our armed forces, and I shall have something more to say about that subject later.
Having reflected on last weekend, I shall ask a question: what is a veteran? My answer is simple. A veteran is anybody who has served in the United Kingdom armed forces. Including such people's widows or widowers and dependants, that definition covers some 13 million people. It is deliberately broad, to ensure that we embrace all parts of the veterans community.
Obviously, needs and aspirations vary, and I hope to demonstrate to the House that our approach is tailored to take account of that. The result is that while we continue to recognise the special place of older veterans in our nation's history, we also look ahead to the next generation of veterans—today's servicemen and women—who carry on the proud tradition of service established by their predecessors.
Work to ensure that the 60th anniversaries would be successful has taken up a great deal of my time and that of my officials in recent months, but that is only one area
302
of an extensive veterans agenda being pursued across Government, covering three broad areas. First, I want to ensure that the personnel now serving in our armed forces have as much help as possible when they make the transition back to civilian life. Secondly, I want to ensure that the relatively small proportion of veterans of all ages who face difficulties in civilian life receive appropriate support. Thirdly, I want to ensure that the contribution made by our service personnel to the freedom and security of the United Kingdom is properly recognised and understood, and that the achievements of veterans from all generations are suitably commemorated.
Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm—or not, as the case may be—that veterans also include the Gurkhas such as those who wish to remain in the United Kingdom when their service in Her Majesty's armed forces draws to an end?
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do, of course, recognise Gurkhas as veterans—but there are other issues related to their return, to Nepal or elsewhere, when they leave our armed forces.
Mr. Edward Leigh: When the representatives of the Veterans Agency appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned them closely on the Gurkhas and their eligibility under the war pensions scheme, and the Minister's officials were unable to give the Committee any proper advice on what decisions may have been made about eligibility. Can the Minister tell us more? Those people have given tremendous service to this country, and it is seven years since they were relocated from Hong Kong to here.
Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that I do not recall seeing that in the PAC report; I shall have to have another look at it, and perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall say more about each of the three issues that I raised just before those two interventions, and in doing so I want to bring out three key themes: the enduring importance of partnership and co-operation across Government, and between Government and the voluntary sector in addressing veterans' issues; the progress achieved so far; and my plans and visions for carrying veterans' issues forward, not just in the next few years but for decades to come.
My job is to ensure that veterans-related issues are recognised and taken into account across all levels of government, but especially by those responsible for policy and delivery of services affecting veterans. As my speech will highlight, the issue of veterans' affairs is a pre-eminent example of joined-up government in action, not just between Departments, but with the voluntary sector too
Mr. Julian Brazier rose—
Mr. Caplin: I hay; not got very far, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brazier: May I ask the Minister to heed the urgings of the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and the Select

303
Committee on Defence, which all say that it is a mistake to raise the burden of proof for those wounded or otherwise injured on military service for the next generation of veterans?
Mr. Caplin: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman has asked a question to which he knows the answer. We have debated those matters long and hard on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, and we have made our position clear. My noble Friend Lord Bach will open the Second Reading debate on the Bill in the House of Lords tomorrow.
An effective partnership with the voluntary sector is vital, particularly with the ex-service organisations that have a long and successful history of providing support to veterans. I have greatly enjoyed working with those organisations over the past year, and am grateful for the advice and co-operation throughout that time.
I do not think that it would be welcomed if the Government tried to replicate or control those independent and distinguished organisations. I see my role as trying to provide the focal point within Government with which the ex-service organisations can raise issues and develop appropriate co-operation. That is a role that those organisations have pressed on Government for many years, and it is a credit to this Labour Government that they have been the first to respond positively. We now have a much more focused approach to veterans' affairs across Government.
I believe that the level of co-operation achieved is a model of its kind. For example, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations attends as an equal partner all my major meetings with other Ministers. The relationship achieved with ex-service organisations is mature and realistic. Both sides recognise that we will not agree on all matters, and that we should not be frightened to be critical of one another where necessary. The voluntary organisations may choose to co-operate with the Government on some issues, while campaigning separately on others. I welcome that businesslike approach.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On being critical of one person or another, my hon Friend may know that yesterday several hon. Members from different parties attended a short and moving service outside Westminster Abbey conducted by Dr. Wesley Carr for the 29 who lost their lives in the Chinook disaster and the two pilots. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that some of us are astonished that the Ministry of Defence can be so certain when it failed to convince Lord Jauncey, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, for eight years. The Minister for the armed forces knows very well that that man travelled frequently from Scotland to London, paid enormous attention to the case and, at the end of the day, was extremely sceptical about the view of the Ministry of Defence. As we are considering co-operation, would not it be a good idea to re-examine that emotive issue?
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he intends to meet the campaign group when time allows.
304
Placing veterans' affairs in the Ministry of Defence has been essential in ensuring so many of this year's achievements for several reasons. First, as many ex-service organisations recognise, risks such as operational stress—which can unfortunately affect some veterans—can be prevented or managed at the outset in-service only as part of a "through life" approach in our armed forces. Secondly, the way in which the services prepare personnel for transition to civilian life in terms of life skills and housing advice has a direct impact on longer-term veterans-related issues.
Everyone at the Ministry of Defence and in our armed forces has a positive approach to veterans-related issues. Of course, the service personnel recognise that they will be veterans one day. Indeed, we have several in both Houses. They also recognise that the way in which the services address veterans' issues can affect recruitment, retention and morale as well as public support for our armed forces.
Funding is a major spur when carrying forward any new initiatives. In addition to other sources, I was pleased that we were able last year to introduce a new veterans challenge fund to pump-prime individual veterans-related projects either undertaken by veterans' organisations or commissioned by the Ministry of Defence after consultation with other interested organisations. The fund totals £2 million over three years—a significant sum by any standards. We will review further arrangements in the light of the initial results.
I can give examples of some of the projects approved so far. They include a grant to the Royal British Legion to produce a veterans wall chart for schools to promote understanding and support for remembrance and veterans' issues; research by Citizens Advice to identify how it can improve the delivery of information and advice to veterans, and funding for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association Forces Help for the modernisation of two playgrounds in its "stepping stone" homes, which are based in the constituencies of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).
With the increasing emphasis on multinational military operations, I passionately believe that cooperation on veterans' issues needs to be international as: well. Many of the issues and possible solutions to problems that veterans sometimes experience can best be- tackled through international exchange of information and best practice. That can be especially important when researching potential health problems associated with specific operations.
Mr. Dennis Turner: On international co-operation, has my hon. Friend given any thought to the possibility of our striking an ex-serviceman's medal for the first time in this country for all people who have given excellent service to our armed forces? Whatever time they have served and whenever they served, we should, as a nation, recognise their contribution and present

305
every former serviceman with a medal for service. Most European countries give an ex-serviceman's medal and I invite my hon. Friend to consider that.
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I intend to deal with status and recognition shortly.
I have had productive meetings with veterans Ministers from the United States, Australia and New Zealand and I can confirm to the House that I am looking forward to hosting a ministerial summit on veterans' issues in the United Kingdom early in 2005 to discuss even closer co-operation. Last Friday, I was pleased to have been able to sign a memorandum of understanding with my French ministerial colleague to cement our co-operation on commemorative events and other veterans-related matters. That is an especially important development given France's role in the 60th anniversary events over the next year. A copy of the memorandum is being placed in the Library of both Houses today.
What has been achieved? As I said earlier, transition is a key matter. The priority is to help as many service leavers as possible to make a successful transition to civilian life. For most service leavers, that means finding a suitable second career outside the armed forces. One of the most important elements in that transition is training to enable those who leave the services to find employment as soon as possible. That is provided under the career transition partnership contract, and is designed to equip those who leave with the skills necessary to make their transition a success.
Overall, our resettlement process is considered to be among the best for employees anywhere. Our current statistics show that an astonishing 95 per cent. of service leavers who make use of the services available under the career transition partnership find employment within six months of leaving the armed forces and that the vast majority of service leavers make a smooth transition to civilian life. I would like to take the opportunity today formally to thank all those who have been involved in that incredibly successful scheme.
Preparation for transition to civilian life best begins as early as possible in a service career. Adult learning programmes, developed in co-operation with the Department for Education and Skills, provide service personnel with increasing opportunities to develop skills that will stand them in good stead in civilian life as well as in our armed forces.
There has, however, been a gap in provision of support and advice to some service leavers. Until recently, not all personnel who left our armed forces each year have been eligible for resettlement advice. The group includes those who are compulsorily discharged, those who are unsuitable for military service or those who are discharged while still under training. The introduction in April of a tri-service "early service leavers initiative" seeks to bridge the gap. The new policy ensures that all early service leavers receive a mandatory resettlement brief and interview. Trained unit staff provide guidance, including advice on organisations that can help, such as Jobcentre Plus, the joint service housing advice office and the single persons accommodation centre for ex-services—SPACES—as well as the ex-service organisations.
306
During the interview, staff will try to identify the small proportion of personnel at risk of falling into social exclusion and arrange more specialist assistance as necessary. That is an important improvement to our service discharge system and means that, for the first time, there is a resettlement umbrella that covers all service leavers.
Although those enhanced transition arrangements are a major step forward, I know that some who leave our armed forces may need more closely targeted assistance. The Ministry of Defence has therefore commissioned King's college London to conduct research into the provision of more tailored support for vulnerable ex-service, personnel.
Ensuring that service personnel make adequate housing arrangements is another important key to the smooth transition to civilian life.
Mr. John Lyons: My hon. Friend will understand and accept that statistics show that. throughout the United Kingdom, several ex-service personnel find themselves homeless. That applies not only to the major towns but to rural areas. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend's comments on adequate housing arrangements. I think that that could help.
Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to say a little more about that later and I hope that I shall cover his point.
Current service personnel are encouraged to attend briefings on housing options throughout their careers. The relative number of people who face problems is small but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we want to help where we can. On 1 April, staff numbers in the joint service housing advice office were increased to educate personnel about the need to make civilian housing provision at a much earlier stage in their service careers.
Fostering a sense of comradeship and belonging is something that concerns the services just as much as the ex-service organisations. I have recently written to the services' principal personnel officers to remind them of the vital role that ex-service personnel can play in maintaining support for our armed forces and how, in addition to the resettlement provision that is available, marking the transition to civilian life and nurturing links thereafter can fully repay the investment made.
When I first became Minister for veterans, I was very concerned to hear of many cases involving the demeaning practice of destroying service ID cards in front of those who land them in as part of the leaving process. I personally intervened to ensure that this practice should end, and I am pleased to report to the House that this commitment has now been fully met by all the services.
It is important to emphasise that the vast majority of service personnel fir d their service a positive experience and settle well in life after their service careers, but we obviously need to help the small percentage who are less successful, sometimes many years after leaving the forces. I have taken a close personal interest in this matter, and I view it as one of the most important parts of my responsibility for veterans.
The MOD's evolving policy for tackling homelessness among a small minority of veterans has been developed in close co-operation with other Departments and in

307
partnership with the voluntary and private sectors. That has already led to several successful programmes to assist service leavers at risk of homelessness, as well as homeless veterans. Those include the SPACES project at Catterick, which I mentioned eat lier, and the armed forces project at Colchester. I am always happy to see the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) in his place for a defence debate.
We are also working closely with the Ex-Services Action Group, which brings together representatives from the voluntary and public sectors. As part of that work, the MOD has been actively supporting the development of new, short term, supported accommodation in London. We also continue to work closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the devolved Administrations on wider housing policies. That has resulted in the extension of the group of people recognised as having a priority need for housing to include those considered vulnerable is a result of service in the armed forces.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on housing. Would it not be appropriate for the MOD to make better use of surplus MOD housing by allowing former MOD personnel who have a problem to live in it? This is not just about the Conservatives' policy of selling off such property to Annington Homes, although that is a contributory factor. Hundreds of homes that are still under the control of the Defence Housing Agency are not being used; they could be used to house the very people the Minister is talking about
Mr. Caplin: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he has answered his own question: the vast bulk of service family accommodation was sold during the privatisation of 1996.
Of course, the impact of all of ths work needs to be measured and evidence for future policy changes provided. We have therefore commissioned a new UK-wide study into the causes, extent, costs and impact of ex-service homelessness. The work, which began earlier this year, is almost complete in England and will now move to Scotland and Wales. I am also committed to extending the research to include Northern Ireland.
Employment is another important factor in assisting people to break out of social exclusion. In 2001, we established another ground-breaking partnership, this time with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Business in the Community, Training for Life, the defence industry and the Ex-Services Action Group on homelessness. The partnership, known as Project Compass, provides new employment opportunities and support for homeless veterans. In November last year, I accompanied the Prince of Wales, who has been involved in Project Compass since its inception, on a visit to the project. I do not usually speak for the prince, but I think that I can safely say that we were both impressed with the results of the pilot scheme.
Our partnership with Business in the Community has attracted the attention of several leaders in the corporate sector, including KPMG, Tesco, Marsh UK, Armstrong International, Publicis and Cisco Systems, who are keen to support the next phase of Project Compass. We are working with KPMG to develop a
308
business plan for the project, which we hope will attract even more corporate interest in tackling problems associated with ex-service homelessness. Next week, I shall attend a reception with major stakeholders to present our plans for the next stage of the project.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, will deal with health issues in his wind-up speech, but I want to reflect briefly on mental health problems, which are currently a high priority across government. While the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence have an obvious interest, it is increasingly appreciated that good mental health is a community-wide and through-life responsibility, with opportunities for older people, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, employers, schools and voluntary organisations all to play a part. We are therefore involved, along with many other organisations, in the social exclusion unit's mental health project, which seeks to help people with mental health symptoms across the range of severity to enter and retain work and to enjoy full social participation.
Evidence collected by the project confirms stigma and perceived discrimination to be major influences in discouraging people from seeking help. Those are also issues for the armed forces. The project will soon move to implementation, and a major strand of the work will focus on discrimination. I am meeting colleagues in the near future to discuss our further involvement in that important range of work.
In the context of veterans' health issues, it is also appropriate to mention the long-standing arrangement that war pensioners should be given priority in NHS hospitals for examination or treatment relating to their pensioned disablement. I can assure the House that I take this matter seriously, as does the Department of Health, and we intend to ensure that hospitals, GPs and other key players in the referral process are aware of the arrangement.
I now want to address the wider commemoration issues. It is very important that, as a society, we continue to recognise the enormous contribution made by veterans to our security. I see two principal obligations, which are closely inter-linked: first, the commemoration of those who died in the service of their country; and secondly, the need to raise and maintain public awareness about the vital and lasting contribution made by those who have served their country so well.
Next year's commemoration of events leading up to the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war will provide a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives, as well as to all those who served this country in that historic conflict. The anniversary will also provide a unique opportunity to raise awareness about veterans and to celebrate the role of the veteran in society. A great deal of effort is being put into making the occasions special for veterans and their families. The Government are acutely aware that this might be the last chance for many of the men and women who lived through those events to commemorate them in any numbers. Just as importantly, it could also be the last chance for new generations to learn at first hand from the veterans themselves what it was like to be involved

309
in the second world war. Their memories and experiences will provide for future generations a lasting legacy that needs to be harnessed.
Last Sunday, it was said:
"It is incumbent upon us to entrust it"—
the legacy—
"to new generations."
Those were the words of President Chirac in his address at the international D-day event. Equally telling are the words of Mr. Ray Rosen, the president of the Birmingham Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women:
"It is important that we should never forget and that the children should know what happened."
This is the passing on of the baton of remembrance referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his message on the D-day weekend in last week's House magazine. So our plans for the commemorations of the end of the war on 10 July 2005 are evolving and progressing well, and taking into account that aspect of commemoration.
I can confirm that the main events will be in London, and will include a religious service, a lunch and an event on Horse Guards parade. They will be attended by many thousands of veterans of the second world war, including those who served on the home front. Other events will be planned for the week leading up to 10 July 2005 as part of the United Kingdom's first ever veterans awareness week, an initiative that I hope will allow the whole country to come together to remember the significant contribution that our veterans made and to ensure that it will not be forgotten. I very much hope that many schools will plan events involving local veterans during that week.
The week will act as a pilot for further annual veterans awareness weeks. I see those events as crucial in ensuring that younger generations appreciate the sacrifice made by their forefathers.
My aim is to develop new themes each year around the core aim of commemorating our veterans and involving all generations in associated events across the nation. I am pleased that the project involves close cooperation with, and support from, our ex-service organisations as well as other stakeholders.
While the official celebrations of the 60th anniversaries in 2004–05 are obviously hugely important, I realised some time ago that many veterans would like to return to the areas in which they served for their own individual commemorations. I also recognised that their exploits and memories could provide wonderful educational material for today's youngsters. I am glad to say that both those strands have been brought together by the Big Lottery Fund's "Veterans Reunited" programme, which allows national lottery money to be used to enable veterans and young people to commemorate the events of the second world war. Indeed, under this Government, more money than ever before is being put into ensuring that veterans can attend commemorations.
The largest part of the "Veterans Reunited" programme is the "Heroes Return" scheme, which is providing £10 million of funding for veterans, their
310
spouses and, where required, their present-day carers to visit the overseas areas where the veterans saw active service in the second world war. By the end of May—less than four months alter the scheme was launched—more than 1,600 awards had been made, with a total value of £1.9 million.
Of course, the biggest commemorative event to receive funding so far is the Normandy commemorations of last weekend. By the end of May, the "Heroes Return" programme had distributed nearly £1.2 million to veterans wishing to travel to the D-day commemorations. Funding had been received by 2,128 veterans, 963 wives or husbands, and 1,166 carers—a grand total of 4,257 individuals. With the ability to make awards retrospectively, we expect the funding and the number of individuals funded to rise significantly.
The "Veterans Reunited" programme also includes about £10 million for educational projects under "Their Past, Your Future", while £7 million can be used for grants to organise events and exhibitions in the United Kingdom as part of the "Home Front Recall" aspect of the project. In total, "Veterans Reunited" has £27.5 million allocated from the lottery for the next two years.
In carrying forward the MOD's involvement in these projects, I have the crucial support of the Veterans Agency in Norcross, near Blackpool. In addition to its role in the administration of war pensions and provision of welfare support to pensioners, the agency represents the focal point in the MOD for delivery of support to the wider veterans' community, particularly in respect of advice on the services available from the Government and the voluntary sector. Its free helpline and other information services are heavily used, and I know that they are valued by many veterans.
I am pleased to report that the agency has played a major role in the "Heroes Return" scheme by providing initial advice to potential applicants. The agency has provided a helpline for inquiries about "Heroes Return" and has so far dealt successfully with more than 28,000 calls. That represents a 40 per cent. increase over the helpline's normal information traffic. I would like to thank, on the record, all those concerned in handling that huge amount of extra work in such a short time. I am sure that that work is appreciated across the House.
Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about the "Heroes Return" scheme. I do not want to malign in any way, shape or form the wonderful work that is being done; it is a credit to the Department and to the country that we are doing this for veterans. However, is he really confident that such a scheme, which, given the age of the veterans, is going to happen in such a short time, can put in place the mechanism for them to return to the countries where they served before they unfortunately pass away?
Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent and important point. I can assure her that while there is a need to claim in the two-year period up to the end of 2005, if veterans want to travel after that date, that will be permissible within the scheme. We have ensured that the scheme covers carers, should that be necessary. We hope that as many second world war veterans as want to travel can do so. She will be aware from questions that I have answered in the House on this matter that, at the

311
moment, we are restricting "Heroes Return" to second world war veterans and not extending it further. That is a discussion that we may have in the future.
As the House will be aware, to help veterans attend those commemorative events overseas during the two-year period, the Home Office announced last year that concessionary one-year passports would be made available. Veterans and their organisations have warmly welcomed the scheme and, so far, 636 of those passports have been issued.
I was extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to announce recently that all British passport holders over the age of 75 will now be eligible for free 10-year passports in grateful commemoration of their efforts before and during the war years.
Mr. Foulkes: There seems to be some confusion about when that arrangement will start. I was talking to an elderly gentleman and I suggested that he go to the post office. He went to the post office and found out—
Anne Picking: It was closed. [Laughter.]
Mr. Foulkes: No, no. The post office was still there—my hon. Friend is not being very helpful. However, it did not know about the scheme, and when we phoned up the passport office it said that the scheme had not started yet. It is very important that we get out the message as to when what the Home Secretary announced will start so that people are absolutely clear about it.
Mr. Caplin: I am glad that my right hon. Friend's post office is still open of course, but most importantly he is right that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the intention to introduce those 10-year passports. We are working on the detail, and as soon as it is available I shall of course inform the House accordingly.
Education of our young people about veterans' matters is one of my most important priorities. The "Veterans Reunited" programme will also raise awareness among young people in a different and, I hope, exciting way. The "Their Past, Your Future" education programme will give young people the opportunity to research and understand the role played by service veterans and civilian groups in ensuring our national security and survival.
The programme, which is a good example of collaboration on veterans-related issues across the official and voluntary sectors, will support local partnerships between schools, museums and veterans groups. I was very pleased to meet pupils taking part in the project during the Normandy weekend. Their teacher, Helen Yarrow, told me that her group enjoyed their trip tremendously and will remember it for the rest of their lives. Their enthusiasm was reassuring and certainly confounded those who, sometimes criticise today's youth and the educational opportunities available to them. This passing on of the baton of remembrance is crucial if future generations are to understand the freedoms we have today and why we have them.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has been saying about the contribution that veterans can make to young people in learning about the suffering that occurred, not only among people in this country but all over the world, as a result of the second world war. Does he have discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that in history lessons, perhaps as part of the national curriculum, young people learn rather more about the second world war, the reasons for it and how it was fought than about Henry VIII and his six wives?
Mr. Caplin: I resisted the temptation to list the Departments involved in "Veterans Reunited", but it is a collaboration involving the MOD as well as the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the Imperial War museum and the national lottery. Matters to do with the curriculum are for the relevant Department.
Although the education programme focuses on the second world war commemorative events taking place over the next two years, it is also intended to develop into a longer-term project. There will be resources for schools to use in the citizenship and history curricula if they want to do so, and opportunities for young people to participate in commemorations at home and abroad. Education projects of this kind are intended to help future generations to remember and understand the experiences and sacrifices of veterans of all types and their role in our nation's history.
Rev. Martin Smyth: In that context, will the Minister welcome the new approach of the Royal British Legion in its campaign to influence and involve itself in the community, in educational and other activities?
Mr. Caplin: I very much welcome the new initiatives that the Royal British Legion is taking, and I had a useful meeting with its executive a few months ago to discuss its forthcoming projects.
The House should now be aware of a further recent initiative that links the current commemorations, "Heroes Return" and the education projects. Recently, I sent Members of both Houses a commemorative booklet covering the events of D-day. So far, the Ministry of Defence has produced other booklets on the battles at Kohima and Monte Cassino. Further booklets are planned for other major second world war campaigns, and I hope to extend the series eventually to more recent campaigns and operations as their anniversaries come round. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I of course intend to ensure that copies of the booklets are available in the Library. The booklets are available to veterans, among others, and I know from discussions with veterans that, for example, members of the Burma Star Association were very pleased with their booklet, as were the veterans whom I met at the Monte Cassino commemorations.
On 10 May, we launched the new veteran's lapel badge. The aim is to overcome the long-held view that the status of veterans is not fully recognised. The veterans community helped in its creation, and the first

313
tranche is being made available to second world war veterans attending the major anniversary commemorations in 2004. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend Lord Healey, a beach-master at Anzio, agreed to be the first recipient of the badge at an event in Westminster Hall. Significantly, he was the first Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence when it was created 40 years ago.
I also presented badges to veterans at the Monte Cassino commemorations. They will also be available to first world war veterans, D-day veterans and others who receive grants to make "Heroes Return" visits. Given the success of the badge already, I am considering how it might be extended. That will require further decision making, and I shall inform the House accordingly.
Veterans rightly demand that service be recognised where appropriate through the award of campaign medals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) pointed out earlier. I was glad that, after a review by a subcommittee led by Lord Guthrie, following the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we were able to meet the long-standing demand for a medal recognising service in the Suez canal zone from 1951 to 1954. The strength of feeling on this issue is witnessed by the demand for the medal. We have received 38,450 applications, although the level of new applications is tailing off a little. Obviously, it takes time to handle that level of demand. The Army, which has the highest number of applications, estimates that it will clear them over the next two years. The Royal Marines is assessing claims as they arrive, and the Royal Navy and RAF hope to clear their backlog by the first half of next year.
I intend to keep the House informed of progress on the distribution of the Suez medal. Between the announcement in June last year and the medal being struck in November, a significant backlog has been building up in all the medal offices. We are still trying to assess the cases, which takes time. There is an individual assessment, followed by creation of the medal with the veteran's name on it, which takes time. I hope that the House will bear with us on this matter.
Mr. Peter Luff: I see from the Minister's smile that he anticipates exactly what I am going to say. I hope that I will be able to make this point at greater length, if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. If he attaches such importance to clearing the backlog, why is he choosing this precise moment to close the Army medal office, losing most of the expertise and skilled staff there, and transferring it miles down the road to Gloucestershire? Would he not be better advised to scrap the idea entirely? If he is not prepared to do that, could he at least put the closure on hold for three years, to enable that skilled body of men and women to issue the medal, as they wish to do, to veterans, who, tragically, are dying before receiving it?
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman and I have met on this matter and exchanged correspondence on it, and we simply do not agree. We need to bring the medal offices together to try to create an environment in which medals can be delivered more quickly and efficiently to veterans. That is one of the reasons why we are doing it.
314
Although a great deal of valuable work is rightly going on to support the 60th anniversary events in 2004–05 and other commemorations, I also want to begin longer-term initiatives to ensure that the baton of remembrance is passed on to future generations. I have made two visits recently to the national memorial arboretum in Lichfield, and I was deeply impressed on both occasions. I am especially pleased that the Government have been able to provide a significant grant in aid for a three-year period to help the new management from the Royal British Legion to carry the project forward. This project has received warm support from veterans groups and is a fitting way to commemorate the sacrifices made in more recent times. As many Members will know, there are also plans to place the new armed forces memorial there, and longer-term proposals for an education facility.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister spare a moment to say how grateful we all are to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and to General Sir John Wilsey, for their work, which we were all able to see on television? All around the world, it is important to veterans, and to the rest of us, that Commonwealth war graves are maintained in a decent state.
Mr. Caplin: Clearly, there has been a leak, because the next line of my speech was that I should also mention the continuing excellent work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. A number of Members of this House, including the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), are commissioners. It is not always appreciated that the United Kingdom, in line with its proportion of the dead of the two world wars, meets almost 80 per cent. of the commission's costs through an annual grant of about £30 million from the Ministry of Defence. Those who have visited the commission's cemeteries around the world will testify to the wonderful work of its staff—drawn from many nations—in caring for those who have fallen in the service not only of the United Kingdom but of our partners in the Commonwealth. I commend the commission's new website, which provides outstanding assistance to those seeking to trace people who may be buried in one of its sites. I understand that the number of hits on the website now runs at more than 250,000 a month, from all over the world.
The commission is also actively exploring options for education projects. Like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I am pleased that the commission site at Bayeux played such an important and prominent role in the D-day commemorations, and that it looked in such superb condition, as did the memorial at Cassino last month.
Commemoration and recognition of veterans rightly deserves high priority, especially now, but also in the longer term. Our efforts and plans demonstrate our commitment to remembering the service given, and sacrifices made, by so many during the second world war and throughout history.
Mr. Hancock: I realise that the Minister is coming to the end of his speech. Earlier, he was asked about the Arctic convoys, and medals for those who served in them—four such veterans are in the Gallery today—and

315
I hope that he will accept that this is a perfect occasion for him to announce that the Government have changed their mind and will award that medal to those deserving citizens of the UK. We can talk time and again about the role of those veterans, but there is one way in which we can commemorate their action, especially on the Arctic convoys: by giving them the medal. I would not want the Minister to miss this opportunity to put his side of the story and, for once, I hope, to agree with the rest of the House.
Mr. Caplin: I answered questions on this matter in some detail at Defence questions on 1 March 2004. That is on the record, and I do not plan to repeat what I said on that occasion. I stand by the comments that I made in relation to Arctic convoys. The House can no doubt debate these issues.
So what are our plans for the future? I have already said that I would like to develop many of our current initiatives. I believe that the various strands of commemorative and educative work, including veterans awareness week, will be particularly important as fewer and fewer people in wider society have direct knowledge of the essential work of our armed Forces.
My vision as I approach this task is of making recognition and commemoration of veterans' achievements in support of their country a part of our national heritage—one that we can celebrate with the veterans among us, but can also pass to succeeding generations. I have emphasised our efforts to focus on the needs of younger and future veterans as well as those of their distinguished predecessors. To that end, I intend to continue the progress made on enhanced arrangements for the transition from service to civilian life by keeping the new programmes introduced this year under careful and constant review. I also intend to develop the role of the Veterans Agency in providing information and support for veterans, and to lock into other Government information services. A review of our veterans-related information strategy is in hand, as are individual collaborative projects on information and communications.
We have a range of new initiatives across Government and in partnership with the voluntary sector to tackle aspects of social exclusion and vulnerability among an important minority of veterans. I want to make progress on that as well as on the work relating to health matters, which will ensure that our veterans enjoy the full support of the national health service and can enjoy long and healthy retirements. The Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, will refer to that later.
I am sure the House will recognise that it has been a busy year for veterans' affairs in the United Kingdom. We have righted an injustice with the award of the Suez medal, introduced new and different approaches to the transition from service to civilian life, enhanced the status of veterans across the United Kingdom, and successfully assisted with the 60th anniversary commemorations of D-day. Moreover, we have £27.5 million of lottery funding to spend on veterans to help future generations understand what happened.
There is, however, no room for complacency. There is much more to do, and the Government are strongly committed to continuing to recognise and enhance the role of the veteran in our communities.
2.52 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: When the debate began I felt that I was coming in as a novice, but after an hour and six minutes of the Minister's excellent speech I feel that I have become something of a veteran myself. The reason I appear as a novice is, however, a good one, of which the Minister is aware: our official spokesman on veterans' affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), is today attending the funeral of his uncle and godfather—who, incidentally, was himself a wartime paratrooper. As my hon. Friend pointed out, he is in a way doing a service to a veteran although he cannot be here today to do the same for all veterans, as he would like to.
The Minister rightly observed that this is the first full debate on veterans' affairs to be held in the Chamber—although I remind him that, appropriately enough on VE day 2001, a full debate on the subject took place in Westminster Hall. That was at the initiative of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), who has subsequently become a Treasury Minister and is therefore now in a position to implement some of the recommendations that she rightly made on behalf of veterans at that time.
Let me add my congratulations to the Minister, the Government and all who organised the magnificent event at Normandy. It really was an outstanding affair, which was of course entirely predictable. Any of us—which means all of us—who have personally come into contact with veterans of the second world war, and indeed of other conflicts, know what marvellous people they are and what a life-enhancing experience it is to meet them.
We all have our favourite little stories. Before I embark on the substance of my speech, I want to share one or two of them with the House. One concerns a man who died very recently, Lieutenant-Commander Pat Kingsmill. He was the only one of six Swordfish pilots to survive the war who were involved in trying to stop the German battle fleet when it sailed up the English channel. It was a suicide mission. The leader, Esmonde, was awarded the VC; all the planes were shot down. I read about the event when I was a lad, and never dreamed that circumstances with which I shall not detain the House would bring me into contact with Pat Kingsmill and the other survivors. I had an opportunity to bring them to the House, where they met Speaker Boothroyd at what was probably one of her last engagements before she stepped down.
Mr. John Bercow: Excellent woman.
Dr. Lewis: She is indeed an excellent woman, and if there was any doubt about that she showed it in spades that day. She invited those heroes to visit the Speaker's apartments, and made a little speech to them. What she said to them could be said to all the veterans of world war two, including those whose presence in the Gallery today I am not allowed to mention but who were on the arctic convoys. What she said was, "Without what you and your comrades did, we would not have a free Parliament today." She added, in her own inimitable way, "I would probably have ended up in a concentration camp." Quick as a flash, Pat Kingsmill said, "Yes, but we would have been right there beside you."

317
The spirit of these people is absolutely indomitable. My second little anecdote also concerns the Fleet Air Arm. I went to a reception and lunch for the Telegraphist Air Gunners Association, and sat at a table next to a veteran who was busily drawing attention to the achievements of everyone else who was present. That is an example of what the Minister rightly described as the modesty of veterans about what they themselves had done. This gentleman was pointing out this and that person, saying, "There's Les Sayer: he got the DSM for the attack on the Bismarck", and "There's Dickie Richardson: he got the DSM for the raid on the Palembang oil refineries in 1945." Eventually I turned to him and said, "Excuse my asking, but were you not involved in any particularly interesting actions in world war two?" He looked a little embarrassed and said, "Well, I did fly in the raid against the Tirpitz."
As the House will know, the Tirpitz was the sister battleship of the Bismarck. She was attacked first by midget submarines and badly damaged, then by the Fleet Air Arm and damaged again, and finally by the RAF Dambusters, who capsized her. I asked this gentleman, "What was your overwhelming impression of that raid?" He replied, "The sheer size of the battleship." He said, "We came down sharply, as you can imagine, and flew the length of the ship. As I was the telegraphist air gunner I was facing rearwards, and I could see the length of the ship unrolling as we flew along. It went on and on and on." I asked him a rather obvious question: "Do you think you hit it?" He allowed himself the ghost of a smile. "Couldn't really miss from that height," he said.
I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think I speak for all of us when I say that when I walk out of a room after meeting veterans who have described such experiences—which can be replicated, because Members of Parliament are given opportunities to meet these wonderful people—I feel about six inches taller. I feel my back straightening, and I feel very proud to have met and known them. That is why I sometimes wonder a little about the reluctance of some of our officials at the MOD to advise Ministers that it is not only right to commemorate these events as long and as prominently as we can, but as a very good thing to do. It is good for them, it is good for the country and it is good for future generations. It was never in doubt that if a big ceremony was held to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-day, it would be done well; the question was whether it would be held. The Minister will recall that there were some quite sharp exchanges both here and in Westminster Hall as recently as October and November last year about what level of representation there would be.
These tributes are very important. It is essential that they should continue and I think that the Government have acknowledged that lesson.
I would like to say something else about the events for which we are today acknowledging sacrifice. Before these veterans, there were the veterans of world war one. Now we honour the veterans of world war two. Fortunately, we have not had to honour veterans of world war three. One of the reasons why there was no
318
world war three was that we won the cold war. One of the people who was responsible for us winning the cold war was President Ronald Reagan.
I am sorry to inject a slightly disappointed note into my remarks but I was disappointed that, on Monday, the day we came back, the Foreign Secretary paid no tribute to President Reagan until he was provoked into doing so by the shadow Foreign Secretary, and the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman paid no tribute to him at all even then. Today, we heard reluctant tributes from the Deputy Prime Minister and from the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman. President Reagan's contribution deserves better acknowledgment than that.
In its first report following his death, the BBC stated that President Reagan described the Soviet Union as an evil empire but later changed his mind. That was news to me. I thought that it was because of the way he confronted it as an evil empire that he changed the Soviet Union and was able to reach agreement with it on disarmament measures that benefited all mankind. According to the BBC website, the Prime Minister said:
"At home, his visit n and leadership restored national self-confidence and brought some significant changes to US politics."
Some significant changes to US politics—big deal.
"Abroad, the negotiations of arms control agreements in his second term and his statesmanlike pursuit of more stable relations with the Soviet Union helped bring about the end of the Cold war."
We all know that during President Reagan's first term he pursued tough policies with which people now in government did not agree, but they should be big enough to admit that he was right, because he was right. He helped to save us from having to commemorate veterans of a third world war.
Mr. Bercow: I applaud my hon. Friend's tribute to President Reagan, whose commitment to individual freedom, personal responsibility and the doctrine of peace through strength was exemplary. Does he agree, as millions of veterans would testify, that if the alternative approach of hand-wringing appeasement and unilateral nuclear disarmament had held sway, our world would be vastly less free and infinitely more dangerous than it is?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Lewis: I think that the reaction of colleagues on the Conservative Benches is sufficient endorsement of what my hon. Friend said. I cannot resist pointing out that the first time I Wade his acquaintance was in 1983, when I had occasion to brief him on issues about nuclear deterrence and disarmament, and it has been downhill all the way since then.
Let us move back to the substance of the debate, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence when I made that slight but necessary diversion. I want to refer to topics such as reunions, memorials, medals, pensions, stress and homelessness. We have all heard how important reunions and recognition are. They are important for the people who took part, for the historical pride of the country, and for the understanding and commitment of young people who will have the destiny of this country in their hands.

319
I appreciate that the Government will take the view that in some sense it has to stop somewhere—they cannot go on having large-scale commemorations indefinitely for every major campaign. However, that is no reason to believe that there should not be continuing support on a lower level, certainly from the armed forces, for all those veterans who feel that they are strong enough in wind and limb to continue commemorating the events that lead us today to regard them as heroes and to miss the people who never grew up as a result of the sacrifices that they made.
I for one was pleased to read in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend a story headed "We'll carry on as long as there are veterans, says Gen Jackson". The article stated:
"Britain's most senior Army officer has defied the Ministry of Defence by promising that future D-day commemorations will be conducted as long as there are Normandy veterans."
A senior military officer, who perhaps understandably remained anonymous, is quoted as saying:
"The general is a great and active supporter of several veterans' organisations. He is not going to allow civil servants to tell him or any other soldier when, where and how they will remember those men and women who gave their lives for this country's freedom."
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Quite right.
Dr. Lewis: I was hoping to get a response and my hon. Friend did not let me down.
I would like a commitment from the Minister at some point that no obstacles will be put in the way of the armed forces when they are ready and willing to give commitments to support veterans who are able to go on commemorating the activities that led to victory in the last world war and in subsequent conflicts, even if they do not feel that they can stage an operation at the same level of intensity as was successfully carried out on 6 June this year.
Mr. Caplin: I must get my own back after the interventions earlier. There is no dispute about the issue. Commemoration is important and what General Jackson said is right. We obviously will discuss with the Normandy Veterans Association and Royal British Legion how they would like to take commemoration forward. We have to be realistic. In 10 years, for example, the veterans who did us proud in Arromanches town square on Sunday evening will be 90-plus and therefore we have to have some serious conversations about the long-term future of commemoration.
Dr. Lewis: I am grateful for that intervention. I regard that as one out of one, and I will keep score as I go through the remainder of my speech to see what other positive results I can get.
The question of medals has been brought up several times and I propose to spend a little time on it, for a very good reason. There has been an ongoing dispute about the events surrounding the award, or non-award, of a medal for those in the Arctic convoys during the second world war. I have benefited from the compilation of documentation prepared by the House of Commons Library. I would like to press the Minister a little further on that matter, even though he rather disappointed the House by hiding behind the fact that he had had an exchange on it at defence questions
320
Let me explain a little about the campaign stars and service medals that were awarded in the second world. If someone was in the Royal Air Force and flew in Bomber Command, they got the Air Crew Europe star. If they were in the Battle of Britain, they got a Battle of Britain bar to the 1939–45 star. If they fought in the far east, they got the Pacific star or the Burma star. If they were entitled to both, they were given one with a bar on it signifying that they also earned the other. The same was true with the Mediterranean, where they were eligible for the Italy and/or the Africa star, and the Atlantic, where they were eligible for the Atlantic star and sometimes also the France and Germany star. The major area where that does not appear to apply is the Arctic convoys to Russia.
I do not know the reason for that omission. According to excellent documentation provided by the Library, time and again Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have suggested that the reason was that those who served in the Arctic convoys were entitled to the Atlantic star, but some stars required a longer period of service in theatre than others, and people had to be in theatre for a very long time to qualify for the Atlantic star—too long a period for most of the nearly 700 ships that took part in the Murmansk and other Arctic convoys.
All the other campaign honours relate to specific battle fronts, and the arrangements were devised cleverly, fairly and comprehensively, but the only way in which we were involved in the important battle front relating to the Soviet Union was through the Arctic convoys, and at the very least, if the authorities did not want to award a separate star—which I think they should—they should have made it possible for the bulk of the people involved to receive the Atlantic star. The Minister's predecessor seems to think that they could have, because he said:
"Service on the Arctic convoys during the second world war is covered by the Atlantic Star."—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 16–17.]
Well, not for those on about 690 of the 697 ships involved.
The Prime Minister himself said:
"I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of all those who sailed in the Arctic convoys. Those who served in the arctic convoys during the second world war were awarded a medal, the Atlantic Star, at the time to mark their important contribution."—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1146W.]
Well, no, Prime Minister, they were not.
I understand the Government's difficulty. The danger always is that if we revisit such events so long after they have happened we will open up other claims and there will be no end to the need to revise historical arrangements. However, for the reasons that I outlined, I believe that this case stands by itself. Why is there such reluctance to comply? I think that it comes down to the fact that it would make an awful lot of work for the Ministry of Defence. That really sticks in the craw, because one of the advantages for civil servants in the MOD or anywhere else is that, although they follow an honourable profession and may have a distinguished career, they do not go short of recognition and awards. The armchair warriors of the MOD are quite good at awarding themselves medals when the time comes, and

321
it does not sit well that veterans who served in especially hazardous conditions should be deprived by bureaucrats of that to which they should be entitled.
Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. Does he agree that there is something very strange about the Government making a special case for the Suez medal—honouring a group of men who indeed served in very uncomfortable circumstances but took relatively few casualties—but refusing to recognise a body of people who served in one of the world's most hostile atmospheres and took extremely heavy casualties?
Dr. Lewis: The Government will say that the difference is that in the case of the Suez medal they were not able to prove that a recommendation had been made and turned down at the time, whereas that is the case with the Arctic convoys; but that leads us to ask why that recommendation was turned down, and I believe that it may have had something to do with the fact that our ally at the time the medal was earned had become our potential enemy by the time the decision was taken.
Mr. Wareing: Should not there be another consideration in favour of the Arctic convoy veterans, in that of the nearly 800 ships that sailed outward to Murmansk and Archangel, no fewer than 7.8 per cent. were lost? In the battle of the Atlantic, harsh though it was, fewer than 1 per cent. of our ships were lost.
Dr. Lewis: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not want to get into a bidding war about which of these vital battles was the more costly. The nub of his point is correct: by any criterion, the Arctic convoy veterans should qualify. If the idea was that they would get the Atlantic star, the conditions for that medal should have been constructed such that more than just a few per cent. of them could get it.
Mr. Dalyell: I want to draw to the attention of the House the case of a former West Lothian county councillor, William Pender, who came to London on 1 June to receive a medal from the Russian embassy for his service on the Murmansk run but has still had nothing from the British Ministry of Defence. Is not it ironic that the Russians can give him a medal, but apparently our own Government leave him unrecognised?
Dr. Lewis: The Father of the House neatly anticipates the point that I was coming to: veterans of the Arctic convoy are allowed to wear the medal that they have been awarded by the Russians, and when that permission was given in the 1990s, the Government made it clear that it was given because the situation in Russia had improved significantly, which simply adds force to my point that there may have been a political motivation behind the decision not to award the medal in the first place.
Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that many of the veterans are confused about the messages coming from the
322
Government. The Secretary of State says no, but figures as senior as the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Labour party have recently signed up as active supporters of the campaign, saying that the Government should give the recognition that is due. Whose message should prevail?
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and—
Mr. Caplin indicated dissent.
Dr. Lewis: I see the Minister shaking his head, but the Portsmouth edition of The News, which has been waging a magnificent campaign, contained a report on 20 May headed, "Blunkett backs medal for the Arctic veterans". It says:
"Two days after the Ministry of Defence appeared to deliver a huge blow to the campaign for a medal, the tough-talking Sheffield MP said: 'They deserve a medal'."
It is not often that I agree with the Home Secretary when in the House of Commons, but this is one of those occasions.
I do not want to belabour the point much further, but it is very important. It is a matter of honour, a matter of bureaucracy, and a matter of the ability to make exceptions to the rules, readjust them or if necessary reconfigure them to allow an injustice to be put right. The Government should realise that this issue is not going to go away, or at least not until the last of the veterans has ceased t o draw breath, which I trust will not be for some years yet. The Government should face up to the issue, get on with it, tackle it and put it to bed.
In talking about injustices, I shall make just a passing reference to the earlier intervention by the Father of the House on the Chinook disaster. I, too, attended yesterday's memorial to mark the 10th anniversary of the disaster, and the people who organised it made it clear that it was held in commemoration of all who had died, and not part of the ongoing campaign to overturn the verdict against the pilots.
I take this opportunity, however, to reiterate a point that I have tried to impress on the Government before. The rules by which dead pilots have been blamed for a crash, when by definition they cannot put the case in their own defence, have been changed as a result of this case. If that crash happened again in the same circumstances, those pilots would not be blamed. It would be an injustice for a situation to continue in which, although it was felt necessary to change the rules as a result of the unsatisfactory outcome of this case, the reputation of the pilots in the case itself had not been cleared. I suspect that much face-saving is involved in this issue. I understand the need to acknowledge that senior officers may well have taken the decision that appeared right to them with the rules as they were at the time, and that is no discredit to them, but the rules have been changed and the pilots should benefit from that.
Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether those in the Ministry of Defence involved in the case would at least to talk to Lord Jauncey. He is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and has spent endless time on the matter. If he cannot be convinced, how on earth can the Ministry of Defence express these certainties?
Dr. Lewis: The key word in what the Father of the House has just said is "certainties". The original rules

323
were drawn very tightly and said that no deceased pilot was to be blamed unless there were no doubt whatever about what had happened. Yet there is debate, dispute and controversy. There is doubt about what happened, so the pilots should not have been blamed. Given that they were blamed, however, and given that the rules were changed as a result of their being blamed, it is manifestly unjust that they should continue to be blamed. This is a tragedy not just for those who died, but for those who survived them, because 10 years later they are still haunted by the case.
Mr. Key: Is not the situation worse than that, because the Scottish accident inquiry refused to come to the conclusion that the pilots were negligent, as did the original RAF board of inquiry? It was the conclusion of the experts that was overturned. The situation is bizarre, and absolutely against natural justice.
Dr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he has long campaigned on the matter and knows a great deal more about it than I. I still feel that with good will, even at this stage, it should be possible to find a form of words that would satisfy people that the senior officers did what they did in good faith but that the time has now come to overturn he verdict. I should have thought that that was are common-sense, compassionate and humane way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the Minister from his party who dealt with the matter it the time stood up in Westminster Hall some 18 months ago and admitted that he now felt that he had been wrong.
Dr. Lewis: I am aware that a number of people have changed their views, but obviously, the concern must be that in putting this matter right, we do not then denigrate the integrity of the senior officers, who almost certainly do not deserve such an outcome. In the light of the many articulate, clever, legally trained, inventive and ingenious minds available in this House and in the Ministry of Defence, it ought to be possible to come up with a form of words that would resolve the situation—at last—in an acceptable way to all concerned.
I shall deal very briefly with some other topics. I thank the Government for providing satisfaction in respect of the Suez canal zone medal, but I can only reiterate the concern expressed so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the closure of the Army pedal office in his constituency. The Minister said that he anticipates that the Army will have cleared the bad Jog after two years. It that proves true, it will be a pleasant surprise. An article in Soldier magazine of May 2004 said that that is not nearly so likely an outcome, and it has been suggested that several years could be added to the time it will take to get those medals issued. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. I trust him, and if he assures me that he has the staff on the job to get those medals out in two years, I will forthwith move on from this topic.
Mr. Caplin: I have made it clear that I will keep the House informed of progress on the dispatch of Suez
324
medals. Changes will be made to the way in which the medal office operates, and I hope that they will create efficiencies both before closure and afterwards.
Dr. Lewis: That answer gets one and a half out of two.
Mr. Luff: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Lewis: I certainly will.
Mr. Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I encourage him not to accept that assurance at face value. The Minister plans to make most of the staff at the Army medal office redundant. The "Suez canal" website of the Veterans Agency says:
"Checking eligibility is a skilled, time-consuming and exacting job, but the medal offices have skilled staff who are experts at assessing eligibility quickly and accurately."
Not if the Minister has his way.
Dr. Lewis: The Minister's mark has gone down to one out of two, and I am now provoked to make another point on this topic. According to an article on the cost of producing medals, a new medal for the Arctic convoys might cost £140 per medal for the Royal Navy alone. If the people making these calculations are the same people who are calculating the time it will take to issue the Suez canal zone clasps and general service medals to the veterans who will be awarded them, one cannot have a great deal of confidence in the reliability of their timetabling. However, I shall move on because the issue has had a sufficient airing.
I have only one more point to make about medals, and it concerns what used to be called the reserve and territorial decoration. The Opposition applauded the decision that decorations for reservists were to be awarded both to officers and to other ranks. That was a change for the better, but it was decided that, instead of both officers and other ranks having the initials "RD" or "TD" after their name, in future nobody would have the benefit of such initials to signify receipt of those awards. That was not a change for the better.
I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Defence back in April 2002. I said that all concerned should be able to put these initials after their name, rather than nobody, now that all in the reserve forces were eligible. He said:
"I will certainly look at that practical suggestion, but I will refer later to questions of recruitment and retention. I will set out some of the efforts that the Ministry of Defence is making to ensure that we have the right numbers of people coming in and remaining in the armed forces for as long as we need them."—[Official Report, 11 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 176.]
I suggest that one reason why people join, and remain in, the armed forces in a voluntary capacity is the knowledge that their service will be recognised in a public way.
Mr. Brazier: I am someone with a vested interest in that I am able to place the initials "TD" after my name, though, unlike many earlier holders of that award, I have never seen active service. May I tell my hon. Friend as a matter of historical fact that the War Office took exactly the same dim, foot-dragging view after the first world war when the same case was made? That

325
designation was achieved only through many hundreds and thousands of eligible people simply placing the initials after their names—and eventually, acceptance just happened. That may well have to be the case again.
Dr. Lewis: I must say that I did not know that particular piece of historical information and I am glad that my hon. Friend has shared it with the House and me.
Before finally leaving the issue of commemorations, I should like to draw the House's attention to a letter that I recently received from Vivien Foster, who is president of the National Merchant Navy Association. He makes the point that the Merchant Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service were in action during the Falklands conflict in 1982
"when 17 merchant seamen lost their lives".
He continued:
"To honour their memory, a group of supporters and friends of the Merchant Service met after a Remembrance Service at the Falklands Islands Memorial Chapel at Pangbourne to discuss plans to build a small memorial to these brave men. This project is now firmly under way, the Memorial will be set in the Merchant Navy garden near the main Monument. To this end, a Trust has been formed, the Memorial has been designed and funds are being sought."
They are not being sought, as far as I know, from the Government, but I would have thought that the lottery might be interested and that hon. Members might, on an individual basis, want to highlight and promote the project.
Let me move on briefly to the issue of pensions. As the Minister pointed out, the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill has enjoyed—if that is the right word—many hours of detailed debate both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We maintain that veterans from the armed forces are unique and that they have a special status because of the special risks that they undertake. It should not be said that certain concessions should not be granted to them because of any read-across to other public servants. Members of the armed forces are in a category of their own because of what they do. That should be recognised.
I entirely endorse the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), when he expressed his concern about changing the burden of proof in compensation claims. The Defence Committee noted in paragraph 69 of its report that, because of the special risks run by members of the armed forces,
"we continue to believe that the onus should remain on the Government to prove that service was not responsible for causing or worsening a condition for which a compensation claim is made."
We are sorry that the Government have not accepted that.
I have spoken about the special status and special conditions of the armed forces. In that regard, we remain unhappy that the widows of people who served in the armed forces but retired before 1978 receive no pension at all on the death of their husbands if they married them after that time. The Government should ask themselves why servicemen would have delayed getting married for so long. It is precisely because they
326
were servicemen. It is connected with their special service, and it is a shame—a word I use deliberately—and a disgrace that !heir widows are not benefiting from the fact that their husbands served their country for so long in such way.
There is also continuing concern about the widows of those who died before 1973, who receive only one third of their late husbands' pensions: whereas, post-1973, they would previously have received a half of that pension, they will receive nearly two thirds in future.
These are inequities. The number of people involved is going down all the time, and it is sad that the Government do not feel able to deal with the anomalies.
The Government have expressed a concern that existing war widows are likely to remarry and that the number of people for whom pensions would still have to be paid would be quite large. The Government should do away with the anomaly that means that war widows who remarry after what are called the non-attributable deaths of their husbands—that is, deaths that cannot be attributed to their conditions of service—are a burden on the Treasury. Will the Minister say how many of the existing war widows who, in December 2000, were granted the concession to retain their pensions for life have subsequently remarried? I suspect that the figure is not all that high.
I turn now to combat stress. When people are injured in battle, we regard it as our duty to treat the wounds of the body, but it is char that we must do more to treat the wounds of the mind. I welcome the fact that the Government take this matter seriously, and I note yesterday's written statement announcing the establishment of an academic department to deal with defence mental health issues.
However, although I do not want to detain the House much longer, I want to set out some of the caveats that I have. I want it to be recognised that some minds are more vulnerable than others to being wounded. If it is possible to identify people with that propensity, they should not be recruited as service personnel in the first place. Those who are recruited should be tested, and trained to cope with what they may have to endure. We do no favours to recruits if we gloss over the risks that they run when they opt for a military career.
Combat is, by definition, traumatic and stressful. The combatant's mind must be strengthened before combat, and supported after it, but no force will ever be battle worthy if concepts emerge such as those described by Robert Vermaas of King's College, London—the very institution to which the Government are looking for advice on this matter In an essay that appeared in the journal of the Royal United Services Institute in June 2002, he stated:
"By 1990, a mood of recrimination, blame and culpability emerged in the UK, as large numbers of soldiers argued that they should have been adequately briefed about the potential psychological effects of their work. It was the beginning of a political and financial nightmare for many western armed forces. Falklands veterans began to pursue legal action, claiming they were not fully warned of the hazards of their profession and, once returned to civilian life, that they were not adequately treated for the trauma they had experienced."
One can agree that there is a need to support people on their return to civilian life. However, it is rather naive to imagine that, when people are thinking of signing up for careers in the armed forces, it is the duty of those

327
forces to impress on them that war is terrible and combat vicious, and that horrible sights will be seen that it will be impossible to forget. Interestingly, a case based on that approach in May last year did not succeed in the High Court. It would be very difficult for any country to have an armed force that was effective, deployable and resilient if that force could be sued successfully by its members for not warning them that they would be going into situations that would threaten their lives and their psychological and physical well-being.
Finally, on the topic of health, I reiterate the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot for a public inquiry into Gulf war vaccinations. The Government have some sympathy from us on the issue because it has not clearly been shown—and that is agreed—that a single syndrome is responsible for all, or even the bulk, of the ailments suffered by people after they came back from the first Gulf war. However, on the face of it, there is an arguable case that the cocktail of vaccinations that the people were given may have had some serious side effects. That is one aspect that deserves further investigation.
Mr. Caplin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will accept that it is important that the independently commissioned research follows its full course before any decisions are made.
Dr. Lewis: One has to strike a balance between allowing enough time for research results to be known to be valid and recognising that the more time is allowed, the harder it is for the people who may be suffering from the syndrome that the research is trying to establish.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another difficulty with an inquiry would be locating records? The Ministry of Defence has admitted that recordkeeping of what type and combination of vaccines people received before the first Gulf war was non-existent in some cases and poor in others.
Dr. Lewis: I am new to this subject and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It goes back to the issue raised earlier about the where the burden of proof should lie—
Mr. Brazier indicated assent.
Mr. Kevan Jones indicated assent.
Dr. Lewis: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury.
Mr. Caplin: I had not planned to intervene again, but I feel I must do so for the sake of the record. When I gave evidence to the Defence committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is a distinguished member, on 5 November last year, I made it clear that in the event of failed recordkeeping in relation to pensions or compensation the Ministry of Defence would accept its responsibilities. We have learned the lessons of the failure of recordkeeping in the early 1990s and it is much better today. The hon.
328
Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is welcome to visit Chilwell to see the mobilisation process and the recordkeeping for himself.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that invitation and either my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot or I may take it up. My hon. Friend called for an inquiry in response to a written answer in the other place to a question from the Labour peer Lord Morris. The Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, confirmed that the Government were aware that some of the combinations of vaccination used could cause serious side effects and that vaccinations went ahead despite warnings from the Department of Health and the deputy chief medical officer. That is a serious admission. I do not wish to press it further today, but my colleagues who specialise in such issues may return to it in the future.
Jim Sheridan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong that the Government do not fund services for veterans who suffer from mental illness? My constituency includes Erskine hospital, which cares for disabled ex-service people and which my hon. Friend the Minister has kindly visited. That organisation is totally dependent on charity and has received no funding from this Government or the previous Government. Is it right that ex-service people should be dependent on charity in this day and age?
Dr. Lewis: That situation is not confined to veterans with mental health problems. I think of St. Dunstan's, for example, which cares for seriously physically disabled veterans. I once instituted a debate on the denial of lottery money to that organisation. I would say only that the Government cannot be expected to do everything that service charities do so well, but they can be expected to help. Whether sufficient Government help is being given must be examined on the merits of each case.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about homelessness. It is a grave concern that a high proportion of people out on the streets have an ex-service background. Is that because they were insufficiently looked after in service or when they left the service, or are they people who should not have been selected for the services in the first place? The point has been made that people sometimes join the services to get away from unsatisfactory conditions at home and then after their period of service go back to the very conditions that led them to join up in the first place. That problem cannot be laid at the door of the services, but it must be dealt with in a humane society.
I shall close by relating one more story from world war two. The Minister movingly said that the veterans to whom he spoke told him that the real heroes were the ones who did not come back. Over the years, I have read a number of stories about people who did not come back. Some of those stories are very well known, but there is one that I have never seen except in a book about the George Cross. It is the story of a Royal Air Force chaplain, Herbert Cecil Pugh, who was on a troop carrier, the Anselm. On 5 July 1941, they were on route for west Africa when a submarine managed to penetrate the escorting screen of destroyers and torpedoed the troop ship.

329
The account states:
"When it was clear that the Anse1m could only remain afloat for a few more moments Padre Pugh discovered that there were a number of airmen trapped in a damaged part of the ship and all efforts to get them out had failed. He asked if it was possible to lower him to them and was told that it was but that there was not time. If he went down, the chances were that he would never get out again.
The chaplain's reply to this comment was: 'Those men need me. Let me down'."
So, the account continues,
"much against his better judgement, one of the ship's officers lowered the chaplain into the damaged hold.
The scene below was illuminated by a pale shaft of light and, in numbed silence, the officer watched the chaplain as he signalled to a small party of frightened men. They gathered round him and he said some words that the officer could not hear but it was not difficult to guess at their meaning. The chaplain sank to his knees on boards that were already inches deep in water and some of the airmen knelt beside him. Others stood silently in the background. Padre Pugh joined his hands together and lifted his face towards his God and, as the water rose around his body, his lips moved in prayer. The water reached his shoulders and he remained on his knees. Then the stricken ship gave a final lurch and a stunned ship's officer made a last second dive to safety."
I do not know how that affects you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I first read that story 40 years ago. I find it hard, even now, to read it without emotion.
3.48 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments about the Blaydon project, which is well appreciated in my constituency. I have been involved with SSAFA over the years and know how well the organisation works with veterans who have problems. It does a valuable job.
That is not the main reason that I rise to speak today, however. I want to speak on a matter that has already been mentioned: the injustice done to the survivors of the Arctic convoys. I am sorry that the Minister regarded the position he set out at Question Time in March as satisfactory. It is not.
When the Arctic convoys went into the Atlantic on the summer route, they went through the Greenland-Iceland gap, turned to starboard and headed for the Arctic ocean, the Norwegian sea and the Barents sea. They could do that only during the very short Arctic summer because the ice had retreated far enough for them to get through. The winter route, which lasted for some nine months of the year, went straight from Scapa into the Norwegian sea, and on to the Arctic ocean and the Barents sea, before ending up at Murmansk, which was less than 30 miles from the German-Finnish front line, or Archangel.
On those routes, the convoys were subject to attack by surface raiders and, when they were further out, long-range bombers; they were also subject to the most atrocious weather conditions imaginable. In February, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and I were in north Norway. We spent part of the time in the mountains with 42 Commando and part of the time with the Assault Squadron in a fjord based in a German U-boat pen dug out of the virgin rock by slave labour. On the night that we slept out in a 10-man tent, the temperature outside dropped to minus 30°; inside, it
330
was a relatively modest minus 11° or 12°. But the kit that we were wearing was light years away from anything that was issued to the brave men who served on the convoys. They were not only from the Royal Navy, but the Royal Marines, the merchant marines, and—in the case of the gunners on the merchant ships—the Army.
We are talking about some of the bravest men who served in the second world war. The RAF Hurricat pilots were fired of their ships in a catapult, with no place to land, to take on masses of German aircraft attacking their convoy. Their only hope of survival was to land close enough to a ship to be picked up out of the water in the very few minutes in which they could live in those temperatures They ended up in Russian army hospitals being looked after by Russian army doctors and nurses. Cruelly injured or suffering from frostbite, their uniforms would be gone, so they would have to wear Russian army uniforms, and they would be subject to attack from German bombing. Yet that service did not count towards the Atlantic medal—they were not allowed to be considered for it.
I have been in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence on this issue for several years, including under previous Governments. My hon. Friend the Minister told me earlier that the award of medals was scrupulously fair. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) observed that the criteria for awarding medals differ, but he did not say by how much. A campaign medal was awarded to those who served for one day in the Mediterranean, Pacific or Burmese waters, whether they were in action or not. They got a medal for sailing gently through the south seas for one day without coming under attack.
The Atlantic Star required six months in the theatre of war, but the men on the Arctic convoys had little chance of achieving that. We have heard the figures already: of 670 ships' companies involved, only six qualified. That does rot recognise the sacrifice that those men made. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) gave us the figures: 7 per cent. of ships sunk, as against 1 per cent. in the Atlantic—but the figure that he did not give us was the proportion of casualties from each ship sunk. Ships sunk in the the Norwegian sea, the Arctic ocean or the Barents sea would have virtually 100 per cent. casualties, whereas in the Atlantic there would be far fewer.
I do not need to explain further the heroism and fortitude that those men displayed. I have no need to say anything more about their individual qualities—but in this week when we remember the Normandy landings, I have to say something about what they achieved. Had they not served on those convoys, protected them and resupplied Russia, the Normandy landings would not have happened when they did. Indeed, if Germany had conquered Russia, he former Speaker of the House might have been right to say that we would not be enjoying the democratic freedoms that we enjoy in the House, in this country and in Europe today.
Those men made a vast contribution, out of all proportion to the numbers involved—so why did they not get the medal in the first place? The hon. Member for New Forest, East was right: it was simply because they were resupplying the Soviet Union, and immediately the war ended the Soviet Union became not just our

331
tentative enemy but our absolute enemy. Almost throughout my life, the Soviet Union was the enemy of this country and of the west.
That must have been terribly embarrassing for those officials at the time. Could we possibly give a medal to people who had resupplied our enemy? They forgot the fact that had it not been for the bravery and the losses that the red army suffered, if it had not been for the losses and the bravery of the civil population, D-day would not have happened.
I was privileged to see the mass graves in what was then Leningrad, but is now St Petersburg, with colleagues from both sides of the House on a private visit some years ago. I was amazed. There was a tiny museum, and in it we saw what the bread ration for the civil population was for the 900 days of the siege—a siege that was lifted only because of the supply delivered through Murmansk and Archangel. The bread ration was the size of a packet of 20 cigarettes, and half of that was sawdust. Thousands and thousands of people were in those graves; an appalling sacrifice was made.
The fact that we did not agree with the Russians' politics, or with what they wanted to do to us, is not a good enough reason for not recognising the contribution that people made—but it was inconvenient for the establishment of the day to recognise it.
The civil service works on precedent. I have been a civil servant, and I know that—but precedent is of value only if there has been no significant change in circumstances. The Minister was proud to announce the award of the Suez campaign medal for the 1951–54 campaign. However, there was no significant change in the circumstances that prevailed between us, Egypt and the Suez canal zone between 1951 find 1954. There was no significant change in the circumstances between our country and Japan after 1946 when we decided—eventually and properly—to award payments to Japanese prisoners of war. However, there has been an enormously significant change in the circumstances between our country and Russia since 1946.
In my desk drawer, I have one of the last British military government of Berlin passes ever issued, which I got because the Defence Committee visited Berlin immediately after the collapse of East Germany. The Foreign Office did not know what sort of reception we would get, so rather than chance us going through the checkpoints with our passports, it issued us with government passes. It was unbelievable to walk down the Unter den Linden, which is in eastern Berlin, and to see the bullet holes that had been left in the wall to commemorate the Russians taking the city. I did that on a lovely May day with my jacket slung over my shoulder as I went to visit the British delegation. No one in a black leather jacket followed me, tried to tap my conversations or eavesdrop. It was amazing to see people going about their daily business and the lines of Trabants queuing to fill up to avoid increased petrol costs due to currency unification. It was amazing to see the President of Russia at the D-day ceremony last weekend, although it was right for him to be there. It is also amazing to see the role that Russia is now playing in world affairs, not least at the UN yesterday. It is time to stop the nonsense and the silly things that have been going on.
332
The leader of the Arctic convoy veterans, Commander Grenfell, received a letter from a civil servant, Mr. Sinfield, the head of DS Secretary (Secretariat), dated 9 October 2002. It says:
"Dr Moonie did not tell Mr McWilliam that, if appropriate, he would make a recommendation to the"
Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals
"to fully consider the request."
Of course, that is a Cabinet Sub-Committee rather than a committee of the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office. The letter continues:
"He said that, if a request were forthcoming, such a recommendation would be made. I should emphasise that the recommendation referred to is to consider the request, not to make a particular decision either way. It would be for the FCO to refer the matter to the HD Committee."
That would have been all right, but on 11 September 2002 my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then a Minister at the Foreign Office. The letter said:
"However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would support the issue of such medals to the Arctic convoy veterans and is recommending to the MOD that an exception to these rules should be made".
There is a complete bureaucratic muddle. If the then Minister could make such a request, why did he make it to the Ministry of Defence rather than the Cabinet Sub-Committee? Why did he submit it to the MOD, with which we are having the argument? That is like having a fight with the wife and asking one's mother-in-law to adjudicate—it is silly.
What is going on? It cannot be the cost, which must be minute compared with that for the Suez medal because so few of the men are still alive. The veterans' calculation is £670,000.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is slightly mistaken about the cost. I believe that that applies to the Ministry of Defence, too—its estimate was £14 million, which is staggering and unbelievable. The hon. Gentleman is right to pursue the lack of joined-up government. The figures should be questioned.
Mr. McWilliam: The sum of £14 million was mentioned to the veterans but the medal manufacturers reckoned that the cost would be approximately £670,000. If the hon. Gentleman wants to add a few thousand pounds for administration, that is fine.
I want to underline my point about the politics of the matter, which the hon. Member for New Forest, East also mentioned. I received a letter from the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) in August 2002. It states:
"An approach was made by the Russian authorities in the early 1980s when their 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War Medal (also known more commonly as the Russian Convoy Medal) was offered to British ex-Servicemen by the Russian authorities. Originally instituted in 1985 and offered to British veterans shortly afterwards, permission was not granted for it to be accepted and worn at that time. Some years later, further official approaches by the Russians to the British Government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were reconsidered. In 1994, the Queen"—

333
I am quoting from a letter; otherwise I would not use that expression—
"granted permission for this medal to be accepted and worn by eligible British citizens. This was considered acceptable in the light of changed circumstances in Russia since the medal was first issued".
We therefore have it from the Ministry of Defence that there was a significant change in circumstances. There has been enough pussyfooting. Let us honour those brave men, recognise their sacrifice and huge contribution to victory in the second world war, and give them their campaign star.
4.7 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: Let me take hon. Members back to the beginning of this afternoon's debate and the Minister's rightly long introduction about the celebrations to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-day. As someone who was heavily involved in the 50th anniversary celebrations in this country and in France, I felt that, once again, both sides of the channel had done justice to the veterans. I was therefore sad that the Minister chose not to acknowledge the huge commitment—financially and in hospitality—that the people of the city of Caen, the region of Normandy and the French Government offered to the veterans, their families and others who crossed the channel. It was a mistake that the Minister chose not to thank them for the enormous amount of work that went in to making the celebration and the commemoration such a meaningful event.
I know from personal experience of working with the governments of the city of Caen and of Lower Normandy for the 50th anniversary and, to some extent, on the celebrations on this side of the channel for the 60th anniversary, about the amazing amount of work that goes into ensuring that things move smoothly and swiftly. Wherever possible, every effort was made to accommodate the needs of the veterans. It is to the veterans' credit that they rightly acknowledge the hospitality and the warmth of the welcome that they receive every time that they go to Normandy. The people of France, especially in Normandy, have never forgotten the debt that they owe. They witness it every day along the streets and the byways in the countryside of Normandy when they pass the allied graves, which are sadly so numerous.
Mr. Caplin: In my day in France on Friday, I took the opportunity to thank the various mayors and the prefecture of the Lower Normandy region for their help and support. Indeed, in the meeting with the French Minister for veterans, I made clear on behalf of Heir Majesty's Government our thanks for the help that we had received from the French Government during the preparations for that weekend.
Having done that in France, I felt that I should reflect more this afternoon on the actions of our own United Kingdom staff, including members of our armed forces.
Mr. Hancock: I thank the Minister for his comments. It is right and proper that that was done, and I was sure that it would have been done, if not by him then by the
334
Prime Minister. I am delighted that the Minister has now put the record straight in the House. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my own city, who did a great deal, over three days, to offer hospitality, good will and all possible assistance to the veterans. Close on 50,000 people took part in the various activities last weekend in and around the city of Portsmouth, and we are mighty proud of our continuing association with the Normandy veterans and of the rightful recognition that people on both sides of the channel give them.
It is not often that we are privileged enough to have four real heroes in our presence, but we have that privilege today. Four members of the Arctic convoy campaign group—Eddie Grenfell, Dave Nash, John Hobbs and Frank sanders, all from the Portsmouth area—have come to the House today to listen to this debate. They travelled here in the optimistic hope that there would be a change of heart on the part of the Government. They have been campaigning for many years, and their ages Add up to well over 300 years. Their service to the nation in the Royal Navy in various forms ranges from six to more than 30 years' commitment. All of them gave valiant service, such as that described by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), in the Arctic convoy campaigns, and several of them made more than one trip.
Many of the Royal Navy veterans whom the Minister met on the beaches at Arromanches last weekend were sailors who wore the Atlantic Star with pride. However, they were unable to wear with pride the medal that they should have received for the part that they played in the Arctic convoys. Instead, many of them wore with amazing pride the medal presented to them by the Russian Government. How right the hon. Member for Blaydon was to expose the shabby and shameless way in which those people have been treated. At first, the Government even resisted giving the men permission to wear the medal that the Russian people wanted them to have, but then allowed them to wear it when circumstances changed. That is the case here, is it not? Circumstances have changed. Perhaps only one or two Members here today will be able to remember a time when Russia was not perceived as the No. 1 enemy of this nation, but things have moved on. That is the only possible reason why those men were denied the justice and recognition that they deserved in 1946. There is no excuse for allowing this situation to continue.
I said in an intervention earlier that this matter was not an example of joined-up government. The hon. Member for Blaydon pointed out that one Department, the Foreign Office, advocated the award of that medal. I must also mention two senior members of the Government: the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Labour party—also a Cabinet Minister. I should like to quote the Chairman of the Labour party, who visited my constituency recently in an effort to boost Labour's chances in the European elections. He said that he understood the merits of this case, and that Arctic veterans were gully deserving of this recognition. He stated:
"Following my visit to Portsmouth, I will take this matter up with the defence secretary."
How can the present situation be right, when Members on both sides of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of my party and two members of

335
Her Majesty's Cabinet, support the justice of this case? A number of Labour Members have pointed to the justice of those men's case and said that the medal should be awarded.
Bob Russell: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a similar obstruction to the Suez canal zone medal? Could quite simply the four worthy heroes not resolve this matter by seeking an audience with the Prime Minister? Quite clearly, he is the one who gave the go-ahead for the Suez medal.
Mr. Hancock: How I wish that it were so easy to arrange. I went with the Arctic veterans, along with two other Members of the House, to Downing street. What did we get? We got as far as the front door, which was enough to hand over a petition signed by 44,000 people and supported by my local newspaper, The News, which has led this campaign for justice.
How nice it would have been if a Minister had agreed to meet those veterans. It would have been nice if the Minister had met them in this country in his office. He met some of them when he shook hands on the beaches in France, but they were not offered hospitality when they asked for a meeting with a Minister two years ago and again last year.
I plead with the Minister not to sit back and rely on the answers given in previous debates. This is a simple request from people who put their lives on the line and who deserve the justice that the House knows they deserve. The only people saying no to them—I am sure he is not saying no—are bureaucrats who have forgotten the plot when it comes to honouring the heroes of this country. It is not too late to say, "We made a mistake and let's do it. Things have changed."
While we are discussing medal, I want to ask the Minister to give a firm assurance that every effort will be made to speed up the process of issuing the Suez medal. He was quick to say that the Prime Minister overturned the original decision, but it took a long time for him to have that change of heart. Time and again, Members of the House pleaded with Departments of State to do something to recognise the Suez campaign and the efforts of the men and women who took part in it. Like them, I am disappointed.
I was told as recently as yesterday that one of the reasons for the delay is the insufficiency of people who can properly engrave the medals. That is the excuse, but surely those people who have waited 50 years for this recognition should not have to wait another two years for the medal that is due to them. I hope we can make progress.
Bob Russell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the vast majority of the men who served in the Suez canal zone were national servicemen? They were conscripted into the Army and sent there; they were not volunteers. If they have to wait upwards of another two years, they will have had to wait longer for the medal than they served in the Army.
Mr. Hancock: Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a great pity that we do not treat these issues with the speed and importance that they
336
deserve. The decision was taken, so all the stops should be pulled out to ensure that those medals are issued quickly.
Mr. Luff: I think I am right in saying that Gosport is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Hancock: No.
Mr. Luff: I beg his pardon. The Government's contribution to speeding up the issuing of the Suez canal zone medal is to close the Army medal office and the two medal offices in Gosport, risking the loss of all that expertise. Those men and women are anxious to deliver the medal punctually, but they will all be lost to the service.
Mr. Hancock: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It is a great pity that there is not greater recognition and understanding of the efforts of the men and women in those departments. Should not they at least be kept on for the next three years, as he suggests? I am sure that there will be a change in relation to the Arctic medal. In the end, the moral case will prevail and the Minister will come to the House to say, "The Prime Minister has had a change of heart."
The only alternative is for all those veterans and their families to vote Tory, because the Tories have said that if they come to office they will issue the medal.
People should not have to do that. It should not be an issue in relation to people voting Tory, but they have an incentive to do so. We would support it because of the justice of the case, and we do not need to be in government to recognise that. Had we been in government, the veterans would have had the medal in 1946. If we were in government today, they would not have to campaign. We will support whoever decides to give the medal, because it will be the right decision.
I want to speak about some other issues, which the Minister touched on without going into specifics. I am delighted that a Minister from the Department of Health will wind up the debate, because one of the biggest issues facing veterans and their families at present is Gulf war syndrome. I want to read out a letter from a Gulf war veteran, with whom I have been working for the last three and a half years and with whom I must have corresponded 100 times. He wrote to me on 1 May:
"I am writing to … inform you, that I have as from the 01 May 2004 … endured myself upon a hunger strike. This is a last desperate attempt upon my behalf in trying to force the Ministry of Defence to tell the truth regarding my suffered illness of Gulf War Syndrome.
Not only have I thought about my actions for some months … I have deliberately chosen the 01 May 2004 due to the fact that it is my 34 birthday. I am somewhat saddened, more so heart broken that the country I once loved has abandoned me and driven me, more so my desperation for recognition of my condition to such drastic measures."
That is from Alexander Izett. He featured on the "Today" programme yesterday, because his health has deteriorated considerably. He is close to having to be taken to hospital, and recently signed papers refusing any sort of medical treatment. As a young soldier of 20-odd years, he went to take part in the first Gulf war. He was given a cocktail of injections, and the MOD cannot

337
tell him what they were. He is convinced that the illness that prevailed a few weeks after his service in the Gulf was completed has wrecked not only his life but his family's life. He is not taking this action for himself, however. He is doing it for his generation of servicemen who took part in the first Gulf war and for their families. Some of those have already died and some have suffered unimaginable pain and suffering.
I hope that the Government will do something to recognise Mr. Izett's case. They are not ignorant of it—I have written several times to several Ministers about the case, and they have written back to me as recently as 19 May. Many other Members of the House are actively involved in the campaign. If we are to tackle the issue of veterans and their problems, we must treat the individual case as well as glad-handing the majority of people.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful case. Does he agree that the Royal British Legion is right to point to Gulf war syndrome as a particularly striking example of how raising the burden of proof in compensation claims would make a mockery of the hopes of such people?
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman knows that he has my fullest support. On an individual basis, I would think that the majority of Members of the House are fully behind him. The shifting of the burden of proof is a serious mistake that does nothing for the veterans' cause, and it should have been the No. 1 goal of any Minister responsible for veterans not to get that through the House. He should have rejected it and recommended refusal to Members of the House. He lost a great opportunity in that regard. Of course, it will make the plight of Alexander Izett and other such people much more difficult.
Let me give another example of how individuals and families are affected. The Minister mentioned this, but did not go into detail. A young soldier from the Portsmouth area was killed in Bosnia. Simon Jeans is the name, a name that has appeared in many newspapers because for many years Simon's father Terry has campaigned in an attempt to bring the culprits—those responsible for his son's murder—to justice.
Because Simon was married at the time of his death and his German-born wife was his next of kin, the MOD does not support his father's request to be at the trial and witness the final chapter in this sad saga of the taking of a young soldier's life in such tragic circumstances. His father cannot have the satisfaction of closure. The cost would probably have been less than £2,000, yet the MOD, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have refused to budge and to give Mr. Jeans that satisfaction. They have continually used the fact that he was not the next of kin. Simon's former wife has remarried and moved on: she has been able to have closure, but his father has not. If, as the Minister suggested, we truly reflect when dealing with veterans' affairs a duty of care not just to veterans but to their families, surely Mr. Jeans is entitled to that duty of care, and we should do all that we can to help him go to Croatia to see the end of the case.
338
Another injustice. which has continued for more than 50 years, is shown in the case of the nuclear test veterans. I saw that group of veterans in their blazers in Portsmouth at Sun Jay's remembrance service, and I saw the television coverage. They are Normandy veterans and nuclear test veterans. Where is the Minister's concern for their plight? How sad it is that Labour Ministers In ye simply followed the same line as their Conservative predecessors, and ignored those men's claims relating to the enormous risks that they were put through in t he name of military technology and developments in the 1950s and 1960s. Once again it is "out of sight, out of mind"—but those men are not out of sight and out of mind to their families, who see them deteriorating daily because of the effects of those nuclear tests.
Men and women who have served in our armed forces and our naval bases die each week from asbestos-related conditions. How nice it would have been if the veterans Minister had come here today and said, "I will allocate Ministry of Defence money to supporting those suffering from proven asbestos-related conditions and their families."
Let us suppose that the only occupation of a worker in a naval dockyard from the age of 15 to the age of 50 is as a lagger, cutting asbestos from pipes or lagging them with it. The chances of his contracting an asbestos-related illness in any other way will be pretty remote. The MOD, however. does not accept that all such cases are connected with work that people have done for it. It continually battles with individuals who seek justice. Time and again, coroners reporting on the sad deaths of such men and women reflect on the need for the Government to get a grip and not just support families after their loved ones are dead, but help people have a better life while they are living. A veterans Minister with any credibility would do just that.
Many Members have mentioned the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre, and I do not want to add much to what they have said; but I am disappointed that the Minister and the MOD have again denied justice to those two pilots and their families. I think it was all too easy to leave the blame there, but things have changed now. If that accident happened today, the pilots would not be held responsible.
How can it be right that memories of those two men should be scarred in that way? How right it would have been if the veterans Minister, who has a duty of care not only to the living bu to the memory of the dead, had said today, "We shall look at it again and reverse that decision." A former Prime Minister has said that he was wrong. For goodness sake, surely the House owes it to those men, to their memory and, most of all, to their families to get it right.
Mr. Dalyell: Is not part of the problem, albeit only part of it, that the officials who took the original decisions have either been promoted or have retired? The present officials must look at documents from the past, rather than exercise a judgment. Of course, it has now come to light that the officials of the time appear—we cannot know the detail but it goes back to Lord Jauncey—not to have been entirely frank with the then Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind.
Mr. Hancock: I agree entirely. The Father of the House has desperately tried time and again to get

339
recognition of that point. The former Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that he got it wrong and that, had he been aware of the information that is available now, he would have overruled that decision. He has had the courage to say that. It is not often that politicians have the courage to say that they got it wrong.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the officials have either retired or been promoted. The Secretary of State should have the courage to say, "I shall not allow that mistake to continue. As the democratically elected principal head of the MOD, I will overturn that decision." That is what the public expect him to do, irrespective of the points made by bureaucrats or former air marshals about the merits of this case. The Secretary of State must know that there is a compelling case to which he should respond.
This debate has been useful. The Minister got plaudits from hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were well deserved for this weekend's performance probably, but I am not as generous is those who say that he is the best veterans Minister that we have ever had. We have only had two and the first one was a slightly difficult character to do business with. We should leave it at that. Nevertheless, he was a fair person.
I hope that, when he leaves office, the Minister will have the feeling that the House and veterans in the wider community are congratulating him not on the organisation of a commemorative event, important though that is, but on his commitment to veterans as individuals and to their families; on his commitment to natural justice, whether it is the award of a medal or proper compensation for accident or injury; and on his commitment that their families will be properly taken care of and their housing needs met.
It is a national scandal that the MOD still controls empty houses while ex-servicemen struggle to find somewhere to live in the same area. It is not just about Addington Homes; it is about ho iv the MOD handles the housing issue. It needs to be more understanding and generous to its personnel and their families, because it has a duty of care to those inside and outside the service.
If, when the Minister leaves office, veterans queue up to pat him on the back and say, "Thank you; as an individual, you did a great service to the veterans' cause," I will have been wrong this afternoon and hon. Members who praised him will have been right. But I fear that we have a long way to go before the majority of veterans say that.
4.34 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There is no doubt that one of the greatest stories of the second world war is that of the role played by the Merchant Navy, which suffered 30,189 deaths, 4,402 wounded and 5,264 missing. I offer no apology for returning to the subject raised time and again in this debate, of the worst test of the Merchant Navy's courage in having to suffer the hazards of the Arctic convoy route. There was the continual strain not only of the blizzards, ice and snow but of the relentless air and underwater menace. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) spelled out what that meant.
These men sailed in snowstorms, often in semi-darkness, as in that part of the world it can be pitch black for 24 hours, in sub-zero temperatures, sometimes
340
as low as minus 40, and often with the spray from near misses from enemy bombs hitting the deck as ice. The 1941–45 Arctic campaign involved taking supplies of weapons, food, fuel and other resources to aid the red army in its courageous fight against the Nazis, which saved us. As has been said, without their bravery, D-day would have been impossible. Imagine what would have happened had the Soviet Union succumbed to the Nazi onslaught. I was struck by what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said about his discussion with Betty Boothroyd, who said that she thought she would not have survived the second world war had the Russians succumbed.
When I look around the Chamber, I ask myself how many chaps, like me, actually lived through the second world war. I do not think that there are more than one or two. I lived for 14 months, in the period between the fall of France and the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, night after night in an air raid shelter at the bottom of the garden. Liverpool, like London, was constantly blitzed.
Mr. McWilliam: I must have been the only baby who was evacuated to London. I was taken to London by my parents in 1942, when my father was sent to repair bomb damage to main cables, and I lived not far from Battersea power station, which was a major target.
Mr. Wareing: I have never heard of anyone being evacuated to London—clearly, someone had it in for my hon. Friend.
I lived on the wrong side of the ring road in Liverpool, beyond which one did not get evacuated, so I remained throughout the Blitz. The worst part was in the first eight days of May 1941, when we were bombed for eight consecutive nights.
I can remember more about those eight nights than I can about any eight nights in just the past week or so.
Such was the importance of the contribution of the red army that once the Nazis had turned their onslaught against the Soviet Union, our lives became much easier. Yes, there were some air raid warnings from time to time—the last was as late as December 1944, when it was feared that a VI might come towards Merseyside. We were fortunate in that regard; it was the poor people of London who suffered from the V1s and V2s. They bore the brunt of that. But from the time when the Nazis turned their forces eastwards, our lives became easier. This might be difficult to appreciate now, but people in Liverpool used continually to say, "Thank God for the red army!" I grew up with the feeling that we owed it a debt. Indeed, I remember going to the cinema and seeing Lord Beaverbrook speak in Trafalgar square. Not many Tory politicians actually speak in Trafalgar square, but he did. I remember him saying that we must never forget the debt that we owed to the red army and to the Russian people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon referred to the siege of Leningrad, and it was that sort of heroism that carried Russia through the war and saved us. Of course, the Russians did not do that on their own. They depended to a considerable extent on the assistance that our people were giving through the Arctic convoys. I am pleased that the Portsmouth edition of The News took up the cudgels on behalf of the "Last Chance for

341
Justice" campaign, because Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy. However, the people who sailed in the convoys were not only of the Royal Navy, and they did not come only from Portsmouth. I have a list of people from Liverpool who are still alive today and who served in the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine in those convoys, throughout that period.
Mr. McWilliam: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend on such an important point, but is he aware that the difference between the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy at the time was that when a merchant ship went down, the crew's pay ceased immediately? Their families had nothing to rely on, and if a sailor ended up in a Russian hospital for six or eight months, there was nothing.
Mr. Wareing: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Of course, that time in hospital was not taken into account for any medal whatever—it would not even have qualified towards the Atlantic star, which those people were offered.
Throughout that time, the convoys sailed again and again with more than 3.5 million tonnes of war material to Murmansk and Archangel, while the red army, to use Winston Churchill's words, was
"tearing the guts out of the Nazi war machine".
Yet despite the valour of our seamen in the Arctic convoy campaign, they are still refused the reward that they originally deserved. Reference has been made to the Russians showing their admiration of our seamen for their sacrifices by awarding them a commemoration medal. I was pleased to meet, with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), some of those veterans outside this place. The Russian medals that they were wearing were very distinctive, because Russian medal ribbons are rather different from those that we produce in Britain. Those veterans were wearing the medals very proudly. I am sure that they would be even prouder to be able to say that they had been honoured by their own country, but our country denies them that honour.
Explanation has already been given as to why the Atlantic star could be awarded only to the crews of some half dozen ships of the 670 that sailed in the Arctic waters. Many of the young people who served in the Merchant Navy in those horrendous conditions—we should remember that in those days, the school leaving age was 14—would have been 15 or 16.
I wonder whether any other Members have experienced the winds that blow in the north cape. I was fortunate enough to spend part of a holiday there during a parliamentary recess, when there was constant daylight. The winds take one's breath away, even in mid-summer. Imagine what those winds are like in the middle of winter, with temperatures of minus 40°.
Apart from the severe winter conditions, the Arctic convoys faced constant harassment from enemy bases in occupied Norway. In addition to its bombs and torpedoes, the Luftwaffe dropped mines ahead of the convoys. There was the constant danger of the big ships, such as the Tirpitz, coming out of Norwegian ports to overwhelm all but the heaviest escorts. For example, on
342
2 July 1942, 38 merchant ships were attacked by the Tirpitz, and by aircraft and U-boats, in the area between the north cape and Spitzbergen. Some 829 British and allied Merchant seamen lost their lives on that route. Forty-one convoys went into Murmansk and Archangel with supplies. They were never more than 300 miles away from an enemy coastline studded with bomber bases. Only in that area could that be said of any convoy route.
Some 792 ships sailed outward and 62—7.8 per cent.—were lost. Some 739 ships sailed home and 28—3.8 per cent.—were lost. As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for New Forest, East, in the Atlantic, on the other hand, fewer than 1 per cent. of ships were lost. I am not belittling the battle of the Atlantic, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me earlier in this regard. Indeed, the battle headquarters was in Liverpool, so I by no means dishonour the memory of those who served in it. But there was a real difference, as I hope my explanation shows.
On the Arctic run, the Royal Navy lost two cruisers, six destroyers, three corvettes, three minesweepers and 1,840 men. Thirty per cent. of one convoy that sailed past the north cape was lost to U-boats and enemy aircraft. Charles Jarman, the then Secretary of the National Union of Seamen, told of an Arctic convoy of 40 ships, only three of which reached Murmansk.
Veterans have fought for their rights for decades, as we know. The "Last Chance for Justice" campaign was launched on 5 January and has been promoted by Portsmouth's The News. My own local press would support that campaign completely.
So far, however, there has been no positive response from the Government. If he had been allowed to get away with it, the Minister would have ignored the problem completely this afternoon. It was only when the matter was raised in this place that any consideration was given to this particular scandal—the lack of support for decent people who were willing to give their all, as some did, for the freedom of this country and the world. The cost of £14 million was mentioned, with others arguing that it could he only £0.5 million. I say, so what? My God, we spend more than that on this building every summer on work that often does not really need to be done. We could find £14 million quite easily.
The Government might ask for a little bit longer and then say that it all happened more than 50 or 60 years ago and the people involved are dying. Perhaps they would like to wait still longer for more people to die so that there would no longer be a campaign. If that is the Government's attitude, I think that it is disgusting.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. There are currently just about 2,000 survivors left out of the tens of thousands—I believe that there were about 30,000 crew members—who served on those ships. We are running short of time to secure justice for those people, but the story will not end when the last one is dead, because their families will continue the fight, as will hon. Members in the House.
Mr. Wareing: May I say that they would be quite right to do so? I would remind the Government, in case they think that time will somehow see the problem disappear,

343
of what happened in 1853. Queen Victoria awarded a Royal Navy campaign medal, 38 years after Napoleon's final defeat at the battle of Waterloo. We should bear in mind the fact that life expectancy today is far greater than it was in 1853. My hope is that many of the 2,000 people to whom the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred will remain alive for many more years to come. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that, before they depart from this planet, they will enjoy recognition by their country.
I suspect that it is not all simply the Minister's fault. I suspect that civil servants in the Humphrey style are saying that this is not the sort of tiling that we usually do. [Interruption.] Sir Humphrey—yes, we must give him his rightful honour, and he probably had his medal as well. There is a typical Sir Humphrey style and I can imagine civil servants telling the Minister that it is not the sort of thing that the Department does, that it all happened a long time ago, that precedent has to be considered, and so on and so forth
I certainly hope that the Minister is in command of his Department. It is always useful for anyone who is to be a Minister and serve in a Government to read chapter 14 of Anthony Sampson's "Anatomy of Britain". He says that there are two types of Minister: the Minister who controls his Department, and the Minister who is controlled by his Department. I would like to think that the Minister in charge at the moment is one of the former rather than the latter Ministers. [Interruption.]
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Luff rose—
Mr. Brazier rose—
Sir Sydney Chapman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Can we establish what the hon. Gentleman is doing?
Mr. Wareing: I am giving way to the hon. Member for New Forest, East.
Dr. Lewis: Briefly, Portsmouth's The News was particularly upset about the fact that the Prime Minister promised that he would personally look into the matter and review it, but the review was carried out in the Ministry of Defence by the same two civil servants who were advising Ministers to say no all along. This time round, Ministers, if not the Prime Minister, should look into the matter personally.
Mr. Wareing: I completely agree. A petition of 44,000 signatures was submitted to 10 Downing street about two weeks ago. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is willing to look at it, and I hope that he does so. His position is very difficult, but the matter is worth looking at.
Mr. Hancock: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misinform the House, as the Prime Minister said no to that further review. He did not say yes, but that he would stick by the decision that had been taken. That is the great sadness.
Mr. Wareing: I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was giving the matter some
344
consideration. However, so many representations have been made from hon. Members of all parties in this debate that it is clear that the issue arouses strong feelings. When he replies to the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will say that he will take the matter on board. I know that he may not be able to promise anything today, but we are asking that the people involved receive the consideration that they deserve. The Arctic convoys helped the Russians to help us. If there had been a collapse in the east, D-day would never have happened.
My hon. Friend the Minister, who opened the debate, referred to the document prepared by his Department for hon. Members. I was pleased by that reference, as it is a very useful piece of work. I am glad that further such documents will be produced, on other issues. I note that the Minister begins his foreword to the document by quoting the words of Winston Churchill, who said:
"A nation that forgets its past has no future."
How right Churchill was.
4.57 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). I welcome this debate very much, and it may help the hon. Gentleman, and the House, to know that I am a Tory who has spoken on a number of occasions in Trafalgar square. However, I remain an ambitious politician, and do not want my side to know on which occasions I did so.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby said that there were two sorts of Minister—those in control of their Departments, and those not—but I was a Minister for six and a half years and I had no Department at all. That must have reflected a certain lack of confidence in my skills, whatever they might have been. Finally—and I say this with some trepidation—I am a Member of Parliament who was born well before world war two broke out.
I counted it a great honour to be invited to be an official guest at last Sunday's commemorative events in Normandy. I have made some calculations about who attended. Four Ministers were there, including the Prime Minister and—quite properly—the Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was there, as were the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and that party's defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). Also present were the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—and me.
I did not know whether the Government made a mistake in inviting me, although mistakes are well known in ministerial circles. Perhaps they thought I was a Normandy veteran, but I hope that the reason for my invitation was that I instituted a debate on dealing with the commemorative aspects of the 60th anniversary celebrations of the D-day landings. I am very grateful for having the opportunity to go there.
I have come to praise the Minister who opened the debate. I shall not spare his blushes, as I believe that there has been a change in Government policy.
There was, as the Minister will know, a debate in Westminster Hall on 11 November last, when he ruled out providing monetary assistance for D-day veterans. He said:

345
"It has also been suggested that the Government could provide financial assistance to veterans for their transport and accommodation expenses. It would not be possible—neither would it be fair—to be seen to provide assistance for one anniversary or group of veterans and not another."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 29–30WH.]
However, in my Adjournment debate, he was able to say that
"direct financial assistance is now available through the New Opportunities Fund" —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 94WH.]
I applaud the Minister for that change of heart. He gives a good name to doing a U-turn. He changed his mind not out of any defensiveness or weakness, but to show magnanimity, and I applaud him for that.
The Heroes Return Fund was launched on 9 February to provide travel cost assistance to people going to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-day and visiting other countries where veterans served in the second world war. I also welcome the introduction of the free passports for those aged 75 and over. I also welcome the Veterans Reunited programme, through which children have the chance to join veterans in commemorating events. I applaud the Government for those initiatives and I hope that both sides of the House will join me in doing so.
I was deeply moved when I attended three particular events last Sunday. It was a long day for me, although I have no doubt that for the people involved 60 years before it was the longest day of their lives. The service in Bayeux cemetery was attended by Her Majesty the Queen and President Chirac of France. As I went through the entrance, I passed some gravestones. The first gave a name and continued:
"Died 6 June 1944, aged 20".
The next one gave an age of 18. Those gravestones brought home to me the tragedy of what happened as well as the glory of the dedication and service given by our troops.
Then we moved on, as the Minister will know, to the international gathering on the hilltop at Arromanches, attended by 17 heads of state, including Her Majesty the Queen, President Chirac, President Bush and President Putin. I was delighted to see that Herr Schröder, the Chancellor of Germany, was also present. The third event was the UK-only—if I may put it that way—event in Arromanches town square, facing the beach, at which Her Majesty the Queen reviewed the 800 or so veterans as they marched past. That was a hugely moving occasion.
I also had the opportunity during the day to meet some Barnet members of the Normandy Veterans Association, including the chairman of the north London branch, Mr. Terry Burton. I am proud to have such people as my constituents, as we all are. We have deep gratitude for the sacrifices made by so many people. As Her Majesty the Queen said, there are 22,000 Commonwealth graves in Normandy alone.
I would like to quote something that I felt compelled to write after the event.
"One of the most pleasing aspects of the celebrations was the perception of the younger generations. I believe that the 60th anniversary celebrations have awakened their interest, and that
346
they properly appreciate the huge sacrifices made for their liberty. They will also realise the full ghastliness of war and the futility of wasted lives. This must give us extra resolve to avoid war if we possibly can, but at the same time, this anniversary shows that there are times when we must stand up against tyranny.
Though this will probably be the last major celebration in Normandy, we must continue, through the services that will be held in our own country, to remember those who fought for our country. The sacrifices made by the thousands of men and women who fought in Normandy mean Britain and Europe continue to enjoy freedom from tyranny."
I welcome the appointment of a Minister for veterans' affairs and the initiatives taken so far. They are only a start but the Government have made a good move. I welcome, too, the Public Accounts Committee's call for speedier pension pay outs for war veterans, and the idea of lapel badges. They will be a source of pride for the many veterans who want to wear them and will, in time, give greater public recognition; if only inquisitively, some younger people may ask, "What is that badge?"
I want to comment briefly on some topical issues. The first is the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill. I do not want to revisit all the arguments, but I ask the Government to o insider three points. The first is the deadline for pension applications regarding disabilities attributable to service in the armed forces. I am critical of the proposal to reduce the period from seven years after leaving the service to five years from the incident. Will the Government think again about that?
Secondly, will the Government also think again about the change proposed in the Bill on the standard of proof? The proposed change is from "beyond reasonable doubt" to
"on the balance of probabilities".
Will the Government consider seriously the point made by the Royal British Legion that such a change could cut the number of applications by up to 50 per cent? I realise that the Government do not accept that figure, but I ask them to look into the likely effects of a change.
Finally, in relation to the Bill, there is no question but that some widows fax great hardship, which could be remedied without spending too much money—not that that should be the benchmark for whether they should be helped. I remind the Minister that in the last year alone the number of those widows fell from 48,000 to 46,000.
Like many other Members, I want to touch on Gulf war syndrome. As has been mentioned, one possible cause is the cocktail of vaccinations that was given to members of the armed services before they left for the first Gulf war. Thee seem to have been vaccinated against everything from anthrax to yellow fever, sometimes only 24 hours before their departure. In some cases, the vaccinations led to a number of conditions, including osteoporosis and depression. Either it is wrong to give multiple injections over a short period or such a cocktail of vaccinations compounds the remote chance of adverse side effects.
Of course, I realise that there are other possible causes of Gulf war syndrome: depleted uranium poisoning, the pesticides used to control flies, and pollution from oil fires. However, although I have no medical qualifications, my gut feeling is that the cocktail of vaccinations was probably the main contender, simply due to the fact that some men who received the

347
vaccinations were affected even though they did not go to the Gulf. Will the Government continue to inquire into the matter?
It would be a fool who did not add his voice to the request that the Government look again at the award of the Arctic convoy medal. I have sympathy for Ministers; if they make an exception and bring in a medal, the floodgates will open. However, the evidence is so overwhelming in this case that I certainly give my support to the issue of an Arctic convoy medal.
Perhaps more importantly, because I want to be constructive, I believe that we need a new policy on the award of medals in future. Ideally, t hat policy should be understandable, unambiguous, rational and acceptable. If it is possible to achieve that, I would give the Government my full support in reviewing the issue. In this day and age, when awards are made or medals are struck, we should consider the role of civilians, as well as the armed services, in armed conflict.
I was interested to hear the Minister's wide-ranging definition of "veterans", which embraced about 13 million people. It is more comfortable to belong to a bigger minority than a smaller one. The way in which we treat our veterans—the soldiers, sailors and airmen of yesteryear—is not unrelated to the recruitment and retention of our armed forces personnel today. They are entitled to have confidence that when they have given service to our country, they will not be forgotten; and if they give their lives in the service of our country, we have a special obligation to their widows and loved ones.
5.11 pm
Mr. David Borrow: Ten years ago, when the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of D-day were taking place, it was felt that that would be the last major celebration. It was only when servicemen and women began to object to holding fairly low-key 60th anniversary celebrations that the public bodies responded—as they did magnificently—to the demands for major celebrations this year. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence and all those who were involved in those celebrations. It has been mooted that the 60th anniversary should be the last major celebration. That may be so, but it would be wise to wait and see what celebrations the servicemen and women who took part this year want in 10 years' time.
I want to speak mainly, but not entirely, about veterans other than those of the second world war. I was interested to hear about how the Minister sees veterans. The young men and women who walk into recruitment offices this week and sign up to join Her Majesty's services will be the veterans of tomorrow, whether they serve for only a few years or their whole working life. The vast majority will have careers outside the armed forces. It is crucial for the Ministry of Defence and for us here in Parliament to recognise that the period that people spend in the armed forces, however long or short, is very special, because we ask very special things of those who join Her Majesty's armed forces. We ask them not only to put their lives at risk, but to give up many of the rights and freedoms that those of us in civilian life take for granted and enjoy. We expect them to move from one end of the world to another at the drop of a hat, to come back from operations and turn round to go somewhere else, and to disrupt their family life and put it on hold. We expect them to be treated in a way that people in civilian life would never accept.
348
That is crucially important if we are to have an effective and well-oiled military machine—it is part of the deal that is done. However, I sometimes think that the Ministry of Defence gets into a mindset whereby it assumes that when those men and women leave the armed forces they can continue to be treated in the same way as they were as servicemen and women.
That is why I so much welcome the establishment of a Minister for veterans. As a constituency MP dealing with a variety of cases involving ex-servicemen and women over the past seven years, I have noticed that the Ministry of Defence often has a jobsworth approach to such issues. It is often obstructive, and treats such people as it would expect a serving soldier or sailor to be treated.
It is important to change the culture within the MOD; that is one reason why it is so important to have a Minister for veterans. When someone comes towards the end of their service they should be treated properly, and there should be proper planning for their career when they leave. I welcome some of the initiatives that have been taken over the last couple of years, especially the career transition partnership, the work being planned for early leavers, and what is being done with projects such as Project Compass. Such projects are important, and I am sure that all Members in the Chamber will have had constituents with major social problems after their service with the armed forces, who are struggling because they are homeless or have not been able to settle down properly into civilian life.
It is crucial that the Ministry of Defence recognises that its responsibility does not end the moment that somebody leaves the service of their country, and that we have an ongoing responsibility. For many of the reasons that have been raised in the debate, that responsibility needs to be there in the long term, after military service is over.
I sense that what happens in a small case when someone leaves the service is likely to be repeated on a larger scale. I am in dialogue with the Minister at the moment about such a case, involving a constituent of mine with long service, who was not treated very well when he left. The same jobsworth attitude is often to be seen: "It doesn't conform to the rules," or "It'll set a precedent, so it will be very difficult to do that, Minister."
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. It is surely no criticism of the current Minister, who is energetic in his job, to point out that that is exactly why, in America, the veterans ministry is at arm's length from the Pentagon. That was the arrangement for which the Royal British Legion pressed, because the organisation whose focus is, rightly, on fighting the wars and fulfilling the commitments of today, will never have its eye fully on the ball of the kind of case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Mr. Borrow: I am grateful for those comments, and I shall come back to them in my final few remarks.
Let us think about the issues that have been raised this afternoon. The problem with the Arctic convoy medals is a classic. If we asked Members anonymously, the vast majority would say that the men who served on those

349
convoys should have a medal, and it is up to MOD officials to find a way of giving them one. However, I fully understand the difficulties that Ministers may have in sorting that out, because civil servants will always come up with a reason not to do it. That is one reason why we need a Minister for veterans, but the job is only half done.
That brings me back to the comment made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
Since we have had a Minister for veterans, much progress has been made on several matters but we have not reached the point where we need to be. The Minister has much more work to do to deliver on many of the issues that we have discussed.
We must consider, for example, the way in which we deal with people when they have left the services. I spent 1998 and last year on the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Army. I therefore spoke to many of the servicemen and women who were involved in the Iraq campaign last year. Former servicemen and women are expected to serve as reservists, but the assumption since the second world war has been that a reservist would be called up only in the case of a direct threat to the United Kingdom. My father told me a few years ago that he was nearly called up to go to Korea but the general assumption in the UK was that once people had left the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, they would not be called up unless the Russians came over the German plain and we were fighting for our existence.
Iraq shows that the situation has changed—it was expected that the reservists would be called up. Although the Territorial Army generally responded well to the call-up, many reservists assumed that they would not be called up unless there was a threat to the UK and found all sorts of reasons not to respond. We need to sort out what is expected of people when they leave the services. If they intend to continue as reservists, they must be clear that they could be called up for relatively small peacekeeping campaigns if that was the military's requirement. We must ensure that men and women who leave the services understand their obligations and future role. Many issues have not been properly sorted out because matters have drifted and we have assumed that things will simply carry on.
Many of today's contributions, especially on the Arctic convoy, have been powerful and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take them on board and acknowledge that change will happen. He has a major job of work, which is half done. He has made significant progress in the Ministry of Defence in improving the way in which we deal with servicemen and women when they reach the end of their service and move into civilian life and their treatment during that transition period. Many good initiatives have taken place and the Ministry's response to the D-day celebrations was excellent; everybody deserves congratulations on that.
However, we should not believe that we have reached the end of the process. The job is half done. Perhaps we may have to revert to considering whether the Minister for veterans should remain at the Ministry of Defence. Much progress is being made, however, and compared with the position seven years ago, when I became a Member of Parliament, matters are immeasurably
350
better. If progress can continue at such a pace, we may well reach where we should be by the time I leave the House.
5.23 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Indeed, some of my remarks follow from his points.
It is appropriate that the debate is being held this week. The tens of thousands of men who crossed the small strip of water close to my constituency where ferries ply today were on an uncertain mission. Most of the amphibious landings that allied forces attempted in both world wars failed and Hitler never tried a major amphibious landing. Although in physical terms the distance was small, when we consider that they faced minefields, barbed wire, concrete emplacements—some of which are preserved and were shown on television—and being swept by formidable fire from determined defenders after a bone-shaking sea crossing, it is clear that they were a remarkable group of men.
I pay tribute to my local branch of the Normandy Veterans Association, headed by the redoubtable Frank Risbridger, which commemorated this remarkable event. I also join other hon. Members in congratulating the Government on the organisation and work that went into the commemorations. It is particularly encouraging to see the number of young people who have been so impressed by them. I further congratulate the Government on the announcement of the £27 million package that the Minister has extracted from the national lottery to carry on the commemorations by reminding young people in our schools of the sacrifices that were made by people of previous generations.
It is easy to pay lip service to the achievements of our veterans when we have a focal point as obvious as the recent anniversary, but it is also our duty to remember the countless other wars and operations on which we have sent our armed forces. Today, we are thinking mostly about D-day; tomorrow, our thoughts will no doubt return to Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. Since the end of the second world war, we have sent our forces to, among other places, Palestine, Korea, Egypt, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden, Oman, the Falkland islands, Sierra Leone. Kosovo, Kuwait and—again and again—Northern Ireland. Each of those engagements required the courage. professionalism and dedication to duty for which our aimed forces—regular and citizen—are so well known.
Successive British Governments have been able to undertake those actions because, no matter what technical or geographical problems lay ahead, we could be confident that our armed forces would surmount them, and they are rightly admired all round the world for doing so. The men and women of our armed forces go to those places without complaint—British soldiers have always enjoyed a hit of chuntering, but they go willingly and without hesitation or reservation. We are very fortunate to be o well served.
In so many debates on the armed forces, we acknowledge the debt that we owe our forces and rightly pay tribute to those who have been killed. We owe the members of our armed forces a duty of care, and I sometimes wonder whether we are fulfilling it. The

351
whole nation was moved when it watched those brave old men make their pilgrimage to the beaches and drop zones around Normandy. It is all very well to talk about our debt of gratitude to the people who fought in the second world war and in subsequent conflicts, but each conflict produced its heroes and each man or woman involved had a story to tell, and ill those events left scars—some mental, some physical—on many of the survivors.
That is why this year, the 60th anniversary of D-day, is an incredibly inappropriate time—not that there would ever be an appropriate one—for Her Majesty's Government to introduce proposals to alter the arrangements for war pensions. The worst of the changes is the raising of the burden of proof, to which the British Legion and the other service welfare organisations have objected so strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred in his powerful speech to the shortening of the time periods for most medical cases from seven years to five, and to the fact that procedures and tribunal arrangements will be much more complicated.
Mr. Caplin: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House in any way. It would be right for him to say, therefore, that the new compensation arrangements are for events that occur after 6 April 2005, when the new compensation scheme will come in, provided both Houses approve the necessary legislation. Anything that happened before that date will be covered by the current war pension compensation arrangements.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister is, of course, entirely right, but that is exactly my point: we owe those who are serving in the armed forces now—our future veterans the same duty of care that previous Governments have accepted since the first world war It applied to those generations that went over the top on the Somme, on to the beaches of Normandy and to all the places I listed.
We owe that same debt to people who next year will serve in theatres in which we are still involved—Iraq, Afghanistan and so on—as well as in subsequent years and subsequent conflicts. The new arrangements are a shabby change. The Defence Committee put it terribly well:
"One of the main objections to the proposals continues to be the change in the standard and burden of proof for claims under the scheme … The Royal British Legion claims that this is a cost-saving exercise, which will make it harder for claims to succeed, and which at least initially will not even save any costs (as most claims"—
as the Minister has just said—
"will continue to be under the old scheme)".
The Committee's report points out that the Government's defence is the astonishing assertion that it is necessary to bring things into line with civilian practice. However, the powerful speech from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) made clear a range of ways in which the armed forces are very different from the civilian community. The Committee said:
"Because of the special risks that Armed Forces personnel are required to run, and because they are likely to be involved in situations of great uncertainty, with uncertain effects on their
352
health, we continue to believe that the onus should remain on the Government to prove that service was not responsible for causing or worsening a condition for which a compensation claim is made."
The Minister has just alluded to both Houses of Parliament. Having voted against these proposals at every possible opportunity in the House, may I say that I very much hope that another place throws out this mean-minded little measure, striking it from the Bill?
I want to make one more point before moving on. One of the things that worries large numbers of people across all parts of the political spectrum—my private Member's Bill addresses a tiny part of this—is the growth in the litigious culture. Many people who have served in the armed forces are extremely worried about the demoralising and corrosive effect on morale and the command structure of the growing number of successful litigious claims being brought against the MOD. I can think of no other way of ensuring with greater certainty that the number of cases taken to the civil courts will spiral than such an emasculation of the internal procedures. What message do we send to the shades of the men whom the crosses in Normandy represent when we tell them that this is how we are treating their military descendants—our current armed forces?
Family life in the armed forces has been desperately hit by overstretch over the past few years. When this Government took office, the average divorce rate for the armed forces, which is very different among the three services, was well above the national average; since then, it has risen in the Army by almost another third.
The truth is that service families have aspirations too. Besides the obvious effects of overstretch, with husbands or wives being away for such long periods, one area where the pressure is greatest is housing. I pay tribute to the Minister for his work at the hardest end of the problem, which is considering the issue of the homeless and the fact that between 10 and 20 per cent. of people on the streets are former service personnel. That worries us all, but it is only a small part of the total.
The much wider problem for service families is the huge gap in respect of the aspiration, which they share with the civilian population, to own their own home. The reality is that the peripatetic nature of life in the Army and parts of the Air Force means that people cannot do so for the bulk of their service.
Indeed, the experiment that we introduced in the early 1990s to encourage soldiers to buy homes—the Navy concentrated mostly on south-west England—was a disaster, and resulted in a big increase in people leaving prematurely.
If we want to continue to attract and retain good-quality people in our armed forces, which are still under strength, despite the fact that the manning targets keep getting reduced—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make a point.
Mr. Mike Hall: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was making an aside that the shadow Chancellor's plans for spending on our armed forces would make that situation even worse.
Mr. Brazier: The shadow Chancellor has not announced any spending targets for defence. I have read his paper—I doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done so. He should watch this space for the announcement.

353
The Government must address the issue of housing in the armed forces. One of the key factors must be to recognise the importance of continuing to provide a decent subsidy for rent, so that members of the armed forces can save to own their own homes.
Almost every Member who spoke in the debate mentioned the Arctic convoys. One of the Arctic convoy veterans, Commander Rodney Gear-Evans, whom I feel privileged to know, lives in my constituency. He is a quiet, self-effacing man and he does not talk about his experience. It is extraordinary, however, that of the two great outstanding medal issues, the Government have chosen the other one. I welcome the fact that the canal zone medal is being struck—by chance, my father served in the second half of that, the Suez operation, and not in the canal zone. It was deeply uncomfortable for the people there, and extremely hot, but there were relatively few casualties.
What those soldiers went through, however, in a hot, sticky, unpleasant environment, periodically getting shot at, cannot be compared with the incredible danger and discomfort that people on the Arctic convoys went through, with minus 40° weather, continued bombing raids and torpedo attacks. Only a small number of other parts of the service, such as Bomber Command and Fighter Command during the battle of Britain, suffered a death rate that was remotely comparable. The idea that we can agree to make a special case for the canal zone veterans, worthy as their case is, but turn down the Arctic convoy veterans, strikes me as extraordinary. On a visit with the Defence Committee to Moscow, it was strongly pointed out to me how much the sacrifices made by those brave sailors of both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, whose casualties were much heavier, were appreciated. I hope that the Government will consider that again.
This has been an excellent debate in the most appropriate week of all. We owe our veterans a tremendous debt of gratitude. We pay tribute to the dead, and the best way in which we can do so is by looking after their comrades who survived not just the second world war but all the subsequent wars and those who will survive the wars that, sadly, no doubt are to come.
5.39 pm
Andy Burnham: Perhaps all of us are prone to overstatement in this place, but it is a privilege to contribute in a small way to a debate on such momentous events in our country's history. A couple of Opposition Members have mentioned the younger generation, and I hope that I can speak as a representative of that generation. One of my main points relates to how we remember, as we go forward into this century, the events about which Members have spoken so eloquently today.
Although I am no expert on military matters, I suppose I have family experience that is common to many British families—experience of loss in one of the great wars of the last century. My great-grandfather, Edward Burke, a soldier in the King's Regiment (Liverpool), died as a prisoner of war in Cologne during the first world war. That is mirrored in the experience of
354
thousands of families in my constituency and throughout the north-west, and thousands more have given service to the Armed forces. It is in recognition of service to our county that I speak today. In the second world war 1,800 people from our borough lost their lives, and in what s perhaps a more selfish era it is humbling to think of what they did for us and the enormous debt of thanks that we owe them.
The weekend's dignified events in France provide a sharp counterpoint to our more complicated and possibly more troubled times. Although they might have seemed to jar somewhat with a Europe-wide election, it was actually quite fitting that they took place at the time of an election in which issues such as racism, nationalism and isolationism are all on the agenda. I do not want to make a party-political point, but it was as if Europe was receiving a stern message from the past: that co-operation always defeats isolationism, that patriotism always defeats nationalism, and that our common humanity always defeats racism.
Over the weekend it was reported that Chancellor Schröder, who I think was very welcome at the celebrations, had Si id that the post-war period was finally over. I feel instinctively that that is true, but it prompts us to ask what we must do today to ensure that the sacrifices made in the last century are remembered by my generation, by my children's generation, and throughout this century. It is vital for us to support the organisations that will help us to remember those who died, and will continue to teach generations to come the lessons of the last century.
Let me say something about what we are doing individually to thank those who gave us the freedom that we enjoy today I welcome what the Government have done, and join others in praising and thanking the veterans Minister, who has done a sterling job since his appointment: many ion. Members have mentioned the "Heroes Return" scheme, and passports for the over-75s enable them to travel freely in the free Europe that they helped to create. Those gestures are fitting and right.
The Minister mentioned the celebrations that will take place in July next year. I trust that they will be a great success, and hope that one of my constituents, Mr. J. R. Rollings, who was a driver for Field Marshal Montgomery when the Germans surrendered, will be able to play a part it them.
It would be a grave mistake, though, for policy-makers or politician to imagine that we could ever do enough for the veterans, or that we have done our duty by them. In preparation for the debate, I met John Kelly and Jan Thomas of the Leigh branch of the British Legion. They asked me to raise with the Minister an issue related to the war disablement pension. I hope that the Minister will raise it with his colleagues in other Departments as part of the Government's spending review.
I believe that £10 of the war disablement pension is disregarded in the calculation of entitlement to pension credit. The same applies to any means-tested benefit. The disregard has not been uprated since 1990, when it was uprated from £5. According to the most recent figures supplied by :he House of Commons Library, 11,200 people receiving war disablement pensions that have been taken into account receive pension credit. Currently, 251,400 war pensions are being paid, which

355
suggests that many veterans are not taking advantage of the pension credit. That may be because it would not benefit them greatly, given that the disregard is only £10. I am not necessarily asking for a 100 per cent. disregard, but I hope that we can do more for elderly people in retirement who have given great service to our country.
Apparently, only a couple of years ago, 284,000 people were in receipt of war pensions. The number is now down to 250,000. It is declining sharply. It would be a small gesture to enable them to have more comfort and dignity in their well-deserved retirement.
I come on to the organisations that will help my generation and generations after that to remember what our forefathers did to give us the freedoms that we enjoy. I am sure that my area is not alone in this but, a few years ago, we lost the Royal British Legion club in Leigh because of financial difficulties and there is now no permanent branch in the town. One of the problems faced by such clubs is their dwindling memberships, which means that they are less able to draw on the membership to keep the club in existence. It is an issue not for the Government but for the Royal British Legion, which may need to be flexible when it comes to trying to help those clubs to carry on. The loss of the premises led to a capital receipt, which is held nationally by the Royal British Legion. I believe that a club has to have 200 or 300 members before the Royal British Legion will help it to acquire new premises.
Mr. Caplin: I hope to help my hon. Friend. In response to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), I referred to my meetings with the Royal British Legion. I have made that point. Clubs are getting older because their memberships are getting older. The challenge for the Royal British Legion, which it entirely accepts, is how to get younger veterans into Royal British Legion clubs. It has a project team looking at that. My hope as the Minister for veterans is that, in the longer term, the Royal British Legion will have more clubs and a lot more younger people going into them.
Andy Burnham: I welcome the Minister's intervention and hope that that review will produce something concrete. It is a chicken and egg situation. The longer there is no permanent club, the mere the membership declines. The members of the Royal British Legion to whom I referred earlier, John Kelly and Jan Thomas, are working hard to keep the flame alive. They need some help but they cannot access the capital receipts that are held nationally for them because they do not meet the membership requirement laid down by the Royal British Legion. I welcome that review and hope that it will make progress.
This year, I will work with the Holocaust Educational Trust to take a group of 16-year-olds from Leigh to Auschwitz. The trust will do an increasingly important job this century in telling generations to come of the lessons of the previous century, but I do not believe that it receives substantial public funding. There may be a case to be made to help it to pass on the memories of what happened to other generations.
I hope that, in discussions with colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills, the Minister will make the point that every school should give young teenagers the chance to go to the commonwealth war
356
cemeteries. It is such a moving and memorable experience. Even the hardest of nuts will be moved when they see the rows and rows of graves marked, "Anonymous. A soldier known unto God." That is one thing that all our schools should be involved in. Incidentally, my brother, John Burnham, who is a teacher at Birchwood high school in Warrington, is taking a group to Ypres this Monday. It would be worth investing in such visits.
Mr. Mike Hall: My hon. Friend refers to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and mentions the graves that are there for all to see, but the most important thing to say is that the Thiepval memorial records the names of people whose bodies have never been found. That is a profound message and younger generations need to be given the opportunity to see that at first hand.
Andy Burnham: Absolutely. It is crucial.
That brings me to my final point, which is about organisations that are keeping the legacy alive and passing on memories to another generation.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does a marvellous job in putting families back in touch with their loved ones and preserving their memory. It clearly needs to be fully financed, which should not be a party political issue—there should be complete unanimity across the Chamber. As well as physical memorials, the commission uses new technology to preserve our collective debt of thanks. I want to give a personal example of the incalculable value of that.
The commission runs an internet service known as the debt of honour register. Three or four years ago, when the service was launched, my brother searched for my great-grandfather, and now we have a document that says:
"In memory of Private E. Burke of the King's Liverpool Regiment, died aged 34, 28th of October 1918. Commemorated in perpetuity by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Remembered with honour."
That is fantastic for my family.
My great-grandfather's wife and daughters searched throughout Germany to try to find where he was buried, but they never found him or what happened to him. In the end, my gran and her sisters wrote to the Vatican, but that produced no results, so they never knew. It is amazing that I am more in touch with my great-grandfather than they were. That is what new technology can do for my generation.
If the House will indulge me, I shall quote from a letter that we discovered from my great-grandfather to his twin brother Walter on 27 July 1918—a couple of months before he died. Perhaps there was a spark of politics in him, which I may have inherited, because he said:
"I had a good talk last night over Old Ireland. Walter, there are thousands of Irish boys here and I may tell you it is God help the Boche if they come across them. Then they say Ireland is not doing her fair share in this war."
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may pass it on to Mr. Speaker that he added:
"Also, the Jocks are fine fellows."
Poignantly, the final paragraph reads:

357
"By the time you get this letter, things will have happened here and I ask you to pray for me that our holy mother will protect us from all danger. That I may see you again, Walter, is my sincere wish."
It goes without saying that such memories are priceless for families such as mine, keeping us in touch with what happened in the last century. They are among the most cherished collective memories of this nation. Long may they continue, and long may the Minister continue in his excellent work for veterans, their families and all who have served in our armed forces.
5.53 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on a most moving speech.
It is a great privilege and honour to represent more than 11,000 Ministry of Defence employees, half of whom are in Her Majesty's forces, and half civil servants, scientific civil servants or in support roles. Thousands of my constituents are veterans. By disposition, I am an optimist. After all, war represents a failure of diplomacy and politics.
Summer 1944 was a very important time for me. My parents had survived the blitz in Plymouth. My father was rector of Stoke Damerel, part of the dockyard community. My brother and sisters had survived night after night in the cellar while my father was out on air raid patrols in the dockyards. The summer was a time of some celebration, of which I am living proof, because I was born in April 1945, at 1 Penlee way, Stoke Damerel.
In 1947, we moved to Salisbury, a garrison city. I was brought up with the traditions of the military and military uniforms.
Yes, the military all wore uniforms in the street as a matter of course in those days as they went through Salisbury. Last Sunday we had our D-day service in Salisbury cathedral. Our Dean, the Very Rev. June Osborne, reminded us that although our minds were focused on Normandy, we should not forget what had happened on the eastern front and we should be remembering everyone who sought to liberate Europe, whether they were in Budapest or Brest. Sitting opposite me in the cathedral was the former Father of the House, my constituent the right hon. Sir Edward Heath. I should like to pay tribute to his wartime record and all that he achieved in those dark days. He had in his own right a distinguished career in the military.
We look forward to celebrating in my constituency on Sunday 11 July the annual Fovant Badges Drumhead service, at which we will recall the contribution of the former empire and Commonwealth forces in the two world wars of the previous century. We will see there more than 30 standards of the Royal British Legion and a substantial congregation will assemble on the lawn of the farm to look at the regimental badges carved in the chalk and sing our hearts out, particularly this year as we celebrate the 60th anniversary.
If anyone doubts the spirit of the young people in our armed services, I invite them to visit Amesbury town centre on a Saturday night. They will then be in no doubt of the mindset of our young people, who work hard and, by golly, play hard. Perhaps by contrast they
358
could then visit the Winchester Army training establishment or the Army foundation college at Harrogate to see the quality of the young people who wish voluntarily to enter the finest army in the world. They would not be disappointed.
Yesterday morning, along with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the current Father of the House, I attended the memorial to innocent victims at Westminster abbey for short prayers to commemorate all those who died in the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre 10 years ago. Various comments lave been made on that, which I shall not repeat, but shall just say that I am grateful to the Prime Minister for agreeing to see some people who, like me, have been involved in the campaign for a long time. A point of law is involved in the case. In my judgment, it is not a matter of a technical assessment of what went wrong, because none of us will ever know. That is the whole point. The burden of proof required to condemn men to gross negligence—that there is no possible doubt whatever—is more rigorous than the burden required for murder. This is not a technical issue, but a matter of political judgment.
When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, I went to see her at No. 10, with several other hon. Members in a cross-party delegation, about blood infected with HIV and the way in which haemophiliacs were affected. We looked her in the and she looked back and said, "You're right. Morally, you're correct". So without any question of liability or admission of guilt, an ex gratia payment was made to found a fund to support people who were victims as a result. In the same way, I hope that we can now move on from what may have happened in the case of ZD576. I see this as a great opportunity for the Prime Minister to do his best to show that he is no less a Prime Minister than Margaret Thatcher was when she changed the minds of the Government, Secretaries of State and civil servants on that issue.
I welcome the Minister for veterans. It is a pleasure to work with him, as I do on many constituency issues. He is always welcome to visit my constituency, as are all Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, and I know that he and they do so regularly. I recall that it was when I was a serving member of the Defence Committee in 1996, and we produced a report on Gulf war syndrome, that we concluded that v e needed a Minister for veterans' affairs. Having visited Washington, we concluded that we did not need a Department of veterans' affairs but that we did need a Minister to co-ordinate the MOD's response and do a bit of joined-up government. That recommendation was in the Conservative manifesto in 1997. Sadly we were not able to carry that out, but I am glad that the incoming Government saw the wisdom of that course of action
The Veterans Agency has grown in stature very rapidly indeed, and I can save many minutes of my speech by simply referring Members to its excellent website, www.veteransagency.mod.uk, and by pointing out that it performs a wide range of services for veterans. But I would not want to forget what is done by other agencies, particularly the Army Families Federation, which makes a huge contribution, as do the Royal Naval and Royal Air Force family organisations and the Army welfare set vices themselves. All of them look after not just existing servicemen but veterans who need support.

359
Of course, we first and foremost think of the Royal British Legion in this connection. Last November, I attended my 21st Remembrance day ceremony, in Guildhall square, Salisbury, as its Member of Parliament. We in Salisbury are immensely proud of our Royal British Legion—the main branch is in Salisbury but we have other branches, including in Amesbury—which is a very active part of our community. But we should never for one moment think that the RBL is all about looking after the elderly, because that is not always the case. In fact, it looks after a great many people. Some 13 million people in the UK are eligible for its help: 5.5 million ex-service people and 7.5 million dependants. That is about 20 per cent. of the population.
Interestingly—this is not widely known—anyone can be a member of the Royal British Legion, ex-service or not. One need not be an RBL member to receive assistance, but one must be an ex-service person or a dependant. In fact, anyone who ha ; been in the British armed forces for seven days or more, is eligible for help. In only one year since the second world war—1968—has a British service person not been killed on active service, so the work of the RBL is ongoing. It will always be there for future generations, and for that we are deeply grateful.
I am also particularly grateful to the Soldiers, Sailors and Air Force Association, which does wonderful work in my constituency and throughout the country by supporting the regimental benevolent funds. Thank goodness we have a regimental system in this country; it is the envy of all other NATO countries. The regimental benevolent funds are not limitless, and SSAFA helps a great many people, including, of course, veterans and their dependants.
There is one particular issue that I want to deal with before I finish. In July 1999, Wiltshire constabulary began inquiries into allegations made by a former serviceman, who said that during his national service, he had taken part in research into finding a cure for the common cold at Porton Down. He subsequently said that the experiments and tests carried out on him had nothing to do with common cold research, and that those who conducted the experiments had assaulted him. He also alleged that another serviceman had been killed in an illegal experiment at Porton involving nerve gas, in 1953.
As a result of that complaint and of other allegations, Wiltshire constabulary initiated a major inquiry, Operation Antler, the purpose of which was to examine the issues associated with the service volunteer programme at Porton Down and experiments relating to the use of chemical and biological agents during the period 1939 to 1989. Some volunteers claimed to have suffered long-term illness or injury. More than 250 were interviewed and 25 cases were selected for development, with a view to ascertaining whether criminal offences had been committed. Of those, eight were selected to progress to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration in respect of the offences of administering an unlawful substance, and of assault. More than 700 ex-service personnel and their relatives had made contact with the Wiltshire constabulary or had been contacted by the inquiry team. Although some claimed to have suffered illness or injury, others were shown to have experienced no adverse long-term side effects, and they made no claims.
360
Operation Antler came to a conclusion, and last summer the Government announced that they were not going to take any action. That has caused a great deal of consternation for many hundreds of veterans. Only this week has a lot more information been put on the public record, as a result of a parliamentary question that I tabled in January.
Although I received a letter from the Solicitor-General in March, explaining why it was taking a long time, the results were published on Monday this week. It is important to put the minds of many hundreds of veterans at rest by explaining briefly what had happened.
The testing of chemical agents at Porton Down goes back to the use of poisonous gas by the Germans in the first world war. The participation of servicemen in testing, in connection with the use of chemical agents, began on an organised basis back in the 1920s. Recent surveys have found that more than 20,000 servicemen were involved, of whom about 3,000 participated in studies involving nerve agents, 6,000 in studies involving mustard gas and several hundred in studies evaluating the effects of other incapacitants, mental or physical. The evidence gathered under Operation Antler provided considerable detail on these matters.
The Crown Prosecution Service has examined in general terms the evidence concerning the conduct, authorisation and supervision of tests carried out at Porton Down—from ministerial level downwards, through the internal and external supervisory committees, to the point of testing there. Contemporary knowledge was assessed in respect of the foreseeable risks to the health of servicemen. The CPS considered evidence about the information provided to servicemen prior to the tests. It also examined evidence on what was administered or done to the observers and on both the immediate effects and subsequent ill health. Modern expert evidence has assessed various aspects of the treatment of the servicemen at Porton Down by the standards applicable at the time, including medical ethics. The CPS also had access to formal interviews with surviving potential suspects.
The lawfulness arising in each of the selected episodes of testing reflected in the advice files is, it seems to me—though I am not a lawyer—a novel issue in the context of our domestic criminal law. It concerns the legal principles applicable to non-therapeutic medical experimentation on human subjects, and, in particular, the principles bearing on the issue of consent.
The inquiry has shown that, although there was a substantial body of evidence suggesting that military station notices did refer to common cold research at Porton Down, no such notices have ever been found. There has been much confusion about that. There was a common cold research institute outside Salisbury—at Harnwood hospital—and it also ran a volunteer programme, which was a confusing factor.
There is no clear evidence that the staff at Porton Down ever sought to misrepresent the testing that was carried out there. Whatever reason the volunteers had for attending Porton Down, once there, they were told in very clear terms that the research was connected with, chemical and biological warfare and defence. That means warfare prior to the mid-1950s and defence

361
afterwards. We have done no offensive work on chemical and biological warfare in this country since the mid-1950s: it has all been defensive.
The obvious criminal offences against which to evaluate the evidence were administering a noxious thing, contrary to section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the same Act. In addition, there is the general common law rule that it is not in the public interest that a person should wound or cause actual bodily harm to another "for no good reason". Accordingly, such conduct is unlawful, regardless of the consent of the injured person. Non-therapeutic research on human subjects carried out in accordance with contemporary standards of reasonable medical practice is highly unlikely to be regarded by any criminal court as other than properly conducted.
The point that I am getting to is that there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving to a criminal standard that specific testing at Porton Down was a substantial cause of any subsequent ill health suffered by an observer. Evidence of subsequent ill health is necessary before assessing the prospects of success in proving a criminal charge. There is no evidence: that is the final word of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Having considered all the evidence, the CPS concluded that it did not provide a realistic prospect of conviction. The weight of the evidence revealed that the testing had been carried out in the public interest, and in accordance with the accepted professional standards of the day. Moreover, the observers volunteered for the nature of the act, and there is no evidence to suggest that the testing caused any subsequent ill health.
There were some problems to do with the quality of the evidence, and with evidence that had gone missing in the long period since the events took place. However, the CPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any person for any criminal offence. That decision was taken after the most thorough and careful consideration of the evidence.
We must start a new chapter at Porton Down. For five years, my constituents at what is now the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory there have gone to work every day knowing that 20 police officers from the Wiltshire constabulary, and a number of Minister of Defence police officers, were undertaking criminal investigations into work carried out by my constituents' predecessors. For five years, retired scientists have feared the knock on the door from police calling to interrogate and, possibly, arrest them. For many years, retired civil servants—and volunteers and veterans—have been telephoned and doorstepped by journalists coming hotfoot from the old Public Records Office at Kew as official documents came to be released under the 30-year rule. The names of the scientists who participated in trials many years ago have, of course, been released.
There are more than 1,000 dedicated employees at DSTL Porton Down, and another 800 at the Health Protection Agency next door. Many are world-class scientists. I visited the US last year with the Select Committee on Science and Technology, as part of our
362
inquiry into the scientific response to terrorism. Wherever we went—from the White House, to the centres for disease control in Atlanta or the Lawrence Livermore laboratories in California—we learned of the high regard in which the scientists at Porton Down were held.
They are all dedicated professionals, whether they be scientists, civil servants or support staff. They are dedicated to saving life. They work to save the lives of our service men and women. Increasingly, they are conducting research into nervous disorders, and into saving the lives of people suffering from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. I salute them, just as I salute our proud and noble veterans.
6.12 pm
John McDonnell: I commend the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister who opened the debate, and his contribution to what was a very mo ring weekend of commemoration.
I also commend the work of the Imperial War museum. I took my eight-year old son Joseph to the D-day exhibition last week. The display was fascinating, and incredibly moving for people of all ages.
Last night, I met two other veterans. Jack Jones and Bob Doyle were members of the International Brigade in the Spanish civil war, who volunteered to fight fascism when it appeared in its earliest form. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering what commemoration could be afforded to them and the sacrifice that they made. Last night, a plaque was unveiled at a ceremony held by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers to celebrate and commemorate the 70 members of the National Union of Seamen and National Union of Railwaymen who fought for the International Brigade. If the brigade had been successful, it is possible that we could have avoided world war two and its consequences, including D-day.
I want to refer to a matter that I and the Royal British Legion raised two years ago, and that is the records of British ex-service personnel. At that time, the Government announced proposals to privatise the Ministry of Defence records office based in Bourne avenue in Hayes, in my constituency. The office stores all the records of all service personnel, going back to well before world war one. Visitors to the office can see the historical artefacts that are the actual records of each serviceman: indeed, when I visited, the staff there brought out my father's second world war records.
The records are stored and archived by a team of dedicated staff, many of whom have served there for a long time. They are extremely caring, diligent, conscientious people. The records are very sensitive, as they contain the personal details of all ex-service personnel of all ranks. For example, they also include the records of personnel who have served recently in Northern Ireland. Some of the records were used in the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
In December last year, the records operation was sold to TNT and the site was sold to ProLogis for development. The records are being transferred to a TNT warehouse in the midlands. The MOD staff, who have given loyal and dedicated service, have been transferred to the private company, TNT, and most will

363
lose their jobs within 15 months. As well as the loss of my constituents' jobs, the MOD will lose their expertise and care.
I am also concerned about 'he risk to those irreplaceable and historical documents. Parliamentary questions have revealed that more than 40 complaints have been made about the performance of the private company in handling those records since the transfer in December. Large numbers of new agency staff are now operating on the site and have access to those sensitive records. The speed with which those staff have been granted sufficient security clearance to gain access to those records is remarkable. The speed of that security clearance has never been observed in an MOD establishment before.
I pay tribute to the existing staff who are doing all that they can to maintain a high quality service. I pay tribute in particular to Dolores Moody, the Public and Commercial Services Union representative, who seeks to protect the working conditions of her fellow workers as well as to ensure the standards of service delivery and the protection of those precious documents.
I urge Ministers to re-examine the operation of that public-private partnership. If it were up to me, I would invoke the penalty clause and bring the service back into public ownership and the control of the MOD. If that is not possible, Ministers should at least consider how they can ensure that both the staff and the records they tend are protected. Under the new arrangements, those documents are at risk, and that puts the security of some of our ex-servicemen at risk, too.
6.17 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: It is right and proper that this debate should be conducted a few days after the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of D-day last weekend. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am being facetious if I say that Britain likes to celebrate its retreats as well as its victories. My father was involved in one of our most celebrated retreats—from Gallipoli, where he fought with the Berkshire Yeomanry in the first world war—and I also have in mind the retreat from Dunkirk.
I have a high regard for the Minister for veterans. I would go so far as to say that he is the best we have had—although he is only the second. I admire his dedication to his cause in sitting th rough this debate—although it has been a good one to have to sit through, with some moving and memorable speeches from different generations with various reflections on what being a veteran means—but he is in grievous error on two counts. If he were to beat a tactical retreat—like those at Gallipoli and Dunkirk—on the issue of the Arctic convoy medal and the closure of the Droitwich Spa Army medal office, he would be even more popular with the veterans whose causes he generally espouses so well.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), because there is a strange synergy between the points I hat we wish to make on behalf of our constituents to relation to the protection of records and excellent services based in our constituencies. I am deeply and seriously concerned that the closure of the Army medal office—and of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines medal offices in Gosport—will seriously prejudice the issuing of medals.
364
I saw at first-hand the efficiency of the Droitwich Spa Army medal office when I visited it for the first time as its constituency MP some years ago. The staff asked me about my father's service record and I described his service in the first world war with the Berkshire Yeomanry, the Imperial Camel Corps and the Worcestershire Yeomanry. They asked whether he had served in the Home Guard during the second world war. I confirmed that he did, so they asked whether he had claimed his defence medal. I did not know, but I knew that I had only his first world war medals. They looked up the records on the spot and established that my father had never claimed his defence medal. They issued it to me and, two years ago on Remembrance day in Droitwich, I was able to wear his three first world war medals alongside his second world war medal.
That was a proud moment for me. I know how much the Royal British Legion appreciates the wearing of veterans' medals by their descendants. I owe the medal office a debt, but the veterans owe the medal service a very big debt indeed for the remarkable job that it does.
I want to make three points. First, I want to discuss the general wisdom of moving the Droitwich Spa Army medal office to a new location based at the RAF medal office at Innsworth. Secondly, I want to look at the impact of that change for the Suez medals and, to a lesser extent, the Iraq medal. Thirdly, I want to look at the detail of the financial case that the Government are fighting for closure.
My view overall is that the Government have been led into an error of judgment through unblinking adherence to a simple tri-service agenda. The facts are being made to fit the model when actually the model should be made to fit the facts. I do not dismiss the possibility that at some stage in the future merger of the three offices may make sense but, as the Minister knows, I genuinely believe that this is the worst possible time in the history of the medal offices to make such a change.
The change did not come as a great surprise. I heard rumours from the trade unions at the site in late March that the move was on the cards, but the event was publicly confirmed only with the Minister's statement on 20 April when he said:
"Consultation with MOD Trade Unions about the choice of the three sites from which JPA"—
the new joint personnel administration—
"will be delivered has been undertaken and detailed local consultation about the implications for staff will start shortly."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 11WS.]
It is both the absence of that detailed consideration of the implications for the medal offices and the whole strategy of the JPA that cause me concern, which is hardly surprising as medal offices are not currently part of the structure that will form part of the JPA. They are outside the AFPAA—the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. This is a difficult subject area for civilians to venture into—the acronyms are, in the best military tradition, truly blinding.
I have a letter written to veterans' organisations by the senior national officer of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Mike Duggan, which summarises the situation extremely well. It states:
"Currently our members at Droitwich undertake all the research required to ensure that awards and medals are properly granted to Army personnel and are responsible for the stamping and issue of all medals to the three military services."

365
That is a very big operation indeed, by the far the biggest of the four medal offices.
Sometimes, concern is expressed about the length of time it takes to issue medals, but it is difficult to speed up the process, especially when it involves checking the records of older campaigns. It has to be a meticulous affair. Several Members have spoken about the difficulties of determining the length of time that people were in theatres in order to justify the issue of a medal, but very specific criteria are attached to each medal and the process and the work involved are indeed complex.
The PCS letter also states that
"the loss of the majority of the Army Medal Office staff at Droitwich, with the formation of the Joint Medal Office at Innsworth, will have a severely detrimental impact upon the levels of experience amongst staff handling enquiries and requests for awards … with the current backlog of requests for medals and the further campaigns which the Government has recognised for awards, now is the worst possible time for the transfer of work and loss of experienced staff."
We have heard a number of estimates of the length of the backlog for the issue of the Suez medal. Today, the Minister told us that it was two years. I understood that three years was nearer the mark and some people take an even more pessimistic view, but the backlog is certainly considerable.
All those factors combine to make me ask the basic question: why move the operations away from Droitwich? If there has to be a joint medal office, why not concentrate the expertise at the biggest of the medal office sites in Droitwich? If that is not possible, why not delay the closure for at least three years, to enable the current heavy work load to be dealt with effectively?
This is the busiest time in the office's life. The Suez canal zone medal, which has been generally welcomed, has produced thousands upon thousands of applications—more than 30,000 in total—most, but not all, are Army applications.
The campaign in Iraq is generating a new flood of medal-issuing demands. As regards the second world war, about 500 or 600 applications are received each month, and the events of last weekend will have again prompted many veterans and relations of deceased veterans to claim their medals.
Then there is the ongoing business of replacing lost and stolen medals. Establishing beyond doubt that medals were genuinely lost or stolen is a very time-consuming process. Reissuing medals from earlier campaigns is equivalent to issuing money, because they are very valuable, and careful checking has to take place beforehand.
The ongoing campaigns in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone produce medals, too. It is a very busy time.
The Minister told me in a parliamentary answer:
"The Army Medal Office at Droitwich is currently responsible for the issue or replacement of some 332 medals or awards."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004: Vol. 420, c. 1173W.]
He promised to send me a complete list of the medals, which I have not yet received. I would love to see it. Until recently, the Army medal office issued medals from the Boer war to proven descendents of that conflict. It did a marvellous job in issuing the Queen's
366
golden jubilee medal; to date, it has issued, again according to a parliamentary written answer from the Minister, more than 95,000 such medals.
I met the Minister with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to discuss the implications of the closure of the site. Many of its staff come from my constituency, from Worcester and from Wyre Forest. I am grateful to the Minister for the courtesy with which he heard our representations and the courteous letters that he has sent me subsequently. However, the warm words that he has offered do not reassure me. As he knows, I wrote to him again on 19 May, saying:
"I am very far from r !assured. I urge you to re-think this policy and either to delay the closure of the Army Medal Office for three years and announce that as policy or, better still, to exploit its expertise and instead concentrate medal issuing at Droitwich rather than at Innsworth."
I was particularly concerned to see that the investment appraisal assumed that only nine members of staff out of 55 or 60 at Droitwich would be transferred. The rest would be lost, with all their crucial expertise.
All this comes put of a plan developed by the Government to harmonise the work of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, which is based at four sites—Glasgow, Worthy Down, Centurion at Gosport and Innsworth—into three sites under a new joint personnel administration centre. As far as I know, the investment appraisal team responsible for that work has not visited the Army medal office in Droitwich Spa. Certainly, the consideration given to medals has been superficial, to say the least. Issuing medals is a very different and specialised operation, but I am afraid that that has not been properly considered. The experience needed and gained by staff is huge.
It is also worth pointing out—I say this as someone who married into a naval family, so it goes against the grain to admit—it hat the RAF and the Navy often look to the Army medal office for guidance on medal-issuing procedures. Because of its history, the medal office has unique records for the Home Guard, from which I benefited during my visit there regarding my father's defence medal. The bullion room secures safely all the blank medals for all the armed forces—it is a very important secure facility. It is unthinkable that all that should be prejudiced by this ill-considered move.
When I asked the Minister how many staff work in the various Army medal offices, he told me that there are 89 in total, of whom nearly two thirds—55—are at Droitwich; it is by far the biggest of the facilities. Extraordinarily, in a written answer of 20 May, the Minister told me that the closure of the Army medal office was
"part of a risk reduction strategy aimed at minimising disruption to medal service delivery."—[Official Report, 25 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1613W.]
I have to say that it a risk maximisation strategy aimed at maximising disruption to medal service delivery. The Minister's phraseology was most bizarre.
The issuing of the Iraq medal has now at last begun. It was badly delayed because of the uncertainty over the site. It would have been better had the staff employed to issue the Iraq medal been placed on a three-year fixed-term contract to take account of a closure period three years hence, but they had to be employed on a casual basis.

367
That will really prejudice the issuing of that medal, but it has now begun, and the money for equipment—which was previously frozen, for reasons that I do not understand—has been made available. At last the Iraq medal is beginning to be issued, but too many veterans of the Iraq campaign will not wear their medals this Remembrance day, because of the uncertainty at Droitwich.
The Suez medal is, quite reasonably, hugely popular, and there is a serious backlog. A staff member is quoted in the Soldier of May 2004 as saying:
"Let's face it, Suez veterans aren't getting any younger and we are involved in a race against time to get their medals out to them before they die. Scrapping the Army Medal Office is going to make that backlog much, much bigger and sadly a large number of people are going to miss out".
The article also quotes
"Charles Golder, 76, who has fought for 50 years for the Suez Canal Zone medal",
as saying:
"'Veterans, like me, just want to see our medals before we die and to be honest we are dropping like flies'"
It is inevitable that the disruption caused by closure will mean that more veterans will "drop like flies"—to use that blunt phrase—before they receive their medals.
In another answer to me dated 21 May, the Minister said that one of the constraints in issuing the Suez canal medal was "numbers of trained personnel"—yet he is planning to dismiss large numbers of the trained personnel who do this work. I shall quote again what I quoted in an earlier intervention. The Veterans Agency's website says about the Suez canal medal:
"Checking eligibility is a skilled, time-consuming and exacting job, but the medal offices have skilled staff who are experts at assessing eligibility quickly and accurately."
Not for much longer, I am afraid.
Time presses on, and I want to make sure that the Minister has a decent chance to respond to the debate, so I shall not quote at length all the cuttings that I looked up from provincial newspapers about Suez veterans who have received their medals, and the pride that they derived from receiving them. However, only yesterday in the Western Morning News we read the following:
"Veteran Mike Hardy, of Crediton in Devon, said some old soldiers were already dying before receiving their medals. 'It is very sad,' he said. 'In the last few months I know of four veterans who have died. People are already being told that they may have to wait three years for their medal and the disruption caused by the closure of the medal office"—
those are his words, not mine—
"is bound to add at least a year to that. There are a lot of West Country veterans still waiting, and you can imagine that in four or five years' time there will not be so many of us left. People feel very let down. Mr. Blair gave us hope last year, but we feel as if we are being fobbed off now. There is no political will and no resources being put into it."
Indeed, the resources that are around are being squandered. In my hand I have the quotations from the other soldiers about their experiences during the Suez campaign, which show just how sad the reality is.
It took a lot of work to get the investment appraisal for the plan out of the Government. Originally I received an answer on 12 May saying that the
368
investment appraisal would be placed in the Library. In the understatement of all understatements it said that the document
"did not deal exclusively with the issue of the Army Medal Office."
There was no sign of the investment appraisal, so on 20 May I asked another question and was told on 25 May that it had been placed in the Library on 20 May. I rang the Library on 1 June and was told that the investment appraisal was still not there. I first became aware of its actually having reached the Library on 7 June.
The document is pretty disappointing, because it is not an investment appraisal about the Army medal office at all, but one
"for the future siting of AFPAA including JPAC".
It mentions the four existing sites for AFPAA, but not the medal sites. The only reference to Droitwich that I can find in the document is in a footnote, as follows:
"As a supplement to this IA and to inform the consultations with TUs, a specific analysis was done of the option of forming a Joint Medals Office at Droitwich compared with it being formed at one of the AFPAA sites—this option was highly unattractive on both business and cost grounds and has been discounted. (Reference [TBC once letter to TUs is finalised]."
In other words, that had not been done. The document was being written after the decision, and the facts were being made to fit the model, not the other way round. The published document actually says:
"TBC once letter to TUs is finalised".
That is not very encouraging, and it is the only mention of Droitwich in the entire document.
There is a hint about the timing, which we do not know much about. In the timetable, "Medals—Innsworth" appears under "Early 05, Stage 2", which suggests that closure is scheduled for next spring, but we do not know. The document also says, bizarrely:
"Where possible, functions will co-locate at the site where the greatest concentration of staff currently exist."
The greatest concentration of staff currently exists in Droitwich, but that is not where it will happen.
The document contains a forecast of the number of staff required to issue medals in the United Kingdom. The figure is 74 staff for April 2004, but that is lower than the figure cited in the parliamentary answer that I received, so I do not understand the discrepancy. It is forecast that the number of staff required to cover all three services in April 2008 will be 34, but that does not fill me with much hope given the detailed and labour-intensive nature of the medal-issuing process.
The section of the document on risk contains no mention of the risk that veterans might not receive their medals, which it should. The only significant mention of medals appears in annexe H under the heading "Medals and Awards Administration". It says that an advantage of the proposal is that there will be:
"Reduced distance for the majority of staffs needing relocation".
No, the proposal will increase distances for the majority of staff needing relocation. The appraisal says that the proposal "reduces staff movement", but staff movement would increase because the Government are consulting on providing a bus service from Worcestershire to Gloucestershire for medal office staff. The document says that the proposal "reduces business risk", but that is frankly an ugly turn of phrase to use about the issuing

369
of medals to veterans. The proposal will increase business risk because it will put the operation on one site rather than four, so there will be more risk of disruption, not less.
We find a clue in a separate side letter dated 18 March that was written by Peter Northen, "DCE/Agency Secretary" of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. Crucially, the letter says on estate drivers:
"It is a key part of the Defence Estates strategy that the accommodation and estate held by the MOD should be rationalised … DE advise that the Droitwich site has potential for high quality residential use were it to be disposed of by the MOD. The Investment Appraisal undertaken to support the establishment of JPAC on three of the four existing AFPAA sites assumes the disposal of the Droitwich site and an income of £3.9M from that disposal."
I have some news for the Minister that he has not heard before: Droitwich has allocated all the housing land that it needs until 2011. The land in question is employment land, and special planning policy guidance is in force to protect such land—unless, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister hears about it. The land is not available for high-quality residential development and would not fetch £3.9 million. In fact, the Chancellor might want to buy it for continued use by Customs and Excise, which also occupies the site.
The Minister will make a serious error of judgment if he pursues the policy. I am delighted that he has made two visits to the national memorial arboretum, so will he please make one to Droitwich—he will do better than his officials if he does? He should not casually accept the bland assurances that he receives from his officials. Disruption would be inevitable and the proposed cost savings are illusory. The document that I cited regarding the value of the site makes the most pessimistic assumptions possible about the cost of remaining at the site and the most optimistic assumptions possible about the benefits of change. Pursuing the policy would not save costs; in fact, costs would increase due to additional redundancy and transport costs. Additional equipment would have to be bought and money would have to be spent on redecorating, re-equipping and so on, so the process would be a costly nightmare. Honouring our veterans and ensuring that they receive their medals on time is more important than blind loyalty to a superficial tri-service agenda and a study that would disgrace most management consultants.
There is often the problem that Ministers have ideas that they want to pursue and officials think that they must ensure that they are delivered. It is like when Henry
II said:
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"
and the knights rode off and killed Thomas à Becket—the turbulent priest syndrome. The situation in government is often like that: Ministers have ideas, but their civil servants are too scared to challenge them, so they rush off to kill the archbishop instead of challenging Ministers' views or the prevailing wisdom in their Departments. I suspect that the Secretary of State, rather than the Minister for veterans, has said, "Will no one deliver me a proper and effective tri-service agenda?" The officials have said, "Oh yes, we'll deliver it, and hang the consequences." However, the
370
consequences are serious. Although the Minister for veterans will probably not have that responsibility when the scheme is implemented—he might have moved on or even be out of government—I forecast that it will lead to serious delays in the issuing of medals.
I make that forecast with absolute conviction.
I end by citing one of the greatest parliamentarians. He was not always a great hero of mine because I come from the faithful city of Worcester, but in a letter to the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland in 1650, Cromwell wrote:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
6.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I have seldom heard an hon. Friend likened to Henry II. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence assures me that he has no intention of killing any archbishops, although we looked at each other quizzically when the matter was raised because the thought occasionally crosses our minds about one or two.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his introduction to our wide-ranging debate. He clearly set out the issues that are important to veterans, those who currently serve in the United Kingdom armed forces and their families. Praise was lavished on him not only by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) but by several other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) appeared to want to organise a party in his honour, such is the quality of his work. Even the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) praised him. My hon. Friend is doing a marvellous job as the veterans Minister.
The celebrations that my hon. Friend played such a big part in organising at the weekend were extremely successful. Praise was therefore well deserved. However, I noted that he celebrated the D-day landings by visiting not only Normandy but Monte Cassino, whereas I celebrated at Margate. I wonder why I got Margate and he got foreign travel; nevertheless, the weekend was incredibly successful.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to wind up, because it is important to take the opportunity of the first debate of this type to spell out how the health and social care system is trying to meet veterans' needs. I was also parliamentary private secretary to the Minister for the armed forces for two years and I have therefore attended many defence debates, but this is the first time that I have been allowed to speak in one.
Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and others who have spoken, I must start by acknowledging the huge debt that we owe those veterans who served in the second world war and did so much to secure the freedoms that we enjoy today. If they had not done what they did, would we be here today, debating in a free Parliament or casting our votes tomorrow in free elections? I doubt it
Like my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for New Forest, East, I was moved by the accounts in the media over the weekend of the personal experiences of those

371
who took part in the campaigns at Monte Cassino and the D-day landings in Normandy I was especially struck by the accounts of the children and grandchildren of veterans, including those from the United States of America. Although my trip was not perhaps as exotic as those that my hon. Friend went on, I was proud to stand with veterans at the D-day celebrations in Margate on Sunday and to hear at first hand their accounts of that miraculous day. I asked one elderly gentleman in a wheelchair, whose breathing was assisted by oxygen and who had been there on the day, "Can you remember what it was like?" He replied, "Like it was yesterday." The events are as fresh as yesterday in many veterans' minds, so amazing and momentous was the day.
I was struck by how much has changed for those concerned with health issues in the 60 years since D-day. I delighted to say that there has been unprecedented growth in health and social care services. Back then, health and care services focused largely on veterans' physical needs but at least we are now prepared to acknowledge the psychological impact of conflict on mental health and social functioning. We all need to apply better understanding of the wider impact of conflict and of the difficulties that people face simply in making the transition from service life to civilian life to ensure that we do better for veterans in the future than we have done in the past.
Happily, we are now much better prepared to support those who live with the mental and physical consequences of the trauma that conflict brings and, although we still have much further to go, I believe that individuals themselves are now more prepared to come forward and seek help. We have made progress, but we are still a long way from perfection, and I suspect that I am not unusual as a Member of Parliament in having on my books several veterans who have found themselves in my MP's surgery because of health problems or difficulties with adjustment. Some saw action, and some did not, but all have found transition difficult and need multi-agency support. To a greater or lesser extent, all have encountered difficulty in getting that support, and we must learn from their experiences and do better in future.
We must do better for the veterans whom we celebrated at the weekend and all the veterans of the last century's world wars, better for the veterans of Korea and Suez, and better for the veterans of Northern Ireland and all the other conflicts of our generation. We must also do better for the young men and women serving today in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I am therefore especially pleased to be able to draw to the House's attention the work that we are doing in partnership with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to support people with a history of service in the armed forces.
I know from conversations that I have had with my constituents how difficult it can be to re-engage with ordinary life after leaving the armed forces, and how much more difficult that must be if a person is vulnerable, stressed or suffering from a mental illness, however short term. That is why our Departments will be working together to build on the support that the Ministry of Defence already provides. We will ensure that those leaving the services have information especially configured to their needs, and we shall look to the veterans' associations to help us with this and to
372
provide us with advice. Above all, we shall look to the veterans and members of the services themselves to tell us what they need and how we can improve.
I do not want to second-guess what this guidance should contain, but I do know that it should be practical, relevant and focused on the basics as well as on some of those issues that we know are the most difficult to handle. It should cover subjects such as how to register with a general practitioner, what questions a person should ask if they need counselling or a psychological therapy, where they can get further information or a specialised assessment, and what to do if the services they need are not being provided.
Of course, health services for veterans do not stand alone. In this country, we have a national health service—in my view, a truly great concept and a great organisation—that provides quality care to all, free at the point of need. Its existence is the reason that we do not need a separate veterans service, as some countries do. I think that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) also came to that conclusion when he was serving in the previous Conservative Government. So when we drive up standards in the national health service, as we are, and when we take on more doctors and nurses, cut waiting times and improve services, as we have been doing, we improve services for everyone as well as for veterans. It is in that context that we must view the work that we are doing to improve, reform and modernise mental health services, arid to reduce the stigma associated with mental illness.
Mental ill health goes hand in hand with social exclusion, and it features at every level of our society. It blights the workplace, with about one in five workers around 5 million people—reporting symptoms of stress. It is also the leading cause of sickness absence, and restricts people in their capacity to live productive lives. It should therefore come as no surprise to us that members of the armed forces suffer from mental ill health just like the rest of us, in service and after service. We need to accept that and to help.
Much is said about the macho culture in the armed forces, but we know that young men, whatever their backgrounds, find it difficult to ask for help for social and emotional difficulties. That is a particularly worrying observation, given that young men are one of the leading risk groups for death by suicide. We must therefore tackle mental ill health with as much vigour as we tackle physical ill health, and we must drive up standards not only in health care but in social care. As well as driving up standards generally, we need to keep a special focus on the particular challenges that face veterans.
I should like to turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members today, and I shall begin with the hon. Member for New Forest, East, who correctly stated that tributes are important. I entirely agree with him on that.
He also rightly pointed out that they are important not just to those who remember these events, but to young people, our children and our grandchildren in establishing the respect that we ought to have for the freedoms that we have in this country. They will become fragile if we ever take our eye off the ball and forget to protect them.
Tributes are important, but I say to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have made up his mind that celebrations of D-day need to continue almost annually,

373
that some veterans I was talking to on Sunday said that this should be the last, as they do not want the celebrations to peter out and fade away.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way and I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. I was commending what General Jackson said, which is that so long as there are groups that wish to continue the celebrations, the Army and the other services should continue to support them.
Dr. Ladyman: I think that is right, and it is why my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) said that we must keep an open mind and engage in discussions with veterans. That is very much the position of my hon. Friend the veterans Minister. We should make the decisions with veterans, not for them. That is important.
I want to chide the hon. Member for New Forest, East a little, however. He mentioned several times the need to get the balance right on a number of issues. He spoke for 56 minutes, and very good his speech was too. I very much enjoyed it and it was very eloquent, but he was 39 minutes in before he got to the nitty-gritty of how to improve services for veterans or mentioned any of the issues that affect their lives today, other than the issue of medals and the Chinook issue, which I accept are important. Indeed, he spent longer on his paean of praise for President Reagan than on pensions for veterans.
I criticise the hon. Gentleman gently, but no more than that. Where I will not be gentle in my criticism, though, is in respect of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who alone today gave what I have to say was a rather mealy-mouthed speech. I understand that it is easy for the third party in British politics to climb on every bandwagon and to support every campaign that comes along, but simplistic answers to complicated problems get us nowhere. At least he could have recognised the fact that some issues that he raised are complicated matters of judgment. People do not find it easy to make these decisions, so for him simply to say that he supports every campaign that comes along did him and his cause no justice at all.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Arctic convoys, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who has campaigned on the Arctic convoy medal for a long time; the hon. Member for New Forest, East; my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing); and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I shall not add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for veterans said, as this is not an issue on which the House particularly wants to hear the views of a Health Minister, but let me say here and now that no Labour Member doubts the bravery of or the contribution made by those men.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby that I was brought up in Liverpool as well, although I was not born until 1952. Even I, as a child, was told about the change that happened when the red army started to advance and the benefits that that delivered for Merseyside, so nobody needs to tell me what contribution those brave people made.
374
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South raised a number of housing issues. I shall return to some of those, but he said that surplus housing was available that was not committed to the Annington Homes scheme. That is not the case. I understand that any surplus housing identified by the MOD has to be released to Annington Homes.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I would rather not as, unfortunately, I have only six minutes in which to speak. My hon. Friend the Minister for veterans is dealing with that issue and I know he will have listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East also raised the possibility of pre-screening recruits for predisposition to mental health problems. That has been considered, primarily in other countries, and has never been found to be particularly satisfactory. The insensitivity of the screening processes is the issue, although, obviously, those with a severe or current mental illness or learning disability would be excluded. It is right, however, for training and preparation of those going into combat to include coverage of the psycho-social aspects of health as well as physical issues.
On limiting traumatic stress-related disorders on deployments, measures are in place to help to reduce the risk of such disorders occurring among service personnel. Those preventive arrangements for the armed forces have been developed over a number of years, and will continue to be reviewed in the light of developments in the field of stress management and medical treatment.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South raised the issue of Alexander Izett and Gulf war syndrome. I am sure that he will know that I am not in a position to comment on the treatment that Mr. Izett is receiving. That is a matter between him and his doctor. I strongly encourage him to give up his hunger strike, however, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done, as it will not benefit anybody. He is currently resident in Germany. Were he living in the UK, however, as a war pensioner, he wound be entitled to priority national health service assessment and treatment for any condition to which his pension was related. Nothing that he or any other veteran of the Gulf war has presented with is beyond the capability of the national health service.
It is important that we gather robust evidence concerning the health needs of our veterans. The MOD is spending £8.5 million on research on Gulf war syndrome and the issues concerned. That research is being directed by independent medical experts. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet raised a number of possible factors: vaccines, pesticides and oil fires. That points to the need to do proper research rather than to jump to conclusions.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet also raised a number of other issues. He welcomed lapel badges for veterans, and said how positive they would be. I share that view. He was the first Member to mention today's service people in the debate. One or two of us have forgotten today's service people. That point was also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who joined in the call for services for tomorrow's veterans also to be improved.

375
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised his concerns about the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has engaged in argument with him on the matter, and it will now go to the House of Lords. There is nothing that I can add that will satisfy him, and I am sure that we will return to the debate in the future.
Other Members made moving speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). The hon. Member for Salisbury also made a careful and considered speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of privatisation of the records office in his constituency. That is a matter on which I am unsighted, so I cannot satisfy him on it today. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to read his comments, however, and to respond to him.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised the issue of the Droitwich Army medal office. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary assured the House that the backlog for Suez medals will be cleared in two years. I know, however, as I am the Minister who deals with health service issues for Mid-Worcestershire, that when the hon. Gentleman gets a bone in his teeth, he will not let it go. I therefore suspect that my hon. Friend will be hearing more from him in the weeks to come.
The issue of homelessness shows how dealing with services for veterans needs a multi-agency approach. It is therefore important that we build the needs of veterans into the new vision for adult social care, which we are developing. My hon. Friend and I will work together to ensure that the views of veterans are built into that new vision, and that services for future veterans reflect the contribution—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

  Post Offices
  7 pm
  Tom Cox: I wish to present a petition from constituents expressing deep concern about the Post Office's proposals to close foul post offices in the Tooting area of the London borough of Wandsworth. I fully support their opposition. The concern exists because the closures follow closures hat took place last
  376
  year. As we all know, such closures inevitably affect local communities—people of all ages who use and greatly value a key public service. They also have a real effect on businesses that regularly use the services provided by local post offices.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on her Majesty's government to halt any further closure of such Post Office branches until there is a full review of the effect such closures have on a community.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Teachers
  7.2 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I present my petition on behalf of 30,000 teachers who are members of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers.
  The petition of members and supporters of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers' campaign regarding false allegations against teachers.
  Declares that teachers are vulnerable to allegations of physical, verbal and sexual abuse of pupils. Owing to the wide publicity given to these cases, pupils are aware that such allegations can cost teachers their jobs. Regrettably, some pupils have no compunction in seeking to falsely and maliciously accuse a teacher they dislike or to threaten such an allegation.
  In recent years there have been 1,782 police investigations into allegations of criminal abuse made against NASUWT members. In a staggering 1,686 of these no grounds have been discovered for prosecution. The majority of the allegations are false, unfounded, exaggerated or malicious.
  There appears to be a widely held public view that an allegation in itself is proof of guilt. Cases under investigation are often leaked to the press leading to local and sometimes national media coverage. Once publicity has occurred, even after the teacher has been cleared, dismissal or inability to return to work is frequently the outcome.
  The publicity also adversely affects not only the teacher but also their families. They face unimaginable levels of stress and anxiety. Their children face problems in their own school and their partners in the workplace and community.
  NASUWT members have committed or attempted suicide because of the allegations and/or press coverage.
  The media frenzy which identifies a teacher rarely gives the same prominence to the teacher's exoneration.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should introduce legislation to secure the right of anonymity of teachers accused of sexual abuse up to the decision in a court. This would provide a measure of protection to a vulnerable profession and go some way to ensure that the lives and careers of innocent teachers are not ruined.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Planning Services (Hillingdon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker]
  7.5 pm
  John McDonnell: In 2002, the Government introduced a planning delivery grant to improve the performance of local authority planning departments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister provided additional grant aid to reward improved planning performance by local councils. The idea was that that grant would serve as an incentive to local councils to deliver speedier and better-quality planning decisions, thus assisting regeneration, inward investment, economic growth and environmental protection.
  My constituency is in the London borough of Hillingdon, so I was pleased that, in 2002, the Government awarded planning delivery grant to the council. So far, the borough has received from the Government over £0.5 million in planning grant on the ground of its improved performance. However, at the time, even I in my role as the local MP felt that the Government's decision to reward Hillingdon for its efficient planning performance did not match the anecdotal evidence reported to me by my constituents, or my experience with my constituency case load. Similar but more forthright scepticism about the performance standards was felt by several local councillors, who had a more intimate knowledge of the operation of the borough's planning department.
  Local Labour councillors, who comprise the opposition to the current Conservative administration, properly sought to question the performance standards of the council's planning department. At the first meeting of the relevant scrutiny committee, Labour councillors asked for the operation of the planning department to be scrutinised by the committee according to the terms of reference and role of the committee. That was surprisingly refused by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat majority of councillors on the committee.
  In December 2002, a comprehensive performance assessment report published by the Audit Commission classed the performance of the London borough of Hillingdon as fair overall, but the planning and environmental services scored the lowest possible performance rating of one out of four. Consequently, in January 2003, Labour Councillor Janet Duncan promoted a motion to full council calling for all-party support to address how to improve the performance of those services. That was met, surprisingly, by vituperative opposition by the lead cabinet member for planning, Councillor Mike Heywood, and the leader of the council.
  In a heated personal attack on Councillor Duncan, Councillor Heywood argued that the statistics upon which the Audit Commission made its judgment were out of date—in fact, there had been a dramatic improvement in the turnaround of planning applications, from 49 per cent. to 69 per cent., in an extremely limited period. Councillor Duncan, who is a former deputy director of planning, knew from experience that that scale of improvement in so limited a period appeared unrealistic and was open to question.
  378
  For that reason, Councillor Duncan sought clarification by contacting the Government office for London. She expressed concern at the accuracy of the Hillingdon performance figures. As a result, the Government office for London contacted Hillingdon council's chief executive, Mr. Dorian Leatham. Despite the potential seriousness of the issue, the chief executive failed to launch any independent formal investigation. Councillor Duncan was excluded by the council from meetings between the council and the Government office for London.
  Eventually, only a meeting with the director of planning, the head of service, Ms Jean Palmer, was afforded to Councillor Duncan. At that meeting, Ms Palmer assured Councillor Duncan and a fellow councillor that the council's planning department performance statistics upon which Government grant was awarded were accurate. In 2003, at Hillingdon cabinet meetings, questions were raised yet again on at least two separate occasions as to whether Hillingdon's figures were accurate, and on both occasions the leader of the council and the lead cabinet member confirmed that the figures were correct.
  The significance of those statistics is that they are the basis upon which the returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were completed, and the Government's planning delivery grant was awarded. To verify those assertions of the accuracy of the council's planning performance statistics, Labour councillors examined the detail of a sample of planning applications. The council uses a system called Ocella, a computerised planning system that councillors and the general public can interrogate, as all planning records are in the public domain.
  Examination of the individual planning applications produced startling results, raising some serious questions.
  Let me explain. The bureaucratic processing of a planning application involves the logging of the date of receipt, with any relevant information; the allocation of the application to a case officer; the writing up of the report; and the passing of the report to a planning manager for approval. A decision is then taken by the planning manager under delegated authority, or the report is referred to the planning committee for decision.
  The Government's performance target is to seek to ensure that councils consider and decide on an application, and dispatch the decision to the applicant, within an eight-week time frame. Performance is measured in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the date the application is received to the date when the decision is dispatched. Examination of the planning documents revealed, first, that the improper date was used for the calculation of the necessary returns to the ODPM. That is, the date of the decision was used rather than the date of dispatch of the decision. This was a conscious decision taken by the senior management team in the planning department, as evidenced by a memorandum circulated within the team, including to the director, by the head of service. I pass that memorandum to my right hon. Friend the Minister to enable him to inspect the accuracy of my allegation.

  379
  Secondly, dates on reports on which the ODPM returns were based, in order to gain additional grant, had been changed on report records. They were altered or crudely scribbled over to improve performance against targets.
  Thirdly, reports have been backdated for signing, although recorded considerably later on the Ocella computer system. Again, I pass to my right hon. Friend examples of crude alterations to the records of the progress of planning applications.
  It is understood that staff raised their concerns about the backdating with managers but were concerned for their own careers. It has been reported that a climate of fear and bullying reigned in the planning department and indeed in the authority overall. It is believed that staff were treated aggressively by senior management to ensure that records reflected improved performance rates. Staff raising concerns were soon isolated, and many simply left. The planning department is now increasingly run with agency staff, to great cost.
  The use of the improper date was not just a mistake or a failure by a junior member of staff The management memo demonstrates that it was used with the clear understanding and agreement of senior management.
  From all the evidence, it appears that a number of devices were used to fix the department's performance statistics in order to qualify for Government grant and to cover up the drastic failure of the London borough of Hillingdon's planning department to perform, to serve its community and to serve my constituents. Many were concerned that its actions, by any standards, were fraudulent. Although the evidence of the devices used is shocking, what is even more alarming are the lengths to which some in the authority went to prevent any proper and effective scrutiny of the questions raised about the accuracy of the Government's performance statistics.
  Councillors were denied access to information. For example, my right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the council back in July 2003, enclosing an independent consultant's report on Hillingdon's planning service commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It showed serious concerns about the operation of the department, but it was withheld from Labour councillors for several months, contrary to the code of conduct on access to information. Eventually, Labour councillors received only part of the report on the evening of the sitting of the scrutiny committee due to examine it. Labour members were so concerned at the withholding of this important document that a motion of censure was submitted to a full council meeting—it was defeated by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat majority.
  Councillor Duncan faced intimidation and threats from Conservative councillors that she would be reported to the standards committee. She was also barred from attending meetings between the council and the Government Office for London to discuss the department's planning performance. I pay tribute to her for having the guts and determination to pursue the search for truth in this matter. She is a true and very brave whistleblower.
  The council's chief executive failed to undertake any serious investigation of the concerns expressed by councillors. Farcically, he appointed the director of planning, the head of service, herself to investigate the performance and probity of her own department.
  380
  There is no evidence that they called upon the services of the internal audit or interrogated the anti-fraud computer systems. Only when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched its own investigations with the district auditor did the director, or head of service, admit that her performance statistics were based on the use of improper dates. That then revealed a massive drop in real performance standards, from 68 to 24 per cent.
  In recent weeks, the lead cabinet member on planning and the chief executive have even sought legal advice from counsel to prevent present and former staff from being interviewed by the district auditor. It has been evidenced that a member of staff involved in the auditing of the performance statistics was offered a tax-free lump sum to leave the employment of the local authority immediately. Amazingly, the documentation provided to the district auditor was prepared by the director of planning, the head of service, herself; unremarkably, it is incomplete.
  The information on the process of planning applications was placed on the UK planning website in 2003. However—I have to say, suspiciously—all such evidence that could have identified tampering has been removed from the website. When staff have left the planning department, the central information technology department of the council, which operates under the line management of the chief executive, has ensured that the computers have been wiped clean, removing records and e-mails. That may be standard practice in a local authority, but one would expect, at a time when an investigation is under way, that the chief executive would be meticulous in ensuring the preservation of all records and other potentially relevant materials. However, the practice that has been undertaken in this case is leading some to believe that evidence is apparently being systematically destroyed to cover up what is increasingly viewed as a potential major council scandal.
  Let me make it clear that I believe that the leader of the council is basically an honest man. I have worked with him, and I am aware of his integrity. However, I do not believe that he or the council, or my constituents, have been well served by his colleagues and by the senior officers of the council, in particular the chief executive and the director of planning, the head of service. It is beyond belief that when serious concerns about the probity of the council's planning department were raised, not only did the relevant lead member and the chief executive fail to take appropriate action properly to investigate those concerns; they appear to have sought to use every mechanism possible to prevent access to information and to frustrate independent scrutiny and the maintenance of the high standards of openness, accountability and probity required of elected representatives and public servants.
  I am grateful for the conscientious, diligent approach that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken in giving his attention to this matter, but I now ask what action should be taken from here on. Certainly, the elected councillors of the London borough of Hillingdon need to act decisively to address these issues. I urge that a new cross-party coalition take control of the council, to work co-operatively to see it through this difficult period and to manage the reforms needed to bring about an effective administration. I call on local

  381
  councillors of all political parties to form a coalition of the clean to take control of the council and to resolve these problems. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is time for the Government to send in independent administrators, at least to administer the planning department and to provide advice on the establishment of effective procedures and systems to ensure accountability and probity.
  An additional question is now becoming inescapable: should a criminal investigation be launched? Although the district auditor is investigating the London borough of Hillingdon, I believe that the resources of the police, who have skills and powers of investigation that might be appropriate to this type of case, may be required.
  I hold this matter to be extremely serious, not just for my local authority and community but for the standing of local government overall. Anything that diminishes the confidence and respect that people have for local democracy undermines democracy itself. Tomorrow, people will go out to vote. They will vote for elected councillors across the country to serve their local communities. They will expect those councillors to uphold the highest standards of honesty and probity. They will expect to be served by council officials who uphold the same standards. That is what local democracy is all about, and that is what needs to happen now in the London borough of Hillingdon. I gave more than 20 years of my life to serve in local government, and I will not stand by while others damage its reputation and standing, and in that way undermine democracy itself.
  7.19 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for providing the opportunity to discuss Hillingdon's planning performance. He has set out very clearly some of the problems facing Hillingdon, and I am delighted to have this chance to explain how the Government are tackling poor performance and supporting improvement by local planning authorities across the country, and in particular to explain where Hillingdon is in this process.
  As part of the best value process, the development control performance of planning authorities is assessed using three measures: the percentage of major planning applications dealt with in 13 weeks; the percentage of minor applications dealt with in eight weeks; and the percentage of other applications dealt with in eight weeks. Hillingdon has shown a consistent underperformance according to all three best value planning indicators since 2000–01, and it is on that basis that it has been designated a "standards authority" in three consecutive years. It is one of six authorities nationally with which my Department has actively engaged because of poor performance.
  As a result of Hillingdon's designation as a standards authority in 2003–04. my Department appointed consultants to examine its performance. Their remit was to review and assess the actions taken by Hillingdon since it was inspected during the previous year by consultants from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We wanted to know what progress the
  382
  authority was making in improving its performance, particularly in terms of working towards the ODPM's national targets for handling planning applications. The consultants were also asked to identify the barriers to further performance improvement and the priorities that Hillingdon needed to address.
  The consultants will be reporting shortly on their inspection of the authority's planning service. The report is confidential between the ODPM and Hillingdon, but the borough has had the opportunity to comment on a draft. Hillingdon is responding to the consultants' work by reviewing its improvement plan to ensure that it properly addresses the problems that the consultants are identifying. We will be monitoring progress very carefully through the Government office for London.
  Why is Hillingdon facing such problems in improving performance? There are a number of reasons, including the need to upgrade IT systems, to improve internal guidance on handling planning applications and to simplify process, along with a difficulty in recruiting and retaining permanent planning staff. Other authorities are facing similar problems, and they are managing to overcome them and to make progress through good management and a clear, strong focus on performance improvement. We will, as I have said, be monitoring Hillingdon's performance closely. If we do not see the improvements that are needed, we will consider what further action might be needed to intervene more directly.
  My hon. Friend made a serious allegation about the way in which in Hillingdon has been recording and submitting statistics on planning performance to the ODPM. May I say how seriously I, too, regard these allegations? He first came to see me before Christmas to draw these matters to my attention, and he left a number of papers relating to these allegations. My officials immediately passed those papers to the Audit Commission and asked it to investigate as a matter of urgency.
  I understand that, as a result of these allegations coming to light and of the district auditor's inquiry, Hillingdon set up in internal inquiry to look at the specific allegations, and it appointed an external consultant to look more widely at its systems. These investigations revealed that the council had systematically been returning incorrect data on its development control performance to the ODPM. It had been recording the end-date for handling a planning application as the date on which the council made its decision, rather than as the date of dispatch of the decision to the applicant, which might be some time later. My hon. Friend has alluded to these practices. The correct procedure for recording these decisions is clearly set out in the forms through which local authorities have to make their returns. The result of these practices was to make Hillingdon's performance appear better than it actually was.
  This audit and related concerns about the misreporting are being externally reviewed as part of the district auditor's investigation. In the course of these investigations, my hon. Friend passed me a copy of an internal Hillingdon communication that was highly relevant to the inquiries. My officials immediately passed it to the district auditor.

  383
  I understand that the district auditor has received the council's report of its own investigation into how it has reported its development control performance. He has undertaken his own testing of the council's development control records and is undertaking interviews with a number of officers and former office's.
  I further understand that the district auditor aims to complete his inquiries this month and to report as soon as possible thereafter. We are pressing him to do so as a matter of urgency, but I do understand that, if he were to find fault with any individual, he would need to give the person concerned the opportunity to comment on his findings and that may have an effect on the exact timing of his report.
  The district auditor is the appointed official who has responsibility for investigating allegations of this nature. He has the powers that he needs to carry out a thorough examination. The remedies open to him vary, depending on the seriousness of his findings. He can report his conclusions to the council, setting out the issues and what action is needed to secure improvements. If he considers the situation sufficiently serious, he can make a public interest report. Such a report would be in the public domain. The council would be required to consider and respond to it formally and it would have to advertise the meeting at which the report was considered and publish its response.
  Obviously, misreported figures could affect the planning delivery grant, which is partly based on development control performance. Hillingdon received a planning delivery grant of £223,586 for 2004–05. Planning delivery grant was allocated mainly on the basis of the council's performance in development control—dealing with planning applications—and development plan making, along with an allocation for meeting demand to supply housing in the south-east growth area.
  384
  Hillingdon's grant was the lowest of the London boroughs. We received the corrections to Hillingdon's development control returns in time to enable the corrected versions to be taken fully into account in calculating the grant to be paid for 2004–05. Had that not been the case, we would have had to take action to seek repayment of grant paid in respect of incorrect figures.
  In order to reduce the risk of similar problems in future, the ODPM has collaborated with the Audit Commission in preparing new and clearer guidance to auditors about the checks that they should be making and the things that they should be looking out for in auditing the arrangements for recording planning performance.
  In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I once again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic? I think that what I have said underlines the seriousness with which I personally and the Government take this matter. We are working constructively with many local planning authorities up and down the land to promote and drive improvements in performance. Hillingdon is one of a handful of authorities where we are closely engaged in monitoring performance.
  These allegations of manipulation of the planning statistics, which the district auditor is investigating, render the situation more serious still. I cannot pre-empt the findings of his inquiry, but I can reassure the House that we will take any published findings into account in charting our future engagement with the local planning authority and deciding what steps need to be taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Darfur (Sudan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome this opportunity to raise the subject of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I think that he has been drafted in at quite short notice, so I sympathise with him. I know, however, that he has long taken an interest in human rights issues, which are among the most important in Darfur at the moment.
I regret that the Secretary of State for International Development is unable to be here, although he wanted to be, and his attendance at Westminster Hall debates is extremely good. He is likely to make a statement later today on the situation in Darfur, and I look forward to that. The importance of the crisis has been highlighted by, among other things, the coverage that it has recently received on the BBC and in other media outlets. It is rightly described as possibly the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world at the moment. I should add that I have not come to attack the UK Government—the Department for International Development is the second biggest donor in Darfur after the United States.
I have not been to Darfur, although I may be going at the end of the month. After my speech today, however, I may not be especially welcome. I went to Sudan a couple of years ago with members of the all-party group on Sudan, and I see my three companions here today, including the chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
I want briefly to discuss the history of Sudan before considering the situation in Darfur, how responsibility can be apportioned and what, if anything, the UK Government and the international community can do.
Geographically, Sudan is the biggest country in Africa; it is the most enormous place, and Darfur is something like the size of France. Sudan is also grindingly poor, and I have memories of that from two years ago. There is poverty not only in the rebel south, where people have absolutely nothing, but elsewhere, and we saw people around El-Obeid who had next to nothing. So, it is not just the rebels who are poor—everybody is poor. However, the Government did not seem especially interested in furthering the good of the people in Sudan, other than in Khartoum.
Sudan was always a backward place. Parts of it, particularly the north, were colonised by the Egyptians, while in the south, Arab slave-raiding parties would seize slaves. That is pertinent because it reflects on attitudes today.
People in Britain tend to know about Gordon of Khartoum and his historic death in 1885, and about the Kitchener expedition of 1898, which was much
70WH
popularised. Indeed, Winston Churchill took part in a marvellous cavalry charge, which he describes so well in his books. There then followed the Anglo-Egyptian condominium and the Sudan political service. My godfather worked in the service immediately after the war, and it was well described by Wilfred Thesiger. It was an honest and honourable profession, although it must be said that Sudan did not develop enormously as a result of its work.
Independence came in 1956. Civil war has raged on and off since then and has claimed the lives of perhaps millions of people, although I am delighted to say that a peace agreement was signed on 26 May in Naivasha. I shall say a bit more about that later. In 1989, the National Islamic Front, which now forms the Government, seized power under Brigadier al-Bashir, who is now a lieutenant-general. Nobody ever claimed that the Government had any democratic legitimacy, although, of course, they have de facto legitimacy.
One must understand a point to which I alluded earlier. To use shorthand, there is an Arab ethnic grouping in the north. It is not a distinct grouping, but it is more Arab. In the south and west, the ethnic grouping is more black African. That is extremely important because of how people see things in Sudan. Sharia—Muslim law—is also an issue, but not in Darfur, because it is Muslim. However, it was certainly an issue for Christians and animists in the south.
In Darfur, there are perhaps 1.2 million displaced people and refugees, although no one is quite sure. There are 100,000—perhaps more—refugees in Chad, across the border. Estimates vary but about 30,000 people have been killed in Darfur in the last year, and there is no doubt that it is a huge humanitarian crisis. A report from Oxfam, quoted by my local paper, the Leicester Mercury, on Saturday, described refugees fleeing the conflict, who had
"abandoned their homes, their possessions and their livelihoods, clinging on to the hope of finding somewhere safe…Even if they get to the refugee camps, the situation is little better. Malnutrition and diarrhoea are spreading quickly and mortality rates climbing steadily…Eastern Chad is…on the brink of disaster".
Humanitarian agencies have warned of the risk of famine in the displaced population, unable to return home to plant crops before the rainy season. The rainy season is starting now; the displaced people are not returning. A United States Agency for International Development administrator stated in Geneva on 3 June:
"We estimate right now if we get relief in we will lose a third of a million people. And if we don't, the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people."
Delay in taking action is not an option.
It is difficult to estimate the number of fatalities that can come from such a ghastly crisis, and such estimates tend to be wildly wrong. The message that comes through, however, is that there is a terrible crisis and action needs to be taken. The situation should be taken in the context of the much heralded—by the Sudanese Government—peace deal in Naivasha at the end of last month.
To digress slightly, what about upper Nile? Not included in the peace agreement—and not, of course, in Darfur—is the Shilluk kingdom. I have a briefing from

71WH
World Vision, which states that in upper Nile,
"since early March 2004…between 50,000 and 120,000 men, women and children were displaced by a series of militia attacks… Humanitarian personnel cannot access the area…the Sudan Civilian Protection Monitoring Team documented the wholesale destruction of…villages…The compounds of World Vision and another German NGO…were destroyed and looted."
We do not know what is happening there, but it gives greater context to what is happening in Darfur.
In Khartoum, there is what is best described as a political elite. It tends to be almost exclusively of Arab extraction and to look down its nose at the black Africans. The National Islamic Front of President alBashir is now called the National Congress party, but it has roots through the National Islamic Front back to the Muslim Brotherhood, which sprang up in Egypt. I have already mentioned that it has no democratic legitimacy, but I would like to turn to its honesty.
In April or perhaps earlier, the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Dr. Mustafa Ismail, came to a meeting, which was attended by at least two Members present in the Chamber. He talked vividly about Darfur, because we asked him about it. He said that only a few hundred had been killed and that the Government of Sudan were definitely not supporting the militia in Darfur—the Janjaweed. I recall particularly, because I took the issue up with him, that he blamed the European Union for not giving sufficient development aid. He also blamed President Clinton. I blame President Clinton for many things, but he blamed him for encouraging rebel movements in Sudan.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded its report of 7 May with the statement:
"It is clear that there is a reign of terror in Darfur…The current pattern of massive and gross human rights violations…raises very serious concerns as to their survival, security and human dignity".
That means the survival, security and human dignity of those who have remained in Darfur. The report said that the situation was characterised by
"repeated attacks on civilians by the military forces of the Government of the Sudan and its proxy militia",
particularly the Janjaweed;
"the use of disproportionate force by government and Janjaweed forces";
total impunity for the Janjaweed, who operate
"in close coordination with the forces of the Government of the Sudan";
and a
"pattern of attacks on civilians includes killing, rape, pillage, including of livestock, and destruction of property, including water sources".
Asma Jehangir, the UN rapporteur, echoes that on the BBC website in a story on the extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. She says:
"the numbers are staggering, the situation is terrible…there is no accountability and in some areas the government officials are also in a state of complete denial."
So what can we conclude about the Government of Sudan? I conclude that they do not tell the truth and are not to be trusted. They have form. Between 1991 and
72WH
1996, when they were still the National Islamic Front, they played host to a fellow called Osama bin Laden. According to reports, al-Qaeda forged an alliance with al-Bashir's Government. Osama bin Laden was expelled from Sudan in 1996, but in 1998, President Clinton launched cruise missiles against a couple of targets in Sudan, one of which was the al-Shifa chemical factory. We should remember that President Clinton was not a great man for sending cruise missiles, but it appears that those missiles were designed to hit al-Qaeda, which was believed to be present at the targets. I did not appreciate that at the time, because none of us knew very much about al-Qaeda.
Since 11 September 2001, the start of the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan, the Government of Sudan have become a great deal friendlier and more pliable, and we may draw our own conclusions as to why that may be. However, they are still the same people. AlBashir is still the President, his elite group is still undemocratic and autocratic, and they are still on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
As I said, the Government of Sudan have form. I have in my hand "The scorched earth: oil and war in Sudan", a document published by Christian Aid in 2001. I will not talk at great length about it, except to say that the tactics employed, which are described in the booklet, are almost exactly the ones that are now being employed in Darfur. Leaving aside the issue of oil in Sudan, I particularly recall, when we were in Sudan two years ago, hearing about the train that ran down to Wau, which was in the south and surrounded by rebel areas. As the train ran down, armed Arab militia on horseback, fanning out to perhaps 20 km on either side of the track, would plunder, kill, rape, pillage, and take slaves—in the 21st century, for God's sake—as they proceeded down to Wau. As soon as the train withdrew, the rebels would blow up the track. It seems to me that what has happened now is exactly the same. In its report last month, the International Crisis Group said of Darfur:
"The situation mirrors the dynamic of other conflicts throughout Sudan, pitting a periphery that views itself as the victim of discrimination against a centre in Khartoum that is seen as holding all the economic and political cards."
I do not intend to say much more, because many Members want to speak and, given the importance of the situation, they should be allowed to have as much say as they can. I will, however, say this: Darfur is a long way from us and is a little part of a country of which we know remarkably little, but it is the world's most serious humanitarian crisis and it will not go away.
So what can the international community and the UK Government do? First, we need to be less supine in what we say. The Secretary of State was extremely diplomatic on the radio on, I believe, Monday. I have been less diplomatic today. The Government of Sudan must take responsibility for what is happening in Sudan. We are contributing humanitarian aid, but Sudan needs yet more. The crisis will not go away for at least a year. We must pursue the matter at the UN, although I know that we are doing so to a certain extent. The Security Council noted the prolonged absence of an accredited resident humanitarian co-ordinator, which is a serious obstacle to international operations in Darfur. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening in that regard.

73WH
Will the Minister also tell us what has happened about the African Union monitoring force, which has been agreed? I know that the British Government have agreed to provide part of its funding; the rest must come from the European Union. Let us at least do that so that we can know what is happening. It is all very well to wring hands—people might say that I stand here wringing mine—but people are dying now, so this humanitarian crisis must be dealt with now. The crisis will go on for perhaps a year or more, but the long-term solution is political: to make the Government of Sudan accountable and to make them take responsibility for their actions and their people. I urge the UK Government to be bold and outspoken in what they say to the Government of Sudan, and to mobilise international concern so that pressure can be put on them for real change. I shall not elaborate on the sanctions or other actions that we might take, but this crisis needs reaction from the international community. I hope that the Minister can reassure me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Chamber that it is customary to begin the first of the Front-Bench winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate, namely at 10.30 am, so we have about 44 minutes in which to accommodate the five right hon. and hon. Members who seek my eye. I hope that they will take account of the time limitations when making their contributions and when accepting and responding to interventions.
9.46 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his wisdom, on securing this important debate and on his excellent introduction to it. I agreed with virtually everything that he said, except, perhaps, his final reference to the Secretary of State. That aside, his comments were timely and appropriate.
Mr. Robathan: I should not, perhaps, have used the word supine. I did not mean to criticise the Secretary of State except to say that he has been over-diplomatic.
Mr. Clarke: I am pleased to have allowed the hon. Gentleman to put that on the record because he made a first-class speech, and I have no desire to take away from that. It helped us all to remember what happened in Rwanda when, although there were signals of what would happen, even if they were not as profound or clear as those in Sudan, the international community was, to say the least, far too slow to respond. We cannot be excused from making a similar mistake in Sudan, given what we now know is happening there.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent peace agreement. In respect of the problems with the north and south, which have been occurring for about 50 years—certainly for the past 20—there was a great sigh of relief when the agreement was reached, and it is profoundly unacceptable that it should be terribly overshadowed by the appalling events in Darfur, in the west of Sudan, which have had an impact on Chad, when we all hoped that the carnage that had gone on for so long would end.
74WH
What does the agreement mean? Does Khartoum expect the international community to accept that huge areas of the country should not be part of the spirit of the agreement, as is happening in Darfur and next door in Chad? Is access to oil and power to be a matter only for those who were party to the agreement? Will a great mass of people, particularly those in the west, be totally ignored, or worse?
It would be a huge mistake for modern Khartoum to send out the message that inclusiveness in Sudan means that people have to have an army and guns before their human rights will be recognised. That cannot be acceptable. That is why we are right to be extremely angry. It would be wrong of Parliament and the international community, including the European Union, to wring our hands and wash our hands of the problem when we know that so much wrong is happening.
The media have a role as well. Reference has been made to the BBC, and ITN broadcast an interesting and compelling news bulletin on Monday evening that at least focused on the issue. Although I do not particularly want to congratulate the media—they could have done far more—there have been honourable exceptions. In an excellent piece in The Guardian, Ewen MacAskill, the diplomatic editor, who incidentally reported on the Secretary of State's activities in Darfur, which he was observing, wrote:
"In what the United Nations describes as the world's worst humanitarian disaster, the arrival of the rains means that life for the refugees will become even more grim and the death toll will almost certainly rise.
About 30,000 are estimated to have been killed in the last year, victims of a government-armed militia that has terrorised and destroyed villages throughout Darfur, where 1.2 million have been displaced, with a further 100,000 taking refuge in neighbouring Chad."
Chillingly, he added:
"A UN official who has travelled extensively throughout the region said yesterday: 'If you go 1,000km from here to Chad you will not see a single village intact."'
We know what is going on. There can now be no excuse for the record of the Janjaweed—the raiding for cattle, the raping and the other wholly unacceptable behaviour—which has been supported by the army high command, as is well known. The raids are perhaps now more sophisticated, if just as beastly and unacceptable. There are helicopters and gunships, villages razed to the ground, inhabitants murdered, irrigation systems destroyed and granaries burnt to the ground. We can call that ethnic cleansing or genocide; but, in the modern world, given our support for international organisations that are perhaps still capable of exercising more influence—I shall come to the role of the United Nations and its agencies—it is right to say what we are saying in this debate in the tone of disgust that the situation invites.
The hon. Member for Blaby referred to the role of aid agencies and non-governmental organisations. We agree that their contribution has been sterling, as is so often the case. We all want to take on board the advice that the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group and Save the Children have given. Save the Children, for example, has said that the international community should see protection of civilians as a priority, and that

75WH
although there has been a reduction in hostilities between the parties to the agreement—people who, in my view, have an interest—there is no corresponding improvement in the security of civilians. Save the Children concludes that militia groups are carrying out a pattern of human rights abuses against a backdrop of impunity, and that it is time for us all to act. I know that my views are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want the Government to exert the maximum possible pressure on the Government of Sudan because we know—there is no point in their denying it—about their influence on the militia and its distasteful activities.
There is strong support for the approach of the hon. Member for Blaby. Given the carnage, we are entitled to demand that non-governmental organisations seeking access should have the opportunity that he described. There should be a response to those who cry for food, water, medicine and trucks. It is outrageous that the Government of Sudan are even restricting the number of trucks that could be made available so that those people's needs can be met. The UN believes that only half the displaced population of 1 million has access to humanitarian assistance.
Let us continue the pressure on President al-Bashir. Let us continue the pressure on the United States, although I do not want to denigrate its influence and the time and thought that it has given to the issue. Our colleagues in the United Kingdom—I welcome the role of the Secretary of State for International Development—and the European Community Humanitarian Office have made substantial pledges of assistance to Chad and Darfur. Nevertheless, they are doing so when the UN is telling us that only 19 per cent. of the needs of Darfur have been met and only 45 per cent. of Chad's.
There are opportunities within the international bodies that I have mentioned, particularly this week of all weeks, in the European Union, for us to express not just our distaste for what is happening, not just our demand for an end to the carnage, and not just our hopes that the international aid agencies can get the access that they want, but our determination that all that will change and that such activities will never again take place. As the hon. Gentleman said, following their dreadful experiences, people have very little to look forward to—more rains, more starvation and more attacks from above. It may be difficult to reflect on the possibilities of long-term development, but even those people, in their dreadful situation, are entitled to dream. They are entitled to count on our support and I believe that that will be the view expressed in our debate today and by the Secretary of State later when he speaks on this crucial matter.
9.58 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: As a colleague of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the Select Committee, I congratulate him on this debate. However, I have a terrible sense of déjà vu. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said "Never again," but how often have we said that? Only six years ago, in 1998, the Select Committee on International Development
76WH
produced a report on the origins of the famine in Bahr el Ghazal and Sudan and how we dealt with it. Reading that report today, one thinks, "Here we go again. We could write precisely the same words and precisely the same criticisms now." I draw the House's attention to that report, which makes sad reading when one thinks that it was written six years ago. Yes, there were Moraleen, yes they came down to Wau on their trains and, yes, we called them Arab raiders—they fanned out, raided and pillaged and they took the women and the cattle. Exactly the same methods are being used in Darfur.
It is interesting to consider the problems that were highlighted then. One of the things that most concerned me was the early warning system. We felt that there had not been sufficient early warnings in the case of Bahr el Ghazal in 1997–98. There were even accusations levelled at the aid agencies that they had left it until they saw the pictures of starving little children on the television screens before launching their appeals. That has not happened this time—the warnings have been being sounded for a considerable time. The NGOs cannot be considered guilty in that respect.
We considered the problems of access for flights and the Government of Sudan banning flights by aid and humanitarian agencies over the area. Just the same has happened this time I understand that some of the bans have now been lifted, but it is something of which we were aware and that we knew would happen; it had been recorded before, yet somehow we did not manage to get round the problem.
We considered the problem of where the aid would come from. We must have stockpiles and aeroplanes. Operation Lifeline Sudan has been in operation for 20 or 25 years—perhaps the hon. Member for Blaby can remind me exactly how long. It had been going for at least 10 years before the famine in Bahr el Ghazal. It operates from Lokichokio in northern Kenya, which, I suspect, is much too far away to get to Darfur, but there must be bases in Chad. Perhaps the Minister can tell us from where we will distribute the desperately needed humanitarian aid to Darfur.
I remind Members that one of the conclusions of the 1998 report—the eighth summary point—was:
"Clare Short was quite right to be frustrated at a process which involved political indifference, ineffective and declining levels of humanitarian assistance, little prospect of longer term development, continuing conflict, and the prospect of millions starving to death."
The same is true now.
We can all bemoan what is happening and say that something must be done and that it must never happen again, but we should consider the origins of the new disaster. If the Minister has time, I would like him to say something about the political background. The history of the peace process in southern Sudan has been that various factions have formed in the south, which for a long time made it difficult to know with whom to negotiate. Do the Minister or the Government think that there is any connection between any of those groups and the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, which are now operating in Darfur and which formed less than two years ago when the all-party group was visiting? We met them and the SLA told us very proudly that they had just formed. It would be interesting to know where they came from, who organised them and who gave them the push.

77WH
I also wonder how many hours the Department for International Development has spent it and how many tonnes of paper it has produced over the years on prevention of conflict. Considering the situation, we should have been aware of what might happen. Everyone knows Sudan—Britain is an expert on it. We all know about the peace process and how difficult it has been. Who has been considering prevention of conflict in Darfur? From where have the arms dealers been getting their arms? Who has been considering that? Who has been trying to break the chain of dealers in death throughout the world who make sure that small and medium-sized arms get to rebel groups whenever they want them? When I was first in southern Sudan in 1998, I asked members of the Sudan People's Liberation Army where the dickens they got their arms. They fell about laughing and said, "We can get them from anywhere. It is no problem. Arms are the least of our problems." Who has been considering that while the peace process has been going on?
The human rights record of the Government of Sudan is appalling. They react to many things with state terrorism. That is a rather difficult subject sometimes because we have good friends among the great and famous democracies of the world who also employ state terrorism at times. We must not always criticise: we must not look at the mote in our brother's eye when we cannot see the beam in our own. State terrorism is practised all over the world, not just by the Government of Sudan.
We should also look to the future. As the hon. Member for Blaby pointed out, Sudan is a very big country that is almost ungovernable because its communications are so appalling, and many areas outside Khartoum are at a very early stage of development. Are we looking at those other regions? Who will organise rebels in the upper Nile region in the east of the country? What groups are forming and who is making sure that they have arms? Is anyone looking at that? Is the United Nations or anyone trying to help with those issues?
Perhaps we should look to the journalists, who are very fond of telling us about humanitarian disasters, scorched earth, and desolate villages I saw such villages in southern Sudan in 1998. Point 11 of the 1998 Select Committee report states:
"We urge journalists not only to report the starvation of Sudan but also to investigate, question and pursue the reasons for war and the possibilities for peace, as has been done, for example, in Bosnia. This has not as yet been properly done and reporting of the crisis in Sudan is to that extent sadly it adequate."
The same is needed today. Journalises, please listen—go and talk to those other groups, do not concentrate solely on Darfur, look to the future.
Since 1998, I have been bleating about the only long-term solution for countries such as Sudan—development aid. In one sense, the Foreign Minister, whom we met a couple of weeks ago, was correct. We try to give humanitarian aid when it is needed, but such countries need development aid. Most of the time most of Sudan is not at war, so at the very least we could try to educate children. That will, in the long term, have a preventive effect if we can get gradually get in some development aid. Humanitarian aid is all very well, but I remember the previous Secretary of State saying that a lot of it went to the rebel groups. It was captured and
78WH
used by them, and could even have prolonged the war. Development aid is needed. We must also consider debt relief for Sudan. If we can give Iraq debt relief when it has billions of dollars worth of oil in the ground, surely we can give it to Sudan, which has a lot less oil and is much further away from extracting it from the ground. We must examine the long-term development of that country.
I am reminded that I am still wearing a rather rough bracelet made out of cartridge cases. A woman in Bahr el Ghazal in southern Sudan gave it to me in 1998, and I was pledged to wear it until there was peace between the north and the south. A few weeks ago I was very optimistic about the prospect of being able to take it off—it makes a black mark on my arm and is not all that comfortable. However, I will have to leave it on for the people of Darfur: perhaps it will act as a lucky charm for them and eventually they will see peace. They need peace. The only way to obtain peace is for us to think ahead, to understand the causes of conflict in those areas and, most of all, to use development aid.
10.9 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am pleased to have the chance to take part in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who joined us on the last all-party visit to Sudan. I am sorry that he will not be with us in three weeks' time when we return. This is a timely debate, and I suspect that it will carry on in a few hours' time in the main Chamber.
It is essential to reflect on the enormous progress that has taken place in Sudan in recent years. Peace talks have proceeded slowly, but productively. Peace has come to a very large part of the country, and there have been effective monitoring mechanisms in problematic areas, such as the Nuba mountains. There have been fundamental, important agreements on a referendum, which will take place six or so years down the road, on power sharing, wealth sharing and smaller contentious issues relating to the application of sharia and the status of various parts of the country.
The current tragedy in Darfur can be seen as a symptom of the frustration of a number of groups that have been telling our Government and everyone in Sudan for a long time of their frustration at being excluded from the peace process. It is vital that that process draws to a conclusion so that what is called the pre-interim period can begin, wherein a range of groups from throughout the country can engage fully in discussion about the way forward and the way in which they will be involved in the country's future development.
That is the overall context, and in our despair about the current situation we should lose sight neither of that nor of the enormously constructive diplomatic role that this country played in the peace process. The other day I heard on the radio a programme featuring the Secretary of State, which implied that the Government had become aware of the situation in Sudan about two weeks ago. Hon. Members know that that is absolutely wrong. It is important to pay tribute to the work that has been done.
Many people have a responsibility in relation to this issue. The Government of Sudan have an enormous responsibility, as do the Sudan People's Liberation

79WH
Movement and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, to draw peace talks quickly to a conclusion. The immediate problem is the desperate situation of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—who face death during the next few months as the rainy season takes hold. We are talking about people who are in internally displaced persons camps, who have run away from their homes, who have no shelter, security, food or health care, and who have nothing to sustain them in what will become increasingly appalling circumstances. There can be no excuse for the Sudanese Government's denying humanitarian access to those people.
On the other hand, there can be no excuse for all the nations of the world that have finally woken up to the desperate circumstances of the people of Darfur for not bringing to bear on the situation in Darfur all their resources, ingenuity, skill and international co-operation. Huge efforts have been made in Iraq; let us have a fraction of those efforts to save hundreds of thousands of lives in Sudan. There should be a UN Security Council resolution, and I believe that the United Nations should rise to the occasion and take a lead. It is good that our country and the United States have contributed so much already, but an international or a multinational effort is needed.
We must ensure that ceasefire monitors and police from the African Union are allowed to do their work. That work needs to be benchmarked, so that we are clear that the ceasefire is being monitored, but above all we need to ensure good access. This may be a question for the Secretary of State rather than the Minister, but has an estimate been made of how many people will be beyond access when the rains come? To how many can we gain access now in order to provide them with sustenance for the next few months? If we know that we will not be able to gain access over the next few months because of the rains, surely an international effort is needed now to get those people out of a situation that will lead to their deaths.
I do not see why, with all the resources that the world has at its disposal, we cannot locate everyone who needs our help and get them everything that they need to sustain themselves. If we cannot get to them before or during the rains, an international effort will clearly be needed to get them out, to give them support, and to try to stop people dying in the numbers envisaged.
There can be nothing more important than that the entire world deals with the situation now. We should not stand by, nor should we allow others to stand by and allow people to die on the scale envisaged. Once we have dealt with that situation, there may be a positive and effective impetus to move forward and ensure that the peace process in Sudan is completed. Once we are through the interim period, all concerned groups in the country will have to come together so that we can start to build towards elections in Sudan, and the crucial referendum in six months' time that will decide the future of the country.
10.18 am
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to be able to take part in such an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on initiating it.
80WH
There was a time, certainly within the lifetime of most of us in the Chamber, when many people of good will thought that the most serious problems facing Africa were caused by the activities of the west, with its western colonialism and western neo-imperialism. It is a tragedy that cannot be overstated that, long after the winds of political change swept across Africa, region after region became convulsed by intercommunal strife. One reason why the conscience of the world seems so hard to rouse on such occasions may be the spectacle of Africans killing Africans.
Today's debate is important not only because of the scale of the humanitarian tragedy that may yet engulf the region, which could be as big a tragedy as Rwanda, if not bigger, nor because not enough attention has been paid to the tragedy It is important because the situation in Sudan raises many general issues about Africa and international affair. For instance, it raises the question whether we need a more robust system of international law to encompass humanitarian intervention and a different mindset in the Security Council on international relations. I did not support the war in Iraq. Only with reluctance would I support western intervention in other parts of the world. But it is clear when we study Sudan and other issues that we need a more robust system of international law that would legitimise such interventions.
A further issue raised by the situation in Sudan is the rubble of the post-cold war world. Various factions in obscure parts of Africa were funded by different sides in the cold war. Once the cold war ended, we all congratulated ourselves on the collapse of the Berlin wall, but those armed and militarised factions continued to fight in Sudan and Somalia and across the region.
Another issue underlying the problems in Sudan is scarce resources. When examining the roots of intercommunal strife in Africa, one often finds that the situation is partly the result of the post-cold war situation but also partly the result of fighting for scarce resources.
Finally, having made so much in the international community of the need to intervene in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, will we stand by and allow another Rwanda in Sudan?
As has been said, from 1916 to 1956, Darfur was a backwater ruled by a handful of British officials, including the relatives of the hon. Member for Blaby. One root cause of the present crisis goes back to the 1980s, when prolonged droughts accelerated the desertification of northern and central Darfur and led to pressure on water and grazing resources as the camel nomads were forced to move southwards. Conflicts over wells and water that would in earlier times have been settled with spears or mediation are settled in the 21st century with guns. The situation was made much worse by the decision of Sadiq al-Mahdi, the Prime Minister in the mid-1980s, to give arms to the Arabic-speaking cattle nomads, leading to today's ethnic cleansing.
The ethnicisation of the conflict has grown rapidly since the military coup in 1989. Of course, one reason why the Khartoum Government are determined to retain control over the area is the possibility of an oil pipeline through Darfur. Once again, we come to one of the issues underlying intercommunal conflict all over the world.

81WH
Kofi Annan has said that the international community is prepared to take action on the situation in Sudan, meaning the continuum of steps that might include military action. Obviously, any such action would have to take place under the aegis of the Security Council, but the Security Council has discussed the crisis twice and declined to condemn the Khartoum Government. More focus on the issue is needed at the very highest levels.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government, who are one of the biggest donors to Sudan and who, as has been pointed out, are not looking at the question only now but have been addressing it for some time. However, underlying issues are involved. Even if we avert the yet greater humanitarian crisis that may engulf the area, we as a Parliament must address those issues. What is the proper framework for humanitarian intervention? To what extent should the west take responsibility for the shambles left behind after the end of the cold war? As colleagues have said, the only way to stave off recurrent flare-ups of violence over scarce resources is by injecting development aid and considering the whole economic infrastructure of countries.
No one who cares about Africa and what it means to people of African descent all over the world can fail to be moved by the situation in Sudan. Sadly, that situation is replicated across the continent. I hope that Security Council and the Government can take action that may yet avert the impending tragedy, but I also hope that the Government will continue to play a part in addressing the underlying causes of the economic and political underdevelopment of the African continent.
10.24 am
Mr. David Drew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on introducing the debate. We will miss him. If nothing else, we will miss his taking the opportunity to start sparring again with Vice-President Taha, which is something that will long stay in my memory, if not his.
I shall not cover ground that has already been covered. I believe that there is unanimity on the matter and that we all feel passionately about it. In a previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who chairs the all-party group on Sudan, I made two points. The first was that it is a scandal that the world faired to see what was inevitable and predictable months ago. That has much to do with the fact that the eyes of the world have been fixed obsessively on Iraq. I did not support the intervention there, and I feel guilty for my fellow human beings who could not stretch their minds away from it into other parts of the world: Sudan, was desperate for intervention, although I do not mean military intervention.
My second point was well made by the hon. Members for Blaby and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge): the Government of Sudan have form. Not much research is needed to find out what has been going on. Members of the all-party group are always indebted to the Sudan Organisation Against Torture for its excellent work, which has not been mentioned so far. The organisation clearly presents some of what goes oil behind the scenes. One has only partly to believe that the Government are responsible for torture, let alone the many other ills in that society.
82WH
As for the United Nations, we must not forget that the history in this context is not one that attracts glowing endorsement. I think in particular of the role of Libya when it was on the UN commission on human rights; it chaired the commission for part of that time, and it was then that the special rapporteur, Herbert Baum, was removed, much against his will. He was doing some excellent work in highlighting some of the problems that were occurring.
The usual argument was made at the UN: "It is none of your business." Libya made it clear that the matter was an internal, tribal dispute. If that was so, I hate to think how any other conflict would be defined. That attitude is unacceptable. If Libya is now part of the greater world, and we are engaged in a love-in with it, it must act responsibly. That means criticising nations with which it may have a strategic partnership. We want to hear that that is so and that Libya is prepared to go beyond the sometimes flaccid comments of diplomatic language. It must be willing and able to lean on the Government of Sudan. There is no evidence that it has done so.
We all very much welcome the peace at Naivasha. One worry is that, while, with the eyes of the world on Sudan, there has been encouragement to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to sign a deal with the Government, there are many other places to be concerned about. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, most of Sudan is at peace. However, the possibility of the balkanisation of the country is a worry. We have seen what has happened in the south and what is now happening in Darfur. There are many other places in Sudan where ethnic conflicts could break out. The world must continue to attend to what is happening in that country. We cannot step back from that.
There is a worry—it is not a conspiracy theory—at the back of my mind; I was talking to an oil analyst the other day about the situation in Western Sahara. I said that we were going to Sudan. He dropped into the conversation the comment, "Of course, since we found oil in Chad, it would not be surprising if there were similar resources in Darfur, and someone somewhere had been thinking in advance about land grabs." That is the history of the south. The matter is not simply one of Arabs versus Africans and Islam versus Christianity. It is one of resources, as is the situation in Iraq. Let us not fool ourselves; there are things going on behind the scenes.
I pay tribute to the British Government. It is wrong for them to be criticised for disengagement from the issue. They have been highly engaged. The work of Alan Goulty, which has not been mentioned, deserves credit. He has been shuffling regularly between meetings with people in this country, the Government of Sudan, the SPLM and all the other parties. It is a very difficult situation, and we must be engaged and never again forget Sudan.
10.30 am
Tom Brake: I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this timely debate. There have been heartfelt contributions from all Members present, all expressing a desire to help the

83WH
people of Darfur. The situation there is desperate, and I will not repeat the statistics about displaced people. It is the worst humanitarian crisis that the world faces. As well as the hunger and murder, the Ebola crisis developing in the south may spread throughout the country. If things were not already bad enough, there is that element to add to the picture as well.
I am grateful to Alan Goulty, DFID's official, for briefing me on the subject on Monday. From what he was saying and from press reports, it appears that the Government and DFID have done much to alleviate the situation in Darfur and facilitate the peace process in the south, and I congratulate them wholeheartedly on that. However, it appears—I put it no stronger than that—that the UK and other countries could do more to apply the necessary pressure to the Sudanese Government to fulfil their obligations to the people of Darfur.
I hope that the Minister will set out how the UK Government can exert pressure on the Sudanese Government to ensure that the security and protection of civilians in Darfur is maximised. I welcome the statement yesterday from the Secretary of State in which he said:
"Action must also now be taken to bring irregular forces and militias under control. The Government of Sudan needs to take steps immediately to provide security to Darfurians, who told me yesterday that they will not return home until is it safe to do so."
I hope that that statement is the first notch and that pressure will be ratcheted up if the Sudanese Government do not respond.
Perhaps there have been developments in the last couple of days, but one thing that surprised me during the meeting on Monday was that by then the Sudanese Government had made no public statement condemning what is happening in Darfur. They had not distanced themselves from the Janjaweed nor ordered the militias to cease human rights abuses. I hope that more forthright statements have come from the Sudanese Government in the last couple of days.
It is interesting that in the notes from the all-party group on Sudan, which does an excellent job and produces very good briefings, Dr. Ismail is quoted as saying that
"the people in Darfur need security urgently and the Government of Sudan needs to move quickly to ensure their security…there is a humanitarian urgency…the Government of Sudan should collect weapons from those not in regular forces."
That is a positive statement but it is weak in its condemnation. With the contact that the Secretary of State has had, perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure us that condemnation has been more forceful in the last couple of days. I understand the niceties of Sudanese politics, and the concern may be that forthright condemnation from the Government would lead to the breakdown of the peace process. Therefore it must be done tactfully. It must be done, however, because the killing continues.
I welcome the fact that our Government are putting more resources into assisting the African Union. A timetable is needed to ensure the improved protection of civilians and humanitarian access and the speeding up of the customs clearing process. I understand that it currently takes weeks and that the target is to reduce it to seven days.
84WH
The most urgent task is to get the Government of Sudan to do all that they can to halt the killings and destruction in Darfur. I hope that the Minister can tell us what means our Government have at their disposal to encourage the Sudanese Government to send the necessary public signals, to issue the relevant military orders and to do their best to deploy more impartial police and security personnel in Darfur. On the latter point, it would be a source of enormous concern if the Sudanese Government simply encouraged the Janjaweed to swap their uniforms for police uniforms. That would not create a climate in which displaced people would want to return to their lands.
The Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs claims that ethnic cleansing is not taking place in Darfur as ethnic cleansing means d populating areas and bringing in a different group to replace those who have fled. Does the Minister agree, however, that what is happening amounts, in effect to ethnic cleansing if the original inhabitants cannot return in the short term because of the rain, in the medium term because they have been unable plant their crops for next year, and in the long term because they cannot trust the security forces? At the very least, one ethnicity has been cleared out, and the land has been left empty. What assistance could the UK Government give to encourage the creation of a police force that people in the region can trust? Could they perhaps do something about training?
Clearly, the situation in Darfur is desperate, but there are positive developments, and the peace process is one. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the applicability of the model that has been developed for the south. Could it be transposed on to Darfur to provide Darfurians with some of the devolution that they seek?
I turn briefly to the role that the UK can play in getting the international community more involved. Would the Minister support a firm statement by the UN Security Council condemning atrocities in Darfur, or does he agree with the Secretary of State, who is quoted today as saying that talk of military intervention is unhelpful? What role does the Minister see other countries on the Security Council playing? I understand that China, Pakistan and Algeria have not been terribly helpful in developing clear statements or firm action on the issue. Does he believe that the European Union has a greater role to play in bringing an end to the violence? Can the Government do more to encourage our key European partners such as France and Germany, to contribute greater assistance?
One hopes that the situation in Darfur will be resolved at some point, but as several hon. Members have said, there will be still be a significant humanitarian and environmental problem once the situation has been resolved. The region is badly affected by climate change and desertification, so the land will probably not be able to support people. What role can we play in the longer term in providing developmental aid to the region? Clearly, such aid will be needed once the humanitarian crisis and military conflict have been resolved.
Darfur is isolated from the rest of world; it is 800 miles from Khartoum, with no roads. It is our responsibility to put it centre stage and to keep it there. The international community must use all the means at its disposal to stop the killing and to provide the humanitarian assistance that is needed to prevent the

85WH
tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths that could occur. We still have time to prevent this disaster from turning into a calamity of biblical proportions, but time is slipping away, and we must redouble our efforts before it is too late.
10.39 am
Mr. John Bercow: The debate was opened in admirable fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) His speech was followed by several powerful and impassioned contributions from right hon. and hon. Members.
The former United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, famously described what is happening in Darfur as
"the worst humanitarian and human-rights catastrophe in the world."
However blame is apportioned, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is clear that the Janjaweed militia is responsible for massive violence, that a climate of impunity in Darfur continues to prevail and that the Government of Sudan permit the Janjaweed to exercise a reign of terror over Darfurians. His report and those of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group paint a consistent and unmistakeable picture. UNICEF has access to only half the displacement camps and, as hon. Members know, the safety of its aid workers is often far from guaranteed. The recent capture and subsequent release of 16 UN aid workers is but one example of the poor security that humanitarian agencies face. Oxfam says:
"Food stocks are depleting fast, access, to drinking water is limited".
and Médecins sans Frontières has emphasised that the lives of tens of thousands of people in Darfur are at risk.
Last month I wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development to detail my concerns about the situation in Darfur. I was grateful for his prompt reply. I should now like to put some specific questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Shortly before the Whitsun recess, the Secretary of State wrote to me to say that the Government expected the Government in Khartoum to "rein in" the Janjaweed militia. Does the Minister accept that the Janjaweed militia in Darfur is manifestly sponsored and armed by the Sudanese Government? How does he think that the Sudanese Government intend to disarm or limit the capabilities of the Janjaweed? Would he accept that reports, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred, of the Sudanese Government's proposals simply to incorporate the Janjaweed forces into the country's formal police and security structures offer scant reassurance to those only too well aware of their wanton savagery?
What measures do the Government propose to take with others to ensure that forcible repatriation of refugees does not take place in Chad and Darfur? Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the impotence and passivity of the United Nations in the face of genocide in Rwanda is not repeated in Sudan? On the assumption that he of course does, will ha say whether the Government intend to press for a robust United Nations
86WH
Security Council resolution explicitly condemning the Government of Sudan for the ethnic cleansing of Darfur?
Does the Minister agree that, in urging the Government in Khartoum to provide aid operations immediate and full access to war-affected populations in Darfur, pressure needs to be applied for the opening of the rail lines, so that the United Nations can make massive deliveries of food and medicine from Port Sudan? Will the Government seek to join forces with the United States, the European Union and other donor Governments to approach Libya, Chad, other neighbouring countries and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in order to establish alternative channels, which are not subject to Khartoum's veto, for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Darfur by land and air? Will the Minister stress that the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement should admit all humanitarian aid facilities into territory that they control, including from Government-controlled areas, subject to the proviso only that those deliveries are not accompanied by Government military forces?
Earlier this week, the UN emergency relief coordinator noted the imposition of new obstacles to aid, including an insistence that all medical supplies should be tested in Sudanese laboratories and that all supplies, including food, must be carried in Sudanese trucks and distributed by Sudanese charities or Government agencies. What representations has the Secretary of State for International Development made to the Sudanese Government on that point?
What recent discussions have Ministers had with the African Union, the United States and EU member states, to ensure that, in implementing the role of the ceasefire commission, there are adequate numbers of ceasefire monitors, equipped with helicopters and Land Rovers, in the major towns of west, north and south Darfur? If Government bombing occurs in Darfur, should not the Security Council authorise a no-fly zone to protect civilian populations and consult with those states with the capacity to enforce such a restriction to urge them to do so?
I hope that the Minister will agree that the Security Council should appoint a high-level panel to investigate war crimes in Darfur, establish legal accountability and deter the commission of further atrocities. Those guilty of heinous crimes must be held to account. I hope that the Minister accepts that and that he also accepts that we need to see detailed proposals for compensation and reparation for all victims who have lost grain, livestock and other assets.
The crisis in Darfur is harrowing. That point has been eloquently made by many others and I do not seek to compete with them or to improve on their descriptions. The crisis comes 10 years after the genocide in Rwanda, and none of us can be in any doubt about how much is at stake or where our own responsibility lies. Once again another African people who are innocent have been violated on a scale so grotesque as to defy all but the most vivid and, dare I say it, lurid imaginations. This time, the world has the chance to ensure that Darfur does not descend into genocide. There is not a moment to lose. As each day passes more lives are lost. We have a responsibility to act now. Our duty, in terms of humanitarian aid, diplomatic contact and moral pressure, is abundantly clear.

87WH
I have the highest respect for the Secretary of State for International Development as a humanitarian. I am in no doubt about how horrified and appalled he is by what has taken place. The Government have made an important commitment and are providing financial resources, and the Secretary of State has displayed considerable energy in attending to the situation. Insofar as the Government do what is necessary on all the fronts that I have described, they can be assured of enthusiastic support from Conservative Members.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): As the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned, the Secretary of State for International Development had hoped to be here in time to respond to this debate, but his plane has unfortunately been delayed and he asked me to respond in his place. He hopes to make a statement to the House in the very near future. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaby for raising this important issue and to hon. Members who are present, many of whom have taken a long-term interest in events in Sudan, for the generally constructive tone of today's debate.
Darfur is the most serious humanitarian emergency facing the world today. Several thousand people have already lost their lives, and if there is not swift and effective intervention, many more may do so. This is a man-made catastrophe. Its origins lie in a local rebellion, apparently fuelled by outside interference, which has resulted in a massive over-reaction by the Sudanese Government and their agents, in particular the Janjaweed militia.
As hon. Members have described, there have been systematic attacks on civilians: rape, pillage, looting and destruction of livelihoods. As a result, more than 130,000 people have fled to neighbouring Chad and there are perhaps a million internally displaced people inside Sudan. Their situation is desperate and will grow more so with the onset of the rains, which are beginning now.
The ability of the international community to respond has been limited—initially at least—by lack of access. Darfur is, at the best of times, an extremely remote area and the difficulties have been compounded by obstruction on the part of local authorities and by the Government in Khartoum. Lately, as a result of repeated representations by ourselves and others, there has been some improvement, at least in the situation in Khartoum. On the ground in Darfur, however, there is still some way to go before aid agencies can obtain access to all of the worst affected people.
As I said, we have made repeated representations to the Sudanese Government about the need for unhindered access. Our ambassador, William Patey, has been in almost daily contact with them. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development and I pressed the Sudanese Foreign Minister on the matter when he visited London recently, and the International Development Secretary has pursued the issue in Darfur and in Khartoum in the past few days.
88WH
We have been repeatedly assured by the Sudanese Government that all obstacles to access will be removed. I am glad to report that, at least so far as the central Government are concerned, there are signs that that may be happening. There are indications from the United Nations and other agencies that new fast-track procedures for clearing humanitarian relief through customs, registering non-governmental organisations and granting travel permits are beginning to work. However, there is no cause for complacency. Much time has been lost, and the ability of agencies to deliver relief to those in desperate need will decrease with the onset of the rains.
The first priority is the continued lack of security in much of Darfur. A ceasefire was agreed in Chad on 8 April, but, although the worst of the atrocities have ceased, attacks and intimidation by local militia continue. African Union monitors are starting to be deployed and, as they do so, we expect access to improve, and we are pressing the UN to get a move on with the deployment of its monitors.
Perhaps I could say a few words about the UK response. I am grateful to those hon. Members who acknowledged that the UK has been engaged with Sudan for some years. We have not suddenly become aware of it in the past couple of weeks, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) implied. Hon. Members of all parties will acknowledge that we have played a leading cart in raising the matter with the Sudanese Government, the UN and its agencies and the European Union, and I expect it to be discussed at the G8 meeting.
I wish to add my tribute to Alan Goulty and his colleagues in the Sudan unit for the part that they played in helping to achieve the peace agreement between the north and the south, which was recently signed at Naivasha. It is an extremely important agreement, and, as some hon. Members said today, it is also extremely important to ensure that the catastrophe in Darfur does not destabilise all the good work that has been done in the past couple of years to achieve a settlement between the north and the south.
Mr. Robathan: I said in my speech that the UK Government have generally behaved extremely well over Sudan. I am not here to criticise them. Could the Minister say something more about the G8? Condoleezza Rice said that Sudan would be discussed. What does he think might come out of the meeting, or does he have no idea?
Mr. Mullin: I think that I had better leave the answer to that question to the G8 participants on Sea island, of whom I am not one I am sure that word will filter out soon.
The UK has been in the forefront of the humanitarian relief effort. Since last September, it has committed humanitarian relief worth £19.5 million for nutrition, health, water and sanitation, and yesterday in Khartoum my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further allocation of £15 million for humanitarian assistance plus £2 million to support African Union monitoring. Overall, that is the second largest contribution after the United States. The US, the EU and the UK have

89WH
contributed 75 per cent. of the response to the crisis so far, and we are anxious to encourage other donors to do more.
Strengthening the response of the UN agencies has been critical. We have already seconded four staff to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and three to the UN joint logistics centre. We are considering further support in the form of personnel and equipment to UN agencies including UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, as well as logistical support to the World Food Programme. Our in-kind contribution to the UN appeal for non-food aid accounts for about 25 per cent. of the requirement for blankets and a large part of the contribution made for temporary shelters. We are now airlifting those supplies to Darfur.
In the short time left to me I shall try to deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members. They are likely to have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for International Development, who be coming hotfoot from Sudan, but I shall write to hon. Members about points that I do not have time to get round to now or that are not dealt with by him.
The hon. Member for Blaby asked about the absence of a UN humanitarian co-ordinator. An acting UN coordinator, Kevin Kennedy, is now n post. As for the humanitarian monitoring force, we hope, as I said, that that will be dealt with in the near future, but the African Union monitors are already beginning to be deployed.
Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), asked for maximum pressure on the Government of Sudan. I hope that we have demonstrated that considerable pressure is being exerted by us and others, and that there is evidence that it is having an effect, albeit belatedly. There is still, of course, scope for considerable improvement.
90WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked how the aid will be distributed. Generally speaking, it will be distributed in-country and directly. That is already beginning to happen. Of course, aid will also have to be supplied to the 130,000 refugees in Chad. She also asked who is arming the rebels. The area is unfortunately awash with weapons, and it is not difficult for people to acquire them. However, there are signs, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, of outside interference. I am not in a position to go into the details today, but the hon. Lady is right to raise that wider issue.
The hon. Lady also asked about development aid. We are committed to that, especially in support of the agreement reached at Naivasha. However, as I am sure she will appreciate, we do not want to prop up any Government who are behaving as badly as some Governments in the region have done. Therefore, we are concentrating in the short term on humanitarian aid. However, she is right that development aid is the long-term solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that we should not overlook the progress that has already been made. I am grateful to him for the tribute that he paid to Alan Goulty and the Sudan unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was right to raise the underlying issues. There is a big picture to be taken into consideration; she is right that we need a more robust system of international intervention and a different mindset on the Security Council. However, in the dying moments of the debate I do not think that I can elaborate on that point.
The next four to six weeks will be critical. Leadership, co-ordination and the deployment of experienced personnel are the key to avoiding a catastrophe and that must be our focus for the time being.

Freedom of Information
11 am
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful both to have secured this debate and that the Minister is here to respond.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was a flagship piece of legislation for the Labour Government, which fulfilled heroic, long-term pledges to institute such legislation. It will come fully into force in January 2005. That long-awaited reform gives the public the essential right to know what Government and public bodies are doing in their name. It aims to strengthen the rights of the individual, to make Government more accountable and responsive, to improve decision making by exposing data to public scrutiny, and to permit public debate on the basis of facts rather than supposition and ignorance. It also invites authorities to demonstrate that they are addressing problems, not covering them up, that they are competent and committed, and that they deserve the public's trust.
For those benefits to come about, the information itself must be accessible and affordable. During the passage of the Act, Members repeatedly highlighted the issue of fees, warning that high charges for information would undermine the right of access. In response, Ministers promised a relatively modest charging regime, under which those requesting information would pay no more than 10 per cent. of the cost of finding the information for which they had asked, plus the full cost of expenses such as copying and postage. Ministers set out those details in draft fees regulations, which were published while the Bill was still before Parliament.
We now read press reports that the Government are said to be considering dropping that approach and substituting an alternative regime that involves substantially higher fees, which, reportedly, might lead to charges that are six or even 10 times greater than those promised. Apparently, the intention is to limit the number of requests made to public authorities, but such charges would do more than that: they would destroy the Act as an effective, affordable means of obtaining information. Businesses and companies might benefit from the Act, but the ordinary citizen would not. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the press reports are not wholly accurate, but what concerns me—and, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House—is the possibility that the explicit commitment repeatedly made to both Houses of Parliament may be broken. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is no such possibility.
Let me remind the Chamber of the promises. The Freedom of Information Bill was published in draft form in May 1999 and was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Public Administration, of which I was a member. I see the current Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), present in the Chamber. The Home Office, which had responsibility for the Bill, said in written evidence to the Committee:
"we propose to allow authorities discretion to charge up to 10 per cent. of the marginal costs of providing information and in addition the full cost of disbursements…The costs would relate to locating the information and preparing it for disclosure".
92WH
When the Bill was debated in Standing Committee, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said:
"We have decided to apply a charge equivalent to 10 per cent. of marginal costs…Unlike other jurisdictions, we are limiting the application to the marginal cost of locating and finding the information."
Later the same morning, he said:
"The basic regulations will lay down a method for calculating fees; 10 per cent of marginal costs."
That afternoon, he said:
"we have further made it clear that the charge to applicants will not exceed 10 per cent. of those marginal costs." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2000; c. 87–113.]
Mr. John Greenway: I was the Opposition spokesman in that Standing Committee—it is hard to believe that it was only four years ago. It is fair to say that the cost issue went to the heart of our ability to be confident that the Bill would deliver anything to the ordinary citizen. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless access to information comes at a cost that people can afford, the Act will prove to have been a waste of time?
Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to his commitment to the Bill and to the noteworthy work that he did in Standing Committee. The substance of today's debate is to hold the Government to a pledge that seems to have been given. I hope that they will hold to it.
On Report the then Home Secretary said:
"The cost of complying with a request is the cost of locating information, plus disbursements, but authorities may charge only up to 10 per cent. of those marginal costs."—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol. 347, c 933.]
There is no question but that there was a great deal of reiteration. When the Bill reached the other place, the Government spokesman told peers:
"The Government have published their draft fees regulations. The policy is that the maximum fee should be 10 per cent of the marginal costs of seeking and finding the information."—[Official Report, House of Lords 14 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 186–7.]
The draft fees regulations, which had indeed been published and are still available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website, state that, apart from disbursements, the maximum fee that may be charged is
"10 per cent. of the prescribed costs".
The prescribed costs are defined as the costs reasonably incurred in locating and retrieving the requested information, and in providing it in the form requested by the applicant.
If anyone imagines that those charges might leave public authorities exposed to an unmanageable volume of requests, let me highlight the safeguards that the Act provides. First, under section 14(1), if the request is vexatious, the authority is not obliged to respond. Secondly, under section 14(2), if the applicant previously made an identical or substantially similar request to the authority, the authority is excused from replying
"unless a reasonable interval has elapsed."

93WH
Thirdly, if the cost to the authority exceeds the limit laid down under section 12, the authority does not have to respond at all. The Government have said that the limit will be set at the level at which a parliamentary question can be refused, which I believe is currently £600. Fourthly, if the applicant divides a request into a series of smaller requests in order to avoid the limit, the cost of the different requests can be aggregated. Regulations to provide for that can be made under section 12. Finally, where different requests are made by different people who appear to be acting tog ether, as part of a campaign, the regulations may permit their requests also to be aggregated and refused if the total cost exceeds £600.
Those are formidable—some would say excessive—safeguards. The House accepted them only because Ministers repeatedly promised that the charge for an individual request could not exceed the 10 per cent. figure. That is why some of us are disturbed that reports that that principle could be abandoned have appeared in the press.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland the number of freedom of information requests halved when the fees were increased? Is not that the concern that he is articulating?
Mr. Shepherd: That is the basis of the whole debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
I know that Constitutional Affairs Ministers recognise the importance of the Freedom of Information Act and are genuinely committed to its success. If there is pressure to raise the fees, I am sure that it is coming from elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will recognise, even if those elsewhere do not, how damaging it would be to abandon these commitments, and how damaging it would be to the Act, to the benefits that should flow from it—a point that the hon. Gentleman just made—and to the Government's credibility. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there is no question of that occurring.
11.9 am
Tony Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow my friend and parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as I have often dove on occasions such as this.
Over the years, I have found it sensible not always to believe the things that I read in The Guardian. Leaks are very naughty things, but they sometimes help us to make necessary interventions in public policy debates. Clearly, this intervention is necessary. We know from the draft document that is circulating that a battle is going on inside the Government. The Minister is one of the good guys. He and his Department want to preserve the spirit—indeed, the letter—of what the House was promised. However, there are bad guys. The hon. Gentleman was too kind to mention the bad guys who live in the Treasury—normally a great institution—who do not want the measure to cost much at all.
Clear, unambiguous, categorical, unequivocal guarantees were given to the House when the Freedom of Information Bill went through Amendments were
94WH
withdrawn because of those guarantees. We in Parliament take many things on trust—not least Ministers saying, "There's guidance to follow." We assume that the guidance will reflect what Ministers have told the House. When it does not, we are entitled to get very cross.
Will the Minister repeat today the assurances about the cost regime that were given to the House during the passage of the Freedom of Information Bill? I ask that in the spirit of helpfulness, because the answer given today will help him in the discussions that are going on.
11.11 am
Mr. David Heath: It is a great pleasure to follow the previous two speakers and to make this an all-party plea to the Minister. This debate sees a reunion of principal players in proceedings of the Freedom of Information Act. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I were part of the Standing Committee, and the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) made significant contributions on Report and in the other parliamentary stages.
I shall not repeat what has already been said. Nothing would please me more than to hear the Minister say that there is no substance whatever to the reports that have been published and that there is no possibility of fees being set that will act as a deterrent to the dissemination of information that was the whole purpose of the Act.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase was absolutely right to say that during the Committee stages of the Freedom of Information Bill, the hon. Member for Ryedale and I, and my then right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, now Lord Maclennan, tabled a series of amendments. It was not by accident that the Minister who took the Bill through Committee, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), had to repeat his assurances throughout Tuesday 18 January 2000. We had repeatedly questioned him on the point and tabled many amendments. We tabled amendments to provide that where no information was supplied, no payment should be made—"no say, no pay", as I put it at the time. We tabled amendments to provide that where no charges currently apply, the Bill should not have the perverse effect of introducing charges. We tabled amendments to exempt information provided in the public interest and to assert that applicable charges should be reasonable in the circumstances of the inquiry. To all of those, we received the most positive reassurances from the Minister that the Government did not have a fee regime in mind that would deter access to information.
The present debate has two aspects. First, we need to have good public policy. We have a Freedom of Information Act—let us make it do the job for which it was intended, and not act as a deterrent. I hope that the Minister is not only fully apprised of the significance of what is needed, but is entirely in tune with that aspiration. Secondly, we need to have good faith. I believe that we were given assurances in good faith and we as a House are entitled to accept in good faith Ministers' assurances. The Minister can ensure today that in future debates we can believe what we are told

95WH
from the Dispatch Box and that we can govern in a proper way our debates on matters of vital importance to many of our constituents.
11.14 am
Mr. John Greenway: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister. I did not clear the possibility of my speaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) because I was not 100 per cent. sure that I could be in the Chamber by 11 o'clock, as I had some other parliamentary business to attend to.
I have two things to say. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and proving that we can have debates of national importance in Westminster Hall, rather than just raising issues of concern to our own constituents. My hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly on freedom of information throughout his career in the House and I congratulate him on securing the opportunity to put questions firmly to the Minister.
My second and key point is that all of the proceedings relating to the Freedom of Information Bill, in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House, were dominated by one concern. Although the Government had made great play of their decision to open up information to the general public, there was a deep-seated suspicion that that would turn out to be not quite so true. I recall a Bird and Fortune interview on "Bremner, Bird and Fortune" in which the "Minister" was persuaded to admit that no extra information would be made available at all.
That is the background to the issue, which is why the cost of obtaining information for members of the public is key to persuading everyone that the Government mean what they say. If the fees are excessive, people will not apply. As my hon. Friend said, there is a panoply of devices available to bodies to avoid vexatious and high-cost inquiries that are made simply for the sake of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the debate, and that we can get on with the job of ensuring that the legislation, on which we all spent a great deal of time, bears fruit and brings the availability of information that we all want.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate and on managing succinctly to describe his healthy scepticism, as other hon. Members have done, in respect of making sure that we are doing what we said we intended to do.
The Government took many people by surprise in passing the Freedom of Information Act early in our first Parliament. Despite the cynicism about it, we have made good progress in implementing the Act. It is a complex Act, but it is landmark legislation that will significantly change the environment and the character of the relationship between Government and the public. I pay tribute not only to my predecessors in government who were instrumental in forging such significant legislation, but to the champions of freedom of information, many of whom are present in the Chamber today.
96WH
I would like to give a little background to the situation. The Freedom of Information Act is being implemented in stages, with full implementation by 1 January 2005. We set out the timetable in 2001 and we have adhered to it. The Act will cover about 100,000 public authorities, inch as central and local government bodies, police authorities, health authorities, education services, and so on. The size of authorities covered varies significantly.
We are always ready to consider options that will help to make the Freedom of Information Act as effective and efficient as possible. Potential policy improvements need to be kept constantly under review. A good deal of work is now being done on many different aspects of the legislation as part of the preparation for its full implementation. For example, since the Act gained Royal Assent in November 2000, we have introduced seven orders giving effect to its various provisions, keeping the list of bodies covered up to date, and adding new bodies to the list. Three annual reports have been published detailing the steps taken towards implementation across the public sector. A model action plan for use by all public authorities that are subject to the Act has been designed to give general guidance on the sort of action that authorities should undertake to prepare for implementation of the Act; it also provides a coherent, structured path to effective readiness for implementation.
Detailed guidance on the Act is being produced. We will publish the first edition in July. We are also supportive of other initiatives, for example the creation of a professional freedom of information qualification, which could be of considerable value to the practitioner community that will develop as a result of the legislation. A separate network is being created to consider and develop the course content for a professional academic qualification. Much good work is being done as the policy environment for the new freedom of information framework comes on stream.
I come to the point that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and others asked about—fees and the report in The Guardian of 18 May, which claimed that the Government are seeking to revise the charging scheme under the Act set out in the draft fees regulations that we published in 2000. As is so often the case, that newspaper report is inaccurate—very inaccurate. Let me set out the facts regarding the proposed charging regime. Sections 9, 12 and 13 of the Act provide for fees to be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of state. In some cases, it may well be that no fees apply, but in others, there will be a fee to pay. The nature of the fee and how it is calculated will be set out in regulations. A public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying will exceed an appropriate limit. The regulations may also provide that, in some circumstances, the estimated costs of complying with two or more requests could be combined.
The draft fees regulations that were published during the passage of the Bill, proposed allowing a charge of up to 10 per cent. of the prescribed marginal costs of dealing with the re west, plus the full costs of any disbursements—copying, postage and so on. Prescribed costs are defined as any costs reasonably incurred by a

97WH
public authority in determining whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, in locating and retrieving any such information and in giving effect to any preference expressed by an applicant as to the means of communication of such information. It does not include the cost of staff time incurred in determining whether the public authority is obliged to comply with the request for information. As I mentioned, the regulations also provide an appropriate upper limit—a cost ceiling—beyond which authorities are not obliged to provide the information requested. The draft regulations link that with the disproportionate cost limit for answering parliamentary questions and set the amount at £550, although that would now be £600.
So that the fees regime will be operational by the time that the Act is fully implemented in January 2005, the Government will bring final regulations to Parliament in about October. Those regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
The story that appeared in The Guardian emerged from a clear process. An advisory group has been preparing guidance for public authorities on the charging regime. The group comprised representatives from Departments, the police, local government, the Office of the Information Commissioner and independent members of the advisory group on implementation of the Act. They include, for example, Maurice Frankel, the director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. It is hardly, as portrayed in the article, a secret Government committee. The advisory group's informal remit was to consider how the charging regime will work, to assist in making proposals for amendments to the draft regulations where necessary, and to advise on the drafting of guidance for public authorities on charging. That the group did.
I understand that the group also briefly considered alternative charging arrangements to those outlined in the draft regulations. A range of options were considered and discussed, including charging full marginal cost, charging a fixed fee and charging variable amounts based on an hourly rate. To an extent, that mirrored consideration given to the issue by the Government when preparing the Freedom of Information Bill and considering relevant documents; many of those have been published on my Department's website. The discussion is therefore not new. I understand that the group recognised that there were pros and cons to each of the options and that it did not reach unanimous agreement in favour of any one option. A majority of the group sup ported the option of a variable charging regime based upon an hourly rate.
A paper by the advisory group is being considered by officials who sit on the Whitehall freedom of information practitioners group. The members of that group will take into account the views of the wider public sector for which their Departments have responsibility, and will consult as necessary. The group will advise the Government should it consider changes to the published charging regime to be necessary or desirable.
Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Leslie: I shall give way before I come to the denouement of my argument.
Mr. Shepherd: I hope that my intervention will help the Minister to reach the denouement. We want to hear
98WH
an absolute and clear assertion that the Government will stick by the undertakings that they gave on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and that all the discussions elsewhere of other methods will be set aside. The Government should stick by their undertaking.
Mr. Leslie: I understand the direction of travel being taken by the hon. Gentleman and others. I shall come to that point, but I thought it important to set out the context from which the report emerged and to calm some of the concerns raised.
Obviously, the Government are aware of the commitments made during the Bill's passage through the House. We published the draft fees regulations during that time as further evidence of our commitment to the proposed charging regime. We are also aware that any action that we take to introduce different regulations will incur criticism from either those who opposed the legislation, or those who are its guardians. We will therefore need to be convinced that changes to the proposed charging regime offer a better, and not merely a different, option. A fee structure that acted as a significant deterrent to people making use of their rights under the Act would go against the spirit and purpose of the Act.
We intend that the cost of handling information requests is borne substantially by the public sector; that is right and proper, as we are accountable to the public. I cannot give an undertaking that every aspect of the draft fees regulations is set in stone and will not change; it would imprudent to do so. However, the gist of the point is that the costs of freedom of information requests should be borne substantially by the public sector. That is the Government's commitment.
Mr. Shepherd: The commitment given was explicit. The Minister spoke of the commitment given by the Government, but now seems to be trying to wriggle out of it—or at least exploring the possibility of doing so. The purpose of the debate was to establish whether the Government stood by a commitment that was given on more than one occasion. The Minister must answer that point. He is suggesting that there could be an alternative system, but what happened to the commitment to which he referred?
Mr. Leslie: I reiterate what I have said. Yes, it is true that the draft fees regulations referred to 10 per cent. of the prescribed marginal costs; as my noble Friends said in another place, any changes to that approach would have to provide a better state of affairs, not just a different one, to that set out in the regulations. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the degree of assurance that he seeks. We remain firmly committed to ensuring that the public sector bears the substantial burden of the costs on freedom of information requests. It would be wrong of us to not take into account the needs of the public sector and of the public in applying for freedom of information requests and in ensuring that they are easy to obtain. That commitment remains. That is the Government's position.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Sex Abuse Cases
2 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: First, I need to make hon. Members aware of the fact that I chair the all-party group on abuse investigations, which was established three years ago and has 60 or 70 members drawn from both Houses. In addition, I have been a member of Rape Crisis for four years.
I intend to talk about the interviewing techniques used with victims of physical or sexual abuse. The categories of victim I wish to discuss include: children who make allegations of sexual or physical abuse against teachers; individuals in prison who are victims of sexual abuse; women who are the subject of domestic physical or sexual abuse; and children who make allegations of abuse against individuals, irrespective of where it occurs.
The interviewing of teachers following an allegation of abuse is of immense interest to thousands of teachers in schools throughout the country. Let me give hon. Members some idea of what we are dealing with. According to the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, since 1991 nearly 2,000 of its members have been the subject of a complaint by a young person at school. Of those complaints, nearly 1,800 were proved to be false, but even though the allegations were malicious or vexatious, the lives of many of the 1,800 people who were falsely accused have been ruined for ever.
Following work in which I was involved last year, and with the support of the Home Office, the Press Complaints Commission and the other broadcasting authorities have come under concerted pressure to deal with the way in which allegations of sexual abuse are reported. That was in recognition of the fact that, even though very few of the many people accused of that horrendous crime go on to be convicted, the accusation and the publicity associated with it mean that lives are trashed for ever. Three teachers who were members of NASUWT committed suicide as a consequence of the allegations that were raised against them. That is sad for many reasons, not least because, if they were innocent, they have lost their opportunity to prove their innocence. Such cases reflect the stress, horror and revulsion experienced by those who face such charges.
Absolutely nobody is saying that it is wrong of a child to make an allegation of sexual or physical abuse, but we must be mindful of the procedures that are employed in taking evidence from children. If 1,800 children make allegations that eventually falter, 1,800 too many allegations go forward into the system. It has long been a concern of mine—not only in this regard, but in others, which I shall discuss later—that those involved in taking statements from children are not adequately trained. We do not have facilities that enable children to make declarations that are untarnished by the contribution of any of the agencies that are involved in the process. A child who makes an allegation in school may see half a dozen people before a formal statement is eventually taken from them, and throughout the country, there is a paucity of appropriate venues for taking statements. Despite good efforts—I want more effort to be made in this respect—the people who take evidence from the children may not be trained to do so. Despite being very
100WH
nice and well intentioned, they might not be able adequately to assess whether the child is speaking the truth or lying.
In this country at this time there is a general belief that children who make accusations of being sexually or physically abused are telling the truth. That is a natural reaction to the decades—probably centuries—in which children who alleged that they were being sexually or physically abused were routinely ignored. It was thought that they could not be telling the truth because no adult would perpetrate that sort of crime on a child. We now know that not to be the case. However, there is now a real concern within the teaching and caring professions that once a child makes an allegation, there is a presumption that the child is speaking the truth. The nature of the evidence provided by the child means that it frequently cannot be corroborated by a third party—the case may consist of their recollection of an event against a teacher's Given the climate that has been engendered over the past few years in relation to any individual who is accused of sex offences, who could blame a teacher for doubting whether they will ever be free of the allegation made against them, even if they manage to prove their own innocence?
The NASUWT and the other teachers unions have expressed concerns to Education Ministers, and I have made known to the Home Office my concerns about the way in which individuals are interviewed. If we poured more specialist resources in at the beginning of the process, probably far fewer cases would be taken forward. That could save teachers' lives, given that, in the present circumstances, teachers so accused are not afforded anonymity
Without anonymity, as I said earlier, there is the risk that many lives will be lost. We are talking not just about the lives of teachers and their future welfare, but about the families of which they are members and the communities of which they are part. Such allegations touch everyone. I have dealt with men who have been able to prove that they are not guilty of the crime of which they were accused, but even so it is almost impossible to look it them and not think, "Are you really innocent?" There is no other crime of which someone can be accused that leaves such a stigma and such everlasting doubt. In these cases, more than in any other, people believe that there is no smoke without fire, and that belief damns thousands of people every year.
I back the NASUWT campaign for anonymity for teachers until they are convicted of the charges brought against them. Such anonymity is only fair. When I put that proposal to the Home Office, I was told that if it was implemented it would preclude others coming forward to make further allegations against the individuals concerned. I understand that claim, but it presupposes that the police have not already trawled extensively for further complaints. We must not think for one moment that when a teacher sexually abuses a child, only that child is subsequently interviewed. It will not be only that child. It could be every child at the school, and perhaps every child who has attended the school over the previous decade. There will be extensive trawling for further evidence to substantiate allegations against teachers, so they should be protected from publicity

101WH
until the point at which they are convicted. In that way, if such individuals are found to be innocent, they can walk away and try to rebuild their lives.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am following the hon. Lady's speech with great interest. Would her proposal exclude, for example, the identification of a children's home or a particular school without a teacher or care worker specifically being identified at an early investigative stage?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I did not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question. Will he be kind enough to rephrase it for me?
Mr. Carmichael: I am suggesting that, rather than identify an individual teacher as being under investigation, thus engendering publicity that allows other people to come forward, it might be possible to identify a particular school, children's home or other institution as being the place in relation to which allegations have been made. Putting such information into the public domain could allow other victims to come forward.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: That happens in some cases. For example, when no win, no fee solicitors want to bring a class action for compensation, they frequently advertise in different venues the fact that they are looking for young people who may have resided in a particular home, or attended a particular school. Furthermore, in some cases—especially in the large, historical sex abuse cases that are being conducted in this country—the police might identify every member of staff in a particular establishment as suspects whom they might wish to interview about sex abuse allegations. There is much talk within communities about such matters. People understand what is happening. I draw attention to the broad-brush declaration made in the press. Some of the reporting is horrific and people never, ever recover from it.
Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I said that I was backing the NASUWT campaign for anonymity, particularly in relation to the caring and teaching professions.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The question is not solely about identifying the school or the individuals concerned, but what stage the criminal proceedings have reached. In other words, are we talking about the investigation stage or the point at which a charge is made? If she referring to police making haphazard investigations or fishing expeditions, I have much more sympathy with the hon. Lady's argument regarding anonymity than if she is saying that it should continue past the point at which the charge is made.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: In fact, individuals who have not even been interviewed by the police or charged have had their names flashed across the papers. It does not matter what stage the process is at. The first time that a teacher may know about such matters is when he opens the evening newspaper and learns that he has been suspended following allegations of abuse. When people read about abuse, they think automatically not of
102WH
physical abuse, but of sexual abuse. Even at that early stage, those against whom allegations have been made might learn for the first time what is happening from reading details in the newspaper. That cannot be right.
I should be interested if my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been immensely helpful so far, will be kind enough to let me know what improvements have been made to interviewing techniques and the facilities and services that are available to minimise the number of false allegations that are taken forward.
I have serious concerns about the interviewing in prison of people who have been sexually abused. Members may be aware that in recent years, and continuing today, police authorities throughout the country have been engaged in major investigations that centre on historical and complex sex abuse allegations. They have been considering cases of sexual abuse that occurred five, 10, 20, 30 and in some cases 40 years ago. The investigations centre on care homes and the teachers or care workers in those homes. Unfortunately, many of the children from those homes have gone on to a life of crime. It is a sad indictment of our society that many of those people have ended up in prison. The historical sex abuse cases conducted have involved more than 20,000 suspects and more than 10,000 individuals in care homes who say that they have been either sexually or physically abused. The scale is fantastic. Over a long period, the police have established contact with those individuals and obtained statements to substantiate their allegations. The way in which the police access those individuals and the way they are treated in prison are of deep concern to me.
First, the police may conduct a trawling exercise, writing repeatedly, until they get a reply, to everyone who has been in a certain care home or school in the past 20 years. In one case, 800 letters were sent on three occasions to individuals who had been at a school, seeking information about a named care worker. In the event that they get no response, occasionally the police visit people. Many of the people they visit are in prison. The police arrive at prison to interview an individual who may have been convicted of the most appalling crimes. I think that I could write a best prison guide, having been to so many, and I have met many witnesses in such cases. Even though some have been convicted of terrible crimes, it is tragic to hear about their lives, which have been utterly ruined. I ask them to explain the nature of the contact that they had with the police before, during and after their statement was given. Let us assume that the person whom the police interview is 35 years old and that they are in prison for 18 years for committing an awful murder. Such an example would not be untypical.
The criminal tells me, "The police came to see me one day and the first thing I knew about it was when I was told that they were here to see me." Most criminals' response to that is that it must be about clear-ups. Their automatic assumption is that the police are coming to see them because they can help the police with their inquiries. The police say, "We would like you to help us with our inquiries. Would you like to tell us about your time in this home? We are in receipt of allegations of sexual abuse committed by this person against your friend in that home, and we would like to know whether you can corroborate the allegations so that we can get the case to court." The term for that is corroboration by volume.

103WH
Ideally, one could assume that the conversation took place once and once only, and that the individual concerned was immediately able to disclose some awful sexual activity to which they were subjected many years before. That does not happen. Having worked in Rape Crisis, I know that it is not possible to get people who have been subjected to terrible abuse to tell everything at one sitting. They may not have the capacity, the words, or the voice to do that. The police therefore argue that they need to return to interview the individuals concerned regularly.
It should be borne in mind that the police assume that the individuals whom they interview have been subjected to the worst conceivable forms of sex abuse. We have heard of the case of men convicted of abusing 53 boys in the most atrocious way 30 years ago. The police go to the prison in the knowledge that they may interview someone who was subjected to abuse of that kind. If one believes that someone has undergone the most horrendous abuse, it is not remotely acceptable to interview that person about it in prison.
I do not know how many hon. Members have been inside our prisons, but I can tell them that the interviewing suites are nothing more than glorified dog kennels. There is no notion of a comfort suite, no echo of a supportive environment. There is nothing. Many of the individuals concerned have made declarations or statements about being horrendously abused; when they have done so, the police leave—to return at an undetermined time—and the person who made the declaration is left. It is not right to leave an individual who has disclosed such abuse to their own devices—particularly in prison. I do not care if the person sitting before the police in the interview is a mass murderer. He is disclosing sex abuse of a degree experienced by very few people, and he should be afforded the support that every other rape victim could expect in this country.
Many years ago I asked how many times Victim Support had been into a prison and I was greeted with a complete blank. Victim Support is about victims of crime, and the people in prison are the perpetrators of crime. However, we should recognise that they can be victims as well. I want those victims to be brought out of prison and interviewed in appropriate suites. I want them to have the psychological support that they deserve as a consequence of the statements and declarations that they make. Undoubtedly, in many instances when individuals are in court having been accused of committing crimes, their defence will argue that they committed them because of the way in which they were brought up—because of their childhood experiences. If we recognise that there is a relationship between being abused as a child and one's subsequent behaviour, we should recognise that the individuals concerned need support.
I am concerned also because the conversation between the police and the witnesses is not independently witnessed. It is not possible to know what goes on between the police and the prisoner. I know that many of the allegations result in convictions and that, moreover, the people concerned receive significant compensation. That is fine, but I deal with constituents whose relations have been convicted of the crimes who are convinced that, in the prison cell, there is a
104WH
conversation between the police and the prisoner about the soft benefits associated with presenting a statement. The police tell me that that does not happen, but I cannot prove it does not. If we took those people to a video suite outside the prison we would have independent, uncorrupted evidence that I could show to the families and say, "You can hear it for yourself."
Mr. Djanogly: Will the hon. Lady say why the videoing could not take place in the prison?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend the Minister might say something about that. I know that trials with roving mobile units have been conducted, and some witnesses are giving statements on video, but that is only a halfway house; the individuals are still interviewed in a prison environment and are not afforded the benefit of an environment that is more conducive to talking in a relaxed way. When I go on legal visits, prison warders are right outside the room and are capable of hearing what is going on. Such matters are deeply private and personal, and the police say that it is sometimes necessary to interview a person 15 times before they get a statement because the men in question find it difficult to talk about what has happened. Why not remove them to another place that has been demonstrated to enable people speak more willingly about such problems?
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Lady mentioned victims being eligible for criminal injuries compensation. My knowledge of the operation of that scheme is that those who have a significant criminal record are generally excluded from receiving criminal injuries compensation. Does the hon. Lady have any figures to show that that is the case?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority does pay out compensation to criminals, but normally on the basis that they have not received a custodial sentence. In exceptional circumstances someone who has received a custodial sentence may be paid, but other than that the compensation that individuals access comes through civil litigation. They are informed of the compensation either directly by solicitors writing to them in prison, or by adverts that appear in the prison advising them of class actions that are being taken and asking anyone who has been physically abused or suffered trauma in certain schools or homes to come forward. Class actions are the preferred method for insurance companies because they are more cost effective. The downside is that the state does not know how much it is paying for such litigation. At least one authority that I know of spent 10 per cent. of its social services budget on compensation, which is a huge amount of money.
There is an easy way around the problems for all the classes of individuals that I shall talk about today. Some of them are already classified as vulnerable witnesses. Vulnerable witnesses are people under the age of 18, people with a learning difficulty, and there is a third category that I am desperately struggling to remember—perhaps the Minister will remind me of it later. Whatever that category is, prisoners do not fall into the category of vulnerable witness. In cases of sex abuse, such individuals should be classified as vulnerable witnesses, and if they were, they would have

105WH
the opportunity that is afforded to other individuals who have been raped and receive the support that younger people already receive in such cases.
There has been some good news in relation to domestic abuse cases—and, I was going to say, some bad news, but I prefer to think of it a, work in progress. We cannot underestimate the scale of the problems associated with domestic abuse case. I have talked to the Metropolitan Police Authority about the issue. I will talk about the type of cases that it is handling, because I think that that is indicative of what is happening throughout the country. I was surprised to hear that between 2002 and 2003, there were 104,000 cases of domestic abuse in London. The next, t thing that I was surprised to learn is that there is only one community safety unit in each of the 32 London boroughs. The community safety unit is where interviews with people who have been the subject of domestic abuse normally occur. By dividing the number of domestic abuse cases by the number of community safety units, we can calculate that there is approximately one community safety unit per 4,000 cases. That is clearly not enough to meet demand, and it may be why so many domestic abuse cases fail to get off the starting blocks.
In order to make a substantial allegation of domestic abuse, a woman needs a significant amount of reassurance and protection. Such women, too, are not classified as a vulnerable witness. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider the classification of vulnerable witnesses to see whether they can be extended to include victims of domestic violence. To make a statement, a woman must attend a community safety unit or a conventional police station. She may be greeted by somebody who has little experience of domestic abuse cases and who may not have appropriate facilities to look after her and, importantly, her children.
Mr. Djanogly: I had not intended to speak about non-sex offences today. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but should she not extend her remarks to cases involving female-on-male violence which is much in the press?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes. When I use the term domestic violence, I include both women and men who have been the subject of abuse in the home. Of course, sexual, physical and mental abuse are frequently mixed together.
An environment that is conducive to making statements must be created. It is, in small part, present. An announcement was made last year about an additional —1.3 million being spent on units and facilities. That would buy a very decent detached house in London but not much more. That means that, in UK terms, facilities still fall far short of demand. I believe that we must refocus our energies, because many women who are involved in domestic abuse are not protected. They have no avenue by which to pursue an allegation against their partner, simply because the environment is not there for them to do so safely.
I want the facilities to be open at any hour so that they serve the people who have been abused at a time when they can best be served, which is when the abuser is not at home, so that the abuser does not know that the victim has gone to a police station It is important that
106WH
sound facilities for managing children are available, because women often need to take their children with them. They cannot make statements about the abuse that they have endured with their children bouncing and running around. Children are often witnesses to abuse, but all too frequently the measures that we have asked to be put in place to allow children to give their evidence on video or from behind screens are not available. The picture is therefore mixed: in some areas there is good practice; in others much more needs to be done.
I am conscious of the fact that I have spoken for a long time. I reiterate my seminal concerns that teachers' anonymity should be protected until they have been convicted of the charges brought against them. That would greatly reassure the hundreds of thousands of teachers who work in the UK every day, not one of whom has not considered the possibility of an accusation being made against them against which they cannot defend themselves. I want the Government to consider the definition of a vulnerable witness to see whether it can be extended to include others who are obviously vulnerable. Finally, I want the Government to examine the adequacy of the services and the competencies of the staff who take statements to see what they can do to reduce the number of false allegations made against various people in this country.
2.36 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate and on the reasoned and measured way in which she presented her arguments. She has dealt with several issues that are sensitive in the extreme and are open to being sensationalised, and which the wider public and indeed Members in this place are often happier not to discuss. She introduced several issues that were new to me—not least allegations made by people in prison—and she has done the House a service in bringing these matters to our attention.
It might be helpful to start my speech by reminding the House of my background. Before I entered the House, I was a solicitor in private practice. Before that, I trained and worked with the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland. In the course of my professional life, I have dealt with several sex abuse cases involving adults as well as children, which has informed my thinking on the subjects that the hon. Lady brings before the House today. I should also remind the House that I served as director of Aberdeenshire Women's Aid and was involved in the provision of refuge services in the north-east of Scotland. Again, I have seen at first hand some of the practical difficulties that allegations of rape and domestic violence can cause when they are made within the family unit.
The subject is particularly pertinent to me as the Member for Orkney and Shetland, because it was in my constituency several years ago that several children were removed from their homes in South Ronaldsay on the basis of some very interesting interviewing and disclosures made at the time. That led to a substantial investigation under the chairmanship of Lord Clyde and ultimately to the passing of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I have always maintained a very keen interest in these issues.

107WH
The first overriding principle in these matters must be that the witnesses are always treated as individuals, whether or not they are vulnerable. Those interviewing them must always bring to bear whatever experience they have so that they treat the witness as an individual. The second overriding principle is that the objective of the person responsible for the interviewing is to get at the truth. That comes down to training. There are few more dangerous things than a professional with an agenda or a person on a mission doing the interviewing in a sex abuse case. That is why the resourcing and training of people involved in this area, especially those in the criminal justice system, is of supreme importance.
My experience is that the preparation and prosecution of the defence of such cases is very harrowing for the individuals concerned. Frankly, there are days when all one wants to do on coming home from the office is take off all one's clothes and have a shower. The manner in which cases are dealt with and the inadequacies of the court system in dealing with them are horrific. One of the most distressing things that I have ever endured in my professional life was sitting through a child abuse trial at the High Court, sitting in Aberdeen, in which a seven or eight-year-old girl gave evidence about the taste of semen. No one should have to endure that sort of indignity.
The legal profession and the criminal justice system are not well equipped to deal with such cases. I once heard about a training session given to advocate deputes—High Court prosecutors in Scotland—who were gathered in a nice, oak-panelled room with a roaring fire in a country house hotel. They were sitting there in their twill trousers and tweed jackets when the child psychologist training them, who was quite a go-ahead, in-your-face, assertive woman, said, "Right. I want you to think about your last sexual experience. I want you to think about the sounds, smells and tastes involved and about the other person who was involved, if indeed there was another person. Then, we will go around the room and. one by one, I want you to tell us about that." When she said that to those middle-aged men, the atmosphere in the room could have been cut with a knife. Then she said that they were not really going to do that, but that maybe that thought had given them some understanding of what is required of children who give evidence in child sex abuse cases. I have held that incident with me throughout my time in professional practice. It is a very real way of illustrating the point, and it comes back to my earlier point about the need to treat such people as individuals.
The Minister may wish to look carefully at the situation north of the border. We now have, as a matter of routine, joint investigations by specially trained police officers and social workers in appropriate surroundings. As the hon. Member for Crosby suggested, such investigations will often happen in a specially adapted house in which the situation is more relaxed, so that disclosure can be more open, free, and, it is to be hoped, more honest.
The Procurator Fiscal Service has been given resources to provide specialists in each region of that service who are qualified in interviewing child abuse and sex abuse witnesses, and trained in countering the difficulties associated with prosecuting such offences.
108WH
The Scottish Executive propose that child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses should automatically give evidence via video link in cases such as those in which an application to do so can now be made. That is the sort of direction that the Home Office may wish to consider taking.
There have been useful developments in the law on rape, which are to be examined thoroughly north of the border. The extension of the crime to include rape within marriage is an obvious example that was long overdue and which we now take for granted. However, the figures for successful prosecutions in rape cases remain disturbingly low. That issue is linked to the hon. Lady's point about support for people who make allegations, which hopelessly inadequate in all parts of the country.
That is the case not only because of training, but because of a lack of resources that is not immediately obvious. Resources can be put into a nice, cosy interview suite in a house away from a police station, but what happens to the won an when she leaves? Where does she go? What resources are available to support her and her family? She may be allowed to stay in the family home, but excluded from the rest of the family, who might take the side of the abuser. Such a witness, whether male or female, would require substantial and resource-intensive support in order to remain in the community. There is simply no option but to address the question of resources.
If we are to increase the number of successful prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service has to address how cases are prioritised. Cases involving allegations of sex abuse should be given priority for resources with regard to investigation and obtaining court time. Cases of sex abuse are the classic case of where justice delayed would be justice denied.
The hon. Lady spoke of the number of complaints of domestic violence that are withdrawn. I know from my experience that the pattern is depressing: the complaint is made, the victim is left without support in the community and, as a result, the only option available is to withdraw the complaint or not to see through the prosecution. Ultimately, the person involved has to go back to the environment from which they sought to escape in the first place.
The hon. Lady dealt at length with the issue of people who make complaints while serving as prisoners. I know from my experience of time spent in prisons that the interview facilities are basic, at best. That is an interesting issue, which I had not considered before today. I was not aware that it was an issue, but if she tells us that it is, we have to treat it as such and take it seriously.
My practice allowed me to experience the fact that the attitude of people it prisons as a community is often skewed by the compensation that may be available. Among sex offenders, there is almost a myth that such complaints are made so that the complainer can obtain criminal injuries compensation. Trying to break that down is next to impossible. If there is a case for saying that compensation skews the picture, I do not know how we will deal with it. We certainly have to bear the issue in mind. That goes back to my initial point: one always has to treat witnesses as individuals and look at all the circumstances, rather than approach them as a class.

109WH
The hon. Lady made the good point that it is often those who have been through the care system in the first place who end up serving custodial sentences in the criminal justice system. That struck rue at an early stage of my practice, when I was required to consider a case in which allegations of fairly mild inappropriate conduct had been made in a children's home The names of all the witnesses became familiar to me in the following 12 months, as their number crossed the threshold of 16 and they began to make regular appearances in the district and sheriff courts. Just about every individual who had been through that children's home in Aberdeen went on to have a career before the criminal courts in the north-east of Scotland, which was quite depressing.
We are dealing with individuals who are often among the most dysfunctional and difficult people in society, and they need particular support. If the hon. Lady has brought anything to our attention today, it is the need to look at all the aspects of sexual abuse as a whole, rather than pick at individual aspects.
That brings me to the final point raised by the hon. Lady, who was right to speak of the problem of teachers being subjected to the allegation that they have abused those in their care. The issue needs to be addressed if 2,000 complaints are made, but 1,800 are not ultimately brought to an successful conclusion. The Government will not find that statistic reflected in the broader range of sex abuse cases. The complaint in question is a particular species of complaint, and we will have to examine the need for anonymity for those of any breed who face such charges.
We live in a climate that makes the accusation of any sort of sexual abuse especially potent. Mud always sticks, and it leaves a stain that can never be removed. Such allegations can ruin reputations and careers. The presumption that children will tell the truth is rebuttable if it can be shown that they are not telling the truth. If that is so—it clearly is for a number of teachers—some redress should be available. We must ensure that no damage, or as little as possible, is done to them, and if publicity is to be given to such cases, surely it should be done post-conviction.
2.51 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: After that expert contribution from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for opening this important and serious debate. I acknowledge the tremendous work that she has done over a considerable time; she also chairs the all-party group on abuse investigations.
I agree that we need to consider sex and abuse cases in the round. If it seems that I am not doing so, it may be due to the title of the debate; it is not that they should not be so considered. Victims of sexual abuse, like victims of all crime, should be able to bring the perpetrators to justice, and, in an ideal world, they should not be afraid of doing so. However, the opposite is the case. Research shows that sexual abuse goes greatly unreported, whether it is abuse of adults or children.
The inherent problem with the arrest and conviction of sex abusers is that there are often no witnesses and the victims are often reluctant to give evidence. The
110WH
problem is particularly evident with child sex abuse, because many abused children are physically and emotionally dependent on their abusers. The law should protect the innocent and give confidence to the abused when giving evidence against their abusers.
The report "Speaking up for Justice", published in June 1998, made 78 proposals to encourage and support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and to help them give their best evidence in criminal cases. Those provisions that required legislative action were included in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Victims of sexual offences are automatically considered eligible for special provisions unless they tell the court that they do not want to be eligible.
Those special provisions include being asked questions through an intermediary, giving evidence from a separate room via a television link, giving evidence through an interview recorded on video before the trial, and having cross-examination recorded on video before the trial. Those provisions can give much-valued security and support to victims of sexual abuse. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update on how effective those provisions have been. I am not sure whether she is allowed to do so, but, as previously requested, I hope that she can give us some idea of how Scotland is placed in relation to those proposals.
The Home Affairs Committee report "The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes" recommended the video recording of police interviews of witnesses. I certainly agree that there is a good argument for making such video recordings, but I am concerned that various reports say that the police may find it hard to carry out the proposal, due to the often complicated procedures for taking witness statements. The issue has been subject to ongoing review, and it would be helpful if the Minister would share her current thinking on it.
The subject of expert evidence is also relevant. As I said, there are no independent witnesses or medical evidence in most sexual abuse cases. With that in mind, advocates often expect experts to shed light on the facts of the case. In the interests of justice, it is essential that expert witnesses are cross-examined in a way that does not do more harm than good to a case.
I recently read an interesting article written in 2001 by Mr. Charles Fortt on expert witnesses and the problems with using them in cases involving children. An excerpt from it states:
"Historically, the professionals who deal with victimised children—paediatricians, child psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers etc—have been separated by training and employing agency from those professionals who deal with offenders, mostly adults. This has tended to mean on the whole that those who deal with the aftermath of sexual crimes against children do not have much experience of dealing with the perpetrators of it. Again, historically, the bizarre and repugnant nature of child sexual abuse has usually prompted the courts and the legal profession to look to psychiatry for explanations and clarification. However, since most perpetrators of sexual crime are not mentally ill and since most sexual abuse follows a rational pattern of attitudes, thinking, fantasy and behaviour, psychiatry is not necessarily best equipped to assist Courts to pick their way through a minefield of ignorance and prejudice."

111WH
Mr. Fortt goes on to state:
"However, lawyers frequently engage experts to assist in presenting their clients' cases, and to make the best of the evidence available it is important for advocates to have a rational way of evaluating their witnesses' expertise—the skilled cross-examination of a poorly chosen expert can do more to damage a case than not calling one at all."
Mr. Fortt made a series of proposals that I shall not go into, but I wonder whether the Government have been reviewing that area and, again, whether the Minister would give us her thoughts on it.
We should be aware of the fact that miscarriages of justice occur and of the consequences that investigations into sexual abuse have on the accuser, but we should not let that detract from the principle that it is essential to protect victims and to encourage them to bring their abusers to justice.
The effects of a miscarriage of justice may be severe, and we must work to ensure that innocent people are not convicted of a crime that they have been accused of due to false memory syndrome or an accuser's desire for compensation. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Crosby for teachers, although I would not wish to make a special law just for them. They are no more or less deserving than anyone else, such as those who work with children in care homes. As a social services chairman in days gone by, I have personal experience of that situation.
However, at the same time, we must have faith in our justice system. We must ensure that abusers are punished and that the abused are not exposed to further abuse, but faith in our justice system must cut both ways. If an investigation is closed, it is unlikely that people will get anything more than a letter saying that the allegations were unsubstantiated. That procedure has two problems: first, it may protect public servants from scrutiny; secondly, it could leave the person who has been investigated with a lifelong stigma. In so far as it is possible that an individual who is guilty of a sex crime could be found not guilty in court by reason of lack of evidence, so it is also possible that a guilty person will get off at the investigation stage through lack of evidence. However, if due process has been carried out and adequate evidence has not been found, the human rights of the person being investigated must be respected and, after a reasonable period, they should be clearly exonerated so that they can get on with their lives.
Of course, if new evidence comes up at a later date, there could be a fresh investigation. The problem may be that the investigators, such as local authorities, might be more concerned about improving their chances in future litigation and claims against them than admitting that they were wrong. Surely, however, the initial concern should be about the reputation of the person being investigated, once the case has not been made.
I have referred to the impact of one aspect of the compensation culture, which works against people's reputations. Unfortunately, however, the problem goes further, as has been said. Some individuals may falsify claims of sexual violence against them, perhaps even from decades ago, to qualify for compensation. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that, to whatever extent such violence occurred, it would of course be of great concern. It is also a fact that a
112WH
relatively high proportion of criminals suffered abuse as children. Importantly. many were also brought up in broken homes or care homes, which the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned, where sexual abuse could have been more likely.
It is also likely that an existing criminal may not be as concerned about lying for compensation as a non-criminal. If that is added to police trawling operations for collaborative evidence, the potential for abusing the system could become magnified. Have the Government investigated that and, if so, to what extent does the Minister think that it is a problem? Why have more individuals not been prosecuted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice or for perjury? When people lie to the authorities, particularly for monetary gain, examples should be set. That does not seem to happen.
3.1 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have had an extremely interesting and, dare I say, wide-ranging debate this afternoon, with some valuable contributions. I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) not only on securing this debate, but on taking forward some of the submissions that she made in the debate that we had about 12 months ago in response to the Home Affairs Committee's report on historic sex abuse cases. Some of the issues that have been raised today are similar to those that we discussed last time, but my hon. Friend has added new concerns. She is not only an expert, but extremely committed to ensuring that such issues are properly ventilated, at least in the House. As I think I said last time, such issues are not universally popular and it takes courage to pursue them. She has exhibited such courage and commitment again this afternoon.
I should like to make some general points about where we are in protecting vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and give hon. Members a flavour of how the "Achieving Best Evidence" guidance is being implemented. I shall then consider the positions of teachers, people prison, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and some of the issues that other hon. Members raised.
In 1997 the Government made a general commitment to providing greater protection for victims in rape and serious sexual offence trials and for those subject to intimidation, including witnesses. It was recognised then that the criminal justice system did not adequately protect vulnerable and intimated witnesses or the victims of sexual offences. That was a broad promise. Almost the first thing that we did in government was commission a working group to consider how to improve the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system. That was a huge undertaking. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, the "Speaking up for Justice" report contained 78 recommendations. Those recommendations included defining vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and identifying the special measures needed to ensure that they could give their best evidence, thereby increasing the likelihood of conviction where offences had been committed.

113WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked for the definition of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, and whether it could be extended to cover some of the matters about which she expressed concerns. Vulnerable witnesses are defined as those who are subject to a mental disorder, a learning disability or—this, I think, was the category that she was searching for—a physical disorder. Intimidated witnesses are defined as those whose evidence is likely to be affected by intimidation, and my hon. Friend asked whether that definition could encompass victims of domestic violence. I think that the evidence of such people—men or women—could be affected by the possibility of intimidation arising from the circumstances of an alleged offence. There is therefore no reason why they cannot be encompassed in the definition of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, who are entitled to the special measures in the scheme. Clearly, that is a matter of interpretation, but the definition is certainly wide enough for us to contemplate including the kind of witnesses whom my hon. Friend mentioned.
It is important to emphasise that all victims of sexual offences are automatically entitled to special measures under the provisions. If domestic violence gives rise to allegations of a sexual offence, therefore, the victim is entitled to special measures, unless they indicate that they do not want them put in place. The only instance of where that might occur that has been highlighted to me is when a child has been subject to abuse involving video recording. In those circumstances, it is difficult to think of anything more horrendous than offering the child the possibility of giving evidence by video. Most hon. Members would accept that that would be entirely inappropriate, and video evidence would not be one of the special measures implemented. In the normal run of things, however, a victim of sexual offences is entitled to such special measures. Again, the definition is fairly wide. All children come within the definition of vulnerable witnesses and are entitled to be considered as such. That is clearly set out. As far as adults are concerned, cases are considered individually.
The implementation of the recommendations of the "Speaking up for Justice" report in the "Achieving Best Evidence" guidance has taken us significantly further forward. However, it is not just a matter of defining who is covered and then giving them access to special measures. There is a third issue, which is vital, but which has not been raised this afternoon: improved communication between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service as regards witness needs. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) talked about bringing the agencies together so that they share such information. It is important that these matters are not left to the police, be cause the CPS has a key role to play in how the case is conducted in court. It is essential that there are early meetings to ensure the right circumstances so that people can give their evidence.
There should also be guidance on appropriate interviewing methods for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, and that is at the heart of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon. I have had a look in a little detail—although probably not as much detail as my hon. Friend—at the "Achieving Best Evidence" document, which I commend to hon. Members. It is extremely detailed. It first sets out the general principles
114WH
involved in interviewing vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. It then has two sections specifically about interviewing children. There is a big section about how to plan the interview—how to get involved early on, how to shape the interview, how it should take place, how to take account of the circumstances and the background, and how to guarantee the best evidence.
There is then a section on how the interview should be conducted, and I found it especially interesting that it is all about establishing ground rules. The document discusses how to deal with very young children and older children in different circumstances. There is also an important section about truth and lies, and I think that it was the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland who raised the issue of how to interview children and of whether they know the difference between truth and lies, right and wrong. That is difficult to ascertain, but the document contains the very best information about how to pursue such matters. It gives examples of the kind of questions to ask and the inferences to be drawn. There is a big emphasis on the witness freely giving a narrative account—on the police not leading them or placing words or ideas in their minds, but obtaining the account that the witness wants to give.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I agree with the Minister that the document is excellent. The Home Office has produced a number of documents containing guidelines on interviewing techniques, and that is absolutely fine, but how many of them are really implemented? Has the Minister considered auditing for compliance and if not, would she do so, or permit Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to consider it?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Issuing guidance and strategies does not of itself indicate that the service and the culture are changing, or that we are implementing the action in the guidance. I would however ask her to accept that there is an ongoing process of changing the culture and practice not just in the police but in a range of agencies that are involved in the area. She makes an important point about audit and measuring implementation, and she will know that HMIC recently conducted a baseline survey of all police forces in the country, measuring them against a number of criteria. Those baseline assessments are due to be published shortly. They are the first ones ever to be conducted in that way. Clearly, professional practice is an important part of that measurement. I am not aware whether there is a specific requirement in that baseline assessment to consider implementation of the guidance, but I undertake to look into that area to assess whether we can do more to audit it.
Every police officer receives training in investigation techniques, and at the national centre for police excellence we are developing a code for investigators. That includes investigation skills at level 1, level 2, level 3 and level 4, ranging from the day-to-day grass-roots investigation of a minor incident through to very serious investigations. We are trying to professionalise the investigation capacity in our forces. It is a relatively new development to ensure that every officer has some rudimentary basic training, and that those who are involved in the more serious, technical investigations have the necessary skills. We are trying to increase our capacity.

115WH
My hon. Friend is aware of the senior investigating officers manual on investigation technique, which we have talked about on previous occasions. It sets out clear guidance for investigators on how to go about their business. I gave her an undertaking that the SIO manual would be reviewed in light of some concerns that she and the Home Affairs Committee expressed about past sex abuse cases. I can tell her today that that review is ongoing and that the manual is being reviewed by people who have been involved in recent cases, to try to ensure that its guidance incorporates recent learning.
Mr. Carmichael: While the Minister is on the subject of technique and guidance, can she tell the Chamber whether any formal guidance is given centrally to police officers who conduct what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) referred to as "trawls"? That procedure seems to be fraught with difficulty, so some guidance must be given to forces engaged in it.
Ms Blears: There is guidance; it is clearly an important area. Even though the Home Affairs Committee expressed some reservations about the procedure, it was satisfied that the use of the technique was legitimate. The senior investigating officers manual covers that area. We have disputed whether it is trawling, fishing or—the term that the police prefer to use—dip-sampling, but it is a proper, credible investigatory technique, concerned not simply with trawling for evidence but with dip-sampling people to see whether they are making appropriate investigations, and there is guidance for it. Part of the undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend was that we would update and review the guidance on the basis of learning from cases. In those terms, over the past few years there has been a major impetus to try to ensure that the way in which we conduct investigations is more professional and designed to elicit the best possible evidence.
In the "Achieving Best Evidence" guidance, there is a presumption that there will be video interviews for child witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, violence, abduction or neglect. Several hon. Members have raised the issue of resources for video facilities. Last year, the premises improvement programme—a general police programme—was opened up for bids for video suites. That, together with a specific £2 million fund for video interviewing facilities, means that we have invested £7 million in trying to increase capacity. Hon. Members will say that we never have enough, and there will always be pressure to do more, but I hope that they accept that we are trying to ensure that as many facilities for video evidence as possible are available.
In addition to the early meetings between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, therapy is available for particularly vulnerable witnesses before a trial. That is something I was not aware of, but it is a significant step towards ensuring that people are in a position to give their best evidence. We are also trialling the introduction of intermediaries, which could be controversial. Providing an intermediary in court for someone with communication difficulties could again ensure that a witness can give their best evidence, without interfering with the substance and integrity of
116WH
the evidence. That is a difficult balance to achieve. The pilot started in Merseyside in February, and I will be interested to see the outcome.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am aware that intermediaries and support are available for children who have been involved in sexual abuse—in about one case in 10. However, there is concern about the independence of the intermediary or the person providing assistance. Usually, they are from social services, the Crown Prosecution Service or another authority. There is concern about whether they are tainted by association with the prosecution authorities and therefore hold a position relative to the outcome of the inquiry. Would the Minister advocate an independent advisory and support unit rather than something stemming from the current bureaucracies?
Ms Blears: Those matters will always be the subject of challenge and concern. We must get the balance right as to where intermediaries come from. How do we ensure that they have appropriate and sufficient skills without being tainted by bring seen to be part of an existing organisation? I am sure that when guardians ad litem were introduced into care proceedings many years ago, similar concerns we re raised about whether they would have sufficient independence to act on behalf of the child and not another party. I will inform my hon. Friend of the details of the pilot, and if she wants to make representations about it I will consider them. However, if the legal representatives of defendants have concerns, they are at liberty to raise them during proceedings. I have no doubt that those concerns would be raised and adjudicated on.
I shall now deal with specific matters raised by hon. Members. The issue of teachers being accused of sexual offences is very important. We are aware of the devastating effect on individuals falsely accused of sex offences or child abuse. We recognise that being accused of such offences carries a social stigma and brings adverse publicity. Such an allegation could have serious implications for someone's reputation, employment and sense of self-worth. We have carefully considered whether defendants in such cases should be entitled to anonymity, but we do not think that there is a case for it.
We appreciate that teachers feel vulnerable to being identified because they have a public profile, but we are not convinced that legislating to provide anonymity is the answer to those concerns. Regrettably, some allegations of abuse are true, and being abused by a person in a position of trust and authority, such as a teacher, can have a devastating effect on a child. I ask hon. Members again to try to ensure that we strike a balance: allegations can devastate the individual accused, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, but it is important to listen to those who have been abused.
We genuinely sympathise with defendants who are accused but subsequently acquitted, or against whom no further action is taken, but the principles of open justice are necessary to the maintenance of public confidence in the criminal justice system. It has long been established that criminal trials take place in the open in this country; the media are allowed to report them freely and that is an important principle in the criminal justice system, which must be open and transparent. The media must be able to say what went on in court if people are to believe

117WH
that the legal system is functioning properly. In that way, the confidence that victims and witnesses have in the system is reinforced.
However, anyone who has been investigated by the police but who has not been charged should not be identified in the press in the period between investigation and charge. The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued revised guidance to all police forces, which applies to all offences, making it absolutely clear that anyone under investigation but not charged should not be named, and no details should be provided to the press that might lead to their identification before they are charted. It would be a serious disciplinary matter if members of the force were to transgress that guidance.
It is for the police to make sure that that guidance is very strong; equally, the Press Complaints Commission, which has safeguards against the publication of inaccurate or misleading information, oversees the system of self-regulation of the press. Sometimes, good investigative journalism has revealed cases of crime that might otherwise not have been revealed, but it is important that the PCC has proper guidance in place to ensure that people's reputations are not damaged by their being splashed all over the tabloid press when they have not been charged with an offence.
I understand that the PCC is drawing up stronger guidance on the issue and it is important to give it a chance to achieve the desired effect, because we do not want to take the legislation path at this stage. The enhanced ACPO guidance and work by the PCC needs to be given an opportunity to have an impact. Legislation to prevent a teacher's identity being published would not necessarily achieve the desired result: the people who are most concerned by the allegation—parents and the local community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said—will know what is going on in the area. Even if it is couched in the most general terms, mentioning a subject teacher in a particular school, for example, means that identification would be possible. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that teachers are no more vulnerable to false allegations of abuse than other groups who work closely with children, and many people in chose groups feel at risk, too. Any concessions to teachers in that respect would inevitably lead to wider calls for anonymity for others who work with children.
I note that my hon. Friend is supporting the campaign for anonymity up to the point of conviction, which is a long way along the spectrum of anonymity in these cases. It would be very helpful if we could ensure that the cases were dealt with as speedily as possible, so that false allegations could be weeded out at the beginning and matters did not proceed, and people did not have the threat of possible charges hanging over them for months, with the consequent effects on them and their families. The Department for Education and Skills spends £1.5 million a year employing about 26 coordinators, who each have a cluster of schools. Their job is to ensure that allegations are dealt with quickly and weeded out, so that only the serious allegations go forward.
There may be more that we can do to ensure that the system does not militate against teachers in these circumstances, but we do not at present feel that anonymity is the way to go. I give an undertaking that
118WH
we will monitor the revised guidance issued by the PCC and ACPO to see if it is working. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Home Secretary have discussed this, and they are due to discuss it further. They are aware of the campaigns by the NASUWT and the National Association of Head Teachers. These are important and significant areas of concern and we will keep them under review.
I have dealt with the trawling issues, but I also want to say something about prisoners who report crimes. My hon. Friend talked about the circumstances in which they are interviewed. That is a difficult issue in relation to prisoners: because of the very nature of custodial sentences, people are in fairly coercive regimes that do not necessarily provide the kinds of supportive and therapeutic environment in which disclosures about long-term sexual abuse can be managed in the most effective way. However, with the decision to move the prison health service into the national health service, we are beginning to take great strides towards providing a health service environment that is far more appropriate. In addition to allegations of sexual abuse, many prisoners have mental health problems, and there is a great need to improve the mental health provision for prisoners in these circumstances.
However, I can say to my hon. Friend that where a prisoner needs to be interviewed, there is advice in the guidance about choosing a location to achieve best evidence. It is perfectly possible for a prisoner to be taken to an external location for an interview, or to be taken to one of the specially equipped suites. It will be for the governor and the prison authorities to weigh up the balance between security, which is clearly their concern, and the appropriateness of the environment, but such interviews can be carried out either in the health centre within the prison setting or externally.
I understand that we will be investing up to £20 million a year by next year in trying to ensure that there are good mental health services in prisons. We have to go a long way to catch up to make sure that our health services are right in those terms. However, there is the possibility of providing a more appropriate setting for these kinds of interviews to take place. My hon. Friend has raised an important issue.
Finally, I turn to the matter of support for victims of domestic violence, both men and women. The Government can be proud of the progress that they have made, but I would not suggest for one moment that everything is now perfect—we still have much more to do. However, sexual assault referral centres have now been established up and down the country. I visited one in Preston just a few weeks ago, where victims of sexual offences and domestic violence are able to go to disclose in very supportive environments. GPs are on the premises, there is a range of referral workers, and there is outreach counselling to provide support. That is a world away from where we were just a few years ago, when very little support and help were provided to victims in those circumstances.
We have managed to obtain £27 million from the Treasury for our "no witness, no justice" pilots which ensure that there is a witness adviser taking victims through the entire legal system step by step so that they can give the best possible evidence.

119WH
I take on board my hon. Friend's concern about the sparsity of specialised domestic violence support in the community. We need to build capacity in that area, but if she were to visit the excellent scheme in Cardiff where the CPS, the police, the local authority and the housing authority are all working together to support victims of domestic violence, she would see something that represents a step change from where we were.
I know that we have much more to do to ensure that we put victims and witnesses at the heart of our criminal justice system and that the issues raised this afternoon are extremely important. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will continue to press me on them. It is right that we are called to account and that there is proper and adequate scrutiny.

Poppy Eradication (Afghanistan)
3.29 pm
David Cairns: I am pleased to have the opportunity to return once again to an issue that I have been raising in the House for more than two years, which is the need to eradicate the deadly international trade in opium that originates from the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
The trade is a chain of misery and degradation. It begins with the exploitation of desperately poor farmers in some of the most inhospitable corners of the planet and progresses via grotesque profiteering by international drug traffickers and their vile associates, resulting in the abject misery and suffering of wretched addicts and blighting the quality of life for those innocents who mus, live beside the seedy reality of petty drug dealing on estates and streets in my constituency and elsewhere. The evil business does not end there, but returns whence it came in the form of narco-terrorist funding. No one who heard the powerful speech by President Karzai at last year's Labour party conference can be in any doubt that international terrorists are directly and financially funding their murderous activity with drugs money. I cannot conceive of a more vicious vicious circle.
Before I address what must be done to tackle the trade at source, let me say that I am well aware that the basic laws of human commerce apply in this area as they do elsewhere. I know that where there is a demand there will be a supply, and that cutting off the supply of heroin that comes from Afghanistan will not end the problems of addiction, but I make no apologies for focusing today on the supply-side regime. I believe in the market, but all markets must operate within social, human and international frame works. The trade in heroin is as immoral, corrupt, violent and destructive as it gets. Furthermore, the demand side of the problem in my constituency, in terms of demand reduction and policing, has devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is my duty as a Westminster MP to concentrate on those aspects of the trade that are reserved to this place, and that is the reason for this debate.
I would like to say one thing about domestic policy: there is little point in my campaigning to stop the flow of drugs into Scotland if Argyll and Clyde health board pulls the rug from under my feet. In its most recent consultation document, it mentions the problem of drugs only once, anti drug treatment is not mentioned at all in the part about closing Ravenscraig hospital in Greenock. That is simply staggering. I know the blight that drug addiction casts on individuals, families and communities, and the criminal activity that goes with it. I would lock up the dealers and throw away the key, but when an addict admits that they have a problem and tries to get off drugs, it is vital that they get the help that they need. Services provided at Ravenscraig are an essential part of that help, and it is unbelievable that the health board's strategy is silent in that respect. Thankfully, the days of Inverclyde being—wrongly—called the heroin capital of Scotland are behind us, but only a fool would claim that we do not still have a problem. That is just one of the major flaws in the health board's strategy and is another reason to oppose the reduction in services that it is planning.

121WH
Supply feeds demand. The more heroin there is, the cheaper it becomes and the cheaper it gets, the more people use; the more people use, the more addicts are created; and more addicts mean more crime, more sickness, more heartbreak for families and more tragic early deaths. Ninety per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets begins life as poppies in Afghanistan. That did not occur overnight: the trade was built up over many years, accelerating during the second half of the 1990s. It is a lucrative trade: in 2003, the combined income of Afghan opium farmers and traffickers was about $2.3 billion, roughly equivalent to half the legitimate gross domestic product of that country.
We are entitled to ask how that came to pass. Was not one of the reasons for toppling the Taliban that they had, in part, been funded by the opium trade? That was certainly the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 7 October 2001. As the conflict in Afghanistan precipitated by the attacks of the previous month in New York began, he said:
"We act also because the Al-Qaeda net work and the Taliban regime are funded in large part on the drugs trade…stopping that trade is, again, directly in our interests."
The following day, speaking in the House of Commons, he said:
"We in Britain have the most direct interest in defeating such terror…We know that the Taliban regime are largely funded by the drugs trade and that 90 per cent. of the heroin on British streets originates in Afghanistan."—[Official Report, 8 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 814.]
After the conflict was over, the Prime Minister returned to that topic in an interview with the BBC World Service in which he praised President Karzai's recent initiative
"to issue instructions to destroy the poppy crop in Afghanistan for this year"—
that is, in 2001. He continued:
"We are giving every support to this. This is very, very important indeed."
I agree wholeheartedly, which is one of the reasons why I strongly supported the removal of the Taliban regime. The problem is that, since the Prime Minister made those comments, the situation has gotten worse. In 2002—the year in which the Prime Minister was speaking—about 74,000 hectares were given over to poppy cultivation. Last year, that had grown to 80,000 hectares—an 8 per cent. increase, which in turn has led to a 6 per cent. increase in the amount of opium produced. The practice is spreading: 28 out of 32 Afghan provinces now report poppy cultivation. The number of people involved is also increasing: it is reckoned that there are some 264,000 opium-growing families and roughly 1.7 million people whose livelihoods depend on that crop. Although the average opium income per capita for the farmers is the modest, to our eyes, sum of $594, that is three times larger than it was just the previous year. The growth continues, and just two weeks ago, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime issued a press release stating that there was:
"growing concern that the 2004 opium crop in Afghanistan may reach a record level."
How is that two and a half years after military action to end the trade, and more than two ears after the Prime Minister spoke of destroying the harvest, things are moving in the wrong direction?
I lay no blame whatever at the feet of Ministers, who have worked tirelessly on this issue. I particularly commend the UK Government's initiative to convene
122WH
the first international counter-narcotics conference in Afghanistan, which was held in February this year. I will deal with some of its conclusions in a moment. However, we must begin from a point of honesty—we must not kid ourselves. The situation on the ground is deteriorating. President Karzai has warned of the risk that Afghanistan
"will again turn into a failed state—this time, in the hands of the drug cartels and the narco-terrorists."
As recently as February he warned that poppy cultivation
"not only affects the economy of Afghanistan, but the money which is earned from the trafficking, production and business of heroin fuels terrorism. Terrorism and narcotic drugs are involved and cooperate in the destruction of Afghanistan. the region and the world."
What can be done? All too often, the debate polarises and falls into two camps. The first camp—in which I admit I occasionally pitch my tent—contains those who say that we should actively seek and destroy the poppies, and deal with the consequences afterwards. The second camp contains those who wish to persuade opium growers that they should develop an alternative crop, and to provide them with the wherewithal to do so. The way forward is likely to be somewhere in between. Enforcement must he accompanied by assistance: the stick of military with the carrot of greater resources. Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, has noted in relation to enforcement that
"in the drug business of Afghanistan the risk/reward balance is skewed: enormous sums of money are being made with impunity. This must be redressed, by increasing the risk of illegality. Energetic measures are needed to repress the traffickers, dismantle the heroin labs, and destroy the terrorists' and warlords' stake in the opium economy".
However, he went on to comment:
"law enforcement alone cannot suffice. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime calls on the international community for adequate resources to help rebuild the economy of Afghanistan where far too many people still have no food security, no electricity, no running water, no roads, no schools and no health services."
It was, I assume, in an attempt to get right the balance between those who adopt a literally scorched-earth approach and those who favour gradualism that the UK convened the international conference earlier in the year. I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments on that event, although I believe that he could not reach it to attend, because of unseasonably heavy snow in Kabul. On top of all its other problems, Afghanistan seems to have the wrong kind of snow as well. The conference produced several action plans, and I would like the Minister to take the opportunity now to recommit the Government to implementing them in full. There are action plans on, first, law enforcement, including calls for action against corrupt Government officials who are hampering the counter-narcotics effort in return for a lucrative share of the profits; secondly, alternative livelihoods—there is praise in this context for the appointment of a UK-funded alternative livelihoods consultant; thirdly, drug demand reduction, to deal with the growing problem of domestic drug addiction; and, fourthly, public awareness, with the acknowledgement that opium production has become the cultural norm in many parts of Afghanistan, despite

123WH
being clearly against the tenets of mainstream Islamic teaching. Those are excellent initiatives and of course I wish them well.
However, there is a flaw—one piece of the strategy is missing. There is a terrible missing element that, if not inserted, will doom the rest to failure. There is no commitment to a process of poppy destruction—no plan systematically and to an agreed timetable to seek out and destroy the deadly opium crop. I know that destruction is not enough in itself—I know that we need the carrot. But where is the stick? There must be a clear, unequivocal statement that unless the farmers engage with the authorities in the process of law enforcement and switching to alternative livelihoods, their farms will be destroyed. I welcome Antonio Costa's comment last autumn that the preconditions for change are slowly being put into place, but the process cannot be allowed to drift for years. We have already gone backwards in the two and a half years since the conflict, and we are continuing to move in the wrong direction.
Antonio Costa also said:
"The experience of several countries in Asia and Latin America demonstrates that the dismantling of a drug economy can be a long and complex process, lasting a generation…A generation is a long time. This prompts the question—can Afghanistan, with its democratisation threatened by old terrorists and new drug barons; neighbouring countries affected by drug addiction, an HIV/AIDS pandemic, corruption and violence; and the international community, with its 10 million people addicted to Afghan opiates—afford to wait that long?"
He does not answer that question. I will. The answer is no. I am not prepared to wait a generation for a decrease in the flow of cheap heroin on to the streets of Inverclyde. I am not prepared to tell the decent people of Greenock that they will have to put up for another 30 years with the scumbag heroin dealers who blight their communities. I am not prepared to wag a finger at corrupt Afghan officials and to coax reluctant farmers into seeing the error of their ways without the threat of terrible reprisals if they do not. I am not prepared to return to this issue in another 12 months to report further setbacks. I want real progress.
I close with the words of President Karzai, who said:
"We hadn't seen addicts in Afghanistan before, and we didn't even know what addiction was. But now we see the young addicted to heroin in our community. Addiction by heroin and death are the same. Death inflicted by pistol, rocket and bomb is fast—but death through addiction to heroin causes the slow death of people and the destruction of families."
Too many people have died and too many families have been destroyed. The time to end this evil trade has come. The task has fallen to us.
3.45 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) for his thoughtful and constructive speech. I would like to put two questions to him. To what extent was poppy production reduced at the height of the Taliban regime, or was it not reduced? Secondly, as one who has been in Kosovo, I would like to know whether there is an Albanian route through Kosovo by which Albanians bring drugs to this country from Afghanistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) not only on his speech this afternoon, but on being the Member of this House who has most assiduously pressed us on the issue of the trafficking of opium and heroin from Afghanistan.
I am pleased to be able to respond to my hon. Friend's remarks today in the context of the visit that I made to Afghanistan a few weeks ago, when I met President Karzai, Afghan Ministers and senior advisers, as well as key representatives of the international community. I saw the work that was under way to give effect to the Afghan transitional authority's counter-narcotics strategy, which aims to eliminate opium poppy cultivation by 2013. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said at the end of his speech about not wanting to wait for a generation; I certainly do not want to wait for a generation to see the problem tackled.
We should have a sense of realism, however, about the time scales that will be necessary if the problem is successfully to be tackled. Elsewhere in the world, experience of successfully tackling the problem suggests that it will take up to a decade to achieve that in Afghanistan. That does not mean that the Government are complacent or that we are not trying to make progress, but it dos s mean that we are in this for the long haul.
The UK Government remain committed to supporting implementation of the Afghan counter-narcotics strategy and to the lead role that we have been given in the international community. We have taken on that role not only because we have a sense of responsibility and concern for ordinary Afghan people, but because we have a significant vested interest in relation to the interests of people in this country. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that 95 per cent. of the heroin in UK streets originates in Afghanistan, so the problem for Afghans is every bit as much our problem. That is why we have committed at least £70 million over the coming three years and why we have a significant number of our civilian personnel on the ground. That is part of the UK's ongoing commitment to the Afghan people, and part of the increase in our overall assistance to at least £500 million over five years, which was announced at the Berlin conference on Afghanistan in April this year.
Elimination of opium production is a key challenge for the Afghan Government and the international community. It is a key challenge because it threatens the stability, reconstruction and legitimate economy of Afghanistan. The recent Berlin conference recognised the significance of tackling the drugs problem if we are to ensure a more secure and sustainable future for Afghanistan. It remains an enormous challenge, which we do not underestimate, but as I said, we are in this for the long haul and we are determined to succeed.
My hon. Friend referred to the current cultivation trends, and he is correct to say that the latest United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime survey reported cultivation figures of 80,000 hectares and production figures of 3,600 tonnes. That demonstrated a small increase in cultivation and production. The survey results for 2004 are still being collated and assessed by

125WH
the UN office, and they are not due until the autumn. However, it seems clear that cultivation will have increased again this year.
That is obviously unwelcome, and it is legitimate in such circumstances to ask, as my hon. Friend did, why we are in that situation. One has to look at what has previously happened elsewhere in the world. Experience tells us that elimination strategies relating to opium poppy cultivation and production take time in other countries where the problem has been successfully tackled, albeit from lower original levels of cultivation, such as Pakistan and Thailand. Not only do they take time, but in the early years of the strategy, there is an increase in cultivation. Why does that happen? It can happen, for example, because infrastructure and access to water improves, and, as we are seeing in Afghanistan, because when one makes a squeeze on the traditional poppy growing areas, the activity begins to move into non-traditional areas. That does not mean that we are unaware of that problem. Indeed, we are trying to tackle it, but it is one of the reasons for initially seeing an increase in cultivation and production.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also asked about experience under the Taliban—a point is often quoted. For one year, 2001, the Taliban enforced a complete ban on cultivation. If one uses the methods that the Taliban had at their disposal—torture, bribery, corruption and killing—it is possible to bring about a ban in one year, but the Taliban did not stop benefiting from the trading, cultivation and trafficking of heroin. Indeed, they continued to stockpile, traffic and make money from that process. If one goes back further, one sees that levels are not yet what they were during the early years of the Taliban. Our discussions must take place in context.
We need and we are trying to achieve—my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to this—a significant change in the risk-reward balance affecting those who make decisions on whether they will engage in the drugs trade in Afghanistan. Historically, the risks have not been as great as they should be and the rewards have been significant. That is what we are seeking to change, which is why, in concert with the Afghan authorities and other international partners, a comprehensive, long-teem and sustainable approach is being built. We certainly have such an approach in the Afghan Government's counter-narcotics strategy, whose implementation is fundamental. The strategy is coordinated by the counter-narcotics steering group in Kabul, chaired by the Afghan national security adviser We are part of that steering group, as are other international partners.
The basic structures are now in place: drugs control legislation, a counter-narcotics directorate, the Ministry of the Interior's Afghan special narcotics force, counter-narcotics police and, crucially, the central eradication capability. That is one of the key points that my hon. Friend made towards the end of his contribution. We need an holistic approach, and that certainly includes an eradication capability. That capability also needs to be co-ordinated and targeted, which is why we have supported, financially and materially, the central eradication planning cell, because eradication must happen in the right places where it is most likely to succeed.
126WH
We are working with the Afghan Government in all key areas of the strategy with immediate action to interdict the trade in drugs and eradicate opium poppy cultivation in areas where there is access to alternative livelihoods; assistance with the development of a counter-narcotics strand to the criminal justice system; assistance with the reduction of domestic demand for opiates; and support for development initiatives that, crucially, will provide alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. A number of those pieces of the strategy have recently been put in place, and the next 15 months, particularly towards the end of that period and the next cultivation season, will be the critical test of whether what we are doing is working. I believe that it is, but it is right to make the judgment at that stage.
It may be helpful to give some specific examples of where measurable progress has been made according to that action plan. There has been progress with interdiction, which is a key element. The Afghan special narcotics force is an Afghan initiative to create a special drugs interdiction force under the control of the Ministry of the Interior. Since the force became operational, it has seized more than 32 tonnes of opiates and destroyed 32 laboratories, storage sites and significant quantities of precursor chemicals. The local impact, in particular, has been disproportionately high.
We have also seen the development of the counter-narcotics police, which was created as a specialist unit last year with a UK-mentored anti-smuggling team that has seized 125 kg of heroin, 30 kg of opium and a significant amount of precursor chemicals. That work is developing further. Furthermore, when I was in Kabul recently, I had the opportunity to witness the Kabul city gates project, which we have supported and funded through Customs and Excise, and which seeks to intervene and to catch and stop the trafficking of drugs as they leave and enter Kabul.
My hon. Friend referred to eradication. The Afghan Government has established a central eradication planning cell in the Ministry of Interior, which is critical to analysing and targeting efforts on eradication in a way that is consistent with our policy of eradicating the poppy crop only where farmers have access to alternative livelihoods. An alternative livelihood is a key factor. Anyone who considers the issue will conclude that if we are to persuade poppy farmers to stop undertaking that activity, they must be given an alternative income. That is why DFID is so engaged, why it has trebled its budget and why this is a particularly important strand of its activities.
The security situation is critical. If we are to make genuine progress on tackling poppy cultivation, it must be done in a context where security is improved and, beyond Kabul, is better than it has historically been. That is why the deployment of additional provincial reconstruction teams throughout Afghanistan is critical to expanding the international security assistance force beyond Kabul. ISAF has a key role to play alongside Afghan law and order forces and the US-led coalition in providing the necessary security for the elections. The international community must also ensure that ISAF can be expanded quickly. We are seeking to do that. The tasking of ISAF and the coalition forces to ensure that

127WH
they can participate in counter-narcotics work is an important element of the strategy that we have been addressing. The coalition mandate has been changed to enable that to happen.
I shall say a few words about the conference in Kabul, to which my hon. Friend referred. I valiantly tried to get to it, but owing to the worst snows in Kabul for 15 years, I was unable to get a plane to land there. It was the first time that all the key international partners and key elements in the Afghan administration from President Karzai down were all together and signing up to the strategy to tackle those problems. Significant action plans were agreed to. The increased interdiction activity will increase the numbers and effectiveness of the counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan and the mobile detection teams. We are contributing by increasing the number of mobile detection teams from one to four this year and by looking for international partners to take on additional teams.
We are also tackling corruption and the involvement of officials and commanders in the drugs trade. Anyone who considers the issue or visits Afghanistan knows that there are key officials who have a vested financial interest in the drugs industry. The problem has to be tackled in the long term, and in part that will be achieved through symbolic high-level arrests, sending out a clear message that to involve oneself in the industry is not an easy and risk-free way to make money.
Another key element of the conference was the need to increase resources for programmes with maximum alternative livelihoods impact and support the design and implementation programmes to fill existing gaps in pro-poor agricultural livelihoods, rural finances, off-farm activities and micro and small enterprise development. We are working with the United Nations office and other international partners to make real progress with that programme. All the key building blocks of the strategy are in place. What we are doing can and will work, but the next 15 months will be absolutely critical and a real test.
If one considers the overall economic prospects and levels of growth that are providing real opportunities beyond poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, one sees that there are real, demonstrable opportunities. This issue is a problem for the Afghan people and for us, where, given the removal of the Taliban, we have a moral and historic responsibility to act and work on their behalf. Some 95 per cent. of the heroin that enters this country and causes such mayhem and damage to so many of our communities comes from Afghanistan. It is every bit as much our responsibility and in our interest to tackle the problem as it is for the Afghan Government and people. We are absolutely determined to work with them to take the issue forward.

Royal Hall (Harrogate)
4 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this short debate on the future of the royal hall in Harrogate. I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. It may be rather empty, owing to the specific nature of the debate, but I assure her that today's proceedings will be widely reported. This is not simply a debate about another civic building in disrepair; it is about the architectural jewel in the crown of Harrogate. The royal hall, more than any other building, is emblematic of Harrogate's spa heritage and its links to the present. It is a building of local, national and international importance and is at the very heart of Harrogate's vibrant society.
The overwhelming support for the restoration of the royal hall to its former glory has been staggering. More than 15,000 people have pledged support, including 6,500 who signed a petition begging the council to work with the Heritage Lottery Fund to find a solution to the problem. Support has poured in from local and national organisations including the civic societies of Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon, the Victorian Society, the Frank Matcham Society, the Spas Research Fellowship, Harrogate symphony and philharmonic orchestras, the local Gilbert and Sullivan society, the St. Andrews players, the White Rose and the Tewitt youth bands and the Tom Roberts jazz band—to mention just a few. There is also support from Harrogate international festival, Ripon festival, numerous dance and drama societies and more than 20 local schools that regularly use the royal hall as their town hall for concerts and speech days.
However, the affection for the royal hall goes much further. Messages of support have poured in from a host of artists from the world of music, comedy, theatre and show business, who have entertained audiences over many decades. Sir Cliff Richard, who appeared at the royal hall as a youngster in July 1959, summed up the feelings of many:
"I wish every success to all who are associated with this project, and look forward to hearing that the Royal Hall is once again available for both established artists and those who, like me nearly 45 years ago, are just starting their careers".
The patron of the Royal Hall Restoration Trust, which was set up by the hall's inspirational local champion, Lilian Mina, is none other than His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who sent the following message for the launch of the trust:
"As Patron of the Royal Hall Restoration Trust, I am delighted to lend my support to the Trust's effort to raise funds towards the restoration of this unique part of our national heritage".
In that sentence, His Royal Highness sums up why I have brought the issue to the House of Commons: the royal hall is quite simply a unique part of our national heritage.
The royal hall is the only surviving kursaal, as it was originally named—it was renamed in 1918 following anti-German sentiment; little changes—built by the nation's most famous and prolific theatre designer, Frank Matcham. Although Matcham built or helped to build more than 120 theatres between 1873 and 1913, including the Palladium and the Hackney Empire in London, and Black pool's Grand theatre, Harrogate's

129WH
royal hall is the only example of a cure hall or kursaal conceived and designed in the great continental spa tradition.
Matcham's brilliant building was no ordinary theatre. It was designed to help late 19th century Harrogate retain its position as queen of inland watering places. It was built to incorporate the essential elements of the cure—mineral waters obtained from Europe's famous chloride of iron well, exercise indoors in all weathers using the 360° encircling ambulatories, and dancing or entertainment provided by an astonishing array of performers.
This building of immense elegance was opened in 1903, and Matcham's genius was manifest in many ways. He designed a mechanical system for clearing auditorium seats to allow for dancing that is commonplace in many theatres today. A plenum cooling chamber provided a natural and efficient air-conditioning system for the auditorium. It was similar to the system that we have in Portcullis House today. However, the key innovation, which transformed future theatre design, was the use of cantilever construction principles, rather than view-obstructing pillars, to support upper floors.
Although designed for wealthy visitors to the spa town, the royal hall proved fabulously versatile and has served visitors and locals alike for more than 100 years. Great artists appeared on its stage: Dame Nellie Melba, Sir Edward Elgar and music hall stars such as Harry Lauder. The 1930s saw the arrival of the great dance bands and, in one single season in 1938, Jack Payne, Jack Hilton, Henry Hall and Joe Loss all played to packed crowds. The hall has been associated with political meetings. Horatio Bottomley's jingoistic speeches during the first world war Mrs. Pankhurst's call for votes for women and Sir Oswald Mosley's blackshirt rallies in the 1930s all featured there. The entertainment and political tradition has continued into recent times. For the past 15 years, the royal hall has been home to Harrogate's growing international and conference exhibition centre.
That combination of tradition and progression was fatally halted in September 2000 when massive structural faults were found in the building. The 100-year-old concrete that makes up most of the internal structure was found to be in an advanced state of decay. In addition, the steel support beams taking the weight of the floors and the balcony were severely corroded. Large sections of the building had to be closed to the public.
To its credit, the borough council immediately put together a rescue bid and made an impressive proposal to the Heritage Lottery Fund and to English Heritage for financial support. The Heritage Lottery Fund supported the detailed appraisal stage and agreed to put £6 million into the final restoration scheme as matched funding for the £2.6 million that the council was prepared to invest. The initial shortfall of £1 million was to be provided by the newly formed restoration trust through private subscription.
Sadly, the initial enthusiasm and collaboration has turned sour. Estimates of costs have risen by £4 million and the new Conservative-led council has reduced its contribution by £600,000, accusing the Heritage Lottery Fund of behaving abominably. In retaliation, the Heritage Lottery Fund has made it clear that it will not
130WH
give additional funds to the project, hinting that unless a reduced scheme can be agreed, it will withdraw its funding. Astonishingly, the council appears to want to send back the offer of £6 million, mothball the royal hall at an annual cost of more than £100,000 and allow that national treasure literally to decay into a ruin.
Mr. David Curry: I represent a large part of the Harrogate district, so my council tax payers have a major interest in the issue.
Can we be clear about the facts? The cost of restoration is estimated at £13.7 million. The council initially said that it had £2.6 million available—a sum supported by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors. Of that, a significant amount has gone on additional facilities to the conference centre itself, for so-called break-out facilities. The Heritage Lottery Fund is offering £6 million. The council has said that it is looking for a reduced scheme and is offering £2 million, because it needs a cash-limited scheme. It cannot have an open-ended commitment that exposes its own reserves and its constituents. When the hon. Gentleman blames the council, I think that he should understand that it does not wish to have an open-ended commitment on a scheme with major structural failure. The Liberal Democrat members of the council have never dissented from that evaluation of the position.
Mr. Willis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can see immediately why the project has become bogged down. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly defending the indefensible. A council that agreed a £2.6 million contribution, matched by the Heritage Lottery Fund's statement that it would make a £8.6 million contribution, should adhere to its agreement. Sadly, that will not be the case.
Of course, sending back £6 million is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that Harrogate borough council has a duty in law to maintain the building and that a partial restoration using the £8 million or £8.6 million that is available is essential. I hope, too, that through her Department she will offer support to bridge the funding gap. The plight of the royal hall illustrates the impossible situation that many small local authorities find themselves in when attempting to maintain listed buildings in their ownership. Had it been a building in private ownership, the council could have served an order, undertaken works and billed the owner, but how does a council serve a heritage order on itself? I hope that she will take that action if necessary.
Despite the borough council's actions, I have sympathy for its position. The resources available to local authorities to maintain, never mind restore, historic buildings are unacceptable. England has 442,000 listed buildings, of which 6,000 are grade I and 18,000 grade II*, including the royal hall. If the total combined budget for last year—£124 million from English Heritage and £113 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund—were allocated simply to grade I and grade II* listed buildings, the average grant per building would be less than £10,000. However, excluding heritage lottery funding, the total grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the maintenance of historic buildings last year was a mere £28 million.

131WH
It is therefore hardly surprising that local authorities have problems with these major building projects. Either the number of listings has to decline or significantly greater resources must be made available to the listed buildings project. Can the Minister explain what additional funding will be made available to English Heritage in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review in order to support that programme? Will she accept that, given a limited budget and the estimated £50 billion that is required to sort out all listed building repairs, a clearer strategy is required for the application of funding?
First, buildings of national importance should be separated from those of local importance and should attract differential funding. It would help significantly if that principle could be established. There should be a national priority according to a building's rarity. If the country had 10 kursaals of similar design, I would accept a prioritisation with regard to restoration, but the royal hall is unique in the United Kingdom and to lose it would be a loss to our national heritage.
Secondly, when a building is selected as one of unique national importance, its restoration should be seen as a priority for Government, but only if it has a sustainable future. Sadly, many buildings do not have a sustainable future, but the royal hall has a full order book of engagements and is urgently needed to supplement the town's conference facilities, and the people of Harrogate want it back as their town hall. I appreciate that there is a list of key buildings at risk that receive special support, but why must we wait until a building deteriorates almost to the point of collapse before intervening?
Thirdly, we should have regard to the size of local authorities and the number of listed buildings that they have to look after. Harrogate is a medium-sized shire district with 110 grade II* and 50 grade I buildings. Were it a unitary authority, it would have a larger budget to manoeuvre within. At least as a halfway-house measure, will the Minister seek to apportion part of the responsibility for the upkeep of listed buildings to county councils?
To date, Harrogate borough council has refused to take up the offer of a £6 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund in order to restore the royal hall. Two motions to the council, on 3 March and 29 April, to do so were defeated by the ruling Conservative group with a Whip. The offer from the fund remains on the table until 24 June, when it will be recommended to the lottery board whether to withdraw the offer.
I plead with the Minister to intervene and to seek increased flexibility from the Heritage Lottery Fund on funding partial restoration. It is essential that it increases its offer or at least encourages the council to return with another bid after the first phase is complete. I plead with her to seek a change of heart by the borough council so that it commits itself to a partial restoration and restores its agreed funding of £2.6 million. If the Minister can achieve a breakthrough with her own style of diplomacy or, better still, if she can secure some additional funding, her name will go up in lights at the royal hall, but it is currently dark and threatens to be so for ever.
4.14 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I think that that is an offer that I can refuse. I welcome the debate, however. Indeed, if I am not wrong, I have had the pleasure of seeing tire hall and attending meetings there on previous visits to the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Therefore, although I do not claim to know the building as well as he or the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) do, I acknowledge its importance to the local community. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for its importance.
I often find myself in a difficult position in these Adjournment debates. I fully recognise that they offer hon. Members a welcome opportunity to raise what are essentially local issues, albeit ones that have national implications for the Government. I want to address my remarks to those two areas. It is of course the Government's responsibility to provide a framework within which decisions about the protection of our national heritage and our built environment can be taken, and I accept that responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say a few words about the Government's approach to discharging that responsibility, even if they do not relate directly to the future of the royal hall.
Before I do so, however, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is undertaking a comprehensive review of heritage protection in partnership with English Heritage. Although I cannot say what will come out of that, I shall ensure that his comments about the wider policy issues are drawn to the attention of the group that is conducting that review. I do not have a feel for whether it will be appropriate to act on his suggestions, because those issues are not my primary ministerial responsibility. However, I shall ensure that the review group responds to him in detail. if appropriate.
We are lucky in this country to live among some beautiful buildings. most of which are exceptionally old and need a lot of care and attention. However, it is not possible for any nation to respond with the cash that any local community would need. We are left with the difficult dilemma of prioritising. I was grateful that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that in his concluding comments. There is an absolutist argument, which says, "They're important, so Governments should provide the money." At first I feared that the hon. Gentleman was making that argument, but he did not do so and instead talked about prioritising.
The current provision is for the listing of buildings, which is a good way of doing things. First and foremost, listed buildings that are at risk should receive resources. The hall is a grade II* listed building, so it would normally receive priority. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a lot of the available money comes from the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is by necessity at arm's length from the Government. We put some money into English Heritage as well.
On the framework, three years ago the Government published "A Force for our Future", which was the first statement for a generation of Government policy on the historic environment. To some extent, the Government are still working on that, introducing a new framework

133WH
and structure, which I hope will lead us through the coming decades. The Department has already looked at the structure of the Sports Council and of the Arts Council, introducing significant savings, which have been ploughed back into those activities. The Secretary of State has said that, in the same way, we hope in the coming months to look at the bodies that represent our heritage, to see whether savings can the made that can be ploughed back into the sector. I do not know what will come of that, but we are discussing the issue in the Department and announcements will be made in due course.
I say that to give an inkling that it is perhaps time that the Government looked at the many non-departmental public bodies, the funding streams and the structures that govern the nation's and the community's decisions about spending and about English Heritage. I do not stand up to defend the current structure as perfect, but it is time that we looked at it and that is what we are doing.
As I said, in 2001 we published "A Force for our Future". To reiterate what the hon. Gentleman talked about, we cannot underestimate the role that built heritage plays in our communities' hearts, and in regeneration, tourism, social inclusion, education and civic and local pride. Indeed, the definition of a failed community is one where, often, heritage has been forgotten and opportunities to build something that the community can in future be proud of have not been taken. Built heritage scores on all those counts.
I want to talk about the Yorkshire region, particularly the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I take his point that some of these decisions are local, and that there should be a regional perspective and input. However, I am not sure that he is right about the play that he made between issues of regional and national priority. We are all citizens. I am not from Yorkshire, but I have been to his constituency —more often than not for work. That has not stopped me gaining pleasure as someone who represents a midlands constituency.
We do acknowledge the importance of the regional level. Each region now has an historic environment forum that brings together the key players at regional level. In 2003, those groups each published "Regional Heritage Counts" alongside the national document. That is an effort to reflect the difference between the nature of the regional provision and the national one. The state of Yorkshire's historic environment demonstrates well the contribution that the historic environment is making to the region
More grade I and grade II* listed buildings and scheduled monuments in Yorkshire have been removed from English Heritage's register of buildings at risk than in any other region. That is an important point to make. One cannot argue that less has been done in Yorkshire to remove buildings from the at-risk register. More has been done in Yorkshire, possibly because more buildings were on that register. Indeed, almost half those still on the Yorkshire register are now under repair or have agreed solutions.
The Heritage Lottery Fund offered 25 per cent. more grant in Yorkshire in 2003–04 than in the previous year. The amount of grant offered by English Heritage in Yorkshire has increased by 11 per cent. since 2002. Indeed, since 1997, English Heritage has offered £371,000 in grants to the hon. Gentleman's
134WH
constituency, which I suspect is £371,000 more than has been offered to my constituency in Birmingham. That is the nature of the different constituencies. It has also offered a further £1.3 million in grants to Harrogate district. My point is essentially twofold: it is time to examine the structure through which the Government operate when protecting the environment, and to ensure that buildings are listed and the at-risk register is run in a way that is most beneficial. There is no way that anybody from Harrogate district or Yorkshire can argue that they have been treated worse than any other city or region.
I acknowledge the difficulty faced by local authorities. I do not want to enter the evident dispute between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who both have constituents who pay council tax to the Harrogate council. Both speak with passion from different sides of the argument. There is an issue about the capacity of local authorities always to respond to such matters. I suspect that local people will blame the local authority before they blame the Government, because of the local nature of such buildings. That is why it is essential that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills and DCMS do what they can to work together. Whether local authorities have the necessary money to support all the local buildings that they need to support is a matter for ODPM, not for us, because of the grant system—although I am not trying to get out of replying to the debate.
In 2003, Ministers from the three key Departments signed a new and innovative funding agreement for English Heritage that recognises for the first time the contribution that English Heritage makes to the delivery of all three Departments' targets. I say that merely to make the point that the preservation of our built environment is the responsibility not only of the DCMS. Part of the trick is to get Departments to work more closely together and to ensure that the Government's different funding streams work with lottery funding streams to provide more leverage, whether through donations or money from the private sector or charitable organisations.
On the specific point about the royal hall, I am left with saying that I hope that the parties concerned solve the problem. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has to say negates that. The Heritage Lottery Fund, which works at arm's length from Government, has provided £6 million, and always made it clear that it would not be in a position to increase the grant if the costs of the project escalated. In terms of the grants that are given out by HLF, £6 million is not unreasonably low. I do not believe that HLF is open to criticism about its action. We cannot constantly consider a project and return to HLF if costs escalate—which they do for legitimate and not so legitimate reasons—expecting that its grant can be similarly escalated. Sometimes it can be, sometimes it cannot be, but that decision must be for HLF to make.
Furthermore, the money from Yorkshire Forward that was on the table is not there now. A sum of £2.6 million came from the local council but, for whatever reason, that has been reduced to £2 million. I have no comment to make about that. I shall not criticise the council for reducing that sum by £600,000. The decision was made by the council and approved in the normal

135WH
way. That is what local authority freedom is about. I must leave it to the borough council to make such decisions.
It seems that there are two options: first, to leave the cost of regenerating the hall at £13 million, and to use the £6 million that is on the table from HLF and the £2 million from the council and to raise other funding from elsewhere. The second option is to reduce the cost of the exercise to one that is manageable with an £8 million budget. It is not for me to decide which option to take; that is not my job. Rightly, that is for local people to decide.
It is important to bear it in mind that HLF has left the £6 million on the table longer that it would usually do, given the local argument that has been advanced and the change of mind that has taken place. I assure the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that I am not using the term "change of mind" in a pejorative way. The council has a right to change its decision about how it spends its money. That has meant that time has elapsed. HLF could have taken the money away and spent it elsewhere. It has not. Reading between the lines, that is a sign that HLF wants the project to work. There is a meeting on 24 June, and I hope that all parties will sit round the table. I hope that the position is not reached whereby the £6 million is not spent on the hall.
I have had a private conversation with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has made public comments about the matter. The problem should be solvable. The town clearly cares passionately about the importance of the hall and its long history, and I hope that we can find a solution that £8 million can fund.
Mr. Curry: Can we be clear about the £2.6 million? Yorkshire Forward seemed as though it would offer about £2.5 million towards the royal hall and additional money for so-called break-out facilities—meeting rooms—to improve the conference facilities. When that failed to materialise, the council invested some of the £2.6 million in providing what was deemed necessary to make sure that the conference facilities were up to date. The council has not arbitrarily cut the amount; it has spent the money on something that is important for Harrogate, so that it can maintain its position in the conference world.
Estelle Morris: That is entirely a decision for the council. Such local matters fall the way of councils. I have been told that the area has problems with concrete sickness. Those problems are not predicted when outlaying funding. Problems have to be coped with as they come along. There is not a pot of money that can just be given to Harrogate or anywhere else because the costs of projects have escalated.
I join the hon Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman in acknowledging the importance of the hall to the community. I very much hope that, in years to come, Members of Parliament can talk about the stars of politics and stagy who have appeared at the hall from 2004 onwards. I urge all parties to attend the meeting on the 24th and to go with a wish and a will to solve the problem. There is £6 million from HLF; there is £2 million from the local council. Please let that money point a way forward so that the hall will be saved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were carried out(a) in NHS facilities and (b) in private facilities on residents of South Gloucestershire in the most recent year for which figures are available. [176391]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: Information about abortions carried out in national health service and private facilities by primary care trust in 2002 can be found in Table 14 of Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2002 which can be found at www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0323.htm. A copy of the bulletin has been placed in the Library.

  "NHS agency" abortions are those performed in the independent sector under NHS contract.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years.[175329]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number and percentage of women with suspected breast cancer who saw a specialist at national health service organisations serving the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency within two weeks is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for 1st consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within two weeks

  NHS Trust

  Percentage Number

  1999–2000

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  75.8

  25

  1999–2000

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  94.0

  63

  2000–01

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  99.1

  111

  2000–01

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  184

  2000–02

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  236

  2000–02

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  196

  2000–03

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  228

  2000–03

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  214

  2000–04

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  278

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust—Waiting times

  Seen within two weeks

  Year

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  19.6

  21

  1999–2000

  2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  41.4

  48

  386W

  Waiting times for 1st consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within two weeks

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2003–04

  Lancashire Trust

  Teaching

  Hospitals

  NHS

  100.0

  279

  Notes:

  1. Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust was formed following the merger of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

  2. Data for 2003–04 are up to Quarter 3.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [175335]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number and percentage of patients with suspected cancer at national health service organisations serving the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency who saw a NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within two weeks

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  100.0

  95

  2000–01

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  324

  2000–01

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  320

  2000–01

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  158

  2001–02

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  100.0

  149

  2001–02

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  803

  2001–02

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  406

  2001–02

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  291

  2002–03

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  1,084

  2002–03

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  783

  2003–04

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  1,217

  2003–04

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  990

  Notes:

  1. Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust was formed following the merger of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

  2. Data for 2003–04 are up to Quarter 3.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Manchester, Gorton with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [167379]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  387W

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust—Waiting times

  Seen within two weeks

  Year

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  3

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  96.7

  118

  1999–2000

  4

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  116

  2000–01

  1

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  137

  2000–01

  2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.6

  137

  2000–01

  3

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.1

  105

  2000–01

  4

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  126

  2001–02

  1

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  95.0

  134

  2001–02

  2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.9

  182

  2001–02

  3

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.0

  195

  2001–2002

  4

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  91.3

  168

  2002–03

  1

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  93.5

  129

  2002–03

  2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.5

  193

  2002–03

  3

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  268

  2002–003

  4

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  195

  2003–04

  1

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.0

  200

  2003–04

  2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.1

  215

  2003–04

  3

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  223

  2003–04

  4

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  202

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Manchester, Blackley saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [175012]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The table shows how many and the percentage of suspected cancer patients, seen within two weeks of urgent referral by a general practitioner, both at Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust and at the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and its predecessor organisations for each quarter since quarter 1999–2000. Earlier figures are not available.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral—Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  95.0

  19

  2001–02

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  83.3

  5

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  8

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  2002–03

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  83.3

  5

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  2

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  85.7

  6

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  80.0

  4

  2003–04

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  75.0

  3

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  5

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  Source:

  DH form QMCW

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral—Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and predecessor NHS trusts

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  93.3

  167

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.0

  200

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.9

  200

  388W

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral—Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and predecessor NHS trusts

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.1

  374

  2001–02

  1

  Oldham VHS Trust

  94.80

  181

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.80

  224

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.90

  242

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  96.10

  345

  2

  Oldham VHS Trust

  96.40

  162

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.00

  227

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.60

  298

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.00

  385

  3

  Oldham VHS Trust

  98.90

  181

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.60

  235

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.70

  286

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.50

  398

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.50

  197

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.50

  209

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.70

  302

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.00

  450

  2002–03

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.80

  1,215

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.10

  1,240

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.40

  1,325

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  95.80

  1,190

  2003–04

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  92.20

  1,214

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  94.90

  1,174

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  97.60

  1,276

  Source:

  DH form QMCW

  Children (Common Conditions)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the 10 most common conditions in children are. [173287]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Hospital episode statistics record reasons for hospital admission. The table shows the primary diagnosis for the 10 most common conditions, by broad classification, as cause of admission in the age range 0 to 16 years in 2002–03.

  Primary diagnosis by ICD10 relevant diagnosis chapter headings—finished admission episodes by age breakdown 0–16 years.

  Condition

  Number

  Chapter X

  Diseases of the respiratory system (JOO-J99)

  179,357

  Chapter XVI

  Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period (POO-P96)

  150,402

  Chapter XIX

  Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (SOO-T98)

  139,107

  Chapter XI

  Diseases of the digestive system (KOO-K93)

  135,705

  Chapter XVII

  Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities (QOO-Q99)

  74,976

  Chapter 1

  Certain infectious and parasitic diseases (AOO-B99)

  72,213

  Chapter II

  Neoplasms (COO-D48)

  53,782

  Chapter VIII

  Diseases of the ear and mastoid process (H60-H95)

  47,994

  Chapter XIV

  Diseases of the genitourinary system (NOO-N99)

  47,548

  Chapter XIII

  Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (MOO-M99)

  30,091

  Notes:

  1. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  2. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  3. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics, Department of Health.

  Dentists
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered with an NHS dentist in Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust. [173855]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  96,800 patients were registered with a general dental service dentist in the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust area on 31 March 2004.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentists within 15 months. Registration rates will exclude patients who have not been to their general dental service dentist within the past 15 months and patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services.

  Registrations are included in the area of the dentist. The registration rates for some areas may be affected by some patients receiving their dental treatment in a different area from the one in which they live.

  NHS dental services are also provided by the community dental service, personal dental service, salaried service of the GDS and hospital dental service. These services do not require the patient to be registered with a dentist before treatment.

  Dermatology
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are on waiting lists for secondary dermatology treatment in the North West of England. [175054]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the nearest diagnostic and treatment centre available for use by residents in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood is located. [175331]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are two national health service treatment centres within the Liverpool area close to Blackpool and Fleetwood. One is at Clatterbridge, part of Wirral NHS Trust and the other is at Aintree, part of Aintree NHS Trust. Both opened in 2003 and provide care for orthopaedics and other mixed specialty patients.

  Food Labelling
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to introduce a system of food labelling which is more easily understood by consumers. [176403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To help achieve clearer and more informative food labelling, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has adopted an action plan on food labelling, tackling the issues identified by consumers as priority concerns. Progress on implementation of this plan is discussed regularly at open meetings hosted by the FSA.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health last met Consumers for Health Choice and other stakeholders to discuss their concerns about the Food Supplements Directive; what actions arose from that meeting; and what progress has subsequently been made in addressing the issues raised; [176534]

  (2) when he next expects that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health will meet Consumers for Health Choice and other stakeholders to discuss interpretation and implementation in the UK of the Food Supplements Directive; [176535]

  (3) when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health last met Commissioner Byrne to discuss the Food Supplements Directive; what was agreed at that meeting; and if he will make a statement. [176537]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1835W.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior citizens in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood have access to free eye tests. [175337]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  The total number of sight tests paid for by Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority in the year 2002–03 for those aged 60 and over was 189,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the number of patients.

  GM Micro-organisms
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 25, on GM micro-organisms, (1) whether a date has been set for the proposed Working Group of the Standing Committee to discuss issues relating to the labelling of products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms prior to the next Standing Committee in June; by whom the United Kingdom will be represented in those discussions; what specific policy objectives will be pursued in those discussions; and if he will make a statement; [177160]

  (2) if he will list those organisations that responded to the recent consultation exercise undertaken by his Department and the Food Standards Agency in relation to the traceability and labelling regulations; what specific information has been (a) requested and (b) sought about the impact of the regulations on the fermentation industry and those of its products which are made with but do not contain genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement;. [177162]

  (3) whether his Department has (a) evaluated and (b) commented on the Statement of the Council and the Commission of 28 February 2003 in relation to the labelling of products made with but not containing genetically modified micro-organisms; [177163]

  (4) whether he intends to make it his policy for the current discussions in Standing Committee that products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms, but which do not contain any GM material, should not need to be labelled under the provisions of the new traceability and labelling regulations;. [177161]

  (5) what guidance he gives to industry about whether products made with but not containing genetically modified micro-organisms are within the scope of those elements of the new traceability and labelling regulations which require labelling of products as genetically modified; and if he will make a statement. [177164]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission has not set a date for the proposed genetic modification (GM) working group of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health and therefore no agenda or papers for the meeting are available yet.

  The Government's position on GM labelling is that the relevant legislation should be practical, proportionate and enforceable. The Government will continue to maintain this position in discussions on the labelling of GM
  392W
  products, which fall within the scope of the European Commission GM food and feed regulation (No. 1829/ 2003).

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) consultation exercise on the new EC GM regulations will end on 25 June. Responses to the consultation will be made publicly available in due course. Comment on the impact of the regulations from all stakeholders, including the fermentation industry, has been requested to contribute to the regulatory impact assessment.

  The Commission has indicated in a statement to the European Parliament dated 25 March 2003 that a decision on the labelling of products from genetically modified micro-organisms will be made no later than 7 November 2005. The FSA has raised the issue regarding the labelling of these products and asked for clarification on their statuswith the EC in bi-lateral meetings.

  The FSA and DEFRA have published draft guidance notes on the new EC GM regulations. This includes information on the labelling of products from genetically modified micro-organisms. This information is based on the current position of the EC and is consistent with information provided to other Member States.

  Health Service Premises
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health clinics have been modernised in(a) Chorley South Ribble Primary Care Trust and (b) Lancashire since 1997 [172075]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not gathered centrally. Health clinics are most often held in general practice settings. For information relating to the number of general practitioner practices that have been replaced or refurbished since 2000–01, the latest available data, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 39W.

  Health Services
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been allocated to health in Manchester, Blackley in each of the last seven years. [175009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Manchester, Blackley, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior citizens in Manchester, Blackley have access to free eye tests. [175010]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.
  393W
  In 2002–03, the total number of national health service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority for patients aged 60 and over was 189,900. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Heart Surgery
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [175334]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Heart Disease/Cancer Care
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood in each of the last five years. [175330]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will publish his Department's strategy on hepatitis C; [173191]

  (2) when he will launch his Department's awareness campaign on hepatitis C; at what targets it is directed; and what the budget is for the campaign. [173192]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department intends to publish a hepatitis C action plan including an awareness campaign to assist implementation of the consultation paper, "Hepatitis C Strategy for England" in the next few months.

  Immigrant Medical Inspections
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what authority Hillingdon Primary Care Trust has to use NHS resources for the medical inspection of immigrants. [156848]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The authority for national health service bodies to incur expenditure on medical inspection of immigrants is in sections 1–3 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  The Secretary of State's duties under the Act are delegated to primary care trusts.

  Malnutrition
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 168W, on malnutrition (1) what measures and strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen patients for under nutrition; and if he will make a statement; [175931]

  (2) for which specific groups nutritional screening is recommended; and if he will make a statement. [175932]
  394W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Measures and strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen patients for under-nutrition in hospitals, residential care and the wider community. Food and nutrition is one of eight benchmark areas aimed at ensuring that patients are screened on admission, and that appropriate action is taken according to nutritional needs. Nutritional screening is recommended for the care of specific groups, such as those highlighted in the national service frameworks for older people, diabetes and renal. Nutritional screening is also part of locally determined services.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide(a) mortality and (b) morbidity statistics for (i) normal vaginal deliveries, (ii) Caesarean sections and (iii) other deliveries in the last five years. [173734]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not collect the information in the format requested. However, the table, taken from the latest report on the confidential inquiries into maternal deaths (CEMD) in the United Kingdom, shows the direct and indirect maternal deaths and mortality rates per 100,000 maternities reported to registrars and the CEMD; United Kingdom for each triennium since 1988.

  Triennium

  1988–90

  1991–93

  1994–96

  1997–99

  Maternal deaths known to registrars general

  Number

  172

  150

  175

  142

  Rate

  7.3

  16.5

  28.0

  36.7

  Direct deaths known to inquiry

  Number

  145

  128

  134

  106

  Rate

  6.2

  5.5

  6.1

  5.0

  Indirect deaths known to inquiry

  Number

  93

  100

  134

  136

  Rate

  4.0

  4.3

  6.1

  6.4

  Total known to inquiry

  Number

  238

  228

  268

  242

  Rate

  10.1

  9.8

  12.2

  11.4

  Total maternities

  Number

  2,347,529

  2,317,328

  2,197,640

  2,123,614

  1 Final Office for National Statistics revised figures for 1991–93: the rate available at the time for the publication of the 1991–93 report was 6.0.

  2England and Wales figures for 1994 now include underlying cause and mentions (ICD9 630–676)

  3The rate for 1994–96 in the previous report was 7.4.

  Information about morbidity in mothers may be found in table 27, and selected complications by delivery onset method and delivery method can be found in table 28 of "National Health Service Maternity Statistics, England: 2002–03", which can be found at www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0410.htm. A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library.

  ME
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to help ME sufferers in Lancashire. [172076]
  395W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocation of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data are available to his Department relating to the numbers of(a) primary school age children and (b) secondary school age children assessed as needing support from child and adolescent mental health services in each year since 2001; and what proportion of these children are in mainstream education. [177514]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. A survey by the Office for National Statistics, "Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain, ONS 1999", found that among five to 10-year-olds, 10 per cent. of boys and 6 per cent. of girls had a mental disorder. In the 11 to 15-year-old age group, the proportion of children with any type of mental disorder was 13 per cent. for boys and 10 per cent. for girls. Mental disorders can range from clinically significant conduct disorders; emotional disorders, such as anxiety and depression, to hyperactivity.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason numbers of(a) emergency ambulances, (b) rapid response vehicles and (c) treat and refer vehicles in the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service were out of action for parts of the period from 26 to 28 March. [176925]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The information is not collected centrally.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans a treatment package for mesothelioma sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [174800]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: We are currently considering referring pemetrexed disodium (Alimta), for the treatment of mesothelioma, as a topic for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  We continue to keep a close eye on clinical trials to determine when the development of clinical guidelines on mesothelioma might be appropriate. The national health service is providing infrastructure and service support costs for two mesothelioma trials currently under way through the national cancer research network.

  A lung cancer advisory group has also recently been established to support the development and delivery of high quality services for lung cancer patients. One of the key areas that this group will address is the management of the increasing incidence of mesothelioma.

  Mortality Ratios
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the standardised mortality ratios of each 396W
  hospital trust were in the last year for which figures are available, listed in descending order; what the national average was; and if he will make a statement. [174757]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no single "standardised mortality ratio" for hospitals, nor yet full agreement as to how one should be defined.

  The Dr. Foster organisation has devised its own ratio which was published in The Sunday Times. It is an indicator devised for use by that organisation and the Department of Health does not produce any similar measure.

  NHS Equality Adviser
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers the NHS Equality Adviser will have to promote greater equality throughout the service; [172605]

  (2) whether the NHS Equality Adviser will have powers and duties in relation to facilities in joint use by the NHS and local authority care departments; [172615]

  (3) what powers and duties the NHS Equality Adviser will have in relation to companies and organisations supplying private medical services and care to patients in the NHS; [172617]

  (4) how the NHS Equality Adviser will interact with the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights; [172606]

  (5) whether the Equality Adviser to be appointed in the NHS will have the same powers and duties in respect of each of the six strands of equality to be protected by the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights; [172607]

  (6) whether the NHS Equality Adviser will have powers to commence discrimination proceedings in court on behalf of (a) employees and (b) patients in the NHS; [172618]

  (7) what enforcement powers the NHS Equality Adviser will have in respect of breaches of equality laws; [172619]

  (8) how the NHS Equality Adviser will safeguard the rights of patients; [172608]

  (9) what the remit will be of the NHS Equality Adviser; [172609]

  (10) whether the NHS Equality Adviser will have responsibility for children's equality issues in the health service (a) before and (b) after the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. [172620]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health is in the process of recruiting a National Director for Equality and Human Rights to spearhead a major programme to promote equality and human rights throughout the health and social care system. The remit involves championing and leading action to promote equality within the system and engaging in a dialogue with key stakeholders including service users and their representatives. It will also involve working with
  397W
  colleagues in the Department, other Government Departments and in other health and social care bodies at a national level to address equality issues and promote a human rights culture.

  The Director will assist the Department in complying with its legal duties in relation to promoting equality. The legal powers to enforce equality laws rests with the relevant equality commissions, namely the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission. The Director will not exercise powers in relation to facilities in joint use by the national health service and local authority care departments or companies and of organisations supplying private medical services and care to patients in the NHS.

  The Director will provide strategic leadership and champion the rights of patients from all sections of our diverse communities. Responsibilities for children's issues in the health service lies with the Department for Education and Skills.

  The Director will have the same responsibilities in respect of the six strands of equality to be protected by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and will work constructively with the new commission as is currently the case between the Department of Health and the existing equality commissions.

  NHS Land (Sale Profits)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary State for Health who will receive the profits of sale of NHS land for housing where a foundation trust is in existence. [177470]

  Mr. Hutton
  A national health service foundation trust may retain the profits of sale of its land subject to demonstrating that these will be used to further its public interest mandate.

  In-patient waiting lists by provider-Preston area

  Patients waiting for admission by month waiting

  Unit name

  Total

  0–21

  3–51

  6–81

  9–111

  12–141

  15–171

  +1

  1996–97

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,137

  2,352

  1,445

  1,000

  18

  15

  3

  1996–97

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,857

  1,079

  463

  249

  66

  0

  0

  1997–98

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,500

  4,079

  1,969

  1,334

  787

  257

  74

  0

  1997–98

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  2,121

  1,299

  537

  183

  102

  0

  0

  1998–99

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,602

  4,154

  1,729

  1,043

  544

  132

  0

  0

  1998–99

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  2,051

  1,126

  527

  248

  132

  17

  1

  1999–2000

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,025

  4,110

  1,701

  853

  359

  2

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,967

  1,228

  453

  186

  90

  10

  0

  2000–01

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,926

  5,559

  1,987

  1,002

  378

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,891

  5,565

  2,055

  995

  276

  0

  0

  0

  March 2003

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,445

  5,473

  2,096

  711

  165

  0

  0

  0

  March 2004

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,275

  5,527

  2,123

  625

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Not seen

  Source:

  Department of Health KHO7

  Out-patient waiting lists by provider-Preston area

  GP referred to consultant waiting list in weeks

  Name

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  1996–97

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  281

  19

  1996–97

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  941

  13

  1997–98

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  761

  110

  1997–98

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,113

  235

  1998–99

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,563

  443

  1998–99

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,503

  714

  NHS Staff (Salaries)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average salary for NHS administrative and clerical staff was in each year since 1997. [175357]

  Mr. Hutton
  No information on the earnings of national health staff was collected centrally in 1997. The estimated average basic pay of administrative and clerical staff on national pay rates between 1998 and 2003 is shown in the table.

  £

  Average basic pay

  1998

  11,700

  1999

  12,200

  2000

  13,100

  2001

  13,600

  2002

  14,200

  2003

  14,700

  Source:

  The annual NHS staff earnings survey in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002. The figures for 2001 and 2003 are based on the previous year's average adjusted in line with the appropriate pay agreement.

  The information in this answer relates only to England. The earnings of HNS Staff in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times in the last seven years for residents of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. [175336]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on waiting times for the national health service organisations which serve Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency are shown in the tables.
  399W

  Out-patient waiting lists by provider-Preston area

  GP referral to consultant waiting list in weeks

  Name

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  1999–2000

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,039

  284

  1999–2000

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  855

  187

  2000–01

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,904

  287

  2001–02

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,653

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Date

  Name

  13–17

  17–21

  21–26

  26+

  March 2003

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  819

  157

  0

  0

  March 2004

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  686

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust was established 1 August 2002 from the acute services of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. For 2001 and 2002, data for both trusts was reported under Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  In-patient waiting lists by provider-Blackpool area

  Patients waiting, for admission by month waiting

  Name

  Total

  0–21

  3–51

  6–81

  9–111

  12–141

  15–171

  18 +1

  1996–97

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  36

  33

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1996–97

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  8,393

  4,764

  1,986

  1,025

  493

  108

  14

  3

  1997–98

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  20

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1997–98

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  9,866

  5,428

  2,109

  1,341

  673

  228

  87

  0

  1998–99

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  13

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1998–99

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  8,290

  5,135

  1,793

  803

  336

  148

  75

  0

  1999–2000

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  13

  12

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  8,134

  4,851

  1,756

  816

  399

  194

  118

  0

  2000–01

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  7,791

  4,561

  1,896

  825

  361

  112

  36

  0

  2001–02

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  12

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  7,772

  3,913

  1,975

  1,088

  607

  189

  0

  0

  2002–03

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,306

  4,091

  1,841

  967

  407

  0

  0

  0

  2003–04

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,853

  4,296

  1,844

  713

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Not seen

  Source:

  Department of Health KHO7

  Out-patient waiting lists by provider-Blackpool area

  GP referral to consultant waitinglist in weeks

  Name

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  1996–97

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  1,414

  0

  1997–98

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  86

  0

  1997–98

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  254

  259

  1998–99

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  82

  0

  1998–99

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  853

  185

  1999–2000

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  4

  0

  1999–2000

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  695

  238

  2000–01

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  37

  0

  2000–01

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  743

  199

  2001–02

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  50

  0

  2001–02

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  701

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08

  400W 401W

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Not seen

  Name

  13 to 17

  17 to 21

  21 to 26

  26 plus

  2002–03

  Blackpool PCT

  13

  7

  0

  0

  2002–03

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  478

  198

  0

  0

  2003–04

  Blackpool PCT

  4

  0

  0

  0

  2003–04

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust

  185

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust was formed from the merger of Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust and Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust in April 2002

  Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's recent rejection of a Section 64 Grant Application by the Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust. [171407]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has supported the work of The Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust (TOAST) for two years (2001–02 to 2002–03) through the Department's Section 64 Grant Scheme.

  Due to an administrative oversight, they did not apply for funding for 2003–04 but made an application for 2004–05 for three years. A large number of applications were received for funding from April 2004 which resulted in intense competition for limited funds. This has resulted in a number of applications being rejected, including the applications from TOAST.

  Playing Safe
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been carried out into the effectiveness of www.playingsafe.co.uk in altering the sexual behaviour of young people; [175797]

  (2) what the total cost has been to public funds of www.playingsafe.co.uk. [175798]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The website www.playingsafely.co.uk supports the Government's "Sex Lottery" sexual health campaign, which aims to raise awareness of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and promote safer sex among young adults. The website has had over 1.5 million visitors and a recent online survey to evaluate its success showed that 87 per cent., of users said the site had increased their knowledge of STIs.

  The total cost to public funds of the website since its launch (December 2002 to May 2004) is £119,000.

  Public Meetings
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the guidance given to NHS organisations concerning arrangements for holding meetings in public. [172345]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The contents of the Health Service Circular on open board meetings (HSC 1998/ 999) are currently being reviewed. Revised guidance will be issued in due course.

  School Vending Machines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills on the implications for healthy eating of the use of vending machines in schools. [176126]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills meet regularly on a range of issues, including healthy eating in schools. There are a number of pieces of work currently under way that are considering the implications of vending machines, which will feed into the Public Health White Paper to be published in autumn:
  The healthier vending machine project is currently being piloted as part of the food in schools programme, which is jointly led by the Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working with other Ministers—including myself—to develop a "Healthy Living Blueprint", to bring a whole school approach to food and nutrition.
  The Department has been working with other Government Departments on "Choosing a Better Diet" which forms part of the overall "Choosing Health?" consultation.

  Sexual Health
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [176928]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [176929]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1610–11W.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many attendances at family planning clinics by people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by sex. [176930]
  403W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on 7 June 2004,Official Report, columns 34–36W.

  Smoking
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Government have made of the impact of people smoking on television and in films upon young people's decision on whether or not to start smoking. [176288]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 May 2004]: The Government are taking steps to reduce the impact of smoking on young people. The glamourising of tobacco products through advertising, promotion and sponsorship as well as through their depiction in the media is linked to smoking rates.

  That is why the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 provides for a comprehensive ban on advertising of tobacco products. There is also an Office of Communications code covering the portrayal of smoking in television programmes. This code specifically requires that the portrayal of smoking should be avoided in children's programmes, and included only when there is a strong editorial case for inclusion. In other programmes likely to be widely seen by young people, smoking should be included only where context or dramatic veracity requires it. In such programmes smoking should not be prominently featured as a normal and attractive activity.

  The independent British Board of Film Classification is currently undertaking a consultation exercise to update its guidelines on granting classifications for films which can be seen by children. The consultation seeks comments on whether smoking in a film should have an impact on classification and what that impact should be. The new guidelines will be published at the end of the year.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact the NHS smoking cessation services have had on the number of people who have stopped smoking in each year since 1999. [176103]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 May 2004]: The number of people who have stopped smoking at the four week follow-up stage in each year since 1999 is given in the table.

  Number successfully quitting smoking at four week follow-up (based on self-report) of those setting a quit date in 1999–2000, 2000–01,2001–02,2002–03 and April to December 2003— England

  Numbers

  1999–2000

  5,761

  2000–01

  64,554

  2001–02

  119,834

  2002–03

  124,082

  Total April to December 2003

  112,174

  Total April 1999 to December 2003

  426,405

  404W
  Note:

  1. In 1999–2000 smoking cessation services were set up in Health Action Zones (HAZ), with services rolled out across the NHS to all health authorities in 2000–01.

  2. Data for 2003 are provisional.

  Social Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the time taken for Criminal Records Bureau checks to be completed in respect of social care workers; and what representations he has received about problems caused by delays in this regard. [173951]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) continually assesses its performance against its published service levels across all sectors and employment categories. I am unable to provide my hon. Friend with an answer to his specific question relating to the completion of checks for social care workers, because the Criminal Records Bureau's computer system does not hold this information centrally.

  However, since June 2003 the CRB has been issuing on average 93 per cent. of all Standard and Enhanced Disclosures within two and four weeks respectively, against published service standards of 90 per cent. The bureau is processing over 50,000 Disclosures per week. On 12 May, the CRB issued its four millionth Disclosure.

  The CRB has received a number of representations from individuals and organisations across all groups about the effects of delays in completing Disclosures. Again, the bureau does not currently record centrally the number of representations received from or concerning social care workers. The bureau aims to resolve any issues in the shortest time possible in order to minimise disruption to people who require the clearance to occupy an employment position.

  In addition, and in accordance with the Agency's Framework Document, the CRB has both formal and informal consultative arrangements for all employment sectors to help identify and resolve emerging issues affecting the delivery of the Disclosure service.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent statistics are for teenage pregnancy. [172160]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Jim Cunningham, dated 9 June 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the most recent statistics are for teenage pregnancy. I am replying in his absence. (172160)

  The most recent complete year for which provisional figures for teenage pregnancy are available is 2001. Final figures will be published later this year.
  405W
  Provisional estimates for the first two quarters of 2002 based on incomplete abortion data were published in May 2004 and are available on the National Statistics website at:

  http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk/downloads/ theme_health/hsq22_vl.pdf

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many electors were on the electoral roll for the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey in each year since 1997. [177727]

  Mr. Leslie
  Based on figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in respect of the annual register of electors this information is as follows:

  Electors

  1997

  64,628

  1998

  65,189

  1999

  65,304

  2000

  65,594

  2001

  66,020

  2002

  63,142

  2003

  62,341

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many constituents were on the electoral roll for Chesham and Amersham in each year since 1992. [177920]

  Mr. Leslie
  Based on figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in respect of the annual register of electors this information is as follows:

  Electors

  1992

  70,926

  1993

  70,747

  1994

  71,020

  1995

  69,242

  1996

  69,660

  1997

  70,084

  1998

  71,010

  1999

  69,991

  2000

  69,748

  2001 (February)

  69,189

  2001 (December)

  69,350

  2002

  69,354

  2003

  69,360

  Honorary QCs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will end the practice of awarding honorary QCs. [177144]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State will, following his written statement of 26 May, make a further announcement on the future of the award of Queen's Counsel honoris causa, having discussed the issues with the Bar Councils and Law Societies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what 406W
  the combined electorate of the four all-postal regions for the purpose of the European Parliamentary election on 10 June is; how many ballot papers in those elections reached the Post Office (a) on or before 1 June and (b) on each day subsequently; and how many ballot papers were delivered other than by the Post Office (i) on or before 1 June and (ii) on each subsequent day.[l77744]

  Mr. Leslie
  As at December 2003, the combined electorate of the North East, East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Number and North West regions was 14,083,004. Elections are not run by central Government. However, from discussions with returning officers, the relevant printing firms and the Royal Mail, we understand that 99.24 per cent. of ballot papers were with the Royal Mail or had been hand delivered by local authorities by midnight on 1 June. Those few batches which were not collected by midnight on 1 June were picked up by the Royal Mail at around 5.10am on 2 June. Small-scale problems which have necessitated the reprinting or issuing of new ballot papers after this date have been dealt with on a local level and figures are not held centrally. New ballot papers issued due to an elector reporting the original paper lost or spoilt are again administered at a local level and no figures are kept centrally.

  Public Defenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost to the Legal Services Commission of employing its own lawyers through the Public Defenders Pilot Scheme was in the latest period for which figures are available. [176557]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost to the Legal Services Commission (including national insurance contributions and overtime payments) for all legal staff employed in the Public Defender Service for the financial year 2003–04 was £1,727,928.00. The staff costs for fully qualified lawyers were £1,271,531.64.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of regional development agencies in developing tourism in Bootle. [177713]

  Mr. Caborn
  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) is working closely with The Mersey Partnership (TMP), the nominated Destination Management Organisation (DMO) for Merseyside. DMOs are effectively mini tourist boards that will ensure a strong visitor and market focus to all that is done within the region, and aim to strengthen the connection that exists within the region between businesses and other organisations that make up the tourism sector.

  During 2003–04 TMP received £320,000 from the NWDA's marketing image budget for tourism and investment campaigns to promote Merseyside. £419,000 was also provided from the NWDA's tourism budget for a variety of projects.
  407W
  In addition the NWDA's Merseyside area office has supported a programme for the Mersey Waterfront Regional Park, which covers an area from Southport to Wirral. The NWDA is also investing £268,348 from the Environmental Regeneration Programme to Sefton council to create New Public Realm along Stanley road in Bootle town centre. The new works will provide Bootle with an identity, which will encourage future investment in the area.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coalminers' Compensation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to solicitors under the Claims Handling Agreement involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [176616]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 26 May 2004 the total cost paid to solicitors for respiratory disease claims is £271.1 million and for vibration white finger claims the total cost is £82.3 million.

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights will have the(a) capacity and (b) competence to (i) deal with and (ii) give due weight to the full range of issues for which it will be responsible. [176490]

  Ms Hewitt
  As set out in the White Paper, "Fairness for All", the Government will ensure that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights is led by a Board that reflects the communities it serves and understands their needs, has strong strategic capabilities, and is supported by skilled and expert staff. The CEHR will develop its priorities in close consultation with its stakeholders, reinforced by a statutory duty to consult on its strategic plan. This transparent process will ensure a balanced approach to prioritisation in which the full range of relevant issues is given due weight. The Government is committed to ensuring that the CEHR is adequately resourced.

  Container Terminals (Southampton)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect upon trade of recent decisions on container terminals at Southampton. [177198]

  Jacqui Smith
  None.

  Crown Post Offices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been transferred or made redundant from Crown post offices in each of the last 12 months; and of the former how many have been transferred under TUPE. [177746]

  Mr. Timms
  These are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Economic Regeneration
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on each Priority Area for Economic Regeneration in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 by (i) her Department and (ii) the relevant regional development agency; and how much is budgeted to be spent in (A) 2004–05 and (B) 2005–06. [173780]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: I understand that the term "Priority Area for Economic Regeneration" is used in the Regional Planning Guidance 9. The criteria for designating such areas include: above average unemployment levels, high levels of social deprivation, low skill levels, dependence on declining industries, derelict urban fabric, peripherality and insularity. The Areas are not intended to be covered by a Single Regeneration Scheme and projects within these areas are potentially eligible for funding from a number of different sources. The Department does not collect information on total expenditure in relation to all these areas and such information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Export Subsidies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date she expects EU export subsidies on farm products to end. [177485]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply

  A precise date for the ending of all forms of export subsidy on agricultural products remains a matter for negotiation within the WTO.

  Farnborough Airshow
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department is giving to the organisers of the Farnborough Airshow taking place from 19 to 25 July; and whether this includes assistance to enable overseas visitors to attend. [177500]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department for Trade and Industry is not providing any financial support to the organisers of the Farnborough Airshow. We will provide financial support to enable overseas visitors to attend the Airshow.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list visits made by each Minister in the Department between December 2003 and April 2004, broken down by(a) date, (b) constituency visited and (c) cost. [171561]

  Ms Hewitt
  Between December 2003 and April 2004 DTI Ministers undertook the following domestic visits:

  Date

  Constituency visited

  Cost for Minister (£)

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  5 December 2003

  Bristol, North, Monmouth and Cardiff, Central

  179

  Minister for Industry, Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality

  9 December 2003

  Morley and

  406

  409W

  Date

  Constituency visited

  Cost for Minister (£)

  Rothwell,Bradford, North, Leeds, Central

  11 December 2003

  The Wrekin

  200

  16 December 2003

  Kingswood Bristol, East Yeovil

  303

  5 January 2004

  Redditch Meriden Birmingham, Yardley Warwick and Leamington

  315

  13 January 2004

  Newham

  1—

  29 January 2004

  Dudley, South Birmingham, Ladywood

  286

  11 February 2004

  Cheadle

  350

  25 February 2004

  Hyndburn Lancaster and Wyre Preston

  210

  10 March 2004

  Eastbourne

  31

  15 March 2004

  Wolverhampton, South-West Wolverhampton, North-East

  368

  22 March 2004

  Oxford, East

  437

  25 March 2004

  West Bromwich

  170

  1 April 2004

  Ilford, North

  1—

  2 April 2004

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  120

  16 April 2004

  Newcastle upon Tyne,East and Wallsend

  505

  20 April 2004

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  365

  22 April 2004

  Meriden

  150

  27 April 2004

  West Ham Bethnal Green and Bow Cities of London and Westminster

  1—

  Minister for Energy, e Commerce and Postal Services

  6 January 2004

  Fylde and Blackburn

  283

  19 January 2004

  Newbury

  147

  11 February 2004

  Bristol, East,

  Bristol, West and

  Bristol, North-West

  25 February 2004

  North-West Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  80

  15 March 2004

  Mansfield and City of York

  179

  17 March 2004

  North Warwickshire

  167

  22 March 2004

  South Swindon

  102

  1 April 2004

  Luton, South

  31

  Minister for Trade

  15 January 2004

  Stratford-on-Avon

  75

  5 February 2004

  Bosworth

  85

  3 March 2004

  Broxtowe

  126

  9 March 2004

  Glasgow, Kelvin Glasgow, Govan Glasgow, Maryhill

  557

  11 March 2004

  Cambridge

  108

  24 April 2003

  Blaby

  466

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business and Enterprise

  21 April 2004

  Tewkesbury

  150

  26 April 2004

  Meriden Birmingham, Edgbaston Stoke-on-Trent, North

  109

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation

  12 January 2004

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  231

  20 January 2004

  Sheffield, Central

  191

  30 January 2004

  Runcorn East, Liverpool Central Wirral, South

  327

  5 February 2004

  Cambridge

  1—

  19 February 2004

  Croydon, South

  6.00

  20 February 2004

  Southampton, Test

  85

  4 March 2004

  Northampton, South and Cambridge

  1—

  1 April 2004

  Canterbury

  1—

  30 April 2004

  Edinburgh, South and East Kilbride

  388

  410W

  Date

  Constituency visited

  Cost for Minister (£)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers

  15 January 2004

  Gateshead, East and Washington, West

  135

  12 February 2004

  Warwick and Leamington

  59

  13 February 2004

  Leeds, Central

  0

  27 February 2004

  Liverpool, Riverside

  245

  9 March 2004

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  285

  11 March 2004

  Birmingham

  141

  22 March 2004

  Sheffield, Central

  181

  30 April 2004

  Bradford, South

  0

  1 Costs for these visits are included in normal office running costs.

  In respect of overseas visits, the Government publish on an annual basis the total costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500. Information for 2003–4 is currently being collected and will be published as soon as it is ready.

  Post Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with(a) Royal Mail and (b) Postwatch on quality of service. [176560]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has regular discussions with both Royal Mail and Postwatch on a variety of topics including Royal Mail's quality of service.

  Royal Mail's top priority is to improve its quality of service performance. It has drawn up detailed plans to tackle the recent problems and Ministers have Allan Leighton's personal assurance that these will be implemented vigorously. We are confident that the management is committed and determined to put things right.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to reduce the administrative load on regional development agencies. [174698]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have to strike the right balance between giving England's Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) the freedom they need to operate effectively and ensuring that public money is spent sensibly and without undue risks. We are continually improving arrangements for funding and tasking RDAs and monitoring their performance.

  As noted in a recent report by the National Audit Office, "Success in the Regions", much has been done to streamline funding arrangements for the RDAs, for example the introduction of the single budgetary framework in April 2002, which has allowed the RDAs much greater spending flexibility.

  The NAO report made 10 recommendations to streamline processes and enable the RDAs to get on with the business of encouraging economic development while providing Departments with the information and levels of public accountability that they need. Working with the RDAs and other Departments, the Department of Trade and Industry is working to implement all of these recommendations, including the NAO's main

  411W
  recommendation, simplification of the RDAs' tasking framework to achieve closer alignment with the Regional Economic Strategies produced by the RDAs and relevant Public Service Agreement targets. Action has already been completed on some recommendations, for example, Government offices' reports to the DTI on the RDAs' performance now take place every six months as recommended.

  Renewable Energy
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to help United Kingdom firms supply the Chinese market for renewable energy. [173456]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry maintains close contact with the Chinese authorities with regard to energy matters, and including renewable energy. This contact is managed day-to-day through the commercial sections of the British diplomatic posts in China, and export and trade promoters of UK Trade and Investment and of the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme.

  We are currently working with the Chinese to assist with their design and drafting of regulations to increase their use of renewable energy over the coming years. In close co-operation with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), we received a delegation of Chinese law makers in March, for a programme of meetings when they were able to discuss the issues involved with UK Government Departments and with UK industry. In May we sent a specialist who works with our Distributed Generation Working Group, and a Trade Promoter of the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme, to Beijing to join a working group developing the drafting of these regulations, which are expected to come into force next year.

  We will continue to support this initiative, and also to promote contact between companies and industry bodies of our two countries. We have commissioned the development of a website designed specifically to make available information on renewable energy capabilities and opportunities in each country. This website is nearing completion, and can now be viewed on www.ukchinarenewables.co.uk. We understand that a UK specialist wind energy company is once again going to engage in training Chinese companies in the development of wind energy, in June; at least partially as a result of our trade promotional activities. And we are preparing to sponsor a presence by UK industry at a wind energy conference and exhibition in Beijing at the end of October.

  We work with the services of UK Trade and Industry, which makes available to firms a range of market information and market research, and provides assistance with participation in trade missions, exhibitions, and conferences. In addition, we make focused market information available to UK firms that are active in the supply of goods and services for renewable energy, and we lead participation in some further trade events within China, brief a number of Chinese trade delegations visiting this country, and accompany some to meet and to visit UK companies. The website mentioned above is an example of making
  412W
  market information more readily available to UK companies. The last trade delegation that we led to China was to exhibit at an environmental exhibition in Beijing in December. That initiative was organised in conjunction also with a JEMU environmental trade mission to three provinces, and with the UK themed workshop "Think UK", arranged by the British embassy and UK industrial sponsors. Several UK renewable energy firms participated in that workshop, and achieved prominence at a senior level as a result. The next Renewable Energy trade mission that we are planning is the Wind Energy exhibition and conference in Beijing at the end of October. Meanwhile we continue to work with individual UK companies that are developing business opportunities.

  I attended and spoke at the "China Day" event at the International Renewable Energy Conference in Bonn on 2 June at the invitation of Mr. Zhang Guo Bao, the Chinese Vice Minister of the National Development and Reform Commission.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many applications for research and development grants there have been under(a) the Smart scheme, (b) the grant scheme and (c) regional competitions; [175953]

  (2) what the (a) success rate for applications and (b) value of the average award are for research and development grants under (i) the Smart scheme, (ii) the grant scheme and (iii) regional competitions; [175954]

  (3) what the timetable is for the next regional competitions for research and development grants; [175955]

  (4) what the total value is of research and development grants paid out under (a) the Smart scheme, (b) the grant scheme and (c) regional competitions. [175956]

  Jacqui Smith
  The first regional competition deadline for Grant for Research and Development is 28 May 2004. The dates of further competitions will be decided subsequently. Given that we are still accepting applications within this competition round, I am unable to provide figures on the number of applications received under the competitive environment. We have yet to make any offers under the current competition round.

  The following table covers the number of applications for and the number of offers made under Smart and Grant for Research and Development for the past three years.

  Smart1

  Grant for R and D1

  Number of applications2

  Number of offers2

  Number of applications2

  Number of offers2

  2001–02

  1,134

  777

  2002–03

  1,556

  1,142

  2003–04

  651

  618

  805

  389

  1 Following a review of the Department's business support, Grant for Research and Development was introduced on 1 June 2003 to replace and enhance the Smart scheme. Smart remained open to applications up until 31 August 2003 to allow applicants the opportunity to adjust to the new product. Grant for Research and Development has proved just as popular as its predecessor so

  413W
  regional competitions for the grants nave been introduced to ensure that expenditure on the product remains under control and to ensure that those research and development projects which best meet the grant selection criteria are supported.

  2 Included Technology Reviews and Studies, which closed to applications on 31 May 2003 and replaced by the Investigating an Innovative Idea pilot on 1 June 2003.

  The following table provides information on the average grant under the `research and 'development' elements of Smart and Grant for Research and Development, taken on figures from the last three years, and how this compares to the maximum grant available.

  £

  Feasibility/Research

  Development

  Average grant

  Maximum grant

  Average grant

  Maximum grant

  Smart

  41,905

  45,000

  97,359

  150,000

  Grant for R and D

  62,674

  75,000

  123,550

  200,000

  The expenditure on Smart in 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 was £23.7 million, £32.1 million and £42.8 million respectively. The expenditure on Grant for Research and Development in 2003–04 (the product was launched on 1 June 2003) was –3.1 million.

  Small Businesses
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department takes to help small UK businesses recover money which is owed to them by large multi-national companies. [176832]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Where contracts are governed by UK law, businesses may use the Late Payment of Commercial Debts legislation (as amended) to claim interest and compensation on late paid debts.

  This Government have always recognised that late payment of debts can have serious effects on the cash flow of smaller companies, which is why we had a manifesto commitment to introduce a Late Payment Act to allow small businesses to:
  claim interest on late payment from other business or public sector bodies;
  allow creditors to claim a fixed sum of compensation to cover debt recovery costs should late payment happen.

  The Government also established the Better Payment Practice Group whose website lists the payment record of companies.

  The package of measures has had a positive effect on payment times. The Grant Thornton European Business Survey showed that the average time taken in the UK to settle accounts in 1997 was 49 days. By 2002 this had fallen to 41 days. By comparison, the average settlement time in our European neighbours was 50 days. A recent survey by the REL Consultancy Group looked at average days payable outstanding (DPO) and concluded that UK companies' payment performance is 33.6 days against 42.4 days for Europe as a whole.

  Because of concerns that suppliers would not utilise the legislation for fear of reprisals or boycotts, I have also undertaken as Minister to write, in cases where invoices are not disputed, on be half of small businesses to the managing directors of companies to convey their
  414W
  complaint and seek an explanation and appropriate action. I urge all Members of Parliament to do the same on behalf of constituents.

DEFENCE

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) other ranks have been reported absent without leave in each of the last five years; of those, how many served in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [176112]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]:. Figures for the number of trained personnel who are recorded as going/being absent without leave are given in the tables. No officers in the Naval Service or the RAF went absent during the last five years. Figures for the Army are unable to be broken down into officers and other ranks as the information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the same reason, it is not possible to break down the figures to show any who may have served in Iraq.

  Navy

  Calendar year

  Total number reported AWOL1

  1999

  35

  2000

  50

  2001

  85

  2002

  90

  2003

  115

  Royal Marines

  Calendar year

  Total number reported AWOL1

  1999

  15

  2000

  20

  2001

  15

  2002

  20

  2003

  15

  Army

  Financial year

  Total number reported AWOL1

  1998–99

  1,400

  1999–2000

  1,665

  2000–01

  1,850

  2001–02

  1,655

  2002–03

  1,685

  RAF

  Financial year

  Total number reported AWOL1

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  15

  2002–03

  25

  1Rounded to the nearest 5.

  Recording of absence differs between the Naval Service, the Army and the RAF, which means that the figures are not directly comparable on a tri-Service basis. Additionally, the Naval Service changed the basis of their reporting in 2001. The Naval Service and the Army record multiple periods of absence by the same

  415W
  person. The RAF registers an individual once, regardless of how many times they are absent within a financial year.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his current estimate is of the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan by the activities of(a) UK, (b) United States and (c) other military forces not indigenous to Afghanistan since October 2002; and what methods are used to assess the cause of deaths and injuries to civilians in Afghanistan by foreign military activities. [176904]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is aware of no Afghan civilian deaths relating to the activities of the United Kingdom's forces serving in Afghanistan since October 2002. I cannot speak for the forces of other individual nations, but I can say the coalition makes every effort to minimise the impact of military action on the Afghan population. As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 6 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1104–5W, there are no reliable means of ascertaining the number of civilians killed during combat operations in Afghanistan.

  Astute Submarine
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the anticipated order is for the Astute Class Submarine programme; and what the anticipated phasing of the order is. [175576]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: There are three Astute Class Submarines currently on contract with BAE Systems. Further orders for the Astute Class Submarine are being considered and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards the 5 per cent. reduction in real terms in his Department's administration budget by 2008, announced by the Chancellor in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331. [176505]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has a vigorous programme in place to drive down overheads and release resources to the front line. The real terms reduction in administration costs of 5 per cent. or more (against a 2005–06 baseline) will be a central feature of all Departments' public spending settlements to be announced in detail later this year.

  Diego Garcia
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom has transferred persons detained in custody in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq to Diego Garcia since October 2001; and whether the UK has given permission to the United States to do so. [175068]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Fast Jet Pilots
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the RAF's future requirement for fast jet pilots. [176479]

  Mr. Ingram
  The future requirement for Royal Air Force manpower, including fast jet pilots, is kept under regular review to take account of various factors including changing commitments, Defence Planning Assumptions and the introduction of new aircraft types and equipment. The RAF's fast jet force remains an important part of the United Kingdom's military capability.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by his Department and its agencies in(a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey. [171625]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence, in common with all other Government Departments, conducted an equal pay audit following the publication of the report by the Equal Opportunities Commission Equal Pay Task Force, Just Pay, in March 2001. The outcome of the audit, including an initial action plan, was submitted to the Cabinet Office in April 2003. Further work has been conducted over the last year. This work did not address particular units but nevertheless demonstrated that MOD's pay system treats men and women on an equal basis. The Ministry of Defence intends to place a copy of its action plan in the Library of the House as soon as it has concluded discussions with the Cabinet Office.

  Harriers GR9
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish all or part of the investment appraisal upon which he decided to roll forward the Harriers GR9 to RAF Cottesmore. [177014]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision that Harrier Air Depth maintenance support work should roll forward to RAF Cottesmore as the centre of gravity for logistic support, was taken following he results of a comprehensive Investment Appraisal (LA) which fully supported the decision by a clear margin over the other option. All key stakeholders within the Ministry of Defence, including the Chief Executive of Defence Aviation Repair Agency and the RAF were involved in the LA.

  It is not appropriate to release the LA at this time, as it forms the first phase of other work to decide the location of centres of gravity for logistic support for other air platforms. This further work is still under ministerial consideration.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued to military personnel on the application to them of the Human Rights Act 1998(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad. [176325]
  417W
  Mr. Ingram
  The guidance and training given to military personnel reflects the importance placed on their acting within the law, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. Personnel are also informed of their own rights under the law.

  International Committee of the Red Cross
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was informed by his officials at their meeting in April that the concerns raised by the ICRC in their interim report were being investigated. [173453]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Committee of the Red Cross acknowledged at the meeting with Ministry of Defence Officials that they were already aware that their concerns raised in the interim report were being addressed.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which provisions of the Geneva Conventions will cease to apply in Iraq following the handover of sovereignty on 30 June. [177584]

  Mr. Hoon
  Those parts of the Geneva Convention that set out the rights and responsibilities of an Occupying Power will no longer be relevant when the Iraqi Interim Government assumes authority on 1 July.

  Military Personnel (Afghanistan)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received on the incidence of(a) rape and (b) other sexual abuse of Afghan women by international military personnel serving in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [176056]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not received any such reports, although I am aware of the concerns expressed in a March 2004 Human Rights Watch report regarding the use of "culturally insensitive" methods during coalition operations in South and South-East Afghanistan. While I cannot speak for the forces of other nations, I understand no United Kingdom military personnel have been accused of committing any form of sexual offence in Afghanistan. Were any to be so, they would be dealt with under the relevant British military discipline procedures and, depending on the offence, the criminal law.

  Osama Bin Laden
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether UK forces in Afghanistan have been given the authority to kill Osama bin Laden. [176827]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Rules of Engagement for United Kingdom forces in Afghanistan ensure that they remain within international law, which requires that the use of force is limited to that which is necessary and proportionate, depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves.

  Recruitment (Army)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new recruits have applied to join the Army in the past year; and how many of those have been(a) judged suitable, (b) accepted for training and (c) deferred. [177145]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of new recruits who have applied to join the Army in the past year (training year 2003–2004), have been judged suitable, accepted for training and deferred are detailed as follows.

  Training year—2003–04

  Number of new recruits

  Applicants

  35,224

  Judged suitable/job offer

  18,133

  Accepted for training

  13,783

  Deferred1

  10,099

  1Deferrals include those who are deferred for medical reasons, for fitness and as a result of the Principal Selection officer interview held at the end of attendance at a Recruit Selection Centre

  It should be noted that those deferred will normally reapply at a later stage, hence the figures for those deferred and accepted for training will not equate to the job offer figure in year.

  Road Traffic Accidents (Service Personnel)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the circumstances were of the death of Major James Stenner and Sergeant Norman Patterson in a road traffic accident in Baghdad on 1 January; what rank of officer was responsible for their travel arrangements; who was driving the vehicle at the time of the crash; and what the investigation concluded about levels of alcohol in the blood of the deceased. [176333]

  Mr. Ingram
  These questions will be examined as part of the Board of Inquiry process and at the forthcoming Coroner's Inquests. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total(a) capital and (b) running costs to the department of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are in 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [176746]

  Mr. Ingram
  CINC FLEET does not manage costs on the basis of platform types but on functions. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary does not therefore have a distinct, identifiable budget. We do however, maintain the following indicative figures for planning purposes for the costs to FLEET and the Warship Support Agency (WSA).

  Direct Running Costs to MOD

  £ million

  FLEET

  125

  WSA

  73

  Capital Charges

  FLEET (depreciation and cost of Capital)

  116

  WSA (depreciation, cost of Capital and stock disposal)

  11

  Service Personnel (Suicides)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in each of the three Services have committed suicide in each of the last three years; how many of those who died served in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [176110]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: In the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003, there were 39 suicide and open verdict deaths recorded by a coroner (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) among UK armed forces personnel. Three of these deaths were among personnel who had served on Operation Telic during the period 10 January 2003 and 20 December 2003 (the latest date for which fully validated Operation Telic deployment data are available). During the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003, there were a further 21 deaths for which we are awaiting a verdict, of which three are for personnel who have served on Operation Telic.

  A breakdown of the suicides and open verdict deaths by year of occurrence is given in the following table:

  Suicides and open verdict deaths in UK armed forces, 2001–03

  Year of death

  Number

  Number who had served on Operation Telic

  2001

  11

  n/a

  2002

  15

  n/a

  2003

  13

  3

  Total

  39

  3

  n/a = not applicable.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the current naval shipbuilding programme is phased to allow stable levels of employment particularly in the key design engineering sector. [175574]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: MOD and DTI officials and representatives from the shipbuilding industry meet on a monthly basis to discuss the future naval shipbuilding programme. These meetings are being taken forward in a positive and constructive manner.

  The recent Defence White Paper (Essay 7—Making Defence Industrial Policy Work for the Armed Forces and UK Industry) sets out that the long-term solution to skills shortages in the defence industry involves a stable equipment programme against which future resource requirements can be planned.

  We are making particular progress in this sector, where we have commissioned one of the largest programmes of military shipbuilding for many years. In partnership with industry we are comparing our resource requirements against capacity and evaluating the options to reprofile our demand for resources. In this way we can look at ways of avoiding unhelpful peaks and troughs.

  UN Operations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has given to British forces in Iraq to 420W
  ensure that they (a) fully abide by international law enforcement standards and (b) only use force in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality. [166935]

  Mr. Ingram
  Training on those aspects of international humanitarian law relevant to law enforcement activities undertaken during operations is provided to personnel on entering the armed forces and refined as appropriate during courses given subsequently in the course of their careers. There are no agreed international law enforcement standards applicable to military forces, but the practices adopted by UK military personnel in Iraq are consistent with the UN Basic Principles for the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

  All use of force is governed by UK Forces' Rules Of Engagement (ROE). The ROE take into account the UK's obligations under national and international law of which necessity and proportionality are fundamental principles.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  All Saints Churchyard, Brightlingsea
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application to close All Saints Churchyard, Brightlingsea, in Essex. [174272]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: The hon. Member will be aware that the initial application was made on the basis that the churchyard was full. However the results of the recent technical survey have indicated that a limited amount of space is still available for further burials. In line with agreed practice, the application to close All Saints Churchyard does not fall to be considered until this space has been filled.

  Asylum and Immigration Applications (Sudan)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum and (b) immigration applications he has received from residents of Sudan in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [174832]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information relating to the number of asylum applications, excluding dependants, that have been received and decisions on applications for an extension of leave to remain or settlement from nationals of Sudan are given in the tables.

  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (cm 6053), obtained from the Library, the Stationery Office and via the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/commandpubsl.html.

  Information on asylum applications is published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin `Asylum Statistics United Kingdom'. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
  421W

  Applications1 received for asylum the United Kingdom excluding dependants, Sudan, 1999 to 2003

  Number of principal applicants

  19992

  280

  20002

  415

  20013

  390

  20024

  655

  20034

  930

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  1 May exclude some cases lodged at local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

  1 Provisional figures.

  1 Revised figures.

  Grants and refusals on applications for leave to remain1 or settlement from nationals of Sudan, 1998–2002

  Number of decisions

  Total grants of extension

  Grants of settlement2

  Total refusals of extension or settlement

  1998

  560

  120

  50

  1999

  530

  270

  20

  2000

  590

  810

  30

  2001

  510

  280

  35

  2002

  545

  210

  50

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, asylum related decisions, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Excludes "in line" dependants and the outcome of appeals.

  Asylum Intake Reduction Sub-committee
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who the members of the Asylum Intake Reduction sub-committee are; and if he will make a statement; [174386]

  (2) if he will publish the minutes of the Asylum Intake Reduction sub-committee; and if he will make a statement; [174387]

  (3) on what dates the Asylum Intake Reduction sub-committee has met; and if he will make a statement. [174389]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The Asylum Intake Reduction/Secure Borders sub-programme board is one of several sub-programme boards designed to assist and oversee delivery of the Public Service Agreement on Asylum and Immigration which is jointly owned by the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The sub-programme boards report to a Joint Programme Board. The Asylum Intake Reduction/Secure Borders sub-programme board is chaired by the Senior Director, Operations of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The members are relevant senior officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and UK visas.

  The sub-programme board meets monthly. Its minutes contain strategic information in relation to border security and the deployment of resources which is internal to the Government and is not appropriate for wider circulation. Publication of the minutes could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and essential policy analysis as detailed in part 2, section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on returning failed asylum seekers to Iraq. [174079]

  Mr. Browne
  We seek to remove all failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants wherever possible. All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the independent Immigration Appellant Authority be unsuccessful, it means for that individual it is safe to return.

  We have reached agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority to begin enforced returns to Iraq. We are working to finalise the practicalities of the enforced return programme, which we will implement as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

  In addition since July last year the Home Office has been facilitating, without incident, the return of small numbers of Iraqi citizens who want to return home through the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme operated on our behalf by the International Organisation for Migration.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the number of asylum seekers who have failed the appeal process(a) in the UK and (b) in Leeds. [174247]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum appeals are published quarterly, copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Bichard Inquiry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Bichard Inquiry is expected to report. [172956]

  Paul Goggins
  Sir Michael Bichard has indicated that he intends to deliver his final report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in June. It will be published as soon as possible.

  Bribery/Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mutual legal assistance requests have been made to other jurisdictions with respect to allegations of overseas bribery; to which jurisdictions; and on what dates. [174029]

  Caroline Flint
  The United Kingdom is committed to assist its international partners in the fight against bribery and corruption and has signed the UN Convention Against Corruption. The UK Central Authority (UKCA) in the Home Office has processed a number of cases related to this area of criminality.
  423W
  However, the more detailed statistics sought by the hon member are not available as UKCA does not currently collate them in a manner that can produce data according to offence type.

  Cannabis Seeds
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the purposes for which cultivation of cannabis seeds is licensed by his Department; [174242]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require purchasers of cannabis seeds only to cultivate such seeds for lawful, licensable purposes; and if he will make a statement; [174243]

  (3) if he will describe the licensing regime for the cultivation of cannabis seeds. [174244]

  Caroline Flint
  The seeds of the cannabis plant are not subject to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The possession, sale and the use of the seeds for culinary and similar purposes are therefore not subject to restriction. This follows the provisions of international law—UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961—on which our law is based. The Convention specifically exempts cultivation of cannabis seed production which is classed as an industrial purpose.

  It is not considered practicable or desirable to bring the seeds or their users under control. The protection afforded by Section 6 of the Act which prohibits cannabis cultivation without a licence is deemed sufficient. Such unlawful production would be a criminal offence the maximum penalty for which is fourteen years imprisonment.

  In common with certain other substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis is subject to designation under Section 7. The effect of this in relation to cultivation is to restrict licensing to activities connected with research or other special purposes. Such research can be either medical or scientific. Cultivation is subject to security conditions assessed on the basis of the individual circumstances and to record keeping requirements. The research has to be recognised as serious by the medical or scientific communities.

  The only other special purpose of any significance where licensing has been permitted is the cultivation of cannabis for the production of industrial hemp (used in animal bedding, specialised building products and other materials). In this case only cannabis seeds of a very low psycho-active content are used (as prescribed under EU regulation). Otherwise the only other activities which have been acknowledged as special are cultivation for

  Number of persons1 proceeded against for certain motoring offences, England and Wales 1993–2002

  Driving or causing or permitting another person to drive other than in accordance with a licence2

  Driving while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence

  Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks

  1993

  23,482

  26,125

  265,549

  1994

  23,362

  27,284

  258,709

  1995

  22,886

  27,698

  265,598

  1996

  22,640

  26,186

  247,113

  1997

  24,004

  26,135

  236,616

  1998

  24,159

  26,940

  232,862

  424W
  seed production and education where cultivation has been used in illustrating the long history of the use of hemp products.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on assistance to small voluntary organisations with obtaining Criminal Records Bureau checks on volunteers; and if he will make a statement; [174667]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on small voluntary organisations of delays in obtaining Criminal Records Bureau checks on volunteers; and if he will make a statement. [174669]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has received a range of representations from the voluntary sector. We encourage dialogue with voluntary organisations in order to address issues relevant to the sector—both through the Voluntary and Community Service Working Group, which regularly brings together representatives of a variety of interests, and other standing consultative bodies; and on other, ad hoc, occasions. Currently, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is reviewing the network of umbrella registered bodies through which smaller organisations may submit applications, in order to ensure that coverage is sufficient to meet the need. We are anxious also to continue to pursue discussions with the sector about other, cost-effective, means by which voluntary organisations might access the CRB.

  Specific information is not available about the length of time the CRB takes to process applications from voluntary organisations. It is the normal practice of the CRB to process applications on a chronological basis, according to date of receipt, irrespective of the sector. Information is routinely collected about the CRB's overall performance against its service standards. Since June 2003, the CRB has been issuing on average 93 per cent. of all Standard and Enhanced Disclosures within two and four weeks respectively, against published service standards of 90 per cent. The CRB's aim is constantly to strive to make further improvements to the service that it provides.

  Dangerous Driving
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted in each of the last 10 years for driving(a) under age, (b) without a licence, (c) while excluded and (d) without insurance. [169070]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is contained in the table:
  425W

  Number of persons1 proceeded against, for certain motoring offences, England and Wales 1993–2002

  Driving or causing or permitting another person to drive other than in accordance with a licence2

  Driving while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence

  Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks

  1999

  23,202

  28,401

  226,021

  20003

  24,421

  28,714

  228,329

  2001

  24,599

  31,130

  227,570

  2002

  24,338

  33,388

  242,188

  1Data are on the principal offence basis and exclude companies, local authorities etc.

  2 Includes offences of driving under age and without licence.

  3 Excludes Staffordshire.

  Offences of driving under age and without a licence are included along with other similar offences in the group 'Driving, or causing or permitting another person to drive other than in accordance with a licence' and cannot be separately identified. Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Date Rape Drugs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) types and (b) effects of date rape drugs; [174467]

  (2) what advice he has given to (a) police forces and (b) club operators on date rape drugs; [174468]

  (3) what research his Department has (a) conducted and (b) commissioned on the illegal use of date rape drugs; and if he will make a statement. [174471]

  Caroline Flint
  We take the issue of drug assisted sexual assault and allegations of it very seriously. Penalties for this crime were recently increased in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to a maximum of 10 years. It is an offence to administer a stupefying substance with the intent of overpowering the victim to engage him or her in sexual activity.

  There are potentially very many drugs. Any drug that causes a degree of sedation could potentially be used in a case of 'drug rape'. Drugs which are currently tested for by the Forensic Science Service where 'drug rape' is alleged include: Gammahydroxybutyrate (or GHB) and the benzodiazepine family of drugs such as temazepam and flunitrazepam (Rohypnol). The sedative effects of drugs are likely to be increased when mixed with alcohol.

  This issue is one where there is much public concern with very little evidence of the prevalence of the crime. An average 450 allegations of this type are investigated by the Forensic Science Service annually. Of these only between 1 and 2 per cent. show any sign of an unexplained sedative drug.

  It is important that any allegation of sexual assault is investigated and the victim is supported by appropriate services whether or not drugs are involved.

  An Action Plan was launched in July 2002 to implement the recommendations of the HMCPSI/ HMIC joint investigation into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape. This includes 'drug rape' and work with the Association of Chief Police Officers has seen improved guidance to the police. This includes a joint police and Crown
  426W
  Prosecution Service training package and the Joint Operational Police Instructions (JOPI) which were published in June 2003. The "Core Investigative Doctrine" and the "Sexual Offences Investigation Manual of Guidance" are also currently being updated by Centrex.

  The Safer Clubbing Guidance is to be updated later this year and will specifically contain guidance on the prevention of, and provision of information on, drug assisted sexual assault. This guidance is distributed to licensed premises, the police, licensing authorities and the local authority via Drug Action Teams.

  Deepcut Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential witnesses were(a) contacted and (b) interviewed by MoD police detective constables seconded to the Surrey police for the duration of the investigations into deaths at Deepcut Army barracks. [174753]

  Ms Blears
  Surrey police informs me that two Ministry of Defence police officers seconded to Surrey police undertook a range of tasks, which included contacting and interviewing witnesses. Surrey police also informs me that it is unable to identify the numbers involved without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Deportee Prisoners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportees remained in English prisons after completing their sentences for a period of more than three months on the most recent date for which information is available. [174841]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Information on the number of people who were detained in Prison establishments awaiting deportation after completion of a criminal sentence is not available.

  Work is ongoing to improve the quality of data held on those people detained under Immigration Act powers in Prison Service establishments.

  Domestic Violence
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted of domestic violence during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [174491]

  Paul Goggins
  Offences involving domestic violence are not identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database as no specific statute covers such offences.
  427W
  Prosecutions brought might range from common assault to homicide depending on the level of violence, and as the circumstances of the offences for which prosecutions are brought are not collected centrally, offences involving domestic violence cannot be distinguished from other offences within these categories.

  Dr. Harold Shipman
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 1298W, on Dr. Harold Shipman, whether the entire body was disposed of; who authorised the disposal; what method was used for disposal; and if he will make a statement. [171993]

  Paul Goggins
  The body of Harold Shipman has been released to his family by the coroner. Once a coroner's inquiries have been completed and the release authorised, the decision on disposal is a private matter for the family of the deceased.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 1413W, on Guantanamo Bay, on how many occasions officers carrying out interviews informed the relevant authorities of complaints made by detainees alleging treatment by US forces contrary to the terms of the Geneva Convention. [176845]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [Holding answer 7 June, 2004]: Some of the detainees questioned by UK intelligence personnel have complained about their treatment in detention. All complaints made by detainees interviewed by British Intelligence officers were passed onto the US authorities, who are responsible for the treatment of those detained in Guantanamo Bay.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (Staffing)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have(a) resigned and (b) requested a transfer to another department in (i) the last six months and (ii) each of the last 10 years. [174384]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Information on the number of staff requesting a transfer to another department is not available but the number of staff resigning and transferring in each of the last 10 years and the last six months, is contained in the table.

  Resignation

  Transfer to other Government Department

  1994–95

  108

  13

  1995–96

  98

  12

  1996–97

  126

  15

  1997–98

  193

  23

  1998–99

  146

  33

  1999–2000

  125

  16

  2000–01

  244

  24

  2001–02

  333

  107

  2002–03

  334

  108

  2003–04

  439

  115

  1 October 2003–31 March 2004

  207

  68

  428W
  Over the period these figures indicate an annual resignation rate of around 3 per cent. which is generally in line with figures for the Civil Service (Civil Service Statistics 2002).

  Mayor of London (Meetings)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates(a) he and (b) his predecessor held official meetings with the Mayor of London since July 2000; and what the subject of each meeting was. [171438]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has regular meetings with the Mayor of London at which issues of mutual concern such as crime, policing and security are discussed.

  Metropolitan Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians were employed by the Metropolitan police in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by borough; and what percentage of the total of those employed by the Metropolitan police force are civilians. [176712]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: There are no statistics published centrally on the number of police staff at borough level. The total number of police staff (includes community support officers and traffic wardens) in the Metropolitan police on 31 March 2003 was 12,558. This represented 31 per cent. of the total of those employed by the Metropolitan police.

  Minors (Heathrow Airport)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accompanied minors have arrived at London Heathrow Airport in each year from 1997 to 2003 inclusive without a passport or identity documents seeking entry into the UK. [174778]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of accompanied minors who have arrived at Heathrow Airport without a passport or identity documents seeking entry into the UK is not currently collected.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors have arrived at London Heathrow airport in each year from 1997 to 2003 inclusive seeking admission to the UK without the necessary visa or legal entitlement to entry. [174779]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of unaccompanied minors who have arrived at Heathrow airport seeking admission to the UK without the necessary visa or legal entitlement to entry is not currently collected.

  The results of Operation Paladin Child on unaccompanied children arriving at Heathrow airport were announced on 17 May. This operation ran between August 2003-November 2003 and was initiated by the Metropolitan Police Child Protection Command, with the co-operation of the Immigration Service, NSPCC and Hillingdon Social Services.
  429W
  In total 1,738 unaccompanied minors were granted leave to enter in the three month study of whom 30 per cent. were risk assessed and referred to social services. The operation was a valuable exercise in determining the nature of child migration to the UK and has not uncovered evidence of child trafficking at Heathrow.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors have arrived at London Heathrow airport in each year from 1997 to 2003 inclusive seeking refugee status in the UK. [174780]

  Mr. Browne
  Data on the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children that arrive at specific ports of entry are not collated centrally (additionally some unaccompanied minors may arrive in the UK and subsequently apply for asylum in country). This information could therefore be obtained only from individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  The table presents data on asylum applications from unaccompanied children broken down by year and location of application.

  Unaccompanied 1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, 1997 to 2003.

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  19974

  1,100

  670

  430

  19984

  3,035

  1,085

  1,955

  19994

  3,350

  1,500

  1,850

  20004

  2,735

  1,395

  1,340

  20014

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  20025,6

  6,200

  1,240

  4,955

  20035,6

  2,800

  555

  2,245

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Unaccompanied at point of arrival, aged (or if no proof) determined to be 17 or under and not known to be joining a relative or guardian in the United Kingdom.

  3Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4May excluded some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  5Not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6Provisional figures.

  Information on applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children and other asylum statistics are published in quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK Are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  New Hall Prison
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged under 18 were in custody at New Hall Prison on each(a) visit date and (b) publication date relating to the Chief Inspector of Prisons' recent report. [172614]

  Paul Goggins
  During the inspect ion by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons at New Hall prison between 10 and 14 November 2003, the number of juveniles held on F wing was as follows. (Note: these numbers include all those classified as juveniles, i.e. all those serving a430W
  Detention and Training Order, any remanded young women under 18 and all section 91s):

  10 November 2003–42

  11 November 2003–43

  12 November 2003–43

  13 November 2003–43

  14 November 2003–42.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners were mentally ill during their detention in New Hall women's prison during(a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [172652]

  Paul Goggins
  The available data for New Hall cover the period from 12 May 2003 to 26 April 2004. During that time there were 709 referrals for mental health assessments. Of these, 29 were diagnosed as having a "severe and enduring mental health problem" of a sort which generally requires specialist treatment. A further 345 of the referrals involved mental health issues linked to substance misuse and their problems were addressed in a variety of ways: psychology sessions, psychiatric nurse sessions, group and/or specialist sessions such as anger management, self-harm management, trauma/abuse counselling.

  Parenting Courses
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is available for parenting education courses within the prison system. [174789]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: Most prisons and Young Offender Institutions, and all juvenile establishments, offer courses in family literacy and parenting programmes. These form part of a Social and Life Skills programme which is accredited through the Open College Network. Some establishments also deliver family learning as part of their visits programme.

  In addition, many parenting and family relationship courses have been introduced into prisons by voluntary or community-based organisations. We encourage providers to embed literacy and numeracy into these courses so offenders can achieve basic skills qualifications as well as gain important life skills in communications and parenting.

  Police
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Stoke-on-Trent North has been since 1997. [177645]

  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position al the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  The Stoke-on-Trent North constituency is part of the Stoke-on-Trent Basic Command Unit (BCU). In March 2002 Stoke-on-Trent Division was 365 officers. The force has not provided any BCU data for March 2003. The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (John Giffard) and within the Stoke-on-Trent BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.
  431W
  At the end of December 2003 Staffordshire police had record strength of 2,253, which is 42 more officers than in March 1997.

  Prison Governors
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison Governors in England and Wales are women; and if he will list the prisons. [174492]

  Paul Goggins
  There are 33 female senior operational managers in charge of Public Sector Prison Service establishments in England and Wales out of a total of 128 establishments. The establishments concerned are:

  Establishments with Female Senior Operational Managers in Charge

  Askham Grange

  Blundeston

  Brockhill

  Buckley Hall

  Bullingdon

  Canterbury

  Dartmoor

  Dover

  Everthorpe

  Ford

  Foston Hall

  Haslar

  Haverigg

  Hewell Grange

  Highdown

  Edmunds Hill

  Hindley

  Huntercombe

  Lancaster Farms

  Lincoln

  Littlehey

  Liverpool

  Maidstone

  Moorland

  New Hall

  Onley

  Rochester

  Stafford

  Stocken

  Thorn Cross

  Weare

  Whatton

  Winchester

  Prisoners
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners(a) were dyslexic, (b) autistic and (c) had eating disorders on the latest date for which figures are available. [174960]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is not collected centrally about the number and percentage of prisoners who are dyslexic, autistic or have eating disorders. Past research suggests that the proportion of prisoners suffering from dyslexia could range from four to over 17 per cent. A432W
  new prison dyslexia project, currently under way in Yorkshire and Humberside, is designed to provide an authoritative answer to the question of the incidence of dyslexia and related learning disabilities among the prison population. This report is expected at the end of the summer.

  In a survey of mental ill health in the prison population undertaken by the Office for National Statistics in 1997, 6 per cent. of women prisoners reported having been diagnosed at some time in their lives with anorexia and 14 per cent. with bulimia.

  It is possible that Autistic Spectrum Disorders among the prison population may be under-diagnosed. The Prison Service, Prison Health and the Youth Justice Board have jointly appointed a Programme Manager for Juvenile Health This appointment is expected to lead, among other things, to a greater understanding of the nature and prevalence of all conditions—including autism—in the juvenile population. This in turn should lead to better diagnosis and assessment in individual cases and improved commissioning of appropriate services.

  Prisons
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many basic skills(a) entry level, (b) level 2 and,(c) level 3 places are available to prisoners at each (i) Prison Service establishment and (ii) privately run establishment. [174289]

  Paul Goggins
  We do not record this level of detail centrally. The number of basic skills places available to prisoners at entry level, level 1 and level 2 is informed by need, which is identified at induction and initial assessment. Each establishment is required to meet challenging targets at each of these levels. We are providing more money for prisons this year in order to generate additional capacity. The overall target for 2003–04 and 2004–05 and achievement for 2003–04 are given in the table.

  Target

  Achievement

  2003–041

  36,631 (all levels) of which:

  46,517 (127%) of which:

  7,749 (entry)

  13,431

  14,462 (level 1)

  18,905

  14,420 (level 2)

  14,181

  2004–05

  56,000 (all levels) of which:

  16,970 (entry)

  23,430 (level 1)

  15,600 (level 2)

  1 Provisional

  Level 2 is equivalent to a GCSE grade A*-D. Prisoners have the opportunity to progress to higher levels through distance learning, for example through the Open University.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Prison Service definition is of purposeful activity for prisoners. [174343]

  Paul Goggins
  The purposeful activity measure is made up of 29 categories of activity undertaken by prisoners broadly comprising work, education, training, programmes to tackle offending behaviour, resettlement
  433W
  activity and physical education. Prisons report the total weekly purposeful activity hours they deliver by these categories of activity.

  Purposeful activities

  Activity group

  Activities include:

  Education

  Induction assessment

  Basic skills screening assessments

  Basic and Key Skills up to Level 2

  All education categories can include private study or 'homework' by prisoners where this can be validated and an audit trail maintained

  Education leading to accreditation

  Education activity where prisoners are working towards a recognized qualification (but excluding education leading to basic skills qualifications categorised above)

  Skills training leading to recognized national accreditation

  Vocational construction and industrial training courses, e.g. industrial cleaning, catering, motor mechanics, office skills, hairdressing, painting, construction, electrical

  Physical education

  PE where physical education officers teach and supervise prisoners

  Other education

  Not categorised elsewhere, including library use of more than 30 minutes

  Work

  Prison maintenance work

  Support to works and maintenance staff around the prison

  Wing cleaning work

  Cleaning work on wings

  Other prison cleaning and orderly work

  Cleaning and orderly work around the prison other than on domestic wings

  Industries/production workshops (PES workshops on Regime Monitoring system)

  Employment in production or industrial workshops such as textiles tailors, laundries, plastics, woodwork contract services etc. (Any workshop that is predominately production based)

  Agricultural business

  Employment in prison farms, market gardens

  Gardens amenity

  Employment on prison gardens

  Kitchen

  Preparation or serving of food in prison kitchens, hotplate/serveries or messes

  Other occupations

  Employment not categorised elsewhere (e.g. clothing exchange store workers, administrative clerks, barbers, paid community work)

  Resettlement

  Induction

  Prison induction courses

  Maintaining safe and secure environment

  Primary objective of activity relates to institutional behaviour, e.g. suicide awareness, anti-bullying

  Sentence planning, parole interviews, other assessments with the prisoner not categorized elsewhere

  Activity to define the composition of prisoner regimes

  Accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes (OBPs)

  KPI accredited courses

  Non accredited OBPs

  Any other programmes not categorised elsewhere

  Tackling substance abuse

  Interviews, assessments, individual or grouped drug or alcohol programmes, including CARATS assessments

  IDPR

  Inmate Development and Pre-Release training

  Other resettlement and offending behaviour activity not covered

  Probation, personal officer, PLU officer work. Job club and other employment advice. Accommodation advice or information. Specialist work, including probation or CAB

  Family, social

  Visits, earned community visits, compassionate licence

  Temporary release on resettlement licence

  Count up to eight hours per day if the time has not been categorized elsewhere

  Other purposeful activities

  Health education clinics and promotion

  Including, for example, well-man clinics and cancer awareness sessions but excluding medical treatment

  Voluntary work

  Including sessions with external agencies not covered elsewhere

  Other facility licence not covered elsewhere

  Chaplaincy

  All faith religious activities including services, classes, pastoral visits and organised prayers

  Recreational sporting activities

  Activities organised in addition to the establishment PE programme and supervised by non-PE staff

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed and by whom in the delivery of Counselling Assessment, Referral, Advice and Through-care services in each(a) Prison Service establishment and (b) privately run establishment. [174345]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the number of counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare service (CARATs) workers is not collected routinely and may be subject to change. A table showing a survey of prisons conducted in January 2004 has been placed in the Library.
  434W
  The following table shows a fuller description of all the activities that are drawn together to constitute the overall purposeful activity measure:

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Northern Irish prisoners held in prisons in England and Wales have been transferred to prisons in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [174487]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2001, 18 prisoners were transferred from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland; 10 prisoners were transferred in 2002. Because of population pressures in Northern Ireland only one prisoner was transferred in 2003. Nevertheless, applications are processed in the normal way and prisoners are transferred when a space becomes available.
  435W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the open prisons in England and Wales for(a) males inmates and (b) female inmates. [174489]

  Paul Goggins
  The following prisons in England and Wales had open units for male inmates on 31 March 2004; Ford, Grendon/Spring Hill, Hewell Grange, Hollesley Bay, Kirkham, Leyhill, Moorland Open, North Sea Camp, Standford Hill, Sudbury, Thorn Cross, Usk/Prescoed and Wealstun.

  The following prisons in England and Wales had open units for female inmates on 31 March 2004; Askham Grange and East Sutton Park.

  Probation Hostels
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of places in probation hostels in England and Wales were occupied by persons on bail in(a) 1991 and (b) 2003. [172269]

  Paul Goggins
  A report published by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation in 1993, "Approved Probation and Bail Hostels—Report of a Thematic Inspection" confirmed that of the population resident in approved hostels during 1991–92:69 per cent. were on bail
  25 per cent. were on probation
  6 per cent. were under supervision on release from custody.

  No published data are yet available on the percentage of places in approved probation and bail hostels (approved premises) in England and Wales occupied by persons on bail in 2003.

  Racial Harassment (Manchester)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times powers preventing racial harassment introduced since 1997 have been used in Manchester, Central. [174278]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Figures for the number of prosecutions in Manchester, Central for this type of offence are not centrally available. Greater Manchester police figures for harassment offences (published by the Home Office under the requirements of S95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) show a total of 2,075 recorded offences of this type in the Greater Manchester police area over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Recidivism
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of detention and training orders in preventing recidivism among young offenders. [172297]

  Paul Goggins
  The Detention and Training Order (DTO) has been the main custodial sentence for young people aged 12 to 17 since April 2000.

  The first two years' operation of the DTO was the subject of research commissioned by the Youth Justice
  436W
  Board. This found some signs that supervisors were playing a very significant role in getting young offenders to address their offending behaviour. It is too early to assess the overall effectiveness of the sentence in preventing recidivism but we do expect shortly to be able to publish the first national reconviction figures.

  RESPECT and the National Black Police Association
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding(a) went last year and (b) will go (i) this year and (ii) next year to (A) RESPECT in the Prison Service and (B) the National Black Police Association; and if he will make a statement. [175050]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:(A) Funding for RESPECT
  During 2003–04, the RESPECT Network received £453,000 from the Prison Service For 2004–05, the Network have forecast a spend of £400,000. RESPECT'S funding request for 2005–06 has not yet ban submitted.
  (B) Funding for the National Black Police Association
  For 2003–04, the Home Office provided grant in aid of £81,214 and funding of nearly £40,000 for one member of staff employed by the National Black Police Association (NBPA). The NBPA's funding request for 2004–05 is currently under consideration. Funding for 2005–06 will be considered at the end of this financial year.

  RESPECT has proven to be a valuable support network for its members throughout the Prison Service. Encouragingly, the Network now has 3,663 members and provides a free-phone support line with trained volunteers drawn from its membership which provides an additional source of support to any member of staff who may have been a victim of racism.

  The National Black Police Association plays an important role in helping the Police Service become more aware of the various issues facing black officers and to recruit, retain and progress more minority ethnic officers. Through its links with communities, it also helps increase trust and confidence of those communities in the Police Service.

  Section 44 Funding
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the racial equality councils that have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in securing section 44 funding; and which racial equality councils cover areas in which British National Party candidates are standing in this year's local government elections. [174770]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  For the lists of successful and unsuccessful applications, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 862W

  The Commission for Racial Equality is collating the other information requested and I have asked its chair to write to my hon. Friend on this matter as soon as possible.

  Secure Estate (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children from(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales reside in the secure estate in Wales. [171994]

  Paul Goggins
  On 6 May 2004, there were 26 young people from Wales and two from England in the juvenile secure estate in Wales. There were none from Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Surrey Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future role of the Surrey police service in undertaking the coroner's assistant duty; and what estimate he has made of the annual(a) cost to the Surrey police service of undertaking the coroner's assistant duty and (b) number of hours that Surrey police spend on coroner's assistant duties. [174754]

  Paul Goggins
  As announced in "Reforming the Coroner and Death Certification Service, a Position Paper", which we published on 1 March, we propose that the existing responsibility undertaken by the police in Surrey and elsewhere to provide officers to support coroners should in future be transferred to a new national coroner service. Meanwhile, the agreement is that the present levels of staffing arid support are to be maintained.

  I understand from Surrey police that they have 12 staff working 20,000 hours a year on coroner's officer duties. The annual cost is around £355,000.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the asset value of council housing stock transferred to registered social landlords in each of the last three years. [177005]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The value of a housing transfer is through its tenanted market value rather than on an asset basis. The tenanted market value reflects the income the Registered Social Landlord is likely to receive less the estimated expenditure necessary on repair and improvement works, maintenance and supervision and management over a 30-year period.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) job title and (b) annual salary is of each employee of each New Deal for Communities partnership. [160344]

  Yvette Cooper
  A list of job titles and the total number of staff falling within salary bands from £0 to £10,000 upwards has been made available in the Library of the House. A few partnerships have declined to give this information for data protection reasons.
  438W
  The staff listed are funded through management and administration budgets. Overall, partnerships may only spend up to 10 per cent. of their 10-year budget total on management and administration during the life of their programme.

  Some partnerships run schemes and projects internally and so have higher staffing numbers. Other NDC partnerships contract out work to external people/organisations and in consequence their staffing numbers are lower.

  Planning (Crime and Disorder Assessments)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when crime and disorder impact assessments under planning regulations will begin. [177728]

  Keith Hill
  There is no statutory requirement for each planning application to be accompanied by a crime and disorder impact assessment. However, such an assessment is encouraged in "Safer Places: the Planning System and crime prevention", which was published on 26 April. This good practice guidance, which will accompany the forthcoming Planning Policy Statement 1, provides advice on effective methods of implementing crime prevention measures and securing community safety through the planning system.

  Rough Sleepers
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of the number of rough sleepers in(a) London and (b) England for each year since 1997. [177053]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures on the number of rough sleepers are not available for 1997. The following table shows the year on year progress made since 1998, when the baseline figure against which the Rough Sleepers Unit's target for reducing rough sleepers was set.

  London

  Rest of England

  Total

  Overall reduction (percentage)

  June 1998

  621

  1,230

  1,851

  —

  June 1999

  635

  998

  1,633

  11.8

  June 2000

  546

  634

  1,180

  36.3

  June 2001

  357

  346

  703

  62.0

  November 2001

  264

  268

  532

  71.3

  June 2002

  321

  275

  596

  67.8

  June 2003

  267

  237

  504

  72.8

  On 3 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the target to reduce rough sleeping by at least two thirds from the baseline estimate had been met. This two-third reduction in rough sleeping has not only been sustained, but has been reduced further.

  The Homelessness and Housing Support Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to work closely with local authorities, voluntary sector agencies and others in sustaining the reduction.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Aquaculture
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from Norwegian companies and operators engaged in aquaculture in the UK as to the continued viability of their operations in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [176627]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Bananas
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what pressure the Department has brought to seek a positive outcome in the World Trade Organisation discussions on bananas in order to protect Caribbean banana producers. [176077]

  Alun Michael
  As part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) settlement with the USA and Ecuador reached in 2001, the EU is committed to the removal of quota restrictions on banana imports by the end of 2005. Further WTO negotiations will be needed to determine how the existing quotas are converted into tariffs.

  The UK recognises the importance of the banana trade to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) exporters. We firmly believe that the inevitable changes to the banana regime must be phased at a rate that allows their economies to adjust.

  Defra and European Commission officials met earlier this year to discuss the matter. Further representations will be made as necessary when the Commission seeks a mandate from member states for proposals on a tariff-only import regime to submit to the WTO.

  As a separate issue, the existing waiver under WTO rules allowing the EU to provide tariff preferences for the ACP countries expires in 2007 and is to be replaced by the development of Economic Partnership Agreements. The terms for these are currently under negotiation. The UK is taking a close interest.

  Dog Ownership
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will assess the merits of introducing a life ban on dog ownership for people convicted of serious cruelty to dogs; and if she will make a statement. [176769]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill we are considering the penalties which are available to the courts. We are also looking at ways of ensuring that an order banning a convicted person from keeping animals is effective and cannot be circumvented.

  Farm Subsidies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland received agricultural support
  440W
  payments collectively totalling more than (i) 500,000, (ii) 1 million and (iii) 1.5 million euros in the most recent year for which records are available. [172482]

  Alun Michael
  The number of farms in England receiving agricultural support payments collectively totalling more than 500,000, 1 million and 1.5 million euros are set out in the table. These figures have been taken from European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund 2003 financial year (16 October 2002 to 15 October 2003).

  The information for other countries within the UK is a matter for their devolved Assemblies.

  Euros1

  Number of farms

  More than 500,000

  78

  More than 1 million

  10

  More than 1.5 million

  12

  1The records are recorded in sterling. An exchange rate of 0.652 euros to the £ was used to convert the sterling values.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of farms in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland received total agricultural production subsidy payments exceeding (i) 50,000, (ii) 75,000, (iii) 100,000, (iv) 125,000, (v) 150,000, (vi) 175,000, (vii) 200,000, (viii) 250,000 and (ix) 300,000 euros for the most recent year for which records are available. [172483]

  Alun Michael
  The number and proportion of farms in England receiving agricultural production subsidy payments is broken down into the requested bands in the following table. These figures have been taken from European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund 2003 financial year (16 October 2002 to 15 October 2003).

  The information for other countries within the UK is a matter for their devolved Assemblies.

  Euros1

  Number of farms

  Proportion (percentage)

  Exceeding 50,000

  3,564

  2,90

  Exceeding 75,000

  1,854

  1.51

  Exceeding 100,000

  980

  0.80

  Exceeding 125,000

  610

  0.50

  Exceeding 150,000

  381

  0.31

  Exceeding 175,000

  251

  0.20

  Exceeding 200,000

  243

  0.20

  Exceeding 250,000

  117

  0.10

  Exceeding 300,000

  199

  0.16

  1The records are recorded in sterling. An exchange rate of 0.652 euros to the £ was used to convert the sterling values.

  Flora and Fauna Extinctions
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the number of species of(a) plants and (b) animals that have become extinct in the UK in the last 25 sears. [165260]
  441W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  By its very nature, extinction is very difficult to demonstrate. However, based on available information, five species of plants (one of which has been reintroduced) and eight species of animals (including four species of invertebrates) appear to have become extinct in the United Kingdom during the last 25 years.

  NIREX
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the reasons for the delay in announcing the future responsibilities of Nirex. [177228]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Government are considering the best means of making Nirex independent of industry and subject to greater Government control, as we announced in July 2003. The options for this need to be considered and discussed with Nirex itself and its industry shareholders. The Government will announce the outcome of the Nirex review once it has been completed.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of approved pesticides in the United Kingdom are known to use possible(a) carcinogens, (b) mutagens and (c) allergens. [177434]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible for me to provide information on the number of pesticides classified as carcinogens or mutagens because this information is not held centrally and to attempt to provide it would incur disproportionate costs.

  There are approximately 500 out of a total of 3,849 approved pesticide products that are classified as "skin sensitizers". These products are only approved for sale to professional users and carry a requirement to use protective equipment to reduce skin contact when handling the product.

  Pigswill
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which membership-based organisations responded to the consultation document that preceded the ban on swill feeding to pigs; and if she will summarise their responses. [175796]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A copy of the list of the membership-based organisations that responded to the consultation document and relevant summaries of their responses has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Protected Bird Species
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which protected species of bird may be taken under licence in England; how many licences were issued by her Department in the last two years to take protected bird species, broken 442W
  down by (a) species and (b) the number of birds taken under each licence; and what (i) the location where the action can take place and (ii) the reason why each licence was issued in each case. [176836]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All species of wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, however section 16 of the Act gives powers to the Secretary of State to issue licences which may be, to any degree, general or specific, subject to there being no satisfactory alternative.

  The Department compiles derogation reports under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Birds (79/409/EEC) on an annual basis for the United Kingdom. The report details the species, the number of licences issued, the purpose or reason for each licence issued in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Government Departments and agencies.

  Reports for the calendar years, 2001 and 2002 are publicly available documents and have been lodged with the House Libraries. The report for 2003 is currently being compiled and will be made available as soon as it has been completed and submitted to the European Commission.

  The reports do not record details of the location where the action has taken place in view of concerns for confidentiality and identifying individuals' residence.

  Waste Disposal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is Government policy that the disposal of all(a) intermediate-level waste and (b) high-level waste should be the responsibility of Nirex. [177227]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: Government have established the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to recommend the best form of long-term management for the UK's higher activity radioactive waste. Government will decide policy for such management, and the means by which it is to be delivered, in light of CoRWM's recommendations.

  Water Voles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she intends to take to extend full protection to the water vole under section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). [173945]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Every five years the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) advises Government on which animals should be legally protected by listing on Schedule 5 (not schedule 9) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. JNCC reported to Government with its recommendations in September 2002, which included full protection for this species. The next stage is for Government to conduct a public consultation based on these recommendations. This will take place in June 2004.
  443W
  Following this consultation, the Secretary of State will decide on the changes to be made to the schedules and these will be implemented by Statutory Instrument.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the tonnage of the forthcoming opium harvest in Afghanistan. [176903]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation and production in Afghanistan. The most recent survey, published in October 2003, showed that the level of opium cultivation in 2003 was 80,000 hectares and production was 3,600 tonnes. The UNODC is in the process of assessing the 2004 harvest in conjunction with the Afghan government. Its report will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Afghanistan about the reform of the country's criminal justice system. [177112]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised this when he visited Afghanistan in May 2004 in the context of tackling drugs crime in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources are provided by(a) his Department and (b) the European Union to reconstruct and rehabilitate detention and prison facilities in Afghanistan. [177115]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Italy leads international assistance for Afghanistan on judicial reform, including penal reform, and Germany leads assistance on reform of the police. Neither the UK nor the European Commission is involved in funding reconstruction or rehabilitation of prison or detention facilities in Afghanistan. We do not have information on projects which may be funded by other countries.

  More widely, the UK has since the war in Afghanistan supported Penal Reform International to undertake work on capacity-building within the penal sector, including staff training. The UK has also contributed £1 million to the UN Development Programme (UNDP) programme for judicial reform. The European Commission is working with Italy in the justice sector to help refurbish the district judicial system (courts) and train local staff.

  East Timor
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of East Timor about the rights of opposition parties. [177421]
  444W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have not made any representation to the Government of East Timor about the rights of opposition parties. East Timor is a democratic society with universal suffrage and a multiparty system. The right to establish and participate in political parties is enshrined in East Timor's constitution.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK's financial contribution to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor is. [177428]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK contributed £215,847 to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) in FY 2003–04. This brings our total contribution to the CAVR since it was established in January 2002 to £580,000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the United Nations to continue to monitor security in East Timor, with particular reference to the activities of Islamic militant groups operating in the region. [177430]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN monitors the security situation in East Timor very closely. In May this year, the UN Mission in Support of East Timor, with a continued peacekeeping element, was extended for a further six months as part of a one-year consolidation phase. This is to ensure that the emerging institutions in East Timor, including the security forces, develop the capacity to maintain security and stability in East Timor.

  Iraq
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed of President Bush's plan to demolish Abu Ghraib prison. [177207]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was informed on Tuesday 24 May 2004. President Bush announced the US offer, subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government, to fund the construction of a modern maximum security prison in Iraq to replace Abu Ghraib prison, which could then be demolished, or turned into a memorial. The demolition of the prison had been proposed by members of the Iraqi Governing Council earlier in the month. The Foreign Secretary was made aware of this proposal on 13 May when it was reported by our post in Baghdad.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British companies have bid for contracts to build prisons in Iraq. [177209]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  British companies are not required to report details to the Government of their bids for contracts for the reconstruction process in Iraq. Nor is there a central organisation that collects and publishes such information.

  However, we are aware that Parsons Delaware Inc. US, the winner of the $900 million Program Management Office Design-Build prime contract for work associated with Security and Justice projects, has awarded sub-contracts to Pell Frischmann, a UK consulting engineering company, and TPS Consult, a

  445W
  UK design engineering company. Some of the work under this prime contract will include the design and construction of prisons.

  I am also aware that AMEC, in joint venture with their US partner FLUOR, tendered unsuccessfully for this prime contract.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the appointees to the Interim Iraqi Government, with their(a) designations and (b) gender. [177729]

  Mr. Rammell
  The following is a list of the Iraqi Interim Government—those marked with an asterisk denote female Ministers, who number six in total, including the new post of Minister of State for Women.

  President—Sheikh Ghazi al Yawr

  Deputy President—Dr. Ibrahim Jaafari

  Deputy President—Dr. Rowsch Shaways

  Prime Minister—Dr. lyad Allawi

  Deputy Prime Minister—Dr. Barham Salih

  Minister for Defence—Hazem Sha'alan

  Minister for Interior—Falah al-Nakib

  Minister for Finance—Dr. Adel Abdul Mahdi

  Minister for Foreign Affairs—Hoshyar Zebari

  Minister for Oil—Thamir Ghadban

  Minister for Trade—Mohammed al-Jibouri

  Minister for Education—Sami Mudhafer

  Minister for Planning and Development—Dr. Mehdi al-Hafidh

  Minister for Electricity—Dr. Aiham a1-Sammarae

  *Minister for Agriculture—Dr. Sawsan al-Sharify

  Minister for Communications—Dr. Mohammed al-Hakim

  Minister for Justice—Dr. Malek Dohan al-Hassan

  Minister for Health—Dr. Ala'adin Alwan

  Minister for Housing and Construction—Dr Omar al-Damluji

  *Minister for Municipalities and Public Works—Nasreen Berwari

  Minister for Water Resources—Latif Rashid

  Minister for Transportation—Louay Hatem al-Eris

  Minister for Industry and Minerals—Dr. Hachem al-Hassani

  *Minister for Labour and Social Affairs—Leyla Abdul Latif

  Minister for Higher Education—Dr. Taher al-Bakaa

  *Minister for Environment—Dr. Mishkat Moumin

  Minister for Science and Technology—Rashad Mandan Omar

  *Minister for Displacement and Migration—Pascale Isho Warda

  Minister for Youth and Sports—Ali Fa'iq al-Ghabban

  Minister for Culture—Mufeed al-Jaza'iri

  Minister for Human Rights—Baktiar Amin

  Minister of State for Provinces—Watt Abdul Latif

  *Minister of State for Women—Narmin Othman

  Minister of State—Adnan al Janabi

  Minister of State—Dr. Qasim Daoud

  Minister of State—Dr. Mamu Farman Othman.

  NHS
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether under the proposed EU constitution the NHS would be subject to competition directives. [176701]
  446W
  Mr. MacShane
  The draft EU Constitutional Treaty will not change the way in which competition rules apply to NHS bodies. Under existing Treaty provisions, competition articles apply only to "undertakings"—persons or bodies engaged in economic activity. This means that whilst the social provision of healthcare is not an economic activity as such, competition rules can apply to NHS bodies when they are involved in "economic activity", for example, when they are contracting out healthcare provision.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Christians in Pakistan; and what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan on the protection of Christians from attack by the Muslim extremists, with particular reference to the case of Javaid Anjum. [177442]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Cases of religious persecution against the Christian population in Pakistan are viewed seriously by the British Government and we make our views on the treatment of religious minorities known to the Government of Pakistan on all possible occasions. On 31 May the EU submitted a demarche to the Pakistani government. This raised specific human rights concerns in Pakistan including the case of Javaid Anjum.

  Sudan
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided to the Nuba people from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool. [173654]

  Mr. Mullin
  To date, more than £2.8 million has been allocated from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool towards the security of the Nuba people, through support to the Joint Military Commission International Monitoring Unit responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Nuba Mountains Ceasefire Agreement. The Department for International Development also funds local peace building initiatives and support to basic education in the Nuba Mountains.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Gunpowder Plot
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what plans he has made for the House to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot. [176637]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Officials of both Houses are planning an exhibition to mark the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot; their proposals were considered and approved by the House of Commons Commission in March this year. The exhibition will be held in Westminster Hall between July and December 2005 and will provide a serious, dispassionate and sensitive introduction to the plot, close to where the events took place. It will seek to raise public interest in parliamentary history, and to increase
  447W
  engagement with the work of Parliament. It is likely to be one of a number of related activities organised by other institutions in London.

  House Staff (Mental Health)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many people have left employment in the House of Commons Service because of(a) stress, (b) anxiety, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [176217]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Information on reasons for leaving the House of Commons Service is not collated centrally, and is not available in the form requested. However, some limited information is available for the period 1 June 2002 to 26 May 2004. During this period, out of 549 leavers overall, three members of staff were medically retired on grounds of stress or depression. These cases were not related to the work that was carried out by the employees: two of them were directly linked to an underlying medical condition.

  The House operates a full occupational health service, and individuals who may be suffering from stress are referred to them as soon as possible. The details of each case are subject to normal medical confidentiality. The House's welfare officers are also available to help staff who feel under stress.

PRIME MINISTER

  British Olympic Hockey Team
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Prime Minister how many members of the British Olympic hockey team of 1988 have received honours. [177726]

  The Prime Minister
  Three members of the British Olympic hockey team of 1988 have received honours. The captain, Richard Dodds, received the OBE in 1989. Sean Kerly received an MBE in 1993 and Stephen Martin received an MBE in 1994.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what role the British Government will play in helping the Iraqi people to establish security and policing institutions. [176558]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK has made a significant contribution to the establishment of the Iraqi security forces and as Iraqi capacity and command capability builds, responsibility for security will be progressively handed over.

  Over 100 British police officers are involved in training, mentoring and advisory roles with the Iraqi Police Service in Baghdad, across the south of Iraq and at the Jordan International Police Training Academy.

  The UK has also made a significant contribution to efforts to establish the new Iraqi armed forces through mentoring and training within the Iraqi armed forces, the Iraqi Ministry of Defence and the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team. The UK is also leading the
  448W
  effort to establish a new Iraqi Coastal Defence Force based out of Umm Qasr to be fully operational by 1 October 2004.

  UK forces in Multi National Division (South-East) have raised, trained and equipped five battalions of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC) which are now operational, with a sixth battalion in training.

  Post 30 June, the UK will continue to assist in an advisory, training anti mentoring role across all areas of Security Sector Reform including the armed forces and the Iraqi Police Service to ensure continued progression in Security Sector Reform.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister whether a Harm Test was carried out by the Openness Team on the policy of citing exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in not providing information in answer to questions 174254 to 174256, 174258 to 174261, 174311 to 174313 and 174315. [177991]

  The Prime Minister
  The exemptions were applied on the basis set out in the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 25 May.

  Water Action Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress in relation to the Water Action Plan agreed at last year's G8 summit in Evian he expects to report at the forthcoming Sea Island summit, with particular reference to the commitment to making political priorities of(a) safe drinking water and (b) basic sanitation. [177483]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK agreed a Water Action Plan in March 2004 which supports the implementation of the G8 Water Action Plan to deliver safe drinking water and better sanitation.

  We are supporting countries who are committed to making safe drinking water and basic sanitation a priority through international programmes such as the Global Water Partnership and the EU Water Initiative and through our bilateral aid budget, spending overall around £90 million each year on programmes to improve access to water and sanitation in developing countries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  CCTV
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the levels of criminal activity in areas of Northern Ireland that are now covered by CCTV compared to the levels before that coverage commenced. [176630]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently 19 town centre CCTV systems installed across Northern Ireland for the purposes of tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. In addition some 32 CCTV cameras have been installed at interface areas in Belfast to deal with incidents of public disorder.
  449W
  The former Police Authority for Northern Ireland who handled the allocation of funding for most of the town centre schemes in Northern Ireland required each individual scheme to arrange an evaluation of their performance in the two years after the CCTV system became operational. All evaluations received to date, indicate that in the areas where CCTV was in operation, crime was reduced or, the rate of increase was slower than other areas and the level of detection of crime increased. In some areas the level of reported crime increased as the cameras witnessed crimes not normally reported, though this was usually combined with an increase in detection.

  Wider research from other parts of the UK has established that CCTV is an effective crime reduction tool, particularly where it is used in conjunction with other crime reduction initiatives.

  The network of CCTV cameras at interface locations in North and East Belfast has proved very effective not only in terms of effecting non-confrontational arrests but also in allowing police to deploy resources in a better informed manner. Accordingly, the cameras have helped maintain a relative calm at interface locations.

  Electoral Office
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been made available, and from what sources, to the Electoral Office for the production and distribution of Electoral Identity Cards. [176961]

  Mr. Spellar
  The funding, made available by the Northern Ireland Office, for the production and distribution of the Electoral Identity Card is as follows:

  £ million

  Budget

  Spend

  2002–03

  1.78

  1.16

  2003–04

  1

  0.83

  Total

  2.78

  1.99

  The spend to date in the current financial year—2004–05—is £41,000. The budget is £100,000.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Electoral Office is taking to ensure that those in residential care in Northern Ireland are not disenfranchised through the omission of their names from the electoral register. [176969]

  Mr. Spellar
  This issue is an operational matter and is, therefore, the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer. He will be writing to the hon. Lady in due course.

  A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the £1.5 million set aside for the Cod Recovery Programme Transitional Aid (Tie-Up) Scheme 2004 has been allocated to vessel owners in Northern Ireland; what amount has been set aside for appeals; what the timescale is for those appeals; and who has been appointed to hear them. [176988]
  450W
  Mr. Pearson
  To date the total amount allocated to vessel owners under the Temporary Cessation (Tie-up) Scheme has been £1,228,729.37. No funding provision has been made for appeals. A four-stage appeals procedure, including final appeal to an independent panel appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, is available. Appeals will be progressed as promptly as possible, taking account of the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vessel owners have accepted grants under the terms of the Northern Ireland Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Scheme 2003; how many have been offered grants under the terms of this scheme and refused that offer; and how many have been offered grants under the terms of this scheme and declined but have subsequently been successful in an application for transitional aid during Cod Closure in 2004. [176989]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows:

  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Scheme 2003

  Number

  Owners accepting offers of grant under scheme

  19

  Owners refusing offers of grant under scheme

  11

  Owners refusing offers of grant under scheme who have been successful under the2004 transitional aid scheme

  8

  Health Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of expenditure resulting from litter, in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by council area. [176849]

  Angela Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. The Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service has asked district councils to provide the information requested. It is expected that it will take several weeks to gather this information and I shall write to the hon. Lady once it is collated. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  MOT Appointments
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many drivers are awaiting MOT test appointments, broken down by area. [176852]

  Angela Smith
  The total number of customers who have received vehicle test appointments for the period June to September 2004 is 57,955. The total number of unprocessed applications for MOT appointments is calculated at 7,510. The following table provides a breakdown by centre and month.
  451W

  Test centre

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Grand total

  Postal applications not yet processed

  Armagh

  1,018

  476

  629

  —

  2,123

  650

  Ballymena

  2,670

  1,867

  —

  —

  4,537

  0

  Belfast

  2,459

  1,978

  1,155

  —

  5,592

  620

  Coleraine

  2,471

  1,376

  56

  —

  3,903

  0

  Cookstown

  1,932

  1,129

  671

  —

  3,732

  310

  Craigavon

  2,210

  1,431

  293

  201

  4,135

  1,330

  Downpatrick

  2,499

  1,620

  294

  —

  4,413

  0

  Enniskillen

  1,520

  1,163

  20

  —

  2,703

  0

  Larne

  1,232

  884

  260

  —

  2,376

  0

  Lisburn

  2,088

  1,206

  427

  2

  3,723

  1,110

  Mallusk

  1,958

  1,197

  192

  —

  3,347

  1,470

  Londonderry

  1,978

  1,406

  —

  —

  3,384

  0

  Newry

  2,068

  1,382

  709

  144

  4,303

  1,280

  Newtownards

  3,869

  2,443

  751

  —

  7,063

  740

  Omagh

  1,779

  833

  9

  —

  2,621

  0

  Grand total

  31,751

  20,391

  5,466

  347

  57,955

  7,510

  Planning Service
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Planning Service has taken over the past five years to ensure that planning permissions are adhered to during the construction of buildings in each local government district. [176304]

  Angela Smith
  It is not Planning Service practice routinely to inspect all development after planning permission is granted and where inspections are carried out priority would be given to controversial proposals.

  However, where Planning Service establishes or is advised that there is a breach of condition attached to a planning permission, action will be taken to regularise the breach where appropriate.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for planning permission have been submitted to the Planning Service in Northern Ireland in each local government district in each of the last five years; and how many of these applicants have subsequently been advised to submit retrospective planning applications following rejection of the initial application. [176305]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Service's current records have only been kept by council area since 2000. The number of planning applications submitted to Planning Service during the last four years is set out in the table.

  Council area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Antrim

  824

  825

  1,064

  1,489

  Ards

  986

  1,052

  1,247

  1,201

  Armagh

  1,162

  1,322

  1,258

  1,502

  Ballymena

  870

  908

  1,164

  1,538

  Ballymoney

  503

  568

  641

  869

  Banbridge

  872

  963

  1,325

  1,664

  Belfast

  2,332

  2,573

  2,361

  2,624

  Carrickfergus

  298

  302

  313

  354

  Castlereagh

  556

  576

  572

  583

  Coleraine

  838

  1,023

  1,030

  1,225

  Cookstown

  761

  737

  845

  1,140

  452W

  Council area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Craigavon

  1,011

  973

  1,147

  1,211

  Derry

  923

  932

  951

  1,072

  Down

  1,256

  1,322

  1,541

  1,346

  Dungannon

  1,128

  1,182

  1,345

  1,491

  Fermanagh

  1,338

  1,292

  1,564

  1,947

  Larne

  364

  362

  369

  432

  Limavady

  458

  464

  542

  705

  Lisburn

  1,160

  1,339

  1,487

  1,658

  Magherafelt

  812

  973

  1,118

  1,544

  Moyle

  366

  437

  424

  505

  Newry and Mourne

  1,954

  2,066

  2,368

  3,148

  Newtownabbey

  567

  662

  688

  660

  North

  Down

  726

  758

  758

  871

  Omagh

  1,042

  1,037

  1,103

  1,412

  Strabane

  584

  633

  686

  869

  Totals

  23,691

  25,281

  27,911

  33,060

  It is not Planning Service's policy to advise applicants to submit retrospective planning applications following rejection of the initial application. In addition, Planning Service does not record separate information on retrospective planning applications. As this information is not routinely collected, it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many enforcement actions have been undertaken by the Planning Service in Northern Ireland over the past five years in each local government district; and what the results were in each case. [176306]

  Angela Smith
  Although statistical records have been maintained by the Planning Service since 1999, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of enforcement statistics by local government district. Additionally, the recorded data do not hold individual records of the results in each case, and this information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Presented below is the total number of enforcement cases for each year since 1999 and the number of Enforcement Notices issued.
  453W

  Cases investigated

  Enforcement Notices issued

  2003

  1,876

  56

  2002

  1,665

  40

  2001

  3,800

  50

  2000

  3,500

  54

  1999

  2,678

  82

  Playgroups (South Down)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effects of the withdrawal of funding from the Special European Union Programmes Body on playgroups in the South Down area; and whether he is taking steps to restore this funding. [177502]

  Angela Smith
  No funding from the SEUPB to playgroups in the South Down area has been withdrawn. SEUPB assists playgroups primarily through NIPPA under Measure 2.5 of the PEACE II Programme. All projects assisted under this measure will be able to benefit fully from their allocations although some projects are now coming to an end. We are currently assessing the impact of this on early years provision across Northern Ireland and how this can be addressed.

  Police Reserve
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the conditions of employment are for members of the(a) full-time and (b) part-time Reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [176539]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following regulations set out the conditions of employment for members of the(a) full-time Reserve and (b) part-time Reserve:
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (Full-Time) (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1996.
  Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Full-Time) (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 2002.
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (Part-Time) (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1996.
  Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Part-Time) Regulations 2004 (which includes provisions relating to members appointed prior to 8 February 2004.)
  Police Reserve Trainee Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004.

  In addition, the Police (Recruitment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, as amended, contain provisions relating to prohibited business interests for police Reserve trainees.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hours per month members of the part-time Reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland are required to work to qualify for validation of training; and if he will make a statement. [176540]

  Mr. Spellar
  The PSNI are providing foundation training in three different packages to suit the circumstances of individual Reserve trainees. Validation is not directly related to the number of hours worked but to a series of knowledge and skills-based exercises which members must complete to the required standard.

  Police Trophies
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether an official record exists of(a) competition trophies and (b) other items belonging to the Ulster Special Constabulary at the time of their disbandment; and where those items are located. [176331]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland have advised me that a small number of Ulster Special Constabulary competition trophies are kept as part of the police museum collection. No other official records exist.

  Power-Sharing Agreements
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has discussed with representatives of Lisburn district council power-sharing agreements. [176329]

  Angela Smith
  There have been no discussions with representatives of Lisburn city council about power sharing arrangements. Under current legislation the Government have power to intervene in the internal affairs of a council only if it is failing to fulfil its statutory functions. Power sharing arrangements are essentially an internal matter for district councils.

  The issue of governance arrangements in district councils has been raised during recent consultation on the Review of Public Administration and that it will be addressed when firm proposals on the Review are published for consultation in the autumn.

  River Mourne/River Foyle
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the daily fish counts for(a) June and (b) July 2003 were at Sion Mills on the River Mourne in West Tyrone. [176883]

  Mr. Pearson
  The counts for June and July 2003 are detailed as follows:

  Date

  Fish count

  June 2003

  1St

  19

  2nd

  20

  3rd

  16

  4th

  7

  5th

  6

  6th

  5

  7th

  15

  8th

  20

  9th

  37

  10th

  16

  11th

  19

  12th

  46

  13th

  84

  14th

  185

  15th

  535

  16th

  904

  17th

  402

  18th

  105

  19th

  394

  20th

  494

  21st

  77

  22nd

  25

  23rd

  58

  24th

  51

  25th

  49

  455W

  Date

  Fish count

  26th

  72

  27th

  618

  28th

  278

  29th

  175

  30th

  51

  Total for June 2003

  4,783

  July 2003

  1st

  44

  2nd

  36

  3rd

  63

  4th

  1

  5th

  3

  6th

  6

  7th

  10

  8th

  9

  9th

  20

  10th

  43

  11th

  612

  12th

  681

  13th

  58

  14th

  24

  15th

  23

  16th

  31

  17th

  22

  18th

  95

  19th

  345

  20th

  171

  21st

  157

  22nd

  59

  23rd

  29

  24th

  42

  25th

  25

  26th

  29

  27th

  22

  28th

  38

  29th

  103

  30th

  6

  31st

  30

  Total for July 2003

  2,837

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the daily river height for(a) June and (b) July 2003 was at Sion Mills on the River Mourne in West Tyrone. [176884]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Rivers Agency does not have a gauging station in Sion Mills and therefore actual data on river height has been obtained from the Agency's Drumnabuoy House River Flow Gauging Station on the River Mourne near Strabane, approximately 3 km downstream of the weir in Sion Mills. This records water levels at 15-minute intervals.

  Recorded water levels in June and July 2003 were in the range 2.71 metres above Ordnance Datum (OD) Belfast on 16 July to 4.28 metres OD on 10 June. On 48 of the 61 days in question the levels were below the average daily level of 3.32 m OD for this section of the River (as measured over the last 21 years).

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what progress has been made with regard to the buy-out of salmon net licences in the Foyle Estuary; and if he will make a statement; [176886]

  (2) what reports he has received of plans for the buy-out of salmon net licences on the River Foyle; and if he will make a statement. [176885]
  456W
  Mr. Pearson
  There are currently no plans to buy out salmon nets on the Foyle Estuary. The stocks of salmon returning to the Foyle catchment are managed effectively by the Loughs Agency to ensure that spawning escapement targets are achieved each year. The effectiveness of the conservation and protection regulations introduced by the Loughs Agency are continually kept under review using data collected from fish counters, population surveys and catch returns. The Loughs Agency manages the stocks with the objective of achieving maximum sustainable productivity, and has achieved adult returns in excess of conservation limits for the past number of years.

  Veterinary Nursing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the funding of Veterinary Nursing NVQ training levels 2 and 3 in Northern Ireland. [177400]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), provides veterinary nursing training programmes leading to NVQ levels 2 and 3 in Northern Ireland.

  Participants taking veterinary nursing programmes on a further education basis are charged programme fees and must also enrol with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and pay examination fees.

  Approved veterinary training practices are eligible to apply for support under the Modern Apprenticeship scheme. This covers the above fees and provides financial support to the veterinary training practice. To date only one training practice with two trainees has availed of Modern Apprenticeship.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how further education training courses for veterinary nursing are funded in Northern Ireland. [177448]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), provides veterinary nursing training programmes leading to NVQ levels 2 and 3 in Northern Ireland.

  Participants taking veterinary nursing programmes on a further education basis are charged programme fees that were initially benchmarked against the fees for similar programmes in the UK and increased in line with inflation since 1999.

  In addition, participants must also enrol with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and pay examination fees.

  Approved veterinary training practices are eligible to apply for support under the Modern Apprenticeship scheme. This covers the above fees and provides financial support to the veterinary training practice. To date, only one training practice with two trainees has availed of Modern Apprenticeship.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Learning Inspectorate
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibility the Adult Learning Inspectorate has to report on the exercise of the duty of care; what care standards inspectors will use when examining training regimes in army barracks; and in what form these standards are available in the public domain. [177476]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Adult Learning Inspectorate. David Sherlock, the Chief Inspector, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Adult Literacy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people achieved(a) a Certificate in Adult Literacy (Entry Level), (b) a Certificate in Adult Literacy (level 1) and (c) a Certificate in Adult Literacy (level 2) in each year since 2000. [177383]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the number of learners achieving Certificates in Adult Literacy through LSC funded FE providers are presented as follows. The Certificate in Adult Literacy, accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, was introduced during the 2001/02 teaching year. Prior to this, not all literacy qualifications were based on the National Qualification Framework (NQF) and accredited by national awarding bodies.

  Learners achieving literacy qualifications, 2000/01 to 2002/03—through LSC funded further education providers

  Learners achieving (thousand)

  Qualification/level

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Certificate in Adult Literacy (QCA accredited)

  Entry level

  —

  0.2

  11.1

  level 1

  —

  0.3

  8.1

  level 2

  —

  0.1

  3.4

  Total

  0.6

  22.6

  Transitional qualifications1

  Up to level 2

  21.6

  21.6

  —

  Overall total

  21.6

  22.2

  22.6

  1 Literacy qualifications certificated by national awarding bodies.

  Where individual learners progress and achieve qualifications at different levels, they may be counted in more than one of the categories in the table.

  Apprenticeship Schemes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on apprenticeship schemes supported by the Department. [176483]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are currently over 255,000 apprenticeships supported by the Department, the highest number ever and more than three times as many as in 1997.1n order to ensure that the initiative meets the evolving needs of the economy we have decided to make some changes. Our overall aim is to build up a coherent ladder of high quality vocational opportunities responsive to the needs of young people, older workers and business.
  458W
  On 10 May the Government announced its intention to put in place a family of apprenticeship programmes to suit a variety of needs from aged 14 upwards. These will include: Junior Apprenticeships for 14 to 16-year-olds, a pre-apprenticeship route within the existing Entry to Employment programme, Apprenticeships at NVQ Level 2, Advanced Apprenticeships at NVQ Level 3 and a strengthened progression route into higher education, including vocational Foundation Degrees. In addition we are developing Apprenticeships for Adults in those sectors with the greatest need.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Blackpool North and Fleetwood have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [176208]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on apprenticeships (formerly known as Advanced Modern Apprenticeships) and apprenticeships at level two (formerly known as Foundation Modern Apprenticeships) in the Lancashire LSC area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1998 to March 2001 in the two TECs that amalgamated into Lancashire LSC—ELTEC and LAWTEC.

  Time period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  April 1998 to March 1999

  ELTEC

  1,000

  400

  LAWTEC

  1,600

  100

  April 1999 to March 2000

  ELTEC

  800

  1,100

  LAWTEC

  1,900

  1,800

  April 2000 to March 2001

  ELTEC

  900

  1,300

  LAWTEC

  1,800

  2,100

  April 2001 to July 2002

  Lancashire LSC

  1,900

  4,100

  August 2002 to July 2003

  Lancashire LSC

  1,500

  3,300

  1TECs reported the figures years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year into line with academic years.

  Source

  TEC Management Information

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional funding will be earmarked for apprenticeships for people aged over 25 years in financial year 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [177013]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We and the LSC are working with SSCs and key partners towards initial trials of apprenticeships for adults in a small number of sectors in England starting later this year, funded in 2004–05 by the LSC with other agencies. Funds for expansion of apprenticeships for adults in 2005–06 and beyond will be subject to post-spending review allocations.

  Armed Forces Training Establishments
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate he has made of the inspection charge to be levied upon the Ministry of
  459W
  Defence under section 56(4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for the inspection and oversight of armed forces training establishments; [176319]

  (2) under what circumstances a training provider may limit the power of the Adult Learning Inspectorate to publish its findings as it considers appropriate; [176320]

  (3) what assurances have been given by the Ministry of Defence that inspectors attached to the Adult Learning Inspectorate will have all the powers available to them under section 57(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, with particular reference to (a) the right of entry to army barracks and (b) the right to access documents; [176321]

  (4) what assurances have been given by the Ministry of Defence that military orders will be issued to surrender personnel accused of obstructing an inspector acting under the authority of the Adult Learning Inspectorate; [176322]

  (5) what the composition is of the Board of the Adult Learning Inspectorate; what the qualifications of each board member are; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which those qualifications enable the Inspectorate to examine duty of care issues in military establishments. [176323]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Adult Learning Inspectorate. David Sherlock, the Chief Inspector, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Bullying
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the level of bullying in schools in the Vale of York, with particular reference to those within the City of York. [176688]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on bullying are not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Our guidance pack 'Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence' and the anti-bullying Charter and the anti-bullying website www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying. In November 2003 I launched our anti-bullying Charter for schools, which schools are now signing. It is accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies. The Charter was launched at the first of a series of regional conferences which have been running since November 2003 and culminate with a final conference in June. These conferences are an opportunity for schools and other partners to share good practice on this issue. Details of the conferences can be accessed online at www.teachernet.gov.uk/antibullying.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to tackle bullying in schools; what guidance his Department has issued to teachers and schools about the prevention of bullying; and if he will publish his guidance. [176689]
  460W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Bullying is a serious problem which puts the emotional well-being and educational achievement of pupils at risk. Schools should treat bullying seriously and take steps to combat it promptly and firmly whenever and wherever it occurs. From September 1999, head teachers of maintained schools have been under a duty to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils.

  In December 2000 we launched a guidance pack for schools with an accompanying video aimed at pupils. The pack is entitled 'Bullying: don't suffer in silence'. In September 2002 an updated version of this document was issued.

  There is also a new public information film, 'Tell Someone', to raise awareness and encourage children to tell someone if they are being bullied, and an anti-bullying website at www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying, which contains the text of the updated pack. The Department has also funded an expansion of the Parentline Plus free helpline for the parents of bullying victims (0808 800 2222). The key message of the strategy is that pupils should be able to report bullying to someone they trust and not suffer in silence.

  We have launched an anti-bullying 'Charter for Action' which all schools are encouraged to sign and which offers a series of practical suggestions for tackling bullying. The anti-bullying Charter went into every maintained school in England on 19 January 2004. Like all the rest of our anti-bullying guidance, this is published and in the public domain. For further information on the Department's work to counter bullying in schools can be found on our website at www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying.

  A further measure has been the 'Make The Difference' campaign, a series of anti-bullying conferences, one in each government office region. Eight have taken place, the last is on 14 June. These conferences allow head teachers in each region to share effective practise and benefit from leading national practice.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on the level of bullying in the Vale of York. [176690]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are unable to provide a breakdown of representations on the level of bullying in the Vale of York. We receive representations from individual parents about incidents of bullying but we do not analyse these by LEA.

  However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Our guidance pack 'Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence' and the anti-bullying Charter and the anti-bullying website www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying. In November 2003 I launched our anti-bullying Charter for schools, which schools are now signing. It is accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies. The Charter was launched at the first or a series of regional conferences which have been running since November 2003 and culminate with a final conference in June. These conferences are an opportunity for schools and other

  461W
  partners to share good practice on this issue. Details of the conferences can be accessed online at www.teachernet.gov.uk/antibullying.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much central funding was available to schools in the Vale of York in each of the past three years for programmes to combat bullying. [176691]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department does not disaggregate the money made available to schools for behaviour improvement. Within these budgets schools themselves make decisions on how much money to devote to anti-bullying work.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action has been taken in response to each recommendation in the report "Trust in the Future"—Bureaucracy Busting Task Force Report published in November 2002. [177374]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The implementation of the recommendations in this report is a matter for the LSC. Mark Haysom, the council's chief executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House library.

  Following the publication last month of their final report, "Extending Trust" the Bureaucracy Task Force has wound up. Last year we established a formal gatekeeper group for the learning and skills sector, the Bureaucracy Review Group, chaired by Sir Andrew Foster and this group is taking work to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy forward. The group is reviewing the key drivers in the learning and skills sector delivery systems and considering all new and changing initiatives before they impact on providers so it can assess their likely impact and seek changes that will remove existing unnecessary burdens and ensure new ones are not created.

  Centres of Vocational Excellence
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure on Centres of Vocational Excellence has been in each year since 1997. [176218]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council has made excellent progress in establishing a network of Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs). We aim to have a network of 400 CoVEs by March 2006. To date 262 centres have been established, which provide high quality training in a wide range of vocational specialisms to help meet employers' skills needs.

  The programme started in April 2001. Expenditure in each year is:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total expenditure

  2001–02

  1.8

  2002–03

  40

  2003–04

  78

  Total

  119.8

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what cross-departmental 462W
  coordination there has been between the Learning Skills Council and the regional development agencies in the creation and administration of the centres of vocational excellence. [176902]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The LSC has actively sought to engage Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in CoVE development at both strategic and operational levels.

  The RDAs contribute to future development of CoVEs through membership of the LSC's national CoVE Technical Steering Group, and all have been involved in planning and implementation of the programme at a regional level through their representation on regional CoVE advisory groups. RDAs are key to ensuring that CoVEs focus on meeting regional skills priorities and that regional CoVE development is coherent with regional economic strategies.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173355]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Skills adhere to the current Government guidelines for publishing documents on www.dfes.gov.uk and other departmental websites. Where possible, documents are provided in as many formats as possible to allow different users and systems access to the information.

  Documents are available in the following formats:

  Most commonly

  HTML (web pages)

  Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

  Microsoft Word (.doc)

  Rich Text Format (.rtf).

  Also used where appropriate

  Microsoft Excel (.xls)

  Comma Separated Variables (.csv)

  Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt)

  Plain Text (.txt).

  Out-of-date documents and pages on the DfES website are archived so they can be retrieved if needed. Publications that have been superseded by other information are noted as such.

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many incidents of pupils being caught with(a) drugs and (b) alcohol on school premises were recorded in each year since 1997. [176622]

  Mr. Miliband
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Education Funding (Brighton and Hove)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the funding per pupil was in the Brighton and Hove Local Education Authority in each year since 1997–98. [176575]
  463W
  Mr. Miliband
  The tables as follows show total funding per pupil in Brighton and Hove since 1997–98.

  Funding per pupil aged 3–19 Real terms at 2002–03 prices Brighton and Hove

  £

  Grants1

  EFS/SSA2

  Total funding

  1997–98

  120

  2,860

  2,980

  1998–99

  70

  2,950

  3,020

  1999–00

  160

  2,980

  3,140

  2000–01

  350

  3,030

  3,390

  2001–02

  440

  3,100

  3,530

  2002–03

  580

  3,030

  3,610

  2003–04

  530

  3,140

  3,670

  2004–05

  1—

  3,250

  1—

  1Not available

  There have been changes to the structure of Education Formula Spending (EPS) and Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) which make them incomparable over time—for example several large transfers from SSA/EFS to grant funding. Only total funding per pupil (including SSA/EFS and grants) is comparable between years. The pensions transfers to EFS and LSC in 2003–04 and 2004–05 are excluded from EFS and total funding figures to enable comparison between years.

  Language Training
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that non-English speaking spouses of UK citizens are given access to language training; and if he will make a statement. [176279]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision is a key part of Skills for Life: the Government's national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy. This provision is free to eligible learners and is widely available through further education colleges. A spouse of a UK citizen is eligible for Learning and Skills Council further education funding if they have been both married and resident in the UK for one year. These arrangements only apply to spouses from outside the European Union.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has received in each of the last three years on Merseyside; how much funding the LSC will receive in the next three years; and if he will express the figures in (i) whole numbers and (ii) the percentage annual increase or decrease in funding over those periods. [177262]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Lady with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Non-vocational Adult Learning Courses (Funding)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was made available 464W
  to support non-vocational adult learning courses (a) in this financial year and (b) in each of the past four years; and if he will make a statement. [177569]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have set out separately in the following tables the figures for expenditure and numbers of learners in (i) adult and community learning and adult education courses run through local education authorities; (ii) learndirect; and (iii) Skills for Life. Together these equate most closely to non-vocational adult learning courses.

  In the Skills Strategy White Paper, "21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential", Government reiterated and strengthened their commitment to adult and community learning We will help adults improve their basic skills in literacy, language and numeracy. We are also committed to safeguarding a varied range of learning opportunities for personal fulfilment, community development and active citizenship.

  Adult education classes

  Financial year

  Funding (£ million)1

  2000–01

  145

  2001–02

  153

  2002–03

  183

  2003–04

  206

  2004–05

  207.4

  1 Annual expenditure, by financial year, on adult and community learning run through local education authorities. The figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 include the budgets for Neighbourhood Learning and family learning, starting from a nil base in 2001–02.

  learndirect

  Academic year

  Funding (£million)

  2000/01

  49

  2001/02

  134

  2002/03

  171

  2003/04

  164

  2004/05

  164

  Skills for Life

  Academic year

  Funding (£ million)1

  2000/01

  165

  2001/02

  306

  2002/03

  409

  2003/04

  419

  2004/05

  430

  1 Annual expenditure by academic year, on adult basic skills. The figures for 2003/04 and 2004/05 are estimated figures rolled forward for inflation.

  School Standards
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were classified as failing in each year since 1996–97 in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough. [177041]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Secondary Schools
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many secondary schools are located in the 2000 most deprived local authority wards; and how many of these have specialist school status. [176897]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are 974 maintained secondary schools (excluding special schools and middle-deemed secondary schools) in the 2000 most deprived local authority wards, based on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation released in 2000. Of these, 384 are operational as specialist schools.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) set up and (b) estimated running costs in the first year of operation are of each sector skills council. [177379]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are private sector organisations. With one exception they are companies limited by guarantee. Their structures and costs are determined by the specific sectors they serve and vary significantly.

  We do not have detailed information about individual SSC costs. The Government, through the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA), will provides up to £400,000 towards the start up of each SSC and once licensed £4,000,000 towards their running costs for the first three years. These funds are not intended to cover all the costs of an SSC and each is expected to generate significant additional funding from their sector and elsewhere.

  Teachers' TV
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether further education lecturers will be included in Teachers' TV at its launch; and if he will make a statement. [177004]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has undertaken a feasibility study and pilot for Teachers' TV and will make a decision on a channel launch shortly. As part of this work, we have looked at how the channel could support the needs of people in both Early Years and the Further Education sector, as well as people who work in schools. If the channel proceeds it will have some programmes aimed at meeting the needs of FE lecturers.

  Truancy (Penalty Notices)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times head teachers and education welfare officers have enforced their right to

  Location

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a) Al Tyne Crossing, Newcastle

  81,700

  83,000

  86,100

  83,200

  81,900

  89,000

  (b) North East of West Road A1 Interchange

  79,200

  81,000

  84,400

  77,500

  86,400

  87,400

  (c) and (d) North East of Stamfordham Road A1 Interchange

  73,400

  76,000

  78,000

  78,000

  70,300

  —

  (e) South West of North Gosforth Al Interchange

  57,000

  59,100

  61,000

  59,900

  62,500

  64,900

  (f) South of A1/A19 Interchange North of Newcastle

  46,600

  47,700

  48,300

  48,300

  49,400

  49,400

  466W
  issue on-the-spot fines to parents of pupils who truant; and what the total revenue gained from payment of such fines is. [176799]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This initiative commenced on 27 February 2004 and information about the number of penalty notices issued for truancy or the revenue gained from payment of such fines is not collected centrally.

  Veterinary Nursing Training (Funding)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) for what reasons some learning and skills councils decline to fund veterinary nursing NVQ training; [177211]

  (2) which local learning and skills councils fund veterinary nurse training through work-based learning funding; [177212]

  (3) what the policy of the Learning and Skills Councils is on the funding of Veterinary Nursing NVQ training levels 2 and 3; [177399]

  (4) how further education training courses for veterinary nursing are funded in England. [177447]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for the planning and funding of further education and work-based learning for young people in England and decides whether it will fund individual qualifications through its national funding methodology. As the information requested relates to the LSC's operational responsibilities, the LSC's Chief Executive, Mark Haysom, will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  A1
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the traffic volumes at(a) the Al Tyne crossing Newcastle, (b) the West Road Al Interchange, (c) the Stainfordham Road A1 Interchange, (d) the Ponteland Road Al Interchange, (e) the North Gosforth A1 Interchange and (f) the A1/A19 Interchange north of Newcastle have been in each year since 1997. [176225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes at those locations nearest to(a) the A1 Tyne Crossing Newcastle, (b) the West Road A1 Interchange, (c) the Stamfordham Road A1 Interchange, (d) the Ponteland Road A1 Interchange, (e) the North Gosforth A1 Interchange, and (f) the A1/ A19 Interchange north of Newcastle in each year since 1997, where figures are available, are given in the table. Figures for 2003 have not yet been published.

  A595
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the preparation and design of the Lillyhall to Parton improvement on the A595 in West Cumbria; when comments on the draft orders will be considered; whether the scheme can be amended as a result; and if he will make a statement. [177100]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 545W. Since then, work has concentrated on preparing the draft orders under the Highways Act, and the accompanying Environmental Statement. This work is largely complete and these documents will be published later this year. This will mark the beginning of statutory procedures, during which time the public and those directly affected will have the opportunity to make representations to the Secretaries of State on the proposals. If necessary, a public inquiry will be held before an independent inspector to hear representations. Following the public inquiry, the inspector can recommend to the Secretaries of State that the draft orders be amended in the light of the public inquiry findings. On-going scheme progress would depend on the extent and scale of any such amendments and could require the re-publication of draft orders and another public inquiry.

  Bus/Cycle Lanes (Bury, North)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of(a) bus lanes and (b) cycle lanes designated on roads in Bury, North constituency in each of the last 10 years. [176700]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of bus lanes and cycle lanes designated on roads in Bury, North constituency in each of the last 10 years are tabled as follows:

  Number of cycle lanes

  Number of bus lanes

  1995

  0

  0

  1996

  2

  1

  1997

  2

  0

  1998

  1

  0

  1999

  2

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2001

  1

  0

  2002

  3

  0

  2003

  0

  0

  2004

  1

  0

  Cumulative total

  12

  1

  Freshford Station
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what meetings(a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues and officials (i) have held and (ii) plan to hold with representatives of (A) Network Rail, (B) the Health and Safety Executive and (C) other interested parties, with regard to Freshford station near Bath; and if he will make a statement; [177497]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the safety and accessibility of the station platform at Freshford station, Bath, (b) progress with the proposed changes to the platform and (c) the likely completion date of the changes; and if he will make a statement. [177498]
  468W
  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers and officials have had no meetings with interested parties regarding Freshford station. However, the Government's independent health and safety rail regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), has had a continued dialogue with Network Rail about their plans to raise a section of the platform at Freshford station near Bath. I understand that Network Rail will shortly provide further information to HMRI on plans to manage the risks from the operation of this scheme. This information will include how train operators plan to align train doors with the raised section of the platform. Once this information is received, HMRI anticipates being able to make a decision on Network Rail's proposal within a matter of days.

  Parking
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parking attendants(a) are employed and (b) were employed in 1999–2000 by local authorities (i) directly and (ii) indirectly through contractors. [177660]

  Mr. McNulty
  Statistics on the number of parking attendants employed by local authorities are not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) health visitors and (b) general practitioners are subject to parking restrictions while undertaking their professional duties; what rationale underlies his policy in this area; and if he will make a statement. [177613]

  Mr. McNulty
  Parking controls are determined by local traffic authorities taking into account local circumstances, including the need to ensure safety, relieve congestion and manage the space available for parking. Everyone is required to have regard to parking controls. Giving blanket exemptions from controls is likely to undermine their effectiveness.

  Local schemes may provide for dispensations for those whose duties necessarily take them into areas where parking controls are in force. For example, the Association of London Government runs the London-wide Health Emergency Badge scheme which confers parking privileges, such as free parking at meters and the ability to park on yellow lines, to doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors who are engaged in urgent or emergency health care away from their normal base. Local authorities outside London have their own arrangements for dispensations. The need to cater for the requirements of community health care visitors is an issue which my Department draws to the attention of authorities outside London applying for decriminalised parking enforcement powers.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effects of decriminalisation of illegal parking, with particular reference to the use of private contractors by local authorities for enforcement of parking regulations; and if he will make a statement. [177662]

  Mr. McNulty
  Research into the impact of decriminalised parking enforcement was carried out shortly after its introduction in the London boroughs of Bexley, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Westminster
  469W
  and outside London in the cities of Oxford and Winchester. In the case of Hammersmith and Fulham and Winchester, the parking attendants were directly employed by the authorities. In the other three cases, parking attendants were employed by contractors undertaking enforcement on behalf of the authorities. In all five cases, it was concluded that the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement had led to improved compliance with parking regulations. Further details of the research may be found in the following Transport Research Laboratory reports:
  "Special Parking Areas in London TRL Report 279 1997"
  "The Special Parking Area in the District of Winchester TRL Report 333 1998"
  he Special Parking Area in Oxford TRL Report 405 1999."

  Road Safety
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total number of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Bury, North constituency in each of the last 10 years. [176699]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. The number of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of the Bury local authority area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, are shown in the table. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer when I shall write to my hon. Friend with figures for Bury, North and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Killed

  Serious

  1993

  14

  79

  1994

  8

  90

  1995

  10

  73

  1996

  3

  68

  1997

  14

  60

  1998

  6

  29

  1999

  2

  49

  2000

  10

  40

  2001

  3

  51

  2002

  8

  53

  All

  78

  592

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Manchester, Central has been since 1997. [177694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. In the Manchester local authority area there were 32 deaths in road accidents in 1997 and 15 deaths in 2002, the latest year for which information is available. The number of serious injuries rose by 3 per cent. from 244 in 1997 to 252 in 2002. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituency will become

  Emissions

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Benzene

  Road vehicles-petrol

  Ktonnes

  22.4

  19.4

  16.6

  5.1

  4.8

  4.2

  Road vehicles-DERV

  Ktonnes

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Other sources

  Ktonnes

  12.5

  11.3

  10.8

  9.7

  9.6

  9.0

  Total

  Ktonnes

  35.1

  30.9

  27.6

  15.1

  14.6

  13.5

  1,3-Butadiene

  470W
  available in the summer, and I shall write to my hon. Friend with figures for Manchester, Central and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Traffic Levels
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the projected growth by 2010 from the 1990 base level of(a) car, (b) freight and (c) total traffic for the EU, broken down by country. [176037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available. The Department for Transport's projections for growth of road traffic in England, between 1990 and 2010, based on the National Transport Model, are set out in the table.

  With 10 year plan1,2 Index 1990 =100

  Cars and taxis

  134–140

  Goods vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes gvw)

  119

  Light goods vehicles

  169–170

  Buses and coaches

  122

  All motor traffic

  136–142

  1 The range reflects key uncertainties in the modelling relating to forecasts of factors that influence travel, such as how people's choices are influenced by income growth and changes in the relative costs of each mode. In some cases both ends of the range produce the same forecast.

  2 Growth between 1990 and 1993 is based on Great Britain data.

  Transport (Manchester, Central)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the expected effect of investment railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents in Manchester, Central. [177697]

  Mr. McNulty
  Residents of Manchester, Central will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February. The franchise secures investment of around £260 million, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region. A new northern franchise, which will include local and regional services through Manchester, has been tendered competitively. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see a reduction in journey times on services to/from Manchester and an increase in service frequency.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the common carcinogens emitted from petrol and diesel vehicles in the UK; and what tonnage of each was emitted in each year since 1997. [177479]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:
  471W

  Emissions

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Road vehicles-petrol

  Ktonnes

  4.3

  3.7

  3.1

  2.6

  2.1

  1.7

  Road vehicles-DERV

  Ktonnes

  1.7

  1.5

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  Other sources

  Ktonnes

  1.2

  1.1

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  0.9

  Total

  Ktonnes

  7.2

  6.3

  5.7

  4.8

  4.2

  3.7

  Benzo[a]pyrene1

  Road vehicles-petrol

  Kg

  854

  628

  469

  351

  273

  218

  Road vehicles-DERV

  Kg

  464

  422

  386

  348

  317

  291

  Other sources2

  Kg

  9,898

  8,692

  7,778

  5,993

  6,694

  5,866

  Total2

  Kg

  11,215

  9,742

  8,634

  6,692

  7,284

  6,375

  Dioxins3 and Furans

  Road vehicles-petrol

  Grammes-TEQ

  11.1

  8.2

  5.4

  4.6

  3.8

  3.0

  Road vehicles-DERV

  Grammes-TEQ

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  Other sources2

  Grammes-TEQ

  453.3

  386.9

  368.4

  313.4

  314.7

  307.0

  Total2

  Grammes-TEQ

  464.8

  395.5

  374.3

  318.4

  318.9

  310.5

  1Benzo[a]pyrene is one compound from the "polycyclic aromatichydrocarbon" (PAH) group. The carcinogenic potency of these PAH's vary, and so Benzo[a]pyrene is used as an indicator for the PAH group.

  2 Excludes emissions from natural fires

  3Dioxins and Furans are groups of compounds with different toxic potencies. Consequently, it is more representative to express the emissions in terms of "Toxic Equivalents" (TEQs). International Equivalents (I-TEQ) are used for these data.

TREASURY

  Departmental Annual Reports
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department issues on the content of departmental annual reports. [177602]

  Mr. Boateng
  A copy of the guidance for the 2004 departmental reports is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term(a) adult and (b) youth employment in Bootle over the last seven years. [177714]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Joe Benton, dated 9 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (177714)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Bootle Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The table gives total JSA claimants claiming for over 12 months and those aged 18 to 24-years-old claiming for over 12 months for the Bootle constituency. The figures are annual averages for each year since 1997. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  All ages

  18–24 years

  1997

  1,932

  377

  1998

  1,406

  254

  1999

  1,078

  54

  2000

  912

  16

  472W

  All ages

  18–24 years

  2001

  754

  10

  2002

  693

  14

  2003

  622

  20

  Note:

  Computerised claims only.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in each year since 1997 in Stoke-on-Trent, North. [177638]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Joan Walley, dated 9 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (177638)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation definitions. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Stoke-on-Trent North Constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including parliamentary constituencies.

  The table gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency for each year since 1997.

  Number

  1997

  1,750

  1998

  1,554

  1999

  1,669

  2000

  1,396

  2001

  1,367

  2002

  1,330

  2003

  1,281

  Tax Returns (Penalty Notices)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many penalty notices have been issued by the
  473W
  Inland Revenue to taxpayers for filing late tax returns which have subsequently been found to have been filed on time in each of the last five years. [177281]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Unemployment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the unemployment rates for the 55-plus age group in(a) Greater London and (b) each Greater London borough in each of the last five years. [177058]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 9 June 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. I am replying in his absence. (177058)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation de finitions.

  The attached table 1, gives unemployment rates for the 5 5-plus age group in Greater London covering the twelve month periods ending in February 1997, and each February from 2000 to 2003. Comparable information is currently not available for other years. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable information about unemployment in each Greater London borough.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Greater London Boroughs. Table 2 gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the age group 55 plus as a proportion of the resident population aged 55 to retirement age (55 to 64 for males, 55 to 59 for females) in Greater London and each Borough in Greater London for each year from 1999 to 2003. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Table 1: Unemployment rate1 for the 55-plus age group in Greater London—12 months ending February in 1997 and each February from 2000 to 2003

  Percentage

  1997

  9.3

  2000

  6.2

  2001

  5.7

  2002

  5.0

  1This is the percentage of the economically active population aged 16 and over who are unemployed.

  Note:

  Economically active population refers to those who are either unemployed or in employment.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey.

  Table 2: Jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 55 and over in the London boroughs

  Percentage of population2

  Annual averages

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  20031

  Barking and Dagenham

  2.5

  2.2

  1.9

  2.1

  2.4

  Barnet

  2.2

  1.8

  1.6

  1.9

  2.0

  Bexley

  1.9

  1.4

  1.3

  1.4

  1.7

  Brent

  3.8

  2.9

  2.4

  2.4

  2.6

  Bromley

  1.7

  1.4

  1.3

  1.5

  1.6

  Camden

  4.6

  3.7

  3.2

  3.6

  3.6

  City of London

  2.5

  1.8

  1.7

  1.5

  1.7

  Croydon

  2.8

  2.4

  2.1

  2.2

  2.1

  Ealing

  2.7

  2.1

  1.8

  2.0

  2.1

  474W

  Table 2: Jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 55 and over in the London boroughs

  Percentage of population2

  Annual averages

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  20031

  Enfield

  3.2

  2.7

  2.3

  2.3

  2.4

  Greenwich

  3.5

  3.4

  2.9

  3.2

  3.1

  Hackney

  5.8

  4.5

  3.5

  3.6

  4.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4.3

  3.8

  3.0

  3.2

  3.4

  Haringey

  5.2

  4.6

  3.6

  3.3

  3.4

  Harrow

  2.5

  1.9

  1.5

  1.6

  1.7

  Havering

  1.7

  1.6

  1.2

  1.4

  1.5

  Hillingdon

  1.7

  1.3

  1.2

  1.4

  1.8

  Hounslow

  1.8

  1.3

  1.0

  1.5

  1.5

  Islington

  5.7

  4.3

  3.7

  3.7

  4.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.7

  2.3

  1.7

  1.8

  2.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2.0

  1.6

  1.1

  1.3

  1.5

  Lambeth

  5.5

  5.0

  4.5

  4.5

  4.5

  Lewisham

  4.4

  3.9

  3.4

  3.3

  3.5

  Merton

  2.7

  2.0

  1.7

  2.1

  2.5

  Newham

  4.2

  3.5

  2.9

  2.6

  2.6

  Redbridge

  2.3

  2.1

  1.6

  1.7

  1.7

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2.0

  1.7

  1.4

  1.7

  1.9

  Southwark

  4.6

  4.3

  3.7

  3.9

  4.3

  Sutton

  1.7

  1.4

  1.1

  1.6

  1.7

  Tower Hamlets

  5.5

  4.9

  3.9

  3.6

  3.7

  Waltham Forest

  3.4

  3.0

  2.6

  2.8

  3.1

  Wandsworth

  3.8

  3.4

  2.9

  2.9

  3.0

  Westminster, City of

  3.4

  2.9

  2.5

  2.5

  2.6

  1 Based on the 2001 resident population.

  2 Claimant count figures as the percentage of the resident population aged 55 to retirement age

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Administrative system Claimant count proportions using mid—2002.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amount of funding his Department has budgeted to cover the childcare element of working tax credit in 2003–04 and 2004–05; and if he will make a statement; [177516]

  (2) how many families or women with a child under the age of (a) one year and (b) six months are in receipt of the childcare element of the working tax credit; and if he will make a statement; [177519]

  (3) what estimate has been made of the take-up rate of the childcare element of working tax credit as a percentage of those families and single parents who are eligible to receive it since the benefit was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [177520]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the cost of the childcare element of the working tax credit, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 866W.

  About 25,000 families with a child under one were benefiting from the childcare element at 5 April 2004, of which 5,000 had a child aged under six months. These are estimates based on a sample of cases and should be treated with caution. Also, they exclude such families who had not claimed tax credits, or had not notified the Inland Revenue of the young child or of the childcare costs, by 5 April 2004—they have three months to claim and benefit in full. They also exclude families whose initial claim, or change of circumstance, was being processed at that date.

  Estimates of the take-up rate requested would have to be based on household survey data. These surveys contain too few sample cases to produce reliable estimates.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers(a) have been issued in each year since 1992, (b) have been extinguished in each year since 1992 and (c) have been current in each year since 1992. [177533]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is as follows:

  Total allocated

  Total deleted

  Increase per year

  19921

  9,765,000

  21,000

  9,744,000

  19931

  3,292,000

  19,000

  3,273,000

  1994

  1,057,000

  15,000

  1,042,000

  1995

  1,008,000

  16,000

  992,000

  19962

  979,000

  55,000

  924,000

  19972

  1,018,000

  58,000

  960,000

  19982

  1,027,000

  38,000

  989,000

  19992

  1,023,000

  61,000

  962,000

  20002

  996,000

  182,000

  814,000

  2001

  928,000

  100,000

  828,000

  2002

  1,082,000

  4,000

  1,078,000

  2003

  1,142,000

  4,000

  1,138,000

  Up to 30 April 2004

  411,000

  1,000

  410,000

  1The allocation of Child Reference Numbers (CRN's) commenced in May 1992. From that date to February 1993 Child Benefit Branch allocated NINO's for all children hence the large number of created records during this period.

  2 High number of deletions due to Data Cleaning Project which targeted duplicate NINO's/invalid NINO's.

  Note:

  These figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the Health and Safety Executive's employees based in offices outside London travel to work by car; and how many HSE offices have green travel plans in place. [176720]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information about travel to work is not available.

  There are no green travel plans in place at present for any of HSE's offices. A green travel plan for HSE's London Headquarters will be published shortly. A plan will be put in place at HSE's Merseyside Centre when HSE moves to its new PFI building next year. Further travel plans for HSE field offices will be implemented thereafter.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the capital cost is of the new headquarters of the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle; what the anticipated revenue costs in its first full year of operation are; and what the current building's annual revenue costs are in Bootle. [176721]

  Jane Kennedy
  The capital cost of the new headquarters of the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle, procured under the Private Finance Initiative, is £58.3 million (2003 prices) comprising £57 million on construction which is being met by the contractor and £1.3 million land purchase. The anticipated revenue costs in its first full year of operation from 2005 are £7.4 million (2005 prices). The annual revenue costs of current buildings in Bootle are £4.4 million (2004 prices).
  476W
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Health and Safety Executive North West region spent on casual staff in the region in financial year 2003–04. [176723]

  Jane Kennedy
  Expenditure on agency staff in the financial year 2003–04 in the North West Division was £143,352.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals the Health and Safety Executive will be bringing forward to introduce workplace-based parking charges. [176726]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Health and Safety Executive has no current proposals to introduce workplace-based parking charges.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make the Health and Safety Executive deputising allowance and day subsistence allowances inflation-proof; and what these allowances are(a) per hour and (b) per day at present. [176727]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not the Health and Safety Executive's policy to directly link deputising allowance and day subsistence to inflation.

  Deputising allowance is paid at a rate of 6 per cent. of the maximum of the pay range for the relevant higher job band, converted to an hourly rate. Pay range maxima are subject to annual negotiation with HSE Trade Unions. The rate of inflation influences the negotiations.

  Day subsistence is a flat rate allowance based on the levels of average expenditure incurred by members of staff when they are away from their office on official business. These rates are reviewed annually with HSE Trade Unions.

  The rate payable depends on the duration of absence:
  £4.90 for over 5 hours
  £9.30 for over 10 hours
  £14.20 for over 12 hours.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of children in households with incomes below 60 per cent. of median income(a) before and (b) after housing costs (i) on the old equivalence scale and (ii) on the proposed new equivalence scale in the latest year for which figures are available. [177557]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the following table.

  Number of children below various thresholds of contemporary income in 2002–03

  Number (million)

  McClements Equivalisation (60 per cent. median)

  Before Housing Costs

  2.6

  After Housing Costs

  3.6

  OECD Equivalisation (60 per cent. median)

  Before Housing Costs

  2.9

  Notes:

  1. The Households Below Average Income (HBAI) presents statistics on the proportion of children in low income households on both the McClements and modified OECD equalisation scales.

  477W
  2. The modified OECD equivalence scale focuses on income before housing costs. We are adopting this income equalisation scale for the new long-term child poverty measure from 2004–05 so we can credibly benchmark our performance internationally.

  3. The existing PSA to reduce by a quarter the number of children living in low income by 2004–05 uses the McClements Equivalence scale, and reports both before and after housing costs.

  4. The Government recognises the continuing interest in results for income after housing costs. HBAI, a National Statistics publication, will continue to publish results both for income before housing costs, and for income alter housing costs. These will also continue to be published in "Opportunity for all". Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent estimate his Department has made of the number of pensioners not claiming each means-tested benefit for which they are eligible, broken down by(a) benefit and (b) Government region. [177526]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested as estimates by government region are not available.

  The latest national estimates of the number of pensioners in Great Britain who are eligible, but not receiving income related benefits relate to financial year 2001–02. These cover the minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit and are published in the DWP report entitled "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 2001–02". A copy of the publication is held in the Library.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many schemes with insufficient assets to secure their guaranteed minimum pensions have expressed an interest to(a) his Department and (b) other Government bodies in having their state pension fully reinstated; how many schemes have been treated as qualifying for this; how many schemes have had their state benefits reinstated; and how many members of these schemes have received their reinstated benefits. [177559]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A member of a contracted-out defined benefit occupational pension scheme that winds up with insufficient resources to secure accrued benefits in full may have their state scheme rights restored by a process known as "deemed buyback", operated by the Inland Revenue. In order to qualify both the scheme and the member must meet certain conditions.

  To date, the Inland Revenue have had 59 schemes express an interest in "deemed buyback". Of these schemes, 33 have formally requested calculations and the Inland Revenue have agreed that all 33 schemes meet the qualifying conditions. Eight of these have been issued with the calculations necessary to allow the scheme to determine whether each member meets the criteria. The Inland Revenue are working with the remaining 25 schemes to finalise the required details before calculations can be issued.
  478W
  It is individual scheme members who qualify for "deemed buyback" and it is the decision of the member whether to have their state scheme rights re-instated.

  Trustees use the calculations issued by the Inland Revenue as part of the process to determine whether individuals can apply for "deemed buyback". As yet no-one is receiving reinstated benefits.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority expects to have in place a fully developed risk model that targets schemes where funds may be at risk as recommended by the Committee of Public Accounts in its 15th Report of 2002–03. [177254]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the light of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) has been seeking, within the framework of its statutory powers and obligations, to refocus its resources on issues that present a real risk to members' benefits. In October 2003, Opra published revised guidance to scheme professionals on the reporting of breaches: statutory whistleblowers (scheme auditors and actuaries) are now expected to consider the nature and impact of any breach they identify before deciding whether or not to make a report to the authority. In May 2004, Opra also issued revised guidance to non-statutory whistleblowers. Copies of Opra's latest guidance to both statutory and non-statutory whistleblowers (Opra Note 1 and Opra Note 6, respectively) are available in the Library.

  On 11 February, the Government published the Pensions Bill 2004, which proposes to replace Opra with a new regulatory body—The Pensions Regulator—from April 2005.

  The Bill provides that the Pensions Regulator, in accordance with the recommendations of the 15th Report of 2002—03 of the Committee of Public Accounts will have statutory objectives to protect the benefits of members of work-based pension schemes and to promote, and improve the understanding of, the good administration of such schemes. The proposals contained within the Pensions Bill will enable the Pensions Regulator to target its resources on the areas that pose the greatest risk to members' benefits.

  The new Pensions Regulator will begin operating its risk model from the organisation's inception, and will develop it as its information base improves. To prepare the ground, the Department is currently working with Opra to identify the information and analysis needed to give effect to a fully risk-focused approach as quickly as possible.

  Road Accidents
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in reviewing the Road Traffic Accident Fixed Costs Scheme in order to consider its extension to the employers' liability insurance market. [176976]
  479W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Constitutional Affairs leads on the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) Fixed Costs Scheme. The Civil Justice Council will conduct the formal evaluation of this scheme at the end of 2005.

  The Government have built on the momentum generated by the RTA Fixed Costs Scheme and has been working towards getting stakeholder agreement on fixed success fees for Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) cases run under Conditional Fee Agreements. It is hoped that this agreement will be implemented by October 2004.

  Discussions with stakeholders will continue to consider fixed legal costs for ELCI claims.

  Work-focused Interviews
  booked—Integrated offices

  Calendar year

  Jobseeker

  Lone parent

  Sick and disabled

  Carers

  Other

  2001

  20,450

  1,310

  4,090

  360

  1,080

  2002

  131,610

  10,500

  28,710

  3,460

  6,600

  2003

  390,880

  37,960

  84,380

  10,110

  15,370

  2004

  88,980

  9,310

  19,040

  2,210

  3,050

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Database (to February 2004)

  Work-focused Interviews
  attended—Integrated offices

  Calendar year

  Jobseeker

  Lone parent

  Sick and disabled

  Carers

  Other

  2001

  19,510

  1,280

  3,970

  440

  1,040

  2002

  121,570

  9,730

  25,620

  3,210

  5,950

  2003

  356,470

  34,950

  75,890

  9,350

  13,930

  2004

  79,860

  8,550

  17,180

  1,790

  2,740

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Database (to February 2004).

  Lone parent work-focused interviews-Non-integrated offices and stock

  Calender year

  Booked New/Repeat

  Attended Stock

  Total

  New/Repeat

  Stock

  Total

  2001

  68,560

  36,260

  104,820

  58,290

  25,790

  84,090

  2002

  130,140

  100,600

  230,740

  117,220

  76,860

  194,080

  2003

  178,410

  182,930

  361,340

  159,610

  161,300

  320,910

  Source:

  NDLP evaluation database (data to December 2003).

  Lorry Loader Cranes
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what health and safety regulations and guidance are in place governing the operation of lorry loader cranes. [176763]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 all apply to the operation of lorry loader cranes. The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 also apply if the crane is being used in a place where construction activities are taking place, and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 apply if the crane is being used in any other workplace. All of these Regulations are supported by guidance and, where relevant, approved codes of practice.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) fatal and (b) non-fatal accidents there were in each of the last five years involving lorry loader cranes. [176764]

  Work-focused Interviews
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have(a) been invited to attend work-focused interviews and (b) attended work-focused interviews in each year for which figures are available, broken down by category of claimant. [177535]

  Jane Kennedy
  Work-focused interviews are conducted nationally for lone parents as part of the lone parent work-focused interview regime and in integrated offices for all customer groups.

  The information requested is in the following tables by calendar year:

  Jane Kennedy
  Incidents involving lorry loader cranes have only been separately available since 2001–02. The available statistics are set out in the table.

  Table 1: The number of injuries involving lorry loader cranes, as reported to HSE and local authorities, 2001–02 to 2002–03

  Employee

  Self employed

  Public

  fatal injuries

  2001–02

  1

  —

  1

  2002–031

  2

  1

  1

  Non-fatal injuries

  2001–02

  484

  7

  4

  2002–031

  462

  12

  3

  1 Provisional

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Government plan to increase the current health and safety requirements for those who operate lorry loader cranes; and if he will make a statement. [176765]
  481W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have no plans at present to increase current health and safety requirements for those operating lorry loader cranes.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the official meetings his predecessor had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 to discuss pension issues in London; and what the(a) dates and (b) subject of each meeting was. [174349]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is no record of my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Darling), holding any official meetings with the Mayor of London between July 2000 and May 2002.

  Public Swimming Pools
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce legislation to improve health and safety standards at public swimming pools. [177123]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to introduce additional legislation. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcement of health and safety legislation in Great Britain. In the autumn of 2003, it revised and republished the guidance on 'Managing health and safety in swimming pools'. The revision brings the guidance up-to-date with changes in health and safety law and new developments in equipment and facilities. This guidance provides practical advice on how to comply with the law relating to health and safety in swimming pools.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of small businesses with more than five employees that are complying with legislation to provide workers with access to a stakeholder pension. [167507]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of compliance levels since the introduction of stakeholder pensions have been based on cumulative quarterly data from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) that have now become out of date. More recent data from the 2003 Employers Pension Provision Survey and from the DTI Small Business Service has enabled us to update our estimate of the level of compliance with the requirement for employers with five or more staff to offer their workers access to a stakeholder pension scheme. On the basis of these we estimate the level of compliance as just over 80 per cent.

  We will continue to work with employers so they are aware of the important role they play in helping their employees provide for their retirement. The Government believe that everyone should have the best information, support and opportunity to enable them to make informed choices about how they work and save to achieve their desired retirement income. The workplace is an important focal point for such activity. We will therefore work with employers to make it easier for them to promote good schemes in the workplace, to extend the issue of combined forecasts of state and
  482W
  private pension entitlement and to establish the best ways of ensuring that their employees have access to a decent standard of pension information.

  Vulnerable Customers (Payments by Cheque)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written statement of 11 May 2004,Official Report, columns 6–7WS, on vulnerable customers (payments by cheque), whether claimants who report late or missing payments will automatically be informed that emergency payments can be made to them both inside and outside of post office opening hours. [177436]

  Mr. Pond
  We will ensure that people get the money they are entitled to. Where a cheque payment does not arrive by the due payday, the customer should initially contact the office, which normally pays their benefit or pension. Arrangements for replacement payments will vary depending upon the individual circumstances and needs of each customer.

  Paying by cheque is a well-established method of payment that the Department has used successfully since 1968. We already have procedures in place for dealing with missing payments. We will ensure they continue to meet the needs of those customers paid by cheque.

  Customers reporting non-receipt of a cheque will be provided with all information and guidance they need about collection and cashing of replacement payments where this is appropriate.

WALES

  Dentistry
  11. Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Secretaries on funding for dentistry in Wales. [177364]

  Mr. Hain
  Health care in Wales, including dentistry, is a matter that I frequently discuss in my regular meetings with the Assembly First Minister.

  Tax Credits
  12. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the take-up of tax credits in Wales. [177365]

  Mr. Touhig
  The take-up of tax credits has been successful in Wales. There were 245,000 families in Wales receiving tax credits on 5 April this year, and this includes almost 228,000 families with around 400,000 children.

  NHS Waiting Times
  13. Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales about progress in reducing NHS waiting times. [177366]
  483W
  Mr. Hain
  I regularly meet the Assembly First Minister and the health service in Wales is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [175369]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been no inward secondments to the Wales Office from the private and academic sectors during the last three years.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many journeys were made by helicopter by each Minister in his Department and its predecessors in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175733]

  Mr. Hain
  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Since the establishment of the Wales Office in 1999, my predecessor and I have made a total of two helicopter flights:
  in 2002, my predecessor had 30-minute flight from Cardiff to Swansea during an official visit to Wales of Commissioner Prodi; and
  in 2003, I had a 15-minute demonstration flight as part of a ministerial visit to a Cardiff based helicopter company.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost of the Welsh Assembly to the public purse was estimated to be at the commencement of the project. [174033]

  Mr. Hain
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill estimated that the additional running costs to the Assembly would be £15 to £20 million more than the costs of running the Welsh Office.

  There has been no increase in the block grant to Wales to meet the additional costs of devolution.

  Any additional administrative costs arising from devolution are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Smoking Ban
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Health Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales on introducing a ban on smoking in public places in Wales. [177362]

  Mr. Hain
  My hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues across Government and with the Assembly about a number of issues, including those relating to smoking.

  Welsh Language
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his policy to propose that Welsh be awarded official language status within the European Union. [177367]

  Mr. Touhig
  At home they say Welsh is the language of Heaven. But I am afraid I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and tell him that there are no plans to make Welsh an official language of the European Union.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Directorships (FTSE 100)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has for introducing(a) legislation and (b) other initiatives to encourage the appointment of more women as (a) executive directors and (b) non-executive directors to the boards of FTSE 100 companies; and if she will make a statement. [175927]

  Ms Hewitt
  Board appointments are a matter for companies and their nomination committees and shareholders. The Government recognises the need for all board members to be recruited on merit.

  The Higgs Review drew attention to the importance of a rigorous selection process. As a consequence, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC)'s Combined Code, issued in July 2003 contains revised principles and provisions in this area.

  Following publication of the Higgs and Tyson reports, a series of roundtable meetings were organised by my Department in partnership with several leading companies. This took forward discussion with Chairs, Chief Executives and senior figures from business, to raise awareness about the business case for greater diversity on boards and to gather examples of good practice.

  We have also commissioned research to assess the current representation of directors from diverse backgrounds on FTSE 100 boards. This research has now been completed and will inform our thinking in this are which is one to which my right hon. Friend and I attach great importance.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Certification Officer
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner)
  I have today announced the publication of the Annual Report 2002–03 of the Certification Officer for Northern Ireland and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Award for Voluntary Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am pleased to report that this year's winners of the Queen's Awards for Voluntary Service (previously known as the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award) were announced on Wednesday 2 June.

  This prestigious annual Award for groups of volunteers has been given this year to 110 groups whose outstanding voluntary activity has enhanced and improved the quality of life and opportunity for others in the community. The Government actively supports the work of the voluntary and community sector and are encouraging more people to participate in community activity. This Award will give some of those people the recognition they richly deserve. The details of the winning groups are as follows:

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  East Midlands

  1

  Derbyshire Dales Careline

  making a daily telephone call to vulnerable, isolated, elderly and housebound people to provide information and conversation.

  2

  Inspiration FM

  encouraging BME communities and disadvantaged people in Northampton to get involved in community radio.

  3

  Meridale Organisation

  Providing a community hall in Sutton-on-Sea for educational, leisure and charity fundraising activities.

  4

  Radford Care Group

  supporting older people in Nottingham living at home independently.

  5

  SOLVE IT

  promoting awareness of the consequences of volatile substance abuse to young people in Northamptonshire.

  6

  TASC Grub Club

  providing Northampton young people, aged 8 upwards, with opportunities to improve their personal and life skills.

  8WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  7

  The Winchester Club

  providing opportunities for adults with disabilities in Derby to interact and organise their own group outings.

  East of England

  8

  Colchester Rape Crisis Line

  Providing support services for women and young people in Colchester and surrounding areas who have experienced sexual violence.

  9

  Community Meeting Point—Harpenden

  Providing recreational and leisure facilities and activities for People with mental health problems.

  10

  Fledglings

  providing a unique nationwide information and practical support service for disabled people, particularly children, their families and carers.

  11

  Hertfordshire MS Therapy Centre

  providing support, counselling, advice and therapeutic services to MS sufferers.

  12

  Lowestoft Civic Society—Heritage Workshop Centre

  preserving the heritage of Lowestoft and district and providing employment for students, unemployed people and those with special needs.

  13

  March and Chatteris Talking Newspaper Association

  providing recorded tapes and tactile reading matter to visually impaired and physically handicapped people in the local community

  14

  Mind Resource Centre Volunteer Group

  Supporting people with severe and enduring mental illness in Norwich, enabling them to live self-supporting lives.

  15

  Mitalee Youth Association

  Providing sports, arts and educational opportunities to young people in Luton from disadvantaged backgrounds.

  16

  Stalham Brass Band

  Encouraging people of all ages to gain traditional skills as brass musicians and providing entertainment at local activities and charity events.

  17

  The Fragile X Society

  Providing support and information to Fragile X families, raising awareness and encouraging research into the syndrome.

  18

  Young Citizens Guild

  Encouraging young people in Great Yarmouth to become better citizens through participation in activities and local events.

  19

  Youth Plus

  Encouraging and supporting young people with learning disabilities in Ongar to be actively involved in the community

  Guernsey

  20

  The Guernsey Society for the Physically Disabled

  assisting with the provision of facilities for the Physically disabled and those with learning difficulties through activities and fund-raising.

  Isle of Man

  21

  Manx Blind Welfare Society Volunteer services

  providing support and services for people with visual impairment.

  Jersey

  22

  Headway Jersey

  providing information and support for people with brain injuries, their relatives and carers.

  London

  23

  African Youth Organisation

  advancing the education of children and young people in Newham, including African culture and moral development.

  9WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  24

  Age Exchange

  improving the quality of life of older people through emphasising the value of their reminiscences.

  25

  Brent Indian Community Centre

  providing services to the Asian community in Brent and encouraging young people to appreciate their heritage.

  26

  Genuine Empowerment of Mothers in Society

  providing advice, advocacy and support to women from disadvantaged and marginalised communities in London.

  27

  NSF Sunrise—Greenwich group of 'Rethink'

  supporting through mutual self-help, seriously mentally ill people, their carers and relatives.

  28

  Save the World Club

  encouraging people of all ages in Kingston-upon-Thames to take pride in their neighbourhood through civic awareness and the promotion of the sustainable use of resources.

  29

  Somali Family Support Group

  providing information, advocacy and advice to Somalis and other East Africans living in London.

  30

  The Cocktail Crew

  visiting oncology and orthopaedic patients in Charing Cross and Hammersmith Hospitals, serving them nutritional supplementary drinks.

  31

  The Food Chain

  providing nutritious services for housebound London residents with AIDS related illnesses.

  32

  The British Red Cross Skin Camouflage Service

  assisting people in London, coping with a disfigurement, and providing support and advice on skin camouflage techniques

  North East

  33

  Barnados SECOS Project

  providing counselling to children aged 12–10 years in Middlesbrough, abused through prostitution, promoting their well-being and exit from that lifestyle

  34

  Pennywell Community Association

  providing a full range of activities for local residents in Sunderland and addressing their needs.

  35

  Stockton Blind People's Voice

  working to achieve equality for blind and visually impaired people in the Borough.

  36

  Weardale Open Air Swimming Pool Association

  providing affordable water-based activities for the community and its visitors.

  North West

  37

  Bolton Hospice Volunteer Team

  achieving quality of life for patients and their families through administrative help, support, transport and fundraising.

  38

  Connect

  improving services for disabled children and supporting their families in St Helens

  39

  Mothers Against Violence

  addressing factors leading to gang involvement through an education programme in Manchester, supporting victims and offenders.

  40

  Northern Fells Group

  organising services, events and activities to benefit the welfare of residents of seven rural parishes in Cumbria

  41

  Sahara in Preston

  supporting Asian and African-Caribbean women to participate in the social/economic life of their community.

  42

  Volunteers of St John's Hospice Lancaster

  maintaining the quality of life for those facing life threatening illnesses through a wide range of voluntary activities.

  10WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  43

  Stockport Plaza Trust

  providing a venue for community arts and fundraising events and support for restoration of a Grade 2* listed super cinema.

  44

  Sundowns

  supporting Downs Syndrome families in Wirrel and South Wirral through events, activities and a newsletter.

  45

  The Blacon Project

  building a better Blacon through the active involvement of the community to find local solutions to local problems.

  46

  The PIP Project

  working for the social inclusion of children and young people with special needs living in Blackpool and surrounding areas.

  Northern Ireland

  47

  Carnany Community Association

  enhancing the lives of residents through environmental projects, clubs and events.

  48

  Moree Community Association

  developing and enhancing community spirit through cultural activities, education and support.

  49

  Simon Community Outspoken Group

  raising awareness of homeless issues in Northern Ireland through peer education.

  50

  The Bann Recorder

  providing a news service for visually impaired people in County Down.

  51

  The Share Holiday Village Volunteer Team

  providing a centre for creative, recreational and educational programmes for disabled and non-disabled people.

  Scotland

  52

  Alness Environmental Group/Alness in Bloom

  undertaking environmental projects within community gardens and provision of floral displays to enhance Alness town centre.

  53

  Deveron Stroke Club

  providing social and therapeutic help to stroke sufferers in Banff, Turriff and surrounding area, their families and carers.

  54

  Envirokirn Action Group

  maintaining the local natural environment in Kirn, through projects and fundraising for the benefit of residents and tourists.

  55

  Friends

  improving the local environment in Stevenston through creative projects for young people.

  56

  GAIN (Guth Airson/Iarrtasan Nis)

  encouraging social and leisure activities on the Isle of Lewis including environmental awareness.

  57

  Inverclyde Carers Council

  representing the interests and aspirations of local voluntary carers with training and support.

  58

  Johnstone Credit Union Volunteers—People helping people

  providing not-for-profit financial services to the community in Renfrewshire

  59

  Orkney Talking Newspaper Association

  providing tapes of local newspaper articles for visually impaired and physically disabled residents in the community.

  60

  The Food Train

  providing a low cost shopping delivery service for elderly and disabled people in Dumfries and Galloway.

  61

  Samaritans of Glasgow

  providing emotional support to those in the community who have feelings of distress or despair, including those which may lead to suicide.

  62

  The Yellow Teapot Club

  providing a club for children with special needs aged 6–16 years in West Lothian.

  63

  Youth United

  campaigning and applying for funding for projects and facilities for young people in Airdrie.

  11WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  South East

  64

  Bucks Search and Rescue

  providing training, search and rescue and related emergency services for Buckinghamshire County Council and Thames Valley Police.

  65

  Caring All Together on Romney Marsh

  supporting older and vulnerable people through friendship, support and advice.

  66

  Court Meadow Group Riding for the Disabled Association

  providing riding as therapy for pupils aged 2–19 who have severe learning difficulties.

  67

  Golden Lion Children's Trust

  supporting mentally and physically disabled and socially disadvantaged children in West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent and Surrey.

  68

  Goring Gap News

  reporting on local news, events and featuring items of interest through a monthly magazine.

  69

  Harmony Variety Group

  organising after school clubs in Kent for children of all abilities and needs, encouraging talent and confidence, through performing arts.

  70

  Oakhaven Voluntary Services Group

  supporting hospice staff by providing a service to members of the community suffering from life limiting illnesses.

  71

  Saturday Club for Deaf Children

  providing activities for children aged 5–18 living on the Isle of Wight to develop their social skills, language and confidence.

  72

  Shepway Volunteer Centre Transport Service

  transporting housebound, disabled and elderly residents to appointments and social activities, improving their quality of life

  73

  Starmaker Theatre Company

  providing a centre for young people to develop and gain stage skills through workshops and fundraising events it Reading.

  74

  Surrey Witness Service

  providing an independent, free and confidential service to victims and witnesses at court.

  75

  The Fountain Centre

  caring for physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of patients and their families in the St Luke's Cancer Centre in Guildford.

  76

  The Pitstop

  a daytime drop-in centre for the homeless, unemployed and socially isolated in Leatherhead and surrounding communitied.

  77

  Volunteer Bureau—Banbury and District

  placing Volunteers with local organisations and providing the elderly with transport for appointments.

  South West

  78

  All Saints Church Community Centre

  creating a centre for excellence for statutory voluntary groups, especially those which are marginalized.

  79

  Community Health Around Torpoint

  providing a focal point for community concerns, resources and information, run by volunteers.

  80

  Disability Action Group in North Dorset

  providing direct action to help disabled persons overcome everyday problems.

  81

  Friends and Residents of Grange Community Association

  enhancing the lives of residents and providing advice, social and recreational facilities.

  82

  FORGE

  meeting the needs of visually impaired people in the Forest of Dean.

  83

  Kennet Gateway Club

  providing a social meeting place in Pewsey for adults with learning difficulties.

  12WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  84

  MARAH

  befriending and supporting homeless people and those with alcohol, drug and mental illness problems in Stroud.

  85

  South Gloucestershire Asian Project

  improving the lives of Asian people through provision of services and a focus for events.

  86

  The Home Furniture Service Trust

  supplying recycled furniture and household goods, offered at affordable prices, to low income residents in Taunton Deane.

  87

  The North Devon Maritime Museum

  maintaining a museum for local residents and visitors to Appledore through fundraising and events.

  88

  The Vassall Centre Trust

  providing accessible workspace for organisations of disabled people living in and around Bristol.

  89

  The Villager Community Bus Service

  providing extensive, reliable and economical transport for residents of 65 villages in the North Cotswolds.

  Wales

  90

  Cymrod CLWB Teithio Dwyfor Travel Club

  providing a local community transport service for people unable to use public transport in Dwyfor.

  91

  Fernhill Association of Residents

  representing the community in Mountain Ash and improving their quality of life and well-being.

  92

  Powys Challenge

  reducing crime and the fear of crime, making Powys a safer place.

  93

  St Kentigern Hospice Volunteers

  providing support to patients and families through friendship, transport assistance and community fund raising.

  94

  Special Needs Activity Club

  providing a social club in Neath, Port Talbot for children with disabilities to include their siblings and support for parents.

  95

  Swffryd Community Centre

  promoting the well-being of the community by furthering health, education and recreational activities.

  96

  Treborth Riding for the Disabled

  providing disabled people with riding facilities to benefit their health and well-being.

  West Midlands

  97

  Birmingham Chinese Society

  assisting the integration of the Chinese and Oriental community into mainstream society.

  98

  Cheadle and District Home Link Scheme

  assisting elderly and housebound people to maintain a dignified independence in their own homes.

  99

  No Panic

  providing relief and rehabilitation for those with anxiety disorders in Shropshire through a confidential helpline and tele-conferencing.

  100

  Shades of Black Community Family Project

  enhancing care in the community in Handsworth through social activities, including cultivation of an allotment for the benefit of senior citizens.

  101

  St Giles Hospice Volunteers

  providing assistance with palliative care services and helping to improve the quality of patients' lives.

  102

  Tamworth Handicapped Swimming Club (The Unicorns)

  providing recreational, teaching and competitive swimming opportunities for disabled people.

  103

  The Bradby Club

  providing a safe meeting place for young people in Rugby with educational, social and cultural recreational opportunities.

  13WS

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  104

  Age Concern Knaresborough

  providing care and support to disadvantaged and older people in the community.

  105

  Calderdale Help in Bereavement Service

  providing a free and confidential befriending service for the bereaved.

  106

  Indian Muslim Welfare Society (IMWS)

  providing a centre in Batley for interfaith events, helping to portray a positive image and address the needs of Muslims in British Society.

  107

  Pooh Bear Reading Assistance Society

  providing trained volunteer support to build confidence and reading skills of local children through sharing and enjoying books.

  108

  Pudsey Gateway Club

  offering social and leisure activities to people with learning difficulties.

  109

  St Wilfrid's Day Centre

  providing community care for vulnerable people in Sheffield who can experience a sense of belonging and find practical help.

  110

  The Carers' Resource

  providing information, advice and support to carers in Harrogate, Craven and Airedale districts.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq (Export Licences)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export Military List Goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council resolution 1483(2003), with the exception of "arms and other related material required by the (coalition provisional) authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions". As this includes promoting the development of free and fair media, Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of body armour and helmets for use by media organisations working in Iraq. Such licences are issued with provisos that: items will be for the sole use by newsgathering staff and will remain under their control at all times, when in use or in storage and items must not be left in country or gifted to local organisations after newsgathering staff leave. The export is consistent with the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN Embargo and Consolidated Criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Lord Kalms
Sir Harold Stanley Kalms, Knight, having been created Baron Kalms, of Edgware in the London Borough of Barnet, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Peckham and the Lord Feldman.
Lord Bhattacharyya
Sir Sushantha Kumar Bhattacharyya, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Bhattacharyya, of Moseley in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the Lord Corbett of Castle Vale.

Nigeria
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports of escalating violence in Plateau State, Nigeria.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are concerned at the continuing levels of violence in Plateau State, although the number of incidents is falling. British High Commission officials have visited and are in close touch with the federal and state authorities. We welcome the federal government's efforts to restore peace to the affected areas, but have urged that any intervention be carried out with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We have offered humanitarian support to the Nigerian authorities.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is she aware that, although Christians and Muslims have been involved in the fighting, when we were in the conflict areas there were disturbing reports that very well armed Islamist mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Cameroon had been involved in the fighting, and that Osama bin Laden had declared Nigeria ready for liberation and the Obasanjo government apostate? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore raise with the Nigerian Government concerns that the conflicts are being used and escalated to further the cause of Islamist terrorism?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in answering the noble Baroness, I acknowledge the tremendous amount of international work that she undertakes, and assure her that we are well aware of the Osama bin Laden denunciation of Nigeria and other countries as apostate.
256
We agree that the intervention of well armed mercenaries of both religious persuasions is of concern to us and the Nigerian Government. She will know that the Nigerian Government dealt robustly with a previous incident provoked by Islamic extremists in the northern state of Yobe, which was sparked off by a group calling itself Taliban. We have regular exchanges with the Nigerian Government and other interested parties on the issue, and will watch developments very closely.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government received any request from the sole administrator of Plateau State for help in dealing with the people displaced by the ethnic violence in Yelwa? Does the Minister, although acknowledging that the matters are for President Obasanjo and his government to solve, think that there might be a role for the Commonwealth in defusing the tensions that have caused the rising levels of ethnic and sectarian violence not only in Plateau State, but recently in Kano?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the matter is for the Nigerian Government to resolve, and we support very much their efforts to resolve it. We have urged them to ensure that any intervention in that resolution is dealt with through the rule of law. For the moment, that is where we stand.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, did the noble Baroness see the reports in the media that, on 11 May in Kano, 3,000 people may well have lost their lives? Has she had chance to study the letter from President Obasanjo in which he makes the welcome statement that he will pursue a policy of zero tolerance against those involved in the atrocities? In pursuing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should say that President Obasanjo calls for international support to free,
"our nation from the consequences of decades of misrule and structural as well as systemic dislocation".
Will the Government think further about whether we can assist in any practical way in achieving that objective?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we are assisting at present. Our aid budget to Nigeria is doubling this year. We have also said, because of the conflicts in the regions, that we will stand ready in terms of humanitarian assistance; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was referring to other types of assistance. We are aware of the violence in Kano State. We are extremely concerned about the recent deaths there, and the British High Commissioner has visited Kano recently, where he stressed our concern to both the governor and the emir.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving me sight of his correspondence with President Obasanjo. We welcome the president's efforts to restore peace to the affected areas. We remain strong supporters of his

257
reform programme and are working closely with his government to address reforms that will benefit all Nigerians.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are more active Anglicans in Nigeria than in any other country of the Anglican communion? Is the Anglican Church among the interested parties with which the Government are in touch?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, yes indeed. I was not aware of the information about the number of Anglicans in Nigeria. There is a great and significant Christian community in that country and we are indeed in touch with the Churches. We very much back and give support to the Coventry Cathedral project on reconciliation in the Plateau State.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, are representations being made by the EU and ourselves to the African Union to make it do something about the increasing bloodshed and terror—particularly given that a number of the countries concerned, including Chad and others, are producing fighters who are adding to the mayhem rather than helping?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are very aware of the problem regarding the Chad fighters and we have been active in the European Union in getting a statement from it recently. The EU said:
"The Presidency, on behalf of the European Union, expresses its serious concern and distress at the constant incidents of death and destruction that are taking place in Nigeria … The European Union notes the rapid response of the Nigerian Government in despatching additional security forces to the areas concerned".
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that these matters should concern us deeply, not just because of the human rights, bloodshed and atrocity dimension, but because the stability of Nigeria is crucial to the world's energy and oil supply system, on which this country shall increasingly have to rely in coming years. Has she any information about whether these problems have spread to the Niger Delta area, where the main tensions are arising with the oil companies? Can she give us an updated report on that aspect?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have heard of incidents of problems in the Niger Delta area and we continue to have negotiations with the Nigerian Government, both at federal and state level, about all of those incidents. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that Nigeria is very important to the world community. We are working closely with the president and his government to address the necessary economic reforms that will benefit the whole of Nigeria.

City Academies
2.57 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What control is exercised by the sponsors of city academies over the design, construction and management of a new school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, sponsors provide the vision for the academy design and are involved in the appointment of the design team. The academy trust, established by the sponsor, contracts with the construction companies. It is also responsible for running the academy in much the same way as a maintained school's governing body.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that brief but helpful reply. I am concerned that 90 per cent of the capital cost of the schools is state money and all of the running costs are met by the state, but they are outside the local education authority. Will the noble Baroness indicate the powers that her department has to ensure remedial action in the event of financial or academic shortfalls? Will she also be prepared to place a model contract, not a specific one, in the Library of the House?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, sponsors work closely with local education authorities and predecessor schools on any proposals to establish academies. The local education authority is represented on the governing body, so there are strong links. Also, the funding agreement is made between the Secretary of State and the academy itself. If there is a model of the contract I shall certainly look to placing that in the Library of the House.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the issue of design, construction and management is one thing, but what will be the ethos of these city academies? What is it that city academies will bring to education that is not available at the present time, and would these resources not be better employed in seeing that state education is better than it is already?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that it is not a question of "either/or"; it is "both/and". The basis upon which we develop academies is to look at areas where we have seriously under-performing or failing schools and to be innovative in bringing sponsorship into the design and build of a new school with the kind of flexibilities that enable those children to succeed more easily. Although it is early days, the results are very encouraging.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government are relatively satisfied with the performance of city academies? Can she confirm that, as the Government see it, a large part of that performance

259
is due to their relative freedom to innovate not only in construction and design but in academic areas, free of state and LEA controls?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, academies follow aspects of the national curriculum and they have to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Therefore, what they offer to children and young people is more flexible but it comes within the wealth of opportunity provided within the curriculum. As I said, these are early days, and those who have taken GCSEs, for example, have had little more than two terms in the academies. But from the three that are fully up and operational, we have seen significant increases not only in terms of academic attainment but also in areas of pupil behaviour and attendance.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the results of the city academies and the so-called "bog standard" comprehensives compare?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I indicated, these are very early days. Pupils sat the 2003 GCSE examinations in three academies. In Bexley, the number of pupils who attained five A* to C results in their GCSEs increased from 7 to 20 per cent; for Greig, the increase went from 25 to 35 per cent, with a value added score that put them in the top 25 per cent of schools in the country; and Unity scored 16 per cent, which is broadly comparable with the results of the two other schools, and it also demonstrated increased attendance by pupils and better behaviour.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in the London Borough of Hackney, the school which was previously known as Hackney Downs School is being redeveloped with the support of countless people? Help is being brought to many poor people, many of whom would have to go out of the borough to seek a worthwhile education.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I visited Hackney and saw the work that Mike Tomlinson and the team are doing there. There are critical issues surrounding the lack of secondary school facilities within the borough. Therefore, I pay tribute to all that is happening. Hackney made significant gains in GCSE results this year.

Supreme Court and Lords of Appeal
3.2 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their present plans for rehousing the Lords of Appeal.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, following a detailed evaluation exercise, two options remain under active consideration. They are Middlesex Guildhall and the new wing of Somerset
260
House. We shall continue to investigate the relative qualitative and financial merits of those two buildings in consultation with the Law Lords before announcing a final decision in the autumn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree, or feel in his heart, that what he presented at first as a thoroughly well thought out and complex constitutional reform is now looking a little fly-blown and frayed at the edges? The fact that the Government still have no idea about where they are going to put their Supreme Court, the fact that there has been a lack of consultation and the fact that the Government were totally unaware of the consequences of abolishing the Lord Chancellorship all enhance the impression that there was no forward thinking. In the circumstances, I wonder whether the spectacle of the noble and learned Lord—the holder of the office which, a few months ago, he set out to abolish—sitting contentedly on the Woolsack is not becoming something of a joke.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that I should put aside my personal comfort on the Woolsack in dealing with these important and complex issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right: these are complex issues. As a result of referring the matter to a Select Committee, we have the opportunity to consider the issues in detail in this House and to consult widely. The Government can listen and consider how they can be improved. I do not accept the epithets that the noble Lord gave to our programme—namely, "fly-blown" and "unthought out". I agree that the matter is important and complex. We need to consult and to listen so that the scheme is as detailed and appropriate as possible.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, do the Government intend to implement the provisions which will translate the Law Lords into Supreme Court judges without first obtaining suitable alternative accommodation? If that is the intention, what rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Law Lords, such as the use of your Lordships' Library, the attendance at debates here and catering facilities, can still be enjoyed by the former Law Lords?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that it will be possible to implement the proposals for the Supreme Court—that is, to make them effective—at the same time as a building is available. I cannot guarantee that that will be the position and therefore I can give no assurance in that respect, but I hope that that would be the position. Once a Supreme Court is established, the current Law Lords will be its first members. We would propose that they lose the right to sit and vote while they remain full-time Supreme Court justices. I believe that their rights in relation to the Library and catering facilities are a matter for this House to decide thereafter.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a room on the Committee Corridor of your Lordships' House is a wholly inappropriate place to house the highest court in the land?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do agree with that proposition. I think it is important that the final court of appeal in this country should be available in a building of its own—visible and accessible to all.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, when the Government are seeking to persuade 20,000 civil servants in London and the south-east to uproot themselves and move to other parts of the UK, does my noble and learned friend not agree that it is important that we have role models who are prepared to participate constructively in relocating their offices? Perhaps if he agrees with that sentiment, he would be prepared to convey it from this House to the judiciary, and we might seek the opportunity to see them setting an example to others.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the principle that relocation all over the United Kingdom is appropriate for very many bodies. But I believe that the appropriate place for the final court of appeal of the United Kingdom is in the capital of the United Kingdom, and I think that that is the best argument for it staying in the capital. That does not mean that the final court of appeal would not be able to sit outside the capital of the United Kingdom as it—the final court of appeal—thought appropriate. But it is for that court, rather than for us, to decide when to sit outside the capital.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say when the Government will stop wrecking parts of the constitution and calling it modernisation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are seeking to improve the constitution and see it evolve with time. That is the debate that we need to have.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in view of the response from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor regarding the complexity of the problems and the lack of consultation that took place initially, will he now concede that perhaps the matter was originally dealt with a little in haste and that perhaps we have reached the stage when more haste and less speed is required?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not dissent from the proposition that the announcement may have been made hastily to start with. But we have now had, and are taking, the opportunity of consulting as widely as possible on these proposals. Indeed, the
262
noble Lord, Lord Richard, is chairing a Select Committee at which the detail of the proposals is being scrutinised very closely.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, while the House will be glad to hear that the search for a building for the Supreme Court will be complete in August, as I understand it, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor inform us when the search started and how much it has cost so far?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the search started very shortly after 12 June 2003. I am advised that thus far the professional fees are in the region of £200,000. I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord how much one should attribute to the efforts of my department in relation to that, but I shall try to write to him about that. I think that time and money should be spent in looking for an appropriate building for an organisation which is important as the final court of appeal of this country.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, what exactly is wrong with the Middlesex Guildhall? It seems to me to be perfectly adequate because it is a mock Victorian gothic building and very suitable for such an organisation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall ignore the epithet of mock gothic. As I hope I indicated in my initial Answer, the Middlesex Guildhall is one of the two sites that are under active consideration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke of August as being when the decision will be made, whereas the reply I gave was that the decision will be made in the autumn.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the stated motive for the Government's proposals for the Supreme Court was that the public were confused by the role of the final appellate court being in your Lordships' House. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord is now suggesting that if a building is not ready by the time the Bill is enacted, the final court of appeal will be called "the Supreme Court", but will still sit in your Lordships' House. Will that not create even greater confusion than the alleged confusion that exists at the moment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not think so. It is important to make it clear that the policy is that the final court of appeal should be a separate organisation from Parliament, so that people can see where the courts are and where Parliament is. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, said that after the Pinochet trial, people abroad wondered whether the politicians or the court had reached a decision in relation to the case. It is very important that there is clarity in our constitutional arrangements.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in view of the welcome given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the work of the Select Committee, would he care to remind noble Lords whether he advised the House to vote for the setting up of the Select Committee or whether he advised against the setting up of the Select Committee?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I advised against it. The deliberations of the committee show how wrong I was.

Fuel Duty
3.12 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to alter the rate of road freight fuel duty to take account of increases in carbon dioxide emissions from road freight and increases in oil prices.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, decisions on fuel duty take into consideration all relevant environmental, social and economic factors. The Chancellor welcomed OPEC's decision to raise production and the fact that some countries will move production up immediately. That is why, as both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have said, we will not put the stability of the economy and public finances at risk by taking short-term decisions, but will review progress in August.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that illuminating reply. Is he aware that since 1990 CO2 emissions from road vehicles have risen by 59 per cent? Bearing in mind other comments from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the Parliamentary Monitor, where he said,
"Climate change is probably, in the long term, the single most important issue we face as a global community",
will the Government set an example by resisting pressure to reduce duty as a way of encouraging a reduction in consumption?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are committed to meeting the Kyoto targets and are using duty differentials to encourage the use of cleaner fuels. That has been part of the policy of duty provision over the past seven years. I hear what my noble friend says about recommending that the Chancellor should increase the duty, but other voices in the House may think differently.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the uncertainties of the oil situation, will the Minister indicate whether the Government have in mind an overall strategy for reducing the consumption of petroleum-based fuels in the road transport sector with regularly published, monitored progress reports?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, these issues are monitored carefully. The noble Lord will recognise that the Government have been concerned to reduce the duty and, therefore, to increase the differential on clean fuels. Of course, we have had areas of real success in these terms. The movement to low sulphur, and as we now confidently predict, to sulphur-free fuels, has been encouraged by the duty provisions in recent Budgets and progress has been made in that area. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the fact that we cannot hit pollution targets unless we significantly address the issue of transport.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that individuals and, importantly, businesses need certainty on fuel costs? Is it not about time that the Government got off the fence and said whether or not they will implement fuel duty increases in September?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure which world the noble Baroness inhabits. If she thinks that we can be certain about fuel costs in view of the present position of OPEC and the problems in Saudi Arabia, she is giving to us prophetic capacities that none of us would claim. What is clear is that we need the situation to settle down. We need to be able to analyse what is likely to be the position of the oil price rise, which, after all, is a critical factor for the economy. An oil price rise will affect the whole economy. Fuel for transport affects only transport areas.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my understanding of what my noble friend asked is whether the Government will get off the fence and say whether they will add to the existing price rise that is planned for September. That is what she wanted to know. She did not want to know whether the noble Lord believed that businesses were unable to read the tealeaves in relation to the future price.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Chancellor's decision is contingent upon the shift in world oil prices, which we all recognise have moved up substantially over the past two weeks, thereby creating a great deal of concern in the transport industry, which is reflected in the questions addressed today. Nevertheless, it would be injudicious on the Chancellor's part if he responded to what may be a temporary situation with a decision that had long-term implications for the transport industry. It is right that we see what is happening to OPEC and oil prices over a period of several months.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, it has been estimated that by the middle of this century, 70 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions will come from aircraft. Are Her Majesty's Government investigating the possibility of taxing aviation fuel?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the taxation of aviation fuel is very complex indeed. There are over 2,000 bilateral agreements between

265
countries which consolidate the present position. We have indicated that in the light of the necessity of hitting our Kyoto targets and dealing with emissions we would want the European Community to consider changing the stance that it adopts at present. That is not a decision that can be taken unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government. It requires international agreement.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the figures for carbon dioxide emissions from road fuel include the enormous lorries that come over from the Continent, tour around the country and leave again without buying a single litre of fuel in this country?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, they certainly include such lorries. It has already been indicated by Ministers that we intend to look very carefully at the issue of unfair competition when hauliers buy fuel in other countries at a lower price and compete with British hauliers on British roads.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not tax aviation fuel? If they did, even more disruption and cost increases would be caused.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I indicated the complexity of the issue, and therefore I cannot give a categoric response to the noble Earl. However, he will recognise that in controlling climate change and dealing with the problems of pollution affecting all of us, aviation fuel makes its contribution to the problem. That is why we think that the aviation industry needs to be examined on the general principle that the polluter pays. I am merely indicating that this is not a decision which this Government can take unilaterally.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the differential in duty between here and some of our near European competitor economies shows why, if we are to get a sensible approach to reducing air pollution, we need to have a broad level of agreement within the EU? Furthermore, for the UK to exert maximum influence to enable us to do this, do we not need to be at the centre of the EU rather than threatening to withdraw from it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a fairly general point derived from this question, but in broad terms it is of course right. If we create a single market and are unable to influence the decisions which can affect that single market against our interests, we are the losers by that. It is quite clear that we need to be at the centre of Europe, because our approach to fuel policy is a significant improvement on that of a number of our European neighbours.

Sudan
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the G8 Summit regarding international action to deal with the situation in Sudan.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, G8 leaders will discuss the situation in Darfur, western Sudan, in the course of the G8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia, taking place today and tomorrow. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to press partners to increase their contributions to the humanitarian response, and to support the African Union-led ceasefire commission. He will also make a Statement on the outcome of the summit in another place on his return.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I also thank her and her colleague in the Commons, the Secretary of State for International Development, for their efforts in this crisis. But given that international action is required in this crisis, what proposals are the Government making not only to the G8, but also in the contact that Mr Benn will be having this afternoon with Kofi Annan, in taking international action forward? Furthermore, recognising how important it is that the north/south peace process is kept on track, what can this Government do to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to relieve the crisis in Darfur, rather than to make it worse?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is quite right. We need to make sure that the north/south peace process is kept on track. One of the things that we hope will happen in relation to that is some form of UN Security Council resolution which will underpin the protocols that have come out of Naivasha. With respect to other proposals, we will continue our dialogue with the UN, with the European Union and with other partners. The most urgent need of the moment is to encourage other donors to contribute to the humanitarian response in Darfur. The noble Baroness will be aware that we are the second largest donor, after the United States. But taking out the United States, ourselves and the European Union, the response from the rest of the world community leaves much to be desired.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, given the Government of Sudan's new and very cynical permission to grant access by aid organisations to, at best, 50 per cent of the 1 million-plus internally displaced people who are suffering and dying in Darfur, what measures are being taken by the international community to ensure delivery of essential medicine and food to all the internally displaced people, especially before the onset of the rainy season, when access will become difficult or impossible, and many more tens of thousands are expected to die?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that the situation in Darfur is dire. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just returned and is extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation there. Security remains the biggest concern because that is impeding humanitarian access. The Government of Sudan have made it absolutely clear that they will facilitate visas for those who are going in to assist NGOs, and they are going to speed up the process to enable much-needed humanitarian relief to come into the country. But we also need to get access to the parts of the country where there are internally displaced people, and to work with neighbouring countries like Chad where refugees have been displaced.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a link between the diocese of Bradford and this province of the Sudan, and between the diocese of Salisbury and the Sudan? When I served in Salisbury in the 1970s, the country was going through a very bloody civil war. Since those days it has lurched from crisis to crisis, and there has been international appeal after international appeal. Is she able to give any hopeful sign that some international strategic thinking can be done which will enable us to find long-term peace in that country, and avoid these constant crises which are so tragic?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right in saying that the situation in Sudan has existed for a long time and is the cause of great concern. I was not aware of the link with respect to Bradford and Salisbury, but I am aware that there are a number of links through the Churches.
The humanitarian crisis is one element, but the ongoing peace process negotiation is another and we must not forget that. We welcome the signing on 26 May of the latest protocols at the peace talks at Naivasha. They cover power-sharing in the two areas and, together with the previously agreed documents, provide the political framework for a comprehensive peace agreement. We must continue to work towards that and we are calling on all parties to work together so that the comprehensive peace agreement can be signed in the next few months.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what help and assistance are we getting from the French Government, who could bring a great deal of influence to bear on some of the disruptive elements in the countries neighbouring Sudan?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we are working with our French colleagues in the context of the European Union. I am unable to say today what specific action the French Government are taking in terms of their bilateral relationships with neighbouring countries, but I will write to the noble Baroness if there is more I can say.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the contribution of £2 million announced by the Secretary
268
of State for International Development towards the cost of the peacekeepers. However, has any response been received from the Sudanese Government to the Secretary of State's call for urgent and decisive action to curb the militias? If not, will the resolution she mentioned calling the attention of the international community to the Naivasha settlement be broadened to require the Sudanese to take this urgent and decisive action?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the discussions that my right honourable friend had with the Sudanese Government, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right in saying that he pressed the need to abide by the ceasefire agreement and to rein in the militias and ensure full humanitarian access. My understanding is that he received a positive response from the Sudanese Government, but we must wait and see what happens on the implementation of that.
We are in discussions on the wider point of Security Council resolutions, but I am unable to say what the scope of any resolution might be when it comes to the point of being passed.

Age-Related Payments Bill
3.29 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and the Earl of Northesk set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Liaison Select Committee be agreed to.
In moving the Motion, I should like to say a few words about the timing of the proposed Select Committee on the review of the BBC charter. The Liaison Committee was aware of the need for a timely intervention in the consultation process on the BBC charter renewal, but was also concerned that the committee should not duplicate work undertaken by other bodies. We therefore considered that the best starting point and the basis of the committee's call for evidence should be the Green Paper, which is expected to be published early in 2005.

269
The Liaison Committee was also mindful of the recent expansion in committee activity and the implications of this for both members and staff. That is set out clearly in paragraph 9 of the report. The Liaison Committee therefore also recommended that the committee on the BBC charter renewal should wait until the committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill had finished its work and resources had become available.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Proposal for a Select Committee on the review of the BBC Charter
1. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Baroness Howe of Idlicote that an ad hoc Select Committee be established on the review of the BBC Charter. Papers in support of the proposal are printed at Appendix 1. The Committee also heard Baroness Howe of Idlicote (who was accompanied by Lord Lipsey, Lord McNally and Lord Fowler) in support of her proposal.
2. The purpose of the committee would be to provide a means whereby the expertise existing in the House could be deployed in the discussions surrounding the review process. The committee would be able to have regard to the reports of other review bodies, and to hear the views of other interested parties. The supporters of the proposal would like the committee to be established in October, before publication of the expected Green Paper, with a view to reporting before publication of the White Paper.
3. The committee is sympathetic to this proposal. Many in the House have expertise in broadcasting and communications. Moreover the subject matter is currently important, the proposed committee's remit well defined, and a report would be likely to add value to the debate. So far as concerns timing, we understand that the Green Paper is likely to be published early in 2005. In our view it would not be sensible for a committee on this subject to be appointed before then. We are also reluctant to see further expansion of committee activity at this time and consider it preferable if this committee were not to be established until after the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] had reported. So far as the proposed committee's remit is concerned, we also express the view that so far as possible it should seek to draw on the work of other review bodies.
4. We therefore recommend that an ad hoc Select Committee be established to consider the review of the BBC Charter early in 2005 after publication of the Green Paper and the conclusion of the work of the Assisted Dying committee; and that the committee should so far as possible draw on the work of other review bodies.
Proposal for a Select Committee on international affairs
5. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by the Earl of Sandwich and Lord Blaker that a sessional Select Committee be established on international affairs. A letter setting out the proposal is printed at Appendix 2. The Committee also heard the Earl of Sandwich and Lord Blaker in support of their proposal.
6. The purpose of such a committee would be to provide a forum in which all aspects of foreign affairs, including aid, could be discussed. In particular, these might include issues which lay outside the remit of the European Union. The House, they consider, contains many Members with expertise in foreign affairs and the field of scrutiny is sufficiently wide to be able to accommodate committees in both Houses without likelihood of overlap. The supporters of the proposal would like the committee to be established sometime after the next general election.
7. The committee has considered the question of whether or not to establish such a committee on two previous occasions, in 1999 and 2000. We then recommended that the committee should not be appointed on the grounds that its remit would overlap with the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. We remain of
270
that view. The work of such a committee would also overlap into the work of the European Union Committee. For these reasons we do not recommend this proposal to the House.
Lists of Members supporting proposals for Select Committees
8. Both proposals for Select Committees came to us with lists of signatories in support—150 in the case of Baroness Howe's proposal and 42 in the case of the Earl of Sandwich's proposal. While it is useful for the Liaison Committee to be aware of cross party support, we do not find that the increasingly common practice of appending long lists of supporters' names helpful and hope very much that the practice will cease.
Expansion of committee activity
9. In the course of our discussions on the proposals for additional Select Committees, we have reflected on the expansion of committee activity in recent years. Thus in 1999–2000 the House had Select Committees on the European Union (with six sub-committees), on Science and Technology (with two sub-committees) and one ad hoc committee. By the current session, the following additional committees had been set up: the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee and its sub-committee on the Finance Bill, and the additional sub-committee of the European Union Committee. In addition, at any one time one pre-legislative committee is now served by this House. Members of the House also sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. A Committee Office of 29 staff in 1999–2000 now has 46 staff. We are also all too aware of the pressure that this expansion has placed on "peer resource". While not wishing to exclude the possibility of establishing additional Select Committees where a compelling case can be made, we are unlikely in the foreseeable future to agree to an increase in overall committee activity.

APPENDIX 1: MEMORANDUM FROM BARONESS HOWE OF IDLICOTE AND OTHERS ON THE CASE FOR A LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON BBC CHARTER REVIEW
It is acknowledged that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee chaired by Lord Puttnam on the Communications Bill carried out a thorough and constructive piece of work. That committee was immeasurably strengthened by the expertise and experience which was added to it by peers with wide experience of the communications industries.
The Puttnam Committee always envisaged that BBC Charter Review would be seen as a natural continuation of the re-shaping of communications undertaken by the establishment of Ofcom and the bringing into being of the Communications Act. It was also assumed that a mechanism would be found to continue to make use of the experience and expertise in the Upper House as Charter Review progressed. At the moment there are exercises being conducted on Charter Review by the DCMS Committee of the House of Commons, by Ofcom, and by Lord Burns on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Various political parties have said they have formed their own study groups.
In the circumstances it is, at the very least, a missed opportunity not to provide the mechanism which an ad hoc Select Committee could provide to make use of expertise existing in the Upper House on broadcasting matters to provide a suitable platform for these and other interested parties to explain their positions and priorities. The Committee could work to a specific time-table to provide maximum assistance to Charter Review. For example, if established before the summer recess it could invite written submissions immediately, start taking oral evidence when the House returns in September and have a report ready by early spring of 2005.
Without such a Lords committee parliamentary scrutiny of the Review process will be heavily weighted to activity in the House of Commons and, in particular, to the work of the DCMS Select Committee. Valuable though that work will be, it will be seen to provide unbalanced scrutiny of the process when compared with that undertaken for the Communications Act. It would seem extraordinary if the Lords were to remain silent on issues where the full range of its experience and objectivity are especially appropriate.
Letter dated 18 March 2004 from Baroness Howe of Idlicote and others to the Chairman of Committees
Thank you for your letter of 27th January concerning the proposed select committee on communications. I have now had the opportunity to discuss your reply with a wide cross-section of peers, and this letter is written on their behalf, with their names and signatures shown below.
A great deal has changed since the Liaison Committee decision, which we believe justifies an early meeting to decide upon a more focused proposal.
It is our view that there is an immediate need for an ad hoc committee to be established to take evidence and report to the House on the issues surrounding the review of the BBC Charter, which as you know must be completed by 2006. Such a timetable makes it especially urgent for such a committee to start its work immediately if it is to make any meaningful input into the charter review. The House of Lords has many members with uniquely wide experience of broadcasting matters and the formation of a special committee of the House would enable this issue of such vital public concern to be investigated thoroughly, adding to the public debate for which the Government has called.
I would be grateful if you could call a meeting of your committee to discuss the specific proposal as a matter of urgency. I should like at that meeting to take advantage of your kind invitation and attend with a small number of like-minded colleagues to state our case.
I look forward to your earliest response.

APPENDIX 2: LETTER FROM THE EARL OF SANDWICH AND LORD BLAKER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Four years ago we, along with about 20 other peers, proposed to the Liaison Committee that we should have an International Affairs Committee of this House. There is a wealth of experience of international affairs in the House which could be channelled more effectively through a new committee sometime in the future without trespassing on the various EU Committees—say after the next election.
New arguments which have come up are:

—We need a forum other than the EU committees in which all aspects of foreign affairs—including development aid—can be debated

—There are longer-term, less obvious topical issues not all of which are being taken up by the Commons or the Lords EU committees. Current examples might be: China, Nepal, security in Afghanistan, islands and smaller states, intervention in failed states/humanitarian catastrophes, conflict resolution in Africa, the UN Security Council and so on.

There is the perspective of non EU-related developing countries which often receive less attention.

—An international affairs committee would undoubtedly enhance the reputation of the House.

The Liaison Committee rejected it last time on the grounds that there would be overlap with the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, but we don't think this is really good enough. This House in any case is here to look again at government policies and decisions made in another place.
However, as we see it, the new committee would complement and not in any way revise reports of Commons committees and would take care to avoid any overlap.
The attached list of about 40 peers combines those who supported the idea last time with others who have joined since.
We very much hope you will give this idea full consideration at your next meeting on May 10th and we would both be willing to attend to present the arguments and answer questions.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am, of course, delighted that the Liaison Committee has agreed to support the proposal for a Select Committee on the review of the BBC charter and very much hope
272
that your Lordships will endorse its recommendation. I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for what he said.
I particularly want to thank my colleagues who were so important in helping to present to the Liaison Committee what turned out to be a rather more acceptable project than my original suggestion. That, as your Lordships may remember, had been for a more widely based ongoing communications sessional Select Committee, which would have been able to draw more permanently upon the considerable expertise and experience that exists in your Lordships' House.
However, despite what I have heard from the Chairman of Committees—and at the risk of sounding as though I am never satisfied—I venture to mention the remaining concern that the committee apparently has to wait until the beginning of 2005 to start its work. The Green Paper is not due until then but, as we all know, the whole process of charter review is already well under way. At the very least, I should have thought that it would be helpful to everyone if the Select Committee was able sooner than that to invite evidence from those taking part in the existing numerous consultations and thus to alert a wider public to the committee's promised existence.
I hope, therefore, not only that your Lordships will agree to the Liaison Committee's proposal, but that also a way can be found of ensuring that the existence of the Select Committee is well publicised at an early date and that a general invitation is extended to interested organisations to start preparing their evidence.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although I have a specific interest in wanting to see this committee established, I shall make two general points about the report. I urge the committee not to become too structured in its response as it states very clearly that the BBC charter committee cannot start until the committee dealing with assisted dying has finished its work.
We all know that committees can take a long time dying. We are working to a specific timetable in terms of the BBC charter. I was much more encouraged when the Chairman of Committees wrote to me and said that he would be happy to review the situation,
"to ensure that the committee on the BBC Charter has the resources to enable it to make a timely report".
I should like clarification on that. It would be misleading the House if in February or March next year, with the committee on assisted dying still proceeding, we were told, "Well, I am sorry; the House voted last June that you could not start work until this committee had wound up". That is what I mean about being over-prescriptive.
Another suggestion has been made and I made it in my letter. In government there are plenty of precedents for setting up committees. Ofcom is a very good example. When there is a job of work to do, one does the preparatory work of appointing the people, inviting the evidence and so on in advance of the starting gun. That could be easily done without the over-prescriptive suggestion in the Liaison Committee report. We could use the weeks and months before the committee started. I have no quarrel with the committee's starting point

273
being the Green Paper. But I think that the preparatory work could be done now so that the committee can hit the ground running. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in the situation where usual channels are looking for recruits and so on and precious weeks are lost.
The general point I want to make is that this response is over-prescriptive and that the committee could have given a general go ahead. We could then use flexibility and common sense to start up the committee at the right time to do a real job of work. As it is, I think that we have, as it were, blundered into a very good solution. The work of this committee will be able to start after the House of Commons committee, which, under the wise leadership of Mr Gerald Kaufman, is already taking evidence. We will have that report and other evidence in our hands and be able to work.
My other point is on paragraph 8. The committee is most distinguished, but it is not the prefects' committee and it should not behave as such. If noble Lords want to collect signatures and submit them to the committee, I believe that is a matter for noble Lords. It is no business of the committee to say that they do not want to have them. We know what will happen: people will be told that it is just a bee in the bonnet of a single noble Lord. If a noble Lord wants to put an idea and demonstrate that he or she has widespread support in this House, it is a matter for their judgment and not for the committee's.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I very much support the proposal of the Liaison Committee and I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have said about the position and timing of the committee. It seems to me that the renewal of a BBC Charter is self-evidently a crucial issue. It is a totally appropriate subject for an ad hoc committee. It is exactly the kind of issue that this House should consider because it is exactly the kind of issue where we could have some influence on the outcome.
Therefore, if the Liaison Committee could do something about the timing of the committee and set it up earlier than currently envisaged, it would be very much to the benefit of the committee and the House. The sooner the committee is set up the better and the more chance and prospect there is of the committee—and ultimately this House—having influence.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I rise in general support of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I think that the issue of looking at the BBC is determined not by how long the committee dealing with the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill takes to look at it, but the imminence of the review of the BBC Charter. Therefore, to tie one to the other is illogical.
I recognise the administrative burdens we are placing on staff. I do not know what the timescale is for the review of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, but if it is not finished by December this year, certainly in my view—and on this I disagree marginally with the noble Lord, Lord McNally—we should not wait for the Green Paper. It is to be hoped
274
that this committee could inform the Green Paper by starting no later than January 2005. So I would seek an amendment. By all means wait for the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill review to be finished, but if it is not finished by January 2005, then start the BBC Select Committee anyway.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it was obvious during the debate that we had in the progress of the Communications Bill that there is an enormous amount of expertise on all sides of this House on this subject. It would be a great shame not to continue to use that expertise in the way that is being proposed. I entirely support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in what has been put forward. I have heard the points that have been made, and have rather warmed to the view that the sooner all this gets off the ground the better.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Liaison Committee will be aware of the strong support on all sides of your Lordships' House for this Select Committee, although it looked down its lordly nose at the numbers involved. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that perhaps that does not lie in its mouth to say so, because it is important to make clear when these issues have wide and all-party support. However, I acknowledge that the Liaison Committee has rightly focused attention on certain matters; for example, there is no point doing work that other people have done before. When it is published, the Green Paper will be an amalgam of all the consultation processes. To that extent there is no point in treading over that territory again.
I want to underline the points made by noble Lords earlier that, because of the time-scale, we have got to have the preparatory work done before the committee starts. I cannot see that there is any reason why that should not be done. There is a wealth of experience in this House across the broadcasting sector, within which immense changes are taking place. If we are going to do this job—and I am glad that the Liaison Committee has now agreed that we should—we need to do it in the most professional manner possible. That means getting the preparatory work in so that we can make a very clean start early in the New Year.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I congratulate the Liaison Committee on its decision, and associate myself with the remarks made from all sides of the House on this. It is important that we do not have slippage here—it is very important indeed, as I think noble Lords have emphasised. I should just like to make one comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the question of collecting names. It may be that that is not done commonly in this House. However, how else is one able to demonstrate the wide appeal of these proposals? I cannot think of any other way of doing it. I commend all the remarks that have been made by other noble Lords this afternoon.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I have three brief questions for the noble Lord on the report. First, is the noble Lord aware there is a factual error in the report? Paragraph 9 states that the House has established a "Constitutional Affairs Committee". It has not; it has created a Constitution Committee. The House of Commons has created a Constitutional Affairs Committee and it is important that the two are not confused.
Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that the report constitutes something of a lost opportunity? It appears far more concerned with means than with ends. The report concludes by saying that for a committee to be established,
"a compelling case can be made".
What are the criteria that will determine whether a case is compelling?
Thirdly, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I appreciate why Paragraph 8 is included: it deprecates the submission of long lists of Peers in support of establishing a new committee. Would it not be a good idea to make clear that, in future, adding one's name to such a list will demonstrate a willingness to serve on such a committee? Would that not help to solve some of the problems identified in the report?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I must admit I had thought that most of the House would be grateful that the Liaison Committee had agreed to set up a committee on the BBC Charter. Nevertheless, I know one cannot please a lot of people all the time. On the question of the timing of the committee, it is not just a matter of resources, although the work involved in establishing a committee—issuing a call for evidence and acknowledging written evidence received—should not be under-estimated. The Liaison Committee did consider this extremely carefully and we were keen to ensure that the inquiry was focused and did not duplicate existing work. Therefore, a call for evidence which was issued before the Green Paper was published might not address key areas or might ask for information that was not, in the event, particularly relevant.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged that I have been in correspondence with him. He asked what would happen if the committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill went on longer than was predicted at the moment. I did say in my letter that, should it become apparent that that committee would not finish when it was expected to, then the Liaison Committee would indeed revisit the question of resources for the committee on the BBC Charter to enable it to make a timely report. I really do not think that I can go any further at this stage. I would have thought that that would satisfy the House. The noble Lord also referred to Paragraph 9 of the report on the question of new committees, as did the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The committee did look carefully at this proposal. If one looks at Paragraph 9, one sees the enormous expansion of committee activity that has taken place in only a few years. We had a
276
Committee Office staff of 29 in 2000, and four years later it has almost doubled to 46. That is just an indication of the increase in activity.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in that we have named one of the committees wrongly. Nevertheless, it is a very important committee and involves not only staff but also Peer resources. They are not always easy to find. I am sure everybody who wants a committee would say, "Oh, we can easily find people to serve on these committees," but judging by my discussions with the usual channels I am not sure that it is necessarily always that easy. That was the considered conclusion of the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee is set-up by this House to deal with exactly that kind of thing and I hope the House will therefore approve its report.
A criticism was made by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Norton of Louth—and, I believe somebody else as well—of Paragraph 8 of the report which is a very restrained criticism of the practice of collecting signatures. Of course we cannot stop people collecting signatures—people can go round collecting as many signatures as they like. Personally I tend to sign anything which is put in front of me in order to make people go away. I am sure a lot of noble Lords would do exactly the same.
If people wish to put up a proposal for a Select Committee, what I hope we would achieve on those occasions is a carefully considered letter from the proposer of that committee, signed by perhaps one representative from all sides of the House—perhaps four or five signatures on it in all. Then it would be up to the Liaison Committee to decide whether to agree to this committee. The proponents of the committee would, of course, be invited to come in and make their case before the Liaison Committee. That is, I think, the best way of doing it.
I have never been in the House of Commons, unlike the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Fowler, so I have never taken part in EDMs. However, if one looks at some of the EDMs that take place in the House of Commons, one does slightly question whether we want to go down that particular route. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the report of this committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Department for International Development
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to call attention to international development and the departmental report 2004 of the Department for International Development; and to move for papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful that we are holding this debate today on international development and on the 2004 report of the DfID. I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I am delighted we can for a few moments focus on these crucial development issues. I welcome the departmental report 2004, and commend it to those seeking to understand the UK's

277
very sound development record over many years—and not just the last seven. For almost eight years, I have battled away to get greater resources for development because I have always believed that developed nations are nations that work at peace with their neighbours and with all their contacts. Today I can congratulate the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and the right honourable Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, on the dramatic increase in resources—a 93 per cent improvement from when I left office.
However, with additional resources come additional responsibilities. It is on that aspect that I want to concentrate, rather than picking out parts of the report—which reads well as a whole, but probably less well if I try to paraphrase it.
By 2005–06, we shall have a total UK aid budget of £4.5 billion, of which £833 million will be allocated as our contribution to the European Union Development Programme. That means that more emphasis will be needed to ensure that the EU development budget is better spent and properly accounted for, both in decision making in Brussels and through the offices of the European Union in developing countries. If we are to get the best value for money from every pound available for the developing world, we must look outwards at what our agents are doing with our taxpayers' money.
Inevitably, there are gaps in such a major departmental report. Not everything can be written down. I shall concentrate on what is probably a lack of emphasis—rather than a lack of action—on the co-ordination between donors in the field and on capacity building and institution building in the countries that we seek to assist. They are important aspects of the way in which we spend money to which we do not always give sufficient attention. In other words, we should place more emphasis on the contributions that are made, particularly those that private sector partners can make to development. All those themes are interconnected, and I believe that they are fundamental to successful and sustainable international development.
I shall declare my personal interests. My work for Africa continues through the World Bank and through my company, Africa Matters Ltd, which seeks to bring business and governments together through investment in Africa. In the wider world, my directorships bring me into close contact with developments throughout all continents.
My commitments in business have also allowed me to seek assistance for development through corporate social responsibility programmes and through skill exchanges to improve the delivery of the moneys that are available to the developing world. I am glad that the DfID report focuses, rightly, on the eight millennium development goals, with their 18 targets. It is a small section of the whole, but it is well worth taking to heart. If we could make them work, we would be a long way down the track to bringing peace and stability to the developing world.
I am not sure, however, whether the report addresses how we achieve the millennium development goals. It goes without saying that the developed world must help to reduce the appalling levels of poverty and deal with the lack and inadequacy of education and improve access to safe drinking water and healthcare, but they are also a central mission for every nation. They are not tasks for governments alone; they are responsibilities best delivered by partnership, as the report rightly points out. There is no doubt in my mind that achieving the millennium development goals depends on better donor co-ordination and the pooling of resources through all types of partnership. That is where there is much more work to be done. It is not just a question of spending; it is a question of sharing know-how across the board, if we are to meet the needs of countries in the developing world.
The reality is that, in 2005—the first milestone for the millennium development goals—the vast majority of developing countries will not be on track to achieve those goals. Worse still, a few countries will, effectively, have gone into reverse. That is a situation that we are bound to address. I know that the international finance facility that the UK Government are bringing forward is there to help front-load—to use the jargon—the aid that is available to stimulate governments to work towards meeting the millennium development goals. However, for any real chance of success through the initiative and of further success in debt reduction, we must see faster practical action and better donor co-ordination in-country. Such matters are probably a little small for the G8 nations to address at the present time, but those of us who work in the G8 nations must make sure that such measures are delivered.
The Government's leadership in reducing EU agricultural subsidies and removing trade barriers must also step up a gear, as does training for developing countries in putting their case in the successor Doha round. I hope that the Minister will comment in particular on trade access, the removal of trade barriers and the reduction of subsidies.
International development is best delivered by seizing opportunities for genuine partnerships. It is about capacity building at every level. However, without genuine national and local commitment to the programmes in the developing world and without ownership of the implementation plans, our external assistance will not help as well as it can or should. I know that some in the House may express concern about the size of donor support these days. The amounts given are very important, but the way in which the money is spent and the programmes delivered is even more important. That is why I have always concentrated on trying to give value for money: it is as valuable for the recipient as it is for the donor country.
Too often, the detailed "how" is not well enough understood by those implementing programmes, let alone being agreed with the government concerned. That holds back the maximum value for money. In some countries, we face too much donor competition. That is something that we should tackle together with the recipient countries. Although I welcome the increase in aid from developed to developing nations, I am concerned that the lack of co-ordination is leading to

279
duplication. That does not mean best value for money. Value for money cannot be achieved without thorough capacity building. Budgetary support, which is the way in which we give much of our aid these days, is valid only when it has attached to it the capacity building that means that the money is used efficiently.
A lack of sufficient skilled people in management in government institutions, especially in spending departments, is seriously hindering sustainable growth in many developing countries. One way to tackle that is mentoring. Many private sector companies are prepared to do such mentoring, if only we could get our mind round that sort of partnership. The overseas development fellowship scheme, which has run for over 40 years, gives young postgraduate economists the opportunity to work in the public sector in developing countries in the Commonwealth. The scheme was recently extended to Rwanda, where the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning benefited greatly from it. There are similar schemes in other countries. Local empowerment can also be helped directly by the private sector. In post-conflict Sierra Leone, de Beers has helped the Government Gold and Diamond Office of the Ministry of Mineral Resources and assisted the Government there generally to raise their ability to assess their exports accurately.
Capacity building is also needed for entrepreneurship, to help to build to a thriving private sector, particularly small micro and medium enterprises, some of which are now getting support from the corporate sector. In Ghana, Unilever has set up the Foundation for Education and Development. That foundation provides business education for local entrepreneurs. To date, 75 small-scale entrepreneurs have benefited from the workshops run by the foundation. Sharing training, particularly training in science and technology, can help to stimulate local industries to become suppliers to main investors. Active investment in a factory or an agricultural production process produces real multipliers. Often, for every person employed, a family of 10 is supported. That money then feeds back into the local economy.
Just as, in the developed world, private sector development leads to the emergence of a professional middle class, that, in turn, brings benefits to society in the developing world and can help to reduce the risks of autocracy. That is why I call on DfID to support real partnerships between recipient government countries and the corporate world, so that the private sector can play its part to strengthen those governments and to become a real engine of growth in the countries concerned.
In South Africa one of my own NGOs, the British Executive Service Overseas, has been instrumental in helping to set up a social impact programme called SIPSA which particularly assists SME development. That is an example of how a well co-ordinated partnership of business and NGOs with government can raise funds from both the public and private sectors, and bring forward the technical skills that are so often missing and the management expertise that can make all the difference.
It is often said of Africa that it is a continent led by personalities. We know leadership is vital, but the structures for a fully functioning and stable democracy need to be put in place too, and people trained to work in them, so that those institutions endure and the country is not at the mercy of those in power at any given time. Only in this way will future generations benefit from socio-economic development. That is why I hope the Government will do more to build sound institutions to help win the many fights faced in the developing world, particularly the fight against corruption, which remains a major constraint to nation-building and business development—there is simply no point in investing in a country where corruption is rife.
Good governance is an absolute must, and I hope DfID will continue to place emphasis on transparency and accountability, but also give more practical training to help governments to make their anti-corruption policies work effectively. In Kenya President Kibaki is going to great lengths to reform their judicial system, and his anti-corruption commission is becoming successful in promoting better governance and removing officials who abuse power. In Ghana President Kufuor has worked significantly to reduce the extent of the corruption that he inherited over three years ago. All these efforts are only the beginning. There is so much more to be done.
I place on record my thanks to all those businesses helping in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Their role is vital and cannot be underestimated.
The developing world has a great human and business potential too often overlooked by the developed world. I will not dwell on the size of markets or the great potential for investment—it is all there for anybody to read. Suffice to say that good returns on investment in Africa, as well as in Asia and Latin America, mean that no business should refuse to investigate the growth potential. Investment climates are becoming more stable and secure, even if there are still a few well documented places to hold back on just now. Above all, greater access to the world's markets and to business partnerships will accelerate the positive trend. More governments are showing belief in the developing world, so that it may be enabled to play a greater part in world economic growth. I beg to move for Papers.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who has introduced the subject in a remarkably non-partisan fashion. I recall her days as Overseas Development Minister. At one stage when she teased me and asked whether I wanted to get rid of her, I remember making the disloyal remark that as far as I cared she could stay Overseas Development Minister for ever, no matter which party was in power.
Since those days one good thing has happened: the Development Minister now has Cabinet status. As she generously acknowledged, this Government have done remarkably well by way of enhancing the aid we

281
give to developing countries. My right honourable friend Gordon Brown has taken a lead in tackling the problem of financing the solutions for poverty and development around the world, the latest one of which is international financing facilities. One must acknowledge that the UK Government, under both Mr Major and the present Prime Minister, have taken a big lead in tackling the debt problem, which has been a major problem for developing countries.
I welcome the report, but I also want to mention things that are normally not in such reports, and to try to think of a way forward regarding this problem. There is a paradox here. We have been thinking about, and spending money on, the eradication of poverty for 50 years. While there has been much progress, some problems still seem to be persistent and hard to tackle. We have learnt a lot about development—we no longer think of it in terms of capital stock and economic growth, but in terms of clean water, healthcare, literacy, gender empowerment and so on. This revolution in development thinking was welcome, and was part of the UNDP's human development report, which I had a small part in developing.
However, we may have reached the end of that revolution. We have got a stage where development programmes funded by official government aid have begun to require so many conditions that it has almost become an exercise in baroque architecture. We want schemes to have transparency, accountability, good governance, sustainability, gender awareness and participation of the poor, and all those conditions are always put before any project that is financed by official aid. This process ought to be re-examined, because we are losing sight of the principal aim, which is reduction of poverty. It would be nice to have these other what I might call "peripherals", but if poverty can be reduced by some effective means, I feel strongly that we should not reject schemes just because they do not have one or the other boxes ticked off. Looking at what the UNDP did over the 1990s, it was very easy for people sitting in New York to make new conditions. New theories of development had come together. More requirements were being put on field staff, who had a difficult problem to cope with. Is it not time to simplify the requirements for development programmes? I feel the same about the millennium development goals—there are far too many.
We know empirically from observation that some problems are clustered together. Infant mortality, lack of access to clean water or to healthcare and the low position of women are strongly correlated with poverty. If we can reduce poverty, these sorts of things tackle themselves. Whatever we do with millennium development goals, we must get strictly in view that reduction of poverty is our main goal. Everything else will follow from that. One cannot reduce poverty without providing some of the conditions, like clean water, education or good healthcare. I hope that will be our approach.
I have said this to your Lordships before—we have to learn from the success of Asia in tackling poverty. The way Asia, especially in the east and south-east, has reduced poverty over the past 30 years is a remarkable
282
story. More people have come out of poverty in that time than ever have before in the history of the world. The fact that there are still a lot of poor people is neither here nor there. People have come out of poverty because by and large governments—some of which, I am sorry to say, were rather corrupt—were responsive to the needs of their own poor. Through a rapid growth programme, which included the redistribution of assets such as land and a big emphasis on education, they were able to reduce poverty across China, Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and so on.
I quite agree with the noble Baroness that corruption is bad and that one does not like corrupt governments, but I prefer corrupt governments which are effective to corrupt governments which are not. If I may say so without upsetting him even more than I have in the past, I prefer Dr Mahathir Mohamad to Mr Mugabe because eventually, whatever he is, Dr Mahathir Mohamad ultimately benefited the people that he was supposed to lead. Malaysia has come out of poverty and racial strife because of the determined effort of a government in pursuit of development. We should examine whether or not to categorise governments as those which provide good governance and those which are responsive because, basically, governments are there to cater to the needs of the poorest people in their midst.
A great deal has been said about Africa, where there is to be an African commission, and the need for good governance there. But, again, as I said in the debate in your Lordships' House on political parties, Africa misses out on robust political parties which are involved in robust political dialogue. You do not get good governance without good politics; it is not possible. You need someone inside and outside government to put a check on them and say, "What you are doing is not right" or "You are corrupt" and so on. Unless there is that level of political involvement it will be hard to establish good governance. It cannot be established from above; it has to come from below.
Finally, I wish that our newspapers were more informative and more informed about development problems. I should add, perhaps unfairly, that there was a headline in the Observer over the weekend about clashes in Sierra Leone. When I read further it became clear that the article was referring to the Ivory Coast, not Sierra Leone. The poor editor had not realised that Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast are not the same country, which is rather sad.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for introducing the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, she is distinguished not only by her remarkable past record in this field but by her continued commitment to it. This is very much valued in your Lordships' House.
Like her, I shall respond very positively to this important and impressive DfID report. It is good that we have such a government department. Indeed, in a report published today, the Washington-based Center

283
for Global Development recommends that the United States Government should establish a not dissimilar agency. That report underlines the same main themes as those which underpin the challenges outlined in the 2004 report of the Department for International Development.
These are not subsidiary to our main foreign policy interests; they are not a kind of charitable addendum to the main business. They are key foreign policy challenges—terrorism, transnational crime, global poverty, humanitarian crises of hunger, plague and disaster, whether human or natural. The CGD report states that these challenges originate in, spread to and disproportionately affect developing countries, especially those which we would describe as failing states. These are countries in which governments fail to provide security, fail to provide political legitimacy and fail to meet the basic needs of their citizens. These include some countries where DfID is trying to make a difference for the better.
I am very positive about much of the general and, indeed, detailed work of DfID outlined in this very full report. In a sense, it is a part of the conscience of our country that we involve ourselves in the wider world in this fashion.
However, I wish to refer to a few problems that I see in our general approach. I am sure that others may well have observed the inconsistencies that there sometimes are in our policy as a whole, where we destroy the infrastructure of a country and then spend the limited resources that we have in trying to build it up again. Others may comment that that particular anomaly is characterised in Iraq and, perhaps notoriously, in Israel's operations in the territory of the Palestinian Authority.
But this kind of paradoxical behaviour goes much wider. I remember a number of years ago expressing concerns about the support that our Government were giving to President Fujimori in Peru because they were terribly impressed by the way in which he was tackling the war against terrorism, as it would now be described. After a couple of visits to the country, I was very concerned that the whole approach he was taking was destroying the political party infrastructure of Peru and that, whatever the short-term effects on the terrorist camp, the long-term effects would be very serious.
I am very glad to see on page 78 of the report that we are funding Transparencia, an organisation which, along with IDEA, is trying to build up the political parties. But that this is happening now, with relatively limited resources, is because of the degree of political support that was given to the destruction of these parties a number of years ago.
I notice that, as far as I can understand it, the budget for Latin America outlined on page 171 will slip by two-thirds, from £32 million in 2001–02 to £11 million in 2005–06. One must assume from those figures that, in countries like Peru, which are included in the budget, we are cutting back at a time when we should be strengthening the infrastructures. We know very
284
well that the situation in that country is not improving at the moment; indeed, it is becoming increasingly unsteady and unstable.
So it is not only a question of being consistent—do not go in and wreck something and then have to build it up at great expense subsequently—but, when you do get involved with something, of sticking with it over the long term. One of the problems with many peace processes and nation-building exercises is that the international community becomes involved for a short time and then, just when you are beginning to turn the corner, the international community rushes off to the next emergency. Then what has been put in place, but is still unstable and brittle, begins to fall to pieces. It is perhaps less glorious to stick with the work of building up, but in the long run it is much for the better.
The anomaly of trying to build and at the same time, in another sense, taking to pieces manifests itself in other ways. There is a serious moral question about the fact that we are trying to build up healthcare staff in many developing countries. We are not achieving all of our millennium goals in Asia and Africa—for instance, we are not meeting the targets for the provision of specialist healthcare staff for the delivery of babies—and yet some of our National Health Service trusts are going to developing countries and actively trying to persuade trained staff to leave there and to come here to work.
I am absolutely for people having the freedom to travel and work wherever they choose in the world, but that is not the same thing as spending money on targeting countries that already do not have enough trained staff in order to fulfil the inadequacies of our own system. That is the kind of paradoxical behaviour which is certainly not characteristic of real joined-up government.
When I refer to DfID being part of the conscience of governance and of our country, I mean not only conscience by way of giving charitable aid but conscience by way of bringing to the attention of other components of government the untoward and paradoxical effects of other policies, whether in healthcare, defence or the other aspects of foreign policy that I have mentioned.
I am also delighted to see the attention that has been given to addressing conflict, particularly in chapter five, because conflict is one of the things that destroys development. But I am not sure how much we are learning from the experience of relatively successful work in conflict resolution. As I look at the situation as it develops in South Africa or my own part of the United Kingdom and then consider what our Government and others have done in addressing the Middle East it seems that we have not learnt and applied the important lessons. We have taken rules of thumb but not reflective thought when we come to those difficult circumstances.
There is much more that we could do in thinking about it. For example, it has become clear in recent years that the doctrine of national sovereignty cannot be allowed to run unless there is a reasonable degree of benevolence and competence on the part of the

285
Governments of countries. Martin Woolf from the Financial Times describes some regimes as "gangsters with flags".
That does not mean that the attitude of developed countries should be to march in whether or not the United Nations is behind them and irrespective of whether the action confirms with international law. It may mean that we have to consider how to develop the international institutions and law to a new order that does not place a sacramental stamp on national sovereignty but on the other hand does not ride roughshod over the freedom of others to conduct their business with our assistance and co-operation.
This is an important report and I am glad to see it being debated, but I hope that some of the inadequacies of our approach will also receive consideration.
Lord Patel: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords—
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we were expecting to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
4.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for introducing the debate. I also express my gratitude for the immense contribution to international development she has made for so many years and is still making. I want to confine my comments to one theme: the level of international aid.
As long ago as 1970 the United Nations established a target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for countries such as ours. We have been committed to reaching this target for more than 30 years and we have never made it. The closest we got was 25 years ago when our aid level reached 0.51 per cent of GNP. The Government plan to reach 0.4 per cent in 2005–06. Welcome though that increase is, we are still nowhere near meeting the original commitment.
But every once in a while there comes a moment when we signal a refusal to accept the status quo and we realise that a significant difference can be made. The Jubilee 2000 campaign to drop world debt was one such moment. The Churches were at the heartbeat of that movement. Its twin strengths were its size and its diversity. Old and young, rich and poor, rock stars and members of the Mothers' Union—I am a great fan of the Mothers' Union—joined forces in a coalition that ultimately could not be ignored.
I wonder whether your Lordships remember that when he looked out at the crowds of peaceful debt campaigners who greeted world leaders in Birmingham in 1998, President Clinton remarked, "I know a big tent when I see one". The big tent was responsible for the cancellation of much debt. Debt relief has allowed a number of African countries to introduce full and
286
universal primary education. The job is not finished; only one-third of the debt has been dealt with, but it shows what can be achieved.
Next year we have the possibility of another breakthrough moment. There is a coming together of a number of events that offer great opportunities. Next year our Government will chair G8 and hold the European Union presidency. Next year will be the twentieth anniversary of Live Aid; and the Prime Minister's Africa Commission should be in full flow. So next year has the possibility of being another pivotal moment to tackle global poverty; a real opportunity to be grasped, if only we will.
Such a breakthrough delivered by the actions of Governments around the world will also do a great deal to make the world a more peaceful and less divided place. We all know that tackling poverty is never straightforward. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has given us some examples of the difficulties that have to be overcome. But I venture to suggest that one—perhaps the critical—indicator of the success of the Africa Commission, the G8 and the UK's EU presidency will be the level of additional resources they deliver to the poorest countries in the world.
I understand that in the next few days as part of the Government's spending review decisions are being taken about the aid budget for the next three years. Those decisions will be crucial, not just for the sake of the millions of people around our world, but also because it will be difficult for our Government to convince other countries to increase their efforts to tackle world poverty if we are not doing so ourselves.
We can take some pride in the significant increases in aid provided by our Government since 1997, for which I am grateful. We can also take some pride that the UK's aid is among the most effective in the world. Yet we are still performing relatively poorly in comparison with others. Five countries have already met and exceeded the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. Five more countries have set a date when they will reach the target; Britain is not one of them.
We cannot be among world leaders in tackling world poverty until our aid levels reach their target. As a nation we are becoming richer and richer year by year. The richer we are, the more we have to give. The notion of giving a proportion of one's wealth to the less fortunate is a non-negotiable Christian principle.
While I recognise with gratitude the substantial increases in aid that the Government have made, I also recognise that more than 100 million children still do not go to school in our world; more than 6,000 people die every day because of HIV/AIDS; and this year alone half a million mothers will die during childbirth in poor countries.
So I want to make a plea to the Government to agree a timetable to increase our development aid and by 2008 finally to reach that target to which we committed ourselves way back in 1970.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for jumping the gun. I suppose it was to try to get it over with.
I too would like to congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for securing this important debate; but more importantly for her continued support and commitment. It will not be a surprise to the House that I shall concentrate mainly on that part of the millennium development goals and the DfID report pertaining to reproductive health and rights and the government strategy on achieving the targets.
Of course I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the right reverend Prelate had to say: eliminating poverty is the key to achieving all the millennium goals. I am a doctor, and therefore I worry about the suffering that exists.
This year is the tenth anniversary of the international conference on population and development; a halfway stage to the goal set for universal access to reproductive healthcare by 2015. There have been some gains, mainly the renewed commitment to sexual health and rights and the focus on women's needs, but not much in the way of tangible results over the past decade. On the contrary, a dramatic reduction in funding for reproductive health from some of the richer countries and donors has threatened to reverse what little gain there has been in the areas of contraception, safe sex to combat HIV/AIDS, safer abortion and family size. The UK needs to work harder to persuade nations and donors to restore their funding for reproductive health. Can the noble Baroness say what plans DfID has to engage in dialogue with countries, particularly the United States, with regard to supporting reproductive health and rights more actively?
Improvements in reproductive healthcare and reproductive health will save lives, reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, reduce population size, improve economies and help reduce poverty and hunger.
The current figure of 40 million people with diseases such as HIV/AIDS is appalling. Three quarters of people in sub-Saharan Africa live with HIV/AIDS, with the younger ones most at risk. As has already been mentioned, 6,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 24 are infected every day. Some 13 million children under the age of 15 have lost both parents. Nearly 350 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur every year—the women and the poorest of the country are the most vulnerable.
I turn now to reproductive health as it relates to pregnancy and childbirth, which is the main focus of my speech. Each year, as the right reverend Prelate said, 250 million women become pregnant, of whom 600,000 die every year. That is equivalent to four jumbo jets full of 350 people each crashing every day, and all the occupants dying. Nearly 10 million of those women experience life-threatening complications which leave them either dead or living with lifelong disability and ill health. Nearly 50 million pregnancies are terminated each year, many using unsafe practices, resulting in nearly 70,000 to 80,000 deaths of mostly young women. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, a
288
woman has a lifetime risk of dying in childbirth of one in 16, compared with one in 2,800 in the developed world.
Despite much work over the last decade, there has been little success in reducing these numbers. The goal of halving maternal deaths by 2015 will not be met. The global maternal mortality ratio has changed little. What is required is a new strategy for action on the maternal health development goals. I would be interested to know if the noble Baroness can say what plans DfID has in this field.
We have in the United Kingdom organisations with experience of working in this area in the developing world—organisations that can work with DfID to develop models of care that will produce tangible benefits and achieve millennium development goals.
Death in childbirth is the ultimate tragedy. Tragic, too, are the conditions that leave women with lifelong disability and ill health as a result of injuries sustained during childbirth. Very little, if anything, is done to help these women, who suffer from lifelong disability such as obstetric fistula. I shall describe what that is, because some of your Lordships may not be familiar with the term.
Let me describe the fate of a beautiful 13 year-old girl living in the mountains of Ethiopia, given into marriage by her family, often to an older man. At the age of 14 she gets pregnant and, despite the hard life away from home, she looks forward to the birth of a healthy child. When the time comes, she labours; she is frightened and is supported by one or two women from the village. Her labour lasts a long time—three to four days. By this time she is exhausted, dehydrated and frightened—frightened for herself and for her baby. Finally, she delivers—she delivers a dead baby. She is in utter despair, but too tired to think. She falls asleep.
A few days later, weak and still exhausted, she realises that she is leaking urine all the time. She does not know why. There is no one to help. Because she smells of urine, she is discarded by the community and left to lie in a hut far away. If she is lucky, somebody will hear of where she can be taken where facilities are available to cure her or her horrible condition. But for 2 million women in Africa alone, no such facilities are available.
There are very few facilities in Africa. They are mostly provided by people such as Catherine Hamlin, aged 78, who is still working in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, and Sister Anne Ward, who is still working in parts of Nigeria. There are very few facilities and very few trained doctors and nurses.
UNFPA has recently carried out a needs assessment exercise in most African countries that tabulates the facilities that are available. If training can be provided, more of these women could be cared for.
I hope that the millennium development goals can include help for these women. There are many from this country who are prepared to work and train doctors in Africa. There are hospitals which, if the capacity was increased and the doctors were trained, could cope with treating these women.

289
Prevention of maternal mortality can also prevent occurrences of obstetric fistula. While we wait for that to happen, millions of women will have to be cared for. I hope that the Government will do something about this.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I would like to say how delighted I was to see my noble friend Lady Chalker opening this debate. Many a time in the past we have enjoyed listening to her, and we have supported her in her work. Some people in the House may not remember her policy—children by choice. That encapsulates so much. What else is there to say? People should not be forced to have children, but at the same time they should have the opportunity to have children. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew attention to the hundreds of thousands of girls with fistula, young girls especially, who wander the streets in Nigeria because nobody will let them come near. This abuse of human rights is just unbelievable.
I was going to start by talking about a very large group of people who often seem to be forgotten, but now that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has drawn attention to those women's issues, I intend to confine my remarks to the situation of women in developing countries. They have no recognisable access to any kind of human rights. Women in India and Africa do most of the work but there is no respect for them and no financial return.
I do not know whether noble Lords saw a documentary about a woman in Africa suffering from AIDS. Her husband had died, she had five children of her own—two girls and three boys—and had taken on two nephews. It was the 12 year-old girl-child who did all the work while the five louts—if I dare to use the word—did nothing but play football outside. If we allow that kind of thing to go on, under the title of "culture", we are totally failing in our duty to help the most oppressed people.
I should declare an interest. I am the director of Marie Stopes International, but, more importantly, I am a woman whose origins lie in a developing country. I have seen what happens to women in India.
Let us look at the peer group pressures on men and women. Men with a group of men will want to show off. They will drink; they will fight; they will gamble; and maybe they will womanise. What do women do? They try to save whatever little money they have for their homes and their children. In every Marie Stopes clinic and in every area I have visited, I have heard the women talk about their children's education. They say that they do not want their children to live lives like them and that they want them to have better lives. I have never heard the men say anything like that. It is important to see how the pressures work on the men and women.
There are fine success stories where the women have been the target of aid. The Gramin Bank in Bangladesh was started not for women, but when the bank found
290
that it was the women who repaid the loans—the micro-credit—it stopped giving loans to men. It has a success rate of 98 per cent returns and it has become so rich that it has now set up a mobile phone company. Hundreds of thousands of women have benefited from those micro-credit schemes. Micro-credit is a great way to help women in rural economies.
I know of a charity that is working mainly on water, but it also helps women with some embroidery, some sewing et cetera. I have met those women. I have gone Rajasthan and spent an afternoon with them. I do not need an interpreter; I can talk to them directly. The amount of self-respect and empowerment that has come from the minute amount of money that they earn is just remarkable. They have compelled the local council to give them a place to bathe and a place to wash their clothes. One might think, "Well, what the hell is that?", but they did not have it and they have it now. We should collect examples of good practice, put them together and see how they can be multiplied, because if we are going to see any change in the developing countries, I strongly believe that it will come through the women.
We have never focused on them enough. In presentations about work, women are seen as an adjunct. Sometimes, they are not mentioned at all. When one asks "What about the women?", those giving the presentation reply, "Oh, yes. We're doing lots for women", but they do not talk about it. They do not see them as part of the mainstream and that is very disappointing.
I have spoken to some of the delegates from the UN Economic Commission for Africa. The male representative from Uganda told me, "We have to be very careful, you know. We mustn't upset the men. If we are going to do anything for the women, we must do it in such a way that the men think it's their idea". Those attitudes are not pleasant.
We all know that women are suffering from HIV. A huge group of women in India is HIV positive, but they are not allowed to go to a clinic because it would bring shame on the family. They are monogamous women. They are not the ones who go out; it is their men who infect them. President Bush says, "Ah, yes, but they should abstain". Who is supposed to abstain? Is it the men? Have the men ever abstained? If the women are to abstain, they would dearly like to. Have they the power to abstain? No, they do not. Have they the power to make the men wear condoms? No, they do not. That culture moves quite a way up to the lower levels of the middle classes. Women do not have the power to control their men's sexuality. It is extremely important that they are given ways of looking after themselves in that respect.
President Bush feels that he should not support UNFPA because it supposedly endorses China's one-child policy. No, UNFPA does not. It does not tell any country what policy it should have. I have seen its work in China. It is trying to introduce choice for the women over contraception. It is trying to help young people understand what is available and what is not, yet President Bush says that UNFPA is not an organisation to be supported.

291
As I am running out of time, I shall be brief. I am not asking for "equality" as we understand it in the West. I am not asking for "equal opportunity" as we understand it the West. I am asking merely for a freedom for women from fear of physical abuse. I am asking that they have access to family planning and to minimal health advice; that they learn ways of protecting themselves from the men who infect them with HIV. I am asking that they should be able to earn a little money for themselves to empower them and to give them some self-respect, as well as to be able to help their children.
Women are the key to poverty alleviation. By no means has enough been done in that respect.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is some time since the House has had the opportunity to debate international development issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, is therefore to be congratulated on providing this occasion, all the more so because of her distinguished record in office and the practical contribution that she made then, and still makes, to the development agenda.
I shall focus on three issues in this wide field: the interface between international development and peace and security; the EU's development policy; and the plight of children in Brazil. It has long been a truism to point out that without peace and security, developing countries are not going to be able to claw their way up the development ladder, to attract foreign direct investment, to grow their economies, to provide their people with jobs, education and healthcare. The list of countries where peace and security have broken down and, with them, virtually any external economic input other than basic humanitarian assistance is a long and sad one.
Perhaps slightly less well understood is the reverse proposition; namely, that where development has successfully got under way and where a country has been able to raise its GNP per capita significantly, the vulnerability to threats to its stability and security reduces. A considerable body of academic research indicates that, beyond a certain level of GNP per capita, the risk to a country of a breakdown in its peace and security sharply reduces.
What that demonstrates, I would suggest, is that we are not, as governments and multilateral institutions were for far too long too prone to assume, dealing with two completely separate agenda items, one involving economic development, the other involving peace and security, each with its own specificities and remedies. Rather, we are dealing with a closely linked set of problems which interrelate and impact on each other, either for the good or for the bad. However, even if that is now intellectually better understood than it used to be, it cannot be said that many governments and many international organisations have taken effective steps to address the interlinked aspects of the agenda in a coherent way. In that respect Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on setting up the conflict prevention pools for Africa and
292
the rest of the world, which, I understand, are jointly managed by DfID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the MoD. The European Union is to be congratulated on earmarking 260 million euros to back up the African Union's efforts at conflict prevention.
However, does the UN Security Council with its primary responsibility for peace and security concert its actions with the IMF and the World Bank, which have much bigger resources? Do even the different parts of the United Nations family—the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and others—invariably pull in the same direction? Do the financial institutions and those who manage the world's debt problems fully appreciate that the exercise of rigorous conditionality on a country which is already slipping towards state failure may only accelerate its progress towards that destination? I do not think that a convincingly affirmative answer can be given to any of those questions.
The UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, on which I have the honour to serve, is looking at all these matters and will, I hope, come up with some useful and sensible suggestions. If and when we do, towards the end of this year, I hope that we shall be able to look to the Government for support in getting—dare I call it this?—a more joined-up approach to handling the crucial interface between peace and security and economic development.
The European Union's development policies have few friends in this country and the leading opposition party now seems to want to do away with them altogether. I agree that the negative effect of the European Union's trade distorting export subsidies for agricultural products does grievous damage and that these subsidies need to be phased out as quickly as possible. It is good that the Commission, which negotiates on our behalf in this field, is now prepared to commit itself to doing that within a pre-established timetable. I hope that the G8 summit meeting, which is under way today, will firmly nail its colours to that target.
I also agree that the administration of the European Union's aid budget leaves a good deal to be desired, even if Commissioner Patten has instituted genuinely valuable reforms which now need to be applied more widely. However, I would suggest that the remedy of repatriating our share of this expenditure, which is now being advocated, would be a clear case of the cure being worse than the disease. It seems to ignore the fact that more than half the members of the European Union have no bilateral aid budgets worthy of the name, and probably very little will to allocate funds to such bilateral budgets. So if we break up the European Union's aid effort, the quantum of aid going to developing countries from Europe is likely to drop sharply. Is that what we want? And is it what many developing countries with which we have close and beneficial ties would thank us for bringing about? I doubt it.

293
The whole subject surely needs a good deal more thought. Would we not be better advised to focus on reforming the EU's aid policies rather than destroying them? I know there is great frustration at the fact that any increase in the European Union's aid budget, which we do not control absolutely, results in a reduction in our bilateral aid. However, that is not a policy which is made in Brussels; it is imposed by an organisation whose headquarters is a few hundred yards from here—Her Majesty's Treasury. When I used to tell my friends in Brussels about the negative effect of any increase in the EU aid budget on our bilateral aid, they used to smile in wonderment. None of their governments followed that practice. I suspect that they thought it was another example of British masochism run wild.
In raising the problems of Brazilian children I must declare an interest as I have a son who works with street children in São Paulo, Brazil. I fear there is some risk that our policy of concentrating on poverty eradication and shifting the balance of our aid programmes away from middle income countries—a policy for which, in general, I have considerable understanding—will have a negative impact on the excellent work that DfID has done in recent years to improve the plight of Brazilian children, about which my noble friend Lord Alton spoke so movingly when he reported back in March after a visit to Brazil.
Brazil is certainly a middle income country, but it is also one that has some of the greatest inequalities in the developing world. When the International Development Bill came before this House in 2001, the noble Baroness who is now the Leader of the House gave the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and others such as myself who raised the issue of the priority to be given to programmes for children the most categoric assurances about DfID's intentions in that respect. Therefore, I hope that the Minister in replying to this debate will be able to respond positively to the concerns that I have expressed.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chalker for introducing this debate. She has a very distinguished record in this field. The debate is particularly welcome as it enables me as chairman of the relevant subcommittee to run a trailer for the European Union Select Committee report, EU Development Aid in Transition, that was published at the end of April. The committee looks forward to the Government's response and to debating that report on the Floor of the House, at which time I shall, of course, acknowledge the assistance that my committee received from many people in the preparation of that report.
This afternoon is not the occasion to discuss that EU report in detail, but it is relevant to this debate. European Union development aid features in the DfID report which is the subject of my noble friend's Motion, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, referred to European Union aid.
294
European Union development aid, together with member state aid, provides more than 50 per cent of official development aid worldwide, and so it is extremely important that it is both efficient and effective. Whatever criticisms have been levelled in the past, the committee found that both the quality and the speed of delivery of European Union development aid had seen very considerable improvement in recent years. We particularly noted the very frank statements from officials whom we met in Brussels acknowledging the problems of the past.
The reforms that were put in place have now produced a significant improvement in aid delivery, principally due to the establishment of EuropeAid in 2001, the introduction of country strategy papers focusing on governance and human rights, the deconcentration of EU tasks to European Union overseas delegations coupled with an improvement in accounting and monitoring procedures. That is not to say that further reforms and efforts are not necessary to complete the process. Indeed, there needs to be greater coherence between European Union development policy and the European Union's other policies on trade and agriculture.
It is fair to say that while EU development aid together with that of the member states represents more than 50 per cent of official development aid worldwide, the geographical scope of European Union aid remains controversial. The percentage focused on low income countries is only 42 per cent. The committee suggested that in the medium term the European Union should work towards developing an objective set of global criteria to help assess the need for aid rather than the present regional basis for allocations. This does not mean that countries within the African, Caribbean and Pacific grouping (ACP) would receive less aid than at present; some, indeed, might receive more. However, we believe that at present European Union aid is skewed in favour of the ACP grouping to the detriment of other low income areas such as Asia. In that respect there are advantages to the European Development Fund being brought into the principal European Union budget lines—something which I note from the report we are discussing the Government do not favour and have rejected.
We were disappointed that the draft constitution did not have a stronger focus on development aid. It is hoped that there will not be a reduction of development interests in the name of the European Union's common foreign and security policy. It is important that the next European Commission retains an independent development commissioner and puts both aid policy and aid programming functions into a single directorate-general, retaining for implementation purposes EuropeAid.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—I hope that the committee's report will encourage him—the committee found the suggestion that European Union aid should be repatriated likely to be both counterproductive and politically unfeasible. European Union aid as opposed to bilateral aid, as the report makes clear, has a number of advantages. This afternoon is not the occasion to go through those in detail, but I shall cite a few. The European Union, acting on behalf of all member states, is in a good position to argue the case for good performance

295
on governance and human rights. It should certainly be possible to secure greater coherence between aid and other instruments in which the European Union has competence, particularly in trade and agriculture.
Of course, there are advantages for the recipient countries in dealing with a co-ordinated group of donors. For the donors, there is value in having their aid co-ordinated in a single strategy. The picture of European Union aid is therefore considerably more favourable than is frequently painted. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on the reasons for opposing budgetisation of the European Development Fund, but perhaps she cannot do so in advance of the response to the committee's report. I also hope that she will take note of the committee's support for the non-repatriation of EU development aid.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I add my warm thanks to the noble Baroness for giving us another opportunity to debate international development. In an election week, it seems appropriate to start with a little polemic on the Government's record on aid spending, which had shown so much promise. Perhaps the noble Baroness was a little too kind in her opening remarks. She and others will remember the bullish aid manifesto of 1997. We are now in the eighth year of this Government and, as the right reverend Prelate says, the target of 0.7 per cent still seems as far off as ever.
I do not doubt the commitment of the Chancellor and the new Secretary of State, but NGOs are beginning to campaign seriously on the issue. Without the international finance facility and a much greater initiative from the G8 than we are getting this week, they wonder how the millennium development goals will ever be reached. The Government have certainly moved forward with additional spending and political commitment to Africa, with greater aid harmonisation through the Development Assistance Committee. The new research into the role of middle-income countries is also welcome. However, DAC figures show that in spite of all the trumpeting our ODA is still only 0.34 per cent, which is just behind the European average. It will creep up to 0.4 per cent by 2006, which is again below the forecast EU average of 0.43 per cent. That implies an ambitious annual growth rate of 8 per cent, and I hope that the Minister can explain how that can be achieved.
Are the international development department's public service agreements too closely linked to the millennium development goals? Those goals are ambitious, as already mentioned. The education targets in Africa—they are marked green in the annual report—still seem attainable, but most of the other boxes are red or amber. My noble friend Lord Patel has given us a poignant illustration on health. When it comes to target 4 on trade barriers, one large red box indicates that the post-Cancun talks are still stalled. Perhaps the Minister will give us a more positive picture, remembering that the UK began to influence the European Union on the Singapore issues.
296
There was some good news on trade last week, when the WTO ruled against the US cotton producers. That means that countries such as Mali should now be able to fetch a more reasonable price for their goods. However, some argue that west African cotton farmers should also be compensated. In 2002, Mali received 37 million dollars in aid, but lost 43 million dollars simply as a result of lower export earnings due to US subsidies, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee. Without such compensation, cotton farmers in west Africa will never be on an equal footing.
Much now depends on the new economic partnership agreements and how they can build on the valuable relationships with the ACP countries. They will have to raise their sights towards strategic and regional partnerships, while the EU takes more care with vulnerable LDCs and revives the concept of "special and differential treatment". Most people now accept that the international trading system is potentially the most valuable vehicle for poverty reduction. The question is whether the WTO, with the decision on cotton, is genuinely moving forward to equitable trade integration. Japan and the US, in particular, still need to respond positively.
Much can be achieved through the real participation of civil society in both trade and aid. For instance, a recent Christian Aid report shows how local communities in Ghana—farmers, traders and consumers directly affected by trade and especially the dumping of agricultural exports—can influence national decisions. Similar work has been done on debt relief elsewhere in Africa. However, I wonder whether governments are serious about the involvement of civil society in the poverty reduction strategy process. Sometimes one suspects that it is part of the mantra of good governance, which disguises official inability to achieve a proper process of consultation.
A lot of respected NGOs, such as the Overseas Development Institute, the Bretton Woods Project and the International Institute for Environment and Development, are questioning the adequacy of the PRSP framework. For instance, a senior researcher at the ODI has commented:
"In most African countries there is a tendency for PRSPs to be seen as technical planning processes".
The Bretton Woods Project stated:
"Participation is being invoked for legitimation rather than a fundamental shift in policy making".
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the DfID is doing its best, alongside the IMF and the World Bank, to monitor the effectiveness of PRSPs, which are critical? The DfID has increased its support for UK civil society, which I of course welcome, as I do the success of the partnership programme agreements.
The section on the EC in the annual report is quite candid about the European Union's failure to direct more assistance to the low-income countries, and to continue with the reform of its external assistance programmes in line with the European Development Fund. That may not surface in tomorrow's elections, but as we approach the UK presidency there will be more calls on Her Majesty's Government to speed up the

297
reform process, of which we must all be ashamed, although the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, says that there have been improvements. On the positive side, the EU and DfID have both given solid support to communities such as the Palestinians in their sincere if desperate efforts to improve their fragile administration and stay in the negotiating process.
The debate takes place against the curious background of the Sea Island Summit, in which the interests of poor countries—especially trade and debt relief—are again overshadowed and subjected to a parade of western aspirations for the Middle East, as reflected in the latest UN resolution. I agreed with much said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It is evident that aid-giving itself has entered a dangerous new phase since 9/11, and I am sorry that the Government have been associated with experiments in democracy and world security at the expense of true development in the Middle East, and that that is reflected in their holistic anti-terrorist programme.
Brutal attacks on the United Nations in Congo and aid workers in Afghanistan during the past week have again highlighted the perils of helping overseas. They send a chilling signal, not least to young people, that it is no longer enough to go abroad and do good if you are likely to attract attention from terrorists or bandits with murderous intent.
There was disturbing news in Afghanistan when five Médecins Sans Frontières aid workers were killed. MSF has been working in Afghanistan for nearly 35 years and it is tragic that it has had to suspend all its operations there. Christian Aid and others have also had to suspend their projects.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is due to report soon on the policies required to protect humanitarian work in areas still affected by the Taliban. The EU's Commissioner for Development, Poul Neilson, has already complained about the role of the US-led coalition and the blurring of military and humanitarian aid. Several of us have constantly mentioned this. We do not want soldiers doing aid work, we want them to protect aid workers. The Government have put up an astonishing smoke screen, claiming that security is under control when US-led forces are doing their own thing and NATO still has no unified command.
DfID and others have made an enormous investment in several regions of Afghanistan, including valuable support for local Afghan NGOs; and it is up to DfID to demand more protection from the MoD and our US allies. I hope that the Minister can assure us that she will go back and propose to her colleagues a new initiative that will take proper account of security for aid programmes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, your Lordships' House is fortunate indeed that it has been possible for my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, with her wide experience and even wider reputation, to secure and to open this debate so pertinently. I am myself
298
fortunate, especially as a tyro in these matters, to follow the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, whose authority on the same matters is very considerable. At the general level, I concur with my noble friend that help should always be defined by the receiver rather than by the giver. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that I have been a personal friend of Mr James Wolfenson, the President of the World Bank, for nearly 50 years since we were at the Harvard Business School together, and I admire him considerably.
The thoroughly worthwhile DfID report runs to more than 200 pages and in the perhaps unnecessarily constrained minutes the Leader of your Lordships' House has vouchsafed each of us in this debate, notably in comparison with the other debate, I propose to make one provocative reference to a recent exchange at starred questions; to make one observation about substance as it affects style; to give a synopsis of one germane case history; and, arising out of the latter, to ask one question of the Minister, of which I have at her constructive invitation, given her notice. Incidentally, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in expressing surprise that Clare Short should have gone along with the recruitment of NHS staff from emerging and developing countries; and I was much moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the implications of that at the opposite end of the transaction.
First, regarding the recent exchange at Starred Questions—the Question related to the way in which economies are measured statistically in the context of climate change; in short, the argument about using current exchange rates or purchasing power parities. Some in your Lordships' House will have thought the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who I am delighted to see in her place, "courageous" in Sir Humphrey Appleby's phrase, in telling my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby that he was just wrong in his advocacy of PPP, but she was patently speaking for Her Majesty's Government.
In terms of collective responsibility, I do not expect the Minister replying today to demonstrate a scintilla of dissent from the noble Baroness's position, but since the noble Baroness's asseveration, the Economist returned to the subject twice in its 29 May edition during the Recess, which concluded that measurement by current exchange rates underestimated the growth rates in emerging economies. I could not help noticing the DfID report's comments on some growth rates in Africa against the overall continental need. As the IMF uses PPPs and the world uses the IMF in its debt reduction considerations, I should be delighted if the Minister told me that DfID were to use PPP, but after the recent defence of Government practice by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I shall not hold my breath.
Secondly, regarding substance's effect on style—I have a close relative who has been holding positions of considerable responsibility for her age in an NGO in several central African countries. She is generally full of praise for the way that DfID handles NGOs and, particularly, for the quality of questions that they ask. She praises, too, their good methodological procedures. She felt, however, that they might sometimes—profitably for both sides—be more proactive in handling

299
NGOs, while acknowledging that that might be a function of the amount of previous operational experience a DfID official in the field had. She thought in general that NGOs' productivity might be greater if their relations with DfID were more institutionalised.
I put to my close relative the analogous case within the UK of the concerns of voluntary sector organisations such as the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, St John's Ambulance and the WRVS at being omitted from statutory reference in the Civil Contingencies Bill. She assented immediately, citing Oxfam's recent experience of being involved in domestic poverty alleviation programmes here in the UK, where it has apparently been found that, ironically, the standard policies and procedures are inferior to some of Oxfam's practical experience in developing countries. I have no emotional capital tied up in that observation, but I pass it on in constructive mode.
Thirdly, the germane case history. Perhaps suitably for a case history, my interest is historical rather than either financial or current. For two decades I chaired a trust, although I am no longer involved, which set out originally to do archaeological research at 7,000 feet in the Peruvian Andes. After about five years it elided into rural development. In the first decade 80 per cent of the work was archaeological and 20 per cent was rural development. In the second decade the proportions were more than reversed, with 90 per cent being rural development and 10 per cent archaeological. In so far as there was a watershed—that word is not inapposite—that changed the flow. A BBC "Horizon" film showed how, after five or six years of archaeological activity, a valley that sustained 1,800 people in the days of the Incas was sustaining less than a quarter of that number by the 1970s. The key to those comparative numbers had been the Inca irrigation canals which, as the film showed, our project had opened up again.
Our project at Cusichaca is now the first site those travelling on the Inca trail see after they leave Cuzco; and it has both patiently and patently uncovered or rediscovered the entire Inca infrastructure. In the second decade, the trust moved into the next great valley; and its constituency in the third decade are two basins with four districts in each and 18,000 people within them overall. The mission is rural development by example, covering reforestation, horticulture, lots of training, demonstration centres and organic agriculture.
The trust helped create a museum and cultural centre to cover the whole constituency, both for purposes of education and tourism. There is one ongoing canal project, again, to show what can be done. As the standard manuals would approve, there is the recent creation of a local NGO with a staff of 20 Peruvians, led by a British zoologist, who was with the trust for seven years and is now married to a Peruvian girl. Similarly, a Dutch soil scientist, trained at Reading University, who was involved in the trust's second decade/second valley study, is now a consultant to the EU, but comes back to the trust's area of operations, both to visit and to train. The trust's founder, the redoubtable Dr Ann Kendall, whose
300
doctorate is in archaeology, continues to spend four months each year in Peru, in two stretches of two months each.
The current funding comes from the EU and our own Community Fund. DfID funding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, alluded, has fallen arising from the switch of funding from middle income countries to poorer countries in general and to Iraq in particular, although anyone who knows Peru, whither I first went 40 years ago, will know that even if the population on the coast is middle income, the Andes themselves remain poor beyond description. It is the same case that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, cited in Sao Paulo, whence both my late first wife and Dr Ann Kendall came. Moreover, although the Community Fund funding is British, the fund has been criticised for going abroad and it is further enveloped in the uncertainties that surround the reorganisation of the New Opportunities Fund. So, British funding to an organisation which has been run largely on a shoestring, but has earned a substantial reputation for this country, may not remain constant.
The trust is now carrying out environmental research, mapping whole areas for their natural resources and coexistence, so as to give the local communities a handle on their opportunities. This community involvement was what made the Inca civilisation so impressive, even if it was not proof against Spanish gunfire. My question, to which I alluded at the beginning, is whether the Darwin Initiative, which is funding research into biodiversity globally and supporting environmental and biodiversity research, will also be diverted away from Peru on middle income and Iraqi grounds. If it is, it will be a classic case of policy confusion, but a clear answer from the Minister would be welcome.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for securing this debate on international development—an area of concern in which she has a distinguished reputation. It was during her time as Minister for Overseas Development that I had the opportunity, together with colleagues from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, to work in Orissa and the five northern states of India over a period of 10 years. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
I welcome the DfID report of 2004 with its analysis of policies to help the poorest countries to achieve the millennium development goals. Aid for developing countries continues to be as necessary today as it has been over the past four decades. Of course, mistakes were made in the past when donors expected the recipient countries to repay debts with interest. Thankfully, Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront in cancelling the debts of poorer countries.
Much has been said about the millennium development goals, which include the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger and the achievement of universal primary education. Those require infrastructure, good governance, a lack of corruption and other issues that seem to be rather difficult to achieve.

301
Other MDGs—particularly those relating to health—are more likely to be achieved in local communities. They are dependent on the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, and they include reduced child mortality, improved maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other infections, and ensuring environmental stability and partnerships for development.
I shall focus on the "how to" in three areas: first, the empowerment of women; secondly, the need for a reliable supply of medicines and equipment; and, thirdly, partnership learning and working among developing countries, particularly among health workers.
The empowerment of women is essential in achieving those MDGs. Such empowerment is surprisingly not difficult to achieve in local communities. In most traditional societies, women decide on what families eat, which includes the growing of food, and how children are nurtured. Therefore, the use of micro-credit has been very helpful and productive. The missing ingredient to enable women in developing countries to influence the health of their families is the opportunity to receive information and support on how to improve health and well-being.
Examples abound in poor communities of the positive contribution that women make when they are supported by community development teams. I have seen groups of illiterate women in urban slums and villages in India who sing songs about the care of babies, about weaning foods and also about how to make oral rehydration fluids using salt and sugar for treating their babies with diarrhoea. As a result, babies and young children in those communities gain weight and remain healthy, and their mothers use health services appropriately.
Success in those settings depends upon partnerships between trained and motivated health workers and local women, who are given the opportunity to take control to improve their lives and the well-being of their families. Basic information on local food which is nutritious for infants and children, the availability of vaccinations against serious childhood infections, such as tuberculosis, and the protection of children against endemic malaria are important.
Co-operation and partnerships between, for example, the UK non-governmental organisations and local communities through capacity-building are very important and productive. The NGO of which I am chairman—the Malaria Consortium—has been engaged in capacity-building with people in Uganda and Ghana, where we have offices with more employees than we have in London.
Where women are literate, as in the southern Indian state of Kerala, substantial improvements are made in maternal health, child survival and, with appropriate services, the control of diarrhoea and respiratory infections in children. All those improvements have been achieved in spite of Kerala being one of the economically poorer states of India. Similar results have been achieved in Sri Lanka—again, one of the poorer countries in south Asia.
302
Urban slum improvement projects in other parts of India have also led to local success with improvements in the health of children and mothers. I had the privilege of taking a group of Indian health service leaders and workers from urban slums to Thailand to meet their Thai counterparts to discuss how to run public health schemes and manage HIV/AIDS. My Indian colleagues were encouraged to see progress being achieved in other Asian settings which they could adapt for their communities. And that visit was made 10 years ago.
When replying, perhaps the Minister will inform your Lordships of efforts that are being made by DfID to encourage governments of developing countries to learn from the examples of best practice in other communities in their own or neighbouring countries through visits and working partnerships.
A regular supply of effective medicines in local communities is essential for the treatment and maintenance of health. What proportion of DfID's budget is allocated to this essential service? Training of health and community workers is another essential if countries are to achieve the MDGs. Partnerships with other developing countries that have achieved success in local communities is important. As many achievements in local communities are led by non-governmental organisations, to which other noble Lords have alluded, to what extent does DfID support their work in developing countries?
Finally, DfTD could also influence better donor co-operation so that health services in communities in poor countries could be more joined up. For example, condoms provided for HIV prevention should also be distributed by reproductive health workers. Concern for death rates in children under the age of five should be better focused on infants—that is, children in the first year of life. That should encompass the healthcare of women, including contraception, so as to ensure a birth interval between one pregnancy and another of about 18 months. We can do more to improve the healthcare of mothers and babies in order to fulfil the MDGs.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for introducing this very important debate. As others have pointed out, she does indeed have a formidable record in this field. The debate is extremely timely, given the backdrop of the G8 meeting in Georgia this week. It is good to hear that at last the UK seems to be prevailing on our US allies in terms of negotiating debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries. I hope that the noble Baroness can fill us in on the progress of those talks.
But we are discussing this issue against a wider backdrop. Countries in the developed world have been at odds with each other over the Middle East and, in particular, over Iraq. Achieving the millennium development goals seems as remote as ever, with the possibility—in fact, as we have heard, the probability—of many of the poorest countries going backwards by 2015, largely because of the AIDS pandemic.

303
Of course, with a more local backdrop, we have the European and local elections tomorrow. In these elections international issues have been on the agenda far more than is often the case. Europe and Iraq have been key issues, but little attention has been given to the plight of those suffering from AIDS in Africa, or even to those being starved, raped and murdered in Sudan.
There is a strong interest in international development in the UK, but so often it is eclipsed by concerns closer to home. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle has pointed out, it was in 1970, almost 35 years ago, that the UN set the target for countries to reach official development assistance of 0.7 per cent of GNP. By 1975, the UK had reached about 0.5 per cent, but by 1997, that had slipped to below 0.3 per cent. As other noble Lords have said, the Government are to be credited with bringing up that level currently to 0.34 per cent, but it is still a long way short of the 0.7 per cent target.
In the next four weeks the Government will determine their overall spending plans for the next three years. Can the Minister tell me whether she believes that the Government will have a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent in the spending review? Other countries have reached that point, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden and others have a timetable for doing so, including France, Spain and Ireland. One of the planks of the Irish presidency of the EU was to agree the timetable. Until the UK has pledged 0.7 per cent on aid, some countries have said that they are reluctant to support the International Finance Facility, which has yet to get off the ground.
So much for the size of DfID's budget, but what about how it is spent? In the very full report, DfID emphasises that it is,
"committed to spending 90 per cent of our budget in the world's poorest countries by 2005–06".
Surely it has been little short of disastrous that so much effort and money over the past year or so has been spent on Iraq. We read that the UK aid budget is set to increase to £4.5 billion by 2005–06, which is welcome. But how can it be justified that £544 million has been pledged by the UK Government to Iraq up to March 2006? Whatever the rights and wrongs of overthrowing the regime, doing so without true international support, and thereby bringing on ourselves the responsibility, with the Americans and few others, for reconstructing Iraq has surely completely distorted DfID's budget and its direction.
Why is it that the reconstruction forced on us by the UK's actions comes out of the DfID budget which is supposed to help the poorest in the world? Can the Minister tell me which countries are, therefore, suffering cutbacks as a result of this policy, this distortion in the budget?
My noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have pointed to the serious reduction in aid to Latin America. I note DfID's almost complete withdrawal from the Pacific. Obviously, the UK cannot be involved everywhere, but when areas that were supported by the UK are suddenly dropped, while
304
expenditure on Iraq hugely increases, surely the Government should be held to account. No expenditure at all is to be allowed in the Pacific after 1 April 2004. That is an area which includes one failed state—the Solomon Islands—which until recently was a UK responsibility. Fiji is also politically unstable. It is not likely that the EU will take up responsibility here, given that it has no long-term interest in the area. Can the Minister tell me what future she sees for the poorest areas in the Pacific? Have any agreements been made with others to ensure that the poorest in those areas do not lose out?
Can she also tell me how the department weighs up the relative merits of expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan, a country with great poverty, but which, as is also claimed of Iraq, has significance for instability far wider than the country itself? As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has pointed out, if a country reaches a certain point in development, it is more likely to be stable. These things are indeed interlinked. What intercessions has DfID made to other government departments and to international organisations about the need for security in Afghanistan so that reconstruction can take place, so that the poppy harvests can decline, in the way that the Chancellor has promised, and so that stable government can thrive?
When Lakhdar Brahimi left Afghanistan he impressed on the world how important it was that security was provided there. He noted with some irony how readily troops were provided for Iraq while Afghanistan was neglected. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice has said, we have to see policies through if stability is to be achieved.
The MDGs place particular stress on the need to improve the position of women and girls. I support what the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have said on that. I note with some interest that the vast majority of the photos in DfID's annual report are of women and girls. It was quite difficult to find boys featured among them. I trust that in many ways that reflects the nature of what DfID is doing.
At this point I turn to the gravest crisis facing the poorest nations and that is the HIV/AIDS pandemic, which of course afflicts women and girls even more desperately than men and boys. As the All-Party Group on Africa stated in its report published on Monday,
"the AIDS epidemic is an exceptional threat to African societies and states as well as to millions of African people. It requires an exceptional response".
It has the potential,
"to tear apart social fabric, destroy developmental gains and plunge some regions into decades of stagnation and insecurity".
The urgency of this crisis, I must say, does not shine out of the DfID annual report. There is a page of text on AIDS compared, for example, with three and a half pages of text on Iraq. Yet the threat to world order, political stability, economic growth and the future, not only of Africa but surely far wider, as the disease spreads and as its after-effects are felt, is far more significant. Can the Minister tell me how many members of staff serve in

305
DfID, how many work full time on Iraq, and how many work full time on HIV/AIDS? To what extent is the problem concentrated within a unit, and to what extent is it tackled in every department and at every level? Can she also say when DfID will produce its comprehensive plan on AIDS? What proposals might that bring forward to help AIDS orphans?
I believe that my noble friend Lord Alderdice is right. He describes as paradoxical the effects of some policies that work against the effects of others. Surely allowing the AIDS pandemic to spread, while we are theoretically trying to achieve the MDGs, is at the least paradoxical.
Nevertheless, the Government are to be applauded for putting international development higher on the agenda. But it seems to me that there is a long way to go and it is very clear that Iraq has been a major diversion from the needs of the very poor. We must all hope that, with the passage of the latest UN resolution, the time will rapidly come when Iraq properly governs and secures itself so that attention can once more be effectively addressed to the needs of the poorest in the world.
It is surely the case that we have a moral responsibility, as others have said, to the poorest in the world, but we also have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, a self-interest in the greater stability that economic development produces.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Chalker for initiating this afternoon's debate and for introducing it with such wisdom. I echo the comments of other noble Lords in recognising the long and ongoing commitment my noble friend shows to the field of international development.
Today's debate presents us with an invaluable opportunity to examine the very important contribution the Department for International Development has made over the past year. As is so frequently the case in your Lordships' House, we have heard this afternoon many knowledgeable, moving and enlightened contributions. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to the Dispatch Box for this debate, but I cannot disguise my disappointment that a debate on something as fundamental as the international development annual report, covering such a vital subject, is not being replied to by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who has such long experience in the field.
In speaking to the report, I would like to address several of the key geographical zones in turn before finally turning to the more holistic role that DfID plays in supporting some of the world's poorest societies.
As we have heard many times, 1.1 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Of these, 70 per cent live in rural areas, working in agriculture. We have heard, too, that the current combination of agricultural subsidies in developed countries and trade barriers to protect their own products continues to contribute to ongoing poverty.
306
I start with the situation in Africa, where the vast majority of the poorest countries are situated. We note that DfID spends almost 50 per cent of its bilateral assistance in this region. Tragically, for too long their progress has been held back by conflict, on which I want to concentrate.
Only today, in a Statement in the other place, we heard yet again that the Janjaweed militia is responsible for massive violence, that a climate of impunity prevails in Darfur, and that the Government of Sudan permit the Janjaweed to exercise a reign of terror over the Darfurians. As the Secretary of State said, we have a responsibility to do all we can so that Darfur does not descend into genocide.
Conflict, as we see in Darfur, is a major contributor to world poverty. Indeed, page 107 of the report points out that of the 40 poorest countries in the world, 24 are either in the midst of or have recently emerged from conflict. It is also important to recognise the important contribution that peace-keeping operations can have in reducing poverty. We welcome the fine report, A Case for Change, by Nicola Dahrendorf, produced by King's College, London, that DfID commissioned to address this issue, and I declare an interest as chairman of its council.
We also welcome the progress that has been made in providing improved access to healthcare and education. However, not all the progress in Africa has been as good. The ongoing scourge of HIV/AIDS continues to blight the continent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned. It is spreading though a mix of cultural traditions, lack of education or, in the case of Zimbabwe, ill-thought-through land reform. There, the displacement of thousands of farm labourers has led to the spread of the disease. I fully agree with the stirring speech of my noble friend Lady Flather on the plight of women in developing countries.
Good governance and national responsibility have a major role to play in those countries where health education has been pushed to the fore. There have been significant reductions in new cases of the virus, and I pay tribute to the work of the Government of Uganda. Moreover, a global strategy coupled with good governance might help curb the spread of HIV/AIDS. We would like to see the Global Fund for health ring-fenced to promote pharmaceutical research into an affordable cure for HIV/AIDS, and not have its efficacy reduced to a general pot of money, as publicly advocated by the former Secretary of State for International Development.
In Asia, there has also been progress. In Afghanistan, no longer at war—despite some of the reports we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—economic growth is up 30 per cent, and 4 million children have returned to school. We acknowledge the work that DfID has done in Burma, where there has been considerable progress since the communist regime, where the UK is the largest co-financier of the fund for HIV/AIDS.
We do however note with interest the statement that DfID is involved in a 100 million dollar loan to provide schooling for 2.4 million children in China. Perhaps

307
the Minister could enlighten the House on the reasoning behind a loan to support education in one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
I turn to the situation in Europe and the Middle East. Particular progress has been made in Iraq, and we pay tribute to the work DfID has done in supporting this. In particular, we welcome the £0.5 billion the Government have pledged up to 2006 for reconstruction projects and humanitarian assistance. The funding will go far in improving the lives of Iraqi people in their unfolding democracy.
We note the additional funding for the Palestinian negotiation support unit which provides advice to the Palestinian Authority on how best to approach negotiations with Israel. It has been suggested, however, that this organisation has, since the collapse of the Camp David negotiations, been involved in spreading anti-Israeli propaganda. Obviously, with any funding it is important that the Government can trace the use to which it is put and I ask the Minister what checks are in place to ensure examples such as this do not become the norm.
I turn to the global situation and I agree with many noble Lords who have rightly mentioned Latin America that the lack of support for those countries is quite shameful. We welcome the clear progress that the Government have made in the area of debt relief, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, where 100 per cent of the debt owed by most heavily indebted poor countries has been written off. However, current procedures in debt relief—namely, HIPC—are bureaucratic and slow and are failing the people they were designed to help. If further progress is to be made in relieving poverty in developing countries, urgent reform of debt relief and HIPC in particular is required. What guarantees may be provided to support those countries that have not yet achieved decision point or completion point?
Finally, I turn to the important roles of aid and trade. Noble Lords who have read the report will have seen that in the opening pages Her Majesty's Government set out the important role that aid has to play. Indeed, successive governments have all realised that aid is crucial in moving some of the world's poorest countries away from the millstone of poverty. However, we must not underestimate the importance of trade in establishing robust and sustainable free market economies. I fully endorse the support of my noble friend Lady Chalker for private sector contribution.
With regard to the department's fourth target of reducing trade barriers between developing countries by 2005 and the Doha development agenda, I find it difficult to see how this target will be met in the light of the collapse of the Cancun meetings in September last year. We welcome the Doha development round and the subsequent meetings because we view free trade as more effective and sustainable than aid in isolation. While we recognise the need for aid, our priority is to liberalise markets and thus have free trade as the key propagator for global wealth development.
Following on from this, we could establish an advocacy fund for developing nations that would be paid for by the richer countries of the world. The
308
advocacy fund would in turn allow poorer nations to pay for the necessary expertise and legal advice in order to hold their own throughout future world trade talks. We support a rapid return to the Doha development round in order to pursue free trade as the most effective remedy in curing world poverty.
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that aid should always add value and help countries to help themselves. We are grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the importance of European Union aid. Yet, as my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, John Bercow MP, recently said in a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies,
"there is a chronic contradiction between aid policy and trade policy … For every dollar western taxpayers give to poor countries, those countries lose two dollars through barriers to their exports to the developed world".
All too often it seems what the UK Government give in overseas aid is more than outweighed by what we take away through trade subsidies or sanctions.
Truly effective aid requires fair trade. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle during the debate, even if countries meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GDP for government aid, the sum remains insignificant when compared to the potential of trade. When faced with a choice between giving people money and enabling them to earn money, the latter is surely preferable.
In this encouraging report we read of aid, debt relief, development of affordable medicines and more trade with many of these countries. These are all laudable aims, but which will have little effect on a country being torn apart by constant conflict. It is easy to forget when talking about war that each figure represents the death of an individual—someone's father, mother or child. In Darfur alone it is estimated that 2 million have died. With this one example it is easy to see how conflict is the fundamental contributor to world poverty.
It would be churlish of me not to recognise the importance and significance of last week's celebrations of 60 years of peace and prosperity in Europe after centuries of bloody battles. This peace is due principally to the European Union and the NATO alliance, but also to the democratic freedom and good governance of individual countries. This can only emphasise how important it is that everyone who has the privilege to vote, in whatever election, does so.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for securing this debate and in doing so I acknowledge her most impressive record and experience in this field. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this excellent debate for their very constructive and often challenging remarks, and for their positive comments on the Government's policy towards international development.
As 2005 approaches, we are reaching a critical time for global political commitment and UK leadership in the field of international development. The 2004 DfID

309
departmental report—I thank all noble Lords who have made encouraging noises on the report—sets out the work that DfID undertakes through bilateral and multilateral channels in more than 125 countries around the world and aims to give a balanced picture of UK success stories and areas where much more needs to be done and how we intend to achieve that.
Progress towards the internationally agreed millennium development goals is mixed, as many noble Lords have said. On current trends it is unlikely that more than two goals will be met by 2015: the goals relating to income poverty and improved access to safe water. Globally, 104 million children still do not go to primary school; 10 million children die each year before their fifth birthdays from largely preventable diseases; and 1.1 billion people are still living on less than one dollar a day.
Each UK government department has to measure progress against a set of objectives that make up its public service agreement; a mechanism first implemented in 1999 that provides a coherent and dynamic focus for the department's work. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, DfID's 2003–06 public service agreement is linked directly to the millennium development goals.
The millennium development goals have been referred to by many noble Lords. The department is on track to meet 17 of the 28 indicators linked to the objectives. There has been a significant reduction in the proportion of people living on one dollar a day. The ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary schools has increased. The effectiveness of the international development system has been enhanced. However, enormous challenges remain, as we have heard today from many noble Lords, particularly those relating to under-fives and maternal mortality rates, tuberculosis detection rates, the poverty focus of the EC and the stalled World Trade Organisation talks.
The constraints to progress against the millennium development goals and the public service agreement vary considerably between geographical regions. They include particularly the impact of HIV/AIDS and barriers to trade, in addition to ongoing conflict, poor governance, inequality and exclusion, and human rights abuses. The scale of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is staggering, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, with nine new infections occurring globally every minute. That is quite simply killing development in many countries. Life expectancy is dropping and deaths among skilled workers and young people are undermining prospects for future economic growth. The social consequences for women and children in particular—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Northover—are devastating. In Botswana it is estimated that life expectancy will drop from 65 years in the early 1990s to 27 years by 2010.
The UK Government's call for action on HIV/AIDS is the start of a process that will take us beyond our 2005 presidency and focus on stronger political direction and improved funding. On donor co-ordination and HIV/ AIDS programmes, we are fully supportive of the UN and
310
World Health Organisation efforts to secure HIV treatment for 3 million people in the developing world by the end of 2005, including 2 million in sub-Saharan Africa.
The stalled world trade talks at Cancun were a major disappointment and the UK Government are absolutely committed to an early resumption of multilateral trade negotiations. The stakes are high, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has implied. Estimates suggest that a 50 per cent reduction in trade protection measures by both developing and developed countries could result in a welfare gain for developing countries of around 150 billion dollars per year. As noble Lords will know, that is three times what they receive in aid. This could lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015, as the noble Baroness said.
Noble Lords have stressed that the international community must now move on to deliver on the Doha commitments to improve market access, to reduce and agree a date for ending all forms of export subsidies and to reduce trade distorting domestic support.
The challenge to the millennium development goals is particularly daunting in sub-Saharan Africa where poverty levels are the highest in the world. Less than 1 per cent of global foreign direct investment goes to the region. Africa's share of world trade is also less than 1 per cent and 29 million Africans are infected with the HIV virus.
The UK Government are committed to tackling the challenges faced by sub-Saharan Africa. The Commission for Africa set up this year provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at the problems facing Africa, both past and present, and to recommend a new way forward. This is not a UK commission. More than half the commissioners are African and it aims to draw on the expertise of as many African organisations as possible, in particular the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The commission has agreed six principal themes to be considered over the next six months: investment in people; conflict and peace-building; the environment; governance; the economy; culture and participation. Its recommendations may mean difficult choices for the international community and Africa, but new solutions must be identified if the Millennium Development Goals are to be relevant for the majority of Africans.
The United Nations millennium development goals stock-take next year will provide a harsh reality-check. It is currently estimated that sub-Saharan Africa will reach neither the poverty goal nor the child mortality goal until 2150—some 150 years beyond 2015. It will be imperative that we use this stock-take to gain renewed commitment from the international community as a whole to meeting the millennium development goals within the agreed timescale. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle has rightly said, 2005 will offer an important opportunity for the UK Government to increase the international political focus on development as they take on the presidencies of the G8 and the expanded European Union. The way forward is clear—we must ensure that sufficient financial resources are provided, and that these are used to optimum effect if real progress is to be made. Again, the right reverend Prelate underlined this issue in his contribution.

311
First, the volume of aid must be increased. The 2002 Monterrey Financing for Development Consensus committed international donors to providing significant additional aid by 2006. We now need to live up to these commitments. The UK Government are gradually moving towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of our gross national income being allocated to official development assistance. We aim to reach 0.4 per cent in 2005–06. I take note of several noble Lords' criticisms on the speed of that development. We are also strongly supporting the proposed International Finance Facility which aims to more that double the total aid provided globally to more than 100 billion dollars a year.
Secondly, in addition to providing more funds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has highlighted, the effectiveness of that aid must be improved. In the last year for which we have figures, donors started 35,000 activities with an average size of 1.5 million dollars. It is almost impossible for developing countries to keep track of these initiatives, and to draw maximum benefit from them. DfID has worked closely with others to implement the principles established in the OECD Rome Declaration on Harmonisation in 2003, which aim to encourage a more integrated approach from international donors. DfID has reduced its number of projects and focused more on poverty reduction budget support and sector strategies intended to support partner governments' own poverty reduction agendas. Thirdly, well-informed, evidence-based policy is critical to good decision-making on both aid allocations and intervention. DfID is working to improve its policies through greater research and improved analytical methodology, and has reorganised its policy division this year to provide more focused analysis, advice and expertise.
Given sufficient political will, progress is possible. There are already success stories to be told. Ongoing conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa have fallen from 19 to two over the past four years. The heavily indebted poor countries initiative has released 1.7 billion dollars since 2001 for social expenditure and poverty reduction in 27 countries. Over the past four years, DfID has helped India to increase primary school enrolment to 90 per cent. In conjunction with other agencies, DfID has helped to save 1,000 lives in the immediate aftermath of the Barn earthquake in Iran. It is estimated that DfID's aid lifts 2 million people permanently out of poverty each year.
I will do my best to answer as many of your Lordships' questions as possible, and those that I do not reach I will follow-up in correspondence. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, asked about DfID and private companies, and what action we are taking to develop these partnerships. DfID is working on a number of fronts to promote greater corporate responsibility and greater partnership with the private sector. Successful examples include the extractive industries transparency initiative launched by the Prime Minister in September 2002 to promote full transparency of payments and revenues in the oil, gas and mining sectors in developing countries. There is also the support for the ethical trading initiative, an alliance of businesses,
312
non-governmental organisations and trade unions designed to improve working conditions in global supply chains. The noble Baroness also asked whether the poverty reduction budget support is given in conjunction with help for capacity-building. Capacity-building is provided in conjunction with the budget support, often within the area of public financial management systems among others. An important indicator of whether budget support will result in poverty reduction is whether the recipient government's public financial management systems are effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, asked what DfID is doing to improve access to trade and reduce trade barriers. They will know that the Government acknowledge the damaging effect that dumping and trade-supporting subsidies have on developing countries' agricultural sectors. Commodity dependency—and the associated vulnerability to high volatility prices—also remains a major development problem. Our priorities for the round are getting agreement on the issues that matter most to developing countries: agriculture; nonagricultural market access; and special and differential treatment to help poorer countries adjust to open markets.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of corruption as did my noble friend Lord Desai. She asked whether we are training for reducing corruption. We are not training specifically, but DfID provides a wide range of support for developing countries to tackle corruption—through strong enforcement action against corruption and money laundering such as effective anti-corruption agencies and financial intelligence units, and through necessary preventive measures such as improved public sector financial management and better parliamentary oversight.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised very strongly the issue of the 0.7 per cent target. I have covered that to some extent. They also asked me directly about a timetable, as did other noble Lords. I will no doubt disappoint them by saying that the UK Government have not as yet committed to a timetable for reaching the 0.7 per cent target. However, I am sure that the strong appeal of the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords will be noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked in his very moving contribution what plans DfID has in developing a new strategy for meeting millennium development goals for reducing maternal deaths. A new strategy on maternal health will be launched by the department in the coming weeks. As the noble Lord knows, DfID is committed to reducing the appalling toll of deaths of mothers and new-born babies. We are focused on building better health systems able to meet the challenges of delivering quality care in the resource-starved settings that are often found systems able to provide access to quality reproductive health services, prevent and safely manage unwanted pregnancies, and provide skilled attendance for every birth backed by ready access to emergency obstetric care.

313
The noble Lord also raised the question of how DfID is promoting programmes for treating women with obstetric fistula. I am sure that the department will be very willing to discuss this most important area of women's and girls' health with him at his convenience.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, spoke about the USA with regard to contraception and reproduction programmes. They asked what plans DfID had to engage in dialogue with countries such as the USA to promote reproductive health and rights more actively by restoring their funding schemes. They will know that DfID has a long-standing commitment to support reproductive health and rights. We are a leading donor to UNIFEM. DfID engages with international partners in strengthening global leadership and raising the profile of maternal health on national and international agendas. Although we agree to disagree with the United States on those policies, such as those on condoms and abortion, that does not preclude us from working closely with the United States on sexual and reproductive health in a number of countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Chan, and others emphasised the empowerment of women. We agree that gender equality and the empowerment of women are essential prerequisites for the eradication of world poverty and the upholding of human rights.
I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, about street children in Brazil and the consequences of DfID's policy on middle-income countries. I can say to the noble Lord—I hope that it is good news—that the Government's reprioritisation of funding to middle-income countries will not affect the work being done with street children in Brazil, which is supported by DfID. United Kingdom NGOs will continue to have access to funding through DfID's Civil Society Challenge Fund and through their partnership programme agreements with DfID for such projects. DfID currently supports one such project through the Civil Society Challenge Fund scheme.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Bowness, asked about EU aid policy and our response to it. We are, of course, in favour of turning the European Union into an effective player in aid policy. It is the third-largest aid agency in the world. Recent EU reforms are starting to push things in the right direction, and we are looking to build on those positive developments. That will not give noble Lords the complete answer, but, no doubt, we will get that in the coming weeks and months.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, asked a specific question about the Darwin Initiative—a biodiversity initiative. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs contributed £4 million to the Darwin Initiative, which is a small grants programme that draws on British expertise in biodiversity to promote conservation and the sustainable use of resources in less-developed countries. Since its launch in 1992, the Darwin Initiative has committed over £35 million to more than 300 projects in over 100 countries. Defra's contribution to the initiative will rise to £7 million in 2006–07.
314
I have run out of time and will not be able to answer other questions from noble Lords now. Noble Lords can rest assured that I will answer in writing.
The next 10 years are crucial, if we are to demonstrate our political commitment to tackling poverty, injustice and inequality. In 2005, we must seize the opportunity to demonstrate international leadership and ensure that political commitments translate into reinvigorated efforts to reduce global poverty.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the 12 other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. We will inevitably sympathise with the Minister, in trying to sum up such a wide debate. I remember the situation well.
I beg the Minister and the department to consider again how we can achieve better co-ordination and collaboration, not only with other donors but also with governments. I ask DfID not to be cowed by Finance Ministers, who always want to direct everything. That is why I made particular play in my comments on capacity building of extending capacity building in foreign countries to the spending departments, not just to financial management. However good the IFMIS systems are, support will be of value in lifting people out of poverty only if the spending departments get it right, not just the Finance Ministers. I know that the Minister and the department will put special emphasis on trying to get easier trade relations between the developing world and the developed world, but training in those countries to enable growth in their export industry is vital.
It would be wrong to go over the debate, and it is impossible to sum it up in 20 minutes or in two. I take to heart what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the health issues. Unless we get the health issues right, we undermine so many of the other things that we do. For many years, my companies have trained two people aged 20, in order to have one active and working at 40. That is the scale of the problem. It is not just HIV/AIDS; it is malaria and TB, about which we can take far more preventive action than we, as donors, encourage countries to do.
I thank everyone who has been involved. It has been a good debate. We probably do not have them often enough. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Personal Debt
6.17 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk rose to call attention to levels of personal debt, including mortgage debt; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the heady days of the last few years of the previous century. The Prime Minister proclaimed a new political order based on new Labour's "Third Way". The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the back of his

315
immediate decision to transfer the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England, claimed the equivalent of economic sainthood. His comments in a Statement on the Government's economic and fiscal strategy in June 1998 give a flavour of the rhetoric that prevailed at the time:
"The spending plans that we set must ensure sustainable finances over the whole economic cycle—rigorous financial discipline that, together with monetary stability, ends once and for all the boom and bust that for 30 years has undermined stability, hindered long-term investment in our public services and prevented this country from achieving its potential".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/98; col. 1195.]
That claim of fiscal alchemy—the banishment of boom and bust—dripped from the lips of Treasury Ministers like so much honey.
In terms, the situation that prevails at the moment is one of booms in house prices and consumer spending, both fuelled substantially by debt. Perhaps we should not be surprised that the Treasury has become more circumspect about claiming that boom and bust has been banished. Even the Chancellor's affection for prudence—formerly so strong—seems to have cooled.
Nevertheless, we should give credit where credit is due. Noble Lords on these Benches might wish that the Government had been a little more generous in acknowledging their golden economic inheritance. Despite that, it would be churlish not to admit that the economy has performed tolerably well in recent years. However, although, outwardly, some of the headline trends continue to seem adequately robust, clouds are gathering. We cannot tell how dark they may be or what economic hailstorms they may carry, but of one thing we can be certain: they are gathering. Not least among them are current levels of personal debt.
It is as well to put the matter in context. According to the most recent figures from the Bank of England, net lending to individuals stands at £985 billion. Personal debt is currently rising at the rate of £1 million every four minutes, with the breach of the £1 trillion mark imminent. In common with my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin, I do not suggest that this,
"will lead to an economic meltdown, but it is a timely wake-up call".
Unsecured personal debt has grown by more than 50 per cent since 1997, twice as fast as incomes, and now stands at £5,330 per person. Total unsecured personal debt stands at £172 billion and is growing at over 10 per cent a year. Credit card lending grew by £963 million in March, the largest increase in two years. As to mortgage lending, this grew by £9.34 billion in March, the highest amount for five months.
Here, worrying signals are beginning to emerge. At what the Government might call the affordable end of the market, many people with limited experience of the rental sector are entering the buy-to-let market. This is fanning the flames of house price inflation. However, as revealed in last week's Sunday Times, there is growing evidence that people's expectations of the return on their investment are pitched too high. In such circumstances the effect of even a relatively modest increase in interest rates could be profound. As Shelter has observed:
316
"If buy-to-let investors cut and run this could be the catalyst for a severe slowdown".
Shelter's research provides us with an insight into the standing of the unaffordable end of the market by showing that buying a first home is now 33 per cent less affordable than it was 10 years ago, and that first-time buyers accounted for just 29 per cent of all buyers last year—a fall from 50 per cent in 2001. In addition, 55 per cent of all mortgage lending is to homeowners borrowing against the value of their existing homes and, incredibly, that 50 per cent accounts for 50 per cent of the rise in consumer spending. From this we can infer that a sizeable proportion of mortgage debt is being used to fund either day-to-day living expenses or lifestyle choices.
The reverse side of the debt coin, saving, exhibits similar properties. The savings ratio has halved under the current administration. According to the Family Resources Survey, 27 per cent of households have next to no savings at all, and a further 23 per cent have savings of less than £1,500. Charles Bean, the Bank of England's chief economist, has noted that one-third of British households have virtually no liquid assets to draw on if the need arises. In the six years from 1998 to 2003, the household saving ratio has never been higher than 6.7 per cent; in the previous six years to 1997 it was never lower than 9.3 per cent.
By all available measures people are saving less and borrowing more than when the Government came into office, which, as reflected in the statistics, is causing increasing problems. Some 1.5 million new consumer debt problems were brought to Citizens Advice Bureaux during 2001–02, a 50 per cent rise on 2000–01. Inquiries to CAB about consumer credit and debt have gone up 46 per cent during the past five years. Twenty-six per cent of people struggle with debt repayments from time to time, and 11 per cent have more serious problems. Over 3 million households now rely on the services of moneylenders. Individual bankruptcies are at their highest level since late 1993, with those going bankrupt during the past year rising by nearly a third.
What is more, debt is impacting disproportionately on the most disadvantaged. The debt to income ratio is highest for the poorest households, where it has also risen faster than in any other group, doubling between 1995 and 2000. Households earning less than £15,000 are twice as likely to be in arrears than more affluent households.
Despite the commitment of the Chancellor at the 2003 Labour Party conference,
"to abolish pensioner poverty in this generation",
the proportion of pensioners living in households below 60 per cent median income before housing costs in 2001–02 remains relatively unchanged from 1994–95 levels. A MORI survey, published earlier this year, has found that student debt has risen by 74 per cent over the past four years, with students now graduating with average debts of £8,031, as compared with, according to the Government's own figures, £840 in 1995–96, £2,530 in 1998–99 and £3,210 in 1999–2000.
All in all, this is a curious, not to say surprising, legacy of the Government's protestations of "prosperity not for the few, but for the many". It is not as if the Government

317
have been suddenly blindsided by personal debt as a specific feature of the economy. As long ago as October 2000, the DTI convened a meeting with various financial institutions, prompted by research from the Citizens Advice Bureaux showing unprecedented demand for debt counselling, to discuss ways of stemming the growth in unaffordable debt. At the time Dr Kim Howells commented: "It's"—that is, personal debt—
"become a major concern to almost everyone, not just the people who are out there trying to give advice".
And yet, judging from subsequent responses, the Government have become ever more reticent, not to say blasé, about the matter. In March of last year, the Treasury Minister Ruth Kelly held out consumer debt as a badge of honour for, and almost a source of pride in, the Government's economic policy, stating:
"Growth in household debt reflects strong fundamentals with a robust labour market, low interest rates and strong gains in housing wealth".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/03; col. 21W.]
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, reiterated this sentiment in his response to an Unstarred Question from my noble friend Lady Wilcox:
"Our stable macro-economic framework has delivered sustainable economic growth, with the growth in borrowing reflecting the strong fundamentals of the UK economy".
He added, for good measure:
"The economic success is to some extent fuelling the issue of consumer debt".
To be fair, the noble Lord did qualify his comments by stating that,
"this is an issue which the Government take very seriously. We are working to address the problem".—[Official Report, 21/10/03; col. 1582 col. 1582.]
In November of last year the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to offer a similar reassurance, when he said:
"The Government are alert to the risks"—
well that is all right, then—
"but debt at present remains affordable".—[Official Report, 11/1/03; col. 1209.]
Despite the way in which the figures for debt have surged in the intervening period, he added:
"I deny the inexorable rise of household debt".—[Official Report, 11/11/03; col. 1211]
Even the Minister has got in on the act. Last December he offered this analysis of the totality of the debt problem saying that,
"the ratio of debts to assets in the economy is still very healthy among households. The reason why people feel that they can push the boat out with regard to credit cards is because they feel wealthier … People feel wealthier because, objectively, they are wealthier".—[Official Report, 2/12/03; col. 184.]
Most, if not all, of these pronouncements share an odd feature. Paraphrasing Gordon Gekko in the film "Wall Street", they say, "Debt is good". They translate as exhortations to borrow. In truth, this should not surprise us unduly. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi observed in a similar debate some eight months ago,
"the Government have a vested interest in the continuation of the present build up of debt".—[Official Report, 21/10/03; col. 1580]
Paradoxically, the current booms in consumer spending and house prices are propping up the performance of the economy, and on the basis of the evidence this week from the CBI and the Halifax, neither is showing any signs of slowing. With that in mind, it is perhaps worth contemplating how Government policy interacts with the issue of debt.
I accept that the Government are not in the business of telling people how to run their own finances. Nevertheless, policy has a role to play in establishing the economic climate and sentiment in which they live their lives. Over the past seven years the Chancellor has conspired to introduce a whole range of measures—the removal of advanced dividend tax credit, the introduction of means-testing via the convoluted tax credit system, and so on—which act as disincentives to saving. In conjunction with this, the Government are throwing huge sums of public money at public services.
The Chancellor, far from continuing to ally himself with prudence, is funding today's spending from debt in the expectation of jam tomorrow. Irrespective of current affordability, there is a sense in which the psychology of public policy has shifted from thrift to profligacy. Perhaps we should not be surprised if, learning from the example, the public exhibits the same sort of attitudes towards saving and debt as the Government.
Moreover, if, as seems to be the case, the broad sweep of public policy is predicated on the concept that debt is good, there is scope for suspicion that this is motivated as much by requirements of political expediency as a wish to sustain the economy in robust and vigorous health. We are in a significant electoral period and there are those, not least the Item Club, who suggest that the Chancellor has deliberately engineered the current debt-funded pre-election boom.
The Minister will no doubt insist that Bank of England independence pre-empts this. As we all know, the Monetary Policy Committee is statutorily required to consider interest rate policy within the limits of the symmetrical inflation target. It cannot deviate outside these bounds other than in exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, it is in a somewhat anomalous position: because it is tied to measuring inflation with CPI rather than RPIX, it is obliged to ignore council tax and all other housing costs. House price inflation is, of necessity, a closed book to it.
George Trefgarne, writing in the Daily Telegraph last month, is particularly robust in his criticism. He said:
"Of all the scandals involving this Government and its manipulation of numbers and targets, the fiddling of the inflation target is quite the most reprehensible … It is precisely because of this fiddle that the house price and credit spiral has suddenly become so political".
In a subtle and roundabout way, the independence of the committee to set interest rates according to the prevailing circumstances of the economy has been compromised with potentially damaging consequences.
By way of comfort to the Minister, I accept that some of the headlines and media reporting of personal debt in recent weeks have been overblown. Indeed, I have taken

319
due note of MORI's report last week on credit card debt. Certainly it is premature to assume that current levels of personal debt presage an impending crisis. Nor do I envy the Government their task. Consumer confidence as a major plank of the economy is a fragile and fickle phenomenon at the best of times. Nevertheless, there does seem to be growing evidence that current levels of both debt and house prices are unsustainable. As Ken Rogoff, the International Monetary Fund's chief economist, has said:
"Forty per cent of all housing booms are followed by busts, with housing price drops that typically average 25–30 per cent".
Nor should we be immune to his explicit warning that,
"the long boom in house prices—up 28 per cent in the US since 1996, and 70 per cent in the UK since 1994, adjusted for inflation—put them in danger territory".
As we all know, other eminent commentators have issued similar warnings, not least Sir Andrew Large, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. It would be irresponsible to ignore them. To do so would be to run the risk of engineering the "bust" to the current "boom". How hollow the Chancellor's words would sound then.
My time is up. That being so, I very much look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords during of debate. I have no doubt that they will elaborate on some of the themes—and, doubtless, others—that I have outlined with much more eloquence and expertise than I can muster. I beg to move for Papers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the problem is the build-up of debt and the shift from thrift to profligacy. But the main object of this speech is to clarify the approach to the retention of control of our financial and budgetary affairs—a matter of national interest affecting the state of our economy—which already has become a sharp political issue.
As a subsidiary matter in context with the levels of personal debt and mortgage debt, recently the question has arisen of whether the Government's proposal to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1974 to clarify APR—or, in ordinary English, the total cost of credit—would have little effect other than to confuse and increase the cost to consumers. On this, it is not proposed to comment.
To revert to the main object, the introduction of my noble friend Lord Northesk rightly affirmed that fiscal and monetary control is unitary in the sense that measures to adjust the level of household and government debt not only interact but have an effect on taxation, on inflation, to which my noble friend referred, and on the economy, to which he also referred.
Albeit that no noble Lord with former practical experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer is to speak, at least we are to have the benefit of the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the other noble Lords whose names are down to speak. My noble friend Lady Noakes speaks from the Front Bench on Treasury affairs, which are totally within the remit of the object of this speech.
320
The hope is that the timely introduction of my noble friend, for which we should all express gratitude, will herald a fully fledged, prime-time debate on the draft EU constitution, but before the conclusion of the negotiations. The question arises whether the unitary fiscal and budgetary control is to be retained or surrendered. The draft EU constitution—and this is no time to go into detail—broadly speaking, is a federal structure which appears to afford no veto in the national interest and leaves wide open the crucial aspect of conferral of competence, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, referred the other day.
Already some of the red lines that we read about—we have to say "read about" because no one knows what they are—have been erased. In this context, an assurance is respectfully sought that the Government shall retain budgetary and fiscal control unfettered by EU objection, imposition or sanction. If no such assurance can be given—and that may well be the case—what is the Government's approach to this retention of control? Perhaps, if he is able, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will inform the House. If he is not able to do so, it would be no cause for surprise.
But until the Government approach is known, it simply is not possible to formulate constructive opposition—certainly for those who, as at present advised, are not inclined to support the UKIP, which would take us to the brink without having seen the books. Albeit an issue of cardinal importance, there are always objections to a one-issue party.
Household debt, which is only one aspect of the problem of debt, is now about £100 billion. It is increasing, as my noble friend said, by £1 million every four minutes. In addition to the bank figures, there was £9.8 million mortgage debt in April and as yet no figures for May.
Your Lordships may think that the only way in which to put on the brake—and a brake must be put on—is to raise bank rates to over 5 per cent; perhaps further if need be, but initially by at least a step towards 5 per cent. That is a balancing act on the tightrope of bankruptcy, which has now topped the high watermark recorded 10 years ago. A vast area of imponderables has to be taken into account, including the extra burden on those who have borrowed at other than fixed rates. It is no easy exercise and I do not pretend that it is.
The Government handed over bank rates in a most curious way to the MPC of the Bank of England to control inflation without a remit to control household debt. That was the most dotty exercise that anyone could have conceived. They are now about to start to redress the situation by what we hope the MPC will do tomorrow. The main long-term beneficiaries of the situation appear to be the financial institutions.
Government debt has risen to £13 billion, notwithstanding 66 stealth taxes since 1997. It is not known what action should be taken other than to increase taxation or whether the Government intend to take such or any action. Can we continue to borrow and spend much more and avoid an increase in

321
taxation—the theory proposed by Maynard Keynes—and what will the City take in terms of government debt beyond the current figure?
Has the frail thread of confidence been stretched too far? I can ask those questions but I am unable to answer them. I do not have the expertise. Fortunately, I am in a position to defer to the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friends who are due to speak and who have the requisite expertise in the area.
Retention of fiscal and budgetary control is not only requisite for the reasons already given, but also for the protection of the realm from those who believe it to be the will of God to destroy themselves if in the process they can destroy us.
There has to be an immediate long-term continuing massive financial commitment, which the Budget has to bear and take into account, not only for the defence, intelligence and emergency services, but for the British Council, diplomacy, the World Service and aid for the rehabilitation of those deprived of their homes and human dignity assailed by deadly high-tech weaponry that they do not possess.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for introducing the debate and giving us a chance to discuss a topic that I know arouses strong moral feelings. My wife cannot be the only person in the world who believes that an overdraft is the first step on the road to ruin—a view seemingly backed up by today's sad story of the young father who hanged himself because he could not pay back the £70,000 debts he had accumulated on 19 separate credit accounts.
The story reminds one of the marvellous Victorian moral tale Eric, or Little by Little, that I read as a child. The speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, seemed to have a little of the same flavour: little by little on the road to ruin.
What are the facts of the case? The annual growth of total lending to individuals runs at 14 per cent compared to average annual earnings growth of 4 per cent. The rate at which households are incurring debt is rising three times as fast as their incomes. That is the central fact for those who claim that the current rate of growth of debt is unsustainable. I know that there are other figures with which we can be dazzled, but those seem to be the crucial ones.
The rate of household borrowing is strongly associated with house price inflation. The majority of personal debt is mortgage debt. Since personal disposable incomes are rising at less than half the rate of house prices, this suggests, in the words of the Monetary Policy Committee,
"that household income gearing [is] likely to rise over the next few years towards levels last seen in the early 1990s".
That could increase the vulnerability of the bottom end of the household sector to any rises in interest rates or unforeseen shocks.
322
Such facts are used by those who claim that levels of personal debt are rapidly becoming unaffordable or—in the jargon—unsustainable and that a rise in interest rates is needed to curtail them. I hope that I am not a Pangloss. I agree that there is meaning in talking about unsustainable levels of debt, but the fact that debt is expanding faster than incomes does not mean that it is becoming unsustainable. It may simply mean that the sustainable level of debt has been rising. That is largely what has been happening.
What grounds do I have for saying so? First, Britain has enjoyed unprecedented macroeconomic stability for the past seven years; not just high and stable levels of employment, but stable growth of earnings. There are two main reasons. The first is the macroeconomic framework established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which I mean giving responsibility for setting interest rates to the Bank of England and establishing credible fiscal rules.
That was a bold, even revolutionary step at the time, and it has paid off by making policy much more predictable. One of the advantages of being on the Cross Benches is that it is much easier to give credit where credit is due.
Secondly, the British labour market has become much more flexible. For that the Thatcher labour market reforms must take most of the credit, although the decline of manufacturing has also played a part by dampening certain cycles that made our economy less stable. The proof is that since 1997, the British economy has survived a threefold increase in oil prices as well as a substantial rise in the sterling-euro exchange rate with scarcely a blip. Contrast this with the experience of the 1970s when a fourfold rise in the price of oil produced a massive stagflation. The contrast is overwhelming.
The result has been that we have enjoyed not just greater security of income but also more predictable growth of incomes. That is the background against which a higher sustainable rate of debt creation has emerged.
There are other factors: the banks have become more expert at assessing the creditworthiness of potential borrowers. That has made it safer not only for people to borrow but for banks to lend. It is not just that the demand for credit has been growing—the supply of credit has been growing as well.
Thirdly, there have been important changes in the way in which the consumer market works today. The essential one is that you can now spread payments over a longer period, making a purchase more affordable. For example, before, you would have to put down a large deposit to buy a car and pay off the borrowing during the lifetime of the car. Now you can make a constant stream of payments for a succession of cars—in effect, a leasehold system. You own the car but pay only for the cost of its use, which means that the sustainable amount of borrowing for any level of income has gone up.

323
Finally, a large number of people have assets other than income out of which to pay service charges on loans. More than 60 per cent of householders are now house-owners. If you have wealth, small changes in your income do not matter so much for your consumption. Technically, possession of wealth makes borrowing more sensitive to income changes. When your income falls, you do not reduce your consumption but you can borrow more. If wealth is rising, consumption can rise too, regardless of income, which basically means that you can borrow more.
Last month's minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee implicitly accepted the main proposition I am advancing—that the sustainable level of borrowing has gone up—when it said:
"Bank contacts with the major lenders … suggested that most borrowers could service their loans at a significantly higher repo rate, provided that unemployment did not rise materially".
There is another interesting feature of today's loan market, which needs to be teased out from a rather paradoxical set of statistics. Studies show that the level of household debt is closely associated with the level of household incomes. How does this square with the fact that debt has been rising faster than earnings or incomes? It is partly due to the fact, as I suggested, that the sustainable ratio of debt to income has been rising. But I suspect that it reflects something else as well, which is that some groups are increasing their earnings far faster than the national average, while the earnings of other groups are increasing less than the national average. In other words, the distribution of income is becoming more unequal. That would partly explain the growing gap between the rise of debt and the rise of incomes. I think that the relationship is extremely interesting and deserves further exploration.
The conclusion of my argument is that we ought not to be too gloomy about the growth of household debt. It does not reflect the collapse of prudence or the decay of civilisation or, more mundanely, even relentless advertising by credit card companies, but merely the fact that with greater security of income, more stable income growth and a wider distribution of home ownership, people can afford to borrow more.
Our public rhetoric, however, continues to emphasise the evils and dangers of falling into debt. Indeed, there has been some evidence of that in this debate. This rhetoric obviously reflects deep-seated moral attitudes. However, the contradiction between our rhetoric and the reality makes it very difficult to have a coherent debate on such topics as top-up fees for universities, for example. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, mentioned student debt, but the very people who worry about the burden of student debt would not think twice about borrowing much larger sums for other purposes.
The point about borrowing is that it enables you to anticipate your future income. As long as the anticipation is correct, it makes sense to borrow against it. In today's world, increased borrowing is a sign of success, not of failure.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure
324
to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as I have done from time to time. I shall probably sing off the same hymn sheet as him. When I first went to school, somebody hit middle C and said, "Sing it". I could not get it and they said "You just can't sing".
I really would rather be singing from the Labour Benches. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that land prices in Oldham have been rising faster than almost anywhere in the country. He seems very lonely on his Bench. Since Wednesday debates are usually for Back-Benchers, I would like to make a point that I have made before. We might have a word with the various Whips to encourage people to speak from the Back Benches. I had asked if I could speak from the Minister's Bench today. I was told that under the rules of the House, I could sit there, but it would be deemed rather frivolous if I were to speak. So. I shall probably now make a frivolous speech.
Are we so indebted that we need to be worried? Are we on our way to Carey Street, which, as your Lordships will remember, is somewhere near the Old Bailey? We seem to go to the Old Bailey more and more for other reasons. From there, of course, we go to the Clink—Clink being the liberty that could be granted by the Bishop of Winchester. I went to school in Winchester so I have a moderate knowledge about this.
If we are in that position, the Government should have told us. Alexander Hamilton said that national debt, if not excessive, is to us a national blessing. Sometimes, to encourage or have growth, you need to have debt—you need to borrow and to beat the banks. For years and years, interest rates were way below the rate of inflation and the only way you gained was by buying fixed assets so that you beat the banks. We had no industrial growth and limited real growth in our economy.
My noble friend Lord Northesk, who is sitting behind me, staring down my neck, will realise that, being an ancient banker, my brief is dated noon today. Last month, the level of mortgage borrowing was £16 billion but there has been a fall this month. It is coming down, the new demands are lower, and mortgage debt is not as worrying as people feel. I shall try to explain why.
We are a house-owning nation, unlike much of continental Europe, which consists of lease-owning or renting nations. Throughout continental Europe, when people reached retirement age—I made this point in the Second Reading debate on the Housing Bill so I ask noble Lords to forgive me for repeating myself—people would put their savings into property which they would rent out, knowing that they were in control of their income and would have a regular income which would not go up and down according to interest rates. Noble Lords will remember the time when, in Switzerland, one had to pay 1 per cent for one's money on deposit. We were never used to having low interest rates, and we thought that savings would be safe in a bank. But you cannot live off your savings.
I had a very good friend, a wise old man, who said to me, "Malcolm, I have a worry about your government. When you Conservatives first came in, having sold my

325
business, I could live on the interest on the interest. The Conservatives managed to reduce inflation and bring interest rates down and, having paid for houses for my family, I found I couldn't live on the interest itself. So I had to invest".
This is what seems to have happened. Most of us realise that you cannot keep up with inflation when inflation is above interest rates—the returns from the bank are negligible. So where does the money go? Some of it went on the stock markets, but they have not performed that well, and a large amount went into asset-earning investments, particularly property. In parallel, one has seen an enormous growth in what is called the venture capital market. That is private money that says it can do better by going into private ventures than by going into a stock market.
That has distorted our attitude to debt and assets. Average unsecured debt is more than covered by financial assets in the case of a large chunk of the population. However, we have moved from being the cash society of maybe 25 years ago, when only a third of people had bank accounts, to a form of paper-transaction society where few people are paid cash wage packets each week and where 91 per cent of the population has bank accounts. That percentage has tripled in a short period.
One used to worry that banks took on people without following the historic rules that one must have good references. When I was sitting on the Committee of London Clearing Banks, I would complain that we should not allow people to open accounts unless the references were taken up. The banks would say that the references were not worth taking up. Noble Lords should look at the change. Now one cannot even open a bank account without one's application going to some security man in the United States and exposing everything. One's banking secrecy has disappeared. Almost any teller in any branch can look at what is in one's account and one feels slightly insecure. I am not saying that money is going back under the mattress, because it is not.
The distortion arises not just from the movement in payment to banks. People do not use banks in the way that they once did; they use plastic or cards. There are 125 million to 150 million cards in issue which go into a machine, which can withdraw money or which one can use for credit. In general, those are what we would call credit cards. Their holders fall into a number of groups. Most of them, surprisingly, pay off their debt each month automatically by direct debit. They know that they are inefficient and they do not want to pay the extra charges that would be incurred. Another group of credit card holders will use them to manage their affairs. When they are going on holiday, they will draw money out of the facility that they have. Almost everyone has a gold card now; platinum has run its course. I do not know what comes next. Those credit card holders will use their card to manage their affairs, sometimes quite efficiently, sometimes not so.
Then there is another little group which banks and credit card companies do not like. They switch credit cards every month according to when they get a free
326
deal and believe that they can make some money on arbitrage. The remainder of card holders, which make up only a relatively small number, often get into debt. That is where the biggest social worry lies. People who have never had a bank account before are now being sold credit on a vast scale. Twenty-five million store cards are now in circulation, where one is encouraged to open an account in the belief that free credit is on offer, but one does not necessarily pay it off. That is a cause for worry.
Noble Lords have already referred to people who are not used to the whole concept of borrowing and its consequences. I shall give just one of many examples that have been presented to me. A young man in his early 30s, with learning difficulties, decides that he does not want to have a bank account any more. He is unable to maintain a full-time job and is maybe earning the minimum wage. Within six months, because he has learned how to use a computer, he manages to open eight different accounts and obtain a borrowing facility of more than £12,000, of which £10,000 is drawn down with no way of repaying it. He sees another advertisement on the television from an organisation that claims that it will spread out his debt with no charge. He feels that he is secure, but all he is doing is paying a fee each month to that credit agency, which is extending the life of the loan and he is not aware of it. Then, when he finds that he cannot borrow any more money to live on and needs more money, he goes into a bank and asks it to help him become a song-writer. The bank tells him that he can have a business loan. Without interviewing him, it gives him a £5,000 business loan. When I followed the matter back with the many of the agencies and the people concerned, I found that such stories are common. I also found that many people who are granted such facilities are required to pay an extra amount for insurance. The lending agency, if I may call it that, is not necessarily totally exposed; it has cover and it does not have to worry too much.
My concern, therefore, is for the lower sector of those who are given credit. Some people are being sold credit. I am not suggesting that the Government should legislate, but I wish that people would look at all the advertisements that are being made. One sees 0 per cent on balance transfers being offered to people who are not aware of what APR is. In his reply, the Minister will no doubt tell me about the DTI's new study on APR. I gather that such a study is being organised, but I have almost forgotten what it involves. However, it would be nice if every offer of credit came with as big a health warning as does a packet of cigarettes. It should be wrong for organisations to be able to sell credit by direct mail, to gain access to mailing lists, or even to advertise it. That is radical, but such credit promotion is increasing levels of personal expenditure.
However, the ratio of household debt to expenditure is only 23 per cent, which is not desperately high. Our worries are greater than they need to be. My worry is not so much the level of consumer debt, but the level of hidden government debt or off-balance sheet debt. I am not a proponent of PPP or PFI, but when it defers any liability on government balance sheets, I start to worry. When I see that the Government are going to

327
build nine hospitals this year and 11 the year after, at vast expense, and when I see the expenditure that has to go on the railways, on the roads and on education, I am worried. The level of indebtedness there can rise.
I have no panacea, but I am just beginning to feel that we have a secure economy. The older generation is recognising that it cannot survive on savings alone, which is why we are seeing remortgaging or equity release. One is realising that as one's house rises in value, it takes one past £250,000 limit that can be handed on to one's heirs and successors under current inheritance tax rules. One says to oneself that it may pay in some way to take out a loan that will release equity and help one's children to buy their own houses or pay student fees. It is a round robin of debt.
I am not worried about it. I am just worried about the Government. I am worried about the consumer only in respect of the store credit cards. In general, I do not think that we shall all end up in the Clink. There are easier ways of doing that. As Kipling said:
"I am here in the Clink for a thundering drink and blacking the Corporal's eye".
The Government should realise that people historically got into debt on account of drink, and that governments got into debt on account of war. We have had an expensive war that is going to hurt the Government. The drinks scene worries me and an awful lot of people's eyes are being blacked. The Government should concentrate on what they were put in power to do, and not on surreptitiously increasing the level of taxation and expenditure. I am worried more about the Government than about the house-owner.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an investment fund manager. I thank my noble friend Lord Northesk for initiating this important debate. I slightly disagree with the rosy picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his interesting speech.
My only disappointment is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is not responding for the Government on such a major economic issue and that no Labour Back-Benchers have spoken or are in the Chamber. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be here, but I wish him well on his trip to an unpronounceable organisation in Paris.
This is a timely debate. It comes a week after April UK consumer borrowing figures revealed, as many noble Lords have said, that total secured and unsecured lending is now approaching the staggering figure of £1 trillion. That milestone is expected to be reached later in the summer. Other noble Lords have said that secured lending has shown the highest-ever percentage monthly increase, rising by £9.8 billion or 1.2 per cent in April. That total now stands at £810 billion, which, according to Bank of England statistics, is 82 per cent of the total lending outstanding to individuals. The not insignificant figure of £174 billion—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, should take note—or 18 per cent, is categorised as consumer credit. Therefore, the figures show that the secured debt is more than four times the unsecured, but the unsecured is still a significant figure.
328
The difficult questions to answer are: first, do either the proportion or the actual levels matter? Secondly, should the lenders themselves be alarmed by this? Thirdly, should the Government do anything about the situation in regulation or legislation? I shall deal with each of those in order.
First, I turn to whether the actual level or proportion of debt matters. If the housing market continues to rise at the current rate, the secured loans will have a satisfactory level of cover. Even if the rate of growth of the housing market is less, at half the current rate of 20 per cent, there will not necessarily be a problem. However, in my view the real difficulties start when there is a sustained fall in property values. In the past this has occurred when interest rates have increased very sharply. At this time I have to say that that situation does not appear so likely, but there are some straws in the wind which could cause interest rates to be raised much more than expected. A sustained increase in the oil price would be one. It should be noted that this was the major cause of our inflationary problems in the 1970s. The inflationary impact of this now is much less than it would have been then as manufacturing plays a much less important role in our economy now and the share of goods in the CPI has fallen from 70 per cent to just over 50 per cent.
The next straw is the general increase in consumer spending. The Bank of England is focusing heavily on this, which is being financed to an extent by a mixture of mortgage equity withdrawal and consumer credit. I do not think that enough speakers have focused on the problem of mortgage equity withdrawal which, according to the Bank of England, is now running at about 8 per cent of household disposable income—up from nil per cent in 1997—that is, borrowing secured on property which is often used for consumer spending.
The other straw is the increase in average earnings, which is particularly evident in the private sector in the past six months. The public sector increases of 2002 and 2003 have reversed somewhat although this could still be a problem in the longer term. The combination of these factors, if they continue to increase at the current rate, could mean that we may well get higher interest rates than expected, thereby jeopardising individuals' ability to repay their debt.
So in reply to the question whether the proportion or the actual amount of debt matters, it is clear that if interest rates rise by an unexpectedly high level, house owners or consumers in debt may be caught out. The area in which they may be particularly caught out, as my noble friend Lord Northesk stated, is the buy-to-let market. Here there has been a huge expansion in the past few years as investors have borrowed at, say, 4½ per cent—which will be rising now—and have been able to let out the properties at, say, a 6 per cent yield while also enjoying a rise in the capital value of their properties. However, as more and more people have seen this opportunity, the net yields on property are declining. According to some commentators in central London they are now at the level of 4½ per cent. This

329
makes the mathematics much more difficult for the buy-to-let investor and there is a danger that this could be the first part of the housing market to collapse.
My second question is whether the lenders should be alarmed by the potential scenario that I have just mentioned. If they have lent sensibly on a cautious percentage of the value of the property—say, 60 to 70 per cent—there should not be cause for concern. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the bad habits of the late 1980s are reappearing, and that even 100 per cent mortgages are being awarded by some lenders. According to the latest Bank of England inflation report, the ratio of house prices as a multiple of earnings stands at 5.7 times—well in excess of the historical average since 1952 of about 3.7 times. Again, as in the 1980s, this can lead to trouble if there is a major hike in interest rates.
The third aspect is whether the Government should be doing anything about the situation by way of regulation or legislation. While I do not believe that it is correct to interfere in the operation of the housing market, I think it is reasonable that the Bank of England should keep an eye on lending institutions and discourage the granting of 100 per cent mortgages. A publicity campaign could also be initiated on the dangers of borrowing a multiple of more than, say, four times salary. However, in my view, there is no need for legislation.
In my opinion this is not the case in the area of consumer credit. The debate in April in the other place on the Treasury Committee report on credit card charges contains much of interest on this topic. The honourable Member John McFall reminded the committee that it was 30 years since the passing of the original Consumer Credit Act 1974, and that they were still waiting for a review of it. The problems that he concluded needed to be addressed were several. The honourable Member said:
"First, important information is buried in the small print and written in technical jargon, which makes it extremely difficult to compare cards".
Can the Minister give the House any assurance that the use of larger print will become a regulatory requirement?
Then there is the problem of the annual percentage rate charged, or the APR as it is known. Providers are at present allowed to calculate the annual percentage rate—the figure most commonly used to compare credit cards—in more than one way. The honourable Member continued:
"The true cost to the consumer of different cards is concealed behind complex interest rate calculation methods, not taking account of the APR, and seemingly unreasonable charges are levied which are sometimes not specified in advance".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/04; col. 143 WH]
With store cards in particular he found a serious problem of lack of transparency. Will the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, confirm the promise made by the Minister in the other place to the honourable Member John McFall that a single method of APR calculation will be introduced by October 2004? There has been an announcement today but I have not had time to digest it. Several Members of the Treasury Committee
330
stated how at present it is calculated in different ways by different companies. The Consumers' Association, for instance, identified 10 different methods of interest rate calculation currently in use in the UK credit market.
Credit card company marketing practices also gave the committee cause for concern. Among these are the receipt of unsolicited credit application forms, some of which offered misleading credit terms. For instance, Barclaycard offered a,
"0 per cent for ever offer",
which the OFT chairman, John Vickers, concluded was completely misleading, and the promotion of it was stopped.
As the committee reveals, the amount of inquiries received by citizens advice bureaux about consumer debt has increased by 46 per cent in the past three years. I welcome the Government's establishment of the over-indebtedness advisory group and a cross-ministerial advisory group to look at the issues. I also welcome our own party's commission set up under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach to study the whole issue of household debt.
Other major issues raised in the debate on the Treasury Select Committee report back in April were: clarifying the consequence of making the minimum payment, unsolicited increases in credit limits, not stating the rate of interest and credit card cheques. Of all these the last seems to be the most serious. Apparently, according to the committee, credit card cheques are sent to about 16 per cent of households—5 million in total—and almost every dispatch is unsolicited. If you are unwise enough to bank one of these, debit interest starts accruing immediately even before you start spending the money.
The main venom of the committee was reserved for store cards, which on average, according to the honourable James Plaskitt MP, charge as much as 30 per cent per annum, despite historically low levels of interest rates. For instance, the lending institution GE Capital has not cut its interest rates since 1999.
I want to ask the Minister about the relationship between today's announcement of a credit industry shake-up and the White Paper that the DTI has produced, which looks forward to a consumer credit market appropriate to the 21st century. The White Paper suggests that a lot of problems that the Treasury Committee has unearthed can be addressed through secondary legislation. What will change as a result? I hope that the Minister will answer that. Also, what definition of "responsible lending" will be used in implementing the White Paper's proposals? Does the Minister agree that the issuing of credit card cheques is not responsible lending?
Today's announcement—the standardisation of APR—is to be implemented through secondary legislation. I welcome proposals for the clarification and presentation of different interest rates, or a standard way of calculating interest rates on credit cards. However, consumer groups are worried that the changes are not enough. Doug Taylor, the Consumers' Association spokesman, said that it was concerned

331
that there would still be loopholes, particularly within the advertising regulations, which may be open to misinterpretation.
Although the Government are not positively encouraging debt, they are certainly discouraging savings by the withdrawal of ACT and the cutting back of the PEP and ISA limits. The scenario that I have painted is much less rosy than that sketched out by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and there are serious warning signs on the horizon of things that could come to pass if interest rates were to rise sharply.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for bringing forward the debate at this time. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we either have passed or are about to pass the point at which household debt reaches £1 trillion. Although that is an unimaginable figure in many ways and has no particular practical consequence, it may be an appropriate time to give some thought to whether it matters. The debate has demonstrated that there is no common view at all about whether it matters. We have two groups—the worriers and the optimists.
The worriers, who include the chairman of the FSA, point to record levels of household debt in relation to post-tax income—now 120 per cent, as opposed to 40 per cent in 1980. As several noble Lords have pointed out, four-fifths of that is secured against depreciating house prices, which, in relation to income, are at levels comparable to those just before the house-price crashes between 1973 to 1975 and 1990 to 1992. There is also growing evidence of debt distress in the form of record personal bankruptcies. The Bank of England's own analysis suggests that 10 per cent of debtors regard debt as a heavy burden, and that 20 per cent of those with unsecured debt are borrowing to service the loans. On that side of the balance, recent FSA figures show that 6.9 million families are having difficulties with their borrowing commitments—an increase from 6.1 million families the same time the previous year.
The optimists, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is in the van among your Lordships this evening, argue that there has been a shift in the sustainable levels of debt for a number of reasons, which he enumerated. They argue that the debt-to-income ratio of debt holders is not deteriorating, that the debt-servicing ratios of households are at historically low levels, and that the relationships between secured debt and assets and between unsecured debt and financial wealth cannot depart far from historic averages. For their part, the banks claim to have learnt the lessons of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and to be very careful to assess their customers' ability to pay before making loans.
In a number of respects, both sides of the argument are right. The difference is about not current facts, but expectations of the future. The worriers emphasise that consumers are taking on debt on the assumption that employment will remain at recent high levels, interest rates will remain relatively low, income growth will remain strong and house prices will remain high. The optimists argue that those fears are misplaced.
332
There is also confusion in the debate, in that there are two distinct debt problems, both of which have been discussed. First, there are the minority of borrowers, mainly in low-income households, who are in severe difficulty with debt. Analysis shows that the most serious problems relate to unsecured debt and families in social housing. That is a very different problem from that of the home- buyer borrowing over the odds to get a foothold on the home-ownership ladder. Debt as a manifestation of poverty is a real issue.
The other debt problem is potential rather than actual. Continuation of comfortable balance sheets of households with big mortgages depends on the absence of a serious crash in house prices, plunging substantial numbers of people into negative equity. The optimists believe that house prices are being driven up by real and enduring scarcity in the housing market, caused by more and more people and households chasing seriously constrained increases in the housing stock. That was one of the main conclusions of the Barker report. They also believe that, barring some major unforeseen shock, policies designed to ensure financial stability will ensure low interest rates, low inflation and steady growth without a destabilising housing boom and bust.
The worriers take a different view—that, although Gordon Brown's estimable commitments to financial stability may work in aggregate, there can still be boom and bust in asset markets, of which in Britain housing is by far the most important. Just as stock markets see irrational exuberance, so do property markets. On the lending side of the market, a few aggressive lenders are undoubtedly pushing loan-to-value ratios and income multiples into hitherto uncharted territory, leaving their more conservative competitors lagging behind and faced with the dilemma of either following suit or losing market share.
Whatever the larger banks say about their assessment of potential borrowers, anyone who gets the flood of direct mail that I do, from all kinds of banks of which one has never heard and about which it is difficult to discover very much, cannot believe that they are acting with the degree of responsibility that the British Bankers' Association might wish. With such lenders about, there are undoubtedly ingredients for a potentially unstable asset bubble. It will be clear only with hindsight whether the worriers or the optimists are right.
It seems to the Liberal Democrats that the fact that we do not have the benefit of hindsight should not mean that we sit on our hands. A problem with the current situation is that the Bank of England worries about a potential house price bubble, but claims that it cannot take action to deal with it because its single policy tool—interest rates—is quite rightly focused on a much broader set of variables than simply house prices. The FSA, the Treasury, the DTI and the OFT all have responsibilities in the area, but there is a danger that primary responsibility is often not desperately clear. In

333
that is the danger that some measures that could be taken are left untaken, because everyone looks at everyone else to take it.
Therefore, I would like to make a number of suggestions that, whichever view one takes of the overall borrowing situation, could usefully be implemented. I have two suggestions regarding high and rising debt, as far as individuals, in particular those on relatively low incomes, are concerned.
The first relates to advice. A number of speakers have mentioned the increasing role that the citizens advice bureaux play in giving financial advice. But they are tightly constrained in what they can say and I believe that there is a need to establish a framework for providing independent, low-cost financial advice supported by the credit providers and the investment industry. The banks and the investment industry are already looking at that area and are doing something, but they are not doing very much and they are not doing it with any great urgency—and they could do more.
Secondly, it would be sensible to widen the remit of the social fund to permit an emergency short-term lending fund for low-income families in financial crisis. That would be a failsafe measure which, it is hoped, would not be needed in the vast majority of cases. However, as the case mentioned by one noble Lord about a man who committed suicide demonstrated, we are talking about issues that have fundamental impacts on the ability of households to live normal lives.
The second raft of changes that are needed relate to the way in which the banks operate. First, I agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that there should be a credit health warning on the tidal wave of unsolicited credit promotion that we are all bombarded with. I am not sure what the research evidence is on the health warnings on cigarettes, but I cannot believe that it has no impact whatever. Secondly, regarding low-income households in particular, there needs to be a crackdown on exploitative loan sharks. It is an area that is very much within the remit and focus of the review of consumer credit, but as we have debated previously in your Lordships' House, the pace at which that review is being undertaken leaves much to be desired. It would be sensible if the often hidden penalties for the early redemption of debt were ended, because that would encourage people when they are in a position to reduce their debt to do so without incurring financial penalty.
There needs to be stronger enforcement of OFT rules to prevent abuse associated with misleading advertising by debt management and advice services and excessive interest rates on store and credit cards undoubtedly need to be more rigorously policed by the competition and trading authorities. There has been some debate about the proposals on simplifying APR and making that clearer. That is a sensible step, but I doubt whether it goes far enough. I hope that it would be possible one day to produce with every financial product sold the equivalent of the sheet that one receives when one obtains a medicine, to which the drug companies devote enormous effort. It describes what the drug is, what its ingredients are, what it might
334
do to you and what the side effects are. One does not have the equivalent of 20 pages of minute print in a packet of aspirin, but something that describes the key features of that drug. That kind of document is almost entirely lacking in financial services products—not least, because, while the drug companies have to go though immensely rigorous procedures to make sure that the information on that piece of paper is correct, that piece of paper is sadly missing in many financial services products.
Finally, there is the question of, as it were, macro management of credit, where we have three suggestions. First, we believe the Government should publish and monitor, along with the Bank of England and the FSA, measures of sustainable household debt along the lines of the Government's fiscal rules. The Government have clear rules about what should be happening to taxes. They should have equally clear views on what are sensible measures of sustainable household debt.
Secondly, there should be guidance to banks on safe loan-to-value ratios and income multiples for mortgage borrowers based on independent assessments of asset values by a group operating in a similar manner to the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee.
Finally, there is scope for the active use of reserve deposits to reduce destabilising boom and bust in mortgage lending. I realise that this last point is extremely controversial within the banking fraternity—indeed the Bank of England claims that in the multinational world in which we operate and in global liberalised capital markets it is virtually impossible to do that. But frankly, given that there is a raft of regulations of which the rules about solvency ratios are but one, it is worth looking at the option of adjusting ratios to reflect the state of asset markets and, therefore, the risk of loans.
There are a raft of proposals that we believe make sense, whether one is an optimist or a pessimist about prospects for household debt. I hope that the Government might adopt them.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the timing of my noble friend Lord Northesk is immaculate. He has allowed us to debate the increase in personal debt at the very time that the debt is hurtling towards the £1 trillion mark—and many noble Lords have referred to that. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said important in its own right, but breaching such a major hurdle has a totemic significance.
I believe that this debate is important because the rising level of personal debt creates dangers for the economy in the short term, dangers for long term savings and it has particular dangers for individuals. The bottom line is that the financial well-being of our country is under threat. I am not too gloomy, but I am considerably more circumspect than the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and I am an unashamed "worrier", to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

335
I was slightly alarmed by my noble friend Lord Selsdon's introduction with his desire not merely to join the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on the Cross Benches, but to cross the Floor completely and sit with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, that was only because I thought that he was lonely.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, indeed. That was a kind thought of my noble friend, but I will say that when his speech was developed I was not quite so alarmed. That is not to say that I agree with all that he said, as he will find out as I continue my speech, but I agree with him about the build up of debt among those who are relatively illiterate in financial terms, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Secured lending has been growing at an annual rate which topped 15 per cent at the end of last year. That has contributed to house price inflation, which has been running at well over 20 per cent. The ratio of house prices to average annual earnings is now its highest in 50 years and shows no sign of letting up. Does that matter? I am sure that it matters to individuals. First time buyers find it increasingly difficult to afford house ownership, particularly in high cost areas such as the south-east—and we heard some of the problems that the buy-to-let market is causing in the housing market.
But as well as the impact on individuals it also matters to the economy overall, because the personal finances of those individuals are becoming more exposed to the cost of debt servicing. It has often been argued, as it has this evening, that the interest burden as a proportion of household income is at low levels and is considerably lower than in the early 1990s when house prices peaked. That is true, but the forward projection of total debt servicing costs, including principal repayments, prepared by the Bank of England, shows that with current interest rate expectations the ratio will rise and will possibly even exceed that experienced at the previous peak.
At that level, we could see a major house price correction. I do not say that it is inevitable that we shall have a house price bubble with the serious consequences that we experienced on the previous occasion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Northbrook on that. However, I do say that it is a plausible outcome and one about which I hope the Government have done some serious thinking.
The proportion of income which has to be diverted to service debt has an impact not only on house prices but also on the amount available for consumption. Since 1997, household consumption has been an increasing proportion of GDP, rising from 61 to 65 per cent in 2003, and that increase has shown no sign of abating. We can see a strong correlation between the growth in household consumption and the growth in secured borrowing and, in particular, in the levels of mortgage equity withdrawal.
The Chancellor's latest projections for GDP growth show that increasing private consumption will continue to be the biggest single element of GDP
336
growth. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that householders thought that, with rising debt service costs, they had to borrow less and spend less. Even the Chancellor in the previous Budget conceded that the biggest downside risk in the UK was consumer spending. I suggest that it is quite plausible that fairly soon householders will hit a point at which they will check back on their spending and, therefore, potentially impact the consumption element of GDP.
The latest Budget arithmetic shows that the Chancellor's golden rule has a headroom of 0.1 per cent. If consumers spend less and if growth falls away, will the golden rule be breached; or, perhaps even more likely, will the golden rule be met but with further tax rises to meet the gap?
When the Minister responds this evening, I hope that he will say what levers the Government have to deal with rising debt. The Government have placed the most powerful lever—the interest rate—in the care of the Bank of England. The Bank of England remit, as we have heard, is to achieve a particular inflation figure, which the Government have perversely constructed using the index of consumer prices so that the impact of house prices is ignored, as my noble friend Lord Northesk has already pointed out.
The Bank of England is required by Section 11 of the Bank of England Act to support the Government's economic policy, as well as to achieve monetary stability. The Government are entitled, under Section 12 of the Act, to tell the Bank of England what their economic policy is. To date, the Government have chosen only to tell the Bank to achieve,
"high and stable levels of growth and employment by raising the sustainable growth rate and creating economic and employment opportunities for all".
Will the Minister say whether the Government continue to regard that as an adequate instruction to the Bank? Do the Government have no policy towards personal debt or asset prices to which they believe the Bank should have regard? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway alluded to that problem. He also pointed out the extra problems that we would have if we yielded further control to Brussels, as the draft constitution currently permits. Perhaps I may be permitted a small digression along with that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. That is, of course, another very good reason to say "no" to the euro. But let us return to the matter of personal lending.
I have dealt with the subject of secured lending, but the position on unsecured lending is much the same and it is also a real problem in the making. It is clear that unsecured lending growth has contributed to consumption, quite possibly at levels that are not sustainable. But my concerns about unsecured lending, which is a much smaller proportion of the total, have far more to do with the impact on individuals than the impact on the economy overall.
We know that the debt to disposable income ratios have been rising strongly and are now at 130 per cent or more—way above the previous peak a decade or so ago. I do not believe that that can simply be explained

337
by distribution, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, attempted to argue earlier. The increase is very much more significant than distribution would probably allow for, but I think that it is worth looking at in more detail.
However, the real problem is that the ratio is far higher for the poorest households, and it is those households that are most likely to be in arrears. They are the ones that are much more likely to be paying the high interest rates on credit cards and store cards. My noble friend Lord Northbrook spoke eloquently about many problems in this regard. Around 3 million households—an astonishing number—rely on the services of money lenders, who of course are not known for their bargain rates of interest.
As we heard from my noble friend Lord Northesk and others, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has been reporting a rising level of inquiries relating to consumer debt, and the statistics on arrears and problem debts are on a rising trend. Behind those statistics are human tragedies. The poor, in particular, find it easy to slip into debt levels which they cannot sustain. We were reminded of that recently when an 84 year-old pensioner managed to run up a £30,000 credit card debt, despite the fact that her pension was less than £80 a week.
I know that there are no easy answers on this. The response of my party has been to set up a Debt Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. The commission has only just started its work, and it is too soon to say what its findings will be. But I believe that the existence of the commission, which draws together both the commercial and voluntary sectors, is a constructive response.
The obverse of rising debt is low levels of savings. The Government have presided over a debt boom and a savings crash. The savings ratio is at about half the level of the one that the Government inherited. In the six years to 1997, the ratio was never lower than 9.3 per cent, but in the following six years it has never risen above 6.7 per cent and is now considerably lower.
The Government not only have no effective savings policies; they have also systematically set about undermining the savings culture that they inherited. We have the infamous £5 billion annual raid on pension funds, which is one of the major causes of today's pensions crisis, and that, in turn, has led to a loss of confidence in savings for pensions. The Government abolished the popular PEPs and TESSAs and replaced them with ISAs. But they worried about those becoming too popular and so they have now set upon a policy of squeezing them out of existence. The latest statistics show that they are, indeed, being successful in doing that.
I say to the Government that a set of policies that encourages personal debt while discouraging savings is the worst kind of short-termism. The Government might well get their GDP figures shored up in the short term but the problems that they are storing up for the future are considerable. They are, in my view, unbalanced and fundamentally unsustainable policies, and they are not policies that a Conservative government would pursue.
338
I cannot finish without reflecting on the role of the Government's economic management in setting the climate for personal financial decisions. The Government have embarked upon a debt-supported spending spree. We have seen the amount that the Government expected to borrow last year rise from the £10 billion forecast before the last election to £37.5 billion, as set out in the previous Budget Statement. The Chancellor expects to borrow another £157 billion over the next five years. That is without counting the off-balance sheet debt of which my noble friend Lord Selsdon reminded us. My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin has rightly described the Chancellor as the "credit card Chancellor". His Budgets are "spend now, pay later" Budgets. It is hardly surprising if the electorate follows suit.
Seven years of Labour Government have been characterised by economic prosperity, brought about in large measure by the strong economy that they inherited in 1997. But, in my view, that is under threat. If personal debt levels continue to rise, it will not take much to push our economy out of its comfortable trajectory. That will be bad for the economy and a tragedy for some individuals. Those are the dangers of which these Benches have been warning. To date, in reply we have had complacency from the Benches opposite. I hope that this evening the Minister will give a more convincing response.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for introducing this debate, which has provoked some interesting contributions. The division that has been identified between the gloom-mongers and those who are more optimistic is a fair analysis. My joy this evening is that what has always been defined as the gloomy science of economics has had the most optimistic and constructive perspective put on it from the outstanding economist present in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. At one stage I thought that he was going to render my response to the debate otiose. He covered so much of the ground.
In response to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on whether the distribution of income and resources has been skewed, and whether some are getting more rapidly better off and others poorer, I thought he might give us some credit for the numbers of children who have been taken out of poverty, which has been the result of constructive policies by the Government. We need to address ourselves to what has been recognised on all sides as certain extreme aspects of the economy about which we need to be concerned.
First, it is clear that low-income families are more vulnerable to loan sharks and to the high cost of credit than others. In a moment, I shall turn in more detail to the measures that have been announced today, and which were the subject of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I want to reassure him on that front. Secondly, I shall refer to the wider reaches of the lending industry and the necessity of reigning in some of that by making consumers more aware of their rights and providing clarity of information. I want to

339
comment on that in a little more detail. I believe that we are on common ground on those two points. Measures need to be taken and I emphasise that that is what the Government believe too.
On the more general issues, it would not be surprising to the House if I did not place myself firmly among, not the optimists but, the realists who recognise that this is a secure economy which has a base, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, identified, that changes the terms of some of these arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, emphasised the problems of the decline in the savings ratio. Of course, there has been a decline. People feel more secure.
The reason why they borrowed under the previous administration was that they had to guard against the shocks and difficulties of an insecure economy, not least of which were the levels of unemployment at that time that could strip away a household's income. The fact that the people today are prepared to reduce their savings ratios is a reflection of the fact that they have faith in the Government's handling of the economy. They have the experience of certain aspects of the economy working very much to their advantage, not least, of course, the fact that we have the highest numbers of people in work that this country has ever known.
Although the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, was on the more pessimistic fringe, he was very fair about certain aspects of debt—certainly on credit card debt. We should recognise that the vast majority of people who incur credit card debt, and who add to the total, meet their monthly commitments. They borrow at a negligible rate of interest—I am sure that this is a position shared by all in this House—and they borrow in an entirely responsible manner. They take out three to four weeks' credit and meet their obligations at the end of that time. That accounts for the majority of our fellow citizens. Although that may lead the noble Baroness to be dreadfully concerned about the overall levels of debt reaching proportions that we have not known before, that may be a reflection of the fact that people have security about the economy as a result of direct experience, and that enables them to take on such obligations without fear.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, also excoriated the Government—I cannot repeat his phrase with total accuracy—for shifting the inflation targets. The Government gave the Bank of England the new inflation targets—CPI at 2 per cent—to improve the quality of the targets and to help to ensure that inflation expectations in the UK remain in line with those in the euro area. CPI is a more comparable measure of inflation internationally. It represents international best practice. Adoption of the CPI enables a more direct comparison between inflation rates in the UK and the euro area. I do not believe that the Government have anything for which to apologise. It is not a matter of fiddling with the inflation rates at all, but choosing a more accurate, an effective and an appropriate measure.
340
The noble Earl also suggested that the Government were selling pensioners short. I have already mentioned that children have been taken out of poverty. Over 400,000 pensioners between 1997 and 2001 have been taken out of relatively low income, after housing costs. Pensioners are, on average, £13.50 a week better off with pension credit and other measures—than if the earnings link had been in place since 1997. The poorest third of pensioners are around £26 a week better off. So I refute the charge that the Government have not responded to the needs of pensioners. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are certainly committed to ensuring that all pensioners are able to share in rising national prosperity.
Finally he suggested that the reason why individuals were getting into debt was because they were aping a profligate Chancellor. I can assure the House that the Chancellor is not profligate, but is following extremely realistic perspectives. Tomorrow various elections are taking place and there may be a number of shocks for established parties, as is being reflected in the press—I notice the anxiety on the other side. But what is it about our present political culture that is often commented upon? It is that individuals do not have the highest possible regard for their political leaders and leadership. Suddenly to suggest that the whole country is pursuing particular strategies with regard to household incomes because they are out to ape the Chancellor, is a very odd concept indeed. They would be acting with some probity if they followed him, but I doubt whether we are in a position to claim that particular form of emulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, put these issues into the context of the European Community. I was grateful for that. I am not in a position to deal with that in a debate that is so limited—we shall need another debate before we address ourselves to the fundamental questions of European membership to which he referred. Suffice it to say that, as far as the Government are concerned, our membership of the European Community is certainly showing us in a very strong economic light, often to the envy of our European colleagues.
We do not underestimate the fact that there are challenges ahead, but it is scarcely for me in this debate to respond to the issues of the European constitution. This was ground that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was keen to drag me onto, but I feel I cannot do justice to that aspect of the debate given so many other issues directly related to the main topic before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was kind enough to suggest that I might be lonely on the Government Benches: who could be lonely when accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, as a helpmeet in these circumstances? I also heard what the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook said. We all miss my noble friend Lord McIntosh who normally responds to these debates, but he is unable to be here today. He cannot fulfil every conceivable obligation in government, so from time to time the House will have to put up with a rather doubtful substitute.

341
What I did appreciate about the contribution of noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, was his suggestion that there were limits to what the Government could do with regard to lending. He is right in those terms and it would ill-behove members of the Opposition to suggest that their position, having put their thinking-caps on, is that the only way we can extricate ourselves from what they define as a crisis, because of the level of our household debt—but which the Government of course deny is in those terms at all—is through a significant government action.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Can he remind me which noble Lord referred to this as a crisis?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps I have exaggerated by using "crisis", and I withdraw that particular word. I bring again as evidence into this debate the prospect the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, indicated he had already heard; namely, a certain amount of pessimism. All of that emanated, as I saw it, from the Opposition Benches. I do not think the noble Baroness did anything to lighten the gloom when we were able to have her contribution on that perspective.
I want to assure the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, and also the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Selsdon, that we have been concerned today to make announcements on the question of consumer credit. We certainly are taking steps to ensure that there is one measure of APR. I do not know how big the print will be that justifies this; but I do recognise the importance of the small print problem when people are not aware of the nature of the contract that they have signed.
Our announcement today is concerned with producing the first move in a set of regulations in the Government's shake-up of the consumer credit market. It is only a first move and does not implement the whole of the White Paper. I was asked on one occasion in the House whether legislation would follow the White Paper: well, it may do, but we can do a certain amount of constructive good based upon the propositions in the White Paper through regulation. That is the aspect we have introduced today.
The new requirements will tighten up credit advertising so that consumers will be better able to compare products; and it will also introduce a standard way of calculating the APR, which will mean that when an APR appears in an advertisement it must always be more prominent than all the other financial information. The most basic facts will, therefore, be clear to the consumer.
I do not pretend that the latter will solve all the problems of consumer lending. We know there are the vulnerable and we also know that we could all become vulnerable to certain seductive literature submitted through the post. However, today we are introducing a clear approach to cardinal issues which are critical to the consumer. I give way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall not take long. Neither my noble friend Lady Noakes, nor anyone else, was suggesting—I certainly was not—that we are in a position of crisis. We were suggesting that unless something is done about the extent of debt, and done fairly soon, it will not be tolerable for the economy in the future.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will have recognised that under the promptings of the noble Baroness I withdrew that term. Nevertheless, the noble Lord contributed to certain elements of gloom about the present position, which I want to refute. I want to refute another area of significant concern which was mentioned today; that is, the housing market.
There are problems with certain aspects of the housing market. Borrowing against an asset which is being enhanced does not appear to me to be a major problem in the economy, but we must certainly have regard to first-time buyers. That is why we commissioned the Barker review and from that have developed a whole series of proposals which will be brought to fruition to meet the mismatch between the demand for and the supply of housing.
We all recognise why it is difficult to generate a rapid response in terms of supply with regard to housing, but we also recognise that with the increase in the number of households—an important factor in regard to housing demand—we need to think more seriously about extending house building and house building opportunities. That is the burden of the Barker review and it is the basis on which the Government intend to act in order to relieve some of the pressure upon the housing market.
Against the background of a strong economy, judicious action to look after the most vulnerable and our concern as regards fundamental issues such as the housing market, I emphasise my view that the Government should not be complacent about personal debt. That is why action has been taken today in the way I have described. There is a whole range of other fundamental actions being taken by government. We are in the position which was summed up so much more accurately than I can by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky; namely, that, because of changes in the structure of the economy and legitimate changes among our people regarding expectation, what 15 or 20 years ago might have been looked upon as potential for very serious problems as regards the economy will not manifest in those terms. Far from it; what we have are aspects.
Let me give one obvious illustration. The proportion of homes repossessed by lenders is at a historically low level. The current position does not represent a very stark contrast with the position which I think the Official Opposition this evening were prone to describe. That was the position of 15 or 20 years ago with the appalling consequences of the housing crash.

343
I maintain that the strength of our economy is such that no such crash will be repeated this time. The Government are acting judiciously and are in control of the situation. We recognise that there is no room for complacency, and that action needs to be taken in certain crucial areas.
Nevertheless, we are also appreciative of the fact that alarm and gloom should not be spread against a background of a rising economy—one in which there has been considerable prosperity in recent years—where the majority of people take judicious decisions on the handling of their household incomes and wealth.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could help me—not necessarily today at this moment. I have been asked if I could produce a comparison between government borrowing and consumer borrowing on a like-for-like basis. Perhaps the Minister can send me a short letter stating, for example, that the level of consumer borrowing today is "this" and that the level of government borrowing is "that". It would be a sort of simple comparison, because both sides have a right to know.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. I shall write to the noble Lord and make sure that all other contributors to the debate receive the same letter.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am hugely grateful to all my noble friends—I still prefer to include the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, among their number—for their contributions to the debate.
It has been a delight to listen to everyone's comments. In fact, in contrasting the speeches of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and other contributions, albeit to varying degrees and from varying directions, I detected a degree of consensus. It strikes me that we are all agreed that of itself personal debt does not constitute an immediate threat to the economy. We are all much more concerned about its current impact in individual cases. Importantly, there are concerns as to what the potential outcomes of the current trends in the statistics, if sustained, might be.
To that extent the delineation of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, between the worriers and optimists was accurate. In so far as concerns gloom, it centres around anxieties as to whether the Government are properly focused on these trends.
Having articulated both sides of this coin to the benefit of the Government and the Treasury, tonight's proceedings have, I believe, been extremely useful. Of course, now is not the time to rehearse the debate in its entirety. Once again, I am hugely grateful to all noble friends who have spoken. It only remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Andrewsrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 8th Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we believe these regulations recognise changing times and changing expectations. They also deal with issues that are by definition sensitive and controversial and to which the Government have sought, after long and hard reflection, to do justice.
In 1990 this House agreed the current provisions for the information which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority can give to donor-conceived adults. The provisions were right for their time. The 1990 Act enabled the HFEA to construct a register and provide the following limited information, if asked by a donor-conceived adult: whether the person might be related to someone they intend to marry; and, at age 18 or over, whether the HFEA's register showed them to be donor conceived.
Those were entirely sensible provisions in their day. But over the past 13 years it has become apparent that in adulthood some donor-conceived people find those provisions inadequate and insufficient. Some have said, for example, very poignantly that not being able to find out about their origins has left them with a gap in the way they see themselves, a gap in their identity, in their ability to tell their own story—and we are, after all, story-telling animals—and an inability to make complete sense of their lives.
By 2010, about 40,000 donor-conceived children will have been born—and by 2023, about 60,000 such children. This is an issue for the House today because in agreeing the provisions in 1990, Parliament anticipated the possibility that, as time passed, more information might be sought and might need to be given. The Act had a regulation-making power in Section 31 to enable us to do this, and for the past three years we have been considering and consulting how best to do so. We feel it is now time to end the uncertainty, to make good that anticipation and, in particular, to reflect the paramount rights of the child in these provisions as we are seeking to do consistently in many other aspects of law and practice.
There are two aspects to the regulations—nonidentifying and identifying. Under the regulations before us today, a donor-conceived person aged 18 or older will be able to obtain a list of non-identifying information about their donor from the HFEA if they ask for that information and if that information is on the HFEA's register—which began in 1991. Given the lapse of time, the first 18 year-olds will be eligible to ask for this information in 2010. By that time, the information on the register might be slightly limiting, depending on what the donor was asked to provide at the time of donation. In respect of donors who register with a clinic on or after 1 July of this year, a comprehensive set of non-identifying information will be collected from fertility

345
clinics by the HFEA. This is listed at Regulation 2(2)(a) to (h), and for example includes physical features, ethnic group, religion, occupational interest, and a pen portrait of the donor.
The second element in the regulations enables donor-conceived people born from gametes or embryos donated on or after 1 April 2005 to obtain identifying information about their donor from the HFEA when they reach age 18 or later. That is set out in paragraph 3, and includes the name, date of birth and last known postal address. We fully recognise that this is a highly sensitive issue. There is an ethical as well as a practical need to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the donors who make such an invaluable gift of life. We have concluded after an extensive public exercise and consultation that it is right that in the future donor-assisted young people should have these new rights. We have every expectation that they will grow up in loving and happy families. However, just as some other countries have concluded, we also feel that they should have the right to access information about their origins which will help them, if they so choose, to complete their life history.
Among the bodies which support the decision are the Ethical Committee of the BMA and many children's organisations. This means that the first 18 year-olds to benefit from that information will do so from late 2023. Let me emphasise that the commitment to past donors has been that they will not be identified retrospectively. We respect and will uphold that commitment.
What has changed since 1990 to make this provision seem so necessary? One thing is that there are some 25,000 donor-conceived children—2,000 are born a year—and we welcome that. Another important cultural change—partly because of the 1990 Act—is that the secrecy and even stigma surrounding assisted conception has faded. Many more people talk much more openly about assisted conception, including donor conception. We celebrate that, and recognise and share the distress that infertility causes. Assisted conception and infertility is no longer so much of a matter to keep hidden, though of course it remains a painful matter, very deeply felt. I also believe that public attitudes towards information and rights to information have changed dramatically. Information now is much more readily accessible than it was in 1991. Information about donors is held on a national database, the register of the HFEA. It is largely collected and stored by the HFEA, but donor-conceived people have no access to it. In a century where access to information is regarded as a personal and political right, this does not seem any longer to be appropriate. It has already proved to be a bone of contention—the Government are very likely to be challenged about the provision of information to donor-conceived people, as the Department of Health has already been in an application brought by Liberty. That application related to the provision of non-identifying information.
I say again, we have not taken this step without long and serious public consideration. We held a consultation exercise on non-identifying information between December 2001 and July 2002. That process revealed that there needed to be a wider debate on identifying information. These regulations reflect the outcome of this whole process. The responses to the public consultation showed that there was significant support for the non-identifying regulations. There is also considerable, but not universal, support for a move to identifiable donors.
Let me focus on identifying information since that is what I know noble Lords will want to address. Of the 237 responses received to the public consultation in 2002, 132 were in favour of removing donor anonymity; 70 were against; and 23 were undecided. However, we found that there were relatively few responses from clinics or donors. So, we carried out further work to assess the response of clinics. Forty-five clinics and 140 donors replied. Most, not all, of the clinics did not favour removing donor anonymity. I will come to the reasons for that in a while. However, a third of them made positive suggestions for recruiting identifiable donors in the future—more advertising, with a higher profile, and more and better information. One or two clinics were extremely positive.
In the light of that, I shall address some of the dilemmas that, I am sure, noble Lords will want to raise. First, will the change to identifying donors lead to a loss of donors, longer waiting lists and more pain for potential families? We recognise the importance of donor sperm or eggs for 7,000 or 8,000 patients each year. We know that clinics will need to recruit at least 200 identifiable sperm donors each year, perhaps double that. They will also have to recruit 1.100 identifiable egg donors. Of the 140 donors who responded, half said that they would be willing to donate again as identifiable donors, if they were able to. We know, of course, that many of them will not be able to, for a range of reasons, but it is a significant and encouraging response, as they were recruited on the firm understanding that they would be anonymous.
Secondly, although we recognise that there is likely to be a dip in donor numbers—certainly in the short term—evidence from other countries suggests that donor levels will rise again. After Sweden removed donor anonymity in 1985, there was a decline, but research indicates that the decline was later reversed. In Victoria, Australia, identifying information for all donors was required from 1998. A decline was reported, but now donor recruitment is at a level that meets the need. In New Zealand, there has been a voluntary system for identifying donors for some time, and new legislation has recently been introduced to remove anonymity. We are told that the consensus is that the legislation is highly likely to succeed.
The third reason why we believe that the recruitment of identifiable donors is achievable is that we are doing things differently. We are not aware of any other country that has removed donor anonymity alongside a campaign to raise public awareness and improve the

347
service. That step forward will put the recruitment and support of donors on a more systematic and reliable basis, which the clinics have wanted.
Since 1990, the National Gamete Donation Trust has become a central point of contact for people wanting information about becoming a donor, and we have funded it for several years. Additional funding has recently been made available for the appointment of a donor recruitment manager. That is a big step forward. She will work with clinics, with the HFEA and with organisations representing patients to improve services for donors and encourage recruitment. The manager is now in post, and we shall make further funding available.
We will accompany the transition to donor identifiability with a positive, proactive campaign for public awareness of the value of donation, so that we can help clinics to recruit identifiable donors. We are working closely with the British Fertility Society and the National Gamete Donation Trust. We are already discussing ways of using the media to reach potential new donors. Ultimately, we want to see a change in the culture around donation. We want a better service, which not only emphasises the value of the gift made but encourages a different profile of donors and provides additional support and status for donors and donor families. I am reminded of the great book by Richard Titmuss, published some time ago, on the gift relationship. He was talking about blood donation, but this is a gift relationship of a different sort, and we should value it.
We are taking steps to support clinics and their work. We realise that clinics cannot change from using anonymous donors to identifiable donors overnight. We have given advance notice to clinics of a transitional period from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006, in which clinics will be able to use sperm or eggs donated anonymously before 1 April 2005. From 1 April 2006, when the transitional period will have ended, donations will have to be used on an identifiable basis. There will be exceptions for gametes reserved for the creation of siblings for children already born, which will not be destroyed until the end of their storage period, and embryos created before 1 April 2006 from sperm or eggs donated anonymously before 1 April 2005.
One of the fears that has been raised is that parents might be deterred from telling their children that they are donor-conceived, but I understand that research soon to be published by Susan Golombok, Director of the Family and Child Research Centre at City University, indicates that more parents are planning to tell their child about donor conception—about 50 per cent intend to do so. The research points out that if parents act on this intention, obviously it is likely that some children, when adults, will want to have information about their donor. Some may wish to have direct contact.
The fear is that such willingness to be open will be compromised if families are afraid of a much-loved child breaking away to initiate a new and possibly destructive relationship, leading to distress and trauma to the original family. The evidence from
348
Susan Golombok's research is that there is greater emotional involvement between both parents and the child conceived by gamete donation than other children. It is a well researched piece of work and, I believe, extremely significant. That evidence seems to militate against such a general possibility.
At another level, I do not believe, at a time when there seems to be more openness towards relationships, that that trend will be reversed. We are living through a cultural change. We have seen such openness work successfully in recent years in relation to adoption. Research in Sweden, where donor anonymity was removed in 1985, showed that more parents told their children about their origins in the period 1992–97 than in the period 1986–92, and that about 50 per cent have told, or intend to do so.
A third source of reassurance comes from the fact that families will not be left to fend for themselves as they consider telling their child. There is a great deal more support available for families to assist them through the process, and there will be more in the future from organisations such as the Donor Conception Network who will put families in touch with each other and, I am sure, will be able to develop the services and support they offer, in terms of information, workshops and so on, in response to the challenge that will be placed upon them.
The fear that parents may be deterred from telling is related to another: whether donors will be deterred by what has been rather dramatically described as the threat of a knock on their door in 18 years' time. We are giving careful thought to what counselling services might be accessible to donors if a donor-conceived adult expressed an interest in contact. We would expect arrangements for being in contact to adopt the same values and principles as those we are developing through the adoption changes. Those changes were much more radical because they were retrospective, which the contact arrangements are not. There are many details to be worked out for the process to be put in place in 18 years' time. We have time to get it right, and I can pass on an invitation from my right honourable friend the Minister in another place to noble Lords to give their responses, experience and advice on these issues.
There are two points I want to make clear. First, donor-assisted children who want to seek out the donor will not be able to make any claims on them. The donor will have no legal, social or financial responsibilities. The second is a more intuitive comment. These children are, by definition, much-loved and much-wanted, and in those circumstances it is unlikely that they would seek wilfully to disrupt the donor's family life. There is some positive evidence: several donor-conceived children in the UK and abroad have traced genetic links through DNA testing. They have not acted, or been met, with hostility. In fact, I understand that much happiness has resulted. Over the past 12 to 15 years in New Zealand, donors have been accepted only if they were prepared to be identified to offspring in the future. In recent years the Sperm Bank of California has

349
provided the identity of its first donors to donate under its identity release scheme. We are not aware of any negative consequences that have followed from that.
We will take stringent steps in the regulations to ensure that donors and donor-assisted people have the fullest possible information and support in whatever decision they take. A donor-conceived adult wishing to ask for information from the HFEA might, for example, be given an initial leaflet for consideration or be offered appropriate counselling. Another possibility is that they might be offered non-identifying information first, before taking the decision to ask for identifying information. They do not have to ask for all the information, but it would be accessible to them.
As I have said, donors will be offered extensive counselling before signing up with a clinic to being identifiable. If a donor decides to proceed, his or her information will be passed to the HFEA for storing on its register.
I believe that these regulations are timely. Given that the issues are so difficult, they are appropriate, right and consistent with other aspects of the policy for children. With a strong effort by fertility clinics, sperm banks and support organisations, and with a campaign for public awareness, a better service and a more positive, open culture, I believe that we can steadily attract donors to meet patients' needs and protect the rights of children growing up in a future world where questions of identity are likely to be even more urgent than they are today. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 8th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)
8.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the regulations with her customary clarity and for the sensitivity with which she has addressed what are by common consent quite complicated ethical issues.
What gives rise to these regulations, however, is not at all complicated but very simple: it is the general principle that openness and access to information is a desirable thing. I think it is certainly true—and here I agree with the noble Baroness—that the climate of the times in which we live favours greater access to information, all other things being equal, than was the case 14 years ago when the HFE Act was passed by Parliament.
In tune with that thought, I am entirely sympathetic to the idea that no person who has been adopted should be denied access to his or her genetic identity or the information that goes with it where such information is readily available. It is a perfectly natural human impulse to want to find out about one's origins where for any reason these have been concealed. As a result, I have no difficulty with the proposition that donor-conceived individuals should
350
have access to non-identifying information about the person who donated the sperm or egg which brought them into being. Indeed, I have not heard anyone raise an objection to this idea.
It will probably be quite surprising to many people that there is no provision for this to happen already when the first donor-conceived individuals on the HFEA register reach the age of 18 in 2010. I, myself, did not previously realise, for example, that but for this order there would have been no provision for anyone to be given details of a donor's medical history or that of his family. That was a surprise to me. Indeed, there could be circumstances in which such information was relevant and important to a child before he or she reached the age of 18, and I am not at all clear why, if the need arose, these details should not be made available to him or his parents at any time. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.
The more difficult aspect of the order relates, of course, to identifying information. The main fear expressed about this, to which the noble Baroness referred, is that it will lead to a serious fall in the number of donors. The work that has been done by the Department of Health indicates that half of all donors—that is to say, existing anonymous donors—would have been willing to donate sperm or eggs if their anonymity were removed. That, so far as it goes, is mildly encouraging in that it indicates that there are at least some people who do not mind the idea of being identified even though they have volunteered anonymously. However, I would not have thought that it was enough to enable us to be confident about the supply of donations into the future.
This is a very important issue. About 2,000 couples a year depend on donors in order to conceive. I am aware of how deeply distressing it is for such couples not to be able to have children. If we are to continue to address their needs—as I believe we should try to do—we have a duty to make sure that we do not do anything which would seriously jeopardise the supply of donors.
The Minister mentioned that the Government intend to mount a campaign to boost the numbers of identifiable donors. It would have been more reassuring if they had carried out some proper market research on that score. I am not aware that they have carried out any beyond the straw poll that I mentioned, which cannot really be said to constitute research.
There is still a great deal that we do not know. At present, the recommended maximum number of live births per sperm donor is 10. We may find that identifiable donors are not willing to allow their sperm to be used for as many as 10 live births. Bearing in mind that the regulations will potentially allow all their adult genetic offspring to make contact at the age of 18, there could well be a limit to the number of people that they want to find knocking at their front door, as the Minister put it, in 18 years' time or later. That would be a perfectly understandable stance to take.

351
The trouble is that we have no idea whether, first, we can recruit the same number of donors that we have previously, or secondly, there is likely to be on average a smaller number of live births emanating from each of them. If, for the sake of argument, the average number of live births per donor fell from 10 to five, the recruitment of donors would need to double from present numbers. How achievable is that? I suspect that that was the reason why so many licensed clinics opposed the removal of anonymity.
Efforts will also need to be made to recruit more egg donors. A high number of eggs donated—although not more than a third of the total—come from what are termed egg-sharing arrangements; that is to say, where women in receipt of fertility treatment allow some of their eggs to be used to benefit infertile couples. We simply do not know how many women will be prepared to egg-share on an identifiable basis.
One consideration that may deter women from sharing eggs is that their entire medical history, including the fact that they were in receipt of IVF treatment, could become known to others at some future date. For many women, receiving IVF treatment is still a private and sensitive matter. Many may balk at donating eggs for that reason. If they do, their feelings should be respected.
The trouble is that if there is a shortage of egg donors, as there may be, some women will find themselves pressurised into agreeing to egg-sharing arrangements and may even do so contrary to their better judgment. I am concerned about whether that would be ethical and I hope that the Minister will tell me that it will be strongly discouraged in GMC guidance.
If there turns out to be a shortage of either sperm or egg donors, infertile couples will either have to wait longer or else they will go to where they do not have to wait. We could find some couples going abroad to purchase donor-assisted conception; perhaps to countries with less stringent regulation than we have here. I await to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, if he is planning to speak—which I hope he is—whether he thinks that that is a possibility. If it is, we should be concerned.
We need to ask ourselves whether the gain to be derived from discarding anonymity is worth the pain that may ensue. I say "discarding anonymity", but of course it is not clear how many donor-conceived individuals will be in a position to exercise their right to discover the identity of their genetic parent. The exercise of that right presupposes that such individuals will be informed that they are donor-conceived.
The Minister spoke of recent research, which was extremely interesting, but a recent study showed that a high proportion of children conceived by donor are never at any stage told that that is how they came into being. We have no idea whether the regulations will have the effect of increasing secrecy or whether they
352
will make no difference. They may possibly do the former if parents are resistant to the idea that one day the child may seek out his or her genetic parent. It would have been useful to have some credible market research on that issue, alongside the other questions that I have raised, but we do not have any. We have only what one might call expressions of blind optimism, if that does sound too unkind. I do not think that that is an adequate basis on which to pass laws, especially laws of this nature.
The Minister spoke about the rights of the child being paramount. It is worth making the point that a child has no absolute right to be told about his origins. He cannot have, otherwise the regulations would have contained a provision to ensure that every relevant child was given this information at the appropriate time. So we are not talking of rectifying the absence of a right that is unconditional but about something that is desirable. Given that, I have to question whether it is wise to allow access to identifying information at this stage. Would it not have been much better to do so only when we were a little more certain what the consequences were likely to be? That would have been the responsible course. However, the Government have closed off that option, and I think that that is a mistake.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for a very thoughtful and persuasive introduction to the debate. If we were to vote on the regulations, it would be a free vote on these Benches. In a sense, I speak as an individual rather than on behalf of my colleagues, although I hope that I represent the views of a considerable number of them.
There is no doubt that we are debating an issue of considerable importance. Lifting anonymity for sperm, egg and embryo donors after 1 April next year is not something to be undertaken lightly. There was a very interesting debate in the other place. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, set the case against the Government's proposal and emphasised that a very serious debate needs to take place.
Effectively, we are setting considerations of the rights of the donor-conceived child, or certain principles relating to those rights, against concerns about the future supply of sperm and eggs for couples who wish to undergo fertility treatment. The bottom line is that I believe that, following the Government's consultation, the case has been made for lifting anonymity. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, there is nothing between anyone, on any side of the House, on the non-identifying information. This debate is all about the identifying information.
Knowing who one's biological parents are is part of one's identity, and it is important to have that information, if it is available. I do not think it is relevant only on medical grounds so it is not adequate to have only the non-identifying information available.
A sense of identity is extremely important in these circumstances. To some degree, we can debate these matters rationally and scientifically. Having read a

353
great deal about the subject over the past few days, I feel that a sense of identity is at its core. It is difficult to explain precisely why that should be, but that is where I feel a lot of the argument lies. It is not necessarily a scientific thing to know where you came from, it is partly emotional. It has been said that roots are overstated but I believe that they are very important. There is a sense of loss and frustration when those are not known. It has been recognised, as the noble Earl, said, for adoption purposes. We made great strides with the recent adoption legislation, and I believe that the information should be available for those who are conceived as a result of the donation of eggs and sperm.
I was very much taken with a recent article on the Donor Conception Network website; the noble Baroness referred to the organisation. It adds up to the fact that people need to consider and recognise the long-term implications of their decision on donation. The Minister spoke about a gift relationship. It is of course a gift relationship, but it is a responsible one. That is the cultural issue at stake.
I was much taken by Walter Merricks's article, blandly entitled "Ethical Issues—Anonymity". He asked whether donors who cannot cope with the consequences should be donating. If potential donors do not want to accept the long-term consequences of their donation, is that because they are currently encouraged to think that their act is a simple, uncomplicated and unconnected one, with no consequences and so on? Of course not. We should be encouraging responsible donation. Ultimately, there should be no great conflict in that area. It is fair to remove anonymity, provided that it is not done retrospectively.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a valid point about market research and the impact of similar changes in other countries. We need to know about that. Did the level of donation in Sweden return to former levels shortly after 1985? I do not know the answer to that question—I am sure that the Department of Health's research resources are far greater than mine in terms of the comparisons it can make—but I hope that that was the case.
The real effect for donor-conceived children will not be seen until 2023, but the effect on couples who may be faced with inability to undergo treatment could be seen much earlier. That needs to be set against the fact that we are speaking about some 220 sperm donors in any single year. Therefore, one of the big questions to ask is what would be the impact of the kind of promotional campaign about which the Minister has spoken. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the Department of Health or others involved to increase the number of donors beyond 220 in any one year.
There are other valid questions to which we do not know the answer. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of the recommended number of live births from each donor, which is currently set at 10. What will be the impact on that figure when the donations are no longer anonymous? How can we look into the
354
crystal ball on that? I suggest that we have to do our very best in promoting discussion and a change in culture in the way that the Minister described.
Of course I understand the reservations of the British Fertility Society and of several clinicians, not least of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is not here today. He has gone on record as being against the regulations. Those reservations need to be carefully weighed up, but if the Government are prepared to weigh in with a major campaign to persuade donors to come forward, that would go a long way towards satisfying the pragmatic objections.
We need a change in the nature of the culture of donation and indeed of parents. I have great respect for the researcher, Susan Golombok, in other contexts. I have not seen the research to which the Minister referred, but I hope that any campaign addresses not just the issue of donors and their willingness to donate, but also that of parents sharing that crucial information with their children at some future date.
There are a number of other questions to be asked. For example, what would be the budget for such a campaign? We have heard about the principle of the campaign, but what the advertising people call "share a voice" is hugely affected not only by the messages of the campaign, but also by the amount of money spent on it. It does need to be a powerful campaign.
Although the Minister was setting aside the counselling problem slightly for the future, we need reassurance on how that service would work and would be set up.
The transition to the new regime will be extremely important. It is also very important that if we make this change in the regulations today, we say that it operates from a certain date. There should be no resiling from the current anonymity of those who have donated on the understanding that it was going to be on an anonymous basis. That is very important as there is a great danger that once one set of rights is given, that situation could change in the future.
Having weighed up very closely—it is an extremely difficult area of ethics—whether the issue regarding future donors is outweighed by the principle that donor offspring should, where they choose, have knowledge of their genetic origins, I come firmly down in favour of the latter.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I greatly welcome the regulations. One of the declared aims of government is to provide equity between children who have been born by donor and those who have been adopted. As has been said, this has become increasingly important now that society as a whole is much more conscious of the importance to an individual of being able to see himself in a wide genealogical and genetic context than was the case 20 years ago. Then, the overriding consideration against supplying identifying information was the fear that the supply of donors would dwindle.

355
However, I believe that in any case, even if the supply dwindles temporarily, we need, as the Minister said, a culture change in our attitude to donation. This can be brought about by changing the view taken of infertility, male and female, and of the motives of those who donate, particularly perhaps those who donate sperm.
There is no doubt that in the past there was something surreptitious and slightly comic about sperm donors who tended to be medical students who needed money for a pint or something. There was something faintly funny about going off and masturbating and producing sperm and no one really liked to acknowledge that that was done.
However, as has been said, I think that a new kind of donor may well arise who quite definitely makes a donation altruistically. I say anecdotally that I have met three or four men in their forties with children of their own who have decided quite deliberately to become donors because they are filled with sorrow at the thought of what people suffer who really want children and who are infertile.
It seems to me that one should not be too horrified by the thought that five or even 10 people might turn up on the doorstep. Of course, they will not. If they want to find out who their father is in the case of artificial insemination by donor, they will take pains to find that out, and they may or may not want to make contact with that person. However, even if they do, it seems to me that often making contact with your genetic parents when you are an adopted child is far more controversial, and often far more difficult, than making contact with a donor, whether of eggs or sperm, because, after all, the child who is adopted had already been born, and was already given away by the genetic parents. The parents may well have other children and may want to forget all about the child. They may even have concealed its existence from everyone. There may be many cases where an adopted child making contact with his or her genetic parents is very traumatic and does not turn out well at all, whereas I think there is something much less traumatic about the very fact that you are a child of donation—you had not been born when you were, as it were, given away. You never were given away.
The most important thing is in general to overcome the aura of secrecy, which ought by now to have gone away entirely. If, as I believe, providing information about the genetic parent makes it less easy for parents to conceal from their child the circumstances of their birth, that must be nothing but good. If the child has a right to know, the parent who refuses to tell the child that he was born by a donation is really committing an offence. Therefore, the child ought to be accorded the right to know, just as adopted children are.
Secrecy about adoption has almost died—hardly any adopted children do not know that they are adopted—whereas there still are a very large number
356
of families who try to conceal from their children that they were born by donation. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that is partly to do with the still-remaining shame about infertility. Surely we have got over that since 1991. The Act did a great deal to bring the issues into the common domain. I am not sure that so very many people are ashamed to have received IVF; many of them, such as the original IVF people, are intensely proud that they did so. The same is true of male infertility, which is far more acceptable as a concept than it was 20 years ago when it was confused with impotence and people thought it shameful.
There can be no moral justification whatever in deceiving a child about the circumstances of his birth. It is a very awkward doctrine to enunciate, considering the number of children born by adulterous relationships. Nevertheless, it is deeply morally wrong to pretend that a child is the son or daughter of a father or mother who is not his or her real biological parent. To insist on pretending shows self-interest on the part of the parents—that they are interested in their own status, not that of the child. It may be deeply traumatic for the child, because children nearly always guess that there is something a bit funny about their birth if it has taken place by donation or they were adopted. To treat a child as though it were a toy or a pet—to suggest that it does not particularly matter where it came from because it is your child—is genuinely immoral.
The whole opening-up of the issue will encourage parents to realise that they must not conceal from their children the true facts of their origin. We all know that there may turn out to be medical factors that make it quite essential that they know. For instance, if the social father develops Huntington's Chorea, the child must be told that he is at no risk. Quite apart from those considerations, not to tell the child is simply to use it as a means to the parent's satisfaction—to refuse to allow him to see himself as the individual whom he is. On the grounds that that will be less easy in the new open atmosphere, I greatly welcome the regulations.
9 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is well known in your Lordships' House that my noble friend Lady Warnock and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of the moral status of the human embryo, but on this occasion I am happy to stand four square with her in supporting these regulations, as far as they go. I shall return to that point in due course.
In 1990, when I served in another place, I argued that donor-conceived children should have the right to establish the identity of their biological parents in the same way as adopted children have the right to find out the identity of their birth parents. Of course, I regret that it has taken Parliament so long to recognise that the rights of a child conceived through artificial insemination and such technologies should he paramount, but I am glad that we have got there in the end. I do not think that such issues could be reduced

357
to a matter of market research, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, argued earlier. The evidence is pretty clear—there was a report only this morning from the Netherlands which said:
"A new law that requires sperm donors to be identifiable has come into force in the Netherlands, resulting in a dramatic drop in the number of men coming forward to donate".
So we do not need market research to tell us what the consequences may be. The report continued:
"Women wanting to obtain sperm from Dutch sperm banks are now apparently facing up to two years on a waiting list, since even before the new rules took effect on 1 June.
The law, which was passed after 10 years of deliberation, says that Dutch fertility centres can no longer take anonymously-donated sperm samples, and stipulates that all donor-conceived children will be able to find out the identity of their biological father at the age of 16. One Dutch clinic, in Barendrecht, says that the number of sperm donors on its books has fallen, in anticipation of the new law, from 135 to only 15. Dr Jan Karbaat, from the Bijdorp clinic, said, 'I have just placed an advertisement for donors, but got zero reactions', adding that his clinic is considering offering payments for donations.
According to reports, a number of Dutch women who want to use donated sperm in order to have a child are crossing the border to Belgium, where donation can still take place anonymously".
So the evidence is quite clear. What we are doing tonight does not require market research. Nevertheless, what the Government are doing is right for the kind of reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has outlined. Although he knows that I fundamentally disagree with his party's decision to support as a matter of policy motions on issues such as abortion, embryo experimentation, therapeutic cloning and euthanasia, I greatly respect the position that he personally took in your Lordships' House this evening and I agree with everything that he said.
Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides that infertility treatment should not be provided to a woman,
"unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment".
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, used the phrase the "paramount rights of the child". However, we have put ourselves into a pretty muddled and confused position over the 14 years since the legislation was first passed.
Recent cases reported in the British press—for example, a man who changed his sex, then entered a same-sex relationship, then had in vitro fertilisation, then decided that they would go to America to be able to screen out the baby in case it might be a boy and would allow the baby to be born only if it was female—illustrate precisely where we have reached as a result of the legislation that was passed 14 years ago and which we did not think through properly at the time.
The Minister in another place, Melanie Johnson MP, recently acknowledged that in the Standing Committee, when she said:
"The interests of the child come first".—[Official Report, Commons First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 18/5/04; col. 5.]
358
Why is it then that these regulations do not operate retrospectively? If there is a principle here, then it is a principle and it should not just be about what happens to those who are born in the future. What about those who have been born in the 14 years that have elapsed? Why is it that a child born using gametes or embryos donated before 1 April 2005 will not be able to know the identity of his or her biological parents, whereas a child born using gametes or embryos donated after 1 April 2005 will be able to find out? That strikes me as inherently unfair and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was right to remind us of the retrospectivity that is operated in the case of adoption. Why should the same principle not operate here? We cannot have it both ways. It is fundamentally illogical in what we are agreeing tonight. We do not need market research to tell us about the implications of this and we need to face these matters four square.
We shall create two classes of donor-conceived children. Surely it will be only a matter of time before a child born using gametes or embryos donated before 1 April 2005 brings a successful legal challenge under human rights legislation. If his or her interests truly are paramount, as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides, how can we deny the child the right to know who his or her parents are?
In their authoritative 2002 guide to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, entitled Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Regulating the Reproductive Revolution, Robert Lee and Derek Morgan comment that the withholding of identifying information,
"may prove to be as unsustainable in practice as it is in all conscience. The present stance in terms of anonymity does little to encourage openness within the new family units that the legislation facilitates".
I wholeheartedly endorse those comments.
While reading the Standing Committee debate from another place, I was struck by how much time was spent on discussing the effects of these regulations on the donors, patients and fertility clinics, which of course have a deep interest in all this. But, important as those considerations are, one could not help but think: what about the children?
Many of the arguments against full and retrospective disclosure of identifying information fail to demonstrate sufficient regard for the child's welfare, as set out in Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. They are more concerned with protecting the personal relationships and feelings of the biological and legal parents. Such issues should be resolved prior to couples seeking infertility treatments and prior to individuals agreeing to donate gametes and embryos. We must face this issue squarely in advance of people having such treatments.
During the Standing Committee debate in another place, concern was expressed about the potential impact that donor identification might have on donor recruitment—a point reflected in our debate tonight.

359
That must be a secondary consideration to the child's paramount interest in knowing who his or her biological parents are. I argued in 1990 that we risked creating multiple cases of identity crisis by denying answers to the fundamental questions: "Who am I?" and "From where do I spring?" Those are answers that every person is entitled to receive.
When potential donors are finally made aware that identifying information will be made available, that may help to impress upon them the enormity of what they are about to undertake. This is not, as my noble friend indicated a few moments ago, a matter of going along and donating sperm or even of being paid for doing so. We are all well aware—I raised it in the 1990 debate—of the cases of medical students who added a sum to their student grants by taking part in this activity without any thought of what they were entering into.
Either this is a moral and ethical debate or it is not. If, as my noble friend said, we reduce it simply to a question of materialism and consumerism and consider it to be on a par with going to the supermarket, I do not think that we shall do anyone any great favours.
I am extremely concerned to learn that the Government intend to mount a public awareness campaign. The Minister indicated that early next year we are to start telling the public about the need for, and importance of, gamete and embryo donation in an attempt to maintain current levels of donor eggs, sperm and embryos as a way of dealing with the concerns that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned during his remarks. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm how much public money will be ploughed into that initiative. When she replies, perhaps she would also indicate what will be said in that advertising campaign about the duties and responsibilities that go with bringing a child into the world.
Egg donors, in particular, will be exposed to considerable medical risk, which can, as the Minister well knows, be life-threatening. I hope that she will confirm whether the Department of Health will be responsible for any deaths which may occur as a result of these treatments. What assessment has been made of the risks, and will that be alluded to in the advertising campaign? I consider it to be irresponsible for the Government to promote egg donation when it carries such serious medical risks. Those have not been referred to during our debate thus far.
A line of argument is being promoted—the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, rather entrenched it this evening—that gamete and embryo donation are in the same league as blood donation. That is palpably untrue. With the latter there is minimal risk and the altruistic act helps to sustain and to save lives. The former, on the other hand, can involve serious medical risk and involves the creation of a human life which will in all likelihood never see the light of day, and which will be frozen or manipulated and then discarded in the course of destructive embryo experimentation.
360
Perhaps the Minister can confirm—the figures were given in an Answer in the other place a few months ago, so I am sure she will be able to confirm this—that more than 1 million human embryos have been destroyed or experimented upon during the past decade since this legislation was passed. However, only 4 per cent of all the embryos produced during that period have ever seen the light of day.
Therefore, I am deeply suspicious about the role of the HFEA and the clinics in the Government's proposed public awareness campaign. They are conflating the role of the watchdog and the burglar. Can the Minister confirm whether all the gametes and embryos donated will be used in fertility treatments? Members of your Lordships' House will have seen over the past few weeks that applications have already been lodged, so will they be used for yet more experiments to develop reproductive techniques that have nothing at all to do with even the therapeutic cloning to which your Lordships agreed two years ago?
I would like to know from the Minister whether those embryos will be used in research projects, particularly those involving embryonic stem cell research. I am sure that she will want to give the House the percentage figures that will be involved. The research industry has a vocal lobbyist in the HFEA and it desperately needs to get hold of gametes and embryos if its dreams for embryonic stem cell research are to be realised.
In this context the Government's public awareness campaign can, of course, be seen as timely. Of course, the use of adult stem cells carries none of the ethical implications referred to in the debate about embryonic stem cells. I welcome that and I believe that in that context good science, good medical practice and good ethics march hand in hand. Therefore, public money would be better spent on appropriate national health schemes such as education and research programmes which deal with the primary causes of growing infertility in this country, in particular the exponential rise in sexually transmitted diseases.
I would like to see the public funds allocated to natural fertility programmes that seek to work closely with couples to overcome the root causes of infertility rather than bypass those through recourse to donated gametes and embryos. The problem with donor recruitment that is envisaged when identifying information is made available should provide greater impetus for the promotion of natural fertility programmes. After all, according to the live birth rate for IVF programmes, it is still appallingly low at around 20 per cent. For the 80 per cent for whom years of treatment in futile IVF is in vitro failure, surely we can find an alternative. How much better it would be if some of the 600 babies who are daily aborted in this country—184,000 every year, some 6 million in the past 30 years and one in five since the legislation was introduced 30 years ago—could be given up for adoption, enabling 100 per cent—not 20 per cent—to parent a child. This country has been in denial about the efficacy and the cost of IVF and its implications.

361
Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify, if she can, the future of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. These regulations bear the name of that authority, but only last month the Secretary of State for Health, Dr John Reid, announced that in an effort to cut Whitehall bureaucracy there would be a 50 per cent reduction in the number of arm's length bodies such as the HFEA. Is the HFEA to be abolished or merged? We certainly need an answer to that question before we pass regulations of this kind.
While the regulations are welcome as far as they go, I do not believe that they go far enough. I do not believe that they address the far more important and deep issues that we have been denying for so long. Although the Government are doing the right thing, I believe that they are doing it for a lot of muddled reasons.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I too am strongly in favour of the regulations that give children the right of access to non-identifying information about their biological parents. Even more than that, I believe that it is essential that they can do that for a whole range of reasons set out in the explanatory memorandum and in the regulations. I support the question of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about why children must wait until the age of 18 before they are allowed access to such information.
I would have thought it not unreasonable for them to have this sort of information much earlier. I also very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the need for children born in this way to have the information that they were indeed conceived in this way.
As regards paragraph 3 of the regulations, I am sorry to have to say that, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I am much less persuaded of the validity of a right to identify a biological parent, where that parent no longer wishes to be identified 18 years downstream. There is a balance to be struck here between one individual's right to know and another's right to anonymity: it is not all one way. In other medical matters, we betray confidences and get round anonymity with great difficulty. We put up all sorts of barriers to prevent medical information, and information about oneself, getting out into another domain.
Let me give a couple of examples. Imagine the case of a young man, often a medical student—and here I rush to the defence of medical students—who, perhaps because he has seen the distress of infertile couples, decides to become a sperm donor. Perhaps, under the new regulations, he agrees now to give up his anonymity to any offspring of the donation. Then 18 years later when he is likely to be married, with a couple of children conceived with his wife, he is faced
362
with a biological child—or perhaps five, or 10—who he probably did not know existed. Having agreed originally, he may now feel quite differently about a new-found child, as indeed may his wife, and his children born to her. Some embarrassment, certainly, but much more importantly, a considerable stress may be put on the marriage. We know that nowadays 50 per cent of marriages are shaky anyway.
Then there is the sense of responsibility suddenly acquired. Currently no legal responsibility is envisaged, but who knows what may follow in 18 years' time? In any case, a feeling of some responsibility cannot be denied and financial responsibility may follow, all of which will add to the stress on his own family.
My noble friend Lord Winston, who unfortunately cannot be here today, has given me an example of the woman who donates her eggs to another infertile woman. Often the donor women are going through an IVF programme and the spare eggs are given altruistically to others. But many such women fail themselves to conceive with IVF and they then face the unhappy prospect of meeting a child 18 years later who is genetically half theirs but who they had never known existed. Again, that is a further stress on a childless couple who are likely already to feel deprived. Of course it is possible that some may be pleased with the news, but I fear that more will be most distressed.
It was said that potential donors will be counselled before being asked to agree to being identified 18 years later and then again later, but I believe that the young men will either run a mile or go ahead and live to regret it. Who of us, when we were undergraduates, could have predicted how we would feel in 18 years' time? It therefore seems likely that we will see a fall in the number of sperm donors in the immediate aftermath of the regulations.
Although the experience of Sweden and elsewhere suggests that the numbers bounce back, I suspect that those who come forward will be older and more mature. We would then be losing out on the healthier—I fear that it is the healthier—sperm which comes from younger men than middle-aged men. And all because it is said that children born after donation feel dispossessed. My noble friend Lord Winston tells me that the evidence from his clinics shows that those who feel this way are likely to be in a small minority. Yet the potential damage this change in the law may inflict on others has barely been examined.
Clearly, today is not the day to try to remove these regulations, but I believe that we need much more evidence and more research into the full impact on all participants, not just the children and the parents rearing the child. I hope that I can persuade the Government, at the very least, to support more research into the impact on donors and their families of the loss of anonymity and to reconsider this whole issue in the light of that research when the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is revisited, as I hope it will be.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but hearing lots of my colleagues speak this evening has provoked me to do so. First, let me say that I support the Government on this Motion. I am also persuaded that the rights of children are paramount over the rights of infertile couples, or any other couple.
Bringing the law into line with that on adopted children is also correct, as my noble friend Lady Warnock said. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said except that this is an ethical issue. To me this is beyond an ethical issue, it is a rights issue. It is about the right of children to know their biological identity.
I accept the arguments put forward very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, about identifiable information being available. I have heard the arguments both from the British Fertility Society and my own college about how this change may create a problem, particularly with the falling numbers of sperm donors. The arguments and the examples produced by the noble Lord highlight that. I support the idea that more research should be carried out and that we should address the results of that research when we debate the matter further in due course.
However, today, all the briefs I have received from fostering, adoption and other agencies, the HFEA, the British Fertility Society and the college do not persuade me that this order should not be supported; and I support it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this is a particularly significant debate for me because I, along with my noble friend Lady Hooper, had the responsibility of presenting the Bill which became the 1990 Act to this House following the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee.
I recall that this particular matter—the identification of the donor—required a good deal of thought at the time. My recollection is that the main reason for adopting the stance taken in the Bill on this point was the belief that unless anonymity was afforded to the donors, the likelihood was that the system would never get off the ground.
It is now 14 years since that happened, but I think that there must still be a question about exactly what effect the change will have on the willingness of donors to come forward, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, donors in the age bracket when their donations are likely to be the most valuable.
It is a difficult question. I entirely accept, and have always accepted, the importance and the paramountcy of the interests of the children. But unless a donor comes forward in a particular case, no child will emerge in that instance. So, in a sense, this is anterior to the question of the entitlement of the child because if there are no donors, no children will arise. That was the issue. At the moment I must say that I find it a little difficult to know the exact basis on which the Government are optimistic that this change will not seriously damage the programme in this respect.
364
The very fact they seem to be proposing a fairly extensive advertising programme suggests at least a fear that that this may have a contrary effect. The other point I think is worth mentioning—I think the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, also referred to this—is the question of ultimate responsibility. In her very clear introduction of these regulations, the noble Baroness mentioned the fact that any legal liability is excluded, but of course such legal liability is excluded only by the terms of the Act. This regulation shows that the terms of the Act are not by any means like the laws of the Medes and Persians. Therefore, some degree of liability should arise.
I am entirely in favour of non-identifiable information being allowed and I agree with those who asked why wait until 18. It may well be very important in connection with some illness in the child much earlier than that. We have seen a good deal of development in relation to the genetics of illness, and the precise situation in that respect might be extremely important. I am not sufficiently technically aware of the situation to know to what extent non-identifiable information can produce sufficient detail to enable a clinician to deal with this particular matter, but in so far as it is necessary for a clinician to be able to deal with the health of the child, I would hope that the necessary information would be available.
At present, I think that the general view of those who have spoken is that these regulations will not be opposed, but I think it is right to express some concern about their impact. The fact that such a distinguished practitioner in the area as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has concerns about the issue certainly makes me—as by no means a practitioner—rather concerned.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it has been a very distinguished debate and I am particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was here to take us back to the origins of these regulations. As we expect in this House, the dilemmas which are represented by the professions and people outside are well represented here. Although it is unusual for me to find myself not in agreement with my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Winston—the latter could not be in his place—we do of course listen very closely to their views, as we listen to those of all who have spoken in this debate. It has been extremely thoughtful indeed.
I do not want to reiterate any of the detail, but will try to address the issues that have been raised. They have ranged fairly far and wide, but it seems that one of the overriding questions has been the issue of the shortage of donors. While noble Lords have welcomed the idea of a campaign, some issues have been raised about it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put it, why are we right to be optimistic? Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe described this as "blind optimism". In so far as our policy has to be evidence-based, I think that we have used the evidence that is available. This suggests that there may well be a temporary drop and we must be prepared for that. This is why we have put aside

365
£200,000 to be invested in the campaign in the first instance. Trying to draw in new donors and to make them—I address this point particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—fully aware of their responsibilities is a very serious undertaking. Those responsibilities are greater now that they include the potential for being identified.
Apart from a campaign—and it is something which we have every intention of taking seriously——I should like to make some other points about the supply of donors. It is possible that fewer live births per donor will be permitted under the regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised that issue. The number might he three or five, rather than 10, so we will need to increase the number of donors. Two hundred sounds like a small number of donors, but there is a high attrition rate, and there is a huge gap between the number of people who put themselves forward and the number of those eventually selected. It is a serious undertaking.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the issue of the campaign that is to be waged next year, I want to know the answers to my two particular questions about the cost of the campaign and whether it would emphasise the risks to women involved in egg donation.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I answered the question on cost: £200,000 has been set aside. As for the risks to women, every donor who comes forward for egg donation or sperm donation is told whether there are risks to their health. We will continue to do that.
Another reason why we can be fairly optimistic about our stocks of gametes is that, although it is hard to get the information, some clinics tell us that their stocks are high and that they have enough for a year and some tell us that they have stocks for more than a year. So, we have a temporary respite. We will, of course, liaise with the National Gamete Donation Trust to make sure that clinics are as fully prepared as possible. We also know that the technology is changing. I understand, for example, that, in Sweden, there are new technologies that enable sperm to be kept for longer. We are not going into an identical situation, and we can bring in gametes from other countries, provided that we can source them and identify them. So, there are other sources. I hope that that helps noble Lords to understand the background.
Several noble Lords raised the important issue of research. The research that I quoted is unpublished, which is why noble Lords will not have come across it. It is about to be published. The researchers are well prepared to do further work, and we will look at it with great interest. I take what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said on that point. We recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, there is
366
a need for more research on infertility, and we are putting increasing amounts into medical research as a whole.
We would consider whether there was a need to widen the scope of the 1990 Act to cover fresh sperm, if we needed to take such a step. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke about how women should not be put under pressure to donate eggs. It is a fundamental part of the whole arrangement that people are not put under pressure. They are voluntary donations. When it comes to egg sharing and altruistic egg donation, a great deal of counselling goes on. I was not making a direct allusion between blood donation and gamete donation; I was simply commenting that the notion of a gift relationship goes back a long way.
The noble Lord also asked why the measures were not retrospective. Historically, donations have been made under conditions of the strictest anonymity, and we would break faith with those donors if we made the legislation retrospective. That is an ethical position that I think the noble Lord will accept.
I was also asked about the future of the HFEA. The noble Lord is right: there is a review of arm's-length bodies, including the HFEA. We will have to wait for the outcome, as the matter is still under consideration.
In relation to the details of the advertising campaign, we are developing that campaign by liaising with the National Gamete Donation Trust, the Infertility Network, the Donor Conception Networks and the clinics themselves, so it will be put on a sophisticated footing.
I was asked why we do not allow information to be made available to those under 18. The age of 18 is in the primary legislation and these regulations cannot address that. That is why the information will become available at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether embryos can be donated for uses other than fertility Treatment; for example, stem cell research. Embryos are donated with informed consent, and this must include informing the donor. It does include research, including stem cell research. I cannot give the noble Lord the figures he seeks, but I will certainly do so if I can.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I have left any other questions unanswered. I shall not reiterate what I have said. I am grateful for the support the regulations have received. We are acting in good faith. While I would not say that we are dealing with futurology, it is certainly difficult to know what the world will look like in 18 years' time. We have done our very best to keep faith with all the people involved in these provisions, but we cannot be expected to have all the answers. I believe that the changes achieve a balance of rights and interests and I am happy that they seem to command the majority of opinion in the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Professions (Operating Department Practitioners and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2004
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am going to cut short my speech, in view of the hour. I propose to write to noble Lords if they want further information about training opportunities, and so on. I shall whizz through as fast as I can.
The order will introduce statutory regulation for operating department practitioners—ODPs. It will strengthen public protection for patients undergoing operations by setting and maintaining in law standards of practice, training and conduct for this group of healthcare staff who are closely involved in the delivery of patient care. It will bring ODPs in line with their medical and nursing colleagues who work in the same area.
I do not know how much noble Lords know about ODPs. I knew very little, and I am very impressed with what I have learnt about the role they play. They are important healthcare professionals who have to ensure that every operation is as safe and effective as possible. Their work takes in the whole range of peri-operative care, from preparing anaesthetics right through to taking care of the patient when they are coming round.
The history of the profession goes back to the 1970s. I shall not rehearse it, but I will say that the qualifications over the years have changed as the role itself has developed. We have moved from an NVQ to a Higher Education Diploma in Operating Department Practice, which will come into operation this October.
ODPs are skilled members of the medical team, and they are important to ensuring the patient's recovery. Not only are they employed within operating departments, but they are also now being employed in accident and emergency and cardiac arrest teams. If we are to deliver a modern and responsive health service, we have to ensure that they meet national standards set by an independent regulator.
The order has the warm support of the Association of Operating Department Practitioners and the entire profession. But if they are to benefit from Agenda for Change, they have to be able to register by October 2004. Failure to do so could damage recruitment and retention of ODPs.
The protected title is proposed, as it is currently in use by practitioners and recognised by members of the public. We are not going to protect alternative
368
titles, such as "anaesthetic practitioner" or "surgical practitioner", since these titles are already in use and they reflect different roles. We propose to protect the single title of ODP.
The legislation also proposes opening a new part of the HPC register for ODPs. This means that there will need to be new members of the council—registrant, alternate and lay. This will increase the HPC from 12 practitioner members and 11 lay members to 13 practitioner members and 12 lay members. I am sure noble Lords will know that once ODPs are regulated they will have to pay fees of £60.
The order has been the subject of extensive consultation over three months and has attracted, I am pleased to say, broad agreement. The provisions of the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
This programme has grown out of the order that set up the Health Professions Council in April 2002, which was designated with the power to regulate new professions that were currently unregulated. This is the first new profession to be covered in this way. It will be followed by applied psychologists in 2004; healthcare scientists in 2005; and psychotherapists and counsellors in 2007–08.
The effect of the order will be to bring ODPs within the remit of the Health Professions Council, the role of which is to set standards of proficiency, conduct, performance and ethics under Article 21 of the HP order; to set standards of education and training under Article 15 of the HP order; to maintain a register of those who meet the standards and are fit to practise under Article 5 of the HP order; to have a mechanism for investigating complaints; and to deal with registrants who cease to meet the standards by taking any necessary action. That, of course, will be the responsibility of the HPC's "fitness to practise" system.
I shall conclude my contribution at this point. I have available a great deal of detail about how we shall incorporate the Association of Operating Department Practitioners, which has brought the profession to this point. I pay tribute to it. There are 6,000 members already on the voluntary register. There are a further 10,000 outside it, many of whom share the same training and qualifications. We wish to make sure that such people are also registered because they have the right qualifications. To ensure that people who came into the profession early are able to register, grandparenting arrangements have been introduced to enable them to prove that they also have the right training and qualifications. I shall happily write to noble Lords about how we intend to achieve that.
With that very short explanation, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Baroness Andrews.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, we welcome the order and I thank the Minister for her introductory words. Operating department practitioners have very considerable professional responsibilities for patient care and there can be no doubt that professional self-regulation under the umbrella of the HPC is entirely right and appropriate.
I do not have any comments of major importance other than to congratulate all involved in laying the groundwork for the order, including officials in the department and, particularly, the Association of Operating Department Practitioners. I wonder, however, whether I could ask a couple of subsidiary questions.
In any new move of this nature there has to be a managed transition. As the noble Baroness said, there are 6,000 practitioners already on the association's register but probably up to 10,000 ODPs who are practising but not registered. That is a very large number of unregistered practitioners. The extent of the professional competence of this latter, very large, group of people is a closed book. Some will no doubt have reached standards of competence which they can demonstrate readily and there will be little difficulty in admitting them to the new register; others, however, will need to be formally assessed and undergo the relevant training before completing a test of competence.
The trouble is that we simply have no idea how many individuals fall into the latter category. Is the Minister satisfied that the two-year period allowed in the order to enable unregistered practitioners to apply to become registered is sufficient to ensure that there is no disruption to the NHS? My understanding is that the standard training requirement for a practitioner is a two-year higher education diploma. Therefore, any delay on the part of unregistered practitioners in submitting their names to the HPC for assessment may result in large numbers being technically unfit to practise when the transitional period comes to an end.
Secondly, I understand that the title of operating department practitioner is to be protected, but no other title. I do not question that decision, but what is to prevent someone using the unregulated title of surgical practitioner or anaesthetic practitioner? What steps will be taken in the NHS to ensure that as far as possible those individuals employed to carry out the role of operating department practitioners are professionally entitled to use that name?
Thirdly, will the Minister reassure me that the ADDP will continue to fulfil a relevant role as the professional advisory body for the HPC in relation to operating department practitioners? I am a little unclear about the role it will have. Officially it will be for the HPC to define standards of competence and ethical behaviour and to devise appropriate education and training and to assess fitness to practise, but where
370
will the expertise on those issues within the ADDP be directed, and will it be retained there? What exactly will be its function?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wish to join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in congratulating the Association of Operating Department Practitioners. This is the first of the new professions to come under the Health Act 1999. Many of that Act's provisions were reasonably controversial, but it was agreed between us all at the time we debated the Bill that the provisions were a more satisfactory way of allowing the emergence of new professions by regulation rather than having to have primary legislation, provided that those new professions were prepared to come within the umbrella of the HPC.
The HPC is an interesting umbrella; a diverse range of professions nestles underneath it. As always, I suspect one of the key issues for new professions is inevitably—and I suspect it will be the same for the profession coming down the track mentioned by the Minister—so-called grandfathering, which means that there is a controversial area about the training requirements and so on. I do not wish to go much further tonight because of the hour, but I know that such issues are always controversial and I suspect that the Minister may like to say a little about it in her winding up.
I am interested in the reference to Agenda for Change and so on. One hopes that when such new professions are formed and placed under the regulator we will see flexibility and we will not see a new profession building a little regulatory laager; that it will continue to play a flexible role and an even more flexible role in the future, if that is what Agenda for Change is designed to secure.
While congratulating the new profession, I hope that it will not pat itself on the back and say, "This is what we do, our competencies are thus and we don't take a wider role". I hope that that is not the spirit in which it is going forward.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have been impressed by the way in which the new profession has developed its competence and its skill over the past few years. I am sure that it will continue to do so. It is an admirable example of a flexible profession.
The noble Earl asked me three questions. The AODP will concentrate on being a professional body, developing the professional scope of practice, advising on training curricula to meet service and professional needs and providing membership services and developing specialist groups. It has no fear for its future. It probably has a very bright future with registration.
The noble Earl raised a serious point about not wanting to see disruption and dislocation in the service. He is right to be concerned about that. We believe that the two-year period is sufficient. The NVQ is running alongside the new diploma; we will not be recruiting to the NVQ any more, but there will not be a gap, as I understand it, between the two.

371
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invented the term "grandfathering". The word is "grandparenting". It is a sign of the wisdom that comes with grandparents. The 10,000 people outside the scheme will have to prove that they have practised safely and effectively as an ODP for three out of the past five years. Some of them may have trained. Some young nurses, for example, have been in the health service for many years, and have an HND qualification. They have grown up through the system and continue to make very important and sometimes different contributions.
We do not want to lose those experienced, safe and effective practitioners just because they do not hold the most up-to-date qualifications. Obviously, the HPC must have safeguards in place to make sure that practitioners can have their training and experience assessed properly. They may be asked to undergo further training. We are trying to strike a balance
372
between making sure that those people are not lost to the health service while weeding out people who do not have that experience and training but may be able to acquire it in the future.
The education and publicity for ODPs and employers by the HPC, the AODP and the Department of Health will make it clear that only ODPs will be able to use the title. That will be the legal situation. Anaesthetic practitioners will not be able to use it, nor will the other practitioners referred to by noble Lords. It is a very clear requirement in the legislation.
I hope that that explanation satisfies noble Lords. We have taken this order rather faster than I anticipated. If there are further questions, I would be very happy to write to noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Relations Bill
(Second Day)
Wednesday, 9 June 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before starting, I should say that the ventilation in the room is not of its best. If Members of the Committee or officials would like to take their jackets off, that is perfectly in order.
Clause 10 [Application where agreement does not cover pay, hours and holidays]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 14, after "hours" insert ", pensions"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Clause 19, with which it is grouped. The amendment would include pensions among the core elements about which there should be collective bargaining once recognition has been agreed under the terms of the Bill.
I find it surprising that pensions as an item for negotiation should have been excluded, although the Government themselves do not seem very sure about it, since Clause 19 simply specifies that the Secretary of State may at some time in the future decide by order that pensions should become an issue about which there should be negotiation. As we all know, pensions have become a major issue; for many years, pensions have been a matter for negotiation between unions and employers in situations where there has been union recognition. I have myself been involved in pensions negotiations on behalf of members; when I sometimes meet retired members, I find them very grateful for what the union has been able to do for them. They are fortunate because they have benefited from payments under final salary schemes.
The House will debate tomorrow the Second Reading of the new Pensions Bill, which is being introduced by the Government to cope with situations in which the employer has become insolvent. The campaign for the provisions in this Bill and for compensation for those who will not be covered by it has, in the main, been union-led. Unions have also been responsible for ensuring that member trustees, sometimes union-nominated, are appointed. It should be pointed out that we have always made a sharp distinction between negotiation about pensions and pension schemes and trusteeship. The functions are
GC 64
quite different. Our union has always run training courses for trustees, and that will be even more important under the new Bill.
The Government seem to acknowledge the importance of union involvement in pensions negotiation, since the new Pensions Bill specifically requires employers to consult unions and the workforce about changes to pension provision. I therefore find it difficult to understand why pensions are specifically excluded in a Bill about trade union recognition. Unions have always regarded pensions as deferred pay; indeed, in some instances, employees have been willing to accept rather lower salaries in companies with good pension provision, sometimes accepting lower salaries than they might have received elsewhere.
I would welcome a Government's response to all these circumstances. It may well be that simply doing as I propose—adding pensions to the core items—is not the best way to include pensions as a matter for negotiation in the Bill. I understand that currently provision of pension benefits by an employer is a voluntary matter. However, it seems to me that when there is a pension scheme, there is a strong case for a union having the right to enter into negotiations about that scheme. My noble friend the Minister will no doubt let the Committee know the Government's response to the views expressed under the amendment.
As for Clause 19, if pensions are included as a core item for negotiation, the powers by which the Secretary of State can later decide that pensions should be included would not be needed. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My noble friend chided the Government for being unsure about the issue, because of the terms of the clause. However, I wish to reassure her about Clause 19, which seeks to introduce a necessary element of flexibility that will enable us to take on board the basis of the representations she is making if they prove to be substantiated in future. So it is not a question of the Government being unsure, rather it is about the Government seeking in the clause to keep the door ajar, providing the necessary flexibility to respond to the points made by my noble friend. At the same time, for reasons that I will identify in a moment, we cannot accept the amendment in its entirety at present.
It is clear that my noble friend wishes to ensure that pensions should join pay, hours and holidays as the core bargaining topics for statutory recognition. Of course, we recognise the case that my noble friend has made about the significance of pensions. As she indicated, the Pensions Bill will be before the House tomorrow for its Second Reading and there will be a full debate about the issues. I will limit my comments today to the relationship between pensions and collective bargaining, which is what this Bill is about.
When the CAC makes an award of statutory recognition, the parties are obliged to bargain on three topics: pay, hours and holidays. There has been some debate about whether this implies that the parties must bargain on pensions, on the grounds that pensions are part of pay. We think it necessary to clarify the matter

GC 65
in this Bill to avoid possible confusion. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate at this time to make pensions a topic for collective bargaining under the statutory procedure. Clause 19 therefore makes clear that pensions are not part of pay for the purposes of the statutory recognition procedure. After all, the statutory recognition procedure is intended as a fall back.
The voluntary resolution of recognition claims is much to be preferred. That is how the vast majority of agreements are struck. It follows that we do not want to encourage applications for statutory recognition where those applications could be resolved voluntarily. We believe that would happen if the scope of the statutory recognition award were significantly greater than the typical scope of voluntary recognition agreements. It would draw everyone's attention to the statutory position.
Currently, statutory recognition covers pay, hours and holidays. These issues are those most commonly included in recognition agreements, and they are indisputably the core bargaining matters. The question is whether pensions have now achieved the same status. We recognise the force of my noble friend's representation, and we know that pensions are moving significantly up the bargaining agenda. TUC figures suggest that 49 per cent of new voluntary recognition agreements include pensions, but as an item for consultation. The TUC survey does not provide a figure on the proportion that include pensions as the subject of negotiation. The statutory position is about negotiation.
We have therefore commissioned research by Sian Moore of the Working Lives Research Institute and Helen Bewley of the Policy Studies Institute to look more closely at recognition agreements signed since 1998. The interim findings of their research have recently been published by the Department of Trade and Industry. The findings suggest that pensions are less likely than the core topics to be specifically included, and more likely to be specifically excluded, as a topic for negotiation in such agreements. In only 11 per cent of new agreements were pensions specifically mentioned as a bargaining topic.
Of course, that does not mean that the parties did not subsequently bargain about pensions, or that pensions were implicitly covered within the scope of bargaining in some way. The researchers are therefore undertaking further work for the DTI to examine actual bargaining behaviours. However, on the balance of the evidence available, we believe that it is fair to assume that bargaining about pensions is untypical behaviour in recognised workplaces.
Having said that, I look forward to a time when pensions can become a suitable core topic for the statutory procedure. I appreciate the argument that pay and pensions are closely linked, which was the burden of my noble friend's representation. It is right and proper that unions should be concerned about their members' incomes in retirement as they are about
GC 66
those members' current remuneration and, as my noble friend indicated, she has considerable experience of dealing with these issues.
That is why this clause includes the power, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, for the Secretary of State to add pensions to the three core topics at some future point. The Government intend to exercise this power when there is clear evidence that pensions are typically included as an item for negotiation in voluntary agreements.
We will therefore undertake periodic surveys of collective bargaining to monitor what is going on. I have referred to research that we have in hand. The interim findings, which focus on new agreements, can be found on the DTI website. As I said, we are following that up with further research. This should give a picture of the current extent of bargaining on pensions in voluntary agreements, which can act as a benchmark against which to measure change in this area. The Fifth Workplace and Employment Relations Survey, due in 2006, should also provide a guide to this.
We will, of course, undertake consultation before making an order under this power and the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedures of both Houses.
That is the position in general terms with regard to the clause but I want to address a few remarks to my noble friend about the amendment. She is right that, because of the way in which the amendment is framed, it covers only two out of the three crucial points in the procedure and therefore it is not a complete amendment and has its defects. I am always loath, particularly in Committee, to present the arguments in terms of defects in the drafting of amendments. I know the difficulties that everyone, except the Government, struggles under in preparing their cases with regard to amendments, particularly Back Benchers, with whom I have an instinctive sympathy. That goes without saying. After all, one never knows how quickly one will return to that blessed state.
I want to indicate to my noble friend that in advocating the basis of the clause I hope that she will recognise that I am sympathetic to the points that she makes. The Government are aware of the growing strength of representation with regard to pensions. We are not convinced that we are at the point where we can change to the statutory position without it overwhelming all voluntary negotiations because it would contain that extra dimension—of course, there will be the opportunity for issues such as this to be aired in tomorrow's debate on the Pensions Bill. It is for that reason that I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment and also, I hope, her resistance to Clause 19.
Lord McCarthy: I will say this for the Government: that was ingenious. It will not do, but it was ingenious. The Government seem to be saying, if I follow them, that they cannot put pensions in the Bill because if they put pensions in it would overwhelm the voluntary system. I do not know whether that would be because once pensions were in, all employers would say, "Well,

GC 67
if it is in the Bill then we will give you pensions", or whether, because pensions are so valuable, there would he hundreds of applications for statutory recognition, everybody would come along to the CAC and there would be a great queue. It is nonsense, but it is ingenious.
The fact that we have to take into account, and we were debating it when the Committee met the other day, is that what is embodied in the 1999 Act was a balance. It was a balance between what the TUC wanted and what the CBI was prepared to sign up to. That is why those three items were put in as the subjects of statutory recognition. Otherwise it makes no sense. They are there because that was the basis on which agreement could be reached.
3.45 p.m.
Previous attempts to legislate to encourage collective bargaining have involved nothing like this. For example, in the 1992 consolidation Act, which spelled out the legal basis of labour law in this country, Section 178(2) gave a reasonable definition of what recognition should normally cover:
"terms and condition of employment … engagement or non-engagement"—
of workers—
"allocation of work … discipline … membership or nonmembership of a trade union … facilities for officials of trade unions … machinery for negotiation or consultation".
That was the rough idea. About two-thirds of what we have here is in the first item: members' "terms and conditions of employment". So we merely have an agreement or fudge, produced to get some consensus for the 1999 Act.
We say that now that the consensus is up for review and there might be a case for adding to this list of three the fourth issue of pensions. There are very good reasons for that. It has now become clear that workers are very concerned, much more so than they were even in 1999, about what is happening to pension funds. They do not trust employers in what they are doing with their pensions. Therefore, pensions have suddenly become a very important bargaining issue and because of that a lot of employers are resisting it. Therefore, it becomes a critical item that we could include to show that this recognition legislation is entitled to bite on an area where it is required.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I wish to add some points in support of my two colleagues. The Minister kicked off by saying that he wanted to keep the jaw open, not the door open. He was right the first time: I hope that he will keep the jaw open to snap up some of the red herrings that he has subsequently deployed. In trying to find out where we are going, the first red herring is that this matter is not for the Pensions Bill tomorrow; it belongs in this Bill. This Bill defines the territory of the three points, to which the fourth point should be added as life goes on.
Secondly, so far as concerns industrial politics, this will never he one of those consensus items between the TUC and the CBI. We all know that, whether in
GC 68
London or Brussels, there are some territories where one can hope, albeit with a sword of Damocles hanging over the negotiations, to find some way forward. I am almost certain that this is not such an item. However, as the Minister has said, the phraseology of Clause 19 suggests that the power of making by order an amendment to add pensions is something that the Government think may be on its way. Let me put it this way: it is becoming a question of when rather than whether.
The third red herring—if it is not a red herring, it is some similar fish—is the question of how to define -typical". I think that I have got right the form of words used here: the Government would be inclined to go down this road once it is clear that this is typical of voluntary agreements. Let me deconstruct that sentence—that is how the philosophers would look at it these days. First, why should it need to he typical? Even on the philosophy advanced by my noble friend the Minister, what is wrong with it being a significant number of agreements? Clearly, there could be a whole spectrum from nought to 10.
In the national debate about pensions, we are trying to arrest the decline—not the decline and fall—of final salary schemes. We are trying to sustain pensions because there are trade offs with retirement age, et cetera. As everyone has said, it is moving very rapidly to the top of the bargaining agenda. The test should be much more to do with there being a significant number of agreements rather than it being typical. In either case, it is difficult to say what the adjective means, but the word "significant" should be thought about.
Finally, the fourth red herring is the notion that, although we have now moved to a public policy position of contemplating this being an item for the four, in the same breath we are told that there is some distinction between what can be done logically or sensibly through the statutory CAC scheme and what can be done through voluntary collective bargaining. That is a notable red herring: of course, anything can be done through voluntary collective bargaining. We are talking here about an employer, for example, in a voluntary agreement where the union perhaps has the other three items. What if it wants to go to the CAC to get the fourth one? The form of words used by my noble friend has begged that question.
I hope that I am right in interpreting what has been said: that the door is open, as well as the jaw being open. This is obviously a matter that the TUC and trade unions generally will press further at the time when—rather than whether—the Government decide to do something about new paragraph 171A(2) of Schedule A 1 to the 1992 Act, under Clause 19 of the Bill.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Lea, touched on retirement age. Can the Minister say whether that matter relates to hours of work or pensions?
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am not the Minister.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I did not raise the issue of retirement age. I think that that is a separate

GC 69
argument. First, I thank my two noble friends who have responded. I agree with a great deal of what has been said. When I moved the amendment originally, I said that I was not bound by my proposed wording. I was quite prepared to accept that it is a rather flawed way of attempting to deal with the whole issue of pensions as a matter for negotiation by unions once recognition had been achieved, which is basically what we are after.
I am pleased that the Minister accepts the validity of the arguments that have been made in support of trade union recognition on pensions. That is clear. I note that he says that the door is not just ajar but open. I want us to be able to go through that door speedily. I do not see why the Bill should be utilised as a means for us to go through that door. Although we will discuss pensions tomorrow—and that Bill will go into Committee, meaning that many of these issues are likely to arise—the whole point of the amendment is to achieve a situation in which the unions feel able, once recognition has been achieved, to demand the right to deal with retirement income on behalf of their members as well as their day-to-day salaries and conditions.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask for that. I am by no means satisfied that the reply given by the Minister deals with all the points we have made. Of course we acknowledge that at the moment—I stress that—provision of pension benefits by an employer is a voluntary matter. But I think that pressure is mounting for there to be some element of compulsion. Whether that is achieved, I do not know, but certainly it is there. A view is held that a demand should be made of employers to share the burden of pension provision as far as both the state and the individual is concerned. If that happens, of course there would need to be negotiation.
I do not think I can say much more at this point. We shall look at this again because, as I said earlier, we feel quite strongly about it. Over the years the unions have developed their negotiating skills on pensions provision and they have skilled and competent people able to deal with these issues. They believe strongly that they should be able to utilise the services acquired on behalf of their members to ensure that they receive proper retirement benefits when finally they leave employment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"ADMISSIBILITY WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS SUPPORTED RECOGNITION
In paragraph 40 of Schedule Al to the 1992 Act (application not admissible where CAC declared union not entitled to be recognised), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
"(4) Where the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 29(4) in respect of a ballot in which the result was that a majority of the workers voting supported the union (or unions), a period of one year shall be substituted for the period of 3 years in subparagraph (2)(a).""
The noble Lord said: I had hoped that the Minister would comment on some of the extra points made during our last debate. In due course he may find an opportunity to do so because further issues were raised during that interesting discussion. Perhaps an opportunity will arise a little later.
I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 24. Everyone recognises that if one has legislation of the type now before the Central Arbitration Committee with provision for a ballot, and the union loses the ballot, it cannot simply return the next day and have another go. But the Government have decided, for reasons I understand but do not agree with, that when it wins a ballot, the union has to obtain a "yes" vote of 40 per cent of all those entitled to vote.
My argument turns on the critical criterion that the union needs to secure a "yes" vote of 40 per cent of those entitled to vote. I could be tempted into listing how many Members of Parliament or councillors would be elected on that test tomorrow. I suspect that no one would be elected. Everyone knows that in such elections—whether we are talking about postal ballots or going to the polling station—achieving a 40 per cent turnout, let alone a majority of those in the bargaining unit entitled to vote, is not an inconsiderable achievement.
A 40 per cent "yes" vote is a very high hurdle indeed. Some quite important constitutional changes have fallen foul of it. I think I am correct that the first attempt at Scottish devolution, in 1978, fell at that hurdle. A majority of those voting voted in favour, but not 40 per cent of those entitled to vote.
4 p.m.
Perhaps I may apply this to the CAC procedure. Let us say that there is a ballot and the union wins. However, of the 1,000 people entitled to vote, 350 said "yes" and 250 said "no". The result would be that the union was unsuccessful. Let us take another case—although the procedure would not differ from that in the 1999 Act, which went much too far in this regard, even if one can see the point about some sort of minimum turnout—in which 350 said "yes" and 150 said "no". Again, the ballot would not be carried.
As inequitable as many trade unionists regard the provision, my amendment would not change any of it. My amendment deals with the fact that the three-year rule applies just as much to these hard cases as it does to a case where the union is defeated hands down. For example, if the union lost by 350 to 250 or by 350 to 150, it would have to wait for three years. I submit that it is against common sense and natural justice that no distinction can be drawn between the two types of case. It seems to me and many others that it is no more than fair play to say that where a union has won the ballot despite the fact that 40 per cent of the whole bargaining unit has not cast a "yes" vote, the union should be able to make another attempt after one year.
I have not brought with me an overall statistical analysis, but I am sure that the DTI has this information to hand. Although my amendment would make a difference in only a quite limited number of

GC 71
cases, I think it fair to put the case for the change. It would not affect an enormous number of cases. I am sure that any independent observer would be more than happy to accept my argument and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will do likewise. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, that he is not suggesting that people should be able to come back and have another ballot the next day or next week; such an arrangement would be too horrendous for words. I believe that the three-year period was probably designed to prevent what could be called a war of attrition between employers and employees who do not want representation, so that they are gradually worn down by a constant series of applications year after year. I think that Parliament agreed on the three-year quarantine period as a result of its collective wisdom, and I do not think that anything in real life has shown that it is absolutely out of order and ought to be altered. I very much hope that the Government will reject the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for the way in which he introduced his amendment, save for two aspects. He chided me about not responding to one or two additional points on a previous amendment, which I would not dream of infringing upon at this stage, except to say that there was a slight mistake on my part. I had thought that my noble friend Lady Turner was replying to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, when in fact she was withdrawing the amendment, effectively ending my contribution. I did not seek to ignore my noble friend's points. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy has rightly said, we shall return to those issues during our deliberations. We shall certainly ensure that the points in question are returned to.
The other aspect of my noble friend's contribution for which I did not thank him—although I appreciated much of it—was a trip down memory lane to Scottish devolution in 1978. As a veteran of the Parliament at that time, I remember that vote. We all recognise how significant that concept was at that time and what it meant for Scottish devolution. It is not helpful to go back over that ground in seeking to persuade Ministers about how to deal with the present position.
My noble friend will recognise the obvious point—and I accept part of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—that we seek some stability in these arrangements. He will know that we are at this point as a result of the substantial work that produced the pre-1999 TUC/CBI agreement. Nobody on any side pretended that everybody got everything they wanted from the legislation at that time.
I recognise that my noble friend finds aspects of the present position exceedingly irksome, but he will know that a reasonable case has been put forward: a degree of stability is needed. A ballot is an important aspect for both workforces and employers. When used in the workplace, it is likely to attract considerable interest and activity. But it is not the kind of thing that one
GC 72
would wish to occur every two or three months. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may have overstressed the matter when she suggested that people could mobilise themselves for the very next day. But there must be some judgment on what is an appropriate interval before returning to an issue.
The Government's case is that the period of three years enables some stability. Recognition of the union allows the new relationship between the parties to bed in without attempts being made to derecognise the union within a short space of time. When workers give their union a mandate to continue to represent them in collective bargaining, their employer must respect that for three years. There is an obvious point in which that provision is a counterpart to that.
I hear what my noble friend has said. I respect the strength with which he has put forward his position. But he will recognise that some judgment must be made and agreement reached, part of which is to allow the Government to legislate on what is a reasonable time for new arrangements to bed down or, if failure occurs, a reasonable period for which the situation can prevail before a second attempt is made. The judgment of the Government is that there should be a three-year period. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that there is general strength behind that position, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am afraid that my colleague has failed to address the point that I made. I do not know whether he listened carefully to what I said and I shall ask him to respond in a minute. I am sure that he has heard me on this amendment almost to the point of tedium. It distinguishes the position where a union has lost the vote and it has to wait for three years. First, let me ask him to acknowledge that that is an agreed point in the context of what I am putting forward here. I ask the Minister to give further thought to what I am suggesting. That is that if there is a union victory in the ballot, but it fails, perhaps by a whisker, to get 40 per cent of those entitled to vote, as there has been in one or two cases, it is against common sense for it to have to wait for the same three-year period. That will not be a war in the sense of any other war. This is a very special case where they have won the vote.
Unless he is asking the trade union movement to come down totally against the three-year rule, I am saying that this is a helpful amendment to the Government. I ask him to think very carefully, before we come to Report, about the merits of drawing a distinction between where the union has lost a vote and must wait for three years on the one hand, and where it has won the vote but has failed to get the 40 per cent on the other. Maybe it has failed to get 40 per cent because it failed to get the right turnout, rather than it failed to get the balance of support for recognition in the establishment or the bargaining unit. It has just failed to get the 40 per cent turn out. We all know how easy it is to fail to get a 40 per cent turnout.
In this particular case, I am leaning over backwards to contradict, as it were, TUC policy and am accepting that the three-year rule is there. However, where there has been a victory for the union in the ballot but it just

GC 73
failed to get 40 per cent of those entitled to vote, will the Minister pause and think again about whether there is not a very strong case for saying that then the union have to wait for a year or 18 months? There is no point in saying two years and six months, so let me say a year. Then it can have another attempt to bring forward a procedure and it may be that if the same thing happens a second time, which would be like lightening striking twice, and would be the end of it. But that is another story and it would be too complicated to draft.
I am saying this for the 14th time to make sure that people have not misunderstood it. Basically speaking, if the union wins the vote, but it has not got the 40 per cent turnout, Ministers may distinguish this from a case where the union has lost the vote and it has to wait for three years. That is what I am putting forward and that is what I ask my noble friend to give a little more thought to. I ask him to do that before Report and I ask him to give it a little more thought before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I reassure my noble friend that I have given considerable thought to this. The problem is, as he says, that union won the vote and has met one of the conditions of victory, but it has not met the other condition. First of all, his amendment does not apply to anyone else who fulfils one condition of victory but not the other. It only applies on one side, the trade union side. Secondly, I think that he recognises that there must be a figure because his speech indicated it and he is a reasonable person in discussion. He has not presented a situation to the Committee where the trade union had won the ballot by three per cent to two per cent and said that that was a victory and therefore they should have the chance to have another go at it. He is indicating that it must be a narrow defeat. We would have to define exactly what "narrow" is; what the scope should be. We would need to have a figure to indicate within what range a "narrow failure" could be defined in order to arrive at 40 per cent. My noble friend will recognise that what he is doing is in effect recasting a concept which has been agreed.
I do not say that the concept is set in stone, but I do say that he must recognise that this a lopsided approach to the issue. It will not do to say that the narrowness of the failure to meet one criterion gives scope. That would require a definition. We would then have another concept of the threshold, in effect a subsidiary threshold. One threshold would stipulate 40 per cent, and there would be a second threshold which allowed that if the vote was over a certain amount, the union could come back within a year. At another percentage point or so above that, the union could come back within six months.
4.15 p.m.
This issue would open up the whole question of the criteria for judgment of the ballot. While I know that my noble friend will not accept my argument, I can say only that it is obvious that, from the Government's
GC 74
position, unless there is an entire proposal that recasts this very important concept, minor tinkering is not minor tinkering at all. It would require us to redefine the position.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I will prepare a different amendment before we reach the Report stage and will seek to discuss it with Ministers. That amendment will say that 3 per cent versus 2 per cent is not what I have in mind. On that basis, for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"REPEAL OF PROVISION RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF THE 1992 ACT
In Schedule Al to the 1992 Act (collective bargaining: recognition) in paragraph 7 the provision exempting employers with fewer that 21 members shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 25, I shall speak at the same time to the provisions of Clause 11. I and a number of my noble friends have said on several occasions that we welcome the provisions to make recognition easier for unions to obtain. There is no dispute about that. We believe that when a significant number of employees indicate an interest in union membership and in being represented, there should be proceedings by which recognition can be lawfully obtained.
However, this Bill retains the exemption for small firms, despite strong objections from the TUC. This amendment seeks to delete the exemption for firms with fewer than 21 employees. It should be said in support of this amendment that it is often employees in small firms who are most in need of protection. Larger firms are likely to have managers with some knowledge of employment law or, in the case of very large firms, personnel departments with managers knowledgeable about employment rights. That is often not the case in small firms, which employ a substantial proportion of the workforce of this country. Unless the stipulation is removed, or something similar to our amendment is accepted, several million employees, many of whom are poorly paid, will remain outside the provisions of this Bill, and thus the possibility of the protection that a recognised, independent trade union would provide.
I know that the TUC has lobbied strongly on this and I hope that there has been time for the Government to rethink their position. Clause 11 details arrangements by which employers may utilise a decline in the number of the workforce to derecognise, which would not be needed if this amendment or a similar provision were accepted. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I have tried very hard to run to earth the arguments advanced when the legislation was passed as to why those unfortunate enough to work in firms of 21 or fewer could not use the procedure. That was not really discussed when the Bill went through the

GC 75
House. The best I could find was paragraph 4.17 of Fairness at Work, the document that the Government introduced when they first came into office. It states:
"Many small companies recognise trade unions already".
We know that. It goes on to say that, "Many do not". We know that too. It continues:
"In many small firms employment relations are managed not just on an individual level, but on a personal level. In these circumstances statutory requirements on trade union recognition would he inappropriate".
That is a non sequitur. I will read it again. It states:
"In many small firms employment relations are managed not just on an individual level, but on a personal level".
What is the difference between an individual level and a personal level? The Oxford English Dictionary says that "individual" means "relating to one". It says that "personal" means,
"relating to a particular individual".
All family law relates on a personal level, as does a very great deal of labour law. What on earth does this mean? It means absolutely nothing. In fact, the Government have never advanced any argument at all. Nevertheless, an argument can be advanced.
I challenge the Government—to some extent my noble friend has already done so—to say that any of the arguments that might logically be used, at least in principle, do in fact apply. One might argue that we do not need to apply this legislation to small firms because they are already very good employers—we all know what excellent employers they are—but that is not what research tells us. That is not what Guest and Rosenthal found in 1993 when they talked about the "black holes" of small firms. It is not what Sisson found in 1990 when he talked about the "bleak house" of small firms. Above all, it is not what has been shown in one WIRS survey after another.
The research shows that small firms pay below the average and that workers have less security, lower productivity and poor conditions. Of course they do—because they are small; because many are not very good at their job and cannot become big firms. If they are good at their job, then good, they can become big firms. If that happens, then on the whole their industrial relations will become better because they can afford for them to get better.
I am glad to see that the Government do not dare to advance the argument that we do not need to apply this legislation to small firms because they are much better employers.
The second argument is that these firms are already well organised. But they are not—they are extremely badly organised, and we all know why. In such firms there is a high turnover and a lot of part-time work. They also have an older labour force with family ties. All kinds of conditions in small firms make it extremely difficult for unions to organise.
Of course that does not mean that unions cannot have an impact when they get into small firms. Small firms in the printing industry were well organised and it made a difference. In the United States, particularly under the New Deal, a whole range of small scale industries were unionised. The result was an improved
GC 76
labour force, improved wages and higher productivity. The point is not that unions cannot make a difference but that the objective conditions can make it much more difficult to unionise.
So I do not think that the Government can advance any such argument. They certainly did not do so in Fairness at Work.
My last point is that although the Bill couches the point in a way which is not apparent, what we are giving here is a right to workers and we are supposed to be giving it to all workers. It is not the employers' right to recognise; it is the workers' right, in certain specialised circumstances, to gain recognition. By what right do we deny this right to those who need it most and who are in the most difficult situation? I think that it is time that the Government changed, moved and altered their position, just a bit, to enable small firms with underpaid workers, to make an attempt at recognition.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I would certainly oppose Amendment No. 25. Indeed, I would also oppose that Clause 11 should be deleted from the Bill. As regards Amendment No. 25, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, both made the point that trade unions have lobbied the Government heavily on this point. I know not whether the employers organisations have equally lobbied the Government hard on that point, but they have lobbied me and told me of the difficulties that they would have if this happened.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made the point that employees in companies that employ fewer than 21 people often have poor pay, are not necessarily well treated, and so forth. That is not my experience of small businesses. We should not start on the basis of always assuming that things are wrong. In my understanding, small businesses employ overall a far larger part of the workforce than larger employers. It is important that we protect them so that they do not go out of business.
Clause 11 relates to the employers right to end bargaining arrangements. To delete that would be wholly objectionable. The clause contains very stringent provisions about how that might be achieved. If the amendment is accepted or passed, an employer would be saddled with union recognition for ever, no matter what changed circumstances there may be for the company or, indeed, even a change of views of the current employees. I would strongly oppose its deletion.
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Baroness not recognise that under the terms of the legislation there is a derecognition procedure that an employer could invoke, which is exactly the same as the rule for companies with under 21 employees?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That may very well be the case. But I think that this would fall heavily on small businesses.
Lord Razzall: As noble Lords will recognise, I do not tend to intervene in the private grief between the Minister and his side on these issues. The negotiations

GC 77
between the TUC and the Government should be taken in totality. So far, in the first hour of this Committee, we have listened to an attempt from the Minister's side to rediscuss and renegotiate on a piece-by-piece basis individual items that were part of the overall package that was eventually arrived at as a compromise between the TUC position and the Government position.
To Members of the Committee who were not part of those discussions the Government appear to be in some difficulty. If they start to unravel the individual pieces of the Bill, the CBI and the employers will say to them, "You have given in to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on those points and therefore"—
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Lord agree—
Lord Razzall: I have listened to the noble Lord for two days: I should like to finish what I have to say. Before the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, rises, I want to say that I found one thing that he said absolutely reprehensible. He said—which I wrote down—that, "The reason that small businesses are small is because they are not successful. If they were successful they would be bigger and therefore the 21 requirement would not apply".
That is a reprehensible remark, particularly in the context of the modern world. I suspect that it is some time since the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had direct experience of what is happening in business. Clearly. Her Majesty's Government have been successful managing the economy of this country. To a large extent that is due to the economic success of the sort of businesses that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, just said were unsuccessful because they employed under 21 people. The world in which we had sweatshops in Manchester with fewer than 21 people employed is fortunately almost gone for ever. The sweatshops ought to have gone—although we may regret the fact that a lot of the manufacturing industry has gone to India or China or wherever. In the modern world, we have large numbers of modern hi-tech industries with firms that employ significantly fewer than 21 people. They are highly successful. To say that small firms with fewer than 21 people are a failure and that if they were not a failure they would be bigger is a charge that simply ought to be withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: But this is a review. One cannot really say that the Government set the thing in stone in 1999, as they said that in five years' time they would have a review. This is the review. All sorts of things are being changed; one cannot say that if one changes this little detail the whole thing will unravel, otherwise we would not have a review at all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course, the Government do not oppose the principle of recognition in small firms. Indeed, we know that recognition in some small firms can work very well. We recently funded a project proposed by several unions under the strategic
GC 78
partnership fund to explore the ways in which unions can work best with proprietors and managers in micro-businesses. The project should certainly produce some useful guidance on good practice in that regard.
We simply do not believe that it would be appropriate to impose recognition in very small micro-businesses. Such firms tend to have personalised working relationships, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said. I shall not get into a discussion about individual versus personalised at this stage. It is likely that in small organisations managers and workers will have much more direct contact. That is bound to change the character of relations in such organisations.
I would be the first to appreciate the point that my noble friend Lord McCarthy made that there can be instances when things go very wrong indeed. It is certainly the case that small units in the past were the source of grievous exploitation, but it is a different world today. People are much more confident with regard to their rights and their bargaining position in wider society, not least against the background of a more successful economy—as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was generous enough to suggest. With low levels of unemployment, people working in small organisations are likely to get a decent deal; if they do not, they are up and off. That is certainly the position with a lot of young workers these days, who do not consider themselves as committed to one workplace for the length of their working lives. We are in an infinitely more flexible economy these days. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, small units are a feature of that economy.
We know the threshold opposed by the trade unions, and the Government considered the issue very carefully. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, this is an opportunity to review the 1999 position, so it is only right that the Government should look into these matters afresh. We have reviewed carefully the operations of the Employment Relations Act 1999. However, unionisation and collective bargaining have never been a marked feature of employment relations in such very small businesses. The review that we carried out discovered a lack of demand for recognition in the smallest organisations. Very few workers in small businesses are union members, although such businesses employ millions of people in the present economy. We estimate that in firms employing 10 to 20 workers only 4 per cent are union members.
I understand my noble friend's concern that those figures should be improved upon, and I recognise that there are cases in which such improvements would bring benefits to workers. However, we have to face the facts as they are. We are talking about a very small percentage of workers in organisations of fewer than 20 workers. We have also seen limited demand for recognition in those organisations that are just above the threshold. I feel that I shall spend the whole afternoon chopping and changing with figures, but let me make the obvious point. Less than 5 per cent of CAC applications involve businesses employing

GC 79
between 21 and 30 workers. That category of organisations just above the threshold is little involved with regard to the CAC procedures.
The definition of the threshold includes employment by the employer and any associated employers. That arrangement captures the situation where employers might split their businesses under common ownership to ensure that each entity is too small—in other words, below the 21–person threshold. Our review found that the legislation had worked as intended. There was no evidence that employers had restructured their businesses to avoid the recognition threshold.
Of course, recognition is not the only means whereby workers can receive union services at the workplace. We must remember that the right to be accompanied by a union official at disciplinary and grievance hearings applies to employers of all sizes of unit. The 1999 Act established that right, and other parts of this Bill strengthen the entitlement. That is only right and proper. I can reassure my noble friend that these arrangements are part of the 1999 position. They deal with the individual entitlements of workers, ensuring that individual union members can access their union's services at key events affecting their future.
I maintain that my noble friend's proposal is inappropriate. It could lead to unhelpful situations where employers—including tiny organisations employing just one or two people—are required to establish formal bargaining arrangements with trade unions. Our preferred approach in the case of these very small organisations is to leave it entirely to the parties whether recognition should occur. Our funding of the project on effective union relations in micro-businesses should help to inform the decisions which those parties take.
My noble friends also indicated that they did not like Clause 11, and I have a very extensive defence of the intricacies of that clause. However, I assume that the reason why they do not like the clause and are objecting to its standing part of the Bill is due to the particular point of the threshold.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, that is right.
Lord Davies of Oldham: So I shall not go into a long defence of Clause 11, and I hope that I have given a strong enough argument for my noble friend to feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response, which did not really surprise me.
I shall deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that of course we are not against small businesses. I have never been against them; in fact, when I was a member of the TUC general council, I and my noble friend Lord Lea were members of a committee set up deliberately under the DTI to give assistance to small businesses. We supported that move because we realised that small businesses employ a lot of people
GC 80
and help to deal with unemployment in several areas. We are not against small businesses, and nor is our proposal.
We are concerned with ensuring that if people exercise their right to belong to a union, recruit their colleagues and want then to be bargained for in a small firm, they should have the right to the bargaining arrangements available in the Bill, even though the firm involved may be small. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out, if the membership falls, the employer under the Bill would have the right to opt for derecognition, because the procedures are set out in the Bill. We are concerned about ensuring that, if people want to belong to a union in a small firm and want to have their terms and conditions bargained for because they have managed to recruit their colleagues, that should be available to them under the Bill.
In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I repeat that we are not against small businesses. This provision is not directed against them. We are concerned about the right of individuals to belong to a union and be bargained for by it. I accept that this is a package, so to speak, but in Committee we are entitled to deal with individual issues, which is what we have been trying to do.
We are concerned that this is a matter for a very large number of employees. I gather that around 6 million workers are employed in small companies. We are anxious to ensure that they can enjoy the same rights available to those who work in large companies. However, I note what the Minister has said. I shall think about his response to see whether there is some way in which we might be able to come back to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Unfair practices in relation to derecognition ballots]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 16 and insert—
"119C (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC decides that a complaint under paragraph 119B is well-founded.
(2) The CAC must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, issue a declaration to that effect.
(3) The CAC may do either or both of the following—

(a) order the party concerned to take any action specified in the order within such period as may be so specified, or

(b) make arrangements for the holding of a secret ballot in which the workers constituting the bargaining unit are asked whether the bargaining arrangements should be ended.

(4) The CAC may give an order or make arrangements under sub-paragraph (3) either at the same time as it issues the declaration under sub-paragraph (2) or at any other time before it acts under paragraph 121.
(5) The action specified in an order under sub-paragraph (3)(a) shall be such as the CAC considers reasonable in order to mitigate the effect of the failure of the party complained against to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph 119A.
(6) The CAC may give more than one order under subparagraph (3)(a).
119D (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 119C(2) and the declaration states that the unfair practice used consisted of or included—

(a) the use of violence, or

(b) the dismissal of a union official.

(2) This paragraph also applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 119C(3)(a) and—

(a) it is satisfied that the party subject to the order has failed to comply with it, or

(b) it makes another declaration under paragraph 119C(2) in relation to a complaint against that party.

(3) If the party concerned is the employer, the CAC may refuse the employer's application under paragraph 106 or 107.
(4) If the party concerned is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration.
(5) The powers conferred by this paragraph are in addition to those conferred by paragraph 119C(3).
119E (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration that a complaint under paragraph 119B is well-founded and—

(a) makes arrangements under paragraph 119C(3)(b),

(b) refuses under paragraph 119D(3) or 119H(6) an application under paragraph 106, 107 or 112, or

(c) issues a declaration under paragraph 119D(4) or 119H(5).

(2) If the ballot in connection with which the complaint was made has not been held, the CAC shall take steps to cancel it.
(3) If that ballot is held, it shall have no effect.
119F (1) This paragraph applies if the CAC makes arrangements under paragraph 119C(3)(b).
(2) Paragraphs 117(4) to (11) and 118 to 121 apply in relation to those arrangements as they apply in relation to arrangements made under paragraph 117(3) but with the modifications specified in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).
(3) An employer's duty under paragraph (a) of paragraph 118(4) is limited to—

(a) giving the CAC the names and home addresses of any workers in the bargaining unit which have not previously been given to it in accordance with that duty:

(b) giving the CAC the names and home addresses of those workers who have joined the bargaining unit since he last gave the CAC information in accordance with that duty;

(c) informing the CAC of any change to the name or home address of a worker whose name and home address have previously been given to the CAC in accordance with that duty; and

(d) informing the CAC of any worker whose name had previously been given to it in accordance with that duty who has ceased to be within the bargaining unit.

(4) Any order given under paragraph 119(1) or 119C(3)(a) for the purposes of the cancelled or ineffectual ballot shall have effect (to the extent that the CAC specifies in a notice to the parties) as if it were made for the purposes of the ballot for which arrangements are made under paragraph 119C(3)(b).
(5) The gross costs of the ballot shall be borne by such of the parties and in such proportions as the CAC may determine and, accordingly, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 120 shall be omitted and the reference in sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph to the employer and the union (or each of the unions) shall be construed as a reference to the party or parties which bear the costs in accordance with the CAC's determination.
119G (1) Paragraphs 119A to 119C, 119E and 119F apply in relation to an application under paragraph 112 as they apply in relation to an application under paragraph 106 or 107 but with the modifications specified in this paragraph.
(2) References in those paragraphs (and, accordingly, in paragraph 119H(3)) to a party shall be read as including references to the applicant worker or workers; but this is subject to subparagraph (3).
(3) The reference in paragraph 119A(1) to a party informed under paragraph 117(11) shall be read as including a reference to the applicant worker or workers.
119H (1) This paragraph applies in relation to an application under paragraph 112 in the cases specified in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) The first case is where the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 119C(2) and the declaration states that the unfair practice used consisted of or included—

(a) the use of violence, or

(b) the dismissal of a union official.

(3) The second case is where the CAC has made an order under paragraph 119C(3)(a) and—

(a) it is satisfied that the party subject to the order has failed to comply with it, or

(b) it makes another declaration under paragraph 119C(2) in relation to a complaint against that party.

(4) If the party concerned is the employer, the CAC may order him to refrain from further campaigning in relation to the ballot.
(5) If the party concerned is a union, the CAC may issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration.
(6) If the party concerned is the applicant worker (or any of the applicant workers), the CAC may refuse the application under paragraph 112.
(7) An order given to an employer under paragraph 1 19C(3)(a) or sub-paragraph (4), on being recorded in the county court, may be enforced in the same way as an order of that court.
(8) The powers conferred by this paragraph are in addition to those conferred by paragraph 119C(3).""
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 27 provides the remedies available to the CAC where it finds that a complaint of unfair practices in relation to a derecognition ballot is well founded. As far as possible, the framers of the Employment Relations Act 1999 sought to ensure that the procedure for derecognition of a union which has been the subject of an award of statutory recognition should mirror the Part 1 procedure for recognition. Therefore the remedies introduced by this amendment are essentially the mirror of those which will apply to unfair practices in relation to ballots on recognition. We have already discussed these remedies in some detail in our debate on Amendment No. 20. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will permit me to concentrate on only a couple of small points of difference between the two rather than the areas in which they are the same.
This applies in the rare situation where a worker or workers, not the employer, has made the application to derecognise the union. This is provided for in paragraph 112 of the statutory procedure. It is the only case under the statutory procedure where there are three distinct parties to the application: the union, the employer and the applicant workers. The amendment

GC 83
therefore contains additional paragraphs 119G and 119H. Paragraph 119G ensures that the remedies for unfair practices apply in relation to an application for derecognition by a worker, and makes clear that an applicant worker can both make complaints and be the subject of complaints of unfair practices.
There is a difficulty, however, in applying the "red card" sanction—the football analogy I used during our first sitting in Grand Committee—which applies where the employer has failed to comply with an order of the CAC, or has committed a second unfair practice subsequently. This same difficulty applies where the employer has committed an unfair practice which involves either violence or the dismissal of a union official. If the application in question had been made by the employer, the CAC would be able to reject the employer's application for derecognition. Where the application in question has been made by a worker or workers, for two obvious reasons the same sanction could not apply.
First, it is not possible to know with certainty the employer's attitude to the worker's application. It might be natural to assume that the employer would favour derecognition of the union, although he might take exactly the opposite view. If it is the case that the employer favours derecognition, then the sanction that the application was rejected might well have a punitive and deterrent effect on the employer. However, there may be situations where the employer is in favour of the continued recognition of the union, perhaps because he believes that a less preferable union is waiting in the wings to seek recognition should the worker's application be successful.
Secondly, even were it possible to determine the employer's true attitude towards the application under consideration, it would not be just to punish the union or the worker for transgressions which might have been committed by the employer. The worker should not have the application rejected, nor should the union he derecognised because the employer has misbehaved.
4.45 p.m.
With that in mind, the Government have devised a different remedy for that very particular case. Where, in the case of' a worker application for union de-recognition, an employer is guilty of failing to comply with an order of the CAC, committing a second offence after the order has been issued against it, or committing an unfair practice involving violence or the dismissal of a union official, the CAC will be able to order him to refrain from all further campaigning in the ballot. This order and the CAC's initial order to take mitigating action will be enforceable as though they were orders of the county court, should the employer continue to fail to comply. If an employer does not comply with an order of the county court, he may be found to be in contempt of court and liable to an order for sequestration or even imprisonment.
To date there have been no applications by either an employer or a worker for de-recognition of a union awarded recognition under the procedure. The
GC 84
Government expect applications by workers to be extremely rare. We must legislate, however, for the possibility that it could occur, and for the possibility that an unprincipled employer may see encouraging the worker to make an application as a way to engage in unfair practices—a matter that they could undertake with impunity. I believe that the sanction I have just described and the enforcement mechanism that backs it up are sufficiently strong to discourage rogue employers seeking to exploit worker applications for their own ends.
Amendment No. 28 mirrors Amendment No. 22, providing that where the CAC decides to order a ballot on de-recognition to be rerun, its duty is to reveal the result of the first ballot to the parties, and that would then not apply in these circumstances.
Amendment Nos. 30 and 94 make consequential changes to the Bill and the recognition schedule. Amendment No. 30 deletes a reference to the power at paragraph 27C from Clause 14, because that power is deleted by Amendment No. 27. Amendment No. 94 ensures that the provisions of Clause 12 apply to applications for de-recognition under paragraph 128.
The Government believe that the remedies for unfair practices in relation to de-recognition ballots, like those for unfair practice in relation to recognition ballots, are fair and effective. They provide a mirror image of what is to apply in the case of recognition as well as a strong alternative to deal with the unusual case where there are three parties to a ballot. In that light, I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: When I first saw Amendment No. 27, I took a sharp breath, as it has substituted the deletion of 17 lines with a huge provision. It took me quite some time to get my mind around it. I thank the noble Lord for explaining the amendment very clearly. I think that I spoke to Clause 9 on something very similar. We are perfectly happy with the amendment and those grouped with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 16, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 121 of that Schedule (duties of the CAC when informed of result of ballot), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
"(IA) The duty in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the CAC makes arrangements under paragraph 119C(3)(b).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power to amend Schedule Al to the 1992 Act]:
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 17, line 2, leave out "27C,
" Page 17, line 3, leave out "119C,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 3, after "166A," insert "166B,"
The noble Lord said: As Amendment No. 31 is a straightforward amendment, I shall be able to make a contribution that is slightly less controversial, at least on this side of the Committee, than all my previous ones.
This amendment should have been made in another place when Clause 16 was added to the Bill. Clause 16, as the Committee will be aware, provides a power at paragraph 166B of the statutory procedure for the Secretary of State to provide that the use of unfair practices is prohibited during any period of the statutory procedure prior to the ballot period. The purpose of this power is to allow the Government to respond rapidly should evidence emerge of intimidation taking place before the balloting period.
The amendment is consequential to the addition of Clause 16 to the Bill. It works by inserting a reference to the power at paragraph 166B into Clause 14—the general power of the Secretary of State to amend the schedule following representations from the CAC. Clause 14 lists the specific powers of the Secretary of State to amend particular parts of the schedule. The power at paragraph 166B should therefore be added to that list.
I apologise to the Committee that the amendment was not made in another place and that we are producing it now. We do so in order to ensure that the provision is consistent throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Means of communicating with workers]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Information about union membership and employment in bargaining unit]:
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 20, line 5, at end insert "together with the evidence on the basis of which the case manager prepared the report"
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to the identical Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 together. These amendments are a simple plea for open justice for both sides, the union and the employer alike.
Under Clause 18 the CAC may assign the case to what the section calls "a case manager". The employer, the union and indeed an individual applicant worker are obliged to supply the case worker with such information that the CAC thinks is appropriate. Then, under subsection (6), the case manager writes a report that he submits to the CAC itself. Presumably, and in most cases, the CAC will ultimately base its decision on the contents of that report. Under subsection (8), the CAC must then send copies of the report to the employer, the union and, where appropriate, the individual worker.
However, that does not go far enough. If these parties are going to be able to make representations to the CAC before it announces its decision based on the case manager's report, they really are entitled to see not only the decision but also the evidence on which the case worker based his decision.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the case manager may have misconstrued the facts due to a misunderstanding, or have recommended a decision not supported by the facts. As the procedures laid down by the Bill do not provide for the exchange of evidence or even necessarily a face-to-face hearing, there is no opportunity for one side to test the evidence given by the other. It is a basic principle that a party to judicial proceedings—or in this instance quasi-judicial proceedings—should know exactly what case has to be answered.
All this amendment does is to provide that very necessary ingredient which I am sure has been omitted from the Bill only because of an oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Triesman: It is certainly true that these two amendments are simple and short but, my goodness, they would significantly change the effect of Clause 18. Perhaps I may begin by explaining what the clause does and the way in which it improves the operation of the statutory procedure. I shall then describe why I think that the amendments would be a great deal more damaging than perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thinks they would be.
There are a number of points in the statutory procedure where the CAC must apply certain tests to the union's application in order to decide the question that has been put to it. The first of those points is at the admissibility stage. The CAC must satisfy itself of a number of things before it can accept a union's application. Those include that at least 10 per cent of the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union and that a majority of workers in the proposed unit are likely to favour recognition.
Later in the process, the CAC may have to apply the same tests again where a bargaining unit which differs from that proposed by the union has been determined, and the CAC may have to conduct a further check of union membership levels when deciding whether a union should be awarded recognition without a ballot.
In order to decide all those questions, the CAC case manager checks the names of the union members in the relevant bargaining unit, which are supplied by the union, against the list of workers in the bargaining unit, which are supplied by the employer. I hope that I shall not be taxing the Committee's patience if I repeat that point: the list of workers who are members of the union is compared with the list of workers that is supplied by the employer.
Petitions in support of or opposition to a union's application may also be received by the CAC. In that case, the CAC case manager will also seek to verify by

GC 87
checking the employer's list that the workers who have signed a petition are members of the bargaining unit. On the basis of those checks, the case manager compiles a report for the panel on the level of union membership and the likely level of support for recognition within the bargaining unit.
Currently, the CAC relies on the parties voluntarily agreeing to provide it with such data. At present, that is done on the basis of goodwill. That has been relatively successful, but it has limits. Negotiating that with the parties inevitably gives rise to some delay. On occasion, one or other of the parties has initially refused to co-operate with a check. Fortunately, the CAC has always been able to find a way through those difficulties. However, it relies on the goodwill of the parties. Ultimately, if a party refuses to agree, the process may be significantly delayed or frustrated.
The clause introduces a power for the CAC to require any party to an application to provide it with the information it needs in order to conduct the checks that I have described. At the same time, the clause codifies the CAC's current practice, which aims to protect the confidentiality of workers' personal details.
That ensures that the names of union members and workers who sign pro-recognition petitions are not disclosed to the employer. Likewise, the names of the workers in the bargaining unit plus the identity of individuals who sign anti-recognition petitions are not disclosed to the union. It also makes clear that the CAC panel does not see those names. So the panel bases its decision only on evidence that is available to all the parties.
That measure will reduce delays in the process. Of particular relevance to this debate, the clause also enshrines in law measures to protect the confidentiality of sensitive worker details in either direction. The amendments would require a case manager to disclose all the evidence to the CAC panel, and thus to the parties, on which the report was compiled. In other words, the case manager would need to append to the report all the data supplied by the employer and the union. That would of course include the identities of workers, and other personal data would be revealed. Confidentiality, which I think all parties would prefer to preserve because of their interests in either direction in the outcome, would be completely undermined.
I wonder if I could, in making this submission, also test out something that has worried me about this amendment and possibly some later amendments. It is worth seeing if there is a genuine difference, or if this is just my imagination. Amendments of all kinds are studied by people way beyond your Lordships' House, and if I may say so, because of the fame of the Miller amendment, probably those standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are studied with particular care. I wonder whether there is a concern here about whether the CAC's own processes are reliable and whether it can be trusted with sensitive information.
GC 88
I am sure that there is no intention to cast doubt on the integrity of the CAC; I have not put that argument, and I hope that it will not be taken in that way. It would be important, looking at these amendments, to ensure that people do not draw the wrong conclusions. I say for the record, and I hope that this is a shared thought, that the integrity of the CAC in handling these kinds of matters has been proven to be extremely sensitive and robust. It has been shown to have treated confidential areas appropriately.
The processes are led by Sir Michael Burton, an experienced High Court judge who has done a tremendous job in steering the CAC through new and sensitive territory. I do not think that there is evidence that those who have worked for the CAC or have been involved in its processes have been liable either to undermine either party or to compromise areas of confidentiality, which noble Lords on both sides of the House have been keen to retain where appropriate. If there is any clarification about an anxiety of that kind, or if I have just got it wrong, which is possible, I would be grateful.
In the light of the submissions that I have made, which are really about confidentiality and the exchange of information in rather sensitive circumstances, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his lengthy explanation. I was surprised when he said that if this amendment were accepted, Clause 18 would substantially change the Bill. I thought that this was a small, simple, easy amendment. I notice that the official sitting behind the Minister is signalling "no" rather than "yes", so I accept that that is the correct position.
So far as the point that was worrying the Minister is concerned, of course there is no suggestion of that at all from our side of the House, and I am happy to state that now. I do not know if the Minister is correct—I do not suggest for one moment that he is—that when I put down an amendment people notice that it is put down by the same Baroness Miller who had the Miller amendment and they look at it with great interest. I would like to think that was so, but I doubt it.
Having said that, I have no aspersions whatever to cast on the fairness of the CAC. That does not mean that certain later amendments we have put down suggest in any way that we do not think that there could not be some improvements to make it easier for the two parties that are going there. It is not because of any aspersions as to what might happen in the CAC. I will read what the Minister said with great care. I apologise that I did not return in time to move the amendment, so my noble friend had to move it, albeit most ably.
Earl Attlee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I do not think that we interpreted that absolutely, but never mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 ["Pay" and other matters subject to collective bargaining]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 37:
Page 21, line 21, after "unless" insert "evidence of the extent to which pensions are included in the issues covered by non-statutory collective bargaining arrangements has been published by the Secretary of State and full consultation on the proposed content of the order has taken place with representatives of employers and employees, and"
The noble Baroness said: I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said about her earlier Amendment No. 23, and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. I must confess that since I put this amendment down, I have become uncertain that I have got it right in every respect and that it would achieve what I wanted. In order not to waste the time of the Committee, I would like to have some more time to reflect on this matter. I will perhaps bring the amendment back at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS VOTING IN BALLOT
(1) Schedule 1 to the 1992 Act (collective bargaining: recognition) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 29(3)(b) for "40" substitute "30"."
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the issue that we have debated several times: the conditions required in order to achieve a declaration in favour of recognition. What we call the overall turnout test, instead of being 40, should be 30. I do not want to go over the ground gone over before by my noble friend Lord Lea, except to say that we face a long series of hurdles.
First, there is the fact that the employer is refusing to recognise; the union has to take this employer who is against recognition to the CAC; they must pass the 10 per cent test; they must then either get 50 per cent membership or they must win a ballot; and after that there is the further, sometimes called electorate test, of 40 per cent of the electorate voting in favour. We did not have anything of this kind in the previous Act, and we did not have it in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The Government say that it is all right, partly because that is what we agreed in the first place, and it is a balance—I accept that. However, the Government also say that it is working well. They have said on many occasions that because it is working well they cannot accept any major change, certainly not a change of the magnitude represented in this amendment. Well, I suggest that if the Government look closely, they will see that it is working adequately rather than well, and it could work a lot better.
There have been 233 applications. Depending on how you look at it, that is much better than last time in some ways, because then we had hundreds and hundreds of applications, but we had so many applications that they could not be dealt with by ACAS, the institution supposed to deal with them. One might say that we had to lower the number of applications, and we have. We have only had 233 applications, because unions know that it is extremely difficult to satisfy the criteria. The Government say that it is working well because 64 declarations have been in favour, and only 23 cases have been lost in relation to ballots. If they go forward and have a ballot, only 23 times have they lost.
The Government also say, and they stress this, that outside the area of the statutory recognition procedure, there has been a significant rise in the number of voluntary recognitions, and therefore it is working well. We say that it is not working more than adequately. A large number of cases are abandoned because agreement cannot be reached on the criteria, or because the unions get discouraged, or because they come to realise that they cannot satisfy the criteria. The Government have admitted that there are long-delayed results. There are records of determined, even unlawful resistance, which is why the present Bill contains provisions for unfair practices. The TUC listed these in its evidence to the Government, which is why there has been some move made in this review.
One of the problems of the legislation is that it has, perhaps naturally in the present circumstances, swallowed the notion of the ballot panacea. It is difficult to argue against voting nowadays. Voting is regarded as the proper way of testing opinion, despite the fact that it suffers from absenteeism, difficulties of contact, and in the end it is difficult to get a high level of responses. That is what people mean when they say that abstentions are votes against recognition. When the previous system operated—when the CIR operated the system and when ACAS operated it—we did not have ballots. We had surveys. Members of' the organisation went round and asked people what they wanted. They took long schedules about, and on that basis, totally confidentially, they decided whether they wanted to recommend recognition. We do not have that now; it is not possible to have that now. So, we get a situation where significant numbers of workers come forward who want to get recognition, but for all kinds of reasons and failures of contact, and all kinds of ways in which employers can put obstacles in the way, unions do not obtain the necessary 40 per cent quota.
My noble friend Lord Lea tried to put forward a mild way in which we might do something for what might be called a close-run thing, when you win the first one and you cannot win the second one. The Government will not listen to that; or maybe they will when they come back. In the meantime, one way around it would be to lower the universal test from 40 to 30. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I very much hope that I misunderstood what the noble Lord said when he moved his amendment. At one stage I was beginning to

GC 91
think that he thought that ballots were not necessary at all. He could not possibly have meant that. I do not say that he said that; I said that one could have interpreted it that way. He also said towards the end of his speech that maybe they could not reach the 40 per cent because some employers put obstacles in the way. He did say that and agrees that it is a possibility.
Some people would say—I am not saying that I am one of them—that a real majority is 50 per cent plus one. I do not think that 40 per cent is an impossible percentage to reach if people genuinely want to do this, either in recognition or de-recognition—
Lord Lea of Crondall: Does the noble Baroness agree that the normal meaning in the English language of 50 per cent plus one is that you get a simple majority? It is not 50 per cent of those entitled to vote.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That may well be one interpretation. I am not saying that it is incorrect. I am simply saying that I do not think that one can say that because they have not reached 40 per cent it is because in one way or another someone stopped people who wanted to vote from voting. If 40 per cent is the amount that is required, 40 per cent of people would vote. To my way of thinking, that is how it would be. I do not have Schedule 1 of the 1992 Act in front of me. Perhaps the Minister when he replies will say, if this amendment were carried, and the figure was 30 per cent, what would happen if 40 per cent did not want it? Presumably that would be no majority, and it would not count—
Lord McCarthy: If you only needed 30 per cent, that would be all you required. If 40 per cent did not want it, that would be a different answer.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not suggesting for one moment that anyone stop the other 70 per cent from voting in any way—they just did not vote. That is the bottom line. As far as I am concerned, 40 per cent is low enough.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Does not the noble Baroness agree that the TUC has submitted evidence on this? I do not know whether she has seen that evidence, but I understand that it is partly—I do not say entirely—because there is evidence that employers have found it relatively easy to make it difficult for people to vote. They could hold the vote when people were not there and therefore could not vote. Thus it was felt necessary to put in the Bill a whole series of remedies for unfair practices so that we could deal with the problem, which is not an imaginary problem.
Lord Lea of Crondall: It is important to make absolutely clear on the record the actual situation that results from a minimum "yes" vote of 40 per cent. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who understands these questions very well, I think she may have a blind spot about this point.
GC 92
At the moment, far from a simple majority of 50 per cent plus one, as she advocates, let me cite an arithmetical example of a result that would not lead to recognition. I have written it down to ensure that I get it right. If a vote was won by 39 to 38—we are not arguing here whether that is a sufficient majority, I seek simply to illustrate the point—that represents a 77 per cent turnout with a majority vote, but the answer would be no. That is how it works at the moment.
There are, I think, some half a dozen cases of near misses of this sort, which is why, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy remarked, there are different ways of skinning this cat. But I also think that a 50 per cent turnout is another way of looking at it. No doubt we shall discuss that before we reach the Report stage.
As for the most satisfactory way to deal with it, at the moment it is something of a travesty of democracy to demand a turnout of 77 per cent.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I certainly have not seen the evidence from the TUC. However, no doubt the Government will have seen it and therefore I am perfectly content to listen to whatever the Minister has to say on this amendment. It is interesting to note that in so many amendments, the aim is to lower the threshold. Perhaps in this case the Government think that that is the correct course. If that is so, then so be it.
For the record, I did not say that I thought it should be 50 per cent plus one; I made a particular point of saying that I did not think that. I merely cited the number.
Lord Triesman: This has been a difficult issue for some time, one in which sharp contention is possible between unions and employers. However, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord McCarthy, it is not fair to say that it is working only adequately. Voluntary arrangements are not a bad starting point. From my own experience, where a union is able to achieve an agreement on a voluntary basis, that is not bad and usually sets the sails rather fairer for the period that follows than when one has had to grind out a raw dispute through a compulsory mechanism. Often that leads to a result that leaves a sourness on the part of all those involved. So I would not want anything on the face of Bill that might harm the voluntary route since, objectively, that must be the best option for everyone.
While it is possible to find out the opinion of people in a workplace, voting is an attractive option when compared with most of the alternatives. These days, people are extremely concerned to ensure that they have the right to express their own views. They may choose not to vote, but it is regarded at the least as a very valuable asset in the generality of instances.
I want to come in principle to the realpolitik of the matter. The 40 per cent threshold is an integral part of the recognition procedure. Because of it, a "yes" vote produces an unequivocal demonstration that there is positive support for recognition among the workforce. This prevents anyone, whether an employer or anyone else, from arguing that a union won on an unrepresentative ballot in a low turnout. Even when

GC 93
the process is compulsory rather than voluntary, that improves the chances of a constructive working relationship between union and employer being established.
When the threshold was introduced, some thought it would be a major barrier to recognition. I paused and considered that point myself, but it is always worth looking at the evidence to see whether one's own concerns have been realised in practice. In fact, out of the 88 ballots ordered by the CAC, only two have been lost because of the 40 per cent threshold. A quick sum in my head puts that at near enough 2.5 percent; therefore, 97.5 per cent have not fallen on the threshold.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the 40 per cent threshold also applies in derecognition ballots. I note that the proposed clause does not amend subparagraph 121(3)(b) of Schedule Al of the 1992 Act, which imposes an identical requirement in derecognition ballots. I do not know whether that is the intention of Members of the Committee in tabling the amendment. However, it is the Government's belief that whatever the arrangements finally agreed, the recognition and derecognition arrangements should mirror one another and be seen to be fair because they have done so right across the piece.
The most crucial part of the realpolitik is that the 40 per cent threshold was part of the balanced package that was negotiated with unions and employers in 1999. It is absolutely right for my noble friend Lord McCarthy to say that this is an occasion for review; there has been a detailed review, in which no evidence was found to suggest that the process has failed. We would be inviting others to unpick those parts of the recognition procedure which they did not like if we were to amend the threshold arrangements now. I cannot believe that that would do anything other than to disturb all the elements of the balances that have been struck. The issues are not small ones, nor are they without their symbolism. Moving in an area with such an impact is bound to raise a vast variety of difficult issues. I do not want to overstate, but I believe that that is the case.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the 40 per cent figure serves a generally useful purpose and should be retained. I would therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister as usual makes a very good case, and I accept that something had to be done this time to mark out the difference between this time and the previous two times, which were generally regarded as disasters.
The key to that difference is the ballot—I fully accept that. The point was that, if there were a ballot, as long as it was a majority ballot, it would be very difficult for the employers to resist. On the other hand, ACAS used to recommend recognition when there was a membership of only about 10 or 15 per cent. When it did a survey, it almost always recorded a majority; therefore, the committee would recommend some kind of recognition, because it related it to the size of the
GC 94
union membership in the bargaining unit. I regard that as a much more sophisticated and intelligent way in which to find out what people think.
I must say this, although I know that I shall shock certain Members of the Committee—sometimes there are better things than votes. There are things that one wants to find out, which one can find out much more scientifically through surveys. There may be a 100 per cent return and, as long as one believes the people who collected the survey, one gets a much more sophisticated feeling of what people think than if one has asked them to vote.
I accept that that option is not possible, however, and that the Government this time had to do something different. I would not want them to depart from the principle of voting at this point. Nevertheless, it is not quite true to say that this balanced package was universally agreed; it was a settlement, and all settlements contain elements in which one or another of the parties continue to argue for its point of view. That was the TUC's point of view—it never accepted that there should be a 40 per cent threshold, but it had to in order to reach agreement, so it signed the agreement.
What the TUC wanted, as my noble friend Lord Lea said—or what it hoped for—was that the standard way of getting recognition would be the 50 per cent vote. If it could be demonstrated to the CAC, the public and employers that there was that 50 per cent, it would not be necessary to go on and have a ballot. However, because of the peculiar way in which the legislation was drafted, which we have discussed and which I shall not go over again, it is much more frequently the case than was expected and hoped for that we have to go on to the second stage.
I am not suggesting that the Minister is doing this intentionally, but it is not fair to say that everything is going well, because we do not really know about the number of cases that never come forward. I am in a difficult place, because I do not know either. The Minister said that only 1 or 2 per cent fall on the 40 per cent threshold, but when unions know that they could not win the 40 per cent, they do not go forward. They do not want to have the case thrown out, because that finishes them for several years, whether the law says so or not.
We are bound to go on with these arguments. It is not fair to say that they are settled; they will continue to be pressed. I hope that in the course of this review, the Government will make some movement on the issue as well as others. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS FROM CAC AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CAC
(1) An appeal lies to the Appeal Tribunal on any question of law arising from any decision, order or declaration of the CAC, or arising in any proceedings before the CAC under this section."
(2) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the passing of this Act promulgate rules of procedure to be followed in all proceedings before the CAC covering (but not exclusively)—

(a) evidence;

(b) conduct of witnesses;

(c) discovery, exchange or documents and witness statements between the parties;

(d) prior disclosure to the other party of the case to be answered;

(e) details of and use of written evidence and statements and such other matters as he shall deem appropriate.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State may revoke or amend such rules from time to time as he shall deem fit."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is in two parts. The first is to be found in proposed subsection (1) and the second in proposed subsections (2) and (3).
The purpose of the first subsection is very simple, and virtually self-explanatory. There should be a statutory right of appeal on matters of law—not fact—from the CAC in recognition and derecognition cases. I have proposed that it should be to the Employment Appeals Tribunal; that seems to me to be the most appropriate body. Currently, appeals have to be made by way of judicial review.
The Government have suggested—and perhaps the Minister will repeat that suggestion today—that since relatively few employers resort to that process, it must follow that the vast majority who have had statutory recognition cases are content with the way that the CAC has dealt with them. However, that is not so. The CBI tells me that many employers have not sought a judicial review because of the substantial costs, to say nothing of the delay involved. That must impact especially hard on smaller businesses, which do not have the same deep pockets as the union with which they may be dealing.
Speedy and inexpensive access to justice should always be the objective of legislation. I trust that the Government will accept this very moderate amendment.
At this stage, the second and third subsections constitute a probing amendment; nevertheless, it is a very important one. The two subsections would require the Secretary of State to promulgate universally applicable rules, so that unions, employers and individual workers in one part of the country will act and be treated in the same way as those in another part of the country. The CAC is not one sole tribunal, any more than the High Court is just one judge; it is a whole number of separate tribunals sitting in different geographical areas or even sitting in the same area, if there is enough work for them. There are separate tribunals with separate chairmen, separate members and separate caseworkers. What is absolutely not required is separate rules of procedure, separate standards of evidence and so on. What is required is consistency, the same sort of consistency that universally applies in civil litigation because of the comprehensive rules of civil practice. I hasten to add that I am not asking for anything as comprehensive and detailed as the several thousand pages that they occupy. It would also inhibit the practice of "forum
GC 96
shopping", where an applicant on either side, given a choice of venues, will try to pick the one whose practices they believe favour them the most. The absence of a comprehensive set of law reports relating to CAC decisions itself militates against consistency.
In my amendment, I have tried to make it as easy as possible for the Secretary of State by not requiring the rules to be made by statutory instrument but simply by a ministerial edict. This is employed in the High Court, where from time to time, what is called a "practice note" is issued, which is binding on all litigants and their lawyers.
In order not to be unduly prescriptive, I have proposed that in addition to what I may call the basic requirements of a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, which I have set out in the amendment, the Secretary of State shall have power in the rules of procedure to include anything else that seems to him to be appropriate.
Finally, I have proposed that the Secretary of State shall have the same power to alter, modify, or even revoke the rules, again by a ministerial direction, without having to go through the procedure of a statutory instrument. The subject of this part of this amendment is of concern to employers operating nationally who need to know where they stand when involved with the CAC. I have no doubt that this would be an objective of the unions as well. It is certainly as much in their interests as that of the employers.
I called this part of the new clause a probing amendment because a clear indication is required from the Government as to how they propose to ensure that there is consistency and uniformity in proceedings before the CAC, no matter where those proceedings take place. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am a member of the CAC, but that is not necessarily material to this point. We are talking about a paradox. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has mentioned a wish to have inexpensive access to justice. The CAC provides very inexpensive access at the moment. Indeed, the parties to the Treaty of London in 1999, or whatever it was, were looking for the most inexpensive and informal way of approaching this matter.
The noble Baroness referred to all litigants and their lawyers. Most people do not come along with lawyers and long may it remain so—this is not private information because all the cases are heard in public if anyone wants to go and listen, although it is not the most entertaining day out. The route down which the noble Baroness would take us is the opposite of the one she wants to go down. It is a very expensive route where everybody does have to come with lawyers and has to act in a terribly legalistic way. At the moment, speaking only for myself, but I think most people would agree, the ideal is that people close to the ground—the trade union officials and the managers—come along and answer questions about how it is. That is it.

GC 97
The paraphernalia of laws of precedent and going to different courts almost implies that there is a whole pyramid of different courts, of which the CAC is one level. Of course, there is judicial review which is costly to someone, either the taxpayer or the parties. I do not think it is the taxpayer but the parties who have to pay. The prima facie question is whether that route is in the spirit of the CAC, whether it is better or cheaper. I very much doubt it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I fully support what my noble friend Lord Lea has just said. For many years, I was a member of the CAC. It was a very informal process, not legalistic at all. In fact, representation by lawyers was actively discouraged by the chairman when I was a member. If one follows this kind of procedure one is erecting an enormously legalistic, expensive system giving the employer, who wants to be difficult, has plenty of money to spend and is perhaps hostile to a recognition claim, the opportunity to utilise a legalistic procedure that is not envisaged in the Bill. It would not help any of the parties concerned. I hope that my noble friend will not feel tempted by this amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies, I would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that I appreciate that both of them have far more knowledge of how the CAC works than I have or am ever likely to have, particularly as the noble Baroness has just said that she was a member of the CAC for many years. However, as I said when I moved my amendment, the CBI asked for something like this. It said that judicial review is very expensive and lengthy and that the Employment Appeals Tribunal might be quicker and less expensive. However, the Minister will be able to clarify that for us.
The other matter is that, when I spoke about the second part of the amendment, which is a probing provision, I used the words, "This amendment is one of concern to employers". That was put to me by another organisation that represents employers, the EEF. It is a matter of concern and, although listening to the two noble Lords it sounds as though it is not a problem, I believe that it is a problem. I shall be interested in what the Minister says on this point.
Lord Triesman: I hope that noble Lords will not feel that my response is inadequate because I have not been a member of the CAC. I was involved in a lot of the discussions that the trade unions and the big employers' organisations had before 1999. I was very familiar with the issues at the forefront of the minds of all those involved. By way of an introduction, I want to say that throughout most of those discussions, although there were, of course, issues upon which people did not agree, we found a very strong area of commonality in thought around three things.
The first was that, in dealing with industrial relations issues generally, it would excellent if we could have solutions that grew out of common sense and a process of discussion among the principal parties. It
GC 98
was felt that that was a very good part of the industrial relations tradition of the United Kingdom and would be particularly important for the CAC. Indeed, I can remember a number of colleagues on the employers' side of those discussions making the point, with which I wholly agreed, that the industrial tribunals—they became the employment tribunals—were also designed to work on that basis.
The second big factor, which my noble friend Lord Lea mentioned, was that everyone is trying to restrain themselves to reasonable costs in whatever they do. I was quite taken by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about small firms and the costs of expensive judicial processes, whether in judicial review or appearances at many of the other senior courts of the land. Those of us who had to try to live on relatively slim trade union budgets often had to gulp hard and wonder how we could manage in those circumstances. I think that everyone was very keen on keeping within the constraints of reasonable costs.
The third element—although distinct, it is very close to the first—is that, as everyone always seemed to emphasise, there are great advantages in not drifting accidentally into what I would describe as perhaps an American model where litigation is at the forefront, rather than the better option of the techniques of the industrial relations process. It was felt that people could get together and find a solution, which was not always possible under the more adversarial system which inevitably operates in the courts. That is the way in which lawyers argue with one another.
I hope that that was not too much of a digression. I was trying to describe how we set the scene which became for everyone, I believe, employers and employees alike, part of what I described in an earlier debate as the 1999 deal.
This amendment deals with two separate issues. The purpose of subsection (I), as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, is to establish a right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against any decision or action taken by the Central Arbitration Committee under the statutory recognition and de-recognition procedure. Currently, as we have all acknowledged, parties have the right to seek judicial review of any decision taken by the CAC under the statutory procedure. We believe that is sufficient and that the creation of an additional right to appeal to the EAT would be counter-productive. I hope that I will shortly be able to illustrate why I believe that that is so.
When the CAC considers an application, it needs to take into account a large number of decisions. Introducing additional rights of appeal against the individual decisions of the CAC would be very likely to cause long delays to the process, especially if proceedings could not continue until the appeal was determined. These delays would tend to favour employers at the expense of trade unions and also encourage exactly the sort of legal wrangling that, as I hope I have made clear, we are all seeking so hard to avoid.
It is also of vital importance to remember that the CAC is a specialist body that operates in a very specialised area. When it makes its decisions, it relies

GC 99
on its members applying their industrial relations expertise and experience, and long may that be so. That could not be matched by any appeal court, not even the EAT. In the Kwik-Fit judicial review, the High Court and the Court of Appeal concurred with that view. When the matter was debated in the other place, my honourable friend Gerry Sutcliffe quoted Mr Justice Elias of the High Court—I quote this because I think it is a way of summing it up—who said that,
"courts do not have the relevant expertise, nor is it desirable that these procedures should become a happy hunting ground for lawyers".
Although he may have been damaging the income of some members of his profession, the wisdom of his words sticks with me.
Parties feeling aggrieved about the manner in which the CAC has reached its decisions are currently able to challenge the decision through judicial review. I suppose that there is always an aggrieved party in a decision that goes one way or the other; people will feel that they should have had a certain decision. However, despite all of that, there have been only seven applications for judicial review. In only two of those was the CAC found to have acted improperly, although one case remains outstanding. I think that that suggests that the CAC has exercised its legal powers responsibly when they have been tested in the courts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made a fair point about whether the judicial review system properly reflects people's feelings about whether things are working well. I am inclined to the view that, on its own, it should not be the only test. The CAC has consistently conducted customer surveys among both the employer side and the union side. Those have shown a level of satisfaction with the work that is just a shade below 80 per cent. That would probably not be a bad customer survey outcome for any of us.
I think it right to ask the two questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also asked about the consistency of decisions, how they are reported and how people might know that there is consistency. The CAC members themselves—and I remember this from the way in which the CAC was set up—receive detailed training in their roles. They all operate with procedural guidance that the CAC has developed. We consider that that generally ensures consistency across the different panels and the way in which they process cases. We have lifted from the website—I promise that I will not read it—the very long document in which these procedures are set out. It comes very close to what one might regard as pretty specific codification and I think it no bad thing that that has happened.
5.45 p.m.
Should there be law reports? It is also true that on the CAC website there are full details of all the activities and cases. The amendment would not alter that; that would remain the case. At the moment we cannot legislate for the production of law reports in this area because they are produced by commercial
GC 100
bodies which I presume engage in the business if they regard it as a credible business activity and there is a gap in the market.
I apologise for the length of my reply but these are very substantive issues.
I turn to subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment. These provisions place a duty on the Secretary of State to promulgate rules of procedure. I have touched briefly on the issues of consistency and reporting. The Government have examined in considerable detail this question in our review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and concluded that it is not desirable to create procedural rules for the CAC's decision making under the statutory procedure. The CAC operates under a lengthy schedule that is enshrined in primary legislation. I am told—I have not counted it—that it is more than 27,000 words long, a little less than the length of a good-length novel.
The schedule sets out in detail how the CAC should deal with applications under the statutory procedure. It would not be appropriate for the CAC to be subject to a further layer of procedural rules as that would complicate the procedures further and be likely to make the decision-making process more rather than less confusing.
As I said, the CAC does not have the trappings of a conventional court with testimony under oath and so on; nor do the Government think it should. We are very confident that it operates a clear and rigorous process. The CAC currently produces excellent guidance for the parties which sets out its normal procedures so that the parties are clear about them and provides clear and relevant information about how and when their evidence will be used. It is an accessible and helpful document which I have read and, unlike some official documents, it is certainly clear. I believe it to be of far greater value to the parties than a complex and legalistic set of rules of procedure. The CAC has exercised its powers in this sensitive area appropriately. That is supported, as I said, by good evidence of customer satisfaction.
The Government are aware of concerns that new measures to outlaw unfair practices will become new areas of activity for the CAC, which will be called on to make decisions that are different in nature from those for which it is currently responsible. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the CAC is considering how best to approach those new functions under these provisions. Sir Michael Burton, chair of the CAC, has indicated his intention to review the CAC's procedures in the light of the Bill. I understand that the CAC secretariat intends to consult all key stakeholders in the coming months to ensure that their views can be expressed on these matters.
I was a bit surprised that the noble Baroness did not provide a role for Parliament in the amendment. As drafted, it would give great discretion to the Secretary of State to promulgate whatever rules she sees fit without regard for the views of any other party and without parliamentary scrutiny. I wonder whether that does not expose the statutory procedure to the risk that governments of different persuasions might seek to skew the procedure in favour of one side or another.
The Government are of the view that, given its considerable expertise and experience, it is far better to leave this matter in the hands of the independent body. As Sir Michael Burton himself is also the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he has both those points of view.
I have heard a bit from the CBI but much more from the EEF about concerns regarding details that it feels are not fully clear. The body has been pressed on the point, hut, apart from expressing a certain dissatisfaction, it did not tell us what happened, when it happened and what it felt went wrong. I feel that answers to those questions might carry us further.
The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to create procedural rules for the CAC's handling of applications under the statutory procedure, nor have we seen any evidence to suggest that the current approach is lacking in any way. Moreover, I believe that the amendment provides dangerous scope for elected politicians to interfere in the workings of an independent judicial body led by an eminent High Court judge without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that I have covered the matters properly rather than just at length. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord for his very comprehensive answer to the points I made. I should like to make a couple of comments before I almost certainly seek leave to withdraw the amendment; there is no question about that.
I shall have to read the Minister's reply very carefully because it was quite lengthy; by the time one reaches the end one is not absolutely sure about what was said at the beginning. However, I have tried to make a few notes. He said that I suggested that there should be a statutory right of appeal from the CAC in recognition and de-recognition cases. I made it clear that that applied only to matters of law and not to matters of fact. I was not going to suggest that, and that is not how I read it. I would not like him to think that everything should go that way because that is not the case at all.
The Minister's comments about judicial review also were interesting. I think he said that there have been only eight and that, although one case is outstanding, a mistake had been made in only two. Nevertheless, the CBI has made the case that there would have been many more cases had employers not found the costs prohibitive. So that does not necessarily mean that only eight people wanted a judicial review. They may simply have ultimately decided that it was best to let it go.
I was very interested to hear the Minister's comments about the 27,000 words already in the rules of procedure. When I was talking about the rules of civil practice, I was told that they comprised very many thousands of pages, never mind thousands of words. So I understand that there might be a problem.
GC 102
I thank the Minister again for the answer. As I said, I will read it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Information about employees to be balloted on industrial action]:
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 22, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
""(c) containing—

(i) the lists mentioned in subsection (2A) and the figures mentioned in subsection (2B), together with an explanation of how those figures were arrived at, or

(ii) where some or all of the employees concerned are employees from whose wages the employer makes deductions representing payments to the union, either those lists and figures and that explanation or the information mentioned in subsection (2BA).""

The noble Lord said: The Government's review of the 1999 Act concluded that the essential features of pre-1997 law on industrial relations should be retained. This body of law has become an accepted and workable feature of our employment relations system. However, some aspects of the law continue to trip unions up so that even where the unions meet the essential requirements of the law, they can still make technical mistakes that leave their action open to time-consuming and costly legal challenge. That cannot be right and it does not constitute good regulation.
Clauses 21 and 24 of the Bill have been included to simplify and clarify the provisions requiring unions to provide notices to employers in advance of industrial action ballots and in advance of any subsequent industrial action. Clause 21 relates to the ballot notice and Clause 24 relates to the notice of industrial action.
We propose amending these two clauses in very similar ways, though there are some minor differences. For the most part my introductory remarks apply equally to our proposed amendments. As I go through them, however, I should like to note the differences.
Let me outline the operation of the clauses as they stand. The clauses define the information that must be provided in the notices. The requirement is to provide two lists identifying the categories of workers involved and the workplaces involved. In addition, the notices must contain figures identifying the total number of workers involved, the number of workers in each category, and the number of workers at each workplace.
The clauses are based on the information a union can realistically be expected to provide to the employer. They remove the need to provide detailed matrices. But the union's duty is clear and the essential needs of the employer are met. No longer would unions be required to supply data of questionable accuracy and usefulness to employers.
Our proposals for the Clauses have been generally approved by unions and employers have not raised serious objections to them. However, it has been drawn to our attention that the new requirements could be improved on in an important respect if we made allowance for information to be given by reference to the established practice of deducting

GC 103
union subscriptions at source where that practice exists, because of the formality and accuracy of the records involved. This system, which we colloquially know as "check-off", remains widespread in this country, and covers many millions of workers. It is a common way of paying union subscriptions in large organisations—across the public sector trade unions, for example. In practical terms, the system involves the employer deducting the subscriptions from the wages of union members and then paying those moneys to the union. I shall not describe the whole process, as I suspect that it is well known.
It has been established through case law that unions can meet their current legal obligations by referring in notices to their members paying by this system. This arrangement has provided unions with a ready means of referring accurately to their members. It has also allowed employers easily to identify those individuals through their payroll systems. It is clear to us that Clauses 21 and 24, as currently worded, provide less scope to unions to refer to check-off information as a reasonable short-cut to meeting their legal obligations. That is regrettable and both employers and unions would lose as a result. Our intention, therefore, in tabling this group of amendments is to ensure that check-off information can he drawn upon by unions to meet, in whole or in part, their obligations.
In relation to ballot notices, the key changes which achieve these objectives are made by Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Their equivalents for industrial action notices are Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. 1 shall concentrate here on the first pair of amendments as the wording in the second pair is virtually identical.
Amendment No. 40 provides that notices may contain information other than the lists and figures specified in subsections (2A) and (2B) where some or all of the balloted employees pay their subscriptions by check-off. Amendment No. 41 then goes on at new subsection (2BA) to set the condition which other information must meet. Namely, the information must be such as would enable the employer "readily to deduce" for himself the same lists and figures. The only conceivable way in which a union could meet this condition is by referring to specific classes of employee who pay by check-off.
I have one or two examples to illustrate the point; if the Committee is dissatisfied with the explanation and would like worked examples, I could give them. However, it would not be reasonable to go through them if the generality of the point of using check-off as a sensible way in which to work is accepted by the Committee.
Finally, a union will be balloting some members who pay by check-off and, inevitably, other members who do not. In respect of the non-check-off employees, the union will always have to provide lists and figures relating to them. There is no movement away from that. I can give a quick example: 100 union members are to be balloted, 90 of which are workers whom the employer employs and who pay their union subscription by check-off. The 10 others are not; they may work in another place or another department.
The union meets the legal requirements if its notice states that it is balloting all those employees who pay subscriptions to the union by check-off, plus 10 others. Those 10 others belong to such and such a category and work at such and such a site.
6 p.m.
The amendments that I have not yet mentioned are simply consequential, although I could address them if it would be helpful. I wanted to describe the amendments because, although we want to lighten and make more flexible any parts of the regulatory burden, I do not want any noble Lord to feel that we have stepped aside from rigorous conditions to be met in the unfortunate circumstances where industrial action must be contemplated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 23, line 7, at end insert—
"(2BA) The information referred to in subsection (2)(c)(ii) is such information as will enable the employer readily to deduce—

(a) the total number of employees concerned,

(b) the categories of employee to which the employees concerned belong and the number of the employees concerned in each of those categories, and

(c) the workplaces of the employees concerned and the number of the employees concerned who work at cach of those workplaces."

Page 23, line 8, after "section" insert ", or the information mentioned in subsection (2BA) that is so supplied,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 23, line 17, at end insert ", or
(c) in the possession or under the control of a branch of the union or an official or representative of the union"
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 47 together. I have tabled them at the behest of the Engineering Employers Federation, which, I am told, has also voiced its concerns about the matter to the Government. They deal with an anomaly in the Bill, which 1 am sure is merely due to a misconception by the draftsman of the structure of some unions and also of the difference between a union officer and a union official.
Proposed subsection (2C) requires the union to supply such lists and figures as reasonably practical and which are in the possession of the union. The words "in the possession of the union" are defined in proposed subsection (2D) as being held by the union in a document, on a computer or in the possession of,
"an officer or employee of the union".
Unions are organised both centrally, with a head office or headquarters, and via local branches. A union officer is someone who occupies a position in the headquarters—the general secretary, the treasurer, the president, or whoever. The members who run the

GC 105
branches at the sharp end of the union's activities are not necessarily ex officio officers of the union. They are often volunteers, who are not paid and hence are not employees. On the other hand, unions, for very proper reasons, try to operate in a decentralised and local way whenever circumstances permit.
It is very likely that the sort of records of the lists and figures that must be supplied in accordance with subsection (2C) are not in the possession or control of an officer or paid employee of the union but are in the possession of a branch run by, say, an unpaid shop steward. It cannot be right that such information cannot be supplied to the CAC because, with the best will in the world, headquarters cannot get its hands on it.
In the case before the High Court of Willerby Holiday Homes v UCATT, the union unsuccessfully sought to excuse itself from providing information that was readily ascertainable from its local branch but which was not held in the union's head office.
Proposed new subsections (2C) and (2D) are nothing less than an attempt to reverse the very reasonable and proper decision of the High Court to prevent any union that might be minded to do so from hiding behind a specious subterfuge. That subterfuge is to pretend that information in the possession of a branch is not in the possession of the union.
I do not suggest before the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, or the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that that is what they would do. Nor do I suggest that every union branch, perhaps one confined to a single, very large workplace, would, for some nefarious reason, try to withhold the information, first from union headquarters and hence from the CAC.
But branches have been known to be at odds with their leaders. Branches may not have the facilities to comply with the requirements within the time limits, and, in common with some political parties, some branches like to guard their membership details from headquarters to preserve a degree of independence. This amendment removes that temptation from the unions and maintains the common sense decision of the High Court. It ensures even-handedness between unions and employers.
It would be intolerable for an employer to pretend that it could not comply with a proper request for information under the Act because the data was not held in its head office but in some local branch. Any such attempt would, quite rightly, be given short shrift by the CAC and the court. The same rules should apply to a union seeking recognition. I am amazed that the Government should seek to overturn an entirely reasonable decision of the court in that way. I wondered where that idea came from.
All the amendment does is to ensure that the pre-existing definition, as confirmed by the High Court, remains in force, and that a possible loophole to hinder the work of the CAC is not created. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I cannot see why the present wording is not acceptable to the noble Baroness. The clause refers to information,
"in the possession or under the control of an officer or employee of the union"
—in other words, people for whom the union is directly responsible. The noble Baroness's amendment refers to information,
"in the possession or under the control of a branch of the union or an official or representative of the union".
As the noble Baroness rightly said, a representative of a union could be a volunteer without necessarily having the appropriate authority and so on. The wording of her amendment does not help us at all; the Bill's wording seems absolutely appropriate. I cannot see why the noble Baroness wishes to amend it.
Lord McCarthy: I agree with that. I wonder whether the noble Baroness knows the view of the unions on that. I cannot think what incentive they would have in saying that they could not produce the information if that were not true. Nor can I think what incentive they would have in not giving names that they have. It would not make the ballot any easier for them to conduct. I do not know whether such a matter has ever caused any difficulty in a recognition ballot with the CAC; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lea, knows. I do not know why the Engineering Employers Federation did not go to the proper place to ask—not us, but the union.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the wording was suggested by the EEF, which is why I tabled the amendment. As I said quite early on, I tabled it at the behest of the Engineering Employers Federation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I did not go to the trade unions to sort out the matter, and I know not whether the EEF did. But the federation has been in conversation with the Government on the matter. Perhaps the Government in replying to me will be able to give the noble Lords who expressed concern the information that they sought. I know it not.
Lord Triesman: As I outlined when dealing with Clauses 21 and 24 on the law of pre-industrial action notices, the current law in this area has been shown to be too complicated. It places unrealistically high demands on unions and opens up the way for legal actions on what turn out to be relatively minor breaches of the law. Nobody condones a breach of the law whether it is major or minor, none the less the risk of running into a minor one, almost by misadventure, is quite great.
It is probably fair to say that there are huge variations in union structures. I know hardly any unions that have the same structure as another. There are hugely complex layers of responsibility between paid employees, those who have time off to assist the union and others who assist the union but do not have any time off. That includes the national structure and branch structures, which the noble Baroness

GC 107
mentioned, and often those at regional level and on a national level in Scotland and Wales. There is a huge variety of structures.
Having thought about it in some detail and after representations, the Government concluded that the provisions of the Bill must simplify the law without giving ground on the fundamental duties and responsibilities of unions. We have made it clear that a union needs to supply only the information that is in the possession of, or under the control of, union employees or officers of the union. Both those terms were chosen not least because they are clearly defined. We can see in each case who is responsible and we can define them in a way that allows all of the individuals in the process to understand who is responsible. The formulation ensures that unions are not under an obligation to assemble and present information held by their lay officials around the country.
The requirement is therefore confined to what the union can realistically be expected to assemble; namely, information held by, or accessible to, the officers and staff of the union. For a large union, this definition would cover information held at head office or by any of the regional or district offices and so on from which their full-time officers operate. That will often be a very large network.
Trying to impose the same kind of requirements on the lay officials of a union—to use the terms in exactly the same way as the noble Baroness used them—would, from the experience of all those who have run such an organisation, be an extremely difficult thing to do. In some areas, there are people who are quite exceptional and have time to work for the union, have some support around them and are capable of doing it. In other areas, unions will have people who are not of the same ability or do not have the same kind of logistical support—
Lord McCarthy: Or no-one.
Lord Triesman: I was not going to get on to the case where a union does not have anyone running a branch because that would make us all too upset and I would not want to distress everybody. However, there is vast variability in the quality of lay officials and in what they have available to them.
The amendments seek to widen considerably the information on which the union must draw when constructing these notices. As well as including information held by, or under the control of, the union's officers or employees, the union will also be required to draw on information held by other officials or lay representatives. The union would be required to contact its lay officials up and down the country who, in most cases, work on union business for a very limited part of their time and to extract from them any information that they might hold. For large unions, involved in large disputes, we would be talking about thousands of people.
Let me outline the severe limitations under which volunteer lay officials operate. For the most part, they will not have office equipment. They will work part time. They will spend just a few hours a week on union
GC 108
business. Their rights to paid time off for union business are limited, and have become more limited over the years, especially where a union is not recognised. Unsurprisingly, the ability to maintain accurate or up to date records varies from location to location. The ability to communicate that information to full-time union employees is also similarly varied in a way that it never is for the full-time officials, who can be instructed to do things and will have to deal with those instructions as being binding on them.
The formulation used in Clauses 21 and 24 is based on the reality of the information systems held in voluntary organisations. We should not frame the obligations on the basis of the circumstances in which employees of the union operate or the circumstances in which the employers operate. That is why there is.a duty on employers to disclose information in Clause 3, which is framed in a different way and is different in its scope.
From what she said, I think that the noble Baroness may be concerned that unions may try to evade the law by deliberately switching information to their branches or lay representatives in order not to be able to comply. Someone would then say that the union tried hard but could not comply. I wish to counter that point strongly.
Unions need good information in order to function efficiently. They need that information for many purposes such as communicating with their members, collecting subscriptions, reporting to the certification officer and being able to deal with any inquiry that the certification officer makes of them. It is not correct to suppose that unions will want to move information around to try to avoid meeting those provisions. I do not think that it is useful to amend the clause in that way.
6.15 p.m.
I have some difficulty with the amendments as regards clarity. They refer to "officials", for which a definition is provided in Section 119 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That definition refers to representatives elected or appointed in accordance with union rules. However, I am not clear what a "representative" means in the amendment, where it appears to be a separate category. It could include, for example, individuals who take it upon themselves to represent the union without express authority. I must say that I have run into a good many such individuals in my time.
Pre-industrial action notices should be based on information that a union can realistically be expected to provide for the employer where the obligations are absolutely clear. The definition of qualifying information is already broad and includes all the main data held by unions. The requirement in the Bill ensures that the essential needs of the employer are met without placing an unnecessary burden on unions and without resiling on the commitment to provide that information to the employer. The EEF may be unduly apprehensive in these circumstances, with a perhaps not entirely realistic view about what unions can do on the ground.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply; it was very helpful. I hope that the Minister did not think that I even thought that the head offices would transfer information to another branch and use that as an excuse for not producing the evidence or the information, not evidence, that was required. I cannot believe that the EEF would have thought that either. That is an unnecessary fear on the part of the Minister. I do not think that that is the reason.
I am grateful for the Minister's lengthy answer. It will enable the EEF to see what the Government feel about these matters before advising me accordingly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We oppose Clause 22. In Clause 22 the Government propose to amend Section 227(1) of the 1992 Act, which apparently has worked perfectly well for some 12 years, during which we have enjoyed considerable industrial peace as a result of the previous government's trade union legislation, which this Government are dismantling—only slice by slice, but it adds up in the end to quite a long sausage.
The insertion of the words "by the union", which this amendment proposes, narrows the scope of those whom the union must ballot about taking industrial action. I find it ironic that in a Bill where the Government are providing for a greater amount of consultation between employers and their workers, they are simultaneously providing for much less consultation with the workers between themselves.
Superficially, the proposal may seem to some, especially the unions that have promoted this clause, to have some sort of logical attraction. "Why", they doubtless ask, "should the union ballot those whom it does not ask to take part in industrial action?" That is a fairly straightforward question. I note that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, "Yes, that's right". I understand his point of view.
There are several equally logical answers for why they should. First, it is a fact of life that when a strike or go-slow takes place—and they are the usual forms of what is euphemistically called "industrial action"—woe betide any worker, even if he is not a member of the union, who crosses the picket line or works normally. He is quite often subjected to a degree of harassment, which often continues long after the original dispute is resolved. The enmities and bitterness engendered by the last coal miners' strike continue in some areas even today. If a worker is to suffer the consequences of being expected, if not coerced or feeling forced, to take part in industrial action, with those consequences including economic loss and possibly the risk of losing his job or his
GC 110
employer going out of business, the least he is entitled to expect is to be consulted and that his views might be taken into account.
In the case of RMT v Midland Mainline, the Court of Appeal said, in words that I have just more or less echoed:
"It is overwhelmingly probable that there will be some … who in the knowledge that their colleagues will expect them to take part in industrial action, will do so … In those circumstances it would not be reasonable for the union to believe that … all such unballoted members would not take part in the action. It therefore follows that such unballoted members should have been … accorded entitlement to vote".
I have précised it somewhat by leaving out a couple of words, but the meaning is the same. I am not sure whether the Court of Appeal meant to use the word "members" or "workers", but in either case the meaning and the principle involved are the same. It is obvious that if there are workers whom the union expects to go on strike, either as a matter of union discipline or because of what the union would call solidarity, all such persons must be balloted. That is what the current law of the land, as enunciated by the Court of Appeal, says. There is no reason to change it except for the fact, I presume, that the unions do not like it.
Lord McCarthy: I may be wrong, but thought that the words in Section 227(1) came from a much earlier trade union Act. This is a consolidation. In fact, I think that they came from an early Conservative government. The idea was that you wanted only the people whom the union wanted to be involved in the strike to have the ballot. Mr Tebbit was a suspicious man at that time. He thought that they might pack in all kinds of militants who would vote, but should not be entitled to vote because they did not have to go out on the stones. It would be only those people who were involved. I thought that these were old words that did not need to be changed, certainly not by representatives of the Conservative Party.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am afraid that I do not have the Act in front of me to see whether Section 227(1) came from that Act or an earlier one. Undoubtedly, the Minister will be able to say whether the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is right and I quoted it from the wrong Act. Again, this was on behalf of someone who gave me that information, and I put it into the text of my amendment.
Lord Triesman: I sometimes feel in these debates that history plays strange tricks on us. I have a feeling that this is one such occasion, for exactly the reasons that my noble friend Lord McCarthy has just given. When the Conservative legislation on trade unions came through in its sequence of Bills and Acts, there was a strong belief that unions would try to define the people who were taking part in industrial action with sufficient breadth to ensure that the vote for industrial action was certain to be achieved. If you could define a significant number of people who you may in fact never call on to take industrial action, but who were known to be pretty tough and committed to industrial

GC 111
action, you would get the right poll result, and that would lead to the industrial action that you were seeking to take.
On the other hand, it would scarcely be a fair or truthful reflection of the group of workers who were to be called on to take the action. I have a feeling that the Engineering Employers Federation, or whoever else, may now feel that there is a need to stand that history on its head. My own view, for what it is worth, is that in our legislation we should ask trade unions only to ballot those who really believe that taking action is the right thing to do, since they are the people on whom the burden would fall.
Section 227 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 defines those individuals to whom the union must give an entitlement to vote in an industrial action ballot. Currently the section requires unions to ballot those members,
"who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will he induced to take part … in the industrial action in question".?
Until 2001 the accepted interpretation of the section was that the entitlement to vote applied to those who were likely to be induced "by the union". Those words were in the Act, and are also a quotation. However, the phrase from the Act, "will be induced", has been shown, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly pointed out, in the case of RMT v Midland Mainline [2001] to be unclear. The noble Baroness pointed to a lack of clarity that exists between the original intention and the outcome of that case.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal considered that the phrase related to any union member who might take part in the action, even though they had not been induced to do so by the union. In other words, the union had a rather serious dilemma on its hands, in that it had to predict how members whom it had no intention of inducing to take industrial action might act, if a strike were to be called among a group of people whom it did wish to induce to take action. Problems might arise; for example, if an individual were induced to take action by a colleague or took action of his own volition. A group of people might feel, as the noble Baroness accurately put it, some sense of solidarity that induced them of their own volition to take the action.
The very varied circumstances described in what we have just been discussing are ones in which the union would be required by statute to ballot an individual, if that individual suddenly decided that he wanted to take action in solidarity, when it reasonably believed that by calling the action it might prompt the individual to take part. Clearly, it is difficult to foresee how that would ever be possible; I suspect that it would generally he impossible. Unions would find it very hard to forecast the possible reactions of the members that it does not induce with any accuracy. A consequence might be an overreach in trying to get lots of people to ballot on an industrial action who had no intention of taking it and who would never ask to take it, and getting a very distorted result in favour of industrial action, when the group that the union
GC 112
wished to take industrial action might not wish to do so. We would find ourselves trapped by those circumstances.
In the view of this Government, requiring unions to predict an outcome over which they have no control is unnecessary. Therefore, Clause 22 amends the provisions relating to entitlement to vote in an industrial action ballot and clarifies that the entitlement to vote applies to those who are likely to be induced "by the union". I want to be clear about this matter because the changes from the 1992 Act are central to what is being discussed. The words "by the union" are not found in the 1992 Act. I hope that I have not mistakenly given the impression that they were; they need to be inserted by the Bill, which is the burden of the point that I am trying to make.
This clause removes ambiguity in Section 227 by placing a reasonable requirement on unions and improving the way the law reads. I hope that the Committee feels able to support Clause 22 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Information about employees to he contained in notice of industrial action]:
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendments Nos. 44 to 46:
Page 24, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
""(a) contains—

(i) the lists mentioned in subsection (3A) and the figures mentioned in subsection (3B), together with an explanation of how those figures were arrived at, or

(ii) where some or all of the affected employees are employees from whose wages the employer makes deductions representing payments to the union, either those lists and figures and that explanation or the information mentioned in subsection (3BA), and":"

Page 24, line 29, at end insert—
"(3BA) The information referred to in subsection 3)(a)(ii) is such information as will enable the employer readily to deduce—

(a) the total number of the affected employees,

(b) the categories of employee to which the affected employees belong and the number of the affected employees in each of those categories, and

(c) the workplaces of the affected employees and the number of the affected employees who work at each of those workplaces."

Page 24, line 30, after "section" insert ", or the information mentioned in subsection (3BA) that is so supplied,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 24, line 43, leave out from first "a" to end of line and insert "notified category of employee and his workplace is a notified
workplace"."
Page 25, line 1, at end insert—
""( ) In subsection (5)—

(a) a "notified category of employee" means—

(i) a category of employee that is listed in the notice, or

(ii) where the notice contains the information mentioned in subsection (3BA), a category of employee that the employer (at the time he receives

GC 113
the notice) can readily deduce from the notice is a category of employee to which some or all of the affected employees belong, and

(b) a "notified workplace" means—

(i) a workplace that is listed in the notice, or

(ii) where the notice contains the information mentioned in subsection (3BA), a workplace that the employer (at the time he receives the notice) can readily deduce from the notice is the workplace of some or all of the affected employees."

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 25 [Dismissal where employees taking protected industrial action locked out]:
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 25, line 21, leave out "eight" and insert "twelve"
The noble Lord said: We return to the question of industrial action and protected action, which, I am afraid, is at the cost of taking a little longer than I would want. I have to tell a rather long story because there is an historical context, which begins in 1992 with Mr Tebbit's trade union Act and his celebrated provision that came to be called the "frightener clause". Section 229(4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 says:
"If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment".
I shall not go into why that went into the Act, but it did. It crystallised and specified a situation that had always been the case. Mr Tebbit said that. Indeed, the overwhelming number of workers who went on strike in the past usually did—how could they otherwise?—break their contract of employment.
However, it was not really appreciated that that was the case. The clause did not act as a frightener or a disincentive. From time to time, employers have felt that it was in their interests to dismiss people—or, perhaps, some people but not others—on the grounds that they were breaking their contract of employment. If that was thought to be a very likely event, the customary solution was that the last thing that the union did before it returned to work, as part of the settlement, was to ask for a no-victimisation arrangement. But that only happened sometimes.
The decision by the Conservative government to put in what was called the frightener clause has had a number of consequences. Apart from anything else, it has led to the current difficulty of trying to find some way of allowing industrial action to continue, given the frightener clause. Of course, if you do not want industrial action and you think that it is always wrong, you will not be interested in anything that might be done.
As I said, three things happened. First, the measure helped undoubtedly to discourage strike action. It had to be put into contracts of employment, so the employers had no alternative. Secondly, in some cases, it stimulated more militant action than would otherwise have been the case. Most importantly, it wrote repeal on to the TUC's agenda. There was not
GC 114
much hope that the TUC would get anything done about that in the days when there was a Conservative government—that is what they put in the Bill.
During that period, the difficulty was that the continental doctrine of suspension was discovered. They discovered that in other countries there is no problem because, every time you go on strike, your contract is suspended and it goes on the shelf. I am simplifying, but so far as the law is concerned one could strike for ever because the contract is suspended. What brings people back to work is the money that they are losing, rather than the threat of dismissal.
Undoubtedly, it was going to be the case that if a Conservative government was defeated in an election and a Labour government returned the question of what to do about the frightener clause would arise. We have been talking for the past two days in Committee about the settlement, the balance, the arrangement, the negotiation, the fudge or whatever it was that the Labour Government had to construct between the CBI and the TUC when they came back into power in 1997. What to do about the frightener clause was one of the central issues.
The frightener clause is still there; it never was repealed. It was given a period of eight weeks during which the striker was protected—he could not be dismissed during the eight-week period of protection. But the parties had to make reasonable attempts to settle. That worked for a while or worked imperfectly for a while.
With this amendment, I am arguing that that is not a satisfactory long-term solution. In previous employment debates, my noble friend Lady Turner and I have argued that we should accept what happens in every other civilised country; namely, that we should have the doctrine of suspension. It could be argued that this Government have signed international agreements that embody the doctrine of suspension but that they do not carry it out.
We are trying to do something much more modest than that. There have been a number of notorious cases in which employers have deliberately filibustered through the eight weeks. They have refused to negotiate until the end of the eight weeks when they have dismissed the workers. In this Bill, something is being done to try to do something about that: something was done before and something is being done in this Bill. But I put it to the Committee that on looking at the Bill it is very difficult to see precisely what is being done to improve the situation.
The best explanation is in the Explanatory Notes, which I know are not legally enforceable. There are two pages of Explanatory Notes. If the matter goes to a tribunal, it would have to consider how far the parties have accepted that the services of a conciliator and a mediator will be used. It would have to consider whether meetings have been held on behalf of the employer, and so it goes on. One wonders whether it would be settled within the eight weeks.
The real weakness is that there can still be prevarication. We do not suggest that if there is another four weeks added to the eight weeks that

GC 115
prevarication would be at an end, but it would, at least, give some opportunity for the workers to have a little longer. Some people may think that this would result in a significant increase in industrial action, but we can comfort ourselves by looking at recent strike statistics produced by the Government. In a year when there were very few strikes, last year there were only two strikes that lasted long enough to be affected by this legislation. Nevertheless, it would be a modest way forward to adjust the balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is a matter of some importance to trade unions and their members. We are referring to what happens where there has been legitimate industrial action within the procedures laid down in legislation. Currently, employees who are engaged in such action where the necessary procedures of ballots and so forth have been complied with they have a protected period of eight weeks during which time they cannot be dismissed.
That period of eight weeks is not long enough. If all the processes have been gone through, we do not really see why there should be a protected period at all and why there should not be protection for the whole period of industrial action. Since the Government have committed themselves to supporting ILO conventions that provide for the right of workers to withdraw labour, we do not see why there has to be any arrangement under which an employer can dismiss while action that has already had the support of existing legislation is continuing.
As my noble friend pointed out, there is nothing to prevent an employer prevaricating—it has happened—and deliberately prolonging a dispute beyond the eight-week period so that he can utilise that period in order to get rid of people that he wants to get rid of. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
As my noble friend has indicated, we are prepared to press for a rather modest amendment. We seek to extend the eight-week protected period to twelve weeks in order to make it just that bit more difficult for an employer to mess about and generally prevaricate so that he can get rid of a few people that he wants to get rid of. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look with some favour on this modest attempt to amend the existing legislation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall listen with particular interest to the Minister, which I hope that he will not accept. Before I say why I think that, I should like to make one general comment. The legislation introduced by my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the Conservative government considerably reduced the amount of strikes over a period. I agree that industrial relations are much happier now than they were then.
It may be that I am just ignorant of these things, but I have never heard of the frightener clause. I should be interested to know whether that word was used by the trade unions or whether my noble friend Lord Tebbit called it a frightener clause. I certainly have never heard that expression before.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, this amendment would simply extend the period for which a striker is protected from dismissal from eight weeks
GC 116
to twelve weeks. I believe that eight weeks is long enough. It is long enough to concentrate the minds of both parties on settling. We could just go on and on with lengthening the time. In fact, the noble Baroness has said that she is not sure that twelve weeks would be enough. She does not know why there should be any limit.
Today, in general terms, there has been an extension by the addition of the lock-out period to the protected period. Sometimes it is quite a long time before the matter is resolved. I think that the quicker that these matters are resolved, the better it is for both sides who are involved in the dispute.
Lord Triesman: It is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee for taking lawfully organised, official industrial action during the first eight weeks of that action or subsequently where the employee ceased taking industrial action within the eight-week period. For the sake of clarity, the amendment seeks to extend that period from eight to 12 weeks.
This issue has been debated many times both during our consideration of this Bill and the passage of the Employment Relations Bill 1999. The issue was looked at in detail during the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999: it is right that it should have been looked at in detail and reviewed. One of two cases made it extremely important that that review took place.
The Government take the position that it is necessary to put a time limit on the period during which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone for taking industrial action. We need to take into account the legitimate interests of the employer as well as those of union members. We also want to encourage the early resolution of disputes. That is the purpose of much of the effort.
I should add that other protections extend beyond the eight-week period. Most notably, it is unfair for the employer to dismiss an employee at any time for taking protected industrial action if the employer has not taken reasonable procedural steps to resolve the dispute with the union. That unlimited protection is very important and unfortunately receives very little attention. It is hardly ever discussed because I think that the unions and others tend to focus on the simpler, numerical aspects of the protective regime.
After the consultation of the Government, in the judgment of the Government, eight weeks remains a fair period. The eight-week protections cover the vast bulk of industrial action.
6.45 p.m.
Analyses by the Office of National Statistics suggest that over a three-year period 93 per cent of strikes lasted less than eight weeks. If the period were extended to 12 weeks that proportion would not increase noticeably but the dispute would become more protracted and a scenario in which all parties would be likely to suffer.
I should also add that there are measures in this Bill that strengthen the protections introduced in the 1999 Act. They do so in a targeted way, which resolves problems that have arisen in practice. One case which has been brought under this legislation has been at the forefront of thinking; namely, Friction Dynamics in which the employees concerned won their case. It is extremely important and has stirred a great deal of quite understandable passion.
In that case an extension of the protected period from eight to 12 weeks would not have helped in any sense the resolution of the dispute. The employer had already determined his position and the course of action to take however long it would have taken. Probably, most Members of your Lordships' House would express sympathy to those who were involved in that dispute. As I say, the increase from eight to 12 weeks sadly would not have made any difference to the outcome.
The Government chose eight weeks for the protected period and at that time determined to keep its operation under review. As I have explained, the review concluded that this provision is working adequately. Extending the protection to 12 weeks might mean that disputes would become unnecessarily protracted. Furthermore, because the eight-week period is intended to cover the bulk of cases, the proposed amendment would only afford further protection—if, indeed, it affords protection—to a very small percentage of employees.
A point has been made in relation to 40 per cent or 21 workers or to any of the numeral thresholds of which this is another. There is always something that is potentially relatively arbitrary about a figure that is hit on in the first instance. I suppose that all of us who have concluded agreements—whether as someone who has concluded agreements with trade unions as an employer or with employers as a trade union—arrive at a figure for a pay settlement or for other arrangement that is not exactly what either side want. The figure lies somewhere between the two.
Someone could say, "Is there an absolute and precise logic for that figure compared with a figure that is slightly wide of that in either direction". But the truth remains that it is an agreement. That is how the figure has been arrived at and that is why its durability is of some importance if it can be shown that it has not caused reversals of a kind that were never intended by the figure in the first place. On that basis, I ask my noble friends to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: First, I shall deal with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. I never said that Mr Tebbit had called the clause the frightener clause. He had a much more elevated way of describing it. I said that that is what the trade unions called it—the frightener clause. It frightened people, which it was bound to do. I would not go so far as to say that that never crossed the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He said—he had a case—that people had a right to know. In fact, he did not make it as specific as he might have done. He said, "You might breach your
GC 118
contract of employment". But it is stronger than that—you almost certainly do. It was the trade unions that called it the frightener clause.
Perhaps I may now turn to what the Government are saying. I do not believe—I am not certain that the Government are convinced—that anything terrible would happen if we changed the law to what we are suggesting. As the Minister said, it would affect very few people. I quoted the evidence from a recent government publication on last year's strike statistics, which are the lowest since the war. It is not the lowest since the beginning of strike statistics, but it is a very long time. Our strike figures are very low.
Most strikes do not last as long as the protection period, so it will not make much difference. It is not really credible to make our flesh creep while saying all that, and then saying, "Well people will make strikes last longer". If strikes last for the length of the period, they are very unusual strikes. Most people who know anything about strikes know that if one does not win in the first fortnight, one will not win at all. In fact, if one is really going to win, one will win in the first 24 hours because people will be on the phone. I do not know of a strike that has been won after all that time. But people sometimes want to feel that they are sticking it out. Lots of people go back to work, other people never come out in the first place, but some people feel very deeply and they loose a very considerable amount of money but they want to stay out and they do. In the end, of course, they either get another job or they get the sack.
All we are saying is that this would be something that would make some recompense for people who are sticking it out on strike. It would not make it impossible for employers to prevaricate for seven weeks. One cannot make it impossible for employers to prevaricate but some might prevaricate a bit less.
Finally, the noble Baroness has said that we are signatory to international obligations that say that we should do something better than this. But we must point to the fact that in many countries, particularly in Europe, there is a very effective suspension system and it does not lead to anything dreadful. It does not lead to anything dreadful because the reason why people return to work is either because they know that they cannot win or because they are losing so much money. So we are only asking for something that operates in many other countries. I find that continental trade unionists cannot understand why we have not had it for about 50 years. We have not had it and we did not do it when there was a possibility of doing it because nobody really appreciated that when one went on strike one broke one's contract. It was not a live issue. What the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, did was to make people conscious that that was the law. We are trying to mitigate that just a little bit but I am not going to get anywhere tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert—
"(7E) For the purposes of this section, an employee shall not be deemed to have been locked out if his employer shall have suspended him for refusing or failing to work wholly or in part in accordance with the terms of his contract.""
The noble Baroness said: Clause 25, which was originally Clause 21 in the Bill as introduced in the other place, was generally welcomed on both sides as remedying what was perceived as an injustice in the decision in the case that the Minister has already mentioned, Davis v Friction Dynamics.
It extends the period in which a worker cannot be dismissed during a strike from the present eight weeks by adding any period during which the worker is locked out by his employer. "Locked out" are two words inextricably mixed up in the more pejorative lexicography of industrial relations. Indeed, there have been occasions when negotiations to resolve the substance of a dispute have been side-tracked by the issue of whether there was a strike or a lock out. For example, an employee, or a group of employees, refuses to adopt a new method of working, or to operate a new machine, so the employer sends them home. Are they on strike, or have they been locked out? Perhaps it is a bit like the definition of an elephant: it is something that everyone can recognise when they see it, but it is impossible to describe it accurately.
I quote from a leading textbook, Harvey's Industrial Relations and Employment Law:
"The meaning of these concepts"—
that is "strike" and "lock out",
"has given rise to some difficulty".
The textbook points to the problem that arose as to whether the definition of the words to be found in Section 246 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should also be incorporated into Section 238.
It appears that different divisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal took opposing views on this subject. As an aside, these differences underline the point that I made when speaking to my amendment to Clause 20 when I pointed out the need for consistency in these quasi-judicial proceedings. So confusing was this issue, at least for the purposes of the 1992 Act that in one case Lord Justice Eveleigh, a judge of the Court of Appeal, said that he thought:
"It would be strange if a strike for the purposes of Section 238 was something different from a strike for the purposes of the 13th schedule"
In the course of the passage of the Bill through the other place, the Government failed to make use of the legislative time available to solve the problem by proposing a clear and unequivocal definition, if only for the purposes of this new clause. The Minister said that he thought that he hoped that the courts would supply a suitable definition in time. I have good news for the Minister: the courts have given a definition. In a differently constituted Court of Appeal, in the case of Express and Star Ltd v Bunday, the court held that
GC 120
in each case it is a question of fact whether there was a strike or a lockout. That was the learned judge's attempt to describe an elephant, I suppose. Lord Justice Glidewell said:
"What is material is that in my view the ordinary meaning of lock-out comprehends not merely the act of the employer in refusing to allow his employees to work, but the reason why he so refuses".
The learned judge went on to give the example of a manufacturer faced with employees who refused to work normally on an urgent order unless paid at double the normal rate. He said that in such a case, if the workers were suspended, the employer could not be regarded as having locked them out. That is where the definition contained in this amendment comes from. It incorporates Lord Justice Glidewell's definition.
At the meeting that the Minister was courteous enough to have with me after the Second Reading, I drew his attention, and that of his advisers, to Lord Justice Glidewell's ruling and definition. I hope they have taken the time to consider it very carefully. In the absence of an alternative equally clear definition by the Government, I hope they will accept the clear, unambiguous one that I have proposed.
What is not an option is for the meaning of this phrase, which has been given even more importance by the extension of the eight-week period created by this Bill, to continue in the uncertain state it is in at the moment, with one Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling one way, and another ruling the other way, and with the Court of Appeal also finding great difficulty in giving a dear definition of the legal principles, in clear unambiguous legal terms.
It is Parliament's duty to make the law, and for the judges merely to interpret it. Parliament, or in this case the Government, cannot abdicate that responsibility, and simply leave it to the opinion of the judges to decide such an important issue—perhaps not even consistently from case to case. In the hope that the Government will grasp the nettle, I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: May I ask the noble Baroness two questions? Her amendment says:
"For the purposes of this section, an employee shall not be deemed to have been locked out if his employer shall have suspended him."
That is a distinction from "dismissed him"; we are not saying that he was dismissed but that he was suspended. But of course he is not working, so he is losing money; he is suspended; he is in limbo. The employer suspends the employee—says, "Don't come in tomorrow". But all he has done, it is said, is to refuse or failed,
"to work wholly or in part in accordance with the terms of his contract".
My next question is, does that happen within the protected period? If it does, the employee cannot be dismissed, can he? The distinction is whether he can be suspended. If he cannot be dismissed, why can he be suspended? Surely if he cannot be dismissed but he is

GC 121
suspended, in a sense the employee is subject to a lock-out, because the employer is refusing to allow him to work. He has committed no offence—he is acting perfectly lawfully—so is that not a lock-out?
7 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Those are the words I have. The entire definition came from the decision by Lord Justice Glidewell in the case I referred to earlier. I used it simply as an example of what I thought, and the definition in the amendment comes from that by incorporating Lord Justice Glidewell's definition. It is not only the one covering an employer refusing to allow his employees to work, but also the reasons why he does so. Obviously, that is what would happen in this particular case. You cannot suspend someone for no reason.
As I said when introducing the amendment, to give the reason is like trying to describe exactly what it is: you know it only when you see it. I gave what I thought was a fair example that if a rush order suddenly came in and the employer said to the employee, "I would like you to help me put this through", because part of the employee's contract was to do that work, but the employee refused, if he was then suspended, it would be appropriate for the reason to be taken into account.
I do not know if that answers the point put to me by the noble Lord.
Baroness Turner of Camden: That seems a bit odd. Any industrial action involves a breach of contract. If you take industrial action and refuse to work, you are in breach of your contract. This would appear to give the employer an opportunity to impose a lock-out but to call it a suspension.
Lord McCarthy: That is right.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The lock-out would operate, although the employer would have said, "You cannot come into work, but we are not locking you out. This is a suspension". I see no difference because the individual would have breached the contract of employment presumably in order to take part in industrial action during the protected period, but because the employer called it a suspension, it would not be a lock-out within the terms of the Bill. I cannot understand that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness has made her point, as has the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. If it is necessary for me to look again at the wording, I shall do so. However, no doubt the Minister will have something to say.
Lord Triesman: The 1999 Act introduced landmark new protections for employees taking "protected industrial action"; that is, official industrial action that is lawfully organised. Generally speaking, the new protections have worked well, but there are some areas where we think they could be improved, drawing on experience in the case of Friction Dynamics. That case showed that an employer might be tempted to instigate
GC 122
a lock-out after the action has begun and thereby negate the protections. In such circumstances, the employer's intention is to sit out the eight-week period and dismiss the employees as soon as it has ended. That is certainly against one of our policy intentions, which is that the eight-week period should encourage a negotiated return to normal working. Lock-outs usually ratchet up the tension in disputes and can often make it more difficult to resolve the underlying issues.
Clause 25 addresses this by stipulating that lock-out days do not count towards the protected period during which it is automatically unfair to dismiss. So, where lock-outs are not used, the protected period lasts eight weeks, or 56 days. But where, for example, the employer locks out the employees for the first two calendar weeks of the industrial action, then the period during which it is automatically unfair to dismiss would be extended by 14 days. In other words, it would end 70 days after the action had begun.
Our industrial action law, which is brought together in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, has referred to "lock-outs" for many years. However, the 1992 Act and its immediate predecessors have never included a definition of a lock-out. The interesting question is whether that was an omission because people could not describe the elephant or whether it was deliberate. However, when going back over the history, it is quite clear to me that it was deliberate. Historically, lock-outs take place against varied backgrounds and in widely different circumstances. We, along with earlier governments of both parties, have thought it best to leave it to the tribunals and courts to decide whether a lock-out has occurred, basing their judgments on the facts of each case. So we have followed this accepted approach and have not included a definition of a lock-out in the Bill.
The absence of a definition has not presented difficulties for the courts or others. The Court of Appeal decision in Express & Star v Bunday, to which reference has already been made, is a key case in understanding the legal position on lock-outs. I too want to quote from the judgment, but from another of the judges concerned, Lord Justice May. He said that,
"each of these cases must be decided on its own facts and merits and … I have no doubt that the best appreciation of what is or is not a strike or lock-out will come from either an Industrial Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, highly experienced in these matters as these bodies respectively are. Indeed, I have little doubt that the draftsman omitted any specific definition of a strike or a lock-out because it is difficult, if not impossible, to draft a definition which is likely to fit every case and because it was going to be experts who would have to decide whether one or the other of these states of affairs had occurred".
I am deeply sensitive to the notion that two non-lawyers in this case may end up juxtaposing Lord Justice Glidewell and Lord Justice May.
We see here that the absence of a precise definition causes concern in some quarters, but the lesson of the remarks made by Lord Justice May is that any definition is likely to create more problems than it resolves. We know that that is the case because it is so hard, as has been said, to describe the elephant. That point was very fairly made.

GC 123
It has been put to me that Lord Justice Glidewell did not define the term "lock-out". He gave an example of a case in which he did not think there was a lock-out, and which the noble Baroness has described, and her amendment extrapolates from that example.
I think that Amendment No. 51 illustrates the dilemma very well. It seeks to define certain behaviours that do not fall within the meaning of a lock-out for these purposes, but it does so in ways which are likely to narrow the meaning of a lock-out much too far. The amendment states that the suspension of an employee,
"for refusing or failing to work wholly or in part in accordance with the terms of his contract",
does not constitute a lock-out. But in taking any industrial action, there is almost always a breach of contract. I would go so far as to say that it would be extremely rare for there to be no breach of contract. A lock-out is usually an act that the employer contemplates only in response to industrial action or because it is likely to take place. In most cases, therefore, this amendment would permit the employer to suspend a person indefinitely for taking or proposing to take industrial action while the eight-week period continued to run. Apart from the fact that this was more or less what happened at Friction Dynamics, the amendment renders the amendments proposed in the Bill almost, if not entirely, ineffective.
The Government therefore cannot accept this wording as it would encourage retaliatory behaviour in the form of lock-outs against those who are taking protected industrial action. With respect, my noble friends sought to illustrate that point in the questions that they rightly asked. It would provide an easy escape mechanism for a ruthless employer to dislodge the protections, and it would substantially undermine the very purpose of Clause 25. From what the noble Baroness said, I do not believe that that was her intention in raising the issue.
This amendment seeks to establish hard and fast rules in an area where, regrettably, such rules cannot be fairly applied. We need to leave space for tribunals to exercise their expert judgment, taking into account all the difficult issues they have to face. I therefore strongly urge the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In section 221(2) of the 1992 Act (restrictions on grant of injunctions and interdicts) for all the words after paragraph (b) to the end substitute "the court shall, in exercising its discretion, not grant an injunction if the applicant has not shown that he is likely to succeed at the trial of the action"."
The noble Baroness said: I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is not here today to move this amendment because it is the kind of issue that he would be rather keen on. I know that he has strong feelings about it.
The intention of the amendment is to provide that an injunction should not be granted against a union unless the employer can show that he would be likely to succeed if the case went to a full court hearing. The reason for that is that from time to time injunctions have been sought and obtained against unions even when a threatened dispute was being conducted in accordance with the full requirements of the law. Nevertheless, the courts occasionally grant injunctions. The effect of that is to interfere with the right to conduct effective industrial action. As anyone who has had to run an industrial dispute knows, timing is often crucial. The delaying effect of an injunction, even though when the case is heard in full in the court it is lost because the union has followed the correct procedures, is serious.
I understand that there have been several unsuccessful attempts to change the law in this direction since it is manifestly unfair to unions. If the injunction is granted but not complied with, the union is obviously in contempt of court and could be fined. Eventually that may take the path that leads to the sequestration of assets and so forth.
I hope that, on this occasion, the Government may be prepared to consider what we are saying sympathetically. The law is not even-handed between employers and unions in this respect. Until it is, the positive right to take industrial action in accordance with the provisions of the ILO conventions which our Government support, and which we in the trade union movement have always supported, should be protected. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to be sympathetic to this amendment. I am sure that he knows all about it because it is not the first time that this subject has been raised. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sure that the noble Baroness is correct to say that this is exactly the sort of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, would have moved had he been able to be with us today. I believe that he is not very well. I hope that he is making a good recovery and that in due course we shall see him moving amendments and so forth in his customary way.
I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness and I wish to put a brief question to her. Am I right in understanding that the court already has the power under civil practice rules not to grant an interim injunction if it does not think it reasonable to do so? If that is the position, I can say only that perhaps the amendment is not necessary.
Lord McCarthy: No, unfortunately that is not the position. Although it has not been brought out into the open, we are dealing here with the effect of the American Cyanamid v Ethicon case. That was not a case in the field of industrial relations, but in the commercial field. Essentially, before that ruling, it was not possible to impose an interim injunction unless a number of things could be established, most important of which was that there had been some wrongful act. Therefore if the American Cyanamid case had not

GC 125
been brought, so long as someone acted within the protected period of around eight weeks, they would not be liable to an injunction.
The worry is that, because of the way common law works, that case has naturally been transferred over into industrial relations law, so that now someone only has to have a serious case to consider, and the process then starts. That does not mean that if the court decides to consider the case that the injunction will be granted. The noble Baroness is quite right: it could decide against. But we are concerned about the basis on which it could decide to impose an injunction.
No one can deny that an interim injunction is effective because the penalties that follow on defiance of an interim injunction are horrendous. On the other hand, an injunction is no real problem because it will take a long time to get there; there will be further and better particulars, which will go on and on; meanwhile the strike will go on.
7.15 p.m.
However, there have been industrial relations cases where employers have applied for an interim injunction and it has been granted over the weekend. Once you get the first trip into consideration, as a result of the Ethicon case, then all the court must consider is whether the damage to the employer will be worse than the damage to the union. If the court decides—there have been such cases—that the damage to the employer is horrendous, immeasurable or horrific, whereas the damage to the union is negligible, it will grant the injunction.
It is not easy, but it is not too difficult, for an employer to produce evidence to show that a particular strike at a particular time will have very substantial consequences in terms of lost revenue, disruption and impact on the general viability of the firm. That can all be added up and a conclusion reached; it looks very impressive. But if the union can be subject to an interim injunction, even if it has obeyed the law, it will be very difficult for it to make or sustain the argument that putting off the strike compares with the easily calculable costs of the immediate strike to the employer. Therefore, they will almost always lose. The union will be talking about intangibles, saying that the dispute has been going on for a long time; that they have had a ballot; that they have done all kinds of other things to obey the law; and now they will have a strike. They may even be on strike and the strike may be winning or at least looking solid. But it will suddenly be called off indefinitely until the injunction comes to be heard in the normal process. It is the end of the strike. From the union's point of view, the strike has been destroyed by the granting of an interim injunction over the weekend.
Once again, that does not happen in other countries and they seem to manage it. So we ask the Government to consider, not going back to the pre-Ethicon formula, but something rather less definite, precise and significant. We ask merely that lawyers look at the evidence and decide whether they are likely to succeed
GC 126
if a trial went forward. Lawyers can look at the evidence one way or the other; all we suggest is that they do not act quite so automatically.
Lord Triesman: This amendment seeks to change the matters to which the courts are to have regard when deciding whether or nor to grant an injunction against a proposed industrial action. I wholly accept that injunctions can have a critical impact on the progress of a dispute, that timing is fundamental and the stakes high for both parties. The union stands to lose the impetus in its handling of the dispute if the injunction is granted and the employer's business will be disrupted if the industrial action goes ahead. In the midst of all that it is important, therefore, that the arrangements concerning such injunctions are fair and reasonable.
This amendment seeks to bring about a significant change in industrial action law. My noble friends would like to see various other far-reaching changes to the law in this area. I acknowledge that this is certainly as far reaching as any of those other changes. However, on taking office in 1997, we said that we would retain the key features of the law on industrial action. We reiterated that commitment during last year's review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Government consider the main features of the current law to be workable and that unions have, by and large, successfully adapted to them.
We have taken steps, however, to simplify and clarify aspects of the law. I do not think that we are slicing it away, as has been suggested; I hope none the less that we are clarifying it. Our proposals on industrial action notices fall into this category. As a result, there should be less scope for unions to fall foul of the law through minor, technical slips. That can easily happen, and it can be extremely aggravating. It should be easier for unions to show that their proposed line of action is lawful and, accordingly, that the statutory immunities apply.
When contemplating a request for an injunction, the court must look at the likelihood of a union establishing that it would have the protection of the law if the case should reach a full hearing. The amendment seeks to transfer this responsibility to demonstrate likely success to the employer or other claimant. This would be a retrograde step. The union is, of course, in a better position to know what has actually occurred; it is its actions, or failures to act, that are at issue. Therefore it should have the information at its disposal to show where the facts of the case lie and to argue, in the light of those facts, however complicated, how it complied with the law.
I have referred to "the union" and will continue to do so, but it is worth bearing in mind that in principle Section 221(2) applies equally to acts done by others that they believe to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. Though the onus is placed on the respondent, the claimant still needs to show that he has an arguable case and to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried. This ensures that frivolous or weak claims cannot get very far in the process. So it is

GC 127
not accurate to depict the current injunctive system as providing an automatic or easy way for the employer to spike the union's guns.
I fully appreciate that the law in this area impacts on the balance of power in industrial disputes. I understand that my noble friends want to shift that balance of power a bit more towards the union. As I have stated, that runs contrary to government policy. I can recall in the discussions that led to the 1999 Act my honourable friend Ian McCartney setting out how those balances across the whole of the system ought to work. That did show what the policy was going to be, and we are adhering to that policy this evening. In no sense is it altered. I therefore urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for his explanation of the Government position. I am not really surprised by it. I hold to the view that the present set-up is balanced unfairly against unions, because it is possible, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has demonstrated, for a union to have its guns spiked—if I may use my noble friend's phrase—by an employer. If that employer is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court, irrespective of what the eventual position is and
GC 128
irrespective of the fact that the union may be acting entirely within the law, the employer can nevertheless put up a case that will encourage the court to grant an injunction. That, as my noble friend acknowledges, can have a desperately inhibiting effect on the union's position and on the possibility of running an effective dispute, even though the union may have followed all the procedures laid down in the legislation.
It is not my intention to pursue this amendment, but I was anxious to raise it and to get the explanation in Hansard. We can at least say that we have tried, again, to amend the law in this respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Lord Triesman: This might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until next Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, 15 June 2004.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.

  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Right-to-Buy Scheme
  Fire and Rescue Authorities
  Fire and Rescue Authorities
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Eritrea
  Eritrea
  Burma
  Burma
  Indonesia: Reverend Damanik
  Indonesia: Reverend Damanik
  Côte d'Ivorie
  Côte d'Ivorie

  Certification Officer for Northern Ireland: Annual Report 2000–03
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have today announced the publication of the annual report 2002–03 of the Certification Officer for Northern Ireland and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Iraq: Export Licence Application
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003), with the exception of "arms and other related material required by the (Coalition Provisional) Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions". As this includes promoting the development of free and fair media, Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of body armour and helmets for use by media organisations working in Iraq. Such licences are issued with provisos that: items will be for the sole use by newsgathering staff and will remain under their control at all times when in use or in storage and items must not be left in country or gifted to local organisations after newsgathering staff leave. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Queen's Award for Voluntary Service 2004
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  I am pleased to report that this year's winners of the Queen's Awards for Voluntary Service (previously known as the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award) were announced on Wednesday 2 June.

  This prestigious annual award for groups of volunteers has been given this year to 110 groups whose outstanding voluntary activity has enhanced and improved the quality of life and opportunity for others in the community. The Government actively
  WS 8
  support the work of the voluntary and community sector and are encouraging more people to participate in community activity. This award will give some of those people the recognition they richly deserve. The details of the winning groups are as follows:

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  East Midlands

  1

  Derbyshire Dales Careline

  making a daily telephone call to vulnerable, isolated, elderly and housebound people to provide information and conversation.

  2

  Inspiration FM

  encouraging BME communities and disadvantaged people in
  Northampton to get involved in community radio.

  3

  Meridale Organisation

  Providing a community hall in Sutton-on-Sea for educational, leisure and charity fundraising activities.

  4

  Radford Care Group

  supporting older people in Nottingham living at home independently.

  5

  SOLVE IT

  promoting awareness of the consequences of volatile substance abuse to young people in Northamptonshire.

  6

  TASC Grub Club

  providing Northampton young people, aged 8 upwards, with opportunities to improve their personal and life skills.

  7

  The Winchester Club

  providing opportunities for adults with disabilities in Derby to interact and organise their own group outings.

  East of England

  8

  Colchester Rape Crisis line

  Providing support services for women and young people in Colchester and surrounding areas who have experienced sexual violence.

  9

  Community Meeting Providing Point—Harpenden

  Providing recreational and leisure facilities and activities for People with mental health problems.

  10

  Fledglings

  providing a unique nationwide information and practical support service for disabled people, particularly children, their families and carers.

  11

  Hertfordshire MS Therapy Centre

  Providing support, counselling, advice and therapeutic services to MS sufferers.

  12

  Lowestoft Civic society-Heritage Workshop Centre

  Preserving the heritage of Lowestoft and district and providing employment for students, unemployed people and those with special needs.

  13

  March and Chatteris Talking Newspaper Association

  providing recorded tapes and tactile reading matter to visually impaired and physically handicapped people in the local community.

  14

  Mind Resource Centre Volunteer Group

  Supporting people with severe and enduring mental illness in Norwich, enabling them to live self-supporting lives.

  15

  Mitalee Youth Association

  Providing sports, arts and educational opportunities to young people in Luton from disadvantaged backgrounds.

  16

  Stalham Brass Band

  Encouraging people of all ages to gain traditional skills as brass musicians and providing entertainment at local activities and charity events.

  17

  The Fragile X Society

  Providing support and information to Fragile X families, raising awareness and encouraging research into the syndrome.

  WS 9

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  18

  Young Citizens Guild

  Encouraging young people in Great Yarmouth to become better citizens through participation in activities and local events.

  19

  Youth Plus

  Encouraging and supporting young people with learning disabilities in Ongar to be actively involved in the community.

  Guernsey

  20

  The Guernsey Society for the Physically Disabled

  assisting with the provision of facilities for the physically disabled and those with learning difficulties through activities and fund-raising.

  Isle of Man

  21

  Manx Blind Welfare Society Volunteer Services

  providing support and services for people with visual impairment.

  jersey

  22

  Headway Jersey

  providing information and support for people with brain injuries, their relatives and carers.

  London

  23

  African Youth Organisation

  advancing the education of children and young people in Newham, including African culture and moral development.

  24

  Age Exchange

  improving the quality of life of older people through emphasising the value of their reminiscences.

  25

  Brent Indian Community Centre

  providing services to the Asian community in Brent and encouraging young people to appreciate their heritage.

  26

  Genuine Empowerment of Mothers in Society

  providing advice, advocacy and support to women from disadvantaged and marginalised communities in London.

  27

  NSF Sunrise—Greenwich group of 'Rethink'

  supporting through mutual self-help, seriously mentally ill people, their carers and relatives.

  28

  Save the World Club

  encouraging people of all ages in Kingston-upon-Thames to take pride in their neighbourhood through civic awareness and the promotion of the sustainable use of resources.

  29

  Somali Family Support Group

  providing information, advocacy and advice to Somalis and other East Africans living in London.

  30

  The Cocktail Crew

  visiting oncology and orthopaedic patients in Charing Cross and Hammersmith Hospitals, serving them nutritional supplementary drinks.

  31

  The Food Chain

  providing nutritious services for housebound London residents with AIDS related illnesses.

  32

  The British Red Cross Skin Camouflage Service

  assisting people in London, coping with a disfigurement, and providing support and advice on skin camouflage techniques.

  North East

  33

  Barnados SECOS Project

  providing counselling to children aged 12–18 years in Middlesbrough, abused through prostitution, promoting their well-being and exit from that lifestyle.

  34

  Pennywell Community Association

  providing a full range of activities for local residents in Sunderland and addressing their needs.

  35

  Stockton Blind People's Voice

  working to achieve equality for blind and visually impaired people in the Borough.

  WS 10

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  36

  Weardale Open Air Swimming Pool Association

  providing affordable water-based activities for the community and its visitors.

  North West

  37

  Bolton Hospice Volunteer Team

  achieving quality of life for patients and their families through administrative help, support, transport and fundraising.

  38

  Connect

  improving services for disabled children and supporting their families in St Helens.

  39

  Mothers Against Violence

  addressing factors leading to gang involvement through an education programme in Manchester, supporting victims and offenders.

  40

  Northern Fells Group

  organising services, events and activities to benefit the welfare of residents of seven rural parishes in Cumbria.

  41

  Sahara in Preston

  supporting Asian and African-Caribbean women to participate in the social/economic life of their community.

  42

  Volunteers of St John's Hospice Lancaster

  maintaining the quality of life for those facing life threatening illnesses through a wide range of voluntary activities.

  43

  Stockport Plaza Trust

  providing a venue for community arts and fundraising events and support for restoration of a Grade 2* listed super cinema.

  44

  Sundowns

  supporting Downs Syndrome families in Wirrel and South Wirral through events, activities and a newsletter.

  45

  The Blacon Project

  building a better Blacon through the active involvement of the community to find local solutions to local problems.

  46

  The PIP Project

  working for the social inclusion of children and young people with special needs living in Blackpool and surrounding areas.

  Northern Ireland

  47

  Carnany Community Association

  enhancing the lives of residents through environmental projects, clubs and events.

  48

  Moree Community Association

  developing and enhancing community spirit through cultural activities, education and support.

  49

  Simon community Outspoken Group

  raising awareness of homeless issues in Northern Ireland through peer education.

  50

  The Bann Recorder

  providing a news service for visually impaired people in County Down.

  51

  The Share Holiday Village Volunteer Team

  providing a centre for creative, recreational and educational programmes for disabled and non-disabled people.

  Scotland

  52

  Alness Environmetal Group/Alness in Bloom

  undertaking environmental projects within community gardens and provision of floral displays to enhance Alness town centre.

  53

  Deveron Stroke Club

  providing social and therapeutic help to stroke sufferers in Banff, Turriff and surrounding area, their families and carers.

  54

  Envirokirn Action Group

  maintaining the local natural environment in Kirn, through projects and fundraising for the benefit of residents and tourists.

  55

  Friends

  improving the local environment in Stevenston through creative projects for young people.

  WS 11

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  56

  GAIN (Guth Airson/Iarrtasan Nis)

  encouraging social and leisure activities on the Isle of Lewis including environmental awareness.

  57

  Inverclyde Carers Council

  representing the interests and aspirations of local voluntary carers with training and support.

  58

  Johnstone Credit Union Volunteers—People helping people

  providing not-for-profit financial services to the community in Renfrewshire.

  59

  Orkney Talking Newspaper Association

  providing tapes of local newspaper articles for visually impaired and physically disabled residents in the community.

  60

  The Food Train

  providing a low cost shopping delivery service for elderly and disabled people in Dumfries and Galloway.

  61

  Samaritans of Glasgow

  providing emotional support to those in the community who have feelings of distress or despair, including those which may lead to suicide.

  62

  The Yellow Teapot Club

  providing a club for children with special needs aged 6–16 years in West Lothian.

  63

  youth United

  campaigning and applying for funding for projects and facilities for young people in Airdrie.

  South East

  64

  Bucks Search and Rescue

  providing training, search and rescue and related emergency services for Buckinghamshire County Council and Thames Valley Police.

  65

  Caring All Together on Romney Marsh

  supporting older and vulnerable people through friendship, support and advice.

  66

  Court Meadow Group Riding for the Disabled Association

  providing riding as therapy for pupils aged 2–19 who have severe learning difficulties.

  67

  Golden Lion Children's Trust

  supporting mentally and physically disabled and socially disadvantaged children in West Sussex, East Sussex, Kent and Surrey.

  68

  Goring Gap News

  reporting on local news, events and featuring items of interest through a monthly magazine.

  69

  Harmony Variety Group

  organising after school clubs in Kent for children of all abilities and needs, encouraging talent and confidence, through performing arts.

  70

  Oakhaven Voluntary Servives Group

  supporting hospice staff by providing a service to members of the community suffering from life limiting illnesses.

  71

  Saturday Club for Deaf Children

  providing activities for children aged 5–18 living on the Isle of Wight to develop their social skills, language and confidence.

  72

  Shepway Volunteer Centre Transport Service

  transporting housebound, disabled and elderly residents to appointments and social activities, improving their quality of life.

  73

  Starmaker Theatre Company

  providing a centre for young people to develop and gain stage skills through workshops and fundraising events in Reading.

  74

  Survey Witness Service

  providing an independent, free and confidential service to victims and witnesses at court.

  75

  The Fountain Centre

  caring for physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of patients and their families in the St Luke's Cancer Centre in Guildford.

  76

  The Pitstop

  a daytime drop-in centre for the homeless, unemployed and socially isolated in Leatherhead and surrounding communities.

  WS 12

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  77

  Volunteer Bureau—Banbury and District

  placing volunteers with local organisations and providing the elderly with transport for appointments.

  South West

  78

  All Saints Church Community Centre

  creating a centre for excellence for statutory voluntary groups, especially those which are marginalized.

  79

  Community Health Around Torpoint

  providing a focal point for community concerns, resources and information, run by volunteers.

  80

  Disability Action Group in North Dorset

  providing direct action to help disabled persons overcome everyday problems.

  81

  Friends and Residents of Grange Community Association

  enhancing the lives of residents and providing advice, social and recreational facilities.

  82

  FORGE

  meeting the needs of visually impaired people in the Forest of Dean.

  83

  Kennet Gateway club

  providing a social meeting place in Pewsey for adults with learning difficulties.

  84

  MARAH

  befriending and supporting homeless people and those with alcohol, drug and mental illness problems in Stroud.

  85

  South Gloucestershire Asian Project

  improving the lives of Asian people through provision of services and a focus for events.

  86

  The Home Furniture Service Trust

  supplying recycled furniture and household goods, offered at affordable prices, to low income residents in Taunton Deane.

  87

  The North Devon Maritime Museum

  maintaining a museum for local residents and visitors to Appledore through fundraising and events.

  88

  The Vassall Centre Trust

  providing accessible workspace for organisations of disabled people living in and around Bristol.

  89

  The Villager community Bus Service

  providing extensive, reliable and economical transport for residents of 65 villages in the North Cotswolds.

  Wales

  90

  Cymrod CLWB Teithio Dwyfor Travel Club

  providing a local community transport service for people unable to use public transport in Dwyfor.

  91

  Fernhill Association of Residents

  representing the community in Mountain Ash and improving their quality of life and well-being.

  92

  Powys Challenge

  reducing crime and the fear of crime, making Powys a safer place.

  93

  St Kentigern Hospice Volunteers

  providing support to patients and families through friendship, transport assistance and community fund raising.

  94

  Special Needs Activity Club

  providing a social club in Neath, Port Talbot for children with disabilities to include their siblings and support for parents.

  95

  Swffryd Community Centre

  promoting the well-being of the community by furthering health, education and recreational activities.

  96

  Treborth Riding for the Disabled

  providing disabled people with riding facilities to benefit their health and well-being.

  West Midlands

  97

  Birmingham Chinese Society

  assisting the integration of the Chinese and Oriental community into mainstream society.

  WS 13

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  98

  Cheadle and District Home Link Scheme

  assisting elderly and housebound people to maintain a dignified independence in their own homes.

  99

  NO Panic

  providing relief and rehabilitation for those with anxiety disorders in Shropshire through a confidential helpline and tele-conferencing.

  100

  Shades of Black Community Family Project

  enhancing care in the community in Handsworth through social activities, including cultivation of an allotment for the benefit of senior citizens.

  101

  St Giles Hospice Volunteers

  providing assistance with palliative care services and helping to improve the quality of patients' lives.

  102

  Tamworth Handicapped Swimming Club (The Unicorns)

  providing recreational, teaching and competitive swimming opportunities for disabled people.

  103

  The Bradby Club

  providing a safe meeting place for young people in Rugby with educational, social and cultural recreational opportunities.

  WS 14

  Voluntary Group

  Activity Description

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  104

  Age Concern Knaresborough

  providing care and support to disadvantaged and older people in the community.

  105

  Calderdale Help in Bereavement Service

  providing a free and confidential befriending service for the bereaved.

  106

  Indian Muslim Welfare Society (IMWS)

  providing a centre in Batley for interfaith events, helping to portray a positive image and address the needs of Muslims in British Society.

  107

  Pooh Bear Reading Assistance Society

  providing trained volunteer support to build confidence and reading skills of local children through sharing and enjoying books.

  108

  Pudsey Gateway Club

  offering social and leisure activities to people with learning difficulties.

  109

  St Wilfrid's Day Centre

  providing community care for vulnerable people in Sheffield who can experience a sense of belonging and find practical help.

  110

  The Carers' Resource

  providing information, advice and support to carers in Harrogate, Craven and Airedale districts.