Sitting of 16 June 2004

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

    Ilois People/Chagos Islanders
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What aid is being given to (a) the Ilois people and (b) the Chagos islanders. [178961]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): My Department provides no direct assistance to the Ilois people or the Chagos islanders at present. In the early 1970s, however, £650,000 was paid to the Mauritian Government to assist with the resettlement of the Chagossians. Under a 1982 agreement between Her Majesty's Government, the Goverment of Mauritius and representatives of the Chagossians, a further £4 million was paid by the UK into a trust fund for the benefit of the Chagossians. This was agreed at the time by all parties to be in full and final settlement of all claims.
    Mr. Dalyell: But how about compensation now?
    Mr. Thomas: I know that my hon. Friend has followed this matter for a considerable time. He will be aware that the Government do not accept any legal obligation to pay compensation to the Chagossians, not least because of the money that we have given on two previous occasions. It was agreed with the Mauritian Government and representatives of the Chagossians that that money was in full and final settlement of all claims. The High Court judgment in October last year established that the UK Government had no legal obligation to pay any further compensation beyond what had been provided already. However, I accept that there is a possibility that that judgment may be appealed.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister not accept that many Chagossians live in desperate poverty in the Seychelles and Mauritius, and that they won the right to return to their islands in the court order of 2000? Does he not agree that it is disgraceful that, last week, the Foreign Office tabled an order before the Queen preventing those Chagossians
    758
    from ever returning to their islands? Should not the historical injustice of the 1970s and 1980s, when the Chagossians were removed from their islands, be corrected? Should they not be allowed to go back home; and if that is what they wish to do, should we not assist them?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not share my hon. Friend's view. We have looked at the question of resettlement, as he knows. It was concluded, by independent experts, that long-term inhabitation, of the outer islands in particular, would be precarious and prohibitively expensive. Even short-term settlement arrangements—which, by definition, would be on a subsistence basis—would leave the Chagossians exposed to natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity, and that would be likely to make their lives very difficult. I therefore think that we have taken the right decision.

    Debt-for-Nature Swaps
    Mr. Graham Allen: What encouragement his Department gives to debt-for-nature swaps. [178962]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Debt swaps are not an efficient way of providing development resources to poor countries, nor are they effective in tackling unsustainable debt. The Government have been at the forefront of global initiatives to tackle the unsustainable debt burden of developing countries, including through the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
    Mr. Allen: That was a very civil service answer from my right hon. Friend. I am rather surprised that he did not display his normal enthusiasm and imagination in considering these problems. Does he not realise that debt-for-nature equity swaps could be a very constructive way to make progress in tackling matters such as global degradation and world poverty? Will he look at the possibilities involved, especially when it comes to saving the Amazon rain forest and at the same time writing off debt? Will he make sure that he looks at these matters with a more open mind than was expressed in his first answer to me?
    Hilary Benn: I am very sorry if my hon. Friend thinks, from my answer, that my mind is ever anything but open—especially to suggestions from him. The WWF—formerly the World Wide Fund for Nature—originally proposed debt-for-nature swaps. In my earlier response, I was simply making it clear that they have worked in various places in Latin America, but have not really taken off in the rest of the world. As far as debt sustainability is concerned, we have made real progress through the HIPC initiative, which so far has delivered debt relief worth $70 billion.
    I do however accept my hon. Friend's point that issues to do with sustainability, protecting the rainforest and so on are extremely important. He will be aware of the forestry programmes that my Department supports in a number of countries, among them Brazil, Ghana, Cameroon, Indonesia, Malawi, South Africa and Uganda. He will know, too, of our support for the

    759
    global environment fund, and of our work on illegal logging. They are really significant contributions to tackling the problems about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.
    Michael Fabricant: As on so many issues, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Is the Secretary of State aware of the programme that was so effective in Costa Rica? It has been used to establish the rainforest in the area, and to promote the country as a major tourist destination for people who like hiking, trekking and enjoying all the things that Costa Rica can offer, as I do—[Laughter]—I mean, in the sense of nature. Is not Brazil a prime candidate for such a programme?
    Hilary Benn: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us his travel and holiday plans. We do not have a programme in Costa Rica, although we do provide support through the European Union. As far as Brazil is concerned, we have a £16 million commitment to a number of projects in the rain forest, some of which I was able to see when I visited a couple of years ago. Six of those projects have ended or will end their natural lives by next March. One project is continuing, which will help indigenous people in the Brazilian rain forest to secure their livelihoods.

    Affordable Energy
    Mr. Andy Reed: If he will make a statement on access to energy for the world's poorest people. [178963]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): We recognise the importance of continuing to improve access to affordable and sustainable energy services in developing countries. That is particularly difficult in rural areas, where conventional technologies, such as grid-connected electricity, are expensive or impractical. We are working with international agencies such as the World Bank, the global village energy partnership and the EU energy initiative to promote access to energy for those areas.
    Mr. Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Intelligent Energy, a company in my constituency, produces fuel cell technology that allows rural areas, particularly in some of the poorest parts of Africa, to access energy at a cheap rate. Since it is fuel cell technology, it is also a renewable source, which gives us a double win. Will he accept a formal invitation to come and see that technology in action and to make sure that his Department invests in the technology, to ensure that the world's poorest people have access to energy, which is their future? For example, in health services in South Africa, fuel cell technology is being placed to power clinics tackling some of the worst deprivation in the world.
    Mr. Thomas: I know, having visited my hon. Friend's constituency, that it has a series of superb energy companies, and I should be delighted to go there again to talk to representatives of those companies. He is absolutely right to say that we need to do much more to
    760
    improve access to energy for the poor. Clearly, improving access to renewable energy is a key solution in that regard, not least because 1.6 billion people—almost 25 per cent. of the world's population—still do not have access to electricity, which is one of the fundamentals if we are to achieve improvements in access to basic health and other social services.
    Mr. John Redwood: In order to make such vital investments, countries need more hard currency to come into them. What progress are the Government making in getting major reform of the common agricultural policy so that rural communities can sell their products to the rich western markets and then afford some of the life-saving improvements mentioned?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Piara Khabra.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: The Department for International Development has selected four focus states in India for development aid—Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa. Why were those states selected when others are much poorer? People suffer from grinding poverty in such states as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
    Mr. Thomas: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we not only work in the four states that he mentioned but have a series of national programmes. On my first visit, in my post, to India last September, I was able to see one such national initiative to do with the elimination of polio, which is helping to increase access to vaccines for all the people of India, not just those in the four states mentioned.
    Norman Baker: When, as he should, the Minister makes sure that the poorest countries have access to energy, what attention will he pay to climate change? There is no point in making progress in this country if we end up exporting fossil fuel generation to developing countries Will he undertake not to support World Bank and International Monetary Fund projects based on fossil fuel generation?
    Mr. Thomas: As I indicated earlier, we need to increase access, particularly to renewable energy, not just because of climate change but because it is often the only practical solution to increasing access to energy. We have had 75 projects looking into access to energy, more than a third of which relate to promoting renewable energy. I accept absolutely that the World Bank must do more to provide more funding for renewable energy projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted by the World Bank's announcement at the Bonn renewables conference a couple of weeks ago that it intends to increase its financing for renewable energy by 20 per cent. in each year to 2010.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). Will he also consider the use of solar panels in

    761
    places where it is difficult to access grid, which would provide a localised and naturally available energy resource?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to flag up the issue of access to solar power as one of many renewable energy options that will potentially solve problems of access to energy in developing countries. I am delighted to say that I was able to sign yesterday a partnership between my Department and the Intermediate Technology Development Group, which works on issues such as increasing access to solar power in developing countries.

    Zimbabwe
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [178964]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The Government of Zimbabwe's misguided policies, including on land, continue to fuel the humanitarian crisis, which is made worse by HIV/AIDS and erratic rainfall. The Government of Zimbabwe claim that there has been a bumper harvest and have said that they will not seek further international food aid. The UN and other independent observers do not believe those claims and have warned that they could delay international help if it is needed later in the year. We will nevertheless continue to work closely with the World Food Programme to monitor humanitarian needs in Zimbabwe over the coming months.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that positive and detailed response, but does he share my anger and concern that despite the serious problems facing Zimbabwe—including the chronic fuel, food and currency shortages, a contracting economy and growing starvation the Government have placed an order with the People's Republic of China for 12 jet fighter aircraft and 100 military vehicles? They have also bypassed their procurement board to place that order. Can the Secretary of State tell us what further humanitarian aid we can direct to the suffering people of Zimbabwe without going through their Government?
    Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, because the priority for the resources that are available should be helping the people of Zimbabwe, who are suffering considerably. That suffering is not helped by the fact that, as well as making disputed claims about the size of the harvest, their Government have cancelled the UNICEF nutritional assessment, which is one piece of information that we need to assess the impact of food shortages, and the crop assessment mission—after it had begun—which will make it more difficult to reach a judgment on the harvest.
    We continue to provide significant support, including supporting the World Food Programme in increasing its monitoring force. Those decisions by the Zimbabwe Government could make it more difficult to provide help if it is needed, but we will continue to do all that we can to help people who are suffering.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we see a continuing erosion of all the
    762
    democratic principles—such as a free press—in Zimbabwe? It is true that the harvest has been nothing like as good as the Government claimed. How can we encourage those people in ZANU-PF who recognise that Robert Mugabe's days are up, because he is destroying the country and their party? How can we make them understand that they need to tell him that it is time to go—the quicker, the better?
    Hilary Benn: The international community must continue to apply all the pressure that it possibly can. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that the EU has taken through the arms embargo, the assets freeze and the visa ban, but anyone who makes an objective assessment of the present circumstances in Zimbabwe—high inflation, unemployment and an estimated 90 per cent. of the population in urban areas living on less than a dollar a day—knows that they cannot go on like this. We hope that that pressure, and pressure from other African states—which have an important responsibility in that area—will lead to the change that we all wish to see.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that both the United Nations and the Southern African Regional Poverty Network insist that Zimbabwe will be short of approximately 600,000 tonnes of food this year, does the Secretary of State agree that the cancellation of the joint crop assessment and the refusal of the Mugabe Government earlier this week to meet the UN humanitarian envoy for special needs were sinister in the extreme? What particular representations about the latter has the Secretary of State made?
    Hilary Benn: Well, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because those steps by the Government of Zimbabwe show clearly that they are not interested in discovering the true position. As I said earlier, in reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), those actions will also make it more difficult for the international community to step in. Representations continue to be made to the Government of Zimbabwe—most recently, about the displacement following the farm seizures that have taken place in Kondozi and Charleswood. The UN humanitarian co-ordinator has written to express concern about that, but to date has received no reply.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: In Zimbabwe, non-governmental organisations operate largely through the internet, but President Mugabe is bringing in a Bill that will stop internet access for NGOs by controlling the internet service providers. What pressure can we bring to bear on the International Telecommunication Union to stop that process and to give a quid pro quo—so that if it is done inside Zimbabwe, it will not stop the NGOs' external use of the international telecommunications system?
    Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that step proposed by the Government of Zimbabwe, of which I was not aware. I undertake to look into it and to talk to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other colleagues to see what we can do to address it. It is a further sign of the desperate attempts of the Government of Zimbabwe to

    763
    stop people hearing about and reading about what is happening, as has also been shown by the action taken against the Tribune newspaper.
    Mr. Bercow: Knowing that the right hon. Gentleman shares my disgust at the behaviour of the Zimbabwe Government in threatening to starve millions of people, spending extortionately on defence and sending the head of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to this country with his begging bowl to stump up cash to sustain their brutal tyranny, may I ask whether he agrees that, rather than lamenting the limited effect of existing sanctions, as the Prime Minister did at column 523 of the Official Report on Monday, it would be better to seek to extend the EU sanctions so that the head of the Reserve Bank, Gideon Gono, is included in them? That would be a vital contribution in humanitarian terms to helping the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered too much for too long with too little help from the outside world.
    Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the sanctions that were reviewed earlier this year were extended. There is always an argument to be had about which names should be included on that list and which should not, and the list was extended. The action that he advocates in relation to Dr. Gono would not affect Dr. Gono's current visit, but the Government have always said that, along with our EU colleagues, we shall continue to review the effectiveness of the sanctions to make sure that we take the right steps to affect those who are responsible while not further harming the people of Zimbabwe.

    Africa
    Tony Baldry: What proportion of his Department's budget he expects to be spent in Africa through budget support in the next financial year. [178965]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): In 2004–05, we expect that 30 per cent. of our projected total bilateral spending in Africa will be in the form of poverty reduction budget support; plans for 2005–06 will be decided during the rest of the year.
    Tony Baldry: If budget support is to be successful, sustained capacity-building will obviously be needed in the receiving African countries. The Secretary of State is fortunate in heading the Whitehall Department with the largest number of fast-track civil servants, so does he agree that if budget support is to work, Ministers in the receiving African countries must be able to work up their senior management teams so that they, too, can call on good-quality officials both to work up and deliver policy?
    Hilary Benn: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, we take three steps before deciding whether to give budget support. The first is that there should be a thorough review of public financial management, which, of course, includes the capacity to manage resources effectively. Secondly, there should be agreement to reform any weaknesses that have been identified, and thirdly—recognising that giving budget support entails some risks—the risks should be outweighed by the development benefits.
    764
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a large part of the work that we undertake is with the Governments of those countries and elsewhere to build that capacity, because once countries have that capacity they can do the job that we all look to Governments to do, which is to provide for our needs. If we can then provide financial support through budget assistance, it will enable the countries themselves to do more of the things that they have already decided they want to do.
    Barbara Follett: What consideration has my right hon. Friend's Department given to project, as well as budget, support in Africa? Such projects are far easier to monitor and are far less likely to be things that we do not want, such as military expenditure.
    Hilary Benn: We undertake a large amount of project work in Africa. It is a question of deciding on appropriate development assistance, depending on the circumstances. Where there is a Government who have a clear plan and the capacity—to which the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred—to provide more health care and education but lack the financial support to do so, it is sensible to give them additional resources to help make that happen. Kenya recently increased the number of children in primary school by 1.2 million because it received support from us and other countries. Where those conditions do not obtain, it is right that we continue, through other project and programme activities, to help make a difference to the people of those countries.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that the worst humanitarian crisis, with by far the greatest need for aid in Africa, is in Sudan? Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raised the question of the Government's support for Sudan's reappointment to the UN Commission on Human Rights, given that it is in no small measure responsible for parts of the disaster there. While we are thinking about aid for Africa and Sudan in particular, will the Minister tell us whether there has been any progress in getting those international monitors, on whom he put so much emphasis last month, to the areas where they need to be to expose the abuses that are going on?
    Hilary Benn: I hope that two groups of monitors will be working in Darfur as quickly as possible. The first group is the African Union ceasefire monitoring team. As I reported to the House last week, the first part of that team has already deployed. We are looking to support the deployment of the remainder, so that the total of 120 is reached. The second group is made up of the eight human rights monitors. In fact, this morning, I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Sudan to urge the Government of Sudan to accept the arrival of those monitors in Darfur, because they will be able to report to us and the rest of the world about the serious human rights situations and the abuses that are taking place even now.
    Helen Jackson: When my right hon. Friend considers his future budget spending for Africa—I hope that he gets as much as he

    765
    possibly can for that—will he particularly look at education, not simply what happens in schools to meet the millennium development goals, which is exceptionally important, but perhaps also some of the radio-based adult education that can be carried out by the World Service, the Open university and other bodies to raise awareness through education on that continent?
    Hilary Benn: I will gladly consider my hon. Friend's suggestions because all the things that she describes can contribute to ensuring that Africa can build greater capacity, through education, to achieve a better economic future. Undoubtedly, that will be one of the things that the Commission for Africa will look forward to. We will increase our support to education in Africa with the resources that we have already, and I look forward to having more resources available to do more.

    Somalia
    Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): If he will make a statement on British aid to Somalia. [178966]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): We are increasing our aid to Somalia. In the present financial year, we anticipate that our total support will amount to some £6.5 million. That includes health and education projects, peace-building support and humanitarian relief.
    Mr. Robathan: Does the Secretary of State share my concerns about the Somalia national reconciliation conference in Nairobi, funded in part by the British Government and attended by Somali warlords who are accused of war crimes—in particular, General Morgan, the butcher of Hargeisa, who it is alleged, was responsible for the deaths of 50,000 people in Hargeisa in 1988, in circumstances similar to those at Srebrenica? Does the Secretary of State consider that the British taxpayer should be paying for the hospitality and entertainment of people accused of war crimes, who should be answering for their crimes at the bar of the international court?
    Hilary Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about this issue. The people of Somalia have suffered enormously from the activities of warlords and the conflict that has taken place over many years in that country, and I share his frustration, which he has expressed previously, about the slow rate of progress in those talks—this is, I think, the 14th occasion on which the parties have come together—but it is right that we should contribute to continuing to try to find a resolution to the conflict in Somalia. A timetable has been set for the latest round of talks, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development has given the parties a deadline of the end of July to agree on appointing MPs to a new assembly, so that those MPs can elect an interim president. If that does not happen, the international community recognises that we will need to pause the process, but it is right to go on trying in the interests of the people of the country.
    Tom Brake: With 80 per cent. of the herds in some parts of the north having had to be killed as a result of drought in the past
    766
    four years, and with 30 people killed in the south and 100 killed in Mogadishu in the past couple of months, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the UK is doing enough to bring stability to the region and to help civil society? Does he think that this is the right time for the Home Office to be sending asylum seekers back to Mogadishu?
    Hilary Benn: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he will be aware that over the past 10 years, the UK has given asylum to 30,000 people from Somalia. I understand that the Home Office's decisions are being taken individually and on a case-by-case basis. I agree that the circumstances in Somalia remain difficult and serious. We are making the efforts that I described in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), but in the end, there must be a political process, which means that those who are responsible for the fighting should reach some sort of agreement so that the Somali people may experience peace after all the instability that they have faced.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Wiggin: The Prime Minister will be aware of the horrendous crash on the A49 in my constituency last Monday in which lives were lost and the fireball was so large that houses nearby caught fire. Will he please look into what can be done to prevent such loss of life to my constituents in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to look into the incident for the hon. Gentleman and I shall write back to him with details of what we can do.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Have I got good news for our Prime Minister? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has good news for the Prime Minister, but he must put a question to him.
    Mr. Turner: In the fair-trade city of Wolverhampton last Thursday, Labour gained eight seats from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Does the Prime Minister have a message for the good folks of Wolverhampton about what was very much a wonderful Labour day?
    sThe Prime Minister: My message to the good people of Wolverhampton would be, "Congratulations on your good judgment—try to spread it around a little bit over the next few months." Of course, that result was brought about by the Government's record on the economy and public services. Just today, we have some more good news for the people of this country: unemployment is at a 30-year low and there are now 2 million more jobs than when this Government came to power and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) left office.
    Mr. Michael Howard: When he is in Brussels tomorrow, will the Prime Minister do what the majority of the British people want him to do and say no to the European constitution?
    The Prime Minister: I will protect the British national interest on tax, foreign policy, defence and all the other issues that we have set out. It is important that Britain remains at the centre of decision making, and I wish to ensure that it does so. I believe that that is in the interest of this country, and that the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or of those who explicitly want to withdraw from Europe, is totally wrong and contrary to our national interest.
    Mr. Howard: But everybody knows that the Government's so-called red lines are red herrings. Everyone knows that the constitution transfers yet more power from Britain to Brussels. Even if the Prime Minister gets all his red lines, it will involve giving up more than 20 of our vetoes. If I were in his place, I would say no. The British people want him to say no. Which part of the word "no" does he not understand?
    The Prime Minister: What everyone understands is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position is to say no to not only this constitutional treaty, but any constitutional treaty, and then to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the European Union. People know that that position simply cannot be maintained—[Interruption.] I shall tell Conservative Members why. It is for the reason given by the former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. When he was asked about the renegotiation, he said:
    "It's not going to happen. Of course it's not going to happen … the fact of the matter is, if you are part of the European movement, as based in the Council of Ministers … you are not going to allow a substantial re-negotiation."
    He said that because it is the reality of government. We should secure a good deal for this country that protects our fundamental national interest, but does not marginalise us in the European Union.
    Mr. Howard: Well it is certain that no renegotiation will take place under this Prime Minister, but the truth is that the argument over the constitution and the constitutional conference that will take place this week provide this country with a huge opportunity. If other member states want to do things that we do not want to do, why cannot we say to them, "We don't want to stop you doing what you want to do, as long as you don't make us do what we don't want to do"? I do want to bring powers back from Brussels to Britain—that is
    768
    exactly what I want—and this should be the opportunity to do that. Why does not the Prime Minister take that message to Brussels and say no to this constitution?
    The Prime Minister: First, because the provisions for enhanced co-operation in this treaty allow other people to go ahead if they wish to do so, which is why it would be particularly foolish for us to veto the entire treaty. Secondly, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that he would negotiate many of the things in the European Union, perhaps he will confirm that he can do so only if every other member of the European Union agrees. That is why his position is fundamentally disingenuous; he cannot renegotiate our terms of membership. The true choice is either in or out. It is about time that he showed a bit of proper leadership and, instead of running towards the UK Independence party shouting, "Me too," stood up to it and took on the argument.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I have in my hand a Liberal Democrat leaflet that says:
    "Tony Blair has lost support over our run-down health services".
    I can tell my right hon. Friend that, having extensively market-tested the service over the past few weeks, I can personally praise my GP service, the Countess of Chester hospital, the Mersey regional ambulance service and the cardio-thoracic unit. I say to him, keep up the investment—it is a fabulous service and it is the jewel in Labour's crown.
    The Prime Minister: First, may I say how delighted we all are to see my hon. Friend back in his place and well again? His experience is one shared by many people in this country. People get absolutely fed up with those who continually run down the national health service when it is obvious that the combination of money and reform is delivering a better service. Waiting lists are down; waiting times are down; cancer and cardiac deaths are down; accident and emergency services are improving; and the largest hospital-building programme since the beginning of the NHS is under way. We can be proud of our NHS, provided that we keep up those policies of investment and reform.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In the House on Monday the Prime Minister acknowledged that he has little expectation that this United States Government will sign up to the Kyoto treaty on climate change. Does he agree that that further emphasises the need for Europe to be seen to be taking a lead? Will he commit the Government to join France, Sweden, Holland and Denmark in pressing the principle of contraction and convergence as the fairest way forward for controlling greenhouse gas emissions?
    The Prime Minister: We already are working very strongly with the European Union to make the case for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; indeed, this Government have been leading the way. In fact, much of the Kyoto treaty would not have been negotiated but for the skill of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the end what is important, as well as those measures

    769
    that he mentioned, is the investment in science, technology and energy efficiency which gives us the best chance, in the long term, of combining economic growth and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister's positive tone is very welcome. On a practical example, to advance the green agenda, as such a large and growing proportion of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions comes from air travel, will he lead a push at European level to apply to the aviation industry the principle that the polluter must pay? Does he agree that the environmental agenda is a classic example of how Europe can lead in the world and Britain can be seen to be taking a real lead in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: That may be a classic example of advocating a policy that one does not believe that one will ever have to implement. I say to the right hon. Gentleman sincerely that I believe that it is important that we take on the challenge of aviation fuel. I believe that the best way of doing that is investment in science and technology to produce better fuel efficiency. That is something that is happening in this country. To be fair, some of the main research is going on in the United States at present. I would not favour trying to impose arbitrary restrictions on people's travel.
    Ms Christine Russell: House prices in my constituency rose by a staggering 40 per cent. in the past 12 months and there is an urgent need for affordable housing. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the provision of affordable housing is a priority for his Government? In the light of the Barker review, will the Government encourage the use of brownfield sites and publicly owned land for affordable housing?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what she is saying. We are supporting the funding of affordable houses. We have doubled the funding for it, and we supported the creation of about 230,000 new affordable homes. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we have to try to expand housing development on brownfield sites particularly, which is why we increased the proportion of new build on brownfield sites. We put it up to 60 per cent., and we are exceeding that target at the moment. That, together with the protection of the green belt—that is important, too—gives us a viable housing option for the future. It is important that we build new houses. That is the only way to ensure that we are increasing supply in circumstances of rising demand.
    Mr. Howard: Someone in my constituency has to wait 349 days for a knee operation; 60 miles away, they could be treated in 33 days. Does not this show that patients should have the right to choose which hospital to go to in the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are introducing a programme of expanding capacity in the health service so that in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's area and others we are able to provide a greater range of opportunities for people. It is this
    770
    Government, for the first time in the context of the health service, who have introduced the ability of people to choose.
    Mr. Howard: Well, let us have a look at the difference between the Government's plans and our plans. Under the Prime Minister's plans, if someone has been waiting for more than six months they will, if they are lucky, get the choice of one additional hospital somewhere in the country, selected not by them but by the system. That is Labour choice. Under our plans, patients will have the right to choose whichever hospital they want to go to within the NHS, and free of charge. Is not that a real right to choose? Is not that what patients should have?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to join battle on this issue. Let me tell him exactly what our policy is. It is to expand the choice as we expand the capacity. Without the investment in the NHS, choice is entirely meaningless. That is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal on choice—the patient passport—is to say that a Conservative Government would pay 50 per cent. of the cost of the operation within the private health care sector. What a typical Tory proposal. First, the choice goes only to the few who can afford to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of their operation. Secondly, it is to help people go out of the NHS, not stay in it. Thirdly, it takes money from the NHS. That is the difference between us and them. We want the NHS to be better and the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to wreck it.
    Mr. Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will never get away with that. The choice that I have been talking about is choice within the national health service, free of charge. Let me tell the Prime Minister that his Government have forced people into the private sector, as 300,000 people without any private health insurance have to go out of the national heath service to pay for their operations—three times as many as the number who did so when the Government came to office. We are not going to force anyone out of the national health service. We are going to give people choice in the NHS, which is the difference between his policy and ours. In every other walk of life, choice drives up standards. Why does the Prime Minister say that health should be a no-go area for choice?
    The Prime Minister: We do not. We simply say that we have to expand capacity. When we took over the national health service in 1997, we found under-investment, waiting lists up for both in-patients and outpatients, and every single aspect crying out for extra investment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spent 10 years in government. I was reading his speech yesterday—very interesting, too—in which he said that he came back to the front line of politics because of his anger at the state of the national health service. He must have been incandescent when he was in government. He was so angry that it left him speechless, because he never raised the state of the national health service. If he wants the debate between now and election day to be about who cares for Britain's national health service, let him come on and have it.
    Mike Gapes: Will the Prime Minister find time to visit the London borough of Redbridge? Although we have not had a local council election, he will find that the Tory-majority council now has a Labour leader—Councillor Elaine Norman—because the Tory group split. The 33 Tories divided 16:16, with a tossed coin deciding the remaining vote. Eleven of those councillors then stayed away, so that Labour and Liberal members had to form the administration. Is that not another example of the shambles of the modern Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: At points I found it quite difficult to understand what was going on in the Conservative party, but yes, it certainly seems a shambles.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that prisoners in Gloucester jail can get dental treatment on demand, paid for by the NHS? One of my constituents, however, was told the other day that he would have to wait 18 months for a missing filling to be replaced, as no NHS dentists in Gloucestershire are taking new patients. What is the Prime Minister doing about that situation, or is it case of going to jail if you want dental treatment?
    The Prime Minister: Again, if the Conservatives want to mention the state of dental services in our country, I should say that yes, there are real problems, which we are addressing, but they arise primarily because of the contract for dental services negotiated when the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party was in office.
    Mr. John MacDougall: Would my right hon. Friend join me in expressing concern about the growing number of young people throughout the country involved in substance abuse, particularly the inhalation of lighter fuel? Will he also welcome and support the many campaigns and groups, some of which, such as the LOST campaign—the Lee O'Brien Solvent Trust—in Central Fife, were founded on tragic personal loss and are doing a tremendous job to raise awareness in young people?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue, and I know that the Scottish Executive take it very seriously. We have started to consult with the key stakeholders in preparation for an attempt to put together a national approach to substance abuse. That is part of a changing series of laws on issues that impinge on antisocial behaviour, and I hope that we will be able to publish the outcome of the consultation in the next few months.
    Mr. John Bercow: My limbless, Thalidomide-victim constituent, Vivien Barrett, who has a few fingers only at shoulder level, nevertheless embroiders, knits, teaches music and sings for charities, and surely deserves our unqualified admiration. Given that her needs and those of all the other Thalidomide victims will inevitably increase with age, would the Prime Minister accept that a decision to make all payments from the Thalidomide Trust tax-free, as well as being right in itself, would be warmly welcomed by my constituent, Members across the House and people throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: First, the whole House would join in the admiration that the hon. Gentleman expresses for his constituent. I am not sure of the position in relation to tax-free pay-out, but I will certainly look into it. If there is something we can do, I am sure that we will, but obviously that must be balanced with other considerations.
    Ian Lucas: On 2 July—a very important date—Sharp Manufacturing of Japan will be opening its manufacturing centre for photovoltaic cells and solar cells in Wrexham. What effect does my right hon. Friend think withdrawal from the European Union would have on that investment decision?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point—the importance of people understanding that it is in this country's interest to be part of the largest economic market in the world, and that many companies come and invest in the UK, locate here and provide jobs here on the basis that it is an entry into the European Union. That is why to withdraw from the EU would be such a disaster for our economy.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Sedgefield's Thrislington limeworks will mean that the Prime Minister is familiar with Environment Agency proposals to amend the substitute fuel protocol to potentially allow the burning of toxic industrial waste in lime and cement kilns. Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view that he expressed in 1994, when he called for a ban on the burning of industrial waste at Thrislington? If he does, will he join other constituency MPs in objecting to the Environment Agency's ridiculous proposals?
    The Prime Minister: The Environment Agency explanation, of course, is that there will be sufficient controls to meet environmental objections. It is important to realise that the agency's position is not that it does not accept that there is a legitimate issue that must be dealt with, but it has proposed safeguards and controls that it says are adequate to meet those objections. When we have an independent Environment Agency, it is important that we take account of what it says.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in a modern parliamentary democracy, the self-regulation of the opinion polling organisations has broken down and there are no longer any standards or barriers to stop unscrupulous operators moving into the industry? Will he initiate talks with other party leaders so that we can get a cross-party agreement that opinion polling should be honest and have integrity?
    The Prime Minister: I think we will wait and see what direction the polls move in—[Laughter.] No, my hon. Friend makes a serious point. I will make sure that the chairman of the Labour party is aware of it, and perhaps he can take it up with the other parties.
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: I hope that the Prime Minister and the House will join me in condemning the violence that we

    773
    have seen in Portugal, and the appalling behaviour and rioting that we saw in several towns and cities in this country after the England football defeat. Regrettably, one of those towns was Boston in my constituency. To stop further repetition of such events, will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no repeat of the Home Secretary's decision to penalise the Lincolnshire police authority as the only authority in England and Wales that had its per head funding cut last year? Furthermore, will the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other hon. Members who want to get in.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to make the latter point and refer it back to what happened in his constituency. I should point out that there are more police officers in his constituency than there were seven years ago, and also that the funding has gone up for all police authorities as a result of the minimum guarantee that was given by the Home Secretary. In respect of the outbreaks of disorder, let me make it clear that those are intolerable and the police should come down heavily—I have no doubt that they will, as they have new powers that enable them to do that—and make sure that those who engage in such disorder face heavy penalties. It is worth pointing out that those, whether in England or in Portugal, who have engaged in disorder are a tiny minority. I do not believe that they are true English football fans. They bring shame upon our country and upon the vast majority of decent English football fans who simply want to enjoy the game.
    Mr. David Clelland: My right hon. Friend is aware that advances in medical science mean that life-threatening diseases can be kept at bay by the use of drugs, rather than unpleasant and invasive treatments such as chemotherapy He is also aware that those drugs are often very expensive and are not provided free on the national health service. Will he undertake to look into the matter and see what more might be done to assist people on modest incomes who need drug treatment in order to fight diseases such as cancer?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is one of the reasons why we introduced the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in order to evaluate drugs and say whether they should be available on NHS prescription. By and large, it does an excellent job of work. He is right, however, that drugs are continually coming on to the market that can improve people's conditions. That is one of the reasons why we have been able to reduce cardiac deaths, for example, by 20 per cent., through the use of statins. It is best that, in the end, these decisions are made by the institute, but we certainly make sure that the funding is available when it decides that a drug should be made generally available.
    Mr. John Baron: So that nurses are not recruited from prohibited developing countries and are properly checked, there are guidelines stating that the NHS should use only recruitment agencies that are on the approved list. However, the case of Mr. Tawanda Machingura, an illegal immigrant from
    774
    Zimbabwe who recently pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a vulnerable patient while working as a nurse in a local hospital, clearly shows that those guidelines are failing, as he was recruited via an agency that was not on the approved list. I have raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Health, but have not received any indication that any further action will be taken. As a matter of urgency, will the Prime Minister therefore now introduce measures to ensure that the NHS does not recruit illegal immigrants or nurses from prohibited developing countries, to ensure that patients have the security that they deserve and require?
    The Prime Minister: We do, of course, have guidelines in place, and we look the whole time at whether they need to be strengthened. The vast bulk of the nurses whom we bring in to this country—we need more nurses as we train more—are not from places such as Zimbabwe, but it is obviously important that we look to see how we can strengthen the guidelines, and we do so. Regrettably, there will always be cases in which those guidelines are not implemented as they should be, but in each case, and in the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, we sit down and try to learn the lessons, and if changes are necessary, we will make them.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the Prime Minister congratulate the Bedfordshire and Luton road casualty reduction partnership, together with other similar partnerships in other parts of the country, which, through the programme of speed cameras and other measures, have successfully reduced the number of people killed and injured at camera sites by an average of 35 per cent.? Does he agree that we should expand and develop that programme of speed cameras, on the basis of the compelling evidence that is widely available? Does he also agree that the campaign against cameras—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we use speed cameras where it is clear that there is a proven benefit to the safety of motorists and others. That is precisely the policy that the Government pursue. My hon. Friend is right to say that, although there is obviously concern, for perfectly understandable reasons, about the use of speed cameras, the reduction in deaths has been approaching the region of 900 in a year as a result of the introduction of such cameras in places where there are accident hot spots, and they can play a real role. We require a balanced policy, and that is the one that we have.
    Tony Baldry: When the Prime Minister uses the word "choice" in relation to the delivery of public services, what does he mean?
    The Prime Minister: I mean that as capacity in the health service, for example, expands so that we have more nurses, doctors and hospital provision, and the new diagnostic and treatment centres, we can say to the patient, "Instead of having to wait as long as you used to wait, you can choose to go to where there is capacity in the national health service." That is our position, in counterpoint to the position of the Conservative party, which is to say that people who can afford half the

    775
    payment to go privately get choice. That is the difference between Labour choice within the national health service, and Tory choice to go out of it.
    Geraldine Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that the frequently espoused view that the British people are intrinsically anti-European is absurd? But does he also accept that there is widespread antipathy to the waste, bureaucracy and lack of accountability associated with some of the EU institutions, and to the perceived decline in power of
    776
    the nation state? Can he tell me what the Government intend to do to tackle both the perceptions and the realities associated with those issues?
    The Prime Minister: The important thing is to ensure that we engage in reform in the European Union but we cannot reform in the European Union by leaving it. It is therefore important to recognise the basic point that membership of the European Union is in Britain's political and economic interest. It is best to form alliances with others to seek change in the European Union rather than getting out of it, with all the disastrous consequences that that would entail.

BILL PRESENTED
  DIRECTORS' AND EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS (PROVISION OF INFORMATION)
  Harry Cohen presented a Bill to require companies to provide information about payments in respect of directors' and employees' pensions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed. [Bill 118].
  DIRECTORS' AND EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS (PROVISION OF INFORMATION)

    Marine Wildlife Conservation
    [Relevant document: The Sixth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2003–04, on Marine Environment, HC 76.]
    12.30 pm
    Mr. John Randall: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife in respect of the marine environment; to provide enforcement powers for marine wildlife conservation to competent marine authorities; and for connected purposes.
    In moving the Bill, I have feeling of déjà vu because I introduced a private Member's Bill with the same title after I was lucky enough to come top of the ballot in 2001. As was the case then, the Bill that I am introducing today enjoys support from all parties. Indeed, the enthusiasm in this place for stronger and better laws to protect and manage our seas is well illustrated by the fact that early-day motion 171 on "Protecting the Marine Environment", which I tabled at the beginning of the Session, again with cross-party support, has been signed by more than 300 members. Only two early-day motions have attracted more support this Session.
    It is an especially apt time to consider the need for better marine conservation, given that the United Nation's world oceans day was celebrated last week. There is an increasing recognition around the globe that the oceans are not a limitless resource to be plundered at will. The UK can and should give a clear lead on how to manage the seas better.
    The 2001 version of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill dealt specifically with the lack of proper protection for nationally important marine wildlife, but today I would like to consider the need for wider legislation to conserve marine wildlife and the marine environment.
    Many hon. Members will be aware of the campaign that the Wildlife and Countryside Link is running. That body is a coalition of environmental non-governmental organisations, which include the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF, wildlife trusts and the Marine Conservation Society. Link's campaign calls for comprehensive new laws that would do a variety of things to secure better protection for our seas.
    A range of measures is needed to improve the management and protection of the marine environment. Central to that is the designation of nationally important marine wildlife sites, which was the subject of my private Member's Bill. More than 6,500 sites of special scientific interest around the United Kingdom offer protection to important wildlife on land, but there is no equivalent designation at sea, yet more than half our biodiversity is found in the marine environment. It is surely time to catch up and protect marine wildlife properly.
    That is only one aspect of the new legislation that is necessary. Protection of marine species, wherever they are, must be strengthened, and proper resources must be made available to ensure that the law is rigorously enforced. The antiquated legislation that governs inshore fisheries needs an overhaul. Perhaps most fundamentally, we need a vision for how we plan future activities at sea. As well as teeming with sensitive and exciting wild creatures, the offshore environment is

    779
    increasingly being used for development and economic purposes, whether shipping, dredging for aggregates, identifying areas to develop renewable energy installations or more traditional activities, such as fishing.
    A marine spatial planning framework would allow rational decisions to be made about areas that should be prioritised for development, for fisheries and for nature conservation.
    I know from my own experience with the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill mark one that a great many groups and organisations took an interest in my proposals, reflecting the fact that people make use of the sea in so many different ways. Inevitably, different organisations will sometimes have different priorities and emphases, and it is fair to say that not all the stakeholders had an entirely benign interest in my earlier Bill. However, a proper planning framework for the sea could allow potential conflicts to be resolved before they arose. It could also help to streamline the complex and outdated tangle of regulations currently governing the marine environment.
    So what are the Government doing to take forward the objectives of my Bill? To be fair, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been making the right noises on this agenda. I believe that the current Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), understands the need for better marine laws, and I think that he has been fighting his corner on that within the Government. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), was similarly helpful with my first Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. Now, as a Back Bencher, he is a cosponsor of the Bill that I am introducing this afternoon. I am grateful for his support, then and now.
    We all know that, if new Government legislation is to emerge, it needs to be supported across the various Departments and clear numerous hurdles. In this case, those hurdles might be the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasury and, of course, we must not forget No. 10. I hope that these Departments are looking constructively at the need for marine laws, rather than trying to put obstacles in their path. Perhaps I am being unduly uncharitable, but I am disappointed not to see a Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench at the moment, in accordance with the normal procedure.
    New marine legislation should be seen as an opportunity for those with an interest in the seas, not as a burden on them. The sea needs, and deserves, champions within the Government well beyond DEFRA. The Government now have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are truly committed to improving the protection of our seas. I believe that their review of marine nature conservation, which brought together interested Government Departments and stakeholders, will report soon. Let us hope so. I also hope that it will recommend that legislation is needed. If it does, Ministers should procrastinate no longer. We have seen a range of different reviews, reports and publications,
    780
    but it is now time to draw a line under the review stage and start on some legislation. Warm words become hot air if they are not followed up by action.
    The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), reinforced the need for action in its recent report on the marine environment, and a very good report it was, too. In it, the Committee noted that
    "the current legislative and institutional framework governing marine environmental protection is too fragmented and complex, which is to the detriment of both economic development and environmental protection".
    It went on to say:
    "There is a pressing need to update both arrangements for marine nature conservation and for licensing for development and it may be necessary to do so through a wide-ranging Marine Act. A marine spatial planning system may prove necessary in order to manage the wide array of activities at sea."
    So the consensus is that new laws are needed, and this Bill is my contribution to that debate.
    I know that my party is taking seriously the need for better management of the marine environment, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and other colleagues for giving their support to the Bill. I hope that the Government can now show the same desire to rise to the challenge. The time is ripe, and the support is there, in Parliament and in the country. As a maritime nation, we will be guilty of a real and lasting failure if we cannot now seize the chance to protect our marine heritage for future generations.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Randall, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mrs. Helen Clark, Andrew Bennett, Andrew George, Richard Ottaway, Gregory Barker, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Peter Luff, Tim Loughton, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. David Kidney.

    MARINE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
    Mr. John Randall accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife in respect of the marine environment; to provide enforcement powers for marine wildlife conservation to competent marine authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 119].
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who were deeply upset by the treatment, particularly by certain Members of the other place, of the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) last time round were a little sad that no DEFRA Minister was to here to hear him present his ten-minute Bill. In view of the history of this saga in which his other Bill was scuppered against the overwhelming majority will of the House of Commons by certain maverick elements in the House of Lords, can we examine the procedure of this business, and express the hope that the Government on

    781
    this occasion will consider a ten-minute Bill favourably, to see how its objectives, which many of us think are extremely important, should be progressed?
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order from the Father of the House. I make no comment on the merit of the hon. Gentleman's Bill—that is for the House to decide, and it has already done so. There is a courtesy that must be observed, however, which is that the appropriate Minister should be in his or her place when a ten-minute Bill is introduced. Certainly, I hope that the Whip on the Treasury Bench will send my message, in no uncertain manner that that courtesy must be observed at all times.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your guidance is useful on that, and your ruling is useful. May I remind you, however, that DEFRA is a serial offender on this point? You had to make the same point about six or seven weeks ago about the same Department. Rather than the Whip on the Treasury Bench communicating your message, would it not be more appropriate for the Speaker's Office to communicate it strongly?
    Mr. Speaker: I have a good memory, and this is the first time that I have come down so hard on any Minister. There is therefore no need for my Office to do anything—the message will be arriving as we speak.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are finished with this point. The hon. Gentleman should not milk it.

    European Affairs
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    12.42 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Irish presidency of the European Union will chair the European Council in Brussels this Thursday and Friday. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities.
    The fight against terrorism, a timetable for discussions on the EU's future budget, further EU enlargement and foreign policy issues are on the agenda, along with nominations for a number of EU posts. But the main business of the European Council will be negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union. Let me begin by putting those negotiations in context.
    Europe's history has been one of rivalry and war. That history could easily have been today's reality, save for the European Union, which has changed profoundly the political culture of our continent, and made war between former sworn enemies unthinkable. Indeed, it is fair to say that the EU has been "uniquely successful" as
    "a bastion of stability and shared democratic values in a volatile world; the largest trading unit in the world; and the largest aid donor. We have much to be proud of".
    We do, and those are the words of none other than Margaret Thatcher, speaking when she was Prime Minister.
    Britain continues to benefit greatly from the EU, which, today, is the market for more than half our trade. Many of our companies rely on access to the European single market for their success. By working through the EU, and with the EU, we have cleaner beaches, air and water. British citizens are able to travel, study, work, retire, get fairer legal redress and obtain free medical help anywhere in Europe, without restrictions. We work together better to stop international gangs bringing drugs, terrorism and illegal immigrants into our country. It provides a network of trade, aid and cooperation that covers most of the world, giving us greater influence, stability and prosperity.
    Of course, as with any level of government or politics, it is easy to knock the European Union. The fact that its institutions are more distant and more recent contributes to the unease felt by some about the way in which the EU works. Nearly five decades after its foundation, its institutions and procedures—designed originally for six members—are struggling to cope effectively with 25.
    Helen Jackson: When speaking to constituents during the recent elections, I observed their continuing failure to become aware of the many practical benefits conferred by European intervention, excellent regulations and excellent rules on them and the firms for which they worked, and the effect on goods that they bought in the shops. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a characteristic of the elections? When talking to his European counterparts, will he see what we can do to improve public presentation of what Europe does?
    Mr. Straw: I agree that that was one of the messages of last week's European elections, although we should bear in mind that the main message was that nothing like a majority favoured Britain's withdrawal from the European Union or its marginalisation within the EU.
    Let me take up the theme that my hon. Friend has introduced. My Dutch colleague Ben Bot described the position eloquently in a speech in Berlin just before the European elections, a fortnight ago. Europe's leaders, he said, must "confront reality", "give citizens a say", and
    "ensure that the rights and freedoms of member states and citizens are given adequate protection"
    if Europe is to succeed.
    Those and similar considerations lie behind the British Government's approach to the constitutional treaty, as set out last September in our White Paper. While the EU does bring great benefits, it needs reform to become more effective, more flexible and more efficient. Institutions and procedures need to be clearer and simpler, and national Governments and Parliaments should have a stronger role. We want majority voting where it brings benefits, but we must retain the veto in areas of vital national interest.
    In short, we want a treaty that strikes the right balance between the powers exercised by its sovereign nations and the powers that nations confer on the Union in order to act together better.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary has twice described what he is keen should be discussed in Brussels this week as the "constitutional treaty", as though that were somehow different from the constitution. For the sake of accuracy, will he confirm that the treaty is described in its own terms as establishing a constitution for Europe?
    Mr. Straw: I shall come to that in a moment, but—for the sake of accuracy—let me make clear, as I will again, that the treaty is no different a legal animal in international law from any of the earlier treaties, including the Maastricht treaty, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommended to the House so eloquently in 1992.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: A moment ago the Foreign Secretary mentioned not just his Dutch colleague but, rightly, the battle against drugs across Europe. I am sure he will recall, from his earlier incarnation as Home Secretary, the case of Curtis Warren. It was owing to the British Government's intervention that Curtis Warren walked away unconvicted in that major drugs case. The Dutch were able to teach us a lesson in how to apprehend such people. The fact is that drugs are not contained in one country; they are a Europe-wide scourge. Will the Foreign Secretary comment further on benefits to the fight against crime, in the light of that example?
    Mr. Straw: Of course I remember the case of Curtis Warren. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more we can co-operate in the EU on issues of justice and home affairs—drugs, crime, terrorism—as well as the issues that originally bound the Union and the single market, the better it will be for our citizens, and the more
    784
    we should proclaim the benefits. There is no doubt that the streets of Liverpool were made safer by the actions of the Dutch police and the Dutch courts.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
    Mr. Straw: I will give way one last time.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that we have repeatedly, for more than a decade, been promised the protection of national Parliaments through the application of subsidiarity, given that the Foreign Secretary admitted to me on the Floor of the House on 21 May last year that the doctrine had proved unsatisfactory and given that the Prime Minister earlier this year failed to give a single example of the successful repeal of law through the application of subsidiarity under Amsterdam, will the Foreign Secretary accept that as an antidote to the pervasive cynicism in the country we now need as a minimum requirement a quantitative target for legislative repeal? What is his target?
    Mr. Straw: First, there is a quantitative target for reduction in the volume of regulation in the European Union. I have discussed that with Commissioner Kinnock, who has been taking a lead on that recently. Secondly, I have accepted that the subsidiarity mechanisms have not worked particularly satisfactorily. That is why the British parliamentary delegation, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), took the lead in securing what is now a protocol and provisions for far better arrangements by which this House will be able to scrutinise draft EU legislation. That has been called a "yellow card" procedure, but it essentially enables this House, in combination with a third of other national Parliaments, to refer any draft legislation back to the Commission and the Council.
    I have already brought forward proposals by which we will change our procedures in the House, if the House agrees, to make a reality of the subsidiarity mechanisms, which, I have to say, were raised in principle by the former Prime Minister John Major, but never followed through in practice.
    Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory rose—
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way, for the last time, to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    Mr. Salmond: The Foreign Secretary will know that on the 20 April in the House, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Prime Minister said in respect of fishing:
    "Fishing is still a shared competence, and we believe that that is right."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004: Vol. 420, c. 171.]
    However, in correspondence and meetings with me, the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that the vast majority of fisheries policy is to be under exclusive competence. What hope is there, if therefore, for a Prime Minister to negotiate on behalf of our fishing communities who is not even aware of the provisions of the constitution?
    Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very well aware of the provisions and knows well, because he has seen it, that the early articles set down the conservation of marine biological resources as an exclusive competence, while the other aspects of fisheries are shared competences under articles I-12 and I-13.
    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have raised fishing and the common fisheries policy, because he campaigned in Scotland on only one issue: the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. He contrived to claim that he was involved in some kind of negotiation with me when I had offered him a meeting, as I would out of courtesy to any Member, and explained to him that the conservation of marine biological resources had been an exclusive competence since before we entered the European Union and was laid down in the accession treaty to which we signed up. The hon. Gentleman campaigned on the repatriation of the common fisheries policy, and what happened? He was roundly defeated in the elections in Scotland. Just to rub it in, he would do well to read a devastating article against him in today's edition of the Glasgow Herald, with the headline, "With fishing, there's always some catch".
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way later, but I want to make progress now. If agreement is reached—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
    Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) later, provided that he observes the usual courtesies.
    If agreement is reached, this treaty will give us the chance to achieve reform of the way in which the European Union operates. We will have a single document that sets out what the European Union does and does not do. It will make it clearer than ever before that the European Union is a Union of nations that freely choose to share certain powers in order to achieve objectives that they have in common, and which acts only where its members have given it the authority to do so and where it can add value.
    The treaty contains four important innovations. First, for the first time, it would give the body where Europe's national Governments take decisions—the European Council—a full-time chairman, replacing the present six-monthly rotating chairmanship. That post will strengthen the European Council, ensuring that the nations of Europe set the European Union's agenda and drive it through. For the life of me. I cannot understand what those on the Conservative Front Bench find to object to in that, because it will strengthen member states.
    Secondly, the treaty would give national Parliaments, for the first time, a serious role in EU legislation, including the chance to send back draft legislation that goes too far. Again, for the life of me, I cannot see what the Opposition find objectionable in that. It was not in Maastricht, but it is going to be in this draft
    786
    constitutional treaty. It will strengthen the power of every Member of this House to hold the European Union to account.
    Mr. Richard Spring: That is not enough.
    Mr. Straw: It is a damn sight more than we ever got out of the Tories, or out of the hon. Gentleman when he was supporting the previous Conservative Government. My determination, if we get this treaty, is to make that mechanism work effectively. That is why I have already proposed new procedures for the House to decide on about where we would implement that mechanism.
    Thirdly, we hear talk about the repatriation of powers. This draft treaty makes explicit provision, for the first time, for competences shared between the European Union and nation states—which is the vast bulk of them—to be transferred back to full national control when European Union members decide that they no longer wish to exercise them in common. We hear demands, including from the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago, for powers to be repatriated back to the United Kingdom and other member states. I assume that he was working on the basis of where we could get agreement with our partners. But the Leader of the Opposition's Government failed ever to achieve those powers. They are not in the existing treaties, but they are in article 1.11 of this treaty. Again, I completely fail to see what it is in provision 1.11 to which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) takes exception.
    Fourthly, the treaty would set out better procedures for what is known as "enhanced co-operation", allowing smaller groups of members who wish to cooperate more closely in certain fields to do so. Dare I say it—that is a live-and-let-live approach to Europe, exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that he wants. However, the Opposition are now setting their face against exactly the mechanism that would strengthen national Governments and Parliaments and enable member states that want to go faster than we do to do that.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before we move too far from fishing, may I ask the Foreign Secretary as a senior and influential member of the Cabinet to do what he can somehow to resuscitate the original ten-minute Bill, in the form of a private Member's Bill, on marine conservation? That very important measure was scuppered in the other place, quite frankly frivolously and disgracefully. It seemed to be the will of the House of Commons to pass the Bill of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and anything that my right hon. Friend could do for that Bill would be of great help to the fishing community and the marine cause.
    Mr. Straw: I listened to most of the debate on that Bill, and of course we will take it seriously. I also listened to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) had to say today by way of complaint at the absence of any Minister on the Bench, and I listened to what you had to say on that,

    787
    Mr. Speaker. I assure my hon. Friend that I will personally pursue the substance of the Bill, and I will also pursue the issue of the absence of a Minister on the Bench.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is claiming all sorts of new powers for national Parliaments in the constitution, but they simply do not exist. I am on the House's European Scrutiny Committee, and we already have the supposed right to scrutinise proposals on subsidiarity grounds, but the Commission may take absolutely no notice. The position will be exactly the same under the constitution, and there is no power for national Parliaments to block measures that breach the principle. That was spotted by the Government representative on the Convention, and the necessary amendment failed to pass. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that?
    As an illustration, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the new declaration in the draft on combating all kinds of domestic violence? Is that not an immediate, standing, obvious breach of the subsidiarity principle being newly written into the draft constitution? Even before it has been ratified, the principle is being breached and this House will be able to do absolutely nothing about it.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's first point is half serious. However, page 152 of the document that I put before the House shows that the protocol provides a far better scrutiny procedure than currently exists. I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for its work, but the problem is that it does that work only at a late stage in the legislative procedure. The protocol proposes that that should happen much earlier. I and my ministerial colleagues in the EU are determined to make the protocol a reality, and it will then be up to this House to seize the opportunity. I repeat that I have been in the vanguard of making proposals to the House to strengthen how it and the other place scrutinise our work inside the EU. That is increasingly welcomed in Brussels.
    The right hon. Member for Wells made a second point in his intervention. I wonder what his women constituents will think when they hear that he objects to a straightforward declaration—which has no direct legal effect—against domestic violence across Europe. The right hon. Gentleman's position is absolutely extraordinary.
    Kali Mountford: As someone who supported with vigour the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, I am very pleased by what my right hon. Friend had to say about domestic violence. However, does he agree that the question of a European constitution is often used by the Opposition to frighten people about a so-called European state? It is not as though only states have constitutions. The rugby and cricket clubs in my area also have constitutions, but none of them can claim to be a state. Is not the Opposition's attack designed to frighten people away from the benefits of Europe? Does it not have more to do with the Conservative party's natural
    788
    Euroscepticism, the divisions within it and its confusion about the messages from the public than with the treaty itself?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Kate Hoey: It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say what he has said about scrutiny, but what is the point of scrutiny if, when people in this country say that they do not want something to happen here, they are unable to implement that decision by means of the veto? Will not the constitution mean that we will lose the right to exercise the veto in 42 areas? A good practical example of that is the recent problem with vitamins. Many sensible people in this country wanted to continue to use certain vitamins. We made it clear that we did not want the proposed change to happen here, but it was simply bulldozed through by an elite in Europe that does not really care about ordinary people.
    Mr. Straw: The Government will continue to ensure that the veto is maintained in respect of key areas of vital national interest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelled that out, as have I. The White Paper also makes that very clear. The vitamins regulations have nothing to do with what is in the draft constitutional treaty, as they arise from existing legislation passed under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, for both of which the Conservatives were responsible.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) worked with me on justice and home affairs issues. She will remember that we dealt with them not by walking away from the touchlines and out of the stands, but by getting engaged. Time after time, when we are engaged, we win for Britain. That was the experience for the Conservatives in the early 1980s, but the experience was the exact opposite when the Leader of the Opposition was running EU policy in the early 1990s. Finally, most of the 40 or so issues to which the question of the veto is relevant are pretty obscure.
    Several hon. Members rose —
    Mr. Straw: I want to provide some further reassurance for the right hon. Member for Wells. I have spelled out many of the areas in which the roles of national Governments, nation states and national Parliaments will be enhanced by the new draft constitution. I have spelled out how the draft meets one of the Leader of the Opposition's key red lines—that some member states should be able to advance faster than others. That process is called enhanced cooperation.
    Another reason why some hon. Members—those who want the UK to leave the EU altogether—should vote in favour of the draft constitution is that, at present, there is no procedure that allows member states to denounce the treaties and leave The present provisions can only produce a mess. Article 159 provides a very clear procedure for member states to leave the EU. I do not believe that to do so would be in our interest, but the

    789
    option should be available. The draft constitutional treaty provides for that option, where existing provisions do not.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
    Mr. Straw: No. I want to make progress.
    One would have thought that the Opposition would welcome the benefits in the constitutional treaty most warmly. After all, they say that they want a more flexible Europe and a stronger role for member states and their Parliaments, and this treaty will deliver all that. Instead, even before we have the finalised text, the Leader of the Opposition is committed to rejecting it, whatever it says. It is no surprise that he and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) are busying themselves, not with arguments based on the reality of this text, but with spreading myths about it that bear little or no relation to the facts.
    Let us look at some of those myths. First, there is the myth raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—that the existence of a constitution makes the EU a country. My hon. Friend noted that plenty of organisations have constitutions. Golf clubs and the Boy Scouts have them—as does Kent county council, which covers the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) wrote a very good piece for his local newspaper the other day. In it, he placed the argument that having a constitution makes an organisation a state into the
    "bears-are-black, this-is-black-therefore-it-is-a-bear category".
    It is a complete nonsense to say that the existence of an EU constitution means that the EU must be a country. Opposition Members need to produce a much more intelligent level of debate and criticism.
    Every international organisation needs a rule book, including the EU. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes knows enough about law to know very well that the legal status of the constitutional treaty would be the same as its predecessors—that is, a treaty under international law. We will judge the treaty by what it does. It will not build a superstate, but it will strengthen the nations in a modernised EU.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary give way on that point?
    Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress.
    Next, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes has claimed that the charter of fundamental rights incorporated in the treaty will stop us from running our own industrial relations policy. It will not, as article 2.28 spells out very clearly. The text makes it clear that the charter would create no EU powers, and that general rights such as the right to strike are subject to "national laws and practices". We shall ensure that we have legal certainty in the way that that is interpreted.
    Next, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes says that we will hand over control of our foreign policy, but what he objects to is already in the treaty of Maastricht, which he wholeheartedly supported. The
    790
    present shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), wrote in The Sunday Telegraph of 7 March 1993:
    "Post-Maastricht, Britain and France become the mouthpieces for the European Union at the UN."
    That was the prediction but, when I appeared before the Security Council on behalf of this country, I did not get the impression that France was appearing as a mouthpiece of the EU, and neither was I there as a mouthpiece of the EU. France spoke for France, and I spoke for the UK. The prediction therefore turned out to be complete nonsense, but that has not stopped the Opposition from peddling the same myth 12 years on.
    Any new treaty to which we agree will keep the national veto for foreign policy. That means that the EU will act together only when every member, including Britain, agrees to do so. There are other scare stories about the primacy of EU law, but the veto has been a fact since the EU's inception, and was part of the terms of our membership. It was written into UK law by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
    Today's Opposition spend a great deal of effort denigrating and demeaning the EU while suggesting, unconvincingly, that they still want Britain to remain a member. They square that circle by claiming that they would renegotiate Britain's membership. Far from representing some sort of centre ground, however, that policy of renegotiation has long been espoused by isolationist anti-Europeans both inside and outside the Conservative party. It was the rallying cry of the Maastricht rebels in the early 1990s, and it was taken on by Sir James Goldsmith in the run up to the 1997 general election. Until recently, the Conservative leadership rightly rejected it. Baroness Thatcher never touched the idea of withdrawing from EU membership. John Major called it "absurd". Even the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) refused to go there. Yet today's Conservative leadership—eager to appease the hard-liners and the Europhobes—is now committed to what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) described a few weeks ago as a "thoroughgoing renegotiation".
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the Conservative leadership has never suggested withdrawal from the European Union. Will he confirm that the only leadership of a major party ever to do so was that of his party in 1983? Will he also confirm that he supported his leadership in that?
    Mr. Straw: What we did in 1983 provides, I think, a very good case study in how to suffer the most devastating defeat in electoral history. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue that course. He has, incidentally, given me an opportunity to give a wider audience to a most perceptive piece in The Times on Monday by Mr. Tim Hames, who wrote that the pledge of withdrawal and exit from the EU
    "is not a pledge that the Conservatives can deliver and, if they could, Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, is hardly the figure to do so credibly. Mr Ancram is, somewhat grandly, to deliver a lecture next month entitled 'Whither India?' After his performance over the past few weeks, India might respond by organising an address called 'Whither Michael Ancram?'"
    Let me be clear about what thoroughgoing renegotiation would involve. It would mean withdrawing from the common fisheries policy, as

    791
    signed up to by the Conservatives. It would involve withdrawing from the EU's overseas aid system, as praised by Margaret Thatcher and signed up to by the Conservatives. It would involve "abandoning"—the word used by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes—the common foreign and security policy, as signed up to by the Conservatives and actively supported in the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. And it would mean withdrawing from the social chapter.
    The hard-liners do not even want to stop there, and why should they? Some want Britain to withdraw from the common agricultural policy. Some even question fundamental concepts, such as the primacy of EU law and qualified majority voting. It all sounds deceptively easy—a pick-and-mix approach, where you can have your cake and eat it. But it is a sham. The big problem for the Conservatives is that renegotiating the terms of Britain's membership requires the unanimous agreement of all 24 other member states of the EU.
    For the Europhobes, that, of course, is exactly the point. Because when the so-called renegotiation failed—as it surely would—Britain would have no option but to withdraw. The Conservative leadership, notwithstanding the denials that we have heard today, is gradually being pushed into that place. Last Wednesday, we had the most extraordinary spectacle as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe went on the radio—I heard every word—to offer his view about what would happen if "renegotiation" of the common fisheries policy failed to secure the agreement of the other 24 member states. He said, explicitly, that the Conservatives would not withdraw from the European Union:
    "That was not the way in which it was done before, and I do not think it would be sensible again."
    But then, within four hours, after huge pressure and panic in the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition adopted the extraordinary device of writing a letter to his own shadow Fisheries Minister to set out the position in greater detail, saying
    "should negotiation not succeed … we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring about full national and local control."
    Mr. Ancram indicated assent.
    Mr. Straw: That is right, says the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, but this is where the position of the Conservative party is simply a deceit and a sham. Unilateral withdrawal from international treaty obligations on that scale would completely undermine our continued membership of the European Union. Such an organisation can operate only if all member states agree to abide by the rules.
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up to talk about withdrawing from the common fisheries policy and seeking to impose unilaterally legislation that undermines—[Interruption.] He mutters about the growth and stability pact, but that is not inside the treaties while the common fisheries policy is: if he does not understand that, he understands absolutely nothing about the legal basis of the European Union.
    792
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman must stand up and explain how, when and if a new fishing Bill is put through to "repatriate" the common fisheries policy, it will be consistent with obligations in the accession treaty that we entered into in 1972, and which his Government reconfirmed time, time and time again. Then he has to explain whether we would pay the fines that the European Court of Justice would impose on us for our breach of treaty obligations. Then he has to spell out what would happen in British courts when those disadvantaged by the change in national law claimed their treaty rights, which are also part of British law. I can tell him what would happen then: as long as we remained inside the European Union, the British courts would find in favour of the treaty rights. Next, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to explain how his exercise would lead to absolutely nothing except the humiliation of the United Kingdom. He needs to stand up and spell all that out.
    Were we to go down the road of withdrawal, as an increasing number of members of the Conservative party want to do, we must be clear that it would not be cost free, as the Conservatives try to pretend. I invite hon. Members to read the interesting article in The Independent today that spells out the fact that not being a member of the European Union would not be cost free.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Rubbish.
    Mr. Straw: Rubbish, we are told. But it would mean applying European legislation while having no say in deciding it. It would mean contributing to the European Union budget but getting almost nothing back—Norway alone pays €230 million a year to finance EU enlargement. British exporters, who can today trade free of obstacle throughout Europe, would have to fill out a 12-page form every time they wanted to send their products across the channel—extra red tape, extra costs and extra delays.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Nonsense.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman can say that, but I have the form here and will happily give it to him, all 12 pages of it. The Conservatives talk about trying to scale back bureaucracy and red tape, but withdrawing from the European Union would disadvantage every business in Britain and increase red tape.
    Withdrawal would also mean losing the global influence that we have as part of the single market, with a quarter of world gross domestic product and a third of world trade. That is the vision that the Eurosceptics of the Conservative party have of Britain. It is not my view; nor, I believe, is it the view of the majority of British people.
    At the beginning of this speech, I quoted a passage from Margaret Thatcher offering high and justified praise for the European Union. That was in the early 1980s, when the Conservative party was actively and constructively engaged in the European Union, campaigning for qualified majority voting to ensure that the single market would work and for a common foreign

    793
    and defence policy. However, as the Conservative party became more and more despondent about its own long-term future, so it became about Britain's influence in the world. Therefore, as it has done repeatedly over two centuries, the Conservative party turned in on itself on the issue of the UK's relations with the rest of the world, particularly Europe. Conservative pessimism has produced a defeatist attitude to Europe and a similarly defeatist view of Britain's place in the world. It is a view based on the belief that Britain can never succeed in Europe, and that all we can aspire to do is to hold back the tide. It betrays a total lack of confidence in the force of Britain's influence.
    We take a different view. By engaging in Europe, we can lead reform. If we put Britain at the margins, our partners will go ahead and, quite naturally, arrange things that may not suit us. If we want Europe to pursue the right policies to make us more prosperous and more competitive in the world, we need to be at the centre of decisions, making our case and winning the arguments. That has been our approach on the constitutional treaty. We have made clear what we will not accept, but we have also shaped the debate in our favour. Now we have the chance to agree a treaty that encapsulates Britain's vision of an effective, reforming Europe, in which 25 proud and rather different nations can work together to enhance their prosperity and their power.
    It is a chance that the Government are determined to seize. If a treaty is agreed, we will make the case for that kind of Europe to Parliament and then to the British people, who will have the final say The case will be for a Europe in which Britain is stronger, not weaker; winning, not whining; powerful, not powerless. And we will be negotiating for a treaty that sets out the framework of a modern and effective Europe of nations, in which Britain is leading reform to ensure that the organisations from which we have benefited so much in the past continue to deliver the jobs, growth and security that we want in the future.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this excellent debate, but I wish to apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to you and to the House for not being in my place for his ten-minute Bill a few moments ago. It was a complete oversight on my part and I apologise for the discourtesy that was shown to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House.
    Mr. John Randall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very gracious of the Minister to return to the House to make that apology, which does not always happen. I accept his apology entirely, and I hope that he will read my speech and become a champion for puffins and sea squirts.
    Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I call Mr. Ancram.
    1.20 pm
    Mr. Michael Ancram:Before that dignified apology by the Under-Secretary, the House was being entertained by one of the Foreign Secretary's famous rants. Interestingly, he spoke for 40 minutes
    794
    before he came on to what his party stands for in Europe. He spent most of the rest of the time attacking what he said my party stands for. I have learned one thing about the Foreign Secretary, and it is that when he rants like that it is a sign of uncertainty.
    Hon. Members will recall a debate earlier this year when I called for a referendum on the European constitution. In reply, we heard a remarkable rant from the Foreign Secretary, in which he told us how disgraceful an idea it was even to suggest a referendum on such an issue. He gave me all the reasons why a referendum would be wrong and then, 10 days later and apparently at his direction, the Government changed their mind. I am not sure what we should read into his rant today. Perhaps our wish will come true and the Government will go to Brussels and say no to the constitution.
    These biannual debates on European affairs, which occur shortly before the meetings of the Heads of Government in the European Council, are traditionally useful occasions when Members of Parliament, as elected representatives of the British people, can express our views on the position that the Prime Minister should take at the summit. Rarely can there have been a debate as relevant and timely as today's. On the day before the Prime Minister flies to Brussels to finalise agreement on the European constitution and three days after the results of the European Parliament election results were declared, there can never have been a clearer message for him to carry to the Council: the British people do not want this constitution.
    A year ago, when the full impact of the draft constitutions became apparent, it was publicly argued that if people did not like what they were offered, they could vote against the Government in the European elections this year. The elections, it was argued, would more or less coincide with the end of the process on the constitution, and we were given to understand that the Government would be
    "quite happy to fight the … European elections on a Labour platform endorsing this treaty, and the Conservatives can oppose it, and then the people will decide."
    Those are not my words, but those of the Leader of the House on the "Today" programme on 27 May last year. Well, the people have decided.
    The Foreign Secretary referred to the votes of the Scottish people as an endorsement—he claimed—of his position on fishing. Interestingly, he did not talk about the national results. In last week's election, more than 50 per cent. of people voted for parties opposed to the constitution. If the Prime Minister presses ahead with agreeing the constitution, he will do so in the face of the democratically expressed will of the British people. If he does so, he cannot claim that he is representing the British people. That vote has rendered invalid his mandate to agree the constitution, if he ever had one. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes his usual protestations, but my understanding is that one has a mandate to do something that was in one's manifesto. Perhaps he could show me where the Labour manifesto for 2001 makes any mention of the introduction of a European constitution. After that vote, the Prime Minister has no

    795
    moral authority to agree the constitution. He should heed the will of the British people and go to Brussels and say no. If he does, we for our part would welcome it.
    Geraldine Smith: Most of the British people are not aware of the detail of the constitution, so I do not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say that they are against it. I think that they would welcome greater co-operation on measures to tackle illegal immigration and asylum, and the enhanced power of the nation state that the constitution contains. The Conservatives have got this all wrong.
    Mr. Ancram: We do not need a constitution to do any of the things that the hon. Lady mentions. She appears to scorn the advice given by the Leader of the House, who saw the elections as a chance for the British people to pronounce on the constitution. The British people took up that invitation and they have clearly spoken.
    I fear that the Prime Minister will not return from Brussels having said no to the constitution. He will tell us proudly about his red lines, which are part of a carefully choreographed battle for British interests that have already been conceded by his European colleagues, but which must appear to be fought and won in the battle of spin to allow him to claim victory. It will be a hollow and deceptive victory, because it will not deal with the real dangers to British interests that the constitution poses.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Prime Minister could veto every aspect of the constitutional treaty that he did not like, and he could go further and say that he would also veto enhanced co-operation, which France and Germany want, unless they give us our fish back? Would that not be a sensible approach in the negotiations?
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend sets out an important fact ignored by the Government, which is that negotiations are about such arguments—getting what one wants, sometimes in return for something that someone else wants. But this Government do not negotiate. They never argue Britain's corner. Indeed, from what they have said recently, they appear to believe that negotiation means saying to colleagues, "We want this, but if you don't want to give it to us, we will not press you any further."
    In the next two days, we shall hear a lot about the so-called red lines. It has already started, with talk in today's newspapers of keeping national vetoes for treaty change, tax, social security, defence, criminal procedure and, as a general rule, foreign policy. We were told that there was no need for a European public prosecutor. I thought that the Foreign Secretary might tell us today what was happening on that, but he was too busy talking about us. Making the charter of fundamental rights anything other than a political declaration was also to
    796
    be a red line. The Government will undoubtedly claim that if those points are met, the constitution will be acceptable.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the European public prosecutor, but we have a veto over whether it even happens.
    Mr. Ancram: I presume that the Foreign Secretary hopes to be able to tell the House when he returns that he has achieved all his red lines. However, he may remember that he told us in December that they had already been achieved.
    Admittedly, if the red lines were not met, the constitution would be even worse. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, in reality the red lines are red herrings—a last-ditch and somewhat desperate distraction from the fact that, even in the Government's own terms, the current text is very different from the one they originally aimed for.
    During the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will recall, the Government tabled 275 amendments to the text of the constitution. Only 10 were accepted into the final text. To put it in football parlance, the score to date is Giscard 265, British Government 10! So what happened to the other 265 important amendments? Let us look at just a few. Last year, the Leader of the House tried to strike out the article giving the constitution legal primacy. So why is that not still a red line?
    On the question of an EU Foreign Minister, the Leader of the House wrote:
    "We do not accept the title 'Foreign Minister' as it is misleading as he/she will have no Ministry … We suggest 'EU External Representative'."
    What an extraordinary phrase. The Leader of the House continued:
    "This is unacceptable as it stands."
    So why is it no longer a red line? Is it because the Government are now hell-bent on creating an EU diplomatic service, with its own embassies and its own ambassadors working to its own Foreign Minister?
    The Government wanted to rewrite completely the article on asylum. They described it as "a fundamentally important amendment". They failed. So why is that no longer a red line?
    Geraint Davies: Is there any new provision in the treaty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman actively supports? Or is his position one of blanket opposition, in order to mimic Robert Kilroy-Silk without having the integrity to advocate withdrawal?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had read our manifesto for the European elections, he would know that we actually support the principle of what the Foreign Secretary called the yellow card provision to enable national Parliaments to exercise a veto, but we do not think that it goes far enough. Indeed, like us, some Labour Back Benchers have suggested that the yellow

    797
    card should become a red card. That is how we can ensure that we achieve stronger support and ability for national Parliaments.
    Mr. Straw: So is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he does not want national Governments to have a greater and more enhanced role in the running of the European Union, which will be achieved by a full-time chairman but cannot be achieved by a rotating presidency that would take 12 and a half years to come around for each member state? Does he object to what is in article I-11, which for the first time provides, as the Leader of the Opposition called for only half an hour ago, for powers to be repatriated from the EU back to member states?
    Mr. Ancram: Once again, the Foreign Secretary raises the extraordinary idea that if the head of the Council is not an active politician in his domestic Parliament—someone who does not represent a Government in the EU—that somehow strengthens the position of national Parliaments. He should take the time to visit some of the accession countries, which feel that that would remove their ability to influence the European Union because they would never have a chance to take part in its presidency.
    Angus Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know that neither red nor yellow cards will have an impact on the exclusive competences of the EU. That being agreed, why did a Scottish Conservative MEP, Struan Stevenson, propose in the European Parliament that fishing should be an exclusive competence of the European Union?
    Mr. Ancram: I can say only that Struan Stevenson stood on the manifesto at the European elections—[Interruption.] Under our present system for electing our MEPs, devised by the Government, candidates stand only on their party's manifesto, and our manifesto makes it clear that our position on repatriating control over fisheries is maintained.
    I was asking what had happened to all the other amendments. Why have they apparently been surrendered? I shall not try the patience of the House by going through the whole long list, but unless the great bulk of those amendments is secured by the Prime Minister this week, the Government will have done something quite extraordinary they will have demonstrably failed—not in our terms, nor even in the terms of the British people, but in their own terms. What the Prime Minister will be facing tomorrow is not a tidying-up exercise, not a mere consolidation of existing treaties, but what the Belgian Prime Minister has described as the "capstone" of a federal state.
    If we are to believe that the Government are fighting to protect British interests, there are some simple benchmarks. The Prime Minister should firmly say no to any constitution. Countries have constitutions; the EU
    798
    is not a country and must never aspire to become one. Indeed, only three years ago the Prime Minister told us that a constitution was not necessary.
    Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge rose—
    Mr. Ancram: I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for old times' sake.
    Mr. Savidge: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Conservative party has a constitution? I would concede that it is in a state.
    Mr. Ancram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the EU constitution, but if he thinks that a political party, or a golf club—one of the other organisations that is often mentioned—has 175-page constitutions of intense and obtuse language, I do not know where he has been. I know constitutions. I know golf clubs. This ain't no golf club constitution.
    Apart from one slip of the tongue, the Foreign Secretary told us again that this was a constitutional treaty and thus somehow not a constitution. That is a form of sleight of hand, because the treaty describes itself as
    "establishing a Constitution for Europe".
    Throughout, the document refers to "the Constitution" and until the Government accepts that it is a constitution we shall hear the sort of meaningless and irrelevant rant that we heard from the Foreign Secretary today.
    Mr. Barnes: It is very courteous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give way. If the word "treaty" were to replace the word "constitution" throughout the document, would that be okay for him?
    Mr. Ancram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the document—[Interruption.] I am about to give the hon. Gentleman an answer—the Foreign Secretary really must restrain himself. He sits on the Treasury Bench chewing away and I know that he is anxious about the next few days, but he must restrain himself.
    The document is a constitution; when one considers the way it is set out, it must be a constitution—it cannot be anything other than a constitution. When one has an elephant it is worth calling it an elephant; if one calls it other than an elephant, one tends to get trampled on.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall give way in a moment. I want to make some progress.
    The Prime Minister must meet other benchmarks. He has to say no to the constitutional imperative of a Europe "united ever more closely". We were told that that concept would be removed, but there has merely been a change in the wording—it actually means the

    799
    same thing. Following on that, he should say no to giving the EU a single legal personality. It does not need one unless it is seeking to become a state in its own right. It has not had one in the past and can perform perfectly well without one.
    The Prime Minister should say no, as the Government tried to do in their earlier amendment, to the article giving the EU constitution legal primacy over our own. He should say no to the EU having control over our asylum or immigration policy. Of course, we can cooperate, but we should not be told what our policy is by Brussels.
    The Prime Minister should say no to the EU having any control over our criminal law. Of course, we need to work together to fight international crime and terrorism, but that must not mean the emergence of an EU criminal code that supplants our own.
    The Prime Minister should say no to the charter of fundamental fights. If it has only the legal force of the Beano it is unnecessary. If it has legal force, which our Government promised us it would not have, it must be opposed. I seem to remember that the Government's exact words were, "There is absolutely no possibility of us agreeing to this". We can look after our own fundamental rights. We do not need Europe's judges to tell us how to do it.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall give way in a moment.
    We must be wary of accepting bold assurances that attempts to harmonise taxes and to create a single foreign and security policy have been thwarted by the brave actions of our gallant Prime Minister. Left behind in the text will be the "aspirational" articles, I-14 and I-15, requiring co-ordination of economic policies within the Union and active and unreserved support for the Union's foreign and security policy,
    "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and compliance with the acts adopted by the Union in this area".
    Mr. Straw: That was in the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman keeps shouting about Maastricht, but Maastricht was about an intergovernmental system; this constitution is creating something very different and those words have a very different meaning when they form part of a constitution.
    If, in a constitutional context, the first of those two articles does not mean a long-term aim of achieving tax harmonisation, it is not only hard to see what it means but even harder to see why it is still in the document. If the Prime Minister's claims to have achieved that red line are to be believed, that should have gone, too.
    The second article is even more serious. It could make anything that is not an EU common foreign policy justiciable before the European Court of Justice. It is the backdoor to a single European foreign policy, something which would be disastrous for us and which the Government have also assured us would not happen. If the Prime Minister means that assurance, he must insist that that article goes, too.
    800
    I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he has to some extent passed on from the point on which I wanted to intervene. He and I will have to agree to disagree about the word "constitution", but what does his party propose to do in the event that this legal instrument were not to receive the approval of the British people? Would his party be content to operate under the four existing treaties and the Single European Act? How would that provide the clarity that is necessary for a European Union expanded from the original six to 25?
    Mr. Ancram: We have never had a problem with looking at what might loosely be called a charter of competences that sets out clearly what the European Union can do and what national Parliaments should be able to do. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that this document is an example of clarity, his time in the law may have clouded his judgment as to what is clear.
    We are still told that the proposed constitution does not cross the threshold between the room marked "A Europe of Nations" and the room marked "A Sovereign European State". Perhaps, in totality, it does not, but it certainly moves from the anteroom of one to the anteroom of the other, and it does not take an immense step to move from one room to the other anyway.
    Let me quote from the evidence given to the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution by Professor John McEldowney of the university of Warwick on 15 October last year. He said:
    "While the Constitution may constitute the sum total of the existing Treaties revised and refined, it is also endowed with the status of a Constitution—even though this status is not well defined or explained. Inevitably the status of a Constitution invites interpretation by the courts and this adds an additional dimension of how judges might interpret the terms of the Constitution."
    That goes to the absolute heart of why the constitution is objectionable.
    If the Prime Minister was true to his past words and recognised the strength of feeling expressed by the British electorate last week, he would go to Brussels to say no, and I still hope for Britain's sake that he will, but I fear that he will not He is, after all, the Prime Minister who twice in the past four years has called for the creation—his worth, not mine—of a European superpower. That is the Government's real agenda. They talk the talk of the Europe of nations; they walk the walk of an increasingly integrated and politically united Europe.
    The signs are there. First, we saw recently a report of Romano Prodi's group, set up under the chairmanship of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, including a former Government Minister and confidant of the Prime Minister, Lord Simon of Highbury. The report says that the formation of the EEC was no more than a first step in the federation of Europe. It clearly maps out the desired path and states:
    "The time has now come to take the second step: that of the march towards political union".

    801
    Mr. Strauss-Khan helpfully explains how it will all be achieved:
    "As demonstrated by the draft Constitutional Treaty, there will be no 'revolutionary leap' to a political Europe: it will be built by small reforming steps."
    He went on, very helpfully, to set out those steps. The first stage is to adopt the draft constitutional treaty produced by the European Convention. The second is to develop the context and the financing of Union policies in negotiations on the next financial perspective. The third is to bring to life the European model within the first European constitution. The fourth is to make use of the experience acquired to define the next political phase. He ended up by saying:
    "The need to make further progress towards political union will become clear."
    It is absolutely clear that that is a road map towards political union—he makes no pretence about it—and I find it strange that the Government are still denying that that is what the constitution is about, but we are told that that is not the Government's position. It might not be, except for another report—the declaration by the European Socialists party, published last February, called "Europe 2004—Changing the Future". That is an interesting document. For a start, it talks about eliminating
    "all unfair competition between the national social security systems of our Member States."
    Where would that leave the Government's red line? It says:
    "The idea of an international tax continues to gain ground and should be explored, such as a tax on speculative movements of capital, on CO2 emissions, or a global tax on multinational corporate profits."
    Again, where would that leave the Government's much proclaimed red line? It talks about "a common immigration policy" and
    "a move towards single EU seats in the different international organisations."
    For a start, that would mean losing our seat on the United Nations Security Council to an EU representative who, on all past evidence, would rarely represent the British view—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary laughs. He ought to read that document; it is very informative.
    We were told, much to my astonishment, that that was not the Government's position either. That argument does not work this time because that document—I have a copy here—is actually signed by the Minister for Europe. When that was disclosed, we were told, rather surprisingly, that he did so in his political rather than his ministerial capacity. Again, not quite: the document sets out against his signature the term "Minister for Europe, UK", so he signed it in that capacity.
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ancram: Not in that capacity—if the Minister for Europe does not speak for the Government on Europe, who does? The Deputy Prime Minister told me last week that that was not Government policy. All I can say is why is the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench as the Minister for Europe if what he now signs is not the Government's policy?
    802
    There is something rather endearing about the Minister for Europe. When the Government are busy laying down the usual smokescreens, he invariably—if I may mix a metaphor—lets the cat out of the bag, and this time the cat is the cat of further European integration, which has always covertly been the Government's aim. To disguise that, the Government, led by the Prime Minister and aped by the Minister for Europe, set out, extremely foolishly, to suggest that the only question on Europe was whether to stay in or get out. They sought quite deliberately to polarise the argument and to deny that there was any position in between. The result of that polarisation was clear on Sunday and the Government have only themselves to blame. They deliberately set out to try to hide the fact that there is another option—a more constructive, more sensible and more forward-looking way. It is our way, and the results of the election show that it was the option that secured the most votes.
    Our policy would make the EU more open, more accountable and more efficient. It would be an EU that would not try to do everything, but that would do what it does better. We want to build a flexible Europe, following the precedents set by the opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen agreement, which shows how flexibly Europe can work. Enhanced co-operation enables some member states to go ahead with further integration, even when others do not want to do so. So countries that wanted to integrate still further could do so, but others would not be compelled to join them. That is why we keep on stressing the importance of a flexible Europe.
    Chris Bryant: I have heard many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches, and as I understand it he is arguing that he would never sign up to, negotiate or start to negotiate anything that looked like a constitutional treaty or a constitution of any kind, but that he would like a charter of competences, as I think he referred to it earlier. However, I have yet to find another country in Europe that is prepared to take part in that negotiation with him. Therefore, unless he is prepared to sign up to the treaty to allow a change in the process of negotiating the treaty, there is no means to establish what he wants.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should study not just this country's election result, but those right across Europe. If he did so, he would find some very strange results, with countries, particularly those that have just joined the EU—inasmuch as they bothered to vote at all—showing a very strong and healthy concern about the way that the constitution is directing Europe.
    The Conservative approach will anchor national Parliaments at the heart of the EU law-making and decision-making process. As I said earlier, we want a red card system to be introduced: if, say, five or more national Parliaments object to new or existing European legislation on the grounds of subsidiarity or proportionality, it should be withdrawn or repealed, not just reviewed. The EU Commission should lose its monopoly right of initiative on legislation and share it with member states.
    The current rotating Council presidency should be, and can be, reformed by establishing rotating team presidencies of perhaps one year, involving big and

    803
    small members. That would allow the burden of chairing the Council of the European Union to be shared between members, rather than held by an individual character for five years. The acquis communautaire needs to be systematically reviewed, so that powers that would be better administered by the nation states are returned to them. Defence and foreign affairs co-operation should be defined in practical, organisational terms. That would allow ad hoc coalitions and pan-European action where desirable and task specific, but all within the NATO structure. The common fisheries policy is emptying our seas of fish and utterly failing our fishermen, so we will negotiate to restore local and national control over British fisheries.
    That will be the start. For too long, we have sat back as powers were leached away from national Parliaments to Brussels.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Ancram: I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—I have given way three times—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly not prepared to give way.
    Mr. Ancram: I give way to the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way; I shall try to reciprocate. On fishing, let us suppose that we repatriate the powers by a decision of the House and the other place. What happens when that repatriation of fishing powers turns out to be completely inconsistent with the treaties?
    Mr. Ancram: That is the negative answer that we hear all the time. My criticism is that we have had two years of the renegotiation of treaties through the Convention and the process that has led to the constitution. The Government should have been arguing the case for our fishermen during those negotiations, but they did not. We will not find ourselves in that situation when we are in government. We will argue for British interests. Our case in negotiations will be strong, and we will succeed.
    We have sat back for too long as powers were leeched away from national Parliaments to Brussels. We intend to reverse the conveyor belt by restoring to Westminster powers from Brussels that can be exercised better and more efficiently here. We are not alone, although the Foreign Secretary keeps trying to suggest that we are. The Dutch Foreign Minister, Bernard Bot, called for cultural policy, parts of the common agricultural policy and the social chapter to be returned to nation states' control. When the constitution fails, as I believe that it should and will, and Europe goes back to the drawing board, we will at last have the opportunity to negotiate a Europe in which the nations matter again.
    The whole weight of evidence, argument and popular opinion is ranged against this wretched constitution. The opportunity to reject it and build a more people-friendly Europe is there. I fear that due to all the deeply
    804
    inculcated arrogance of new Labour and its contempt for democratic opinion, that opportunity will be squandered. I fear that the Prime Minister will return to the House on Monday full of tales of negotiating derring-do and red lines protected, but with an agreed and damaging constitution in his hand. If that happens, in the face of British public opinion, he should accept one valid challenge: put the constitution to the people in a referendum now. He should not wait 14 months in the hope that he can bamboozle the British people into supporting it. He should have the courage of his convictions, get on with it, and let the people decide. He could do even better by the British people by going to Brussels this weekend and rejecting the constitution now.
    1.51 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Although this point has fortunately not flowed into the debate, I was surprised by the reaction of both major parties to the European election results because the most striking thing about them was the increase in the vote for the UK Independence party and the National—non-Jordan—Front. The reaction of the party leaders seemed to be that we should dismiss the support for UKIP and the National Front, but that would be like adopting the old Militant argument from 1983 that if people did not vote for our Trotskyite policies, we should change the electorate rather than our policies. I do not mind hearing a few jokes about how a permatan can be maintained in the European Parliament—it is quite possible to maintain one here in the British Parliament. Wondering about how my friend Robert Kilroy-Silk will maintain an income and an audience in his new role is harmless stuff. However, it would be dangerous to dismiss what the electorate told us through the vote.
    I do not think that the electorate told us that they want to come out of Europe. That is not a salient issue, and we waste far too much time denouncing the possibility of withdrawal to create fear. If our only defence of the proposed constitution is that the alternative is withdrawal, it has no defence at all. The people were not making that point about Europe. Opinion polls show that British public opinion has consistently been divided, with about 40 per cent. of people thinking that our relationship with Europe is a bad thing and about 40 per cent. thinking that it is a good thing. The rest are undecided about, disinterested in, or bored by, the whole affair.
    British people do not have a passionate belief in withdrawal, but they are not happy with Europe, our relationship with Europe, the stream of regulations and commitments that is handed down to us, or the projects of the Euro-enthusiastic elite for whom Europe is a matter of religion rather than national interest. The reality of the situation is that the Euro-enthusiastic elite are foisted on us, so the electorate are saying, "No more than that." However, the fact that they are saying such a thing means that it could be dangerous to rush into or propose any endorsement of the European constitution. Such an action would put an imposition on the people—they do not want that.
    A pathetic argument on the front page of today's edition of The Independent predicts the horrifying consequences of withdrawal, such as national

    805
    disintegration and dissolution. As if European countries would stop sending us manufactured goods. We are told that we do well with trade at present, but that we have constantly been in deficit, so this country would lose manufacturing jobs to Europe. As if European countries would stop forcing their overpriced food on us and stop us from buying food on the cheapest market, which is usually the world market. As if they would stop us passing social legislation for our purposes so that we may handle social provisions in our own way. All that is nonsense within the debate.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters, so will he explain why the constitution, as proposed, has only four exclusive competences: the customs union; the commercial policy of the single market; the euro, for those who are in it; and the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy? Why is the Foreign Secretary so reluctant to correct an obvious historical blunder that has given the fisheries policy such a status?
    Mr. Mitchell: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. The constitution must be the first in the whole world to include fish. I read several constitutions during my days as a political science lecturer, but I never found one that included the marine biological resources of the sea and fish. What is the basis on which that is being done? I think that the exclusive competence will extend competences because it will apply to not only the 12-mile limit but right up to the beaches, which was not envisaged even when the Conservative Government signed up to the common fisheries policy. The inclusion of that competence is a mystery. However, the provision is ominous because the fact that it is included implies that it has a purpose, but that would have to be damaging to our national fishing interests. That is only one aspect of the constitution that worries me.
    We were told that the constitution represented a tidying-up operation to make way for new member states, but we were also told that the Nice treaty would do that job for us—it was sold to us and pushed through the House on exactly the same basis. Evidently, more tidying-up is necessary, so I have no doubt that more will come later.
    The constitution is a product of the European elite. Euro-enthusiasm and commitment to the European vision were prior requirements for those who participated in the Convention that produced it. Critics and Eurosceptics formed only a pathetically tiny minority of the people involved in its production, although the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), maintained a consistently critical stance.
    The arrangement shows how Brussels and its bureaucratic elite are constantly striving for an ever-closer Union. There is a constant desire to breed a 1950s-style centralising state that hands down rules and decrees along the lines of the mode of the French state, which has a powerful bureaucracy to drive it. However, the time has passed for exactly that kind of state. People no longer want such states. Even the European bloc is less relevant in a world in which tariff barriers are
    806
    falling, there is greater emphasis on corporations, globalisation makes for common standards and every barrier is coming down.
    A bloc such as Europe is less and less relevant and less and less necessary, but there is still a drive from the centre to turn it into a state of a type whose time has passed. There is no need now for a European state that is constantly strengthened in that way. Enlargement sounded the death knell of that process, and this constitution is its last throe—an attempt to reverse the consequences of enlargement, which means that, as an association, Europe will be not only bigger but looser. One cannot impose the framework of a state on such a diverse, massive population or collection of nations. This is the last desperate throe of outdated centralism, but it is still dangerous and we in this country should oppose it.
    We want national management of our fishery resources, and I support the desire to come out of the common fisheries policy, but it is not only on fishing that we should oppose the constitution. It will transfer more power to the centre and create a situation in which more power still can be transferred to the centre. I refer here to the excellent Fabian Society pamphlet "The Making of Europe's Constitution" by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, in which she raises several of the dangerous points that are still implicit in the constitution. She says that
    "assent for changes moves to the European institutions, without the further involvement of Westminster or other national Parliaments."
    She argues further that the constitution
    "gives the Commission wider powers to act where there is no specific treaty basis"
    for that action. She adds that
    "the draft Constitution contains no mechanism to review and return powers from the Union to Member States"
    and it has
    "rigid rules to determine future actions or how power is to be exercised but it also initiates processes."
    My hon. Friend says that
    "in practice the present scope of the acquis"—
    the acquis communautaire that all the new members have to accept—
    "is not reconcilable with the professed objective of subsidiarity and taking decisions at the lowest feasible level."
    That is absolutely true. We have a massive acquis of regulations imposed from the centre. My hon. Friend goes on to say:
    "The draft Constitution proposes in at least 36 separate policy areas that the national veto is to be abolished".
    Finally, there is the question of the EU having its own resources, which is central to the ideas of Giscard d'Estaing. The constitution is so long, so turgid and so complex that it is like the Schleswig-Holstein question beloved of Lord Palmerston, and anyone who says that they understand it and its implications is either insane or a genius. I do not think that there are many of either calibre on either Front Bench. I therefore think that the question of own resources is an open one, but steps seem to be being taken towards providing those.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to explain the issue to me; I will be very grateful if he does.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is mad and I have forgotten. I agree that a long document is capable of different interpretations, but, in my interpretation, on anything that is a shared competence we have the protection of article 1.11, which the Foreign Secretary specified, and we are covered by subsidiarity, but anything that is an exclusive competence has neither of those protections. That is why I am so concerned—as, I know, is the hon. Gentleman—that fisheries have ended up in the wrong category.
    Mr. Mitchell: That may well be the position, and since we are dealing with abnormal psychology here, in which I am not an expert, although I accept that the Scottish National party may be, I will have to accept that explanation.
    Our interests in Europe lie not with this constitution but in a looser association in which we can, if we want, pick and mix. There are proposals for strengthening the constitution's central core, but there are no proposals for allowing the kind of pick-and-mix process that is in our interests. All parties have been saying for decades that we will fundamentally reform the common agricultural policy, but it never happens. The CAP goes on costing more. It is a declining proportion of the Community's expenditure but a bigger total, and it is never effectively reformed. It is a drag on trade negotiations, particularly for this country, all over the world. We need to come out of that policy, but if the constitution is accepted there will be no possibility of doing so or of coming out of the common fisheries policy. It is interesting, is it not, that all the common policies of this European monster—the CFP, the CAP and the common economic policy—are the most disastrous areas of Europe's machinations.
    We do not want to be subject to endless regulations about how many or what mixture of vitamins pills we can take. What use is it to regulate all that from the centre and impose it on the British market? Yet that is a classic example of the lunacy of this centralisation process.
    John Robertson: What would be the situation, particularly for the CAP, if we did not participate at the centre of the EU and try to mould what is happening? Does my hon. Friend agree that the alternative to participation is total withdrawal from the EU? We cannot try to change anything from the periphery; we must either be in the middle or out of the EU completely.
    Mr. Mitchell: I had hoped that my hon. Friend was going to intervene on the question of vitamin pills, which I am sure we both take. What he said is absolutely wrong. I remember the classic reforms proposed for the CAP in Agenda 2000. Reform was agreed, and we went along to the Council in Berlin. Giscard simply walked into the negotiations and said no, and all the reforms that we had agreed were scrapped. Our presence had no influence and we could not stop that. Our interest lies in allowing states to contribute what they want to their own agricultural policy and in our buying in the cheapest market. It is ridiculous to say that the alternative to reforming the CAP is to come out of Europe altogether. That is palpably absurd, and it would palsy the hand of Government in trying to secure
    808
    any reform in anything. To say, "If we reform this, we'll be out" is no negotiating position for a British Government to take. That is the kind of despair that I want no truck with.
    The problem that the Government face is deciding whether we should accept the constitution. If we do, we will have a weaker base from which to resist further depredations, regulations and impositions of central control. The threats that are held out if we do not accept it—that we will be on our own and out of Europe—are totally unrealistic. We face a simple question of whether or not we accept it. I do not expect the Prime Minister to be so bold as to take his courage in his hands and veto the constitution, saving "Up with this we will not put." However, he might attempt, as Pope put it, to
    "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer",
    providing a rallying post for those nations, mostly the smaller ones, who need support, who are unhappy with the provisions and want to oppose it and certainly to stick to the red lines. My position on the constitution is
    "Thou shalt not kill"—
    and perhaps I may not be able to kill—
    "but need'st not strive Officiously to keep"—
    this farce—
    "alive."
    There is no need for the constitution and the British people do not want it. If my Prime Minister comes back from Europe and, like his Conservative predecessor, proclaims "Game, set and match", which is what everyone comes back from European Councils triumphantly proclaiming, I have to tell him and my Front-Bench colleagues that the British people will simply not believe it.
    2.10 pm
    Sir Menzies Campbell: It is instructive to look around the Chamber. I do not exempt my party from this criticism, but one would hardly believe that the debate is taking place only a few days after European elections in which one party achieved 12 Members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom and 16 per cent. of the vote on the thesis that Britain should withdraw from the EU. Perhaps the proper argument about the EU and Britain's role in it should start in the Chamber, with a greater attendance of Members from all parties.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that the debate was timely. I hope that he will not think it churlish of me to say that I am not so sure about that on this occasion, because we have mainly heard—I suspect that we will continue to hear, and I do not exempt myself from this criticism—a rehearsal of old lines by the same actors.
    That makes me think, to continue the theatrical theme, that the debate is rather like the porter's scene in Macbeth. We are an interruption to the dramatic narrative, but there is little likelihood of our having any impact on the plot. We need to know, to inform this debate and the debate in the country, the outcome of the negotiations over the weekend and what, if anything, the Prime Minister will bring back.

    809
    I hope, therefore, that there will be an opportunity if not for a reprise, at least for the chance to examine in some detail, as soon as decisions have been made, what took place over that weekend and what the United Kingdom may be invited to endorse in a referendum.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what policy changes the Liberal Democrats will make in the light of the strong Eurosceptic opinion expressed in the election?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: We shall continue to reflect our policy in the terms of the manifesto on which we stood. In the most recent European elections we increased our number of Members of the European Parliament and we increased our percentage of the popular vote. I think that was a reasonable endorsement of our position. I wish we had been third rather than fourth, second rather than third and first rather than second but, unhappily, my wishes do not always prevail in these matters. I am confident that the position that we took was entirely legitimate. We shall not do anything other than stand on the manifesto on which we fought the election campaign.
    Mr. David Taylor: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that access to the Liberal Democrat manifesto, or its summary, was r of present in many election leaflets in the east midlands. The probable reason for the slight increase in the vote was the smokescreen of promoting Iraq as the prime issue on which people should elect Liberal Democrat MEPs. There was little about Europe in the leaflet that we received in the east midlands.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Iraq was not significant in the debate about Europe, let me try to help him. There is no doubt that the stand taken by the Government, and endorsed by a vote in the House, was one of staying close to the position of the Bush-White House Administration. In my view, that was not justified. My scepticism and that of my party is well known on this matter. If we had a properly formed common foreign and security policy in Europe, it is extremely unlikely that the United Kingdom would have allied itself with the Bush Administration. One of the compelling arguments for a common foreign and security policy is that Europe should operate together but, if necessary, independently of the United States on such issues. I therefore believe that Iraq has an important significance in the context of a debate about Europe.
    I also say to the hon. Gentleman that as the European elections were the first universal test of public opinion in the United Kingdom since the decision to take military action against Iraq, it was inevitable that Iraq would feature in the minds of electors. To conduct a campaign and to say, "This is a campaign about Europe, but we are not going to allow you to talk about Iraq and we are not going to talk about Iraq", would have seemed to many people to be an abrogation of responsibility.
    I have quite a lot of sympathy with some of the preliminary observations of the hon. Member for Great
    810
    Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He was right to say that the events of the election are of significance. I would argue that what came out of last weekend was, in truth, a warning for proponents of the European case that, without leadership in Europe, voters will hear only one side of the story on Europe, which will inevitably be in negative terms.
    These have become questions of belief. I suspect that the debate has reflected that so far, and that that will continue as it proceeds. Opinions are almost preordained. Members enter the Chamber with a view about Europe and a view about the legal instrument that may or may not be called a constitution. I shall be surprised if any Member who takes part in the debate changes his or her mind as a result of what they hear during the day. I believe strongly, as I have said in many debates on this subject, that there is a case for a legal instrument, that it should be called a constitution and that, without a document of the sort that is contemplated, to seek to organise the EU on the basis of the four existing treaties—Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice—and the Single European Act would become increasingly difficult. In my view, it would be a twin recipe for instability and sclerosis. Some action must therefore be taken to reflect the fact that we have gone from six to 25 member states.
    I accept—in my judgment, those of my persuasion on these matters would be wise to do so—that there will be little hope of an affirmative vote in a referendum campaign unless the campaign to achieve that begins now. As reflected in the votes of last Thursday, there is a substantial amount of anxiety about Europe and about Britain's role within the EU. One would be right to acknowledge that the campaign for a negative vote in the referendum has to some extent already begun, and can claim some early success.
    Otherwise, why else within a month after the much-celebrated enlargement of the EU should the United Kingdom have elected 12 Members of the European Parliament who are pledged to wreck it? For the states that have just joined—for example, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania—that must be a bleak message. The future of the EU itself will be bleak unless those of us in all parties who believe that Britain should be at the heart of Europe—in the language used by Mr. John Major and more recently by the Prime Minister—argue that case with much greater vigour than has been experienced in this country since perhaps 1975.
    Mr. MacShane: I agree with many of the points that the right hon. and learned Member is making, but should he not be careful not to over-dramatise and give the importance to UKIP that it wishes to accord itself? In every European country there is a bloc of people who vote, for example, in France for the National Front, for the Vlaams Blok in Belgium, the Northern League in Italy, the June List in Sweden and the Leppers party in Poland. Those people seem to think that if we quit the EU, life will become a bed of roses. In a sense, all that we have seen in Britain is that we are becoming a normal European nation with aggressive anti-European politics represented, in this instance, by UKIP, with considerable support from the tabloid press and many Conservative Members.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I cannot hope to match the Minister's encyclopaedic knowledge of European political parties. The significance of UKIP is not on the issue of withdrawal so much as on the influence that it may have in a referendum campaign. We should take note of that, and people who believe in the cause, as I certainly do, have an obligation to argue the advantages with much greater vigour than they have since the 1975 referendum. I welcome the events of the past few days, which show that battle has been joined. The area of dispute is evident, and a resolution is desirable and, some may argue, inevitable. I therefore hope that at the weekend there will be a successful outcome, which would be an acknowledged political success for the Irish presidency.
    I had some difficulty accepting the use of the word "mandate" by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes and his argument about whether the Prime Minister had a mandate after last week's elections to agree the document and eventually put it before the House in legislation embodying a legal instrument that may, or may not, be called a constitution. We do not use "mandate" in the strict sense in our political system. No one in Parliament is mandated—we are representatives, and are not compelled to vote as our constituents direct. We come to the House with an obligation to exercise our judgment. Even if that parallel cannot be easily extended to the realm of international treaties, the mandate, if any, will be given in the referendum. As the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes pointed out, he and I have been at pains to argue that the Government need a popular mandate for a constitution, which is why we need a referendum. It appears that the intelligence and intellectual force of our view has prevailed, as the Government have now agreed to that course of action.
    Some questions remain—for example, on voting weights. It would be helpful to know the Government's position on that issue, which was said, because of the attitude of Spain and Poland, to have been instrumental in preventing agreement when these matters were last considered by the Council of Ministers. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is another significant issue, and we need some explanation of the emergency brake procedure that is being discussed. Under that procedure, any dispute would be referred back to the European Council and member states would be allowed to opt out. Are the Government satisfied with that position, and will they recommend it to the House if it is included in the final document?
    In the past, I have expressed reservations about establishing a public prosecutor. National authorities should be able to pursue prosecutions in accordance with domestic procedure and rules of evidence. What is the Government's attitude towards the continuing suggestion that there should be a European public prosecutor? All parties in the House are at one in believing that a common foreign and security policy should remain an issue on which the veto can be exercised, and should be subject to consensus, not qualified majority voting, because foreign affairs and defence policy are national issues. The vote on 18 March last year to commit British men and women in circumstances in which their lives may be at risk established a precedent that went to the very heart of national sovereignty, so such decisions should not be abrogated.
    812
    No doubt the Minister will confirm that taxation remains a red line issue for the Government, and the most recent draft of the treaty—a number of drafts are circulating, as right hon. and hon. Members know—proposes that there should be no incursion of EU competence into national affairs of taxation. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made a number of points about own resources and financing, and it would be helpful if the Minister gave us a clearer view of the Government's position on those matters.
    I understand the historical and emotional importance that many people attach to the British rebate. The rebate, however, is less important than the bottom line of the annual British contribution. In the next EU budget negotiations, the Germans will be extremely reluctant to make the net contribution that they have made in the past, not least because of the weakness of their economy and the domestic difficulties of Mr. Schröder, if he is still there. At some stage, therefore, we need a wholesale review of the EU's financial basis. That would have been too much to hope for on this occasion, but in due course there must be some consideration of the way in which those matters—
    Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: In a moment—the right hon. Gentleman need not be quite so impatient.
    Those issues must be resolved not just in the United Kingdom but in the European Union of 25, which many of the most recent members joined with an optimistic expectation of access to the moneys of the common agricultural policy and the structural funds.
    Mr. Redwood: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not notice that we had a debate yesterday on that very issue, as we discussed the EU proposal to increase the amount that it takes from us by a quarter? It was one occasion when I agreed with the Government, as we both disagreed with that proposal. The EU also wants to impose new direct taxes on us. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party in favour of those things?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I am in favour of neither, and nor is my party.
    A number of proposals are circulating about the charter of fundamental rights, including some that appeared on the front pages of national newspapers today. It would be helpful to know the Government's position on the issue, and whether they continue to believe that the legal terms that deal with the extent to which the charter has to be interpreted according to national conventions and norms should remain in the preamble or whether they should be incorporated in the main block of the treaty to have full legal force. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide further advice about that.
    As is self-evident, I reject wholeheartedly any question of withdrawal from the EU. Withdrawal is a simplistic theory, and people who argue for it are obliged to explain how long it would take, what the financial and political costs would be and what would be the effect on inward investment. What would be the

    813
    consequences of withdrawal for those aspects of economic life to which we have become accustomed? Equally, people who argue for renegotiation are obliged to explain which countries are willing to agree to that course of action. How long would renegotiation take, how much would it cost and what would be the consequences for inward investment? I was intrigued by the analysis that the Secretary of State gave of the view of the Leader of the Opposition that we should legislate to withdraw the United Kingdom from the common fisheries policy. I cannot think of any instance in history where the House of Commons has sought to legislate to withdraw from a treaty obligation without the agreement of other signatories to the treaty.
    Mr. Redwood: What about the Reformation?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: If the basis for the Leader of the Opposition's policies is to be found in the 16th century, perhaps we can understand the lack of enthusiasm for greater co-operation in what most of us would regard as modern Europe.
    There is a serious point here. As I said, I cannot think of any instance where legislation has been introduced in the House of Commons for the purpose of departing from a treaty obligation, without there having been the agreement of the co-signatories to the treaty. An interesting question arises. Such legislation would seek to detract from section 2 of the Act of Accession 1972. I do not believe, therefore, that the legislation apparently proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would be possible unless it contained an express repeal of section 2 of the Act of Accession because by definition, such legislation involves denying the primacy of European law in such areas.
    An Act would have to be introduced stating that not only were we withdrawing from the common fisheries policy, but that we were, for that purpose at least and perhaps on a wider basis, seeking the repeal of section 2 of the Act of Accession. If that did not lead to withdrawal, it is difficult to see what other outcome there is likely to be. The proposal requires a little more scrutiny by the constitutional lawyers.
    I have no anxiety about the use of the word "constitution". It is a legal instrument, but so is a treaty. The European Court of Justice is required to interpret treaties and it would be required to interpret this legal instrument. I was interested in the proposal from the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes for a charter of competences, which he may have mentioned before, but I do not believe that it has been fully discussed in any of the many debates that we have had. A charter of competences would also require negotiation and universal agreement, so even that remedy for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman conceives to be the ills of the European Union may not be easily achieved.
    I cling strongly to the view that nations acting together can achieve much more in the service of the people in their countries than they can operating individually. I believe—this is a matter of belief—that the history of the European Union has shown that more convincingly than perhaps any other experiment in international co-operation. The EU has promoted economic growth across the continent, it has safeguarded human rights and it has safeguarded the
    814
    environment in every member state. Were it such a failure, it would be surprising beyond belief that 10 countries should have been so enthusiastic to become its members in the course of the past few months—[Interruption.] As the Minister for Europe says in a sedentary intervention, there are more waiting outside, desperate to become members.
    European rulings have protected consumers and have required Governments to adhere to higher environmental standards. I believe the United Kingdom needs to be part of such alliances. I say that because, as I hinted a little earlier, unquestioning allegiance to the American agenda does not always help the United Kingdom's international standing, nor is it conducive to the effective promotion of British values and British interests at a global level. We need to form a strong European Union that can operate in concert with and, if necessary, separately from the United States.
    Britain being at the heart of Europe was one of the platforms on which the Government were elected. If a positive role is played this weekend and agreement is reached, that may go some way towards fulfilling the Government's pledge, which in recent years has seemed to many of us to have become rather more of a plea.
    2.34 pm
    Denzil Davies: The debate has, naturally, focused on the constitutional treaty—I am happy to call it that—and the negotiations that will take place in the next few days and may continue into the weekend. As experience has shown over the past 30 years, the final outcome will no doubt depend upon haggling and late-night compromises, which have been the hallmark of the negotiations. At the end, if there is an agreement, as there probably will be, it will be hailed, as has been said by previous speakers, as a great victory or a triumph for Europe and for each of the member states, and of course for the intrepid negotiators, who have done so well to reach a conclusion.
    Everyone will be a winner except, as often in the past, the democracies of the member states. Over the past 30 years, as treaty has followed treaty, we have seen a gradual slicing away of the democracies of the member states as a result of those treaties. I shall not attempt to analyse why people voted as they did in the last European elections, but I believe people do understand that, and not just in Britain. There is concern that the democracies, especially those of the old nation states of Europe, are being eroded, maybe for the common good and maybe not. That is a real concern, which was expressed at the ballot box last Thursday.
    The European Union is faced with two fundamental problems, which are described in that somewhat inelegant language that one often finds in EU documents. Most hon. Members will know that one of the problems is the so-called democratic deficit. If I may create some inelegant language of my own, the other problem, in my view, is the unwieldy macro-economic structure of the Union itself. With regard to the constitutional treaty, being a fair-minded person, I am prepared to wait for what the Foreign Secretary called the final text, and to judge whether it makes the so-called democratic deficit worse. From previous experience, I do not think it will necessarily improve the democratic deficit of member states.

    815
    The constitutional treaty will certainly do nothing—I shall spend a short time on this; it may not necessarily be relevant to what happens at the weekend, but this is a debate on European affairs—to address the problems arising from the EU's inflexible and unwieldy macroeconomic structure.
    Economic and monetary union is in a mess. The EU as a whole and the countries at its core are stagnating, and the existing structure cannot withstand the onslaught of globalisation over the next few years. Continental Europe has not yet suffered from the globalisation pressures from which the United States is suffering. The United States is hanging on in there. It is doing quite well. With huge deficits and practically non-existent interest rates, it is just about managing to create economic growth despite the pressures on its economy, especially from China.
    Europe has not yet experienced such pressure, but that will change. I understand that one of the two main Japanese car manufacturers—I forget which—is setting up a manufacturing plant in China. There is nothing new in that, except that that plant is to produce vast numbers of cars wholly for the European market. To borrow a transatlantic phrase, we ain't seen nothing yet in Europe. I do not believe that its macro-economic structure, monetary union and economic union, such as it is, are capable of withstanding that.
    It is only fair to say that some of the countries have done quite well, and Britain especially so. Those countries are often on the geographical periphery of Europe or have not joined the euro. As we know, however, the countries at the core of the Union and the euro area—Germany, Italy and France—have been stagnating.
    Mr. Wayne David: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest. Does he accept that the arguments put forward by the British Government in favour of economic reform based on the Lisbon agenda are absolutely right?
    Denzil Davies: I shall briefly mention the Lisbon agenda in a moment. The point that I am trying to make—I do not really need to make it, as my hon. Friend agrees—is clear. In Germany, unemployment is currently at 10.5 per cent.—and that is in the summer. The average unemployment rate for the EU of 15 member states is about 8 per cent., and it is far greater for the EU of 25 members.
    I am not quite sure what the EU's purposes are these days. Over my 30 years' experience in this House, I have found that they tend to change from time to time. As I understand it, one of them is to stand up to the Americans, eyeball to eyeball if necessary. That may apply to foreign policy, but the economy is also important. A country cannot have much of a foreign policy if its economy is going downhill.
    Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the problems, but will he concede that there are many good news stories? For example, why is it that a small independent member state of the European
    816
    Union such as Ireland has managed to overtake the wealth per head of the UK and be a part of the eurozone?
    Denzil Davies: I asked some Irish friends that question some time ago at a conference. Being charming and Irish, they said, "Mr. Davies, Ireland is crawling these days with economists trying to find an answer to that question." If one looks at the core, one sees that the problems are very great.
    Analysts have suggested that the European Union's GDP per head is now about 60 per cent. that of the United States. That applies to the 15 original members; if one takes the 25 member states, the figure will obviously be less than 60 per cent. That is a problem in the economy of the European Union, especially among the euro 12—the countries that have subscribed to what is described as monetary or currency union.
    I do not know all the reasons for that situation—there must be many of them—but I suggest that one of them is the dead hand of European bureaucracy. In most democratic countries, the bureaucrats do not propose legislation; it is proposed by democratically elected Ministers. Curiously, in the European Union it seems that the bureaucracy is the only body that is entitled to propose legislation. Others can look at it afterwards, but as we know, the person who produces the first draft has the advantage.
    The bureaucracy churns out material. No doubt we all receive those wretched yellow forms among our parliamentary papers. I try to look at them from time to time. Sometimes, in an excess of enthusiasm, I even try to read some of the documents that are sent out. Most of them come from the Commission, although some come from the European Parliament. There are communications, regulations, directives, announcements and all sorts of different documents. Most of them, frankly, are incomprehensible except perhaps to senior partners in City firms of lawyers. I pity not only the larger firms that have to try to interpret such documents, but the small businesses, which are also affected. People in such businesses somehow have to try to run their business and deal with all the nonsense that is issued. If a particular regulation does not work very well, it will take a long time to change it, and the instinct of the bureaucracy will be to churn out another regulation to try to undo some of the damage caused by the last one.
    I think that I know the history, but I ask why we need bureaucracy to be on a par with the more democratic elements of the European Union: the Parliament, which has very little legitimacy in my view anyway, and the Council of Ministers. I suggest that one reason—it may be a minor contributory reason—for the stagnation of much of the European economy is the dead hand of that bureaucracy.
    On the Lisbon declaration—I think that it is a declaration or agreement—
    Keith Vaz: Agenda.
    Denzil Davies: I am sorry; one has to be very careful with the language.
    As far as I can see, behind the words, the Lisbon agenda basically says "Well you, France, Germany and Italy, must dismantle your welfare states." I think that

    817
    that is what it says in general terms. It mentions what are called inflexible labour laws. Opposition Members will no doubt approve of that sort of Wall Street Journal agenda, which says that provided that we dismantle the welfare states in continental countries, their economies will surge forward and all the problems will be solved. I do not believe that. As far as Germany is concerned, I do not believe that such an approach is practical or possible. After the elections last Sunday, I do not believe that the Germans will take that route.
    In my view, the main reason for the problems lies in the inflexibility and unbalanced nature of the arrangement and the fact that it is out of kilter with the macro-economic structure of the European Union. Monetary policy and the arrangements on interest rates apply to 12 member states and no more, although there are now 25 of them. Of course, the new 10 members have no opt-out and will have to try to bring themselves within the currency union. As a result, they will have no ability to fix their interest rates. A country such as Germany, which is the largest in the Union, cannot now fix its own interest rates. I feel sorry for the European Central Bank, because it does not know which way to move. It can move neither upwards nor downwards; if it goes one way, the rate will be too low for Ireland, and if it goes the other way, it will be too high for Germany. There is complete ossification among the three countries—France, Germany and Italy—that produce 70 per cent. of the GDP of the European currency union.
    Fiscal policy covers public expenditure, public borrowing and taxation. Apparently, public expenditure is still the province of the member state—and correctly so—but that does not apply to public borrowing. I do not want to look into the entrails of the growth and stability pact, but I point out that it at least tried to restrict borrowing in terms of public expenditure, because it is not possible to allow each nation in a currency union to borrow as much as it wants. We have had great fun over the growth and stability pact, but it will have to be revisited in some way. I do not think that it is possible to operate a currency union without such an agreement. The problem is that nobody knows what to put in its place or how to draft a new agreement. If such an agreement is drafted, it will not, by its very nature, be able to foresee and deal with unforeseen circumstances. Again, the currency union is damned both ways; it is damned if it does not have such a stability agreement, and also if it does have one, because the entrenchment of such an agreement into the constitution and the treaties will mean that it cannot be changed until it is too late to do so. Of course, many of the new member states are now trying to get inside this somewhat dead growth and stability pact and to reduce their expenditure and borrowing so that they come within the 3 per cent. requirement. That is also contributing to the stagnation of the European economy.
    On taxation, we have heard about the red lines. I think that the general view is that member states have an unfettered prerogative and power over taxation, but that also is not true. VAT produces the second largest amount of revenue for the British Government. It is a European tax. We can alter the rates up and down slightly, although the boundaries of change are getting smaller, but we cannot change the structure. No British
    818
    political party can go to the country and promise to abolish that rather ridiculous and bureaucratic tax.
    I am old enough to remember the Richardson committee, which was established before 1974 and headed by the Governor of the Bank of England to examine the wretched VAT. The committee concluded that we did not need it but Mr. Edward Heath, who was then Prime Minister, had to negotiate entry and VAT came with entry. We must therefore be careful: all taxation is not in the province of member states.
    Let us consider income tax and corporation tax. It may be an esoteric point but if one goes through Finance Bills over the past four or five years and reads some of the taxation reports of the cases before the European Court of Justice, one sees that it is clear that the treaties encroach—especially when one considers freedom of establishment—on income tax and corporation tax and have cost the Treasury a considerable amount of money. Legislation cannot be drafted that contradicts case law and the acquis communautaire that the EU has built up on taxation.
    The macro-economic structure is neither fish nor fowl. The central authorities of the EU have some but not all the levers of economic power that one would expect a nation state to retain. Member states have some but not all the levers of economic power that one would expect them to have. That puts the macro-economic strategy at a disadvantage when trying to compete in a global economy.
    There are two solutions. The first, which I believe that the European élite—as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) refers to them—prefer, is to transfer more power to the centre. Under that solution, powers over taxation would be transferred to the centre and public borrowing—or, indeed, expenditure—would be controlled more stringently. The levers of economic power would therefore go to the centre. Whatever happens to the red lines, the pressure will continue for greater central control of taxation and fiscal powers, because those who want a stronger centralised state believe that the balance is not right.
    In my view, any attempt to transfer fiscal powers, especially taxation powers, to the centre would be a step too far and would create a dangerous gap between economics, democracy and politics. However, pressure will exist, perhaps by the back door, to try to coordinate economic and taxation policy, to create the same sort of structure for corporation tax without touching the rates, at least for now, and to reduce the parameters whereby the rates can be increased. I believe that there are proposals to that effect for corporation tax.
    The second solution is to bite the bullet and start dismantling the central powers. We could begin with the Commission. Why should the Commission be allowed to propose all that legislation? We often consider devolution for many parts of Britain yet I hear nothing about devolution in the EU. "Devolution" may not be an elegant word, but let us have some and start dismantling the central powers. Indeed, we may have to consider dismantling some of the monetary powers because I cannot envisage a country such as Germany, unless it managed to achieve economic growth, accepting that it had no control over the basic levers of economic power.

    819
    Of course, such dismantling will not happen. On the one hand, there will be no movement towards more taxation powers because I do not believe that people will accept it. On the other hand, the dismantling of powers will not happen because the political and bureaucratic élite will not allow it. What would they do then, poor things? They have a vested interest in attending the meetings, doing the drafting, standing up and declaring great victories.
    A danger is that the external economic pressures of globalisation will create the change. As we know to our cost, such pressures can be haphazard and brutal. However, I cannot envisage the EU's doing anything about it except continuing to stagnate.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Is my right hon. Friend making a case for British withdrawal from the EU or for its total dismantling, irrespective of the wishes of 24 other member states, which are happy with the EU?
    Denzil Davies: I was not making either case but my arguments have obviously been insufficiently lucid; otherwise, my hon. Friend would not have asked that question. I was trying to make the point that the macroeconomic structure is ossified—it cannot go in one direction or the other. I should like it to move in the direction of decentralisation and more power reverting to member states. I do not believe that the current structure can withstand the massive pressures of globalisation.
    We shall wait and see what happens to the final text. I do not believe that it will say much about the matter that we are considering. It will probably be irrelevant and the EU's economy will, sadly, continue to stagnate.
    2.56 pm
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and I probably agree on little about general social and economic policy, but we agree that the public should have a choice between us. That forms a bond between us that is perhaps more important than our political differences.
    I believe that democracy becomes a sham unless people can choose between competing ideologies and political programmes. If all the powers go upwards to the European Union, to be decided by people whom we do not elect or know and, in many cases, cannot remove, we lose our democracy, there will be massive disillusionment with the political system and we will witness the rise of extremism. I am therefore pleased to follow the right hon. Gentleman, although he will understand that I approach the subject from a different perspective.
    We have held a national election, and it is in the nature of such elections that every party claims victory. However, there is one indisputable result: a clear majority of those who vote in this country do not want the European constitution. The Government must heed that message.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's point about giving rise to extremism in Europe. Does he view the rise in Britain of, for example, the British National party or, indeed, the United Kingdom Independence party, which is a party of wreckers on its own admission, as extremism? I would argue that those parties are extremist. Does he associate that rise with Europe or does it have more to do with domestic circumstances?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: One of the things that fuels the British National party is its claim that we are losing control over our borders and our asylum and immigration policy. I witnessed similar circumstances in meetings on the Convention on the Future of Europe that took place during the first round of the French presidential election campaign. The French National Front candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, defeated an incumbent French Socialist Prime Minister. One of his claims was that only he could repatriate control over immigration policy. He characterised the contest between Chirac and Jospin as a sham, claiming that they had sold out to the European Union. So, yes, I do believe that if we continue to hand over the powers of this Parliament to the European Union it will drive feelings of frustration and resentment that will fuel the rise of extremism.
    Mr. Redwood: There is an even more direct link between the rise of extremism and Europe, because we have to have the Lib Dem proportional representation system in European elections, and PR systems breed extremes, whereas sensible first-past-the-post elections, such as those that we have for this House, prevent them.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The list system is an anti-democratic reform that the Government ought to reject. I certainly believe that our party should, if it is not too late, try to get back to a system of single-Member constituencies for the European Parliament elections. Luckily, however, I am not in a position to commit my party one way or the other on that issue.
    I know from bitter experience in the European Union that it is the Community method to ignore electors. Adverse referendum results are either ignored or overturned, and the electorate are treated with indifference or contempt. The priest class of bureaucrats and technocrats who run the European Union regard the electors as a kind of dumb collection of walk-ons and extras. It is there fore only in this Parliament—and, I hope, in this country—that we shall take the results seriously. Otherwise, disillusionment and cynicism about the European Union and the democratic system will only increase.
    The turnout in member states elsewhere on the continent is an eloquent commentary on how people there see the European Union and the European Parliament. They have been told, as we used to be, that the reason people did not vote in the European parliamentary elections was that the Parliament did not have any proper powers. However, although every treaty change has given it more powers, the turnout has continued to fall. People there are sending a message that they do not regard themselves as adequately represented in the European Parliament and that it is

    821
    not a Parliament to which they can relate. If we add to that problem by transferring more powers from their national Parliaments to the European Parliament, we should be defying that message.
    In this country, people are unambiguously voting for less Europe, not more, at the same time as the Government are about to go to Brussels to negotiate, and possibly sign, a truly epic agreement on a European constitution which would give Europe a whole new impetus and status. If the Government persist in ignoring the fact that the people are going one way while the Government are trying to go another, we are in for a road smash in this country. It is the job of politicians to find a way around that and to respond to people's concerns by designing a truly democratic Europe in which they can feel happy and content.
    It is perfectly true that the Government never wanted a European constitution. Up until two years ago, they made it clear in all their speeches that they did not, and would not, support any move towards consolidating the existing treaties into anything like a European constitution. Nor did they want any more majority voting when the last talks got under way.
    "We see no need to revisit the deal on qualified majority voting made at Nice."
    That was stated by the Government's representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe, in an amendment to an early draft of the constitution. Instead, however, majority voting has now been brought into upwards of 30 new areas. The House of Commons Library has calculated that there are 33. The Foreign Secretary rather remarkably dismissed that, saying that they were unimportant and peripheral areas. Does he think that criminal justice or asylum and immigration are peripheral? They go to the very heart of what government is for, and what this House regards as important.
    The Government did not want a European Foreign Minister, and they tabled an amendment on that issue. Neither did they want a mutual defence guarantee as a rival to NATO; they also tabled an amendment on that in the Convention. They opposed giving up our seat on the United Nations Security Council when asked to do so by the European Foreign Minister. In spite of that, that requirement endures in the constitutional text that will form the basis of the final negotiations.
    The Government did not like the proposed external action service either. That is a Eurospeak term for the Foreign Ministry that the new Foreign Minister will have. Remarkably, however, there is now provision in the draft constitution for that proposal to be put in hand even before the constitution has been ratified. After signature of the constitution, the setting up of that European Foreign Ministry will proceed, before this House or any other national Parliament has had a say on the constitution, let alone before any electorate has voted yes or no to it.
    We then come to the exclusive powers, and I agree with what the Scottish National party is saying about fisheries being made an exclusive power. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) joined me on the European Scrutiny Committee in interviewing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this morning about another matter: competition policy. That is also in the constitution as an exclusive competence. That
    822
    means that, as defined in the constitution, we would have no power to set up any national competition policy or rules. That is what European exclusive competence means. That is not the situation under the present treaties, a fact that I think we finally managed to get out of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. David: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have overlooked the distinguished contribution of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who is also a member of the Committee. Perhaps he will be able to confirm what I have just said.
    Mr. David: I would like to point out that there was a qualification made this morning, and that the article in question applies only to the single market.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If we are going to descend into trivia—important trivia, but nevertheless genuinely peripheral—then, yes, there is that qualification. But everything relates to the internal market, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is a member of our Committee and he will know that the European Commission now regards health policy as a single market issue because health care is a service that can cross borders and health products can be traded. It is using single market powers to drive through a new Community health policy. Those matters will now all be arbitrated and decided by the European Court of Justice—so once it is written into the constitution that competition policy is an exclusive competence, pretty well everything will be decided there. I repeat that this House will be legally unable to legislate on those matters, even when competition policy clearly relates only to our own domestic concerns.
    The main point about all the amendments that the Government representative tabled in the Convention on the Future of Europe is that they have now all been abandoned and forgotten. They are not the red lines. In fact, Government policy has been one long retreat. At the same time, they have been conceding the ever-growing importance of what is at stake. We started in the Convention with the Government's representative, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who never attends our debates now, of course. I think that he might be rather embarrassed about some of the things that he said at that time. He claimed that the constitution was only a "tidying-up" operation, but that view did not last very long. The Government then conceded that the constitution was indeed important, although not important enough to hold a referendum on it. Then, in a somersault, they agreed that it was important enough for a referendum.
    In parallel with the ever-growing importance of the issues at stake, they have been conducting ever-greater retreats on the specific policy issues. By the end, the Government representative had tabled in excess of 200 amendments to the constitution, of which he only succeeded, if we are generous, with 12. That is a success rate of about 5 per cent. In negotiations, one wins some and loses some. It is remarkable, however, if one loses 95 per cent. of what one is aiming for, and succeeds on only 5 per cent. Yet the same right hon. Gentleman called it a strategic victory, and said that the Government
    "achieved all of our strategic objectives".

    823
    I find it odd that if one is out-voted or ignored on 95 per cent. of one's demands, one still calls it a great victory. I would like to know what a defeat would have looked like. In relation to strategic victories, the details are important.
    With regard to competition policy, once the door is open a chink, the Commission and the Parliament knock it down and legislate in the fields open to them. Therefore, if any new powers go into this constitution, of whatever sort, and if there is any move from unanimity to qualified majority voting, we can be sure that that will be exploited to the full by the European Union. The ultimate arbiter in any dispute is, of course, the European Court of Justice, which is an activist court that almost always finds in favour of greater centralisation and more European Union powers.
    The Foreign Secretary was curiously silent on the question of red lines. Those were carefully self-selected about a year ago. They are a handful of issues that do not alter fundamentally the architecture or structure of the constitution, the distribution of powers or the primacy of European Union law, all of which are completely untouched by the red lines that the Government are demanding. We must assume that the Prime Minister will secure them. That is worth a pause, because we have before us the grisly record of the Prime Minister on the charter of fundamental rights.
    It is part of our traditions in the House that when the Prime Minister gives an unambiguous assurance from the Dispatch Box about an area of national policy, we tend to believe it. Certainly, I did—I have come to regret it somewhat in relation to the Iraq war. Nevertheless, that is the default position that we must all adopt. The Prime Minister gave an unambiguous, clear assurance that the charter of fundamental rights would not be made legally binding. Rather innocently, I believed him at the time. That has now become a negotiating aim, however; in fact, worse than that, it has been abandoned altogether. Not only will the charter of fundamental rights be legally binding, but it constitutes the whole of part 2 of the constitution, which, under article 10, will have primacy over the law of member states. In its totality, therefore, it is put above anything that the House can do or any law that it may pass. That is perhaps the most remarkable U-turn of all, but we have never had an explanation of it from the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, under the proposed constitution, all the treaties and all the laws, including the entire body of the acquis communautaire, are to be revoked and then reapplied under the primacy of the constitution, which is a massive, fundamental change that also changes the character of the Union at the same time? That is why we are right and the Government are wrong.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, the so-called primacy clause has had enormous implications that have never been explained or elucidated candidly by the Government. The Convention took the case law of the European Court of Justice—which is an activist court and is always seeking through its case law to expand its jurisdiction—and made that into an unqualified assertion of the primacy of Union law in all
    824
    eventualities. I cannot reconcile that in any way with the sovereignty of national Parliaments or the sort of democracy or powers of the House with which we have grown up, and which have been accepted as a constitutional norm, certainly by all Members of the current House. That has been decided in the constitution unambiguously and categorically in favour of the Union, without any debate.
    It is true that the Government tabled an unsuccessful amendment to try to restrict the primacy of Union law to cases in which there might be a conflict on individual and specific directives and regulation. That is the working compromise that we have reached with the European Union—we cannot pass national laws that conflict with directives to which we agree. The Government failed on that, and we have returned to the unqualified assertion that the constitution, and all laws flowing from it, shall have primacy over the laws of member states. Of course, when I say that the constitution shall have primacy, that means all the objectives in the constitution, generally expressed, and the charter of fundamental rights to which I have alluded.
    Another aspect that would be funny were it not so serious is that I heared the Home Secretary complaining the other day about judge-made law. He was complaining that British judges are now interpreting his statutes in a way of which he does not approve, and saying that the House should decide those matters. If I may say so, he has not seen anything yet. The charter will be interpreted not by British judges but by the Luxembourg Court, which will interpret laws that have probably been passed, over a British objection, by qualified majority voting. Therefore, if the Home Secretary does not like judge-made law, I suggest that he reads the constitution, which entrenches judge-made law except that it will not be a British court doing it.
    When the Minister responds to the debate, will he confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that at least this self-selected handful of issues, on which he wants to dig in, are still red lines? Some doubts have been expressed. He will know that there is a provision in the constitution to harmonise compulsorily economic and employment policy—it is not a power but an instruction given to the Union to do that. When the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, he emphasised that that was unacceptable. It may be, but it is still in the constitution. The latest draft states:
    "The Union shall adopt measures to ensure the coordination of the employment policies of the Member States".
    There has been some change on economic policies, but compulsory co-ordination from the centre, by the Union, of the employment policies of member states is still in the constitution. That is a red line, and it must come out this week end. I hope that that can be confirmed.
    Exactly the same is true about social security, which, as the Prime Minister has often repeated, is a red line, on which there is to be no majority voting. But again, it is included in the draft that is now going to Brussels. Article 21, in part 3, provides for qualified majority voting on social security. A kind of emergency brake has been included, whereby if we object to what is a fundamental issue, we can appeal to the European Council—the European summit, meeting periodically—

    825
    at Heads of Government level. A similar emergency brake is applied to criminal justice procedures.
    The Government might think that that will meet their red line, but they should realise that it would be a fudge and completely unacceptable. There is already a torrent of legislation on such issues, and if they are to pull the emergency brake whenever social security or criminal justice arises it will be full on all the time. Last year, the Committee on which three of us sit examined 1,000 new measures from the European Union. Many of them are incremental. Once qualified majority voting is allowed on criminal justice and social security, and once the EU starts to co-ordinate our employment policies, no emergency brake in the world will be an adequate substitute for the veto that we were promised in the White Paper, which is now one of the red lines. I hope that the Foreign Secretary's silence in the debate does not indicate any kind of retreat. The point is, however, that even if he does secure his red lines they will be inadequate, given all the hundreds of amendments with which the Government failed.
    The Government must stand back. Let us not become too obsessed with red lines; let us ask ourselves what is being attempted. The European constitution is a decisive break with everything that we have had in the past. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been criticised for our modest attempts to repatriate powers over fishing or agriculture, but we have been engaged in a colossal renegotiation of the entire European Union for the past two years. I know because I was part of it: for 16 months I was in the Convention on the Future of Europe, and we undertook and carried through the most radical renegotiation that there has ever been.
    All the existing treaties have been repealed and replaced by a new legal entity called the Union. The pillared structure—the intergovernmental method of making decisions on justice and home affairs, and foreign and security policy—has gone, or has been consolidated in that new legal entity. International agreements are now to be conducted exclusively—again, this is an exclusive competence—by the European Union, acting for member states. Wherever there is an internal policy on transport or the environment, or—as is increasingly the case—on such matters as health and social policy, it will not be us doing the negotiations with third countries in the far east or with the United States: that will be done by the Commission and the Council—the new Union—on behalf of all member states, by qualified majority voting in almost all cases. The implications are huge. I call it a renegotiation in completely the wrong direction.
    To criticise us for having a modest go at repatriating some powers is to overlook the additional fact that that was shadowed as a suggestion in the Laeken declaration, which set the whole process in train. Let us look back at the instructions given to the Convention on the Future of Europe in December 2001. At the Heads of State meeting in Laeken it was suggested that we should repatriate some powers. They then said that might in the long term lead to a constitution, or a constitutional text. Instead, the Convention went straight to the constitution and completely ignored any suggestion of any repatriation of any powers. That is why I think that the Convention did not just ignore, but contradicted the instructions given to it.
    826
    The Convention failed in its task. It was supposed to simplify the existing treaties. I have here the latest version of the constitution—produced, incidentally, not by the British Government but by the British Management Data Foundation. It has put together all the text—all the new protocols and declarations—in almost 300 pages of A4, with writing on both sides.
    The Foreign Secretary said at the outset, in an article in The Economist, that he thought a constitution should be a simple document rather like the constitution of the United States, which could fit in anyone's pocket and be accessible to the public. I do not know what sort of suits the Foreign Secretary wears, but he certainly could not carry this document around for long. It is also completely impenetrable by the public—the people whom we represent. It has failed even in its task of simplification: it is longer than the treaties that it replaces. Its main defect, of course, lies in the transfer of powers upwards, which again conflicts with the Laeken declaration instruction to create a more democratic Europe, closer to the citizen. How can taking more powers upwards from national Parliaments to the Union bring Europe closer to the citizen? It is a complete contradiction in terms.
    The Foreign Secretary made the tired old point about subsidiarity and how everything would be different—how national Parliaments, including ours, would gain exciting new powers to enforce subsidiarity. That simply is not the case. Subsidiarity has been a treaty requirement for more than 10 years. It has not worked, and it will not be made to work simply by giving national Parliaments the right to ask the Commission to have another look at the position. There is no power to compel it to do so. That is a sham, and it was spotted as a sham by the European Scrutiny Committee before I was on it. In a press release, its distinguished Chairman said that the subsidiarity procedure being considered by the Convention was not a watchdog because it had no teeth. He rejected it, and he was right to do so. In another failed amendment, the British Government tried unsuccessfully to tighten it. Nothing in the constitution strengthens the position of the House of Commons in any way.
    As for economics, my approach is somewhat different from that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I believe that the constitution would lock us into a failed and failing economic model. In my view, it crystallises everything that is wrong with the European Union—its centralisation and its regulatory bias. The European Union is an incredibly old-fashioned organisation, which has been overwhelmed by world trends. It features a high-tax model, over-regulation and a lack of competitiveness, accompanied by a tragically high unemployment rate. We must learn what the rest of the world is trying to teach us. At present we are taking everything that is wrong and putting it into a constitution, which means that it will never be repealed.
    The constitution also does nothing to clean out the waste, incompetence and unpunished corruption that are all too prevalent in the European Union. The only people who ever lose their jobs in the EU are the whistleblowers. No one else ever resigns or is sacked, despite repeated scandals involving the EU's budget and its programmes. Yet these are the same institutions and the same people who will gain more powers and more money under the constitution. It makes no sense whatever.

    827
    However, the people have now seen through this situation. That has happened. The electorate have woken up and a different Europe is waiting to be born. We do not have to have this constitution—we could go back to the Laeken declaration and try to design something that is genuinely simple, democratic and closer to the people. The Prime Minister has no mandate to sign this treaty. There was nothing about it in the manifesto on which he won the last election, and the people have sent the Government a clear and unambiguous message that they should say no in the concluding negotiations. If the Prime Minister does that, he will do not only us, but the people of Europe generally, a favour.
    3.29 pm
    Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and we all in this House appreciate the enormous amount of work that he has put into the task of representing the House on the Convention. Even though some of us disagree with what he has said, no one doubts the commitment and sincerity with which he has undertaken his task.
    These debates have become surreal. I have attended almost every one of them since 2000, when I attended my first European summit as Minister for Europe, and they all take a similar format. The Opposition complain bitterly about what the Government are proposing to do, then after the summit is over they complain bitterly about something that the Government did not do. I wish the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister well in what is a critical summit for this country and the rest of Europe. I know that they will work extraordinarily hard on behalf of British interests, which in my view is exactly what all Ministers have done when they have been to summit meetings to bat for Britain over the past 20 or so years.
    I know that the summit is important because I have heard that Mr. Trevor Kavanagh, the political editor of The Sun, has decided to pack four clean shirts because he is convinced that it will take a long time. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe runs out of shirts, I am sure that Trevor will lend him one to enable him to complete the negotiations.
    The summit is similar in importance to the Nice summit. It is crucial because it will affect the way in which this country sees the European Union. Of course, all the arguments put forward on both sides of the House are relevant to the debate, but I hope that we will have a constructive debate once we have an outcome to the negotiations. It is worth remembering that the negotiations are not yet concluded. The Prime Minister is going to the summit to take Britain's views forward, and only after he is satisfied that the best interests of this country have been met will he sign up to the constitution. We should have faith and trust in his negotiating ability, which has brought us a central role in the way in which the European Union operates.
    Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that although an industry such as the fishing industry might be utterly peripheral to the UK
    828
    perspective, it is utterly central to concerns in Scotland about the European Union? As a convinced European, I have grave misgivings that the UK Government will not bat on that vital issue. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate what a devastating consequence that will have for the chance of ever getting a positive vote north of the border for a proposed constitution that entrenches fishing as an exclusive competence?
    Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no fishing industry in Leicester, although we have a by-election pending and several people are fishing for the seat. The hon. Gentleman is an eloquent advocate of his constituents and of Scotland, and I am sure that his representations have been listened to by the Government and will continue to be listened to by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe. I am certain that they will be central to the discussions that take place.
    I represent the city of Leicester, as does the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who is sitting opposite. We have just been through a European election and, as he and the House know, the United Kingdom Independence party did extremely well in the east midlands. Its flag bearer, if I may call him that, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, was elected at the top of the list for UKIP, which won a second seat. It is absolutely clear that it won its seats at the expense of the Conservative party and that the increase in the vote for UKIP was matched by a decrease in the vote for the Conservative party. That is primarily an issue for the Conservative party, and I think that it is the Conservatives' confusion over Europe that has led to the rise of UKIP. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I take enormous pleasure in any set of circumstances that causes the Conservative party to get fewer votes. However, although UKIP will damage the Conservative party in the short run, in the long run it will damage the country. It has slogans rather than a manifesto, and its election campaign was based entirely on slogans.
    I do not recall receiving many leaflets from UKIP in Leicester, but I remember the television soundbites. The trouble with such campaigns is that they give rise to a great bubble that suddenly bursts. The responsibility for those of us who believe that Britain should remain in Europe is to challenge UKIP's slogans. The primary responsibility for that rests with the Government, who must push the European agenda forward.
    It would be great if the Opposition were to join the Government in that task. In the run-up to enlargement, the shadow Minister for Europe joined my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Liberal Democrat spokesman in launching a large poster welcoming enlargement. I was delighted at that cross-party unity.
    I was also pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition attack UKIP. He made it clear that the Conservative party believed that Britain's future was in Europe. I had not heard him say that before, in the House or outside it, and so it is clear that UKIP has a function—to remind the Conservative party of what might happen if Britain were to leave the EU.
    The right hon. Member for Wells is very critical of the constitution and of the Government. As a member of the Opposition, he is entitled to be so, but I do not think that even he believes that Britain should leave the EU. If

    829
    he did, he would not want to remain in the Conservative party but would much prefer to join Mr. Kilroy-Silk and the other UKIP members.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it is important not to dismiss the election results. We should listen to what the people have said. Euroscepticism is on the rise because we are afraid to talk about European issues, either in the House or outside it. That is shown by the small number of hon. Members present for this debate.
    European issues will be crucial for Britain over the next few years, and it is therefore vital that we campaign on them. Ministers must be prepared to do what my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has done so successfully over the past two years—that is, they should talk to the British people about the benefits of EU membership.
    If the constitution is agreed to this weekend—if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decides that it is in Britain's interests to sign up to it—I hope that every member of the Government will show the same passion and eloquence that he displayed at the Dispatch Box when he announced that there was to be a referendum on the constitution. The European issue is of importance to every portfolio held by every Minister.
    Going out and campaigning on these matters should not be left only to the Minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary. Ministers from all Departments attend the meetings of the Minicor committee, and the Minister for Europe will know that the message must be got across to the British people. If that does not happen, there will be a further rise in Euroscepticism, and the only arguments advanced will be those put forward by the Eurosceptics. That will damage the Conservative party, and the whole of Britain. We must make sure that that does not happen.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will do his best at the summit meeting, and I hope that an agreement is reached. There was concern that that might not happen, and that discussion of the matter would have to be adjourned until the next presidency begins later in the year. That would be a dreadful outcome: we must conclude the debate and reach a decision, so that we can move on.
    The Opposition banged on for several months about the need for a referendum. The Prime Minister has given the country an opportunity to pass judgment on the constitution. Of course there will be parliamentary scrutiny: that is inevitable, as a Bill will have to go through the House. Moreover, I am certain that the matter will be dealt with on the Floor of the House, so that every hon. Member can participate in the debate. After that, we have to have a referendum campaign that informs the people, and whether it comes before or after the general election does not really matter since we have a timetable for two years. What is essential is that we are prepared to put the arguments before the British people so that they know exactly what we have planned for them and agree with it. Their ownership of the European project is absolutely crucial. We can pass all the Bills we want or have all the ministerial statements we want, but if we do not carry the people and do not explain the benefits of being in the European Union, we will not have a people who believe that they are stakeholders in the project.
    830
    I very much hope that the campaign will start as soon as possible. I hope that it will not be a short campaign; I hope for a long campaign interwoven with the domestic agenda, because Europe delivers on the domestic agenda, too, which people forget, thinking that it is something quite separate. Many of the things we do are relevant to what happens in Brussels, and vice versa.
    Will the Minister tell us the Government's position on the appointment of a new President of the Commission? There has been a lot of speculation about who that might be. One candidate is the former Prime Minister of Belgium, who recently lost his election. Other candidates are in the frame: Mr. Chris Patten has been mooted. Whoever it is, I should hate the decision to be taken in haste, but we should know who will succeed Romano Prodi. If necessary, we should have a debate in the House: there would be nothing wrong in debating the choice once the Government have made their decision; indeed, it would be a very good idea.
    We need to know whom Britain is supporting, and we need to know the name of our new Commissioner. Again, there has been a lot of speculation. I am not making a bid for the job, I assure the House.
    Mr. Michael Moore: Oh, go on.
    Keith Vaz: I am quite happy. We have one by-election coming up in Leicester, and we do not need another.
    It is important that we get a substantial figure to go to Brussels who can speak well on Europe and is able to forward the Government's agenda. Whoever it is, I hope that the decision is made as quickly as possible so that speculation can be ended. Our current Commissioners are coming home, so to speak: Neil Kinnock, who has done a splendid job, has become chairman of the British Council, and Chris Patten, who has indicated he does not want to continue, is chancellor of Oxford University and, I am sure, doing other things. We need to know who the Commissioner will be so that we in Parliament may, through various committees, question him or her, give guidance or direction, and be aware of what that person stands for.
    A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned the Lisbon agenda. We must not lose sight of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) poked fun at it, but it is crucially important. Lisbon was the first summit at which there was a benchmarking of what Governments are supposed to do. Next year's spring Council will bring a review of what Lisbon has achieved. We must remind the House of what progress we have made on the Lisbon agenda.
    We have talked about the constitution, but we need to keep talking about reform, too. It is essential that, once the constitution process is completed and we begin the long campaign on the referendum, we remember that ours is the country that has pressed the reform agenda. It started with the joint letter of the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schröder two years ago, in which they set out a list of things that they hoped to achieve at the Madrid summit. I keep revisiting that in all my speeches, and I shall not ask the Minister for Europe, although I am sure that he has the answer, how many of the 27 things that we said we would do we have actually done.

    831
    I am sure that he will reply to that when he winds up the debate.
    The reform agenda is crucial. The people of Britain will not learn to love the European Union until the European Union learns to love reform. It is absolutely vital that we continue pushing the whole agenda forward, and we should be at the forefront of that. That will be where the people understand what we are doing.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking forward to the summit and that he will have at least three sleepless nights, but I wish him, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well, because I know that they will be there to do their best for Britain.
    3.46 pm
    Mr. David Atkinson: This debate on European affairs takes place following the elections to the European Parliament and on the eve of the European Council summit. It is, inevitably, concentrating on the future of the European Union. However, I wish to dwell on the future of Europe's largest and oldest institution, the greater Europe, that is the Council of Europe, within the context of the enlarged European Union.
    When the Foreign Secretary met members of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently, he was right to stress that the European Union could not have enlarged on 1 May without the preparatory work done by the Council of Europe. Those 10 new member states of the EU were among the 15 new democracies that acceded to the Council of Europe between 1991 and 1995, when I was the chairman of the committee responsible for that process. There is no doubt that the onerous work that we undertook at that time enabled those countries to banish every element of their communist past and to acquire the standards of multi-party democracy, human rights and the rule of law that they have achieved today. Without the contribution of the Council of Europe there would have been no acquis communautaire for the 10 new member states of the European Union.
    The work goes on. Today, the Council of Europe comprises 45 democracies. Later this year we expect Monaco to accede, once it has completed its negotiations on the transfer of full sovereignty from France. Only Belarus remains outside the European democratic community that is the Council of Europe, until President Lukashenko or his successor decides that it, too, must abandon all elements of its Soviet past.
    Next week, in Strasbourg, the Assembly is likely to approve a recommendation that Turkey has now reached standards of membership that no longer require the ongoing scrutiny of our monitoring process. That will be because of Turkey's recent progress toward a parliamentary democracy, including the end of the veto of the military; its acceptance of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights; its support for the reunification of Cyprus; and its recognition of the cultural identity of its Kurdish citizens. I hope that the European Union will recognize that progress when deciding its response to the Turkish application in
    832
    December, and will agree to commence negotiations on full membership as soon as possible.
    Unfortunately, those historic contributions by the Council of Europe to the peaceful, democratic evolution of our continent continue to be overlooked, especially in the United Kingdom. The most blatant recent evidence of that is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report for the year ending 31 March 2004. The Council of Europe is mentioned only once in that document, on page 87, and not at all in chapter 5, entitled "The UK in Europe". In that chapter, the first words are a quote from the Minister for Europe to the effect that on 1 May Europe would be reunited by the enlargement of the Union to include 10 new member states. That is not true. Europe became reunited when those 10 states joined the Council of Europe.
    Perhaps that oversight is not surprising, given the undoubted lack of resources provided to the Council of Europe, especially compared with those available to the European Union. The Council of Europe's budget in 2003 of €175 million was exactly—and merely—the cost of shifting the European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg for its monthly sessions. This year is the sixth consecutive year of zero real growth in resources for our Assembly. That is despite the increased work load arising from our enlargement, and the post-conflict situations in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Unless that situation is addressed, the Council of Europe risks the same fate as the Assembly of the Western European Union, which is being allowed to wither on the vine.
    Since the Laeken declaration established the EU Convention on the Future of Europe, I have been urging the Council of Europe to come forward with a clear vision for its role in response to an enlarging European Union. I have urged the Committee of Ministers to hold a summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe to agree what that role should be before decisions are made by the intergovernmental conference of the EU—in other words, that we should decide our future before others decide it for us.
    Such a summit, which would be only the third in our organisation's history, should recognise the Council of Europe's prominence over the European Union in its areas of competence for the foreseeable future; in particular, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg should be confirmed as the pre-eminent judicial pillar in any future architecture. That such confirmation is necessary is demonstrated by the proposal in the draft EU constitution, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has just referred and which would give legal effect in member states to a set of rights as defined by the EU charter of fundamental rights.
    As I sought to describe in my Adjournment debate on 26 February 2003, our fear in the Council of Europe is that the charter of fundamental rights would compete with the European convention on human rights. It would risk divergence in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the one hand and of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg on the other. The inevitable confusion would provide a field day for lawyers and undermine the case law of more than 50 years that protects those rights.

    833
    Those fears have been confirmed by the Venice Commission—the European Commission for Democracy through Law—whose opinion was sought by our Assembly. It said that
    "different interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter would seen inevitable … such divergences risk putting the national authorities in a difficult dilemma when they have to implement diverging judgements".
    In the light of that, I hope that the Government will ensure that the pre-eminence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is recognised and confirmed at this weekend's European Council.
    A third Council of Europe summit should also consider a second threat to the long-term effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg: the enormous increase in the number of applications to it. There were less than 10,000 in 1999 but more than 30,000 in 2002. We should not, of course, deplore that increase; we should welcome it. It means that ever more of the 800 million citizens of Europe are realising their rights and are using the Court to protect those rights when they are violated.
    The outcome, however, is that the Court cannot cope. Of the 30,000 applications received in 2002, 12,000 were not dealt with. At present, it can take up to six years for cases to be heard. That cannot be justice for those who were denied it for so long in their one-party states. Reform of the European Court in Strasbourg is essential; the matter is urgent and it must be addressed.
    When the EU Convention was established, it was expected to come forward with recommendations to bring
    "the EU closer to the people"—
    as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies)—which would address the so-called democratic deficit. As a contribution to that process, the Prime Minister, in a speech he made in Poland four years ago, to his credit, promoted the concept of a second chamber to the European Parliament that would be representative of national Parliaments of member states. Such an interparliamentary upper chamber could have responsibility for scrutinizing policies that continue to be intergovernmental, such as foreign affairs and defence, and matters concerning the entire continent, including the cultural heritage and the environment.
    The disappointing voter turnout in last weekend's elections to the European Parliament, especially in the 10 new member states—for example, turnout was only 16 per cent. in Slovakia and 20 per cent. in Poland—is an additional argument in favour of a second chamber, made up of national parliamentarians, to the European Parliament. Just because that suggestion was not wholly applauded at the time, I hope that the Prime Minister will not abandon the concept, but will revive and pursue it. In so doing, he will be able to avoid proposing the creation of a new institution, because the basis of an upper house for the European Parliament already exists. It is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
    3.54 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I have looked across the Chamber during today's debate with a mixture of trepidation and déjà vu, because many of the hon. Members who set out to destroy any Government initiative when the roles were reversed and we formed Her Majesty's loyal Opposition during the long years of the Major political night seem to be hellbent on doing so again today. They are fixated on aspects of the European Union that are, to many people, at best academic and, to others, certainly resolvable. It seems as though their antagonism to Europe is both visceral and immutable—time does not heal it in any sense.
    In fact, I take a very different view on Europe. I, too, like the Opposition, am critical of Her Majesty's Government, but from a different perspective: I do not think that the Government are enthusiastic enough. I own up to being one of that band—admittedly, a minority—who look forward to the benefits of a deepening in the European commitment and European ties.
    Those who go to constituencies such as mine, particularly to the schools, recognise that a massive change is already taking place. The fact is, whether because of the increased prosperity that we have all enjoyed for a number of years or the wider opportunities to taste what at one time, certainly in my childhood, were rather exotic things, our younger generation are far more inured to a European dimension than we ever were. There is a danger in a place such as this that we are all seen as being tied into a middle-aged perspective, coloured by our own experiences and generational undertakings.
    When I visited one school, I was mystified to hear all the different languages being used around the place. Unbeknown to me, it was a European day at the school. The school was in a deprived area and performing poorly at that time, but everyone there had managed to key into the European dimension. The pupils had made lots of European dishes. They had learned basic phrases in a range of languages. Of course, when I talked to the kids themselves, I learned that many of them went on holidays abroad, although that was not particularly common. They had no fear of Europe, which seems to be at the heart of many of our debates on European affairs. Even if only with a simple thing such as football, they understand that we can learn from the European dimension.
    Indeed, when we complain so bitterly about Europe—it is as though we have to put up with matters European—I often ask myself why the Europeans put up with us, when the only things that we seem to give to Europe are football hooligans and carping critics of everything that Europe comes up with. Obviously, we have to be a little more circumspect in the House during debates on what Europe means to us, but I think that a deeper, more involved and more committed Europe is very much in our national interest.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends who sit on the Front Bench will not agree when I say that, if we had had that deeper involvement, that greater integration with Europe, I doubt very much whether we would have embarked on the folly of the Iraq war. I do not expect Conservative Members to agree with me; they were

    835
    more in tune with the Government on that issue. Indeed, they were more gung-ho about that adventure than even the Government. Nevertheless, a more integrated, responsive, interconnected and focused view in Europe might have acted as a brake on such a matter.
    I tend to think, too, that greater involvement in Europe would help us in many other ways in our national interest. For example, we all know that the Murdoch press rants, raves and rails against Europe, presumably because that is in its interests. I should like to think that greater co-ordination and, indeed, greater regulation—yes, that dreaded phrase—across Europe would stop some of the blackmail that takes place and leads, with regular monotony, Leaders of the Opposition, admittedly including the Prime Minister when he was Leader of Opposition, to bow the knee in front of Murdoch to be elected in our own country. I would like to think that it would be an exercise in democracy if we regulated at the European level against such a pernicious influence on the political process.
    There are further simple measures from which we profit that show that it is beneficial to the national interest to be deeply involved in Europe. I listened carefully, albeit with some dismay, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). I admire him greatly and he made a good and cogent case on certain points. He asked key questions, but he approached the debate from a negative perspective. I could say that he ranted about some points, but that would be an inappropriate word to use in his case. He spoke about the democratic deficit and the burden of regulation and bureaucracy. He told us how initiatives come from bureaucrats rather than elected people. However, he did not say that presumably the way to tackle the democratic deficit is to intensify the democratisation of the European institutions rather than backing off and ignoring the good things. If he were in the Chamber now, I would be happy to point out to him what happened in my city as a result of the bureaucratic approach.
    Commissioner Bruce Millan, aided and abetted by Graham Meadows of European Commission Directorate-General XVI, enabled objective 1 money to be allocated to England, against the wishes of the then Conservative Government. We benefited from that money enormously, and it has now been spread throughout Wales, and in South Yorkshire and Cornwall. We can argue all we like about the esoteric nature of that funding and about how it is a rebate of our contributions. That is true, but the positive initiative to focus the money on areas of greatest need came from the European Commission.
    Much has been said about the elections, and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spoke at length about last Sunday's result. Let me tell him and other hon. Members what happens when one takes a positive and proactive view of the benefits that accrue from the so-called bureaucratic approach in Europe. In my home town of Liverpool, we actively promoted the benefits that had come to the city. The Labour party received four times as many votes as the Conservative party in the European elections. It received twice as many votes as the Conservative and United Kingdom Independence parties put together. If the Labour vote
    836
    was combined with the Lib-Dem vote, people voted for a positive view of Europe by the factor of 7:1. Hon. Members might say that that is perfectly reasonable because Liverpool has benefited from structural funding, but so have many other parts of the country. We should be proud of that, praise it and try to augment it in any way we can.
    Before the Jeremiahs start talking about the local elections, I can tell them that there was a huge difference between the votes. People stopped to think about how they voted in the elections. There was no doubt that the winners of the local elections in Liverpool were the Liberal Democrats, but there was a clear distinction between that election and the European vote. People were sensible and acted according to what was in their interests.
    We must consider not only our national interest. We are our brother's keeper in a globalised world that is ever more fraught with dangers from hitherto unknown sources. What we have in Europe represents the culmination of the vision of the early Community on how to secure peace in Europe. I do not say that the situation is perfect or that there will not be more problems along the way. For example, we seemed to go slightly amiss with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, despite the European Union's problems, history will well regard its effect on Europe as a continent, especially on major conflicts.
    We cannot glibly pass that dimension by. We are too often accused of being little Englanders lost on the peripheries of Europe—well, we are. But if we really want to be at the heart of Europe, politically as well as economically, we need to change our attitude towards it.
    I was not quite clear what the right hon. Member for Wells was saying, and I raised a point of information. He explained to me that he was arguing that the problems with Europe encourage extremism—that is a very general summation of what he said. I put it to him and to others that there are those who are using Europe to encourage extremism. It is not a one-way flow. The right hon. Gentleman used the example of Europe-wide problems with asylum and immigration policy encouraging the growth of extremism, but I am sure that he will agree that there are people who are deliberately distorting the images of Europe to foment an extremist prejudice in our country. That is to be deplored, I hope by everybody.
    I want to take up another point that has had some currency in this debate. It is always being said that this House is losing powers to Europe. For people at the bottom of the pile in this country what happens in this House does not matter a fig. Whether we like it or not, much of. the reason that people are not turning out to vote is the fact that they do not see the House as the ultimate repository of democracy. They see it as a talking shop and a fig leaf for whoever is the Government of the day. It does not seem to affect their lives directly. We can argue cleverly how in fact it does impact on every aspect of their lives, and any sensible person would know that, but the people out there do not necessarily know it. They do not make the fine distinctions that we make. That is not to say that we should make those distinctions. When we are trying to put across a message to the people we should not delude

    837
    ourselves that they look to this House positively and constructively to lead in all things—they do not, and that is one of the problems that we need to address.
    I have heard a lot about red lines. The only red line that really bothers me is the one between those who are antagonistic towards Europe and those who are enthused by it. That line crosses parties—I know that. I have heard colleagues today who, on this issue, could happily sit on the Opposition Benches. Europe is about vision as well as practicalities, and that vision is sadly lacking. I wish, and I mean this in the kindest way, that my Front-Bench colleagues would go out and enthusiastically promote the cause of Europe. I make an exception for certain of my hon. Friends, of course, but too many want to hide their light under a bushel.
    It is true that the Conservatives have found a middle ground, but the problem is that it is between Euroscepticism and Europhobia. They are not in the middle ground of British politics; they are between a rock and a hard place. Most of what they have said in recent days and weeks shows that they have a political problem that is about their party, and not necessarily about the national interest.
    4.8 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: The Foreign Secretary treated us to an uncharacteristically weak performance. He is that rare exception in this ministerial team: a man who respects the House of Commons, reports regularly to it and is keen for us to debate these important issues. Unfortunately, today he failed us and the nation. He treated us to a rant. He gave us some elementary Euro-myths, got more aggressive the weaker his case was and failed to take the House, line by line, through the crucial discussions and debates in which he, the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues will participate on our behalf in the next few days. That is a great pity.
    As a strong believer in parliamentary democracy, I feel that this Parliament should hear from our Government today, in this crucial debate, what they believe are the main issues that are now outstanding in the discussions on the draft constitution. They should tell us where they wish to go, what changes they are proposing and how they wish to pursue their amendments. Of course they need to keep a little mystery in their negotiating position. I would not expect them to set out the full bottom line, but I would expect them to set out the top line of their position and to tell us more about what they are trying to do for Britain to improve or perfect the draft constitution. It is even more incumbent on the Foreign Secretary to do that in the wake of the remarkable elections and the results that we learned subsequently—the elections that were held on Thursday and the results that came through on Sunday. If we consider the nationwide position, we find that about half the electorate voted either to withdraw from the European Community altogether or for much less Brussels power and interference in our daily lives, and back to the Conservative position of a renegotiation in favour of member states and member state democracies.
    Compared with that, only a little over one fifth voted for the Government line—the lowest level that an incumbent Government have ever had in a nationwide election in this country in the past century. One might
    838
    have thought that Ministers would explain that to the House. One might have thought that Ministers would show a little more humility and modesty in the wake of that shattering result for them, and would have genuflected at least a little in the direction of the British electorate's mood in what they said today in the House.
    Instead, we were treated to a rather juvenile rant. There were two main arguments that the Foreign Secretary used to explain why we should sign up to something like the draft constitution, and why electors should learn their lesson from the Government that they are not Euro-friendly enough and must do better.
    The first argument that the Foreign Secretary advanced was that the EU and its predecessor, the European Economic Community, have prevented wars in Europe over the past 50 years. We should be treated to something a little more serious than that. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if France and Germany had not been members of the EEC and its successor body over the past 50 years, one of them would have invaded the other? Does he not realise that both are now, and have been since the second world war, stable democracies and peace-loving countries, and that they were never likely to express aggressive intents towards each other with or without the EU? Was he suggesting that bold and doughty Luxembourg was suddenly going to make territorial requests of its neighbours that might have fomented some hot conflict? He should understand that no one will believe the twaddle that peace in Europe was settled by several great developments post-1945.
    The most important development was that all the major players became democracies, which tend to be peace-loving rather than aggressive, as tyrannies so often are. The second most important development was to put in place NATO for our common defence. The third was the maintained presence of the mighty American forces for many years just in case there were any signs of instability in the post-war period. That is why we have been blessed with peace in our time. It would not have mattered whether we had the EEC or not from that point of view.
    The Foreign Secretary went on to say that the other main reason why we needed something like the constitution was that half our trade is with Europe. That again is a mistaken notion. It is true that about half of the trade in physical goods that our country does is with fellow member countries of the EU. However, it is a much smaller proportion of our trade in services and a smaller proportion again of the crucial investment flows that characterise so much of economic activity today.
    Investment flows are in many ways evidence of a deeper economic relationship than trade and physical goods. It is quite easy for countries to buy and sell cars or washing machines without having a deep relationship. It is necessary to have a very deep relationship if we invest in one another's countries, putting long-term money into factories and employing one another's people in those factories. We have that sort of relationship, on a much greater scale, with the United States of America and with Asia than we do with our fellow partners in the EU.
    The Foreign Secretary does not come to us and say that we must develop something like the EU relationship with the United States of America or with India, or with China, to preserve those important jobs

    839
    and economic relationships. Again, he is guilty of misleading the House by suggesting that that is why we need to sign up to something like this constitution.
    Mr. Forth: Before my right hon. Friend concludes that part of his argument, is it not relevant to recall that, sadly, manufacturing now employs less than 20 per cent. of our work force? Even more sadly, we have an enduring and enormous trade deficit with other members of the EU, which must be borne in mind when we hear empty threats that altering our relationship with those states would have dire consequences and result in protectionism?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not believe that Germany and France would suddenly not want to sell us their motor cars, whatever happened to our relationship in the EU. They would not want to turn their back on such a lucrative trade. We should renegotiate, and I obviously wish to preserve and develop our trade with EU member states and the individuals and companies in those countries, which is why I support the position of the Conservative party rather than that of the United Kingdom Independence party. It is sensible to proceed by renegotiation and to seek to do so in a friendly way. However, we should do so with confidence in our own position. We are not the beggars in this scenario—we are offering other member states, as my right hon. Friend said, an extremely good deal. Not only do they sell us much more than we sell them, but we pay them for the privilege by making a large contribution to the club. We need to take such things into account when we begin renegotiation.
    The Government have two big arguments against the Conservative policy of renegotiating to achieve more democratic control of our lives in Britain. First, they say that everyone knows that there is no opportunity for renegotiation in the EU, but they cannot get away with such an absurd proposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that we have taken part in a two-year radical renegotiation of everything to do with the EU, with the proposed abolition of existing treaties and the rewriting of the whole works. We have repeatedly told the Government that, because that huge renegotiation is under way, they should take the opportunity to achieve the things that Britain wants for a change instead of operating according to the Valéry Giscard d'Estaing Franco-German federalist agenda. Unfortunately, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, the Government have failed to take advantage of that great opportunity. Once more, I remind the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that they will not get a better chance to renegotiate than when everything is on the table. The whole thing is up in the air, so Her Majesty's Government must show that they have influence and use it not just for the sake of Britain and British democracy but for the sake of free peoples throughout the European Union who, as was recently demonstrated at the ballot box, want more local democratic control and want more things devolved from the centre to local jurisdictions.
    840
    It was obvious from the election results of the new member states, where there were big rebuffs for the governing parties and massive abstentions, that they are already disillusioned and think that the EU is too bureaucratic, centralised and overweening. It is not listening to them or following their agendas. Our solution, to give more power to the democracies of individual member states, would help those countries and electorates just as it would surely help to further the British national interest. It might head off the dangerous flight to extremist parties, which is occurring across the EU as a result of disillusionment and an electoral system in which people cannot choose individual candidates but have to vote for parties. Their votes are counted in a strange way, so some people think that it pays to go to extremes to get their view across instead of voting for sensible, balanced coalition parties such as the Conservatives or, without wishing to flatter it, Labour.
    The Government should seize the opportunity offered by the negotiations. There will be more negotiations, and I am sure that when the Conservatives come to power, EU member states will be sitting round the table trying to redesign the treaties and the constitution yet again. The present negotiations, however, are our best opportunity. This is the big one—everything is up for grabs, and we still have a veto over a considerable number of issues, which we could use to good effect to try to move things in our direction.
    That brings me to the Government's second objection to the Conservative Position. They try to make out that no one would listen and that the United Kingdom would have no influence if it wished to move the debate in the direction of more local government and national democratic control, and away from more centralising control, which is always favoured in these discussions. Again, the Government are misleading the public. Of course it would be quite possible for the British Government to propose all the amendments necessary to move in that direction. More importantly, it would be quite possible for the British Government to win many of those points and arguments by using the considerable powers and authority at their disposal.
    I find myself in the curious position of saying to the British Government, "Be courageous. Believe what you say. You are always telling us that you have great influence in the EU. Here is a marvellous opportunity to prove it. Prove that you can get more than 10 out of 200 amendments through. Prove that you can table amendments that bring back to Britain things that we need to control here. Prove to us that you can save our fishing industry from the depredations of too much fishing under the common fisheries policy. Prove to us that you can reform the common agricultural policy in a way that would not only do good for Britain and British customers, but would do good for the developing world, which currently finds access to our markets blocked or restricted by a cruel policy designed to favour some on the continent, but not those everywhere else."
    Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the difficulties posed to many coastal communities by the common fisheries policy. Does he

    841
    believe that fisheries should be a red-line issue, as opposed to those on his Front Bench, who think it should not be, or have I misunderstood?
    Mr. Redwood: Fishing should be one of the crucial issues in the renegotiation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said in his many remarks. We do not have red-line issues. That is a Government fiction that will be used for spin purposes. They will choose certain topics as red-line issues, and claim that they have managed to get some adjustments to the text or they will draw on what is already in the text to say that their red lines have been observed, and claim a victory. It will be an entirely specious performance, as we have seen before, because the draft constitution is in no shape for any self-respecting British Government to accept.
    I do not wish to see the EU's competence in fisheries extended, as the draft clearly does, but I am going much further, along with my party. I welcome the proposals from our Front Bench. They are clear that we wish to take fishing back under British democratic national control—rightly so. We are not saying that we want a reform of the common fisheries policy. We are saying that we tried that, it did not work, it did a lot of damage and we need to make our own decisions about who fishes in and how we can protect our waters.
    Mr. Spring: Is it not ironic that the policy is not a common fisheries policy at all? There are swathes of waters round the European Union where it does not apply. It applies to us dramatically.
    Mr. Redwood: That is why many British people—50 per cent. overall—voted Eurosceptic. They feel that things are not fair, and the fishing policy is one of the best examples of that. We cannot send our boats off to the Mediterranean to pillage their seas, but we have to watch while Danish industrial fishing vessels hoover large amounts of the seabed and do enormous damage to the grounds in which our fish would otherwise live, breed and develop. We cannot stop them because the common fisheries policy says that that is perfectly reasonable conduct. At the same time, we see our own trawlers tied up day after day in harbour because the EU says they are the cause of the over -fishing.
    Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. If his Front-Bench team say that fishing is a red-line issue, and he is clearly very concerned about it, why has his colleague, the Scottish Member of the European Parliament for the Conservative party, Struan Stevenson, proposed in the European Parliament that fishing should be an exclusive competence in the constitution of the European Union? That is an utter contradiction.
    Mr. Redwood: I am not Struan Stevenson's representative or spokesman in the House of Commons. I do not know that he said that, and I therefore have no idea why he said it, if he said it. I do know, as the House heard earlier from my Front Bench, that he stood on our common manifesto. I therefore assume he believes in our common manifesto, which clearly states what I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
    842
    Devizes told the House earlier—that we want our fishing back. We think that is the only way to rescue what remains, and the matter is urgent.
    We have to ask how that could be achieved in the difficult and complex negotiations that we would like the Government to undertake in respect of the draft European constitution. Let me suggest a way. The Government could go through the draft constitution and identify the aspects that are earnestly sought by France, Germany and the other leading players in the European Union that we could allow them to have. We might need an opt-out on some items that we would not want to apply to us, and some might already be in the form of an opt-out. That might apply to the enhanced co-operation powers, for example, which France and Germany want. The United Kingdom could say that it was not keen on those powers, but that it could see how important they were to France and Germany, and that if they really wanted the enhanced co-operation clause, our price would be to have our fishing back.
    That would be a perfectly normal way of negotiating in the European Union. Many of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and I negotiated endlessly in the European Union in previous jobs, when we were in government, and we always had to decide when to apply pressure and when to horse-trade. In big negotiations such as those in question, in which the Government have a veto over everything—they do not have to accept anything at all—they have an enormous number of cards to play, and they should certainly put fishing on the table as one of the things that they want.
    If I were the British Government, I would not settle for just getting our fish back in return for a lot of things that France, Germany and the Commission want the draft constitution to include, because it is so wide-ranging and fundamental. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already drawn attention to some of the aspects that the United Kingdom could not sign up to, but we must remind ourselves how wide ranging the draft constitution is. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights would change British law in unspecified ways in a wide range of areas, so there is no way in which the British Government should accept such provision if they believe in British parliamentary democracy and in elections having a purpose in settling for a period of four or five years who will propose the laws and who will have a chance of passing them.
    We should not accept the categorical assertion in article 10 that Union law will always be superior to and "have primacy over" the law of member states. We should not accept the clause that allows the Union to
    "promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States",
    especially when the United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has been much more successful in securing a higher level of activity and lower unemployment than the poor countries on the continent. We should not accept the Union having
    "competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy."
    We should not accept a number of the areas of shared competence set out in article 13, and we should expose the dangers of the whole idea of shared competence. It is not shared competence at all. The European Union's

    843
    idea of sharing is very different from anybody else's, because it says that if it shares a competence with us, it can do anything that it likes, and we are allowed to do anything that does not conflict with what it is doing.
    Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not accept that
    "The Union shall … define and implement a common foreign and security policy",
    but he was in a Government who signed up to that very policy in the treaty of Maastricht.
    Mr. Redwood: I certainly was not, and I would not have supported such a thing. We had intergovernmental co-operation under that treaty, which I am very happy with. It is rather like the NATO model; one does something if one wants to do it, and one does not have to do it if one does not want to do so. The constitution is very different, and the Minister should understand that fact before he goes off to negotiate on our behalf and sign away our birthright. As the subsequent clauses on the common foreign and defence policy show, if we sign up to the constitution there will be a growing stranglehold on the UK, limiting our course of independent action more and more until in every major aspect of foreign policy, if we cannot carry other countries in the Union with us, we will have to do as they say. Enormous moral pressure will be applied, and the gradual introduction of qualified majority voting will complete the process.
    The Minister should remind himself of the language that is used; we have tried to get this point across to him in the past, but we obviously have not succeeded.
    It states:
    "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
    The last sentence is especially wide ranging because it means that the Union does not even have to have a defined, agreed common policy to prevent a member state from acting. The Union, in the person of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, could decide that an action that Britain wanted to take was against the Union's interests, even though that view was not reflected in a unanimous vote. If the United Kingdom disagreed, and the moral pressure on it did not work, the Minister for Foreign Affairs could take the matter to the Foreign Affairs Council, which he would chair and whose agenda he would set, or he could take us to court for infringing the fundamental treaty and constitution.
    Mr. MacShane: Perhaps I am abusing my winding-up time, but let me read the right hon. Gentleman a quote:
    "The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations."
    The right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Government, not only a Member of Parliament, signed up to that in the treaty of Maastricht.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister tries to pretend that we did not understand what we were doing and that we had not thought all that through at the time. We kept matters intergovernmental so that they were not justiciable, we could not be taken to court if we disagreed and the European Union could not force us to do things that we did not want to do. The Minister is falling for the trap. I believe that he does not understand that, if we sign the current version of the draft constitution, everything changes. We can no longer shrug our shoulders and say to the European Union, "We don't agree with you so we're doing what we want because we are Britain and we have a democratically elected Government with a Foreign Secretary."
    If we accepted the constitution, we would be under the thumb of the Court, the unelected Union Minister for Foreign Affairs and his ability to manipulate the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council, which he would chair. Instead of our Foreign Secretary being a most important man among the statesmen of the world by virtue of his office, he would be a junior to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs who, on most important matters, would speak for us at home and abroad and, doubtless, in the United Nations Security Council, as he is entitled to do under the draft constitution.
    One of the Government's biggest mistakes in the negotiations so far is not to delete the creation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and all that goes with him or her in article 27 and beyond.
    Mr. Forth: Surely my right hon. Friend is not surprised by the Minister's intervention. Did not the same Minister recently sign up to a socialist programme in the European Union, which not only reflected but exceeded the thrust of the constitution? Might not the Minister be regretful that the constitution does not go nearly far enough and his bluster result from embarrassment?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes his point effectively and he may be right. I fear that the Minister simply had not grasped the difference between intergovernmentalism and bringing everything under the European Union and its panoply of institutions, whose power the draft constitution enhances. Many members of previous Governments who worried about too much European Union power were keen on the intergovernmental arrangements, which affected home affairs and foreign policy, because they protected all that we wished to protect. We never had problems with unwanted Union interference in those matters in all the time that they remained intergovernmental. The Foreign Secretary would not know what had hit him if he signed up to the constitution and subsequently discovered how strong the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs would be and wish to become.
    The Minister should also head off at the pass the idea of new ways of legislating. The European Union already has too many ways of legislating that are too powerful. However, they are as nothing compared with the common provisions under articles 32 and 35, which provide for giving the European Union direct power to make European laws of general application binding in their entirety and directly applicable to all member states. I believe that more and more of that will happen, thereby cutting out democratic input from this country almost entirely.

    845
    We are also considering European regulations of general application and the ability to delegate to the Commission the power to enact delegated regulations to supplement or amend some European laws.
    So we are looking at a big increase in the power of the European Union to make its own law and, in some areas, of the Commission itself to make law without reference to the elected representatives of the member states, let alone their Parliaments. That is not compatible with a strong defence of British democracy or with the devolution of power that the Government claim to believe in, in other contexts.
    Article 40 of the draft constitution states that the common security and defence policy
    "shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on assets civil and military … This will lead to a common defence".
    We are told that there is not going to be a Euro army, but that sounds remarkably like the beginnings of one to me. Ministers should clarify how far this is going to go, how many of our so-called assets—which primarily means our service personnel—are going to be required, and how this will tie in with the European armaments agency. How far will the agency go in telling us what we can and cannot buy, in standardising equipment and, perhaps, in forcing rearmament on the parts of the European Union that, in its view, are not doing enough?
    Article III-94 of the draft constitution also states that we shall treat our exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest. In so doing, it says, we shall
    "take account of the experience acquired in cooperation within the framework of the exchange-rate mechanism."
    Are the Government really happy with that? I seem to remember that, after they saw the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism—which they fully supported when we went into it, of course—they became rather leery of it. Why, therefore, are they now signing up to a document which provides for some of the exchange rate mechanism for those who are not in the single currency?
    Under the general provisions, we see that we are going to have a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control based on solidarity between member states. Why are the Government prepared to give away most of our powers to decide those most important issues, such as who should be invited to this country and who should become a citizen? Surely that is part of being a nation, and those questions are best settled democratically in this House. The Government are not doing a very good job in that area at the moment, and I would not recommend what they have been doing in the Home Office, but it is much better to have an argument about these things and try to improve them—or perhaps have a change of Government—than to delegate them upwards to the European Union.
    The Union wants to go even further on asylum, stating in article III-167:
    "The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum"—
    subsidiary protection—
    "and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle"
    of the international conventions. Clearly, the aim is to take over asylum policy.
    846
    The Government should also be wary of the establishment of a European public prosecutor under article III-175. This would be a massive extension of European power into the field of criminal justice, which has always been an intergovernmental matter under our own democratic control.
    I have given just a few examples from the draft constitution. It is a radical and revolutionary document, which will create a new state called Europe. We cannot interpret it in any other way. It is not intergovernmental, it is not a "tidying-up exercise", it is not a few modest measures and it is not a simplification of the existing treaties. Neither is it essential to ensuring the smooth running of the Community now that it has 25 members. It is a massive leap forward for those who want to build a united states of Europe. That is an aim that I can understand, but I think that it is quite wrong for Britain and I will oppose it vigorously.
    I wish that the Government would come out and openly admit that that is what is going on, and then define with us how much they wish to go along with it and to what extent they will robustly say to our partners, "This might work for France and Germany, but it doesn't work for Britain." Until we are honest with our partners, this relationship is not going to work. Until the Government are honest with us and with our partners, the electorate are not going to like their policy. That is why they only got about a fifth of the votes in the European election. The people do not trust them on this issue. They do not feel that they are being told the truth, and they know from what they read and see that there is a mighty European project that involves neither a "tidying-up exercise" nor a free trade area. They know that it is something so much bigger.
    This Government say that they wish to defend the main points of our democratic control in this country. But tax is going anyway—a series of court decisions are giving European Union officials more and more power to interfere not just in VAT, which is a European tax, but in corporate taxes and, in due course, income taxes. Under these proposals, our control over borders will go, criminal justice will start to go, an independent foreign policy will go, an independent defence will start to go, and asylum will have gone.
    This Government should stop trying to tell us that we can never negotiate powers back from the European Union. They should stop pretending that they have enormous influence, when to date they have not wielded their influence at all to get what we need. They should start to learn how tough one must be in negotiations in the European Union to pursue the British national interest and the wider democratic interest for the sake of Europe as a whole.
    This Government have a great opportunity in the next few days. They could go to Brussels and set out a proper democratic model for a new and enlarged Union, which would give many more powers back to the individual democracies that are the member states. They could be the champions of all those people who voted last Thursday for exactly that kind of looser Europe. They could use our veto to say, "We will not accept any of these centralising federalist proposals in this draft constitution until you talk to us about Britain having a deal that makes sense for Britain," with perhaps some

    847
    other member states joining Britain in that more favourable, looser federation deal.
    We need a Government of steel and determination, who care enough about British democracy to say no to this constitution, and who have enough charisma to speak to all those people throughout western Europe who now want something different. They want democracies at home, and trade and friendship abroad. They do not wish to be frogmarched into a superstate.
    4.42 pm
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: First, I apologise to hon. Members for not being able to be present for the whole debate. I was here at the beginning, however, and I have heard some of the debate from outside the Chamber, notably the good speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), with whom I generally agree.
    Clearly, the European Union is becoming less popular with its citizens. The elections last week showed, if anything, that there was a combination of scepticism and apathy, even in the new member states, which was significant. This disenchantment is less because they want to leave than because of economics and the structures of the European Union, and the policies being pursued. They want to have a good relationship with other member states in the European Union. I favour the looser association of member states about which our Government talk so much. That is what people want, not a European superstate.
    People are becoming disenchanted because of economic problems. Even Governments of the left in eastern European countries that have joined are privatising public services, for example. Citizens do not want that. What they want is a different approach to running their economies. Scepticism about the European Union is not just a right-wing preserve. Many on the left, including me, have a sceptical view. Last year, in the Swedish referendum on the euro, it was not the right wing that voted it down, but the left. A mass revolt by social democrats voted down membership of the euro, which is not likely to arise for at least another decade in Sweden, if at all.
    The Swedes are sensible to vote not to join the euro, but it was people of the left—working people, trade unionists and social democrats—who did so, not people of the right. They feared loss of control of their economy. Above all, however, they feared that their welfare state might be dismantled. They could look at the eurozone and see slow economic growth and high unemployment, and then look at Sweden, which, like Britain, is doing much better outside the eurozone. The Swedes have a degree of control over their macroeconomic policy and social institutions, particularly the welfare state, which they like and want to keep. The left decided to keep that position.
    I think many other citizens throughout Europe want a different Europe. Some may take a right-wing view: Conservative Members here, for instance, may want a much more free-market approach, while others may want the more social democratic approach that I would like. It should be the member states that decide, however, not the Commission in Brussels, the
    848
    institutions of economic and monetary union or a central bank. Member states and their citizens, through democratically elected Governments, should decide what economic arrangements they want. That is what I want to happen in Britain. I do not want to see the election of a Government who share my view of how we should run our economy and social institutions, and then find that they cannot act because the rules will not allow it. Such arrangements will cause ongoing stresses and tensions throughout the European Union. We ought to live up to what our Ministers keep saying—that we should have a Europe consisting of independent, democratic member states working together to their mutual benefit, but not governed by a strong centrist bureaucracy. Even if it became somewhat more democratic, I think we would want member states to be independent.
    Socialists and social democrats throughout Europe have had a difficult time because they have been seduced by neo-liberalism—by the move towards a free market and privatisation. In Germany we have seen Mr. Schröder shredded by his own supporters, who have drifted away.
    Mr. Hendrick: How does my hon. Friend explain the success of the socialists in the European elections in Spain, which has joined the euro? He presented Sweden as a glowing example, but both Sweden and Denmark—unlike the United Kingdom—are still in the exchange rate mechanism and bound by its rules. How can the hon. Gentleman justify that, given that those countries are not governed by a central bank?
    Mr. Hopkins: I do tot think they are in the exchange rate mechanism in the sense of having to adhere to a particular exchange rate. When the euro was depreciating, the Danes wisely chose to allow their currency to depreciate as well because they did not want to be at a competitive disadvantage with their big next-door neighbour, Germany. I think we should have allowed our currency to depreciate too. We have survived quite well, but our manufacturing sector has suffered because we have let our currency appreciate too much. We should have intervened to pull it down, and I hope that we still might.
    As for what happened in Spain, that was caused by a particular set of event We all know what it was about. We should also remember that Mr. Aznar, the former Prime Minister and leader of the conservatives, was the most avid supporter of the strong neo-liberal approach to economics in Europe. There has been a significant shift to the left. I imagine that the socialists are so pleased to be back in power that they will not rock too many boats at this stage, but if as a result of their policies unemployment starts to rise and Spain gets into difficulties, I suspect that pressure will be put on them.
    The Spanish socialists do have an advantage, of course. Spain was one of the countries that joined the euro at a relatively low parity, and the interest rates that it was obliged to apply were rather too low for its economy. It was a bit like what happened in Ireland. Bigger economies like that in Germany experienced the opposite problem: the common interest rate was too high, and there was built-in deflation.
    All those problems can be overcome only if countries can choose interest rates appropriate to their economies. If I were a German Finance Minister I would want to be

    849
    able to choose a different interest rate, to relax my fiscal policy, and even—dare I say it—to adjust the parity of my currency. Countries cannot do that if they are inside the euro, locked into something that is not even a fixed parity but a single currency. We have the luxury, and I hope that we retain it, of being able to adjust our currency as and when we need to and to choose our own interest rates and fiscal policy. That works well, and it is significant that we countries outside the eurozone have done better than the eurozone itself, with the exception of one or two countries that have had the benefit of going in at low parity. The eurozone, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has said, has had serious difficulties.
    To return to the point that I was making, Chancellor Schröder in Germany has been shredded by his determination to forge ahead with a neo-liberal approach and what would be regarded as a right-wing policy in many fields, instead of resisting the pressure for cuts and privatisation. There are great tensions in the German Social Democratic party, and he has been losing popularity as a result. If parties of the left continue to pursue those policies, they will lose support among their natural supporters, even if the alternative is a party of the right. That is the tragedy. Those parties pursue right-wing policies, and the only alternative on offer is another party further to the right, which would have even harsher policies. The choice is not a happy one.
    We want to see countries and Governments able to take up political stances that have the mass support of their people and that give them a genuine choice of the kind of politics by which they wish to be governed. If people are socialists, they should be able to choose a socialist Government with a socialist policy, and if they are conservatives, free-market supporters or neo-liberals they should be able to choose those policies. That is what democracy is about. I would not choose the latter approach, and Opposition Members would not choose my approach, but at least we should have the choice. Democracy must be about choices—real choices, not pretend ones.
    I should like to see a Europe in which we can move towards a world more akin to the post-war world, in which we had a high degree of redistribution in the economy, so that the gulf between rich and poor narrowed, and a well funded and extensive welfare state. I should like to see good employment laws so that people are protected at work. My constituents who worked at Vauxhall Motors, for example, lost their jobs without warning because they were not sufficiently protected. I want to see such laws strengthened in our own country, and I wrote an article in my local paper last week suggesting that the great thing about Europe that we want to have over here is its strong labour laws. Opposition Members would say the opposite; they do not want those laws, but I believe that working people want security at work and the kind of labour laws that exist on the continent. However, those should be our choice, not the choice of the European Commission or the European Union in any of their forms. They should be the choice of the British people, the German people, and the people of every other individual member state in Europe.
    I should like to say something on the draft treaty. It has already been mentioned that it covers elements of economic and monetary union. We are not members of
    850
    the euro, and it is my strong view that it will be a long period before member states in eastern Europe will be members of the euro. That might never happen. I recently met some Polish Government representatives who said that it was unlikely that Poles would consider membership of the euro before 2010 at the earliest. That is a long time ahead, and a lot could happen in the meantime.
    However, the draft treaty makes specific references to the institutions of economic and monetary union, which apply to only a minority of member states—and some of those are having difficulty with it. My suggestion, or my red line—it would be a red line, not a blue one in my case—would be that the treaty, even if we supported it, should cover only those things that relate to all of the European Union, not just part of it. Economic and monetary union, and certainly the euro, covers only a minority of nations. That should require a separate document, to be voted on by those nations as and when they choose. We should not impose such a vote on ourselves, as that would amount to an implicit acceptance that one day we will be a member of that arrangement. I think that that is highly unlikely, and that we will sensibly retain our independence from the euro. That is why the part of the treaty that deals with European economic and monetary union should be a separate document, to be voted on only by members of the eurozone. Any other member states that choose to join the euro—I would not advise them to—can sign up to the separate treaty at the appropriate time.
    Any agreement covering the whole of the EU should relate only to things that member states have in common. We have much in common, but economic and monetary union and the euro are not among them. My red line is that I will not support the treaty if it includes references to institutions of economic and monetary union. Many other Labour Members feel the same, as do many of our fellow citizens.
    A freer and more independent Europe would involve a looser association of member states, in which decisions were made according to nations' internal democratic procedures. States would co-operate voluntarily on matters of mutual benefit, and the EU would be much more friendly as a result. That is the way forward. We should not centralise, or impose treaties and rules that cannot be changed at the level of the nation state. I want a genuinely democratic Europe, and not a Europe that is centralised and bureaucratic.
    4.56 pm
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The speech by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was almost nostalgic. He presented a view of economics that has been in retreat for some years. I am afraid that he lost me when he said that the present German Government's policy was a headlong dash towards neo-liberalism. That does not describe accurately my perceptions of events in Germany.
    The hon. Gentleman felt that it was important that we did not sign up to aspects of the treaty that did not apply to us. He said that the clauses on the euro, for example, should be taken out of the treaty and used as the basis for a separate agreement between those countries that subscribe to the euro.
    That approach caused me to wonder what the remaining provisions of the treaty, which the hon. Gentleman thought should apply to all member states,

    851
    would look like. The old-fashioned, socialist approach to economic policy that he clearly espouses is presumably inconsistent with what I regard as the core obligations of the treaty of Rome. Those obligations include the building of a single market and of a pro-competitive environment in that market. There must also be a commitment to make the market economy work efficiently for the benefit of all the citizens in all the member states of the EU. If the EU is not about that, it really is just a talking shop, with very little purpose at all.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I share a commitment to making our membership of the EU work for the citizens of this country, and for those of other member states as well. We also share a perception that there is almost no set of amendments to the draft treaty to which the Prime Minister could—or is likely to—agree that would result in the treaty passing the test that it works in the interests of the citizens of our country.
    I am strongly committed, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is too, to the view that it is in this country's interests to build a set of structures in the EU that are better attuned to the world in which we live. Those structures would be better able to respond to the competitive pressures that we face, and more likely to create a successful economic zone for the benefit of the citizens of all the countries involved. That is the commitment that we share and which we believe is implied by our shared commitment to supporting this country's membership of the EU. However, it is very hard to see how that commitment could be rendered compatible with the present draft of the new European constitution.
    I am not one of those who think that the word "constitution" means that the text must be unacceptable. I can conceive of circumstances in which a text would be called a constitution but I would sign up to it. It is harder to conceive of circumstances in which primacy of the constitution, as opposed to pieces of legislation, can be accepted within our domestic law. It seems to me that in becoming a member of a club, it is inherent in signing up to membership that the rules of the club will apply. What is objectionable about the draft before us is, among other things, that it gives primacy not just to legislative provisions but to the constitutional text itself.
    Stepping back from the detail, I can conceive of circumstances in which I could support a constitution, but I do not support this one, and I want to make it clear why that is so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham sought to argue that the constitution fundamentally changes the nature of the project and introduces a major new drive in what is often described as a federalist direction. In support of that argument, he cited the principle of the primacy of the constitution itself. He also cited the introduction into the constitutional text of the charter of fundamental rights, the changes planned to the evolution of the common foreign and security policy, and the nomination of a foreign minister and creation of a foreign policy bureaucracy. With considerable force, he cited the European Court of Justice's track record of institutional creep, by which I mean its interpretation of texts in such a way that it extends the power of the European Union
    852
    into what Douglas Hurd used to call the nooks and crannies of our national life in a way that was not intended when the texts were drawn up. All those arguments can be adduced to say that the constitution is a text that drives the federalising process forward.
    Defenders of the constitution make other arguments, which my right hon. Friend, fairly naturally, did not adduce because they do not support his case. Defenders can point to elements in the text that insist that the Union's future powers should be based on the principle of conferral: that is to say, powers rest with member states unless and until they are vested in the Union. It can be argued that the present text does not extend the competence of the Union into fields in which it has not previously gone. My right hon. Friend, however, rightly drew attention to the importance of the fact that the institutions of the Union are developing into the fields of foreign and domestic policy in justice matters, which were previously dealt with intergovernmentally. Under the text, they will be dealt with, albeit subject to a series of checks and balances, within the mainstream of European structures. The Minister for Europe shakes his head at that, but he is wrong to do so.
    We can argue the points for and against, and we can go on doing so far into the night. However, my opposition to the constitution is not that it changes the European Union too much, but that it changes it too little. To make that case, I need to stand back from legalistic arguments about the balance of power within the different institutions of the European Union and to understand what is going on in the background, in the world in which we live today and with which those institutions will have to deal.
    If we look at the present political structures in Europe and, in particular, the economic developments and trends, we can see that we face if not a crisis, at least a period of incipient trouble that the constitutional texts will make us less able—rather than more able—to deal with. The warning signs are there, but if we sign up to those texts we will continue to take the wrong direction.
    The key economic fact of the modern world is the ever-quickening change that is being driven by the process of globalisation. I know of no better way of summing up the power of that change than asking people to reflect on the change that Japan—a country of 100 million people—drove through the world marketplace in the 30 years between 1960 and 1990, and then consider that we now face two genuine economic superpowers, in the form of India and China, whose combined population is roughly 30 times that of Japan. Consider the impact that Japan had on the world economy and then consider the impact over the next 30 years of a force potentially 30 times more powerful.
    Change is often identified as a huge threat—especially by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) in this place—but for those who work in a marketplace it is both a threat and an opportunity. It is the fact of fast economic change that creates huge opportunities for growth and wealth creation and, at the moment, our competitors in north America are being much more successful at taking advantage of those opportunities than our competitors in Europe. The American experience—and our own domestic experience—should teach us the premium that we should attach to economic flexibility and ensuring that all the wealth creators in our

    853
    economy have the minimum of burden and maximum of opportunity to take advantage of change. Every threat creates an opportunity.
    The markets within Europe—including markets in goods, and all the other manifestations of markets in modern-day Europe—are less flexible than they need to be if we are to take advantage of the change process that I have described. We have already heard reference to the Lisbon agenda in this debate, but the response of the European countries to that agenda has been laughable. Little or no progress has been made towards the liberalisation of European markets that is the necessary precondition to earning our living in the world I describe.
    I am strongly of the view that we should not contemplate joining the euro now but in the long term I am agnostic about whether it will work. However, it is unarguable that if one adopts the single European currency, as our partners on the continent have done, against a background of relatively rigid markets, one has made circumstances that are already high risk substantially more risky. Our partners have failed to address the requirement for greater market flexibility, and at the same time enhanced the penalties for failure by adopting a set of monetary disciplines that are wholly admirable but which reinforce the requirement for greater flexibility.
    Couple with all those economic phenomena the fact that in last week's elections there was—not just in this country, but throughout the whole of the rest of Europe—a consistent pattern of voter distrust of authority, and we can see that we are creating what could be a dangerous mix, where people feel the pain of economic change, are denied the chance to take advantage of its opportunities and look around for scapegoats. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham was so right to say, in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), that the growth of extreme parties, such as the United Kingdom Independence party and the British National party in this country, and similar types of voter reaction elsewhere in Europe, is the sign of a growing divorce between the people to whom we are responsible and the political class that they increasingly view as not responding to the world as they see it.
    Mr. MacShane: As not many Members are queueing up to speak, perhaps the right hon Gentleman and I can have some exchange of views while he is grappling intellectually with these problems. Is he not a little nervous about making those rather wide generalisations? Each European economy is distinct, with growth rates ranging from between 7 and 8 per cent. at the top to less than 1 per cent. at the bottom. Spain has cut unemployment by half over the past five years. Poland's economy is growing at 6 per cent. annually. Perhaps he was talking about Germany, France and Italy, but car plants from Asia are springing up all over eastern Europe. That is a good thing, as a middle class is coming into being in that area.
    At present, we trade as much with Catalonia as with China. I want our trade with China to grow as much as I want UK-Catalonia trade to grow. We must be careful
    854
    not to dismiss the varied economic developments in Europe by setting out a generalised position that is not true of every country.
    Mr. Dorrell: I accept that the position is varied in different parts of Europe; the Minister is right about that. But it really is not good enough to say, "Of course, it's bad in France, Germany and Italy, but it's not bad in Catalonia". Good for Catalonia. However, in Europe as a whole, France, Germany and Italy—the three countries that the Minister seemed to be asking me to set quietly on one side—account for 70 per cent. The core statistic, on which I invite the Minister to reflect, is that current broad trends appear to suggest that the growth rate in north America is more than double that of continental Europe.
    The point about China is not simply that our bilateral trade is relatively small, albeit growing strongly, but the effect that the arrival of China and India in the world marketplace will have in driving the process of change that affects every country; it is way, way beyond the effect of the bilateral trade between that country and India or China.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, economically and politically, the European Union is the biggest experiment that the world has ever seen? We have 20 languages across 25 countries and to expect so many diverse and different cultures to come together and form a market that is almost as homogeneous as those of north America, China or India is to stretch credibility a little.
    Mr. Dorrell: I accept that what is being attempted in the EU has no historical precedent and, as I said, I am supportive of the principle because I believe that it is something important and that it needs to be made to work. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, it is no good contemplating the world I described, where those markets are being opened and there is nothing we can or should do to try to stop it, because the only effect will be the impoverishment of somebody somewhere on the planet, and call for the process to be slower because it is the first time that it has ever happened. We have created a set of circumstances that are overwhelmingly benign but whose effect is to demand of us a process of fast economic change in our own interests. All I am doing is pointing out that, having created that set of circumstances and those opportunities, we cannot now wish away the consequences: we must be prepared to change as fast as our competitors in north America at the very least.
    Sometimes, when people in this country consider the high unemployment rates in France and Germany and the fact that they have emerging problems, there is a tendency for their reactions to be tinged with schadenfreude, but our reaction must be much more adult; it is much more dangerous than that. Those countries are among our largest customers. They are also our political neighbours, so opening their markets, making their markets work more effectively and ensuring that they are politically stable is as much in our national interest as it is in theirs. That is the core; that is why I am supporter of the EU. However, I am also a strong supporter of the proposition that the EU needs to

    855
    take a step back and understand how it needs to change to serve the people who live in it, in the world as it is now, rather than the world as it was in 1958.
    All that background is the reason why I was so pleased when the Laeken declaration appeared to provide the opportunity for a complete rethink of the EU institutions. I hoped that setting up the European Convention would provide us with the opportunity to stand back, to look at the world as it is now—which is fundamentally different from the world of 40 years ago—and to reassess what those institutions now need to look like and what their objectives now need to be to deal with the world as it now is.
    Against that background, it seems inescapable that the EU needs to have a much more limited set of competences than it has had historically. It needs to focus much more accurately on its core priorities, including signing up to what the hon. Member for Luton, North would describe as neo-liberal values, because unless we sign up to them we are presumably adopting the Albanian alternative.
    Mr. Hopkins: Is the choice in the world seriously between neo-liberalism and Albania? Is there not something called social democracy, which worked extremely well after the second world war?
    Mr. Dorrell: All I was seeking to do, with a throwaway line, was to reinforce the point that the EU that we joined—and I am strongly in favour of our continuing to remain an active member, and I want it to be taken forward for the next 40 years—is an EU built on the principle of open, free markets. That is how, in the world that I have described, we will be able to provide improving living standards for our people.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech with which I entirely agree, but does he agree that the EU institutions do not seem to have recognised that there are seven times as many people in China and India as in the enlarged EU and that their populations are growing and the EU's is falling, so that when they reach a third of our income per head, which they will do in the not-too-distant future, they will be twice as important as an economic group as the EU? We do not seem to have recognised that or made ourselves competitive to handle it.
    Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend uses another statistic to make the same point: not today, but in the foreseeable future, those countries have the potential to be the most important trading blocs in the world if they get their domestic policies right. For the EU to focus on its own domestic arguments, rather than considering what the world looks like when under the influence of those drivers of economic change, is massively short-sighted.
    I forget which American coined a vogue expression that was used a few years ago, but he talked about the need to reinvent government. I know of no institution with responsibility for exercising political power that is now in more urgent need of reinvention than the European Union. As the treaty that is on the table signally fails to do that, I am strongly of the view that we should reject it.
    856
    I talked about Laeken and the kicking off of the Convention process. I mean no disrespect to Giscard d'Estaing, who is a man with a long and distinguished career behind him, but, given the nature of the challenge that Europe faced, it was extraordinary that an octogenarian former President of France, who learned all his political instincts in the world of the 1960s, was chosen to lead the process of reinventing the European Union. The result of the process was regrettably all too predictable: it was more of the same. There was no serious attempt to reinvent the European Union, and huge tracts of the text reflect 1960s thinking. I suspect that the charter of fundamental rights is one of the bits of the text that could easily have been drafted by the hon. Member for Luton, North. It was more likely to have emerged from the Trades Union Congress than from No. 10 or even No. 11 Downing street because it reflects old-fashioned thinking.
    There is something slightly emblematic about the fact that discussions on the constitution, including considerations of the evolution of a common foreign and security policy, were taking place at exactly the same time that our Prime Minister and the French President were barely on speaking terms on the subject of Iraq. How could people be so unreal as to talk about the development of a common foreign policy when the Prime Minister and the President could barely stand to be in each other's company?
    The European foreign aid programme has not taken note of the development of the Washington consensus of 10 years ago. Not only China and India, but the rest of the developing world, have learned a set of market disciplines that has not impinged on the programme. We are still talking about developing European culture, education and health policies, despite the fact that none of those should be anywhere near the heart of what we should be trying to do at EU level to respond to the huge economic challenge that I described.
    A specific bugbear of mine is the fact that a set of legislative provisions has grown up in Europe that we now describe as the acquis communautaire. Most of the provisions were brought forward from the political environment of the 1960s and 1970s. It is considered to be somehow un-European, or anti-communautaire, to propose a set of repeals and reforms for that body of legislative arrangements, although we would think it normal to have a debate to revisit such matters in our domestic political environment.
    I am delighted about one thing: the Prime Minister has accepted our case for a referendum on the constitution before it comes into effect. It is vital that the constitution is thrown out, so if the Government will not do that, I am delighted that all the evidence shows that the voters will. When the Giscard constitution is dead, I shall strongly support a second attempt to reinvent the European Union. I hope that the second attempt will meet the challenge because that certainly did not happen first time around.
    5.24 pm
    Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and I substantially agree with what he said. I may not come to quite such a definitive conclusion but my logic is very similar. Indeed, I rather shared his concern when Giscard d'Estaing was appointed to head the constitution.

    857
    I was a Financial Times correspondent in Paris when Giscard was the President and Mr. Raymond Barre was, I think, le meilleur premier ministre de France. There is hardly anybody more known for the sheer hauteur of his approach to the population—les administrés—than Mr. d'Estaing, although he did institute the innovation of having dîner chez les peuples, as he would arrive to dine with some unsuspecting dustmen, in order to demonstrate the common touch. I have great admiration for him, and his political technology is enormous, but if we are out to rejuvenate, reinvent and generally communicate Europe to its new generation of citizens, one does not instinctively think of Mr. d'Estaing as the front man for that, task.
    Having made that observation, I must say that having, like everybody else, watched the football match and noted that more than 50 per cent. of the French line-up are employed by English football teams and that the French manager is about to go and run Tottenham Hotspur, I think that some of the sentiments that we normally reserve for the French might be put into proper perspective.
    I was delighted to have the Foreign Secretary make reference to an article that I had written in what he described as my local paper, which happens to be the Yorkshire Post. I was also interested to note that he started two thirds of the way down the article, and I wonder whether I could refer him to the first two thirds, in which I said that if UKIP made a spectacular breakthrough one of the reasons would lie at the door of both the major parties, but predominantly at that of the Government because Governments make the weather. The Prime Minister having stood on the doorstep of No. 10 when he arrived in power and said that his historical mission was to resolve the ambiguity of Britain's relationship with Europe, I can think of no man who has failed more dismally to meet his own aspiration to use his considerable advocacy powers to argue the case for the active and permanent engagement of Britain in the EU. I am very happy for the article to be put in the Library because it is extremely well written and quite short.
    Mr. MacShane: It is an extremely good article; I quoted it myself last week and drew it to the Foreign Secretary's attention. The right hon. Gentleman may recall, however, that he strongly chastised all those politicians who talk about us marching towards a European superstate. I believe that he said that it sounds like the Armageddon from "The Lord of the Rings" and is childish and nonsensical language. Will he convey that point of view to his absent Front-Bench colleagues who have been telling us that we are heading for a European superstate on every possible occasion for as long as I have been Minister for Europe?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman need not fear—I shall come to that point in a short while. Curiously, having written it, I have exact recall of the article.
    I am grateful to UKIP for one thing. Because the party has asserted so aggressively its belief that we should quit the EU, my party has spelled out categorically that it does not wish to quit the EU. Since the Prime Minister constantly uses that particular canard, accusing us of wanting to do so, I am delighted that we can put it to rest.
    858
    I am also grateful to the Prime Minister for conceding the referendum, although I have to say that the terms in which the Foreign Secretary described the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box were not ones that I recognised. The Prime Minister looked singularly like one of those unfortunate prisoners who have been captured behind enemy lines and forced to appear before the television cameras to demonstrate the fact of their capture, surrounded by people with Kalashnikovs, of which one was, of course, the Foreign Secretary. At least we can now talk about the substance, and not about the process, of Europe. We spend so much time talking about the process and about whether we want to belong to a Union that could do these things, rather than about what things we want it to do. The temptation to do that is one of the abiding problems of the House.
    I do not want to make a diversion into fisheries, except to say that we should be a little careful before we talk about national control because, frankly, I do not think that one can ever have pure national control. Even if we repatriated the fisheries policy, we would have to have zonal controls. The riparian states would have to get together to organise conservation. In the Irish sea, traditionally one of the areas where fishery stocks have been under the most pressure, deals would have to be done between riparian states whose fishing industry exploited those stocks. We would also need to make sure that other member states did not see an opportunity to withdraw from the policies inconvenient to them. The UK has a strong interest in an effective European competition and state aids policy, and I would not wish to see member states deciding that that did not suit their interests.
    Sometimes it might be helpful to spell out the Europe that we want to see rather than the Europe that we do not want to see. I shall therefore approach this subject not from the direction taken by most of my colleagues but by setting out what I think the needs of Europe are and then measuring the constitution against those needs.
    It seems that we need change in Europe in four areas: first, in the machinery of governance; secondly, in the political capacity to respond to crisis and issues; thirdly, in the way that we manage the economy or the European levers that are relevant to the way that we manage the economy; fourthly, how we deal with the question of the democratic accountability of Europe to its citizens.
    As for governance, we need better decision-taking machinery so that a Europe of 25, 27, 28 and eventually 35 works efficiently. I think that the situation left by the treaty of Nice will function but I am not sure that it will work as well as we want in terms of the machinery of decision-taking. Therefore, there is a case for saying that we need a successor to Nice. The argument about the shape that it could take is the substance of the argument that we have in this place.
    In political terms, over the past few years we have seen a sorry spectacle of Europe. That is one of the reasons for the public's response. We have seen an incoherent looking Europe, a Europe that has not looked as if it could get its act together, a Europe that has looked rather incompetent. Institutions have tended to diminish in public esteem and not to meet the challenge. In a sense, the Commission has been the most obvious example of that. It is perhaps emblematic—an

    859
    expression that has already been used—that the President of the Commission appears to be having a great deal more success in running a party in Italy simultaneously with his job as Commission President than he has in running the Commission.
    We need a coherent approach to issues such as the World Trade Organisation. Reference has been made to countries such as China and India, which are already economic super powers. There is a series of candidate super powers. For example, Brazil is already one of the great agricultural super powers. It is foreseeable that it will probably become a more important agricultural power than the United States. Argentina is not all that far behind. The architecture of world trading power is changing dramatically.
    We need to have a more effective response to regional conflicts. One thinks only of the middle east situation and what a small voice there is, effectively, from Europe. I think of humanitarian crises as well. I have given three illustrations of where a more coherent ability to respond more quickly would be seen to be necessary by citizens.
    In terms of the economy of Europe, we need to create a genuine European open society. How we order our affairs within Europe determines how well we compete outside Europe, so we need to remove the barriers to the freedom of individuals and businesses to trade, invest, work, compete, study and live anywhere in the EU, and therefore to be able to compete in and embrace the global economy. The record is not good. Of course, it is patchy. Some member states have been very successful in appearing to combine at least a liberal market economy with quite a strong framework of social support. The Netherlands has done relatively well in that regard.
    The fortunes of other major players—France and Germany, and Italy as well—are crucial to us because they are neighbours. They are major political interlocutors in Europe and they constitute our major marketplace on a reciprocal basis. The ability to sustain the political momentum for reform has been lacking in these countries. We have seen instead Mr. Schröder, for example, complaining that the new Baltic states happen to have low levels of business taxes. What is his response? Do we find a way of competing and accepting the judgment of a market? No, the new Baltic states should be compelled to raise their taxes so that we are relieved of the need to make an unpleasant and painful reform ourselves.
    We have seen between France and Germany an argument over whether there should be national champions. Mr. Sarkozy, who is the French Finance Minister and seen by many, certainly by himself, as the heir apparent to Mr. Chirac, is an effective and, in many ways, an attractive politician. We look to be moving back towards the French solution and the idea of the national champion. Even Mr. Schröder has found that a rather uncomfortable development. In Britain, we tend to deliver lectures on liberal economics to the continent, so one is glad to know that a surprising number of French people wonder whether the economic miracle of the '50s and '60s was achieved in France despite the state or because of it. If France underwent liberal economic reform it would be a frightening competitor.
    860
    We need to promote active citizenship in Europe as much as we do at home. We need clear and accessible lines of accountability. There must be a high road to accountability so that people can access it and the question of where the buck stops can be answered. To achieve that, we must start work at home. To return briefly to the points that I made in my article, the Government have not sought to engage the public effectively in the European argument. The Prime Minister makes the occasional speech on Europe, usually in Poland, and there are various roadshows, but he never commits himself as he did, for example, to the Northern Ireland peace process. Whether or not one agreed with him over Iraq, his advocacy skills are potent and effective, but he has never deployed them on the European argument. He must therefore bear some responsibility for what has happened.
    In my article, I pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition has made a great effort to achieve a new consensus in the party on Europe, so he is not included in my strictures, but there is a long legacy in my party of conveying the impression that Europe is a permanent battlefield. One can then hardly blame people for asking why, if it is so damned awful, we are in it. Our essential argument is that we can defend Britain's interests in Europe better than the Government, so I advise my Front-Bench spokesmen to do two things, not just one—first, to demonstrate that we are capable of defending our interests and, secondly, to argue the case for doing so in Europe, and not presuppose an acceptance of that argument. Millions of perfectly normal, sensible people voted for UKIP last week to send a message. We hope that that will be the only occasion that they do so, although we cannot be certain, but we should not denigrate them as a crackpot minority. The truth of the matter is that they are a substantial part of the electorate, and everyone in the political class who believes in Europe must demonstrate the need to engage completely in Europe, as well as the opportunities and, indeed, the penalties for doing so.
    The language of European politics is invariably the language of war and military analogy. That is peculiar to Britain—no one else feels the need to resort to that curious vocabulary. It started with Mr. Wilson, who used footballing and laddish analogies. We never hear the language of opportunity used about Europe—it is almost entirely absent from our political vocabulary. The way in which the constitution measures up to the criteria that I have set out is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. As was the case with my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, the fact that it is a constitution does not give me the twitches. We should not be against something simply because it is a constitution—what matters is what it says and does. I do not think that is an instrument of grand federal design. I am looking hard through the fog, but I do not see the outlines of a superstate moving towards me. Looking back, I can see the incoherence of Europe rather than the frightening coherence that is the hallmark of a superstate.
    As for governance and political authority, the treaty is, on balance, positive. The permanent presidency of the Council of Ministers has many common-sense management features to commend it. I hope that we achieve a streamlined Commission, as far too many people are seriously underemployed at the moment. I

    861
    am not put off by the prospect of a foreign minister or a foreign representative reporting to member states through the Council of Ministers. There is a perfectly reasonable case for that, to meet the arguments that I put forward recently.
    The tentative role of national Parliaments is welcome. There is much more that can be done, as various colleagues have mentioned, but at least it is the beginning of a weakening of the Commission. It is a feature of the treaty, though as I said, the UK should be a little careful. Where we want the effective enforcement of a Europe-wide policy, we need a strong Commission to do that. The idea that our role will be enhanced and we will benefit from a Commission that is undermined is not sensible, which is why the search for a new president of the Commission is so important. There is a certain Gaullist imprint on the constitution.
    It is with regard to the economy that my concerns are most serious. I leave aside the issue of red lines and endorse what my colleagues and the Government have said about the need to defend those red lines. I shall not rehearse that argument. What concerns me is the structures that we build, within which the economy must operate. The market needs liberating and deregulating, not constricting, so that it can be job, wealth and opportunity-creating. That is the purpose of a market. The charter has implications, particularly for the labour market, that must be addressed. On the whole, I would prefer that it did not exist at all, but if it must exist, I want to make sure that it cannot seep into British law and practice in any way. For me, that is a crucial criterion for the constitution.
    The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who is no longer present, spoke about the protection of the work force. He said that what people wanted was protection in the work force. What people want is work. The liberal market economy, the opportunity to move into work and the ability of businesses to adjust their work force are the most important guarantors of that. I remember having an argument with a French Minister at a Council meeting many years ago, in which she said that we must find ways of protecting many more people in work and build more barriers to protect people in work. I said that we needed to get rid of the wall so that people could move in and out of work much more effectively, because that is how businesses recruit. There is a fundamental culture that must be addressed.
    On democracy and accountability, there are some pluses. The role of member states is enhanced, at the expense of the Commission, but again, we need to be careful about the balance there. The role envisaged for national Parliaments is welcome, but it is still tentative. We would like it to acquire more substance. The increased competence of the European Parliament is welcome. Too often we tend to think of accountability as a zero sum game—if it is not exercised here, it cannot be exercised elsewhere.
    We have a semi-federal organisation in Europe, and in order to encapsulate that sovereignty we need an organisation operating on the same basis. We need a Parliament that is embraced within the same sort of architecture. However much people denigrate the Parliament—denigration is one of the fashionable habits of the United Kingdom—it has a powerful role in shaping the environment in which we live, work and
    862
    consume. There are few aspects of our daily lives that are not affected by decisions taken by the European Parliament.
    As Europe gets bigger—there are 25 states and there will be more—there is a serious argument for looking hard at the functions that it performs. More and more, it should be looking to perform the functions of the holding company, in which the essential corporate identity is held and the essential policies are discharged and managed, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood said, it does not need to get involved in the nooks and crannies of everyday life. It needs to make sure that it holds the ring, as it were, but that the line managers have the responsibility for delivering the day-to-day tasks.
    There are, of course, things that must be done at the centre. One thinks immediately of the single market, state aid, competition, which is crucial to the United Kingdom, environmental matters and trade matters. Those are fairly self-evident and there would not be enormous dispute about that. There is a very large range of other activities in the employment and social sphere, however, that I do not believe are central to a market. I do not believe that they will be easy to manage in the heterogeneous Europe that is being created. It would not be a bad thing if Ministers were to say to themselves that what it is not necessary to do at the centre, it is necessary not to do at the centre.
    Judged on that basis, the draft constitution is not the constitution that I would like to see. I will look hard to see what it delivers to us, but beyond that, a hard look will need to be taken at the way in which Europe operates in terms of the much larger conglomerate that now exists.
    Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman may be getting to the point at which I might just slightly disagree with something that he says, which is a rather nerve-wracking business when one is sitting on the Government Benches. In France, which he knows very well, a great deal of left-wing, trade union and worker organisations are saying that they will campaign against the constitution unless it takes into consideration the citizen's desire not for protection, but for recognition of the social dimension in employment. I want a Europe with full employment too, but if that were all that we were asking people to vote for, it might open the way to the UKIP-ism of the left. He knows full well how the Communist party, the Trotskyites and even the national front in France have mammoth support from working people in opposing Europe. Will he comment on that particular problem?
    Mr. Curry: There are distinct political cultures in every member state, and the relationship with government and the concept of what it is there to do differ dramatically among member states. I have no fundamental difficulty in saying that a significant part of those cultures should be satisfied with the relationship between the citizen and the member state. If we try to enlarge that arrangement across Europe, we will almost certainly satisfy nobody, because it will not meet the British demand that Europe should not be seen to be engaged, and it will not meet the French concern that Europe is seen as a merchant's charter.

    863
    I know that finding the balance is difficult. In a sense, every initiative in Europe will have contradictory elements built in to it, because it will bear the imprint of everybody's needs. Such an initiative will not be pristine, and the balance will inevitably turn out to be unsatisfactory. The virtue of Europe, however, is that whenever one is locked into a negotiation, one is condemned eventually to break the deadlock and move forward. That gets one into the next deadlock, but that is the dynamism, however halting, of the organisation.
    I wish to conclude by saying a word about France. After the match on Saturday, members of the English team complained that the French team were apparently celebrating in a fairly boisterous manner in their bath. Given that the French "Marseillaise" was jeered, hooted and whistled down by thousands of English fans in the stadium during the singing of the national anthem—a practice that I am afraid is almost entirely English—I have scant sympathy for that complaint. Frankly, the fans were only re-enacting on the fields of Portugal what is re-enacted in the press in Britain almost daily. Let us be frank about that. I find such behaviour vulgar and uncivilised, and it is a great discredit to this country. I am sorry to sound so frightfully middle class and Daily Telegraph about it, but there we are. I am allowed to do so very occasionally.
    If one looks at the position of Britain and France in Europe and asks who is in the better position and who should think that they are more on the winning and losing sides, to use that old military analogy, I think that one sees that the United Kingdom has much better reason than France for having confidence. The French press is full of the end of the French hegemony and the idea that things are changing and that enlargement is not a French victory. Enlargement may not even be seen to be in French interests when it is looked at in terms of the creation of a Francophile Europe.
    Let us consider Britain's position. Europe is becoming more Anglo-Saxon, more English speaking, more Atlanticist, more diverse and more open. Enlargement therefore gives us a great chance. The French hegemony is over and the only way in which it can be prolonged is through our disengagement. We have a huge opportunity, which we can either take and transform the debate, thus standing a fairly good chance of transforming Europe as well, or surrender. That would be another surrender in the enormously long line of missed British opportunities.
    5.50 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: In June 2000, President Chirac made a powerful speech to the Bundestag in which he called on Germany to join France in leading the drive towards European integration and asked for a timetable for that process to he set out. He said that there should be a European constitution in a few years and a pioneer group of European Union states that wanted to move faster than the others towards closer integration in political and economic matters. It should therefore come as no surprise, four years later, that the Government are on the eve of signing up to such a constitution.
    More recently, the agenda—the project, as some have described it—was identified as the solution to the problems outlined in a report that Romano Prodi
    864
    commissioned and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned. The report was honest and detailed and described the position of the EU today. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former French Finance Minister, chaired the round table of experts who produced it. It concluded:
    "The European Union has reached a turning point in its history … Its institutions are functioning badly: they are threatened with paralysis and challenged on the grounds of their democratic deficit. Its project has run out of steam: today no satisfactory answers are being given to the questions of why we need Europe and where it is going … for the first time, the Union is having to ask itself where its ultimate boundaries lie".
    The report, "Building a Political Europe", offers some solutions, some of which are enshrined in the draft treaty that the Government will tackle in the coming days. Its solution, however, is not that suggested by some of my hon. Friends examining the need for liberal markets; recognising the change in the global economy; and instituting reform in those European countries that have yet to follow the United Kingdom example of examining trade union reform and the way in which regulation, especially employment legislation and regulation, makes Europe less competitive as a trading bloc than other such blocs around the world. Europe has not grasped those challenges, many of which our national Governments, especially the previous Conservative Government, understood.
    We have reached a watershed. It is no surprise that the people of this country are confused about the exact purpose of Europe today. In 1975, when the UK voted to stay in what was then known as the Common Market—the old European Economic Community—people, and I include myself, believed that they were voting for free trade, of which we could perceive the advantage, and mutual co-operation expressed by independent sovereign states.
    I was born in 1946 and grew up in the aftermath of the second world war. I can understand why the political leaders of Europe in the 1940s and 1950s had reasons other than purely pragmatic trading reasons to come together. Twice in that century, the mainland of Europe was ravaged by world wars. They caused huge damage, whichever side one was on, to the youth and the well-being of countries that lost millions of their citizens. People prayed that they would never have to put their youth through that again.
    I have to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), however, that the peace argument should not be prayed in aid today as a reason for being in an organisation that we thought was to be a trading bloc but which we now see clearly from other European countries is in fact a political and economic union. Why are we afraid of recognising the reality that that is a legitimate aspiration for the people of all the European Union countries and those still seeking to join? It would not be my wish to go down that road, but I would not wish to deny any individual or country the opportunity in a free, democratic society to open negotiations, to come together and to proceed with that project.
    Over the last 29 years, since we had the opportunity to say whether we wanted to stay in the Common Market, successive British Governments have tried to persuade the British people that what was happening in other

    865
    European Union countries to promote and proceed with greater political and economic union was not really the agenda. It behoves all politicians, wherever we sit on the spectrum of views on the future of Europe and the United Kingdom's role in it, to remember one very important lesson. The people out there who spoke last Thursday by putting a cross on a ballot paper and recording their view—whichever side of the argument they took—are our masters. They are the people who send us here, and if we are not absolutely honest with them, and if we do not set out for them the choices and agendas involved—whether we agree or disagree with them—we do them a grave disservice.
    Here we are on the eve of this constitution, having received a clear signal from the British electorate that what many of them thought was the real agenda for Europe has, over the years, become one in which they have lost confidence. They have lost confidence in their understanding of what we, as politicians, would do with the power that is already enshrined in Europe. Government after Government have signed treaty after treaty, each of which has moved us further forward into political and economic union, while declining to be totally honest with the British people that that was the real agenda for many countries in the European Union. It is folly to try to deny the reality of that to the British people.
    I hope that, at this watershed on the constitution, whatever party we belong to, we shall not betray the elemental trust that the British people place in us when they send us here as their representatives. We are representatives, not delegates; we use our judgment. If we, as individuals, use our judgment wrongly on this issue—or on any other—the British people have the opportunity to call us to account at the ballot box every four or five years at a general election. Those are the terms on which we enter this Chamber. On this important issue, we now have an obligation to spell out to the British people where we are.
    For the last year, I have sat in this Chamber and repeatedly heard the Prime Minister and other Ministers on the Treasury Bench deny to the House that this constitution was a constitutional matter. I shall say that again, so that people do not think that I have made a slip of the tongue. The Prime Minister has repeatedly denied to the House that the EU constitution was a constitutional matter. It was the main plank of his argument for refusing repeatedly a referendum on the matter, for which the Opposition have been arguing robustly, both inside and outside the Chamber, for nearly two years. I am pleased that he has now made this concession. When the people cast their vote in that referendum—I am sure that, red lines or no red lines, the Government are going to do a deal—it is important that they have an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument about what is at stake. This is not yet another European treaty but the last piece in the jigsaw for closer economic and political union. Many colleagues have spelt out in this long but welcome debate what the consequences are.
    It is no surprise that, for many years, many people out there have paid no interest to the subject of Europe. The pollsters in the newspapers, and sometimes the pollsters who do surveys for our parties, show us that Europe is not at the top of everybody's agenda. Of course, people are more concerned about our health service if they have
    866
    someone sick in hospital, about our education service if they have to pay student fees, or about what is going to happen to them in retirement if they are worried about their pension. Of course those issues dominate our political agenda, as they properly should.
    It would be a grave mistake, however, were we to move into that greater political and economic union with the people out there not realising what was being done in their name. When they found out, the consequences would be dire—I would go so far as to say that the consequences would be very dangerous for this country. Others have touched on this issue. We have seen the resurgence of extremism for some years now in other countries, which should be of just as much concern to us as votes cast for, say, the British National party, as we saw at last week's election. That should sound warning bells to all of us.
    At the heart of this should be the need to be absolutely clear and honest with the British people. It is no surprise that sometimes this subject is a big turn-off. It is dry. Only gadflies such as me read these treaties and have some of the literature by their beds to read late at night—[Interruption.] It is sad and suspect, but necessary. If we examine the language associated with this subject over the years, we find that it not just a turn-off but positively confusing for the British people. There are phrases such as variable geometry, which means that some forge ahead but others stay behind and move at a different pace, yet still move towards the same destination with the same objective: closer political and economic union. Other examples are concentric circles, a hard core and a three-phase system, put forward particularly by the French and the German Christian Democratic Union. If one can get to grips with that, it means another variation on moving towards the same destination.
    When we have heard all that over the years, particularly from other EU countries, they have not been resistant to closer political and economic union— that is their agenda, although politicians in this country have denied that. When they look for different ways of proceeding, it is not because they are opposed to it in principle but because they are looking for flexibility and the ways in which they can achieve that objective.
    It is true that treaties signed when the Conservative party was in office have added to the progress towards that destination. Even Margaret Thatcher, who was mentioned several times in Ministers' speeches, has acknowledged that, with her natural enthusiasm for free trade, the Single European Act to bring in the single market was achieved at a price that she now regrets. John Major sought to protect us by insisting on subsidiarity. That, too, was mentioned earlier.
    I remember, as an agriculture Minister, receiving a letter from someone representing—I think—a food company about some European legislation that was impeding his business. Civil servants drafted a letter for me praying in aid subsidiarity. I sent it back to them asking for two examples. When it was returned to me, all references to subsidiarity had been removed. Over the years, little carrots have been dangled before us, causing us to think that perhaps, despite all these treaties, we in this Parliament can have some control over what happens when they are implemented—but the power is not with this Parliament.

    867
    There was discussion earlier about whether, through this treaty, which I am sure the Government will sign, we could somehow give the House more powers through greater scrutiny. Most of the regulations about which we all complain emanate from the single market and the Single European Act. We deal with them in Committees, as statutory instruments. By the time we are scrutinising them, however, they have been signed on behalf of the British Government, whichever party is in power. That is how the system works. As for the few regulations debated in detail by Committees, the Committees are weighted in such a way that the Government have a whipped Bench to ensure that regulations are automatically endorsed. The House of Commons has no power to overturn a statutory instrument—secondary legislation from the European Union—if the Government of the day have already signed up to it.
    Angus Robertson: I do not want to engage in a debate on the substance of what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree, however, that we should be concerned not just about the matters she is raising but about the fact that only a small proportion of members of all political parties in the House are even remotely interested in whether Europe works well, badly or indifferently? Should we not work in our parties to foster more interest, and to improve scrutiny across the political spectrum?
    Mrs. Browning: We should all take these issues seriously. We all have quite a lot to say about red tape, the burdens on business and the consequences of European legislation. The fact is, however, that all of us who are here at the behest of the British electorate are impotent in respect of those things. I am happy to hear people debate reform, but that is not where we are today. We are at a watershed: all the matters that have been discussed in past years are coming together in the new constitutional treaty, which rolls together all the treaties that we have signed.
    Many have described what they believe to be the changes and the dangers inherent in the constitution: the legal personality that it will have, and a range of issues connected with our common law, our foreign and defence policy and our social policy. All that is clearly spelt out in the treaty. The Government attempt to persuade us that their red lines will make the treaty as neutral as possible in terms of the House's power, on behalf of the people of this country, to make decisions; but that is not what it is about.
    I regard the Minister as a Euro-enthusiast, yet he does not appear enthusiastic about this project. He and his colleagues still seem to be in denial, not really wanting to admit what the treaty is. I wonder why the Government have not the courage of their convictions. It would be more respectable to spell out what is in the treaty, and to say "We support this, because it is what we and the other European countries that want it believe is right for our country." If they genuinely believe that it is the right thing for this country, I will oppose them in the debate and the argument, but at least that debate will be honest and respectable.
    The argument on peace cannot be maintained today. It may well have been correct for Konrad Adenauer and others in the previous century but I believe, as my right
    868
    hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham clearly set out, that it was the presence of NATO and, specifically, of American soldiers funded by American taxpayers that kept the peace in Europe during the cold war, and we owe them a great debt for their support to NATO in that role, which they played for many years. They were there not to hold France and Germany apart but to protect mainland Europe from the clear threat of the Soviet Union and the old Soviet bloc, a nuclear power—something quite new after the last war.
    I do not know why we accept the European Union's lack of good governance, or why as a country—I imagine that this applies as much to the Labour Government as it does to my Front Bench—we somehow seem to accept that fraud just happens. We accept the fact that accounts cannot be properly audited, when they involve spending the money of the taxpayers of this country, for which we, as representatives of the people, should be held to account. It should be incumbent on us as MPs to press for good governance in the European Union, yet the only people to identify the problems are vilified by the elite bureaucracy in Brussels. It is those whistleblowers, who are actually doing the British taxpayer a good service, who lose their jobs. Why is good governance not required in the European Union, although we insist on it in third world countries when we are considering passing money to them to help their pressing needs? Good governance is made an integral part of those negotiations.
    I agree with what many of my colleagues have said on the European Union's economy and its role as a trading bloc in a global market. The European Union negotiates for the United Kingdom Government in global trade talks. Yes, Ministers attend the talks, but they do not have a seat on our behalf at the table. What sort of deals do they do on our behalf? They certainly do not protect British businesses, such as the cashmere industry and the decorative packaging industry, when the United States falls out with the European Union at those global talks. I ask again, as have others: where is this Government's negotiating hand? Throughout the years, if we have worried about how the European Union has developed and how it works in practice, we have been told, "Don't worry; we will use our influence and negotiating skills to sort these matters out." But they do not get sorted out.
    The people of this country have woken up—some of them—to what is on the table, to where we are now in our relationship with the European Union and, more particularly, to where the European Union is going. I support the view that at this point, on the eve of the signing of this constitution, if those countries that want closer political and economic union want to proceed with the treaty, we should wish them Godspeed. Let us face it, we do not want to see them in dire straits as their economies crumble, but if they genuinely believe that that is the right thing to do, let them proceed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Conservative party has described that position as "Live and let live". It is certainly more understandable than variable geometry.
    However, if that approach is adopted, our relationship with the EU will be different from now on. It is not about saying no to the constitution in principle or to joining the euro—although I do say no to both possibilities—but about looking at where we are now.

    869
    Where the treaties that we have signed have not worked, we must make sure that we give back to the British people those things that they may not have realised until now that they have lost.
    We must do that constructively otherwise, we risk damaging ourselves and our allies. We want to work closely with our allies, and trade with them. They certainly want to trade with us. However, last Thursday's vote was an angry message to the two main parties in this country that the British people feel let down on Europe. It behoves Members of Parliament to be totally honest with them from now on, for that is what they deserve. If we are not honest, the consequences will be grave for all parties.
    I represent a traditional shire county seat in the heart of God's own county of Devon. My constituents are very down to earth. They are lovely people, and it is a great pleasure to represent them. They are not fools, though: the good people of Devon will not tolerate any party that tries to pull the wool over their eyes.
    The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has returned to his place. Earlier, he concluded his remarks with a literary quotation. I shall do the same. The quotation that I shall use will be familiar to the House, but it sums up how my constituents feel about this matter. G. K. Chesterton wrote:
    "Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.
    For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Spring: I want to thank all those who have contributed to this afternoon's debate, in which there were some excellent speeches. I seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I want to allude to various other aspects of the EU's activities before I deal with the substance of what has been discussed this afternoon.
    Inevitably, the main thrust of today's debate stemmed from last week's elections and from the important events that will take place in the next few days. The whole House welcomes the enlargement process and the fact that new member countries were able to vote for the first time in the recent European elections, but I know that all hon. Members share one regret—that so far we have not found a solution to the division of Cyprus.
    We were all saddened at the rejection of the Annan plan, but I hope that the Cyprus problem can be resolved sooner rather than later. Even so, a number of issues remain—especially among members of the Greek Cypriot community, which voted no—that require some sort of resolution before a settlement can be reached.
    I want to touch on two matters very briefly. The first problem has to do with the Turkish settlers from mainland Turkey who now occupy land and property in northern Cyprus, and the second—and the more important, for many Greek Cypriots—is the permanent presence of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus.
    Our country is a guarantor power, so the successful and peaceful reunification of Cyprus is an objective of considerable importance for us. We need to improve the poor economic circumstances faced by the Turkish Cypriot community, and the communications link. I hope very much that the Government, as a guarantor power, will use their good offices, and Britain's unique
    870
    relationship with the Cypriot people, to resolve the tragic situation that obtains in that most beautiful island.
    Also, we must take this opportunity to congratulate Turkey on what it has done to try to resolve the matter. It has moved towards the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, which all hon. Members agree is a necessary objective. Turkey is also making considerable improvements in its human rights record, especially in respect of the Kurdish minority. Moreover, anti-torture legislation is being strengthened and there are moves towards establishing a more functional market economy. That is why, at this particularly difficult time in our relationships with the Islamic world, Turkey can act as a bridge to that world. As a country with extraordinarily good contacts both in the Arab world and, historically, with Israel, it can play a part in the middle east peace process, which has, unfortunately, ground to a halt.
    The EU, as an enormous single market, has a huge impact on surrounding countries. The jewel in the crown of the EU is the single market, and we want to extend the benefits of trade and market liberalisation that we have enjoyed within it. The Euro Med agreements should be viewed in that light. The specific provisions vary in those association agreements, which currently exist with Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the Palestinian Authority, but there are certain key common aspects, including building political dialogue, respecting human rights and making a real move towards economic liberalisation and market economies. We must continue with that, but a problem has arisen: we have an important objective now of combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which raises a difficulty as regards those countries that may sign up to agreements and in dealing retrospectively with those countries that already have. In the context of the middle east, where we want economic improvement, it is important to resolve that problem in respect of Syria and the other countries prospectively coming through. Our relationships with the countries that border us, given economic circumstances, the high growth of population and so on, are important to our continued prosperity.
    We have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon, and I first congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his. He talked about political élites wanting to forge a constitutional structure that he felt was unacceptable to people, and I think that he was entirely right. He talked about the problems of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. Those are massive problems and, as many hon. Members have said, the negotiations should have provided the Government with an opportunity to take a really tough line on resolving the question of fisheries, which has been so damaging to this country.
    The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) talked about the need for some reorganisation of the treaties, saying that four were in existence and that they could be brought together. We accept that, of course, but the point is that there is a huge difference between establishing an overarching constitution and bringing together the essential elements of the treaties in an open and simplified way by adopting a charter of competences

    871
    very much in the spirit of Laeken. There is something fundamentally different between that animal and this constitution, which has emerged in a hugely complicated way.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) quite correctly said that no matter what happens, the Prime Minister will no doubt come back announcing a great triumph. I agree with him that there is a sense among our citizens that democracy is being eroded in the European Union. He talked about the difficulties of a lack of competitiveness in the European Union, the fact of permanent deflation being exported from China and India, the failure, thus far, of the Lisbon agenda, and the need to decentralise decision making among the economies of Europe rather than having an overarching macro-economic structure that does not seem to be delivering employment and prosperity.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) talked about the democratic deficit, and he was right to do so. The threat of democratic deficits is that if we do not bridge them, we will see the rise of extremism. He pointed out that it is vital for us, as politicians, to respond to what people say. The massive extensions of qualified majority voting proposed in the constitution would see the extension of involvement by the European Union in our criminal justice system, in asylum and immigration and in other matters. As he correctly pointed out, it is unbelievable that even before the constitution is agreed we are to have a European Foreign Ministry, with a diplomatic service, pre-empting any agreement or ratification. He also talked about the Government's failure to produce amendments that were accepted—some 90 per cent. were rejected. We were also assured that the charter of fundamental rights would not be legally binding, but—as we know from lawyers and the European Commission—that is what will happen.
    It was a joy to hear again from the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). As much as we all have great affection and regard for the hon. Gentleman, we also remember that what he told us would be in the Nice treaty before it was agreed was entirely different from what was eventually in it. He also said that the Nice treaty was of minimal importance, but we still carry the baggage that was associated with it. We warned at the time that the charter of fundamental rights would lead increasingly to the involvement of EU jurisprudence in our national life, and that is happening. As ever, I enjoyed listening to the hon. Gentleman, but his views have not been borne out in practice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talked tellingly of the role of the Council of Europe, and reminded us that there would have been no enlargement without the work done by that organisation. I take this opportunity to salute my hon. Friend who, for many years, has worked so effectively in the Council of Europe. It will be a great loss to the House when he leaves us at the next general election. He pointed out the likely clash between the charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights. What a beanfeast it will be for the lawyers.
    872
    It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). He talked about the need for greater integration in Europe, and I do not particularly agree with him about that. He also talked about the fact that the EU had been part of preserving peace on our continent, and—alongside NATO and the changing circumstances—that is true.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about how the electorate voted, and he discussed the speech by the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend also correctly pointed out that the renegotiation of the treaty base and the emergence of the constitution provided a real opportunity to create a different sort of European Union. If we had had the leadership that we should have had from the Government, we could have been in a radically different situation. As he said, it was the best opportunity for years to construct a modern, flexible and different Europe, but the Government failed to take it. As he said, so few of the amendments tabled by representatives of the Government were accepted.
    The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) talked about citizens wanting a different sort of Europe. He said—and I agree—that it is up to member states to decide what welfare structures they should have: it is not a matter to be decided centrally. He was also correct about the need for interest rates to be different in various parts of Europe to ensure continuing prosperity.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) talked about the need to support our continuing EU membership. Of course, we are absolutely committed to that, but he also pointed out that our continued membership will not be enhanced by our joining the EU constitution. Unfortunately, we see less and less economic flexibility in this new world. The real issue is how we create flexible structures to enable the European Union to survive and prosper in the years to come. My right hon. Friend, too, rejected the notion of the constitution.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) also contributed to the debate. I need hardly repeat that we want to remain part of the European Union, but unless we are honest about what that means—and unless we reform it and bring it closer to the people of Europe—the desire for withdrawal will grow, in this country and in other parts of Europe. We want the EU to succeed; it has made considerable accomplishments over many decades but unfortunately, as I think my right hon. Friend, too, accepted, the constitution will not bring about the changes that would be desirable.
    Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) talked about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn document, which illustrates the point that the constitution does not represent finality. Those who want to pursue political integration regard it merely as a stepping-stone to take the process further forward. My hon. Friend was right to say that successive Governments have not been honest with the British people as to what the European project is all about. We can agree or disagree about whether political integration is a good thing but there has certainly been a suspension of honesty, especially since the Government came into office.

    873
    The events of the past week have shown the deep concern felt by the British people about the future direction of the EU and our place within it. The Government have idiotically spent the past year talking at the highest level in terms of "in" or "out", of whether to accept the ever-ratcheting process of integration and the constitution, or whatever is thrust on us, or to withdraw from the EU. It was a crass political error to put the case in those terms, because many people answered in a way that would be unacceptable to many, many Members of Parliament. It was a false choice and has served dangerously to polarise debate on the EU and has certainly exaggerated the instincts of those who might favour withdrawal. I am afraid that the Government have been responsible for the tide of rejection and disconnection that has grown in this country.
    No one can believe that what has emerged in the constitution actually embraces the Laeken principles, which were simply to reconnect the European Union to its citizens. The constitution fails to recognise that when the diversity at the heart of Europe is coupled with non-coercive co-operation, the EU can flourish—when it is governed by a live-and-let-live, flexible approach. When the Dutch Foreign Minister, Bernard Bot, called on the EU to look for aspects of policy that could be returned to member states it was a welcome demonstration of the growing recognition, at least in some countries, of the real need for, and the practicality of, reform on the lines that we have indicated.
    That approach is completely at odds with the implications of the proposed European constitution. In practice, the constitution will lead to further integration and much greater involvement of the European Court of Justice, as the Court itself has acknowledged.
    We are not the only ones to take that view. On 29 May, The Economist stated:
    "The Laeken Declaration of December 2001 that set up a constitutional convention promised that the distribution of power between the centre and the member countries would be re-examined from first principles. It raised the possibility that powers could flow in both directions: the EU might gain authority to act in some new areas, but other powers could be repatriated. The draft Constitution does not contain a single proposal for the EU to cede a policy area. The flow of powers is all towards Brussels."
    It was a wise British politician who said that the British public would not be comfortable with our relationship with the EU until there was an institutional finality about it and creeping integration was halted, not by the completion of integrated political union, which the proposed constitution brings a step nearer, but by a clear commitment that we would integrate no further.
    The Government finally accepted the weight of public opinion and the democratic imperative and conceded a referendum on an EU constitution They must now heed the message sent by the British people last week when they voted for parties opposed to the EU constitution. The Government seem to pay little heed to the growing rejection of closer integration, but they do so at their peril, a point extremely well made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
    The Minister for Europe, in that capacity, signed up to a European socialist platform that calls for even greater harmonisation and European integration. I have a copy here: it is the most wonderful document—people would hardly believe it—and it goes absolutely against
    874
    all the spin that we have heard from the Government. The reality is in that document, signed by the Minister for Europe.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, the group set up by Romano Prodi talks about building a political Europe and sets out 50 proposals to enhance Europe's power and create a European sense of identity—including, for example, the first European taxes.
    All this, frankly, is the product of a misplaced world view by the Labour party. In the cold war, it misunderstood the nature of the threat at the time and how to deal with it. Today, in an era when the blocs of old are irrelevant, the Labour party clings, like some others in Europe, to an outdated bloc mentality. Just as, when the Berlin wall came down, it embraced multilateralism, now that the blocs are obviously irrelevant it starts to embrace such ideas with enthusiasm. That is absolutely characteristic of a party that has failed to grasp contemporary geopolitical realities.
    Indeed, it was just the same when President Reagan, whose memory we cherish, started to talk about taking on the old Soviet Union. All sorts of people said that that was utterly impossible and that no such thing was conceivable, but he, with the help of Margaret Thatcher and others, determinedly set about doing so. I say that because there is an echo of that sort of rubbishing, defeatist rhetoric from the Government—either accept the European project as it is, or withdraw—and I hope that, like President Reagan, we and the British people will have the last laugh.
    I shall now refer to the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon. We have come to know the Foreign Secretary very well. Indeed, he is very generous to the House. He is always very polite, and he comes to the House to explain the situation. However, over the past few years we have learned that the more he disbelieves something, the more he rants. When he is sure of what he is saying and believes it, he is very calm and considered. This afternoon, we heard the most unbelievable rant that I have ever seen from the Foreign Secretary, who either does not believe in what he is saying or knows that there will be rather less than a triumph in the negotiations in the next few days. I am afraid that we heard the nonsense postulated that either we accept what is before us as important and necessary for our membership of the EU or we get out—the in-and-out postulation, which is precisely wrong. The difficulty is that the Government have consistently repeated that view.
    The other problem with the Foreign Secretary is that, unlike his contemporaries in other parts of the EU, he has consistently come to the House to represent what has gone on in the Convention and what has been discussed at various meetings of his contemporaries and Prime Ministers as something entirely different from what individuals in his position in other parts of the EU are saying. That is why people in this country have suspended belief in what the Government have to say about the EU.
    Rather than attempting to bind all nations in the EU into some sort of supranational structure, the interests of existing and future members of the EU are best served by tackling its structural, demographic and competitive

    875
    problems, by attempting to do less, better and by building a partnership of nations that agrees because doing so is in their interests and because it will work. That is the way that success and realism lie. Indeed, that is exactly what the spirit of Laeken was all about.
    All that will require leadership, focus and determination —characteristics that have been wholly absent from the Government's approach to the EU. None of the largest countries of Europe has pathetically exerted so little influence on the constitutional architecture that is before us as this country. Regrettably, that is the case with the United Kingdom under a Labour Government. History will most certainly judge them accordingly, as the people of Britain judged them so unequivocally last week.
    6.39 pm
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): We have had an enjoyable debate. I share the concern of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about Cyprus. I assure him that we will do our best, as will Members from all parties with good contacts with and knowledge of Cyprus, to try to move it towards membership of the European Union on the basis of being a united island.
    I tell hon. Members that we
    "clearly believe on this side of the House that, if we have the confidence and the determination to play a full part in this European Union, we can build a Union in which this House and this country can feel at home."—[Official Report, 16 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 647.]
    Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in a debate on 16 May 1994, when he was the Minister with responsibility for Europe. That debate is dear to me—it also took place before a Council of Ministers meeting—because it was the occasion of my maiden speech. Earlier in that debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "We believe in creating a people's Europe"—
    I thought that that was a Labour phrase. He continued:
    "That means responding to people's day-to-day concerns … That has meant patient work in the Council of Ministers with other member states that share our aims in particular areas of policy … That means that decisions will be taken by member states unless the policy objectives require action at Community level, as was the case with the GATT negotiations. To give effect to that principle, last year the British and French Governments submitted a joint list of directives to be withdrawn, amended or repealed. Most of them were accepted and the Commission is now working up details for implementation."—[Official Report, 16 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 557.]
    It is useful to revisit some of our past debates. In the debate that I cited, we heard a powerful speech from Sir Edward Heath. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and the late Peter Shore made powerful speeches against the European Union, and several Conservative Members spoke in favour of it. Tonight, alas, only one Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), spoke strongly in favour of the European Union.
    Any foreign observer who listened to our debate would have been surprised by the oozing pessimism, defeatism, derision, scorn, indifference and hostility shown towards the European Union by Conservative
    876
    Members. The situation is not the same across the channel. An article in the French newspaper Le Figaro on 21 April 2004 said:
    "the draft Constitution will seal the victory of the nation-states over the European 'super-state'."
    Several speakers told us that there was a Franco-German conspiracy to drive forward an integrationist Europe, but the new President of Germany, Mr. Horst Kohler, has said:
    "I do not believe that current developments are going to give rise to a European federal state."
    Indeed, he envisaged
    "a revival of the nation- state principle again."
    Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. MacShane: May I make a little progress? I will try to address all hon. Members' speeches, but if I start giving way now, I will not have time to talk about the hon. Lady's excellent speech.
    Mrs. Browning rose—
    Mr. MacShane: Well, as the hon. Lady made the best speech, I shall give way.
    Mrs. Browning: The Minister is very kind. Although I mentioned the Franco-German project, I did not suggest that it was a conspiracy. I was trying to point out that those countries have always been open about what the objectives were, whereas this country's Government have constantly denied what was on the agenda.
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Lady makes her point, but perhaps we should invite several French commentators to pack some shirts and do a day shift on the Daily Mail or The Sun. Mr. Alain Duhamel, who is probably the leading French political commentator, says:
    "Giscard has created a great British Europe".
    Wherever I travel on the continent as part of my job, I hear comments, and often complaints, that during the constitutional treaty negotiations, the British way and British ideas and values broke through and were widely accepted.
    Everywhere I go, I find—this point was made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon—that many countries in Europe turn to Britain and want us to be a leading partner in the EU under the constitution, if it is finally agreed at the end of this week. That is because our ideas, whether on liberal market economics or investing in social Britain, are those that make the most sense to the rest of Europe.
    The speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), was defeatist and isolationist. It was an invitation to retreat to the era of the beef war and of turning our back on Brussels. He said that there was no reference to the current process in Labour's 2001 manifesto, and as usual his researchers have not done their work. The manifesto says:
    "Labour wants the next Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004 spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level"

    877
    and continues:
    "Labour supports a stronger role for national Parliaments in European affairs."
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will remember that what I said was that there was no mention of a constitution, but that is what is now being offered to the House. Perhaps he could look again at his manifesto before he accuses me of being wrong.
    In a wonderful document to which he added his name, the hon. Gentleman signed up to this phrase:
    "We must eliminate all unfair competition between the national social security systems of our member states."
    Is that Government policy?
    Mr. MacShane: What we are dealing with at the moment is an intergovernmental conference. If I may reveal an exchange from a meeting at the Council of Ministers on Monday, in which British Ministers were not involved, I can tell the House that one of the colleagues there, who is from quite a big state, said that he wanted the constitution to start with, "We, the people". The President, from Ireland, who was chairing the meeting, said, "I'm sorry, but it's a treaty, so it will start, 'The President of France the President of Germany, the Queen of England, etcetera."
    Mr. Spring: I refer the Minister to article 10.1 of the constitution, on Union law:
    "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it. shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
    I do not know what a constitution is meant to be if it is not written as a constitution in this particular publication.
    Mr. MacShane: Well, let me deal with that. If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself, I would have come to it. I shall provide a helpful quote from a report presented in a debate in the other place on 2 May, my birthday, by that distinguished judge, Lord Scott:
    "It is not surprising that…the Constitutional Treaty includes a statement of the primacy of Union law. The doctrine is a well established and key element of the Community's legal order."
    I am not prepared to enter into a debate with the noble Lord, but the point is that he refers to a constitutional treaty, and in our manifesto we talked about the IGC, which is 25 sovereign member states coming together to create a constitutional treaty—a rule book—that brings together existing constitutional treaties to allow the Europe of 25 to proceed.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes prayed in aid Ben Bot, the excellent Foreign Minister of the Netherlands. In his Humboldt lecture, to which I think the right hon. and learned M ember was referring, he said:
    "I believe the draft treaty proposes real improvements on a number of points in the existing treaty text. For instance, it takes more account of citizens' views and includes a charter of fundamental rights."
    One will not find anti-constitutional treaty statements by our friends in the Netherlands.
    Colleagues have referred to last week's election result. In the beautiful county of Devon, where the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has
    878
    her constituency, the greatest number of votes went to UKIP. I am glad to say that in the great city of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the Labour vote outnumbered the Conservative and UKIP vote combined, which just goes to show what good Labour leadership can provide. Of course, many people are likely to vote UKIP—they have been fed myths and propaganda by the Conservative party and the absent gentlemen of the press about what Europe and the new constitution are all about. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has to decide where he stands. He said in his letter to the shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr Whittingdale), that if negotiations do not succeed on the repatriation of the fisheries policy, which has been a common policy of the EU since the 1970s:
    "it remains the case…that the British Parliament is supreme and we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring about full national…control."
    If words have meaning, actions and consequences, and the only way to restore "full…national control" of our fisheries policy if negotiations do not succeed would be either to be in permanent breach of our treaty obligations or to leave the EU—let us be clear about that. That is the position of all of UKIP.
    On the BBC on Monday there was an interesting interview with one of the stars of the new European Parliament, Mr. Roger Helmer, who headed the list.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Hear, hear.
    Mr. MacShane: Other Conservative Members also say, "Hear, hear."
    Mr. Helmer was asked by the BBC interviewer whether the Conservative party would be looking at withdrawal. He replied:
    "well, it's a vote winner for UKIP perhaps because we haven't been sufficiently clear. But I don't think you need to offer withdrawal with a capital W."
    There are Conservative Members who believe in withdrawal with a small w. It is time that they came out and were honest on that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as always, was passionate on the question of Europe and quoted one of my favourite poets, Alexander Pope. He will remember another of Pope's couplets:
    "Old politicians chew on wisdom past,
    And totter on in business to the last."
    I know that the last speech that my hon. Friend will make in the House will be the first speech that I heard him make 10 years ago, which was for detachment or withdrawal from the EU. He has been completely consistent and honest.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. MacShane: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for not giving way, so that I might cover other points.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. MacShane: Very well.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All these insults are taken in the playful spirit in which they are intended. I am sure that they are meant very kindly.

    879
    Is my hon. Friend saying that we cannot alter enormities such as the CFA, the CAP and the common monetary and economic policy without withdrawing? Is that the essence of what he is saying?
    Mr. MacShane: Of course not. We are at the table—certainly since I entered the House—seeking a share of the EU budget going to agriculture. It has come down by about 10 per cent. That has been done by agreement. My point is that we require the consent of 24 other member states. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, and to say that a law will be passed in the House to take back control of our fishing waters or to leave the CAP, and not accept the consequences of that, means withdrawal—whether with a capital W or a small w. I ask hon. Members to be honest on this point.
    The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) called for a further and full debate on the EU constitutional treaty. I cannot promise him that from the Dispatch Box—but, through the usual channels, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would object to such a debate if time were found. He asked a serious question on voting weights, which is a big issue that does not directly involve the United Kingdom. Every country in Europe has so-called red lines. I hope that we can achieve a deal at the end of this week.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the charter of fundamental rights, and it is important that we get that right. Mr. Elmar Brok, the leading German MEP who speaks for the CDU on European matters, said on "Newsnight" on 18 May that the charter of fundamental rights
    "has no impact on national legislation, national law and national jurisdiction."
    Either he is right or the lurid scare stories that we have heard from Opposition Members are. I believe that Mr. Brok is closer to the truth, as will become clear over the weekend.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli talked about the need for a sensible economic policy in Europe, and I continually make speeches on such issues when I travel around the continent to speak about Government policy. I am happy to share those speeches with the House another time, but it is a responsibility of national Governments to make decisions in Berlin, Paris, Rome and elsewhere that ensure that Europe is as competitive as possible. That brings me to the point made by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), as an absence of constitutional treaties is not helpful for Britain. As I said, a constitution for Europe is present in the existing treaties, and the new constitution restores power to national Governments. If taken seriously by hon. Members, it would restore power not just to our Parliament but to all the Parliaments in Europe. There is a notion that Britain can stand alone outside Europe or make a dramatic breakthrough under the existing constitutional treaties—but we need to be at the table making the arguments, as Digby Jones of the CBI said.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. MacShane: I cannot accept interventions, as I need to refer to the speeches of other hon. Members.
    The right hon. Member for Wells made much of the question of primacy, which I have dealt with by citing Lord Justice Scott. I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Member that the job of politicians is to avoid a road smash, but when will his party work with the other centre-right parties of Europe to argue the British case, whether on Turkey—on which there is no divide between the parties—or on the liberal economic policies to which the right hon. Member for Charnwood referred? Parliament is one-legged in Europe because the main Opposition party refuses to work with its fellow centre-right politicians on those important issues.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that Europe is a crucial issue for Britain, and that it needs to reform. Ministers, he said, should go out and explain to the British people the benefits of EU membership. I could not agree more. I fully support the praise that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) lavished on the Council of Europe, an extremely important organisation. There is more to Europe than the European Union. Interestingly, every single country outside the EU that I deal with is knocking on the door to join, including Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, other Balkan states and Turkey. Amazingly, while the rest of Europe wants to become part of the European Union and work in partnership with us, often looking to us for inspiration and leadership, the Opposition have been so thoroughly UKIP-ised that all we hear is talk of withdrawal from Europe.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton stressed the importance of the EU as a force for peace. If he travelled west of the Balkans, he would see how right he is. The EU is a great and noble construction that we should support in every possible way.
    The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about giving away our birthright, which is the kind of language that debases the entire debate. The constitutional treaty will increase the power of national Governments and national Parliaments, while one new clause gives UKIP and many Opposition Members a present that they have long wanted—the chance to leave the European Union. Labour Members, most other hon. Members and the British people will vote yes to Europe and yes to a constitutional treaty to make the Europe of tomorrow work yet more efficiently and effectively.
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  PETITION

    Road Safety
    Hugh Robertson: The petition of residents of Briton, Saxon, Roman and Norman roads and Stone street in Faversham and supporters of the Kingsfield traffic action group requests that the House of Commons
    urges the Government to take immediate steps to ensure that the local council protects the safety of residents and their children on the roads in busy areas
    such as those mentioned.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Door Staff Registration
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick]
    7 pm
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The debate is about door staff, door stewards, doorkeepers or bouncers, as they are variously called. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety in her place, and I thank her.
    On 21 October I attended a meeting at Temptations nightclub at Newport, where I was told of concerns that doorkeepers on the island have about the doorkeeper registration scheme, which must be implemented under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Before I go into the details, I shall headline some of the questions that I hope the Minister will answer during the debate or shortly afterwards.
    First, did the Minister know when she signed the commencement order how damaging it would be to small businesses in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight if it were enforced, or was she not told of the shortage of registered doorkeepers at the time that she signed the commencement order in the middle of May? Secondly, will she encourage the police and local councils to take a light touch approach to enforcement, and in particular not to threaten people's licences while there are not enough doorkeepers? Thirdly, does she think the registration costs are affordable to part-time and casual doorkeepers?
    Fourthly, will the Minister obtain an urgent report from the Security Industry Authority on registration, to see how well the SIA is responding and how quickly it is responding to the challenge of registering people when they apply? Fifthly, why were the Isle of Wight and Hampshire selected as a pilot area without doorkeepers being consulted? Who agreed to that? Sixthly, who took the decision to introduce the scheme area by area? Was it the SIA or was it Ministers? A as that envisaged in debate on the Bill? I believe not. I f not, when was that determined?
    Seventhly, will anyone be put out of work if they have not received a doorkeeper's badge? Eighthly, is enforcement the SIA's responsibility or that of the police or the licensing authority? At present, I can only say thank goodness that in my constituency there appears to be no authority able and willing to enforce this ill-thought-out and hastily implemented scheme.
    After the meeting to which I referred, I had a letter from Zoe Mitchell, who is the secretary of the Isle of Wight Association of Professional Door Stewards. Among other things she asked:
    "If a majority of Stewards refuse to undergo the course or apply for the licence, what are your"—
    this is a letter sent to the SIA—
    "procedures to protect the pubs and clues from closure?"
    She went on to tell Mr. Drane of the SIA that during the previous week she had found it impossible to find anyone who can and/or will answer her questions. She had, she said, been pushed from pillar to post.
    882
    That was on 30 November. On 22 October, the day after the meeting, Sarah Hunnybun, who is a licensing enforcement officer at the Isle of Wight council, told me that
    "proposals by the SIA are flawed and will be seriously detrimental to crime and disorder on a local level."
    She continued:
    "I am representing the Isle of Wight on a small working party with the SIA, and we have discussed these issues with them at various levels during the past year, but have reached a point where the SIA is either unwilling or unable to address our concerns."
    She mentioned a number of concerns, including the low pay of door staff, which makes it impossible for them to afford the high cost of training and registration. She pointed out that training requirements were unlikely to be finally confirmed until November or December 2003 and that, as a result, training courses were unlikely to commence until January 2004. In conclusion, she said:
    "the costs of registration and training of the individuals involved will inevitably lead to a scarcity of licensed door supervisors, leading to premises possibly having to close down".
    The reply that I received with regard to that matter was pretty inadequate. The chief executive of the SIA referred to
    "a policy of full consultation and collaboration with key stakeholder groups within all sectors of the Private Security Industry".
    I ask now whether that included doorkeepers and those who employ them. He pointed out that the SIA
    "was instrumental in setting up a liaison group with licensing officers and the police in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight",
    and said that assurances had been received that training would be available to meet anticipated demand. He stated that the SIA had anticipated a possible shortage and had
    "put in place contingency plans which have been drawn up with the intention of minimising disruption."
    The reply failed to justify the level of the fee or to answer the points about grandfather rights. I wrote back to the chief executive and pointed out my dissatisfaction with his reply.
    Subsequently, I had a meeting with Mr. Drane and his deputy head of compliance, Dianne Tranmer. He was unable to explain whether doorkeepers or their employers had been consulted. He said that he felt that the level of fee was not an issue for doorkeepers and acknowledged that the training required to bring those with grandfather rights, which he had now sorted out, up to the new standard was not yet available in my constituency. Of course, the cost of travelling from my constituency to Hampshire for four days is significant, especially for part-timers who may have another job and may lose work. Finally, Mr. Drane said that it was his intention that the scheme would come on track on 4 June.
    On 30 March, the SIA said that the Isle Wight school of food and wine
    "currently estimate to have 48 door supervisors trained in the coming weeks."
    Mr. Drane said that he was informed that Ministers would be
    "laying the commencement order before Parliament mid to late April."

    883
    Miss Hunnybun wrote to me saying
    "some of their replies to your questions…directly conflict with what I know to be the case in certain areas, for example, that they felt the licence fee of £190 was not an issue for doorpersons."
    She said that
    "the fee has been set to cover the cost of the SIA. (It is interesting to note that when members of the SIA visit the Island, they stay at a well-known 4-star hotel as opposed to somewhere cheaper like the Travel Inn!!)"
    That is the sort of thing that pushes up the cost of the licences for doorkeepers. She added:
    "Our primary concern still remains that, after the 4th June, there will be a shortage of licensed door supervisors for the amount of premises that will require them, particularly the IW Pop Festival and Cowes Week"—
    the former took place last weekend, while Cowes week will be in the first full week of August—
    "whose security staff will all need to be SIA licensed."
    That shows that there was ample warning to the SIA, but it was immobile.
    On 10 May, I wrote to the Home Secretary. I understand that the letter did not arrive, but I e-mailed it and sent hard copy. I told him that only 14 doorkeepers had been registered in the two counties out of an estimated 2,000 that were currently employed. I said:
    "More doorkeepers' applications are in train, but nothing like sufficient to meet the two counties' needs. In other words, for whatever reason, it is impossible for businesses to comply with the legislation if it takes effect on 4th June."
    I was not the only person saying that. Mr. J.U. Burke, a licensing officer for the city of Southampton—the lead authority in the two counties in dealing with the SIA on this matter—wrote a lengthy letter on 12 May to the chairman of the SIA. It listed a host of problems, some of which I have mentioned, but included the proposal by the police and local authority representatives who attended the 4 May meeting with the SIA to consider postponing the implementation date. I, too, had requested that. The letter also said that the closure of premises as a result of the shortage of door staff would be a front-page media story and bad publicity for all concerned.
    I understand that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) have also written to the Home Office on the subject. My hon. Friend—I cannot speak for the others—has yet to receive a reply.
    Mr. Burke also drew attention to the problem of who is responsible for enforcement. He said that
    "enforcement of the law in relation to door supervisors is clearly the role of the SIA and not that of the Local Authority. It was presumably envisaged that the substantial licence fees paid to the SIA would cover enforcement… In addition the SIA representatives have been unable to indicate any statutory authority for local authority officers to demand proof of SIA licence."
    He reminded the chairman of the SIA:
    "At the meeting in May, we learnt that enforcement is not now proposed to take place until the end of June or early July and such enforcement is anticipated to be in the form of a warning."
    884
    That may have been true as far as Mr. Burke was concerned, but on the same day the SIA issued a press release that was entitled:
    "Inaction by door supervisors could force pubs and clubs to close".
    It stated that
    "all eligible applications received by 7 May"—
    the press release war; written five days later—would be processed
    "in time for the start of licensing on 4 June, but Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will still be left with a significant shortage of licensed door supervisors."
    The SIA accepted that the scheme was under pressure and threatening the livelihoods of doorkeepers and proprietors. However, it went on to blame those doorkeepers and proprietors by saying that
    "inaction by individual door supervisors and venue operators can only be through deliberate means or neglect."
    They threatened proprietors by stating:
    "If licensees use unlicensed door staff after 4 June, they could put their premises licence at risk."
    That is not an appropriate way in which to deal with small businesses and individuals who have taken on a part-time or casual job and cannot afford to invest the money in the training.
    On 28 May, the assistant chief constable of Hampshire police wrote to licensees stating:
    "From that date"—
    4 June
    "it will be an offence to work as a door supervisor without a licence or to employ unlicensed door supervisors…those found committing these offences will be liable for prosecution at any time…a very limited policy of discretion will be adopted by the Hampshire Constabulary until the 4th September 2004. Individuals who have submitted their applications too late to be processed by the 4th June will be issued with a letter from the SIA informing the individual that their application is being processed. Between the 4th June and 4th September officers will have the discretion to issue such individuals working without a licence a formal warning."
    I take that to mean something akin to a police caution. The police have a licence to prosecute and they will issue a formal warning. The letter says nothing about what would happen to licensees. Of course, a caution against licensees could have damaging implications for the future of their licence.
    Mark Watson, the general manager of Colonel Bogey's in Sandown, wrote to me on 28 May. He stated:
    "As previously discussed with you, it has once again been proved that the system is letting us down badly and will create a problem.
    My doorman"—
    I think that he meant "doormen" but perhaps he means one doorman—
    "took their exam on 28th April. After daily telephone calls to the British Institute of Innkeeping to 'chase' the doorman's certificates (you are not able to apply to the SIA without these certificates) they were delivered…on 26th May."
    That is a delay of a month. The letter continues:
    "We are now in the process of applying for the SIA licence and this, as quoted by the SIA, will take 4 to 6 weeks."
    On 3 June, I eventually established that the relevant legislation would take effect on the following day because the Minister had signed the order in the

    885
    previous week. I thank the Library for that information and I am also grateful for the help that I obtained from Bridget Brooks, a Home Office official. I immediately made representations to the Isle of Wight council and Hampshire constabulary to adopt a light-touch enforcement regime. However, on 5 June, Mark Watson told me that the police had threatened a pub for which he has responsibility, The Redan in Ryde, with closure on the first night of the scheme's operation because he was employing an unregistered doorkeeper.
    On 7 June, in the periodical The Publican, Colin Pollard, the licensee at The Hobbit in Southampton said:
    "It has been a nightmare trying to get the forms in. We've had a number returned and it's not clear why. It's a relief that the police are taking this into consideration but whether they prosecute is still at their discretion."
    John Burke, the licensing officer for Southampton to whom I referred earlier, said:
    "We are frustrated, this could have been done a lot better. We were running a good operation with our door supervisors already, so why try to reinvent the wheel?"
    Mark Watson told me on 11 June:
    "All my staff's applications have been sent. Most of them have been returned as marked either incomplete or not enough documentation.
    Firstly, the SIA application clearly states on several fields 'Country (Leave blank if in the UK)'. So this field has been left blank, but the forms have been returned to me as 'this field is incomplete because it has been left blank'.
    One of my staff supplied a passport, a plastic and paper driving licence, a birth certificate and two household bills. This form was returned as 'insufficient identity'."
    He wrote to me again on 16 June to say that more of his door staff had had their applications returned, and he complained that important documents were being sent second class rather than by recorded delivery. He said:
    "To describe the system as a fiasco is an understatement. The cost for each of my staff including application fee, training, wages and travel (as we had to train off the Isle of Wight) is in the region of £750 per door person. I have 14 door staff. £10,5000 of our profits down the drain. Yet another stealth tax. I resent the intimidatory stance offered by the SIA in recent press releases and emails received."
    He went on to say that it was easier to obtain a shotgun licence than SIA registration.
    What happened at the Isle of Wight music festival? I mean the Nokia Isle of Wight music festival, forgive me. A senior representative called Jill—she would not give her surname—of Rock Stead, the organisation responsible for security at the festival told a constituent of mine that she was not SIA registered. Actually, she thought that the authority in question was called the CIA. She said that the laws were different in England from those on the Isle of Wight and that there was no requirement for an SIA-registered person. She would not say whether anyone on site was SIA registered. She also said that the festival had been given an exemption from the relevant legislation by the Isle of Wight council. The Minister will know, as will the council, that it has no power to exempt anyone from that legislation. Jill also claimed to be qualified to teach doorkeepers to SIA registration standard.
    I have received the impression of arrogant, uncaring and out-of-touch officials in the SIA who are either ignoring advice or have been told to drive a policy
    886
    through, regardless of the consequences. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the latter is not the case, and I hope that she will be able to answer some of my questions tonight.
    7.18 pm
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to have the opportunity to put on record the work that has been undertaken by the Security Industry Authority in implementing the Private Security Industry Act 2001, and to describe its progress to date. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has done us all a favour by raising these important issues, which will be of widespread interest.
    The decision to set up the SIA and to regulate the private security industry enjoyed the support of the whole House. Many Members had campaigned for a number of years to raise standards in the industry and to use regulation to drive out what was seen as the criminal or rogue element within it. It is clear that the industry will play an increasingly important role in our extended police family, so it is vital that we raise the standards and skills of the people employed in it and that we reach a point at which the public can rely on those people having had good training and been properly vetted, and on their being fit and competent to do their job.
    The regulation of the industry has the support of virtually all the organisations and companies involved. I do not think that a single legitimate operator opposes the principle of regulation. The industry views this as a positive move forward, and thinks that it will be a tool for increasing both police and public confidence and that that, in turn, could lead to increased business opportunities for the industry as a whole. Where it is well respected, it should be able to expand its operation.
    The aims of the SIA are: to increase public trust and confidence in the industry; to increase professionalism and standards; to encourage businesses to improve their standards by creating a framework for developing and promoting best practice across the industry; to create a security industry centre of knowledge and expertise, so that the best people in the industry can lead the development of the rest; and to try to strengthen the extended police family, which we hope to develop.
    As for the sectors that we want to be licensed by the SIA, it started with door supervisors, and it will move on to wheel clampers, security guards, personal protection guards, key holders, private investigators and security consultants. The industry that we seek to regulate is wide ranging, and it is a complex task.
    The authority has tried to estimate accurately the size of the task that it is undertaking, to set up a proper organisation. The estimate is that about 500,000 people in this country are employed in this sector, and that the industry has an annual turnover of about £3 billion. As the hon. Gentleman says, because much of the work is part time, it is difficult to draw strict boundaries in relation to the exact number of people who are employed. Nationally, it is estimated that about 95,000 people are employed as door supervisors. In the pilot area, the initial estimate was that about 2,000 people were likely to be employed in the industry. The hon.

    887
    Gentleman will appreciate that, because of the nature of the industry, it is difficult to pin down exactly the number of people who are employed.
    The starting position for the SIA was an almost completely unregulated sector of our economy. It has therefore had to start from scratch to set up a system that would work and be effective. It decided that a number of things were required: a disclosure through the Criminal Records Bureau to make sure that those employed were fit and proper people to do the job; training to make sure that their skills were up to date and appropriate for the job that they had to carry out, taking into account the fact that the night-time economy has become increasingly important and complex, and that new skills are sometimes required to deal with the difficult and sometimes confrontational situations in which some individuals will find themselves; identification of training providers, which, as they had not been in the field previously, would require a new start; processing of applications quickly and efficiently; and communication of all these issues to businesses and individuals to get the message across that it was an entirely new world of operation.
    Given the size of the industry, it was decided properly that a "big bang" approach to regulation was not possible or feasible. A decision was therefore taken to divide the sector into three tranches for regulation: the first is door supervisors and vehicle immobilisers or wheel clampers; the second is manned guarding and key holders; and the third is private investigators and security consultants. The step-by-step, incremental approach of dividing the industry into sectors is absolutely right, to make sure that we learn from our initial roll-out and from the pilots, and that we strengthen the process as we proceed.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that although the SIA is starting virtually from scratch, a number of local authorities and police forces have been operating their own local schemes for door supervisor registration. Some of them are of a high standard, but the schemes are patchy across the country, and widely differing criteria operate for the award of a licence. They have not succeeded in raising standards generally, which is a key aim of the authority, and local schemes have not got across to the public the message that standards have been raised and that the minority criminal element has been removed from the industry. A national scheme was therefore needed to give the public confidence that national standards would be developed. There are now three main criteria for giving a licence: an identity check; a fit and proper person check; and a check on professional competence to do the job. If we get those three things right, we will drive up standards.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific issues about the roll-out in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. It was absolutely right to choose a pilot area to see what happened when this system was introduced. The SIA decided the pilot area, taking into account the fact that it was a good area in which to start. It has a range of urban and rural areas. We have heard about Temptations club, and various other clubs and pubs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    888
    There was a comprehensive communications strategy, targeted at employers as well as individuals working in the licensed trade. The message has been pretty consistent: both the SIA and Hampshire police have tried to ensure that people are fully aware of the need to acquire a licence. Research has also been commissioned recently to assess the level of awareness. It established that 100 per cent. of door supervisors knew that they would have to be licensed—they had not gone to get their licences, but they knew that they would have to do so—and that 86 per cent. of employers were aware of the requirement.
    In Hampshire there has been delay, delay, delay until the very last minute,which has put us in a difficult position. Between 1 March—when supervisors were eligible to apply for packs—and 4 June, the SIA issued 2,128 application packs, 1,186 from the pilot area. However, despite that high level of interest and the almost universal awareness, take-up has been pretty slow. Only 722 applications had been returned by the week ending 4 June, and the vast majority were submitted after the last safe application date. There were some minor administrative teething problems in the case of a few applications, but the vast majority of those were delivered within the four to six weeks specified in the SIA's standards.
    The necessary Criminal Records Bureau check takes some time. It is also necessary to establish that the people applying are competent. I think that individuals, including employers, have failed t o convey the message that supervisors mutt be licensed. Without licensing, following the introduction of regulations people would be vulnerable to prosecution. The alternative is delay, delay and more delay. That would mean no incentive for anyone to go out and get a licence and training.
    I knew of the difficulties before I signed the commencement order for 4 June, and I considered it very carefully. In the knowledge that there had been 11 months' notice of the enforcement of the legislation, however, I decided that we should press on and encourage as many people as possible to obtain licences. I was also aware that a pragmatic approach to enforcement would be required. It was clear that not enough applications were being received to meet the potential need. Hampshire police and the SIA have agreed to an element of discretion in the enforcement policy, relative to the level of compliance shown. When it is clear that people are willing to apply, are getting on with their training and are complying with the regime, discretion will be shown; when they refuse or are unwilling to comply with what I consider to be an entirely appropriate regulatory regime, that too will be taken into account.
    The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about the lack, or alleged lack, of training facilities in Hampshire and on the Isle of Wight. Many training providers were more than willing to arrange training, but because of a lack of interest and a failure to perceive any urgency, Farnborough college had to cancel no fewer than six flexible courses.
    Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
    Ms Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman wait for a moment?
    As a result of that cancellation, Isle of Wight college, which had planned to provide training, decided that there was no point in its going ahead, because no one would take up the courses on offer. People seem to have closed their eyes to the fact that enforcement of the legislation was on the horizon and they needed to get their act together—to get their training done, their applications in and their CRB checks carried out, and to obtain their licences.
    The regulations will act as an extra impetus, encouraging people to ensure that they get on track, comply with the law and make things happen. I am told that there are 13 training providers in the area. It is vital that the sector is properly licensed I think that if that happens, it will make a major contribution to our
    890
    strategies to tackle the harm caused by alcohol misuse, to continue the fight against drugs, to protect the safety of city centres and to ensure that our night-time economy does not operate at the expense of the decent, law-abiding majority of citizens.
    It is vital for the SIA to press ahead with its approach as a modern regulator working with the local authority, the police, training providers, the door supervisors and the industry. Time and again we see that what works in these circumstances is a good partnership approach, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will persuade people in his area to comply.
    The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN McWILLIAM in the Chair]

Defence Procurement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
John Robertson: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I hope that we will have an interesting debate.
I believe that it was Napoleon who once said that military victory results from three parts courage and only one part equipment. I will not quarrel with such a renowned strategist, given that my military experience is confined to the more humble armed forces parliamentary scheme. Nevertheless, I want to focus on the equipment on which our forces rely, what is needed, where it is bought, and how it is made. First, I shall consider the way in which decisions about defence procurement are made, the security of Britain's defence requirements, and the scarce financial resources with which we must meet those requirements. Secondly, I shall consider in greater detail the marketplace for defence equipment and the role that our Government should play.
The central problem of defence procurement is how to plan for the uncertain threats in a rapidly changing world that the US Defence Secretary has described as "unknown unknowns". We are not certain about the equipment that our forces will require in future campaigns. For decades, the transatlantic alliance was focused on the containment of Soviet expansion, but in the early 1980s how many people predicted the end of the cold war? Likewise, no one could have foreseen the terrible attacks that were launched on the United States on 11 September 2001 and which caused the US and its allies to reassess the nature of the threats that they faced. In the face of such uncertainty, we are right to emphasise the need for broad-based capabilities.
In recent weeks, concern has been expressed about the resources that are available for procurement. It has been reported that the war in Iraq led to the Ministry of Defence's having to borrow £500 million from procurement budget funds to cover short-term costs and that that sum was due to be paid out on the Eurofighter programme in the mistaken belief that it would be delayed and therefore payment would be put off. Will the Minister comment on the procurement budget and update us on discussions between the Secretary of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the defence budget for the years ahead?
Although those concerns about funding are real, we should put them into context. Labour introduced five years of year-on-year real-terms increases in the defence budget, and the last round of spending was particularly beneficial to the armed services. That compares with a swingeing cut in defence spending of nearly one third in the previous decade. I am not making a party political
206WH
point. Indeed, politicians across the spectrum recognise that the end of the cold war reduced the threats that our conventional forces and nuclear deterrent were designed to repel. I want to emphasise the wider context of these funding issues: massive long-term investment in the armed forces and a vision of the armed services as a worldwide force for good.
Having established the need for strong armed services and the Government's firm belief in the need for effective procurement, there are still controversial issues about what equipment is required. There has recently been controversy over the Royal Navy's needs as it transforms from a cold-war-based service to one that can genuinely project global power. As the Minister knows only too well from my frequent questions, the BAE Systems yard in Scotstoun in my constituency is building the first of the Type 45 destroyers. The decision to buy Type 45s has been much criticised, most recently by Sir Max Hastings in The Spectator and by a retired naval officer, Lewis Page, in Prospect. I want to make the case for the Type 45s, and I would appreciate the Minister's active and vocal support.
The arguments against Type 45s have focused on the changing threat to the UK—the end of the single, overwhelming threat from the Warsaw pact and the rise of less predictable, and unstable, threats from failed states, rogue regimes and international terrorism and crime. Sceptics say that where a global projection is required, destroyers such as Type 45s are of use for little more than as venues for cocktail parties. However, that does not recognise the fundamental role of destroyers and frigates in the successful delivery of maritime force projection. They are equipped with a suite of defensive systems that were vital in the Iraq crisis, during which 95 per cent. of all United Kingdom military equipment travelled to the Gulf by sea. They also contribute enormously to our layered defence. Aircraft based on land, on aircraft carriers and on destroyers and frigates form the outer layer of our defence. Medium-range ships are carried in escorts such as the anti-air missiles in destroyers and the anti-ship missiles in frigates.
Much has been made of the danger of obsolescence, particularly in relation to the Type 42 destroyer. However, I have seen in person the first of the new Type 45s that are being built in Scotstoun, and they are vastly more capable and therefore have the potential to make the Royal Navy even more effective. It is also important to remember that destroyers and frigates are useful and can be utilised when international events take an unexpected turn for the worse. For example, in 2003 the frigate HMS Iron Duke sailed to fulfil our north Atlantic patrol commitment. After it arrived in the Caribbean, the situation in Sierra Leone deteriorated and the ship was sent 3,500 miles to west Africa, arriving in Freetown less than two weeks later. The riverine operations and armed patrols that were carried out by the forces involved were decisive factors in reducing the strength of the rebels at that point. Not only that, but on returning to the Caribbean the Iron Duke conducted counter-drug operations and seized more than 3 tonnes of cocaine. Destroyers and frigates have been able to undertake tasks ranging from high-intensity war fighting in Iraq, smaller-scale regional engagements such as those in Sierra Leone, and humanitarian disaster relief such as that in Montserrat. Does my right hon.

207WH
Friend agree that those ships are not merely relics of the cold war, but have an active role to play in the 21st century?
Another area of concern is that of equipment and clothing for our armed forces. That was the subject of a great deal of media criticism in the run-up to the war, some of which was fair, some less so. After all, Britain deployed a force comprising roughly the same amounts of men and kit as that which we despatched to the 1991 Gulf war, in half the time. We made great strides forward in the intervening 13 years, and that should be appreciated. Nevertheless, the need to modernise our communications, particularly in-theatre, is seen as of paramount importance. Will my right hon. Friend give an up-to-date position on new communications systems for our armed forces? If that is not possible today, will he be good enough to write to me? Clothing for our front-line troops in Iraq was not all that it should have been, although it was not quite as bad as the media presented. I would argue that a sufficient supply of desert clothes and boots could have been achieved in advance of deploying our forces. In the context of this debate, however, I make no apology for concentrating mainly on naval procurement, about which I have spoken many times in the House. I will continue to fight my corner for shipbuilding on the Clyde.
Now that I have established the strategic need for ships such as the Type 45, I want to examine the ability of the defence market to provide them. The Scotstoun yard, along with its sister yard across the river in Govan, is owned by BAE Systems. We should recognise the benefits that that company brings to the UK economy. In 2002, it employed 40,220 people in the UK and invested £500 million in fixed capital. BAE Systems represents a substantial base of intellectual capital in the UK and continues to invest in maintaining and upgrading that capital. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister gave his views on the need for a defence industry strategy that recognises the need to retain intellectual capital in the UK, because that generates employment and contributes to the independence of our foreign policy.
I want briefly to consider three points: first, the future of the Scotstoun yard; secondly, the performance of BAE Systems; and thirdly, competition in the defence market. As my right hon. Friend knows, there has been speculation about the Scottish shipyards in the media, especially the Glasgow Evening Times. Scotstoun appears vulnerable as more of the work on the Type 45s transfers to the Govan yard. BAE Systems has so far been able to provide little clarification other than to emphasise its obligation to shareholders to consider approaches from all of its businesses. That is of great concern in my constituency.
Decisions about defence procurement cannot and should not be based primarily on the need to protect jobs. The needs of our armed forces must, and always will, come first. The case that I want to make is twofold: first, that as the capabilities of the Scotstoun yard meet our current requirements, it is good for the Navy if those shipyards are secure; and secondly, whatever decision is made about the Type 45s, we owe it to the workers of the yard not to leave them in a state of uncertainty.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: These are not just speculations. When we met the managing director of BAE Systems, he told us clearly that if he received an offer for the shipyard he would sell it. That is causing a lot of anger and uncertainty among the work force in the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards. What does my hon. Friend think will be the impact on the work force if BAE Systems sells those yards? BAE Systems is a very large employer that is vital to the UK economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a better relationship and understanding between the Government, BAE Systems and trade unions?
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituency shares the lower Clyde with my constituency, for making valid points to which I shall return later. It is important not only for BAE Systems, but for all shipyards, that the Government and shipbuilders understand what is required in terms of the need to keep shipbuilding both in this country and afloat—if Members will excuse the pun.
Can the Minister give guarantees regarding the contracts on which the Scotstoun and Govan yards rely? Can he confirm that our war vessels will be built only in the UK, and that no work, either for the Type 45 or for any other warship, will be lost abroad? There are rumours about some kind of get-together with the French in their design of the third aircraft carrier—it would be their fin t carrier—so that the work for the three carriers is split between France and Britain. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and workers in British yards that is not the case and that the two carriers will be built in Britain?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) referred to the wider issue of BAE Systems and its relationship with the Ministry of Defence. We all recognise that the position of BAE Systems as the principal defence contractor based in the UK means that the Government must have a close working relationship with it. My experience leads me to believe that both sides can take action to help each other to work together better. BAE Systems has delivered late and over budget on almost every project for years, although, to its credit, its latest accounts show improvements. I am in regular contact with representatives of the company in connection with constituency issues, and many of them are open and helpful. However, the management can be evasive and unhelpful in their contact with politicians. Although such an attitude by no means typical of all in the company, it is a particular problem at the upper management level. Does the Minister have a view about what can be done to improve the situation? Will he put on record his recognition of the improvements that the company is making?
A good relationship between the Ministry of Defence and our prime defence contractor is vital. It is a two-way street, and I hope that both sides will work hard to improve the relationship. During my debates and meetings with MOD representatives, I have found that, although they have the needs of the country at heart, a slight paranoia is creeping into the relationship with BAE Systems. That paranoia is perceived among those on both sides. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the two bodies can get together to work in a

209WH
constructive manner? That is of paramount importance to the armed forces for whom the company makes its goods.
A happy resolution to this matter would be in BAE System's interests, given the competition that it faces. The Government operate an open procurement system. There are other strong players, such as Thales, and on the continent EADS is working hard to build up its military and space businesses. Defense companies are working hard to break into new markets, and BAE Systems has been successful in that —according to Bank of America Securities, 21 per cent. of the company's sales are made in America.
Governments need to think strategically about cooperating with partners. It is natural that we should look first to our close ally, the United States. There are, however, impediments to US-UK co-operation in defence procurement—for example, America's protectionist legislation, as has been admitted by Bob Bruce, director of Atlantic armaments at the Pentagon. Likewise, the Americans are unhappy because they perceive a fortress Europe of nation; it champions and directed competition. What steps can the Government take to encourage competition and innovation?
I believe that there are many reasons for optimism about Britain's defence procurement policy and its future prospects. I thank the Minister for all his work and for his assistance in my attempts to help the workers of the yards in Scotstoun. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan feels the same. I also thank the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach of Lutterworth, who has been unfailingly helpful and courteous in his dealings with me.
I believe that we are well placed to meet Britain's security needs in the years ahead. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will address the issues that remain to be resolved and that he will do his utmost to respond to my questions and the fears of the workers throughout the country.
9.49 am
Jim Sheridan: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate, which is vital not only to the whole of Britain, but to the west of Scotland in particular. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and I have the privilege of representing constituencies in that area.
The defence industry is a vital component of the economy of the west of Scotland. I shudder to think what would happen to the economy of not only the west, but the whole of Scotland if it were threatened in any way, either by the Ministry of Defence not placing orders, or—the ultimate fright—by the Scottish people voting for independence, thus destroying an industry with a proud history.
I spent most of my working life in the defence industry, as I am a former worker at Barr and Stroud —now called Thales. I also spent years working in Yarrow shipyard on the River Clyde. I congratulate the people whom I worked beside on the education that I received during that period, for which I am eternally grateful. Working for those companies, I witnessed the deep frustration of both the management and the workers
210WH
when dealing with the Ministry of Defence. Without being over critical, I have to say that it is one of the most difficult organisations to deal with in terms of procrastination in placing orders. It is extremely frustrating waiting for orders that keep getting pushed further back down the pipeline. Companies and management sometimes have difficulty retaining their work force while waiting for those orders to come through, and in holding on to the spare parts and components needed to fulfil the contract. The Ministry of Defence is not an organisation that one would choose to work with.
One of the benefits of working in the defence industry is the vast amount of money spent not only by Government but by private companies on research and development. A number of research and development offshoots from defence companies have benefited commercial markets, none more so than those in the medical field. I pay tribute to those working in the defence industry, particularly those involved in research and development.
There are also many shipbuilding offshoots. Ferguson, in my constituency, is a commercial shipyard. It does not wait for defence contracts, but goes into the commercial market for work. It is only right to mention the frustration that the management and workers at Ferguson felt recently when they lost out on a Government contract to build a ship for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Of the four companies that tendered, Ferguson was the only British yard, but it lost out to a Norwegian yard.
The most frustrating aspect is that the Norwegian yard will not be building the ship; the job will be subcontracted to Poland to exploit cheap labour in eastern markets. The management and workers at Ferguson shipyard are asking why British yards cannot win British contracts. The complex system of dealing in the European market and having to adhere to European legislation is part and parcel of life, but that does not appease those who depend on the British Government to defend British jobs and give them British work.
John Robertson: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done for Ferguson shipyard. I have spoken to him many times about the problems that we have in gaining orders, particularly in contrast with European companies. Does he agree that there are rules in Europe that apply only to Britain? Other countries like to bend, twist and misuse the rules to their own advantage. Why can we not do the same?
Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. There is a perception—unfortunately, I can put it no stronger than that —that the British play by the rules while other European countries do not. I can put it no more strongly than that, because we do not have any evidence. I have raised the subject with the Department of Trade and Industry; it is time for us to take a closer look at how companies from other European countries manage to secure contracts when we in Britain cannot. It is deeply frustrating when British workers cannot get British contracts from the British Government.
Mr. Colin Breed: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was unaware of the situation at Ferguson, but does he not agree that it is strange that we have allowed a

211WH
manipulation of the rules? A subcontractor from a business outside the European Union was allowed to subcontract inside it. If that had been done directly, it probably would not have been allowed or possible. It would be interesting to know whether that subcontract was made clear at the beginning. If it was, there has been a clear subversion of European Union rules.
Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that valuable intervention. He is right to say that this is an extremely difficult matter. DTI officials have told me that the situation was explained to them. The Norwegian company, whose name escapes me, made it perfectly clear that it would not build the ship in Norway, but that it would take advantage of—indeed, exploit—the cheap labour in eastern Europe to do that.
Not only the workers in Ferguson shipyard, but workers throughout Britain, are asking for a level playing field—no more than that. When they tender for contracts, they want to do so on the basis of fair competition, rather than on the basis of companies being able to subcontract their work to eastern European countries. We must take this matter seriously; perhaps we should look at it again later.
We go through lean periods, so defence companies should not be totally dependent on defence contracts. The country needs a strong defence, but the Ministry of Defence has to work within limits. I encourage all companies currently engaged in defence contracts to look seriously at the possibility of defence diversification where possible. In my trade union life, I spent a number of years working alongside people in the defence industry; I tried to encourage companies to move into defence diversification, but that was extremely difficult.
Let me explain what the situation used to be. When the MOD was not coming forward with contracts, BAE Systems—or Kvaerner, or Yarrow as it was then called—would send its shop stewards to lobby MPs and to say to them, "We won't vote for you if you don't get us an MOD contract." That is how it did its business. If the organisation had put the same energy and resources into trying to get into commercial markets as it put into trying to blackmail and bully politicians to get contracts that were not there in the first place, it might have got the contracts that would have secured the jobs.
We need to think seriously about how companies can get the money, the research and the resources to address defence diversification. Again, the MOD and the Government have a role to play; they have an opportunity to assist companies in their research and development on contracts other than defence contracts.
Another main element of the defence industry is the apprenticeship opportunities that it gives young people. When I visit the yards in Govan and other parts of Glasgow, I am proud when I see young people—not just young men, but young women as well—learning good quality trades that we need in this industry, and in this country. Not everyone wants to go to university; some people are particularly good at other skills. It is important that defence industries such as those that we
212WH
are talking about are given the opportunity to offer quality training to such young people, because our wider society needs that.
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point that I omitted to include in my speech. Although I have attacked various companies for misusing their unions, and BAE Systems is more than a little suspect in that respect, it should be congratulated on the apprenticeships that it has provided on the Clyde. I place on record the fact that more than 100 apprentices came into the yards in Govan and Scotstoun last year, and there will also be 100 in the coming year. That is a sign of what we want to do with our young people—give them proper jobs. My hon. Friend makes a valid point: not everyone goes to university. I did not go to university. I worked hard to get where I am today, and those young people will have the same opportunity to do that.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend is right. When I return to some of the companies that I worked for, particularly Thales in Glasgow, and meet the trade unions and the management, it gives me great delight to see that some of the young people who were doing apprenticeships when I was there are now fully fledged engineers, doing a first-class job and producing high-quality goods, not only for the MOD but for the whole defence industry.
I was one of the people who, during the discussions about the contract for the aircraft carriers, was not tied into the belief that it should go to BAE Systems simply because that was a British company. I did not believe that it was a British company, and I still do not. It is a multinational company, out to make as much money as it can. If there is anything British that we should be celebrating, it is the British workers who produce the goods. When it comes to producing quality goods, British workers are as good as, if not better than, any other workers that I have seen, and the defence industry provides good-quality, well paid jobs. If we lose them, we will all be in serious trouble.
I have worked beside others in the defence industry, and my first-hand experience is that those workers are among the most efficient workers. They are also the most adaptable when it comes to accepting change, and I pay tribute to then for that. My experience of working in the shipyards in the 1970s was that there was a great deal of demarcation, discrimination, and people not being able to get on with their jobs because of outdated practices. However, the defence industry is adaptable, and has been and still is one of the first industries to make changes in that respect. That is no accident; it is a result of the good management of the companies and the pragmatism of the workers and trade unions. At the time that I described, the unions gladly recognised that there had to be change, particularly on the Clyde. If there had not been change, none of us would have survived.
One of the proudest moments that I have ever experienced came when I was working in a shipyard and saw a frigate being launched. It is an extremely proud moment for the workers when they see a frigate that they have worked on slip down into the Clyde, and they know that the product is of good quality and was delivered on time. Equally, from my experience of working for Thales, which builds some of the most

213WH
complex equipment that the British armed forces use—indeed, it is used throughout the world—I know that it is extremely gratifying to see such equipment being put together at the end of the production line.
However, the debate is not just about ships or weapons; it is about other services in the defence industry that we depend on. I well remember looking inside a Challenger tank—what a formidable piece of equipment that is! Again, we should celebrate the fact that people can produce such equipment. That said, for a time we had some difficulty in marketing the British Challenger tank, particularly under previous Governments, when we had some difficulty in convincing them that that tank was the best. We did so eventually, but if the British Government do not show confidence in British products and British workers, how can we convince others to buy such equipment?
However, as I said, the debate is not just about equipment such as tanks and ships, but about other services that we provide in the defence industry, which are equally important. I shall digress slightly and mention my concern about the possibility of the defence fire service being privatised. Again, that idea should be examined seriously.
Many jobs have been lost in the defence industry over the years. In fact, more jobs have been lost there than in any other industry that I am aware of. I am proud of the fact that that was done by companies and trade unions getting together, recognising the dangerous situation that they were in and taking the appropriate action to deal with it. I pay tribute to them, because if they had not acted at the time, I doubt that we would have any shipbuilding left, particularly on the Clyde.
If we are to have a strong, efficient and robust defence industry, we have to give the management and the workers the tools to do the job. That is why we need a long-term strategy that allows the employer to plan, where possible, some years ahead in placing contracts and getting the tools to do the job. It is not just about the employers, it is also about the suppliers to the major contractors, who have a right to know about that strategy. More importantly, the employees in the defence industry must have some idea about where the Government are going with their strategy for defence and how that will impact on them.
10.6 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome this timely debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing it. It is timely, because we have a considerable military presence throughout the world, and how we perform in that respect will be dependent on the procurement policy that has been developed over recent years.
The formulation of any defence procurement policy must be based on a firm strategy that takes account of the perceived and actual threats and how they will be countered. However, I suppose that we all accept that in recent years, it has been difficult for anyone to decide what the perceived threats are, and where they will come from. The world has become a more dangerous and difficult place, so it is a lot more difficult to produce firm strategies to counter such threats.
214WH
Inevitably, cost will always be an important element, but I agree with what we have heard already this morning, which is that it is almost more important that there is a budget with stability over the long term, and that any short-term unexpected emergency expenditure should be found from contingency funding or reserves. Treasury demands for cutting expenditure in the middle of defence procurement programmes inevitably lead to knee-jerk reactions, and when we look back at what was spent and achieved, we often see inefficiency and poor value for money. Far too many defence contracts undergo huge changes during their lifetime, to the inconvenience of the contractor and at the expense of the Ministry of Defence.
We have learned something that the Minister may like to comment on. There is to be a 5 per cent. cut in the funding of the MOD, which will reduce the amount of money that it thought it had to spend next year. Much of that money will be directed towards running costs, rather than the acquisition of new equipment. The meaning of that for our present deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans needs to be explained more clearly. Will those be affordable on current budgets? Where is the additional money coming from?
Iraq is a huge cost. It is estimated that it costs about £80 million a month to keep our 11,000 troops in Iraq. Although I accept that the Chancellor has said that the war will be funded in full, we have not learned what sort of time scale is involved; it could be months or years. In the meantime, it appears that the money, in a cash-flow sense, has to be found from the defence budget, with all the implications that that will have for existing procurement programmes. It is precisely such expenditure that should be found from defence contingency budgets and reserves, and not through unexpected raids on the defence budget as a whole. That funding issue has been at the heart of many problems, and particularly those between the MOD and its contractors.
I accept that there will always be difficult choices to make in this fast-moving and technological world, but it appears to me, and to many others, that too many of our recent contracts have been elongated; they have been drawn out far too long. Equipment almost becomes obsolete before it is delivered—yet our ability to maintain a technological edge is often at the heart of the contract renegotiations that cause the process to take longer and cost more.
Of course, affordability and capability are the key considerations in any defence procurement policy. In the defence White Paper published in December 2003, the MOD confirmed that it had shifted to network-enabled capability, with a stress on anti-terrorism measures such as information gathering. Looking back at the situation before and after September 2001, that seems entirely appropriate.
What needs to be cut to pay for the new capabilities? They are, without doubt, extremely expensive. Some of the expenditure needed may not even be precisely known, and that creates even more uncertainty in the budgets. It is estimated that there could be a shortfall of about £4 billion in the procurement budget as a result of the need to pay for big-ticket items such as the future carrier, Eurofighter and the joint strike fighter in the next few years. Again, there is a cash-flow issue, and we need to know how the MOD is coping with it. The

215WH
subject was referred to earlier. For companies that have received contracts and are relying on payments, uncertainty about whether they will indeed receive that payment is a worry.
In a former life, I managed many cash-flow situations, and am only too aware that customers often invoke tiny conditions in order to escape having to pay what they should, or dispute such conditions long enough to place contractors in a difficult position—they have had to pay their work force and acquire the material and everything else, so they are relying on payment. Far too often, large companies dealing with small companies, and Departments dealing with contractors, invoke small aspects of the conditions of the contract to avoid making payments on time, placing companies in extreme difficulties.
Clearly, we need a constant review of what is being purchased and of the number of items required. The defence procurement budget needs to be tightly controlled; we all accept that. Certainly, we do not want unnecessary waste, but sometimes we incur it by being too restrictive in our contractual arrangements. Often, there could be a far closer working relationship, which would benefit both the taxpayer and the contractor.
I hope that the Minister can clarify an issue raised recently in the newspapers —the potential sell-off of new Eurofighters once they have been received. I am not certain, but I think that the claims are being refuted. However, while the RAF may well be the primary customer for those Eurofighters, a number have been earmarked for immediate sale. If the contract is big enough, they could even be sold at a loss. I am not certain where that fits in the overall budget, and why it may be necessary, but it is perhaps an example of the fact that procurement budgets need to be more closely managed.
Once we have considered strategies for the countering of threats and the acquisition of appropriate assets, it is also important for a procurement policy to take account of the likely sources to which orders will be given. Reference has already been made to that aspect. In defence, in common with almost every other commercial industry, globalisation is creating fewer but larger suppliers. In telecommunications, aircraft manufacture and the pharmaceutical industry we are moving ever further in the direction of huge global companies.
That is also happening in the service industries. There are only four or five large international firms of accountants, making it almost impossible for some businesses to find alternatives for their auditing requirements. That mainly happens through acquisition and merger, although in this country, in Europe and in America there has been clear competition policy. We have the recent example of the Westland helicopter business becoming wholly owned by an Italian company, Finmeccanica, which formerly owned 50 per cent. of it. There are also continuing rumours that one of the MOD's principal domestic suppliers, BAE Systems, may become owned or partially owned by an American defence contractor.
The Government are on record saying that the ownership of companies or contractors is unimportant, and that only their location and the retention of their
216WH
intellectual property rights should matter. I beg to differ. Similar arguments were used 20 or so years ago in the south-west when a number of companies were acquired through acquisition and merger. Yes, it was laudable if a business was still Operating there and still had the same personnel, so its ownership was regarded as immaterial. However, in the next 10 to 15 years when rationalisation took place—when there were cuts in the company, or it was acquired by others—it was the peripheral locations that suffered.
Over the last 10 to 15 years we have seen a slow but almost inevitable drift towards closure of those larger businesses. They have moved elsewhere. Exactly the same could happen on a national scale. We used to have large businesses with good research and development operations, employing many people and with worldwide customers. Through a series of acquisitions and mergers we have seen research and development facilities disappear to other places. Only a rump of those original businesses remains.
John Robertson: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments closely, and I agree with much of what he says. Can he tell me what he would do about those companies? What safeguards would he incorporate into businesses to prevent that from happening?
Mr. Breed: That is part of our competition policy. It is difficult when we are subject to European competition rules too. I do not disagree with the idea that in order to be competitive on a global scale, many companies need to be on that scale themselves. But certain industries—the defence industry is the key one—need various protections to ensure that the domestic contractor is maintained.
Threats of moves abroad, and of British defence companies being owned by foreign companies, need to be faced by the Government. It is not enough to hope that companies will continue to choose the UK as their base. I hope that Westland helicopters will continue to be a firm provider of good helicopters from its base in Yeovil, but it cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility that if there is a further round of acquisitions, the Italian company itself might ultimately be acquired by someone else. The new owner would examine the operations that Finmeccanica was undertaking and would see that it had a large base, perhaps in Yeovil, and other locations in Italy. The requirements of any company that acquired it might be totally different, and the operation at Yeovil might well be thrown to the winds. There must be far more longer-term strategic thinking about the ability to provide our own defence equipment.
The UK has opened up the defence market, and I accept that the Government's wish to do that is probably the right thing. It will benefit the British taxpayer, and I hope that it will help to achieve global stability. However, it is vital that other countries do the same. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will look closely at the loss of any further domestic defence contractor to foreign ownership. This must not be a case of the UK forging ahead and everyone else protecting themselves in the background and leaving us vulnerable for the future.
Of course, the more we procure and manage capabilities jointly, the more possible savings there will be for the UK and the more so-called "bang for our

217WH
buck" we will get. We should not worry too much about pooling capabilities and sharing costs with European allies—and, indeed, with the United States. However, it is vital that in concert with that aim there is a clear policy to ensure that cross-border mergers and acquisitions will provide security of supply and maintenance of vital research and development work in the UK, and that intellectual property rights do not disappear from this country. Our troops stationed around the world are engaged primarily in nation building and peacekeeping. Our immediate priority must be to keep them well trained, well supplied and well looked after, and in ensuring that in the immediate future, the MOD thinks radically about its current procurement programme.
We have obvious short-term demands that must be factored into the long-term requirements. Procurement policy must be flexible enough to meet those inevitable short-term demands, but have an inbuilt dependable stability to maintain expenditure on the big-ticket items; that ensures value for money and proper commercial relationships with our defence contractors. The immediate past has been described as not a particularly happy time for balancing those sometimes conflicting objectives. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that his policies will address the vital issues that have been raised this morning.
Finally, may I raise a matter that has arisen during the past day or so? The Minister might be aware of it. There was an incident in Devonport dockyard concerning the slight derailment of a fuel train. Presumably, it involved radioactive material—submarine fuel. It was a minor incident and I am sure that it was handled correctly, but what disturbs me is that when I received a telephone call from the local newspaper, I did not know anything about it; there have been no MOD press releases.
If we are to secure and maintain the public's confidence in our nuclear facilities, it is vital that details of any incident, however small. are immediately published, along with details of what action has been and will be taken. It is difficult for us, who want to support the dockyard with all its facilities, when reporters come along and tell us about incidents involving radioactive material, which should have been made known to us at the earliest opportunity. The incident was minor, but the way in which it has been handled is not helpful to DML—Devonport Management Ltd.—the MOD or us. I hope that in future there will be immediate notification of incidents, as that will secure the public confidence that is so vital with nuclear installations.
10.25 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on providing us with the opportunity to debate this extremely important issue. The debate has been particularly interesting in that it has revealed a great deal of common ground, at least among hon. Members in the Chamber, on the importance both of the defence of our country and of the contribution that Britain's hugely successful defence industry has to make to the provision of services to our armed forces.
I welcome the general agreement among Members. If I make some critical comments, they are not designed to be dismissive of the Government's overall position. I do
218WH
not question the Government's commitment to the defence of the realm—I might have done so in relation to previous Labour Governments, but not this one. The characteristic difference between the debates that we hold today and those that were held in the 1980s is that hon. Members from all parties clamour for more business for their constituencies. That is a hugely healthy development in British politics.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland talked about BAE Systems in Scotland. The other day I had the privilege of visiting Crewe Toll and seeing at first hand the magnificent work that is being carried out at the forefront of technology—it is very exciting. As the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) said, investment in that development—£65 million—is being made by the private sector in the defence industry.
I declare an interest in that BAE System's headquarters are in my constituency. However, I take a fairly independent view on such matters. The industry is more important than one company, although BAE Systems is dominant. I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland in paying tribute to BAE, specifically its work in encouraging young people, especially those with good qualifications in technical skills, to join the aerospace industry.
We all acknowledge the battle between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred. I would say privately to the Minister that I am on his side in that battle, and if he needs my help, I will be there to support him.
It is five years since the introduction of so-called smart procurement—since renamed smart acquisition—and we are well into the second year of the defence industrial policy. I have to say that progress has been disappointing. Ministers trumpet extravagant claims for the success of the new policy, while the noble Lord Bach of Lutterworth, courteous though I fully acknowledge him to be, liberally heaps all the blame at the door of the Conservative Government of seven years ago. All that hype was brutally punctured when the new chief of defence procurement, Sir Peter Spencer, gave evidence to the Defence Committee on 12 May. He admitted that only one of the seven aims of smart acquisition had been met, and cited what he described as a cycle of failure at the Defence Procurement Agency. He also said that on some projects, smart acquisition had not been implemented as it should have been, and expressed concern that certain smart acquisition projects had passed through the main gate—for the uninitiated, the main decision point—without adequate design maturity. Sir Peter boldly observed that achievements prior to his tenure had been limited—I am not sure when he can next expect to share a drink with his predecessor—and said that there was much to do if the aims of smart acquisition were to be realised. In other words, he flatly contradicted all the extravagant claims made by Ministers for the success of the policy.
Time does not permit me to go through a raft of examples, but I shall outline one —the future rapid effect system, or FRES as it is known in the trade. We have no pictures of the series of vehicles involved in that battlefield system, which was described the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Michael Jackson, as
"critical to the British Army's future capability".

219WH
According to Sir Michael, it is required to be in service by 2009 at the latest, but the Ministry of Defence is not even at the stage of appointing a system house to assess the project. We warned last year that the decision to put it out to a system house would delay it by as much as a year; and more than a year since it was announced, the assessment phase has still not begun. In last October's debate, I said that we were promised a decision last spring. That was delayed until the autumn, when Ministers assured us that a decision would be made by the end of the year. We are now approaching this year's summer recess and we are still no further forward. I challenge anyone to give me a picture of what the vehicle will look like. FRES's in-service date has already slipped from 2009 to 2010, but 2011 appears to be the only realistic date.
I readily accept the argument for seeking the maximum de-risking of projects in advance of decisions to proceed to production: that is unquestionably sensible. I do not blame Ministers for delaying a project if they are operating so close to the edge of high technology that they have to undertake another assessment to ensure that they get it right; otherwise, they will be accused of putting a project into production without having de-risked it fully, or at least to a sensible extent. However, all the contractors to whom I speak say that their projects are moving further to the right.
On the aircraft carrier programme, we welcomed the Government's decision to bring together the combined expertise of BAE Systems and Males UK, but early progress is petering out. Why cannot Ministers decide who will direct that vital and significantly expensive project? Have they heeded the warnings given by the Public Accounts Committee in the 1980s that the Ministry of Defence should not seek to make itself the prime contractor? While we are on the subject of the future of the carrier vessel, what precisely was the agreement between the Secretary of State and the French that was signed on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier last week?
In the case of private finance initiative projects, delays in decision making are, as the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire said, driving up the cost of bidding as consortiums have to hold their teams together pending a decision by the MOD.
This debate is not only about smart acquisition and the procurement process, but about the defence industrial base, for which the Government have failed to meet their targets. Since General Dynamics' bid for Alvis and GKN's sale of its stake in Westland —the last British helicopter manufacturer—to Italy's Finmeccanica, the issue of ownership and indigenous defence manufacturing capabilities has been brought to the fore. Commercial activity has been frenetic, but the Government have been virtually silent about the ownership of the UK's defence industrial base. Apart from the understandable concerns expressed by Labour Members about the job prospects of a highly skilled work force, the country needs to know whether Ministers are content to see control of the destiny of the bulk of Britain's defence industry pass out of UK hands.
220WH
This is not a question of xenophobia: key issues of national security are at stake. The Secretary of State may not believe that ownership is of great importance. but it has consequences for our ability to retain our indigenous defence industrial base and, ultimately, our ability to prosecute military action. That is a material consideration, given that the UK is second only to the United States in committing to a war-fighting role.
The extensive transfer of ownership abroad could have serious consequences. Overseas managers will make investment decisions on strictly economic grounds, taking into account their home market first. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said, BAE Systems has made a significant investment in Crewe Toll. Reliance on foreign suppliers would unquestionably raise serious issues about the security of supply. The ability to ramp up production in time of war may be reduced if those directing the business owe no allegiance 1 o this country. Similarly, where the UK and the home country of the business are seeking urgent supplies, it must be probable that the home country will come first.
Should offshore companies purchase BAE Systems—we know that they are in the market, and that many UK defence prime contractors go abroad—how will the MOD procure major weapons systems? The options are limited to two. First, it could procure off the shelf; that has the advantage of allowing it to obtain developed systems with a proven operational record at minimum risk and with minimum requirements in terms of the execution of the purchase by procurement staff. The primary disadvantages to that approach are the flow of funds offshore, the loss of UK defence-related jobs, and the loss of national engineering and systems integration expertise. Secondly, the MOD could establish a cooperative develop vent programme with another Government for a major defence article. The difficulty for the MOD, with no national prime contractor, would be that all the work allocated to the UK would be fixed-price and second or third-tier companies and assemblies would probably suffer. Intellectual property, systems engineering and integration expertise would reside with the offshore contractor. A significant amount of funding would be provided to the prime contractor, most of which would never re-enter the UK economy.
The Secretary of State considers intellectual property to be of greater importance than ownership. I agree that it is critical, but there will always be the temptation for foreign-owned companies to suck out our intellectual property and transfer it back home. Ministers have to keep a close eye on what is happening at Qinetiq in my constituency. Too often, technology is developed with British brains and expertise but is not followed through and disappears abroad because there is no market here. That is a serious issue that I flag up as a warning to the Minister.
We cannot be sure what is happening as regards the joint strike fighter. Although we are in pole position with the United States in co-operation on building a first-class aircraft, the fact that we are being denied access to some of the source codes means that we do not have control. Ownership will continue to matter for as long as we intend to maintain an independent defence industrial capability

221WH
In May, Sir Richard Evans, the chairman of BAE Systems, told the Select Committee on Defence: "I think that if we just leave this completely to market forces without actually giving any thought to future potential requirements, which are national interest issues, what we will see is continuing decline in mine and other companies' interests in the UK markets and I think that would be a sad day for the UK."
As the former head of the Defence Export Services Organisation, Tony Edwards, said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph last week:
"The remaining British companies will conclude their best option may be to sell themselves to the highest bidder while their value is at the maximum."
Where do the Government stand? Are they prepared to preside over a grand summer clearance sale of Britain's defence industrial base? Britain is at a crossroads, and we have to make some fundamental decisions about where we stand.
I agree with hon. Members who say that there must be a more mature, sensible relationship between BAE Systems and its principal customer. I put it the other way round: the relationship between the MOD and its principal supplier must improve. Those of us who—dare I say it—love this industry and believe it to be the great jewel in the crown of British manufacturing industry look on aghast at the spat that is going on. The only people rejoicing will be our competitors.
In the defence White Paper published last December, the Secretary of State said that platforms and units did not matter as much as capabilities and effects-based warfare, and promised that he would make specific announcements shortly. I hope that that does not happen on the day before the summer recess and that we will have time to consider what we expect to be major Government decisions. I want to remind hon. Members of a significant matter to which I drew attention during the debate on the White Paper, supporting essay 2 of which stated:
"Since SDR our Armed Forces have conducted operations that have been more complex and greater in number than we had envisaged. We have effectively been conducting continual concurrent operations, deploying further afield, to more places, more frequently and with a greater variety of missions than set out in the SDR planning assumptions. We expect to see a similar pattern of operations in the future."
In other words, as I said at the time, the Government expect multiple, concurrent, small-to-medium-scale operations on counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation and enduring peace support that are well beyond the assumptions of the strategic defence review to be the norm, or to be carried out without creating overstretch. That is a massive challenge for any Government.
I recognise that the Government have difficult decisions to make. However, if they fail to ensure that the British defence industrial base retains the skills, critical mass and ability that are necessary to provide what this country needs, they must carefully consider their procurement policy and the risks to their being able to prosecute operations of the kind to which they have set their mind.
10.42 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. He opened by referring to Napoleon, who
222WH
apparently said that military victory was three quarters courage and one quarter equipment—I assume that my hon. Friend was quoting accurately. May I remind him that Napoleon lost? What he said may still have some resonance, but recent events in Iraq show that equipment is an important issue, which we have to get right.
My hon. Friend was right to raise in passing some of the difficulties that we experienced in Iraq. We put in place the lessons learned from Operation Telic so that we could be sure about the key ingredient of equipment supplies to our troops, who gave 100 per cent., not 75 per cent., courage in the difficult task that we asked them to perform.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) and the spokesmen for the Conservative and Liberal parties raised a number of specific issues, which I will try to deal with. However, it is important first to set out the MOD's overall approach to procurement. This year, the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation will spend almost £13 billion on the acquisition of equipment that allows our armed forces to do their job, usually in difficult and dangerous circumstances.
The Department's job is to provide our forces with the equipment that they need at a price that is affordable to the taxpayer and represents good-value through life. However, given the sophisticated nature of much of the equipment that we purchase, it is not surprising that problems are experienced in delivering to specification, on time and to budget. However, we should not let the projects that invariably capture the headlines obscure the many success stories in defence procurement. For example, operations in recent years have demonstrated the outstanding capabilities of equipment such as the Tornado, the Storm Shadow missile, the Merlin helicopter and the Challenger 2 tank and the Warrior armoured fighting vehicles.
In addition, we have a powerful range of new capabilities that have either recently entered service or are under contract to do so soon. The C-17 aircraft has already demonstrated its worth in providing strategic lift, and the Bowman combat radio system, which entered service earlier this year, nine months ahead of schedule, is a critical enabler for increasing operational tempo, firepower and survivability for all three services.
As we seek to advance our ability to project military force and to provide an effective, flexible response to a wide range of threats, both conventional and unconventional, the equipment that we procure must meet the military user's requirement. Moreover, our armed forces, rightly, want it to deliver a battle-winning edge.
The reality is that most, if not all, of the problem projects relate to a procurement policy that has been consigned to history. There is a new set of processes at the heart of the Department, which is enshrined in the smart acquisition process. The MOD has come a long way on procurement over the past five years. Smart acquisition has delivered integrated project teams, a much more coherent military customer organisation and an increasing sense of partnership with industry. The National Audit Office's major projects report,

223WH
which was issued at the beginning of the year, recognised that. However, there is no escaping the fact that a lot more needs to be done.
As part of its review of acquisition processes, the MOD has introduced a more rigorous regime of senior level review of the progress of projects and is implementing proposals to strengthen the Defence Procurement Agency's financial management. We have recognised the critical need to tackle project risk early in the procurement cycle, particularly during the key assessment and demonstration phases. With reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), that is why we will not move to main gate—when the main financial commitment is made—until sufficient risk has been removed from a project. In that way we will avoid the costs and delays that historically have affected projects late in the process.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: Let me move on now; I want to deal with a range of issues, but I will see if there is time for me to give way later.
Competition remains the best procurement strategy for delivering value for money for the defence budget. Competition encourages innovation, flexibility, efficient use of resources, and the development of skills and knowledge.
The hon. Member for Aldershot referred to the defence industrial policy, which the Secretary of State for Defence launched 18 months ago. That policy seeks to sustain and enhance the competitiveness of our defence industry while ensuring that our armed forces have access to world-class equipment at the best value for money. The policy also, for the first time, makes it clear that Ministers must have regard to the impact that our decisions have on our domestic industry, which means that jobs, skills and export potential must be key factors in our procurement decisions. I believe that many saw the Secretary of State's decision to choose the Hawk 128 as the advanced jet trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force as proof that our defence industrial policy meant something in practice. There was a hotly contested debate, but the decision was based on elements in the defence industrial policy. That decision represented a massive vote of confidence in British industry, and in particular, in the 2,000-strong work force at Brough.
However, in defence, as everywhere else in the modern world, the only constant is change. The industry must therefore constantly look to the future and develop the technologies and processes needed to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving international marketplace. In working together to implement the defence industrial policy we have sought to be open about how we conduct our business and how we make our decisions, and we have also sought to understand fully the pressures faced by industry.
The MOD's job is to deliver the equipment that enables the armed forces to mount rapid and sustainable expeditionary operations. That vision of operations was intrinsic to the strategic defence review. It was reaffirmed in the SDR new chapter and in last year's
224WH
defence White Paper. Maritime platforms—both present and future—are vital in projecting the capabilities set out in those policy statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland was right to stress the importance of our future shipbuilding programme and the shipbuilding industry. I will now turn to his contribution to the debate, which, understandably, focused on the shipbuilding industry, and on the Clyde in particular.
The Government it have embarked on the largest shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy in many years. In the past three years, 15 new ships have been ordered, including six Type 45 destroyers, two amphibious assault ships, two survey vessels and four landing ships dock. I was pleased to be able to join my hon. Friend at the launch of one of those ships, the RFA Mounts Bay, in Glasgow only a few months ago. It was encouraging to see that the next ship of class, the RFA Cardigan Bay, was on the stocks on the Clyde, and that ship will be launched in due course. Given our relationship with BAE Systems, we may be invited to that event too.
Looking further ahead, our shipbuilding plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers and the maritime afloat reach and sustainability project to provide new support vessels to replace many of the existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for West Renfrewshire said, the current shipbuilding programme will crate or secure several thousand jobs in UK shipyards and their ancillary industries throughout the country.
I fully recognise that shipbuilding faces unique challenges at present, not least in Scotland. It remains our policy that all warships for the Royal Navy will continue to be built in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland asked about the relationship with the French. I do not have time to go into all the details of that now, but I can say that as both the French and the UK Government are involved in a major procurement stream, the industries may find points of compatibility that allow them to maximise best design techniques, knowledge and expertise. Perhaps they can use their skills to ensure that the UK is offered the best price and delivery by companies that are in partnership with the Ministry of Defence.
I do not see that as a threat to the British shipbuilding industry; I see it as in encouragement. We are ahead of the game. Both the French and the UK Government are committed to procuring very advanced ships. Therefore, when we talk about these things, we should ask how we can maximise the best effect for both countries. That is a sensible approach.
Our future programme in the shipbuilding sector is a demanding one, which is why we have commissioned the RAND organisation to examine whether the UK shipbuilding industry has the capacity to deliver our future naval programme. We plan to publish a report of RAND's findings at the end of this year.
The future programme provides a solid basis on which UK shipbuilders can plan. It is essential, however, for industry to seek to widen its customer base, particularly for export orders, by offering attractive designs at competitive prices. Our country's present

225WH
shipbuilding capacity cannot be sustained on defence contracts alone. We need to be successful in wider markets. We constantly say that to tie shipbuilders, and I know that my hon. Friends who rep resent shipbuilding areas recognise that. We encourage companies to market abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland raised concerns about BAE Systems transferring work from Govan to Scotstoun. [Interruption.] I have got that the wrong way round; it is transferring work from Scotstoun to Govan. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) was gesturing that I had got that wrong. I knew that I was trying to please one out of two of them.
Mr. Sarwar: BAE Systems' decision to sell its shipbuilding wing is causing uncertainty in the work force and among the shop stewards. They are rightly extremely concerned, because they have gone through this uncertainty for the past four years. Gone is the time when there were going to be new apprenticeships and people were feeling comfortable. The decision has caused the work force considerable difficulty. BAE Systems is able to sell the yards because of the orders. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister give that the work allocated to those shipyards will not be moved elsewhere if the sales go through?
Mr. Ingram: That would be much further down the line. The fact is that the commitments have been made to continue to build within the UK shipbuilding capacity. It is for the market to determine who owns which company. I do not think that my hon. Friends are arguing that we should take over the shipbuilding industry again. Therefore, things are conditioned by where the new ownership rests and what then applies. However, we have strategic interests in all this, and we must have proper oversight at what is happening.
That goes back to my earlier points about the capabilities that we require. We would not want those to be threatened at all. As for a need to put preconditions on any purchase of those yards, or any sale by BAES, discussions are not on the surface; indeed, I do not think that they are even below the surface yet. However, we will have to keep a close eye on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland asked whether £500 million was borrowed from the procurement budget to cover the cost of operations in Iraq. That is simply untrue; it is another of those newspaper stories that gains credence because everyone quotes it. We try to rebut it, but no one recognises the rebuttal and newspapers, keep running the story. The additional costs of operations in the Gulf were met from the reserve, which is the normal process for meeting the cost of such operations.
My hon. Friend also asked about the outcome of the ongoing spending review, and the hon. Member for Aldershot said that he would give me every help in that respect, but I am not even going to discuss it today. Hon. Members will have to wait for a lacer debate on those important issues. I would love to be able to say what is in my mind in that respect, but time precludes my doing so.
We have discussed the maritime environment at length, but the rapid delivery of military effect far from the UK requires investment across all three
226WH
environments —sea, land and air—and our equipment
programme recognises that. There are significant aerospace projects in various stages of planning or entering service, the JSF—joint strike fighter—and Typhoon being two obvious examples. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to the possibility of Typhoon being sold abroad as something that was not to be welcomed. I take a different point of view: this is about quality European technology, and if we can market it internationally—Austria and Singapore have expressed interest in the
aircraft—it can only help our industries.
I realise that the Liberal party's policy is that we should not have a Defence Export Services Organisation, and that we should not actively seek to promote abroad what this country produces, as that is what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said when he was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on trade and industry. If the policy has changed, it would be nice to know that, because it would be nice to know that we had a joint approach in this country, to maximise the best effects of the quality of what we produce.
Mr. Breed: The Minister should not draw the inference that we are not in favour of exports. Our concern about the aircraft was that it was our tranche that we were getting and then selling on, because we could not afford to buy them.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should not obscure a clear announcement—or rather, restatement—of
policy: that his party does not want our expertise to work alongside industry to export to other countries the quality equipment that we produce in this country. If we believe in exports, there must be a mechanism by which we can do that. In terms of Typhoon, we are committed to the 232 aircraft, and we are involved in negotiations on the tranche 2 element. The hon. Gentleman would not expect anything other than tough negotiations between supplier and customer. This is not a case of writing industry a blank cheque; we must continue to ensure that we get the best deal, which applies no matter what we are procuring or from whom we are procuring it. Our commitment to that aircraft remains as strong as ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland asked about communications systems, which I take to mean the network-enabled capability, and I will write to him about that. The hon. Member for Aldershot also raised the matter in the context of what is likely to be coming downstream. We are making great progress in developing our processes, and we will make announcements on the matter in due course.
Finally, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire who has done a tremendous amount of behalf of the shipbuilding industry, especially Ferguson's yard in his constituency. The ship he referred to in connection with recent procurement was, of course, not part of defence procurement, so I cannot add much to the points that he made. However, I take issue with the view of "fortress Britain". We cannot stand isolated; we are an exporting nation. We import and export and we must try to buy the best for our armed forces at all times, in shipbuilding, in the air and on the land. They deserve nothing less.

Men and Cancer
10.59 am
Dr. Howard Stoate: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue in this Chamber.
We are now in the middle of national men's health week, so there could not be a better time to debate the issue of men and cancer. Few health issues could be more serious for men than cancer. It is now the single most common cause of death for them. Every year, 80,000 men in the United Kingdom die from the disease, and 134,000 are diagnosed with it. One in three will be diagnosed with cancer at some time in their lives, and one in four will die from the disease. I am sure that, in one way or another, these statistics will have touched the lives of all Members of the House in a very personal way.
As hon. Members may know, the theme for this year's national men's health week is men and cancer, which means that the debate is doubly well timed. The Men's Health Forum, which organises national men's health week, has done an excellent job in raising this sensitive issue with the male public, not least by producing, in conjunction with the Haynes Publishing Group and several national cancer charities, an excellent book, written by a friend and colleague, Dr. Ian Banks, in a car manual format. The book gives essential information about the disease in a male-friendly style, and offers a practical, step-by-step guide for men to preventing, detecting and beating cancer. I commend it to hon. Members, and thank the Minister for the financial support that her Department gave to the Men's Health Forum to help to produce the book.
I was particularly pleased to learn that the manual and national men's health week have secured the support of the Football Association. Hon. Members may have seen in press reports this week that SvenGoran Eriksson and his coaching team took time out from their busy schedule in the run-up to Euro 2004 to help to promote it. I understand that one reason why the FA was keen to become involved is that Brian Kidd, Sven-Goran Eriksson's assistant coach, is recovering from prostate cancer surgery and has been forced to miss events in Portugal. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing Mr. Kidd a speedy recovery.
There is no doubt that much progress has been made in recent years towards the "our healthier nation" target of reducing the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by 20 per cent. by 2010. The NHS cancer plan, in particular, is improving, and will continue to improve, cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. These initiatives and others like them are benefiting the whole population, and the Government deserve the congratulations of health professionals and patients alike on their successes in this area.
The establishment of the prostate cancer advisory group, which is working in close partnership with the prostate cancer charter for action, will be instrumental in improving services, stimulating research and raising public awareness about cancer in men. That important development is very welcome, but we must be wary of the pitfall of assuming that tackling cancer in men means simply addressing male-specific diseases such as prostate cancer and testicular cancer. That is emphatically not the case. Action is required against a broad range of cancers.
228WH
I should also make it clear from the outset that I am not seeking to diminish the issue of cancer in women, or to argue that resources should be diverted from work on women and cancer to fund more work on men. Such a step would be disastrous. Nor am I seeking to criticise or to undermine the fine work that is being done to tackle cancer on a population-wide basis. This debate is about how we can improve still further the outcomes for men and in doing so improve the health of the population as a whole.
Men are more likely to develop cancer than women and to die from it. Age-standardised data for England shows that the incidence of all cancers for men is just over 400 per 100,000 of population. The figure for women is only 340 per 100,000—a difference of almost 20 per cent. The comparable figures for mortality show an even starker difference between men and women. Men are 40 per cent. more likely to die from cancer than women. Several of the most common cancers in women are, however, sex-specific and include cancers of the uterus and ovary. The most common cancer in women, breast cancer, is not strictly sex-specific, but it is exceedingly rare in men and is generally regarded as sex-specific for statistical purposes.
The most common cancer in men, prostate cancer, is obviously also sex-specific. We need to examine particularly closely the cancers that can affect both sexes if we are to make a more meaningful comparison between the incidence of cancer and death between men and women. It cannot be doubted that this is an issue of proper concern.
Of the 10 most common cancers that affect both men and women, nine are more common in men—in many cases, markedly so. Extraordinary as it may seem, men are almost twice as likely to suffer from those nine cancers. When it comes to death rates, the picture is even starker, because men are twice as likely as women to die from one of those cancers. The statistics show that for the one cancer for which the incidence rate is lower in men —malignant melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer—the death rate is higher for men than for women. If we could reduce the incidence of those most common shared cancers in men to the level experienced by women, we would make a significant impact on cancer rates in the population as a whole and, therefore, make progress towards important targets.
It is worth noting that cancer, in common with all other serious illness and disease, is subject to a social class gradient. The poorer a man is, the more likely he is to develop cancer and to die from it. The very poorest men are no less than twice as likely to develop cancer as men in the highest income brackets. If properly targeted, therefore, any strategy to reduce the incidence of cancer in men would also help to reduce health inequalities. Although tackling such inequalities is, quite properly, already a central objective of health policy, the action that is taken often lacks the necessary awareness of, and focus on, the increased effect of gender on health in such circumstances.
Why are men so much more likely than women to develop cancer? There are no established biological reasons why that should be so. We must therefore look to two other sets of factors: men, their attitudes and behaviour, and, more importantly perhaps, the way in which the NHS and other service providers treat men.

229WH
The critical factor is almost certainly to be found in the field of cancer prevention. It is now widely accepted that the majority of cancers are preventable, although risk determinants have been established in only about 50 per cent. of cancers. We know that men in general are more likely than women to drink alcohol at levels that are harmful to health, to eat a poor diet and—this was especially true in the past—to smoke and to do so more heavily. On the face of it, that seems to place the emphasis squarely on the individual man and on the need to change his behaviour. As we all know, however, the real world is rather more complicated.
Putting aside for a moment the relationship between an individual's lifestyle and the intractable structural factors in his environment, as well as the cultural pressures on men to conform to traditional behaviours, we must ask why cancer prevention strategies have been so much more successful with women. The answer is almost certainly that we have not yet got to grips with the need to construct services and deliver advice in a way that is directed specifically at men.
For that reason, I drew attention a few minutes ago to the Haynes cancer manual. The Men's Health Forum has developed considerable expertise in understanding how to communicate with men, and it has supported and encouraged innovative approaches to service delivery. Examples from within the NHS include initiatives to introduce health improvement programmes and basic health cheeks on men's own
turf—in working men's clubs on Tyneside, village halls in Devon, pubs in Wolverhampton and barbers' shops in Bradford. Indeed, Bradford's "Health of Men" project, of which the barbers' shop initiative is part, is an exemplar of good practice in the field. It has just won the northern region health and social care award, and I congratulate it on that achievement
Most significantly of all perhaps the workplace has been shown several times in recent years to be a highly effective setting for work directed at improving the health of men. The Royal Mail, for example, which is the largest employer of men in the country, is using national men's health week to deliver health advice to large numbers of its employees and as a springboard for other, longer-term health-improvement strategies.
The success of this year's national men's health week in England and Wales in engaging the support of the England football team's backroom staff leads me to ask whether the Minister will encourage the football authorities, in conjunction with the Men's Health Forum, to consider developing health improvement initiatives at league grounds. Small-scale work along those lines is already going on in the rugby super league, and men's health messages, which I have been developed by the Men's Health Forum, will appear on line-side signs at 10 televised matches. That is something that we can learn from, and I would very much like the Minister to tell us whether more could be done at football grounds. As I say, it has already been done at rugby grounds.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Scottish Executive are committed to investing substantially in a network of outreach health check services for men in a variety of community-based settings. Fittingly, the Scottish Executive are announcing the winning bids for those new services this week. I hope that she will ensure
230WH
that the health services for which she has responsibility consider the Scottish initiative so that men south of the border do not get left behind.
I have been able only to touch on cancer prevention: there is much more that could be said. However, it is important to leave enough time to explore another reason for the great disparity in the incidence of cancer in men and in women. It is commonly believed by many experienced clinicians that men are less good at early detection of potential symptoms and are much less likely to seek help when symptoms are present. That has certainly been my experience in my work as a GP.
Although there is limited research to back up that hypothesis, what evidence there is seems to bear out the perception. One study in Oxford in 2002 found that, of 45 men diagnosed with testicular cancer, some had put off seeking help for weeks or even months after first becoming aware of the symptoms. At a recent meeting in this House of the all-party men's health group, which I chair, a patient who had suffered from cancer very bravely told us that he left it 10 months after he developed rectal bleeding before he saw his GP. He kept putting it off by saying, "It's only a bit of bleeding. It's probably piles. I've been working too hard: it's just stress." He kept on rationalising why he did not need to see a doctor, and it took him 10 months before he received the treatment that he needed. I am quite sure that a woman in that situation would have taken action much more quickly.
At the beginning of the debate, I drew hon. Members' attention to the fact that men have higher incidence rates for nine of the 10 most common cancers that can affect both sexes and higher death rates for all 10. It seems extraordinary that in the case of malignant melanoma, of which there are fewer male than female cases, men are still more likely to die. The reason may well relate to the failure to act soon enough to early signs of disease. Malignant melanoma is an aggressive disease and even a short delay can prove fatal. The cancer tsar, Professor Mike Richards, interviewed in the current Men's Health Forum magazine suggests that the explanation of the paradox is
"almost certainly due to women coming forward more quickly."
Forgive me for returning one last time to the Haynes cancer manual, but the function of helping men to recognise the importance of acting in good time is one that it fulfils admirably. One of the predecessors of the book was the generalist Haynes "Man" manual, which was published in 2002 and has sold more than 80,000 copies in mainstream retail outlets, including car spares shops. That proves that men will take an interest in their own health provided that the issues are addressed in the right way—in a way that is appropriate to them.
For last year's national men's health week, the advice on sexual health in the "Man" manual was reproduced in a pamphlet—a mini-manual—for free distribution to men in a wide range of settings. Some 40,000 copies were given away to punters in Ladbrokes betting shops around the country. That is another good example of how to get health information into the right hands. The mini-manual was extremely well received.
I would like the cancer manual to be made available in a similar format for distribution by national cancer charities and in the NHS. A significant number of cancer charities have been partners in writing the manual,

231WH
including CancerBACUP, the Prostate Cancer Charity, Beating Bowel Cancer and the Orchid Cancer Appeal. The content is therefore reliable and up to date, as well as being delivered in a suitably blokeish style. I urge the Minister to continue to support the production of such a version of the manual and I would like to see whether that can be progressed.
The policy document prepared by the Men's Health Forum to inform the public debate about men and cancer during national men's health week proposes a five-point action plan to improve what is a most unsatisfactory situation by any standards. I do not have time to deal with all the points here and now, but I encourage all hon. Members who are interested in the issue to read the copies sent to their offices.
I endorse all the recommendations, but the one that stands out as deserving the most serious consideration by the Government is the proposal that we set targets for the reduction of cancer in men that are separate from the targets for the population as a whole. That proposal seems well worth trying, at least at a local level, and I would like to see some primary care trusts encouraged to pick up the baton and run with it.
We require medium-term targets for the reduction of risk behaviour in men and longer-term targets aimed at reducing the incidence of cancer. I concur with the view of the Men's Health Forum that it is only by setting male-specific targets that minds will be concentrated on the delivery of male-friendly services and prevention strategies predicated on the recognition of men's health concerns and sensibilities. Such an approach would be challenging and would require innovation, but it would also be hard-hearted and practical.
The recommendations have already been endorsed by 10 cancer and other charities and by the Royal College of Nursing, and I urge the Minister to act on them. I hope that she agrees that closing the gap between men and women in terms of the incidence of cancer and rates of mortality would be a realistic, achievable and measurable objective that could be pursued without any detriment to women.
A successful outcome would be an important contribution to the achievement of gender equality in health, and a leap forward in the pursuit of population-wide targets. I hope, too, that the Minister will take forward an awareness of the importance of men's health in her discussions on the forthcoming White Paper on public health. It is my firm view that we cannot improve the health of all unless we take action to improve the health of men.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing the debate. It is particularly timely, as he said, because we are in the middle of national men's health week. The theme of this week is male cancers, and I would like to take this opportunity—the second I have had this week—to congratulate the Men's Health Forum for its efforts in raising important issues about men and cancer. I am delighted to say that it does an extremely good job.
232WH
I turn first, as did my hon. Friend, to the excellent Haynes cancer manual. Despite its blokeish style, I enjoyed reading much of it. As my hon. Friend says, the Department of Health has contributed £30,000 to the publication of the excellent manual "Cancer: any age, any time". It is written in a way that is accessible and appealing to men. Our funding has enabled the publication of the manual, and 20,000 copies are to be distributed free of charge by voluntary organisations. Of course, I will be delighted if it meets the target of 80,000 copies set by its predecessor volume. I join him in welcoming the Football Association's support for the manual and its involvement in raising important issues about men and cancer. I hope that the FA will seek further involvement in such public health issues.
I also welcome my hon. Friend's support and congratulation for the work being done under the cancer plan. We have taken great strides, and they can be recognised not I least through the fact that there has been a 10 per cent. cut in deaths from cancer in the period from 1996 to 2002–03. There is much more to do—we need to make continued progress—but we can be pleased by the p ogress that we have made so far.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that action is required on all cancers and on improving health and preventing disease. It is therefore important that we raise awareness of cancer and its early symptoms in men of all ages; that is important. I also agree strongly that men need to seek medical advice sooner; earlier diagnosis leads to better outcomes. It is indeed worrying that there are such differences between the outcomes for the two sexes when it comes to cancers, and both the incidence and mortality rates are bound to give people pause for thought.
Of course, most Department of Health campaigns are designed to address a mass-market audience, with special emphasis on socially disadvantaged groups that risk exclusion. The inclusiveness in which we believe is reflected in the creative development progress. We actively seek the views of men in a bid to move beyond having women as the only family health gatekeepers.
Where certain audiences need to be addressed separately or specifically, we have developed bespoke strands. The current tobacco campaign includes a testimonial from male lung cancer sufferer. The advertisement is aimed at both sexes, and has performed well for both male and female audiences. We also address men via public relations activity—for example, via our recent tobacco campaign pull-out in the "Goals" supplement of The Sun. Most of our campaigns are developed according to an understanding of how men consume media differently from women. Radio, tabloid newspapers and online are key environments to reach the male audience. We know that men prefer to access health information directly, rather than to go to doctor's surgeries or a health centre, and that has resulted in the introduction of dedicated websites and telephone helplines, both from the NHS and a number of the key charities. That has increased men's access to health information and the general knowledge of health issues.
As my hon. Friend said, we must do more to reach men in their own settings. I have seen innovative work, and he mentioned some examples, including the work being done by Royal Mail, which we are pleased to learn about. I have also seen more local work done in a

233WH
number of community settings. People have developed materials to distribute in local communities to alert men to the importance of getting checked out for prostate cancer and so on.
We will continue to scope our health campaigning around key target groups, adapting messages and creative work where need be. We wi11 also continue to make our centrally driven campaigns relevant to health promotion at primary care trust level,and complete the circle by obtaining feedback on the efficacy of our approach and its relevance to the target groups.
For example, in my hon. Friend's constituency, partnership work with the local councils is under way through health action teams. During national men's health week this year, the teams are engaging with workmen at Springfield industrial estate to raise the issue of men's cancers and preventive health issues, such as those relating to physical activity, alcohol consumption, drugs, smoking, nutrition and sun safety. Those are all very important.
The issue of giving health information in the workplace is important. I would like to ensure that hon. Members are aware of the home page of the Department of Health's internal website for staff which has a direct link to the Men's Health Forum's men's national health week website.
My hon. Friend mentioned prevention, which is very important. It is particularly close to my heart because of my wider role in respect of public health. The five-a-day programme is an important strand of that. The aim is to raise awareness of the importance of eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. The programme recognises that attitudes and awareness differ greatly by age and gender. Over the next year, the Department will develop detailed plans to convey the five-a-day message to teenage boys and young men, who consume less fruit and vegetables than older men or women.
I agree with my hon. Friend that all such work will help to tackle health inequalities, which is a big priority for the Government. We share his concern about closing that gap. He also mentioned the gap between men and women. It is important to recognise that some programmes will simultaneously address the latter as well as the former. If we implement the programmes effectively, we will inevitably be targeting and working with those who are most in need of the messages and of the change.
My hon. Friend spoke about football match and line-side information. I visited Middlesbrough. Just before no smoking day, people were planning to put no smoking messages for supporters on the screens at its stadium at the start of a match and in the break. It is important to recognise that there are many avenues for getting the messages across. Some of those people who are highly respected and in leader ship roles in their communities have a key role, particularly with younger people. They are important vehicles for us to use for these purposes. The initiative that I have described was entirely a Middlesbrough-based initiative, but a number of clubs have been working on helpful initiatives. Any further suggestions or ideas that we can encourage them to take up will be welcome.
234WH
I also agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the delays in men seeking treatment and in men getting to treatment fast enough. That is another area in which the cancer manual will prove helpful in alerting people to the need to come forward quickly.
It may be useful if I mention some of the work that is being done in some of the major areas. Some of them are the sex-specific cancers, such as prostate cancer. We spent £4.2 million on research into that cancer in 2003–04, and that investment is beginning to pay off. Only last week, Professor Colin Cooper—director of the southern prostate cancer research collaborative and a member of the prostate cancer advisory group—announced that his team had found a significant gene in the battle against prostate cancer. The gene, E2F3, will help clinicians to decide whether a prostate cancer is aggressive or very slow-growing. It is hoped that a test could be developed within the next two years.
Much of the work has been funded through the prostate cancer collaborative. Of the £7.7 million funding over five years, the Department of Health is contributing £4.2 million, and the Government-funded Medical Research Council a further £1.3 million. The remaining £2.3 million is provided by the key partner, Cancer Research UK. As part of the cancer risk management programme, evidence-based primary care resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in England in September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer. From earlier debates that my hon. Friend has secured on this subject, I know that he takes it very seriously.
Some 98.8 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers, including prostate, are seen for their first out-patient appointment within two weeks of their GP deciding that they should be urgently referred. Since 1997, there has been a 40 per cent. Increase—from 343 to 473—in the number of consultant urologists. All that, as well as efforts on public awareness and the national prostate cancer website, indicates the Government's commitment to a very important issue, and one in which there is still considerable uncertainty for men receiving the diagnosis.
Earlier detection is particularly important for testicular cancer, which is why we have collaborated with Cancer Research UK in the production of a testicular self-awareness leaflet, "Testicular cancer: spot the symptoms early". That echoes the points that my hon. Friend has been making throughout the debate.
I shall move on to something that is not gender specific: bowel cancer. That accounts for the lives of around 7,500 men a year. My hon. Friend has already given us the sad, but graphic description of the difficulty that people have in coming forward with that cancer. We are developing a programme in partnership with all the key stakeholders, and Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, has set up an advisory group, supported by four working groups, on the key strands of the programme: screening, patient pathway, treatment and endoscopy.
That programme is developing a national screening programme for bowel cancer for both men and women. The methodology is not clear cut, and there are some difficult issues to be addressed, but we are striving to improve services for people with bowel cancer symptoms, and work is under way on making the

235WH
patient pathway more streamlined. We have also made a major investment in training, which is vital to the diagnosis of bowel cancer, and have established three national and seven regional centres to train more staff in endoscopy.
Finally on bowel cancer, we are developing a communications strategy, and consulting key stakeholders on what the key messages are about bowel cancer for the general public. I would welcome in particular the views of the Men's Health Forum; it might think that certain angles should be pursued in order to reach men early.
I do not have time to say much about lung cancer—another cancer that affects both men and women. It is killing around 17,000 men a year in England and Wales. We have a comprehensive service for smokers who want to quit, and have announced a deal on products: manufacturers are giving away free NHS stop smoking products, such as nicotine patches and gum. We have obviously done a lot: 99 per cent. of suspected lung cancer patients are now seen by a specialist within two weeks of being urgently referred, and we established an advisory group in November last year to support the development and delivery of high-quality services for lung cancer patients. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will produce clinical guidelines later this year.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we are not complacent when it comes to men and cancer. The consultation on the public health White Paper ends on 28 June, and I urge him and others with whom he is working to feed in their comments on men's health. We are determined that professionals and managers should have the freedom to innovate, including on service delivery—another point that he made. We will make sure that we continue to make significant progress on cancer for both men and women, while recognising that there is a lot more to do in engaging key stakeholders in making that progress.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Regional Government
2 pm
Ann Winterton: After many weeks of applying for this debate, it is sod's law to have secured it while there is a debate in the main Chamber on EU finance; indeed, there was another one yesterday afternoon. That's life, but I am nevertheless delighted to open this debate, especially now that super Thursday is over. The next political event for my constituents and others in the north-west—which stretches from my constituency to the Scottish border—and for those who live in the north-east and in the Yorkshire and Humber region, is the regional assembly referendum.
I hope that the Minister will be able to lift the veil and tell us when these long-awaited referendums will take place. It is rumoured that they will now be held in early November, and we are waiting with bated breath to hear what the plans are. In such a short debate, I can touch on only the tip of the iceberg, so I shall concentrate on the financial side of regional policy and the implications of what might lie ahead.
First, we have to understand some of the past, which warrants a debate on its own. Regional government is not a new concept. There was a Labour manifesto commitment in 1929 to supporting the creation of separate legislative assemblies in Scotland, Wales and England. Regional policy emerged in response to unemployment between 1934 and 1937, and during the second world war We had nine civil defence regions. The Wilson Government set up regional economic planning councils, and a royal commission on the constitution was established in 1969. It reported in 1973, and that report was known as the Kilbrandon report. Further changes have continued to be made to the present day.
Contrary to what many believe, there is no unique European treaty obligation to have regions, but they have been introduced—bit by bit—with the objective of moving finance from richer to poorer areas on a Europe-wide basis until there is level pegging. Lady Thatcher's first Government were forced to maintain a basic regional policy in order to access European Community structural funds. In 1986, the Single European Act transformed regionalisation into a central policy of the European Community, formally established the European regional development fund and gave its objective a more precise definition:
"to help redress the principal regional balances in the Community, in regions where development is lagging behind and in declining industrial regions".
In 1988 regional funding substantially increased. Interreg and PHARE—the programmes for temporary aid in a transitional period?began in 1989 and started cross-border schemes under unified operational control, bringing in regional and local authority involvement. The Maastricht treaty—I remember it well—which was ratified in 1992, created the Committee of the Regions. In 1994, regional government offices were created that took on the functions of the previously separate regional offices of the Departments of the Environment, Transport, Employment and Trade and Industry. Their remit was to manage regional programmes and to foster the development of policy areas, becoming the voice of the Government in the regions in order to apply for European Union structural funds. They were also permitted to raise loans.

237WH
The regional development agencies were created by legislation in 1998. They work with chambers, and many of those chambers have taken the title of "assembly", which causes confusion. They each have an allocation of £600,000 per annum to develop their capacity, specifically including their ability to undertake scrutiny of the RDAs. Most of the issues to be dealt with by the RDAs are core European Union legislative competencies.
Over a long period, various functions and responsibilities have been gradually removed from local government and given to quangos. There are 19 such quangos in the north-west, 21 in the north-east and 20 in Yorkshire and Humber. Those figures do not include Departments and agencies with regional or local offices in northern England, which are now proclaimed to require the so-called "democracy capping" of a regional assembly.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is one example of the removal of major planning powers from local authorities. Other proposed changes relate to tourism and transport, and they will also have major effects.
Matthew Green: Does the hon. Lady share my dismay at the fact that Conservative peers in the House of Lords caved in to pressure by the Government and allowed those powers to be transferred—after several attempts at ping-pong—whereas the Liberal Democrats held firm in trying to prevent their being transferred?
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman can probably read my mind on that matter. I do not want any powers to be transferred, as I have just indicated.
No doubt other Members will dwell on the apparent squandering of unlimited public funding on propaganda for the assemblies, but let us look at the contents of the "Your Say" booklet. A proposed regional assembly in the north-west would have "influence"—the phrase used in the booklet—over £1.6 billion. Some 61 per cent. of that influence would be allocated to the learning and skills councils. The proposed regional assembly would have two votes out of the maximum of 16 serving on the board of a learning and skills council. One is rather reminded of the "influence" that we are alleged to have by being at the heart of the European Union. If my arithmetic is correct, that influence currently stands at just 10 votes out of a total of 114, so one can see that there is little hope of changing anything of importance. Influence is one thing, but control is quite another.
Mr. Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that she will be aware that Ministers are currently fighting each other over the question of learning and skills councils. The Deputy Prime Minister says as he goes around the country that he will transfer powers relating to learning and skills councils to elected regional assemblies, and the Secretary of State for Education follows him around the country saying, "Over my dead body." We need to clear up such confusion within the Government, so that when my hon. Friend's constituents vote in October or November, they will have a clear picture of what they are voting for.
Ann Winterton:My hon. Friend makes a very valid comment and we have been following those matters in
238WH
the local newspapers. He highlights one of the problems facing people who will vote in the referendum—if one is eventually held. There is so much confusion about what might or might not happen that it switches people off; they like to know precisely where they stand.
The Government annual grant is £780 million for the north-west, £350 million for the north-east and £570 million for Yorkshire and Humber. That is, on average, only 11.5 per cent. of the central Government grant provided to local authorities, based on 2002–03 figures. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no guarantee could be given as to what a regional assembly might receive. In yesterday's debate, the Minister for Industry and the Regions said that the level of domestic regional funding might have to be reassessed.
Of those figures, the following amounts come from European Union funding: £250 million for the northwest, £88 million for the north-east and £185 million for Yorkshire and Humber. The UK pays £1 into the EU budget, and gets back approximately 50p—or €1.6. On top of that, we have to match-fund a further 40 to 60 per cent. There are strict criteria governing how, and on what, that funding is to be spent, which often produces no end-product, such as wealth creation. All too often, projects are left high and dry when the funding ceases. However, the Government have given a financial guarantee for that level of funding, which is to be based on certain European Union reforms that they believe fall within the terms of the current EU treaties.
It is important to know from the Minister how the process is progressing, whether the reforms that the Government support will be achieved and whether the financial guarantee will be honoured. If so, from which public funding source or Department will the money come? Will the Government stick to their proposal of a 1 per cent. contribution to the EU budget, rather than the 1.24 per cent. requested by the Commission, to meet the needs of the enlarged Union? If the Government are successful, but have already budgeted for 1.24 per cent., will they use the difference to give assistance to areas in the United Kingdom, subject to the state aid rules by which we are bound? I understand that yet another consultation is to take place on the Commission's newest proposals on regional state aid rules. If the reforms fail, the amounts available, which are mentioned in the booklet, will be substantially reduced.
I hope that I get a better reply than I got when I asked the Prime Minister on 11 February whether the Government intended to supplement the shortfall in respect of the £3 billion in regional funding between 2007 and 2013 that the United Kingdom is set to lose. Indeed, the Minister for Industry and the Regions touched on that subject yesterday.
The reason for the difficulty is enlargement. It is fair to say that the House of Commons has supported enlargement of the European Union across the board, but the consequences mean that from 2007 we will lose objective 1 funding for Merseyside and south Yorkshire of €893 million and €785 million respectively, in addition to reduced objective 2 and 3 funding, based on the 2000–2006 figures. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to update us on EU regional funding post-2006, because agreement to it will require unanimity. That is not an easy task when 25 member states are involved.

239WH
There is no doubting the priority of the Department of Trade and Industry when it states that spending on regional policy will be targeted on areas of high unemployment, just as it was 60 years ago. However, today we are interwoven with EU regional policy and have to contend with EU state aid in competition rules; the UK is no longer a free agent. It is also fair to say that EU regional policy plays an important role in the function of the euro, as regions in the eurozone have a one-size-fits-all interest rate.
The system in the regions of the European Union is triangular, operating between the Commission, the region and national Government. If England is ever burdened with regional assemblies, I foresee a constant battle between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Commission, because the ODPM intends to retain the Government offices for the regions. However, I would put my money on the Commission winning, as it has the final say. So Westminster will, as usual, lose out and will once again be sidelined.
Over time, the proposed 35 assembly members for the north-west will progressively deal directly with the Commission, leaving out Westminster and thereby leaving the north-west's 76 Members of Parliament in isolation. What kind of local representation or democracy is that, given that the rural areas especially will be overshadowed by the great cities?
To those who say that United Kingdom local government by regional assemblies has no European Union involvement, my reply is that the answer lies in the Department of Trade and Industry document entitled "A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom", which states:
"There is an important European Union dimension to regional policy."
It continues:
"These EU regional policy objectives clearly complement the UK Government's regional policy goal."
The latter quote should surely be the other way round, as the Government's regional policy is determined by European Union policy, and Westminster continues to lose control and to have its powers eroded. It could be described as rapidly becoming a middle tier of management, complying with orders from Brussels. How often do we hear the word "flexibility"? The desire is often expressed to have devolved regional policy to ensure the necessary flexible environment at national, regional and local levels. However, as Parliament has relinquished so many of its responsibilities, what the Government ideally might like is not what they can necessarily have within the constraints of current EU policy.
No doubt the issue of subsidiarity will be thrown into the debate. However, it is clear from the Amsterdam treaty that the subsidiarity principle will not be allowed to bring about any devolution of powers from Brussels, even in those sectors in which national or local authorities could perfectly well act on their own. Instead, there will be a constant one-way centralisation of authority. Those who control the direction of finance control virtually everything. One of the major problems with the EU is its rigidity, which can be changed only through a unanimous vote.
240WH
Why do we need regional assemblies, which are being foisted on us? Why should additional money for the proposed assemblies come from a precept on the council tax and be left to local authorities to collect? Sixty years ago, regional policy was entirely and rightly focused on alleviating problem, in some of the most disadvantaged areas in the United Kingdom. Regional policy now operates on a Europe-wide basis, and our country and its people will be disadvantaged by the movement of resources from the west to the east. Although successive Governments have tried to airbrush the EU out of its pivotal role in regional policy, the truth should be told. There is no doubt that regionalisation is a device for furthering political integration. [Interruption.] The Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary laugh, but it is no laughing matter.
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are laughing at the hon. Lady's proposition.
Ann Winterton: Well, the Minister and his PPS may laugh at my proposition, but in due course people in this country may laugh at the Minister and the Government for leading them down that path. I rust that the people of the three regions involved in the referendums—the north-west, the north-east, and Yorkshire and Humber—will decisively vote no and reject regional government, with all its adverse financial repercussions.
2.18 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: I attended the debate intending to make only a brief contribution. I hoped that many hon. Members from all parties would be present to talk about the financial implications of regional government. I did not realise that we were here to talk more about its European dimension. The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) has very anti-European views.
Ann Winterton: They are all fact.
Mr. Foster: I have no reason to dispute that one way or the other. I am here to talk about the financial implications of regional government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Sedentary interventions are not helpful in debate. For the guidance of the hon. Gentleman, I point out that we are debating that the sitting be adjourned, so the debate can be quite wide ranging.
Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I represent a region that will not have a referendum and where there is perhaps not the strongest affinity with the idea of a regional assembly, although that may change over time. One aspect of the financial implications of regional government that I want to consider is the nature of local government under the regional government umbrella. I understand that, if an area agrees in a referendum to have a regional government, it must cease to have two tiers of local government. Substantial savings could therefore result from regional government. I say to the Minister that the Government should not exclude areas that do not vote

241WH
for a regional assembly. They, too, could consider the financial implications of having two tiers of local government.
I shall explain the situation in Worcestershire, which forms part of the west midlands region. There is a county council, six district councils and a considerable number of parish councils, which are predominantly in the shire parts of the county. Those district councils each have a chief executive, a treasurer, a solicitor and a host of teams that duplicate service provision in a relatively small area, with a population of about 100,000 in each district.
The district where I live and that I represent is governed by City of Worcester council. It has 35 councillors, who together are responsible for a budget of about £11 million. Responsibility for council housing has been transferred to a housing authority. The nine county councillors who are elected to represent my constituents in Worcester are responsible for spending about £400 million. They are responsible for the major services supplied by local government such as education and social services. I am concerned that, if the Government limit the change in the structure of local government to those areas that have a regional assembly, they will miss an opportunity to make considerable financial savings in local government.
Mr. Graham Stringer: I am following my hon. Friend's argument in favour of unitary authorities with interest. I come from an area that has the benefit of a unitary local authority and, by and large, I agree with him. Does he accept that, were his area to achieve the status of a unitary authority, to impose an elected regional assembly would create an extra tier of local government? It would spend what was originally local government finance —the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) mentioned the figure of £1.6 billion. Therefore, all the current inefficiencies that he describes in local government would be recreated.
Mr. Foster: I fully understand my hon. Friend's arguments about the imposition of regional government on the west midlands. My argument is that the structure of local government should change, with or without a referendum on the question of a regional assembly in the west midlands.
Apart from financial savings that can be made, the important issue of democratic accountability, which should not be underestimated, is also at stake. The bulk of my constituents probably do not have the foggiest idea which local authority delivers which service. At local elections, many vote for the party that they have always supported and they do not necessarily take into account the delivery of service by the relevant local authority. If we are serious about improving local government and the services that it provides, having a direct democratic link is important, so that, by their vote, people can reward, or penalise, elected members who have delivered, or failed to deliver, improvements in public services. To have that enhanced democratic accountability with a backdrop of substantial cost savings represents the right way forward.
There is further evidence of the tendency to drift towards unitary authorities in Worcestershire. With some local government services, the question of who is
242WH
providing the services is already being blurred. In effect, local authorities are realising that two-tier systems do not work for them, so partnerships are being created between district councils and county councils. For example, the City of Worcester transportation partnership helps to deliver a county council service under the remit of city council officers. Although that is a great concept for taking democratic accountability to a smaller level, it still does not enable voters to make the distinction between who provides the cash and who provides the service. The Government should recognise that and take a leading role in speeding up the movement towards a unitary authority.
Matthew Green: I am following the hon. Gentleman's train of thought and I agree. Does he agree that, if Worcestershire were to move to a unitary authority, one could achieve the same effect through area committees? One would obtain the saving that he talks about, but still have the local democracy taking decisions for Worcester.
Mr. Foster: I agree. I have two parish councils in my constituency, even though it is an urban constituency, which provide a forum for a very local democratic role. One of the election pledges of the Worcester Labour party at the local elections last Thursday was to create area forums as a way of enhancing the local role in decision making in the city for areas without parish councils. I am delighted to let hon. Members know how pleased we were with our local election results. We held our seats and the Conservatives lost one to the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Hammond: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that to compensate for whatever happened in Worcester the Conservatives won one of the only four Labour seats on the council in Runnymede. Before the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) intervened, he seemed to be urging the Minister to take powers for the greater use of unitary authorities. Is he aware that the Government have those powers within existing primary legislation? It is within the Minister's gift. Is he urging the Minister to use his powers under Local Government Acts to accede to requests from local authorities for reorganisation along unitary lines?
Mr. Foster: Since 1997, I have increasingly held the view as a Member of Parliament that two-tier local authority systems do not deliver the best possible service to the electorate. Where there is agreement over the nature of the unitary authority to replace the two tiers, I am looking for the Government to facilitate movement in that direction as soon as possible.
Mr. Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of research by Professor Michael Chisholm at Cambridge university that suggests that the one-off costs of reorganisation would be about £90 per capita in two-tier areas, were they to be reorganised into unitary structures, and that the long-term savings from unitary local government are clear only where unitary local government is organised on a county-wide basis?
Mr. Foster: I am not aware of the research to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I make no judgment about

243WH
the nature of the unitary authority that I wish to see replace the two-tier system in the county, be it a unitary Worcestershire or a north and south Worcestershire authority. I make no judgment about what would be best. We are considering the cost savings as part of any decision made. Democratic accountability for the delivery of service and the clear relationship between the voter and those who are elected to manage the service are also important.
Another example of the blurring of the two-tier system is the crime and safety partnerships. Initially, a partnership was set up for Worcester city—the Worcester safer partnership. That was not progressing as quickly as those who worked in the system wanted, so there was a new creation—the South Worcestershire safer communities partnership, which covers the city of Worcester and the Malvern Hills and Wychaven districts. That exactly mirrors the West Mercia constabulary's division of the police. It makes for a sensible organisation of resources.
Other agencies that are showing the lead in the movement away from a two-tier system include the South Worcestershire primary care trust, which covers the three districts I mentioned, the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers the whole county, Hereford and Worcester combined fire authority, which the Minister knows all too well, and the West Mercia constabulary. All those agencies believe that there are economies to be gained from the service covering a greater population. I agree that cost savings could be made.
While I have the Minister's attention, it would be remiss of me not to mention that local government funding will have to be examined clearly. He will know of my desire for the area cost adjustment—the three magic words for Worcestershire—to be reconsidered, as it is a long-running problem for my county. If we move to a regional dimension, that will have financial implications for the services that are delivered.
The important point that I make in conclusion is that I want the Government to be more proactive in engaging with local government and encouraging it to move towards unitary authority status where two tiers exist—with or without regional referendums and regional assemblies—as a way of delivering better services for constituents and cost-savings for taxpayers as a whole.
2.32 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), I had not intended to make a contribution, but I am driven to make one to put my views on the record. I think that we need regional government like we need a hole in the head. We just do not need it; it is a distraction.
I am not sure whether the referendums at the end of October will be held as promised. I say candidly to my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party that there is no guarantee whatsoever that, if we hold the referendums in the three northern regions at the end of October, we will win them. There is a real possibility that we would lose all three. I do not think that the ground has been adequately prepared for those advocates of regionalism. There are advocates, but the work has not been done.
244WH
My plea to the Minister, to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, to the Prime Minister and to others is to put the issue on the back burner. Those who proselytise for regionalism should spend more time speaking to people and winning them over to their point of view, rather that pressing ahead with referendums that we could well lose.
I am fed up with constant reorganisations, whether it is local government reorganisation—the last of which, under the Conservative Government, cost £450 million—or the endless reorganisations of the national health service. As I recall, 18 such reorganisations were listed in the Health Committee report on the issue. If we asked people on the street, "Has all that reorganisation delivered a better service?", I am not sure that they would say yes.
There is a tremendous pressure to reorganise. A kind of Maoism has infected the Government. They believe that to persuade people that things are changing for the better, they just have to change. There is no guarantee that a huge reorganisation, under the mantle of regional government, which is itself a misnomer, is going to produce beneficial change. Why do I say that the term "regional government" is a misnomer? A year or two ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales described the Welsh Assembly as local government on stilts. A regional assembly would be local government on stilts. It would not have any powers to raise taxes. Many important services, such as health, would not fall within the remit of the regional assemblies; they would have some responsibilities for public health, but that would be all.
How can people be motivated to go out and vote for a tier of government that does not have any real powers? It has powers on planning and infrastructure, but it does not have the kinds of powers that touch people in their everyday lives.
Mr. Hammond: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman's powerful point on powers, but I would not like him to leave the Chamber with the impression that elected regional assemblies will have no power of taxation because they will have a power of precept with regard to the hard-pressed council tax payer. That is another factor that weeds to be taken into account.
Mr. Prentice: Of course I understand that there will be that precept power but there will not be a regional income tax, for example, which would connect the regional assembly with the elector in the regions.>
Some people—including people on my own political side—say that regional assemblies will make a huge difference. However we know that the areas that vote for a regional assembly will not get any more money than other regions of England—the Government have made that clear. It is disingenuous to give lots of nods and winks, and to hint that if people vote for a regional assembly their housing and their environment will be transformed overnight, because it will not be like that. During a referendum campaign, when Labour MPs like me speak out against the policy advocated by their own Government, it will become as plain as a pikestaff that those benefits of regional assemblies are alleged, not real.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester mentioned democratic is accountability. If there are these regional assemblies and a move to unitary local

245WH
authorities, there will be a huge reduction in the number of councillors. The Electoral Commission has pronounced on the reorganisation of local government in my area. There are 14 district councils in Lancashire, and there is Lancashire county council. The commission's preferred option, which voters can vote on at the end of October if we have the referendums, is for Lancashire county council to be the unitary authority. The second option would be for Pendle council to join with Burnley council, Rossendale council and Ribble valley. That would make a unitary authority for about 250,000 people. That is not very local. A lot of local councillors under the present system will lose their jobs.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has been describing how he hates reorganisations and how they cost so much money, and I agree with him. He has also touched on the number of councillors who will no longer represent their people. Has he given a thought to council staff? Because of all this uncertainty about regional assemblies, many good people have left their posts and moved on because they cannot see what the future might hold for them. If we are going to have good local government, we need to have good local government staff. Not much thought has been directed towards them—towards how they are feeling and coping with this situation.
Mr. Prentice: I would respond to that by saying I am against reorganisation for the sake of reorganisation. The case for it must be compelling. It must be set out, and we must be able to convince people that moving to unitary local government from the present two tiers would bring a measurable increase in service levels. I am not entirely sure about that.
I used to be a big fan of unitary local government. To be perfectly honest, I think that I have changed my view on this subject a number of times. [Interruption.] Is that an unusual admission? I do not think so.
I share the frustrations that many people have about two-tier local government where the buck can be passed so easily. Lancashire county council is Labour-controlled and now there is a Liberal Democrat-controlled Pendle borough council—that grieves me, but I just have to live with it for the next few years. Huge amounts of responsibility will be passing via the Liberal Democrats and that is frustrating—[Interruption.] I can see that Conservative Members are agreeing, because they are nodding vigorously. It is our responsibility to educate the electorate about which tier of government is responsible for what. The county council is responsible for education, which is not difficult to remember, is it? It is responsible for social services and for care homes, which was a big issue in Lancashire a year or two ago, and that is not too difficult to remember. Therefore, the responsibility falls on people, such as myself, who want a system of local government that is based on two tiers to continue, to make that point.
Mr.Michael Foster: What would my hon. Friend say to a constituent in Worcester about the provision of youth services? That is a statutory county council provision, but a discretionary one that is made by the district council. The two bodies work together and the buck passing goes on with considerable gusto.
Mr. Prentice: Well, there are these bear traps—youth services and so on—are there not? We do not fall out of bed in the morning just thinking about where responsibility for local services lies. People do not need to know the minutiae, but they must have an understanding that housing is a district council responsibility and that education is a county one. When people voted in the European elections just a few days ago, they probably did not have the foggiest idea that a huge number of decisions that used to be made in Westminster are now made in Brussels and Strasbourg. What is our response to that? It should be, "Let's educate the public." That is our job as politicians.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but let me finish on this matter. Our resources should go to frontline services. People in my part of north-east Lancashire are fed up living in rotten, decaying housing that should have been torn down a generation ago. There are 2,000 empty and abandoned properties in my constituency; in neighbouring Burnley, there are 4,500 empty, abandoned, rotten, decaying houses. That needs to be tackled and my right hon. Friend the Minister knows about it, because he is an expert on housing issues. That is what people want to see addressed; they do not want a lot of energy to go into the creation of a regional assembly that will not deliver.
The balkanisation of Britain —the setting up of regional assemblies—will have a damaging effect on service levels across the country, because the whole rationale of regionalism must be to allow services to develop differently in different regions; otherwise, what is the point? If we were to transfer something that is crucially important, such as the health service, to regional assemblies, it would grieve me if in 10 or 15 years' time there were different standards—different service levels—of health provision in the north-west and north-east, which is your area, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to see that divergence. I want money to go into front-line services across the nation that will benefit all equally.
2.44 pm
Matthew Green: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing the debate. I thought that we were going to hear a little more about the cost of regional government and the possible savings, but there we are. I will stick more firmly to the title of the debate, although I appreciate that it is an Adjournment debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said. It is a delight to speak in a debate on regions and for once have someone from the same region as me in the Chamber. That is probably a first. I was pleased to hear what he had to say, and I might touch on a couple of his points.
One problem with any reorganisation is that it is easy to see the costs of it. When a level of government is set up—local, regional or national level—there are running costs, and it is easy to trot them out. I acknowledge that there will be costs; inevitably the structure to support regional government will cost something. However, there are also savings; it is fallacious to argue that there are only costs.
Those savings can come from two areas. The first, as we heard from the hon. Member for Worcester, is from the reorganisation of local government. I have some

247WH
figures, which I am sure the Conservatives would claim are biased, from the Yes4theNorthEast campaign. It has produced some figures, which I am sure are based on good information. The Minister may be able to provide more information. The campaign estimates that changing to a unitary government would save about £21 million a year in Durham, and £8 million a year in Northumberland. There is a saving of £29 million. The estimated annual costs of an elected north-east assembly are £25 million. Clearly, there is a potential saving. We can argue about whether the figures are accurate, but there is a case that savings can be made as a result of change.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has just tried to make the case, as did the hon. Member for Worcester, that the reorganisation of local government to a unitary structure may produce savings. That is contentious, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the case for elected regional assemblies.
Matthew Green: I agree; the reorganisation of local government does not have to have anything to do with regional assemblies, and could be done anyway. Nevertheless, the Government have chosen to do the two things at the same time and are linking them. Whether that is the route that I would have chosen or not, the two are happening together and I am raising the issue. I would happily have a unitary Shropshire tomorrow, as would the Conservatives and Labour. All three main parties in Shropshire want a unitary Shropshire. I have been asking the Minister about that since I have been in Parliament, and he keeps saying, "Wait until you have an elected regional assembly." I do not want to wait that long.
The fact is that there are cost savings to be made from the change in local government. As the hon. Member for Worcester has already said, in Shropshire there are five districts or boroughs and a county council. There are six chief executives, and merely getting down to one chief executive and the attendant secretaries would save well over £1 million a year for Shropshire, which is quite a small county.
I want to talk about the other main area for savings, where the Government could do more. They are going at regional government a little too gently; they are not trying hard enough. In doing so, they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Minister will know that Liberal Democrat support for regional government in the forthcoming referendums in the north is based on the fact that we see that as a starting block, certainly not the finishing point. If it were the finishing point, it would be a poor point to be campaigning for. The savings would come from the devolution of power and services from Westminster to regional government.
Mr. Hammond: Which?
Matthew Green: I will come to exactly which ones we would like to be devolved. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to earlier debates on regional government, he would have heard us speak about that before.
248WH
The Minister still has a chance to convince his colleagues; perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will win his arguments with his Cabinet colleagues. As the Minister knows, there are areas that we would like to be pushed down more. The hon. Member for Congleton was right to point out that the learning and skills councils are not truly devolved to the elected regional assemblies—they should be. On transport, the ability to decide on the priorities is to be devolved to elected regional assemblies but the funding will still come from central Government. The North West regional assembly, for example. could decide that its priorities are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 but the Department for Transport could agree to fund only No. 5. The Minister will say that that will not happen, but he cannot be sure that there will be a Labour Government forever—he might not be the Minister and there may not be a favourable Minister in the Department for Transport. The system must be set up so such things cannot happen and we get proper decision making at a regional level.
Mr. Hammond: I said a moment ago that responsibilities for learning and skills councils will not truly be devolved to elected regional assemblies. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education put it more starkly. When asked:
"what plans he has to transfer powers and responsibilities held by Learning and Skills Councils to elected regional assemblies where they are introduced"—[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 763W.]
he replied:
"None."
Matthew Green: That is even more helpful to my case, because they should be devolved. If the Minister took regional government seriously and believed in it, he would seek to devolve more functions, and Departments in Westminster could be abolished because they would no longer be necessary. The Department of Trade and Industry is an obvious candidate for abolition. At a regional level it acts is a dead hand; it restricts the ability of regional development agencies to exercise their function. Too often they are told that they cannot fund a project because it does not fit the DTI's tick boxes. Allowing funding to decrease but getting rid of the DTI would make considerable national cost savings and would enable effective regional economic regeneration.
If we achieve regional government throughout England—I will come to how that should happen—there would not be much need for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be a brave Minister who abolished his own job, but that should be the Minister's priority. If I were in his shoes, I would be seeking to create the conditions to abolish the job. Much of the ODPM's functions can be sent down to the regions. Such devolution of power allows considerable cost savings at the centre and can lead to considerable savings overall.
I do not want hon Members to think that I would like the system to be rolled out along the current boundaries, because there are difficulties. For elected regions to work, the public must believe that they belong to a region. People in the north-east believe that they belong

249WH
to the north-east. The Yorkshire and Humber assembly effectively recreates Yorkshire—the people believe that they are in Yorkshire.
Mr. Hammond: When did the hon. Gentleman last visit Humberside to see whether that is the view there?
Matthew Green: I realise that part of Humberside was historically Lincolnshire, but that is not as significant a problem as the hon. Gentleman would like to pretend.
In the north-west, there is a reasonable sense of regional identity, although there are differences. [Interruption.] There is not the same degree of support among Labour Members in the north-west as in other regions—perhaps that was too dangerous a course to go down. I knew that it would spark a reaction, so I will not go into too much detail on the north-west.
Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: Go on then.
Mr. Prentice: Part of my constituency—West Craven—used to be in Yorkshire, and many people still feel a great affinity to Yorkshire. However, are there any divisions among the Liberal Democrats about this plan for regionalism? Will he tell the Chamber what Lord Greaves thinks about the proposals?
Matthew Green: Lord Greaves is not actively backing the yes campaign for the main reason that not enough powers are to be devolved to the regional assemblies. Where I disagree with Lord Greaves is that I think that the proposals are a starting block. We support the campaign so that we can build on it whereas he thinks that it is not worth supporting be cause not enough powers are to be devolved. I hope that he is persuaded otherwise if the draft Bill proposes more powers.
I want to deal with the rest of England. The Minister has an opportunity, when the three referendums in the north are out of the way, to look long and hard at a boundary review of the remaining regions. The current boundaries were set up by the Conservatives for the administrative purposes of Westminster, not to reflect where people feel that they belong. I am firmly of the view that Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, which is currently in the south-west, should form a marches region, as we did historically. We were a region and we share a lot of commonality with West Mercia. The area is about the same size as the north-east, so if that region is viable, we must be too. Such a region would command a huge amount of support among local people.
Mr. Michael Foster: May I say how delighted I am for the hon. Gentleman that he is present it for a debate with Members from the same region? He is of course the only elected Liberal Democrat in the region of the west midlands.
Matthew Green: Hereford.
Mr. Foster: Has he had any discussions with local government representatives in the west midlands on whether Shropshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire
250WH
should form a marches region? Has he discussed that with constituents in the north of Worcestershire, who see no distinction between themselves and people in Birmingham, because the boundary is not clear and, indeed, moves occasionally as a result of local government reorganisation?
Matthew Green: I have certainly not done the latter. It would be a huge task to travel round the region that I have proposed asking people that. We may have to do that if there is a boundary review. I hope that we can consider the proposal and that the hon. Gentleman is not ruling out the possibility, because I believe that there is support for it. I have discussed the matter with councillors and officers in at least one Worcestershire council—Malvern Hills—and in Shropshire and Herefordshire, and there is broad support for it. I have even done some survey work in Shropshire showing that the public overwhelming back that idea in preference to a west midlands region.
The point is that to win referendums in other parts of the country and to get to the position where we can make cost savings by abolishing Departments as a result of having elected regional assemblies, such assemblies are needed throughout Britain. In order to do that, they must be based on areas that the public would support. There is no reason, for instance, why Kent could not be its own region. It is large enough; its population is bigger than that of the north-east. That would solve many of the problems of Conservative councillors in Kent. If they discovered that they could have an elected regional assembly, referendums might be much more likely to be won. Huge savings can be made.
Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has built so much of his case on cost savings. Having lived through a local government reorganisation in 1974 and seen the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and so on, I am not so sure that there will be any cost savings at all. If he can cite one such case, I should be delighted to learn about it, because usually savings are soaked up by new, expensive offices and equipment, and the money just goes.
Matthew Green: I suspect that whatever I said, I would not convince the hon. Lady. I thought that I had given some examples of where savings can be made.
Many local government reorganisations have been botched. Let us take Shropshire, which was reorganised under the Conservative Government. After the county had made it clear that it wanted to retain two-tier government, the Government said, "No, we do not like that answer; do the exercise again." They then came back, took Telford and made it a unitary council, leaving the rest of Shropshire virtually unviable, as a much smaller two-tier area. That was a botched reorganisation, and it is botched reorganisations under the Conservative Government that have cost money. If they had done things properly and offered us two unitaries, there would have been a lot more support for their proposals, and cost savings, too.
Finally, I return to a theme that the hon. Member for Worcester mentioned: democratic accountability. One major reason why we should have regional government is that we have it at the moment. The most powerful person in my constituency in terms of getting a

251WH
chequebook out and allocating money to something is not anyone on the district, county or town council, or the local MP or MEP; it is the chief executive of the regional development agency Advantage West Midlands, John Edwards. I believe that he is able to support a scheme to the tune of £3 million without seeking broad approval. He does an excellent job, and I have no qualms at all about his work; but he is essentially accountable only to Ministers in London—
Mr. Hammond: Who are accountable to Parliament.
Matthew Green: Yes, but in a very long-winded, involved way.
The present tier of regional government was largely set up by the Conservatives; they set up Government offices. The result is that we now need accountability at that level, and democracy costs money.
Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: No, not any more, because I am sure that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman would like to speak.
Democracy can cost money, but the argument for not having a democratic tier when powers are already exercised at that level is an argument for doing away with MPs. People might say that it must cost a lot to have MPs in Westminster. It is also an argument for doing away with councillors. One might say, "Let the officers run councils; it's far cheaper if we get rid of all the councillors." That is the argument being deployed. There could be much greater cost savings if only the Government were really enthusiastic about regional government and used it to its full potential, instead of making their rather half-hearted efforts. The case is that regional government can save money. However, for the sake of democratic accountability, it should go ahead even if it is cost-neutral.
3.2 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing this important debate. She is right to raise these issues. There are deep concerns about the Government's intentions as regards regional government. Conservative Members certainly recognise the particular needs of those regions that have suffered from major structural economic change. My hon. Friend dealt with some of the real regional issues relating to funding. She talked about the European Union funding available and issues that impact directly on the lives and success of people in the regions.
I want to focus on the direct financial implications of the Government's plans—that is, to the extent that we know about them —and focus Members' attention on the large and unacceptable degree of uncertainty that still surrounds a project that, unless something has changed, is to be put to the electorate in just a few months.
There is a widespread and growing feeling in all three northern regions, particularly in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west region, that the imposition of an
252WH
extra tier of government is simply not the answer to the region's problems. The Government's preferred option reflects Labour's rather tired approach, which is that more government equals better government, and that constant change equals progress. It also reflects Labour's disillusionment with local government, which will be the big loser from the imposition of elected regional assemblies, as powers will be sucked from local government and will go to the regional tier.
The needs of the regions, particularly the three northern regions, are for economic regeneration, investment, skills and—in some cases—a change to a more entrepreneurial culture that will allow businesses to flourish and that will attract investment and lead to reform of the public services. Public services provide a larger percentage of total employment and economic activity in the northern regions than in other regions. Some of those issues are being addressed by the regional development agencies in the three northern regions, but I can tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that the last thing that the regions want—someone who is not a Government figure would say this privately— is for their business-led focus to be diluted by being subordinated to a politically motivated regional assembly. The truth is that elected regional assemblies will not deliver on any of the key issues for the three northern regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is quite right to draw attention to the issue.
I want to talk about the financial implications of imposing an additional tier. I will focus on elected regional assemblies, but I do not want the Chamber to miss the point that he Deputy Prime Minister's agenda for regionalisation has already kicked in, with or without elected assemblies. Additional costs are already being imposed. In the fire service, there are regional management boards, and fire authorities up and down the country tell me that the boards are already out of control in terms of the costs that they are incurring. There is the Learning and Skills Council, in which we can see the creation of a regional structure in response to a clear steer from central Government. There is also the cost of the unelected regional chambers.
Interestingly, while this trend is developing in response to a steer from central Government, English Heritage, which is a quango answerable to the Minister's Department, has just scrapped its regional structure because it found it too bureaucratic and inefficient. It has returned to a different structure and has moved away from having nine regional directors.
I come to the financial implications of elected regional assemblies. We ought not to be having this debate. We ought to be quite relaxed about the issue because hon. Members will remember that, in 1997, the Labour party manifesto pledged that the establishment of regional assemblies would require
"confirmation by independent auditors that no additional public expenditure overall would be involved."
I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to repeat the manifesto pledge that no elected regional assembly will be created unless an independent auditor has certified that no additional public expenditure overall will be involved. I suspect that he is not prepared to do so, therefore we must look at the costs that we believe will be involved.

253WH
So far, the Government have spent more than £5 million on what they laughingly call an information campaign: that is to say, on propaganda for the yes campaign in the three regions. The referendums themselves will cost £16 million to conduct. The Government estimate that, if elected regional assemblies go ahead in the three regions, they will cost £30 million in each region simply to set up. We are talking about the one-off start-up cost. That means a cost of more than £120 million, including the referendums, the information campaign and the start-up costs in the three northern regions. That is before taking into account the direct and indirect costs of local government reorganisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has already referred to one of the important indirect costs, which arises from the uncertainty that has been introduced into the local government community and the additional difficulty that that creates in recruiting and retaining good quality staff to carry out the main function of local authorities, and what should be main purpose of elected politicians: the delivery of ever-improving public services.
There are also direct costs. As I have already explained, Professor Michael Chisholm of Cambridge university has estimated the one-off costs to be more than £90 per head. That is £350 million for the three northern regions, if all the two-tier authorities are transformed into unitaries. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has asserted, the evidence suggests that, except where unitary counties are created, there will be few if any ongoing savings from unitary structures.
All that is before we look at the running costs. The Government estimate that each elected regional assembly will cost £25 million per annum to run. However, working on the basis of the one elected regional assembly that we have as an example—the London assembly—and extrapolating on the cost per capita, it is likely that the regional assemblies would cost three times the Government's estimate. If anybody doubts that it is possible for the Government to get their estimate of the cost of regional government so wrong, they need only look at the estimate; for the cost of the Scottish Parliament's new building at Holyrood. The overrun is standing at 12 times the original estimate. We cannot even begin to quantify the potential cost if all these elected regional assemblies were to embark upon such a folie de grandeur as the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
Mr. Raynsford: As always, the hon. Gentleman is selective in his choice of examples. Would he like to tell the Chamber about the Greater London authority headquarters building, City hall, which was delivered on time and in budget? It is an extremely good value-for-money procurement.
Mr. Hammond: I would like to tell the Chamber that the Government's estimate of the impact on London council taxpayers of the Greater London authority—[Interruption.] That was not the right hon. Gentleman's question, but if he wants to accuse me of selective quoting, I must draw attention to the facts that he wants to ignore: the massive cost of the elected regional
254WH
government in London that is in excess of what the Government told us it would be when it pushed through the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Significant indirect costs are already occurring. An article from The Guardian yesterday tells us that, in Ribble Valley, one of the reasons for turning down a PFI project was the uncertainty over the district council's future. Already, local authorities' activities are being blighted in areas where referendums will be held.
Where will the money for all these costs come from? Some of it will come in the form of central Government grants—more wasted taxpayers' money—but regional assemblies will also have the power to impose a precept to raise additional funds, which will be an additional burden on the already hard-pressed council taxpayer. The White Paper makes it clear that they will be expected to make a contribution to their administrative costs through a precept on the council tax. We do not know whether the Government propose to impose any limits on the powers of elected regional assemblies to set a precept. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
The publicity campaign, the referendums, the reorganisation of local government, the administration cost of elected assemblies and the buildings are all going to cost us hundreds of millions of pounds, and for what? For the answer, I turn to the Minister's colleague in the other place, Lord Rooker, the Minister responsible for matters involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. He assured the other House that there would be no new money and no new powers for elected regional assemblies. From what we have seen so far, it is clear that the powers that elected regional assemblies will have will largely be taken from local government: fire, planning, housing and so on.
Our problem with scrutinising cost is that we simply do not know the extent of the assemblies' powers and functions, and thus the cost that will be imposed. The White Paper set out the powers that the Government propose to give elected regional assemblies. The Deputy Prime Minister has then run around the country talking up those powers, telling a closed meeting in the northwest that an elected regional assembly will be an opportunity to reopen the Barnett formula, and telling others that transport, the police and learning and skills councils will be transferred to elected regional assemblies—all in a desperate attempt to shore up a rather flagging Government policy agenda.
Tony Flynn, the ousted leader of Newcastle city council, asserted that the closure of the Swan Hunter yard would never have happened if there had been an elected regional assembly. We were also told a few weeks ago that the trans-Pennine rail link would be safe if only there were an elected regional assembly.
Conservative Members have serious concerns about the time scale involved. The Government have reluctantly indicated that they will try to publish a draft Bill setting out the powers of regional assemblies before the referendums. That is an absolute requirement, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us in more detail today when that Bill will be published and how much detail it will contain. It will be of no use to anyone if it simply contains enabling powers that provide for Ministers to set out the powers in secondary legislation later.

255WH
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was a shadow Secretary of State, he wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr. Raynsford: A wise man.
Mr. Hammond: Indeed. My right hon. Friend set out our concerns and asked the Deputy Prime Minister for the assurance that the Bill would be published in draft form so that we would know precisely what the powers would be. Eventually, a couple of months later, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), being a persistent sort of a person, managed to get a reply from the Under-Secretary in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who said:
"We have already published the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice. This set out the powers that the Government intends for elected regional assemblies … The draft Bill will reflect the proposals outlined in the White Paper."
That is pretty clear. We put out a press release saying that the ODPM confirms that there will be no additional powers for elected regional assemblies.
The ODPM countered with its own press release in which the Deputy Prime Minister's spokeswoman, an official in the Department in which the Under-Secretary resides, said that the Government had already added to the powers originally set out in the White Paper and that discussions on other issues were continuing. In other words, the official spokeswoman directly contradicted what the Under-Secretary said in his letter to my hon. Friend. Ministers are fighting like ferrets in a sack over what powers will be transferred to these elected regional assemblies.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is absolutely right about the nods and winks. We know exactly what is going on. We know exactly why the Minister and the ODPM were so coy about the precise powers that elected regional assemblies would have until after last Thursday. The Deputy Prime Minister, probably even now, is in Downing street warning the Prime Minister that unless he gives more powers to the elected regional assemblies, he faces another rout in October on the scale of the rout he suffered last Thursday.
I do not know who will win that battle within the Government, but I know that the people of the three northern regions when they go to the ballot box in October—if the Minister will confirm that these referendums are still on—have a right to know what powers they are being asked to vote for the assembly to be given so that they can calculate the precise costs and benefits of going down the Government's preferred route. It is simply not acceptable to ask the electorate to vote for a pig in a poke.
I will not be quite as ambitious as the hon. Member for Pendle who asked the Minister to confirm that the whole thing was off the agenda and would not be going ahead. I will simply ask the Minister this: if it is going ahead in October, will he at least give us the assurance that a draft Bill, clearly setting out the powers that elected regional assemblies will have, will be published before the summer recess and that Parliament will be
256WH
given an opportunity to debate it so that we can tease out the questions that will undoubtedly arise before the people of those throe northern regions go to the polls?
3.18 pm
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): This has been a curious and in some ways intriguing debate on an important subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing this opportunity to discuss regional government. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution, transforming what was one of the most highly centralised countries in the western world in 1997 into one in which there is far greater and more appropriate devolution of powers to different levels.
We are taking substantial steps to reverse the trend of excessive centralisation that characterised the Conservatives in government. They now seem to be trying to distance themselves from their record. Our record, by contrast, is strong and demonstrates how seriously we have addressed the need for devolution of power from Westminster and Whitehall. We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales and restored city-wide government it in London; now, we are offering the English regions the chance of devolved power.
That poses a problem for the Conservatives. They are trying to present themselves in a new light, and not as the ultra-centralists who took power away from local authorities and at abolished whole tiers of devolved government, such as the Greater London council and various county councils. They present themselves as the friends of the county councils, yet they seem to forget that they abolished Berkshire when they were in government. Instead, they are trying to present themselves as the party of devolution.
The problem is that the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to follow this devolutionary logic. They have put themselves in the absurd position of opposing devolution to Scotland, Wales and London, and now to the English regions Despite mouthing the rhetoric of devolution, in practice they have vehemently opposed it whenever they have had the opportunity to do so in the past seven years.
There is one notable exception to that trend, and he was referred to by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I am very happy to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and I would like to quote what he said on this subject less than three years ago:
"There is actually a case for regional devolution, and it is silly to pretend that that case does not exist. There are two arguments in favour of regional devolution. One is that there is a serious problem with representative democracy in Britain today. We have passed power out of the hands of people who are accountable."—[Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 218.]
That is a fair criticism, and it has been echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and many other Members who recognise that the extension of regional government under the previous Conservative Government—the hon. Member for Congleton referred

257WH
to it—involved devolution of power to non-elected bodies and unrepresentative quangos, or to the government offices that were created.
Ann Winterton: Can the Minister answer a simple question? Why did the then Government act in that way? If he recalls what I said, he will have the answer to hand.
Mr. Raynsford: I do recall why they did it, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—the then Secretary of State with responsibility for such matters—frequently talked about it. It was recognised that an increasing number of Government issues needed to he handled at regional level, and that there had to be greater coherence among different Government Departments which had been acting separately. That was a perfectly logical and sensible approach, and the only criticism that I make is that it did not take account of the democratic deficit that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly highlighted.
I must tell the hon. Member for Congleton that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal does not share her Eurosceptic views about the origins of regional government in Britain. It did not owe its origins to Brussels, as she likes to assume, any more than our proposals do. It resulted from a proper analysis of the importance of good, efficient administration, and from ensuring the pulling together of different strands out of their separate silos, which I entirely endorse as an objective.
Ann Winterton: The Minister can stop calling me a Eurosceptic because I am a Euro-realist, and there are a growing number of Euro-realists in this country. I suggest that the Minister goes back a bit further in my speech. Most of the provisions introduced by the Conservative Government and the current Government are based on the European Union. It is about time that we recognised that fact and stopped trying to fool the British people about the origins of matters such as regionalisation.
Mr. Raynsford: Well, we can tell that the hon. Lady is a bit rattled by the success of the United Kingdom Independence party in her constituency in the recent elections. However, there is no substance to her allegations that our proposals for elected regional government in the English regions are the product of Brussels. They are not, and I can tell her that with some authority because I have been involved in this right from the beginning. In 1997, I was the Minister responsible for developing proposals for the Greater London Authority, which was the first of the English regions to have a devolved governmental structure. And since 2001, when I took up my current post, I have been involved in the development of proposals for the devolution of power to the English regions.
Those proposals and developments have been worked up here in London by the British Government. Obviously, we have taken advice from people overseas—in America, Australia and Asia, as well as in Europeߞand we have looked at overseas examples; that is proper, and any sensible and prudent Government would do so. However, we have developed our own
258WH
proposals for the benefit of the English regions. They are not beholden to Brussels, and it is a monstrous travesty of the truth to suggest otherwise.
With the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Conservatives have been totally misguided on the issue of the regions. They were wrong on Scotland. They voted against regional government there, but had to change their minds and accept it. They were wrong on Wales, and had to change their minds and accept it. They were wrong on London, and had to change their minds and accept it. They will be wrong on the English regions, too, and they will have to change their minds and grovel once again. Sadly, they fail to learn any lessons from history. As I commented in a previous debate. their inability to learn reminds me of the Bourbons. So let us have a few facts from them, rather than scaremongering and nonsense.
This debate is about costs, and it is important to know the reality of those costs. The set-up costs for elected regional assemblies will be about £30 million in each region, as we have made clear. The expected running costs will be about £25 million a year, because the authorities will be small and streamlined, with 25 to 35 members. When we produced our initial proposals for London and the English regions, many people criticised us and said that there would not be enough councillors. Now, most people recognise that this is a sensible provision that provides adequate representation to ensure that we focus on the matters that must be handled at regional level, without excessive proliferation and certainly without duplicating the work of local government.
We recognise that there will be some initial local government reorganisation costs, but there is also the potential for significant savings down the line. We have received the report from the boundary committee and its final recommendations. It would not be right for me to comment on the recommendations at this stage, as Members will understand, but it is perfectly fair to highlight their implications in terms of the costings set out by the committee.
Under the recommendations, the number of local authorities in the two-tier areas in the three northern regions would be reduced from the current figure of 50 to between seven and 19 unitary authorities. That would be very different from the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative party in the 1990s, when it simply turned existing district councils into unitaries. That created a lot of additional cost and achieved no savings. Our approach is entirely different, involving a significant reduction in the number of authorities and scope for substantial savings.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister confirm that electors will not be offered only the choice of county-wide unitaries?
Mr. Raynsford: As I said, there will be between seven and 19 councils in total in the three northern regions, rather than the existing 50. There will be seven if people vote for a wholly unitary county, and 19 if they opt for the more extensive arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out, there will be significant scope for reductions in unnecessary administration. I am

259WH
astonished that the Conservative party seems to be pooh-poohing attempts to achieve efficiency and better value for money in public services. We shall remember that in future debates on this subject.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I cannot because time is short, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise.
The debate is about the implications of regional assemblies. Assemblies will exist to bring financial benefits to the regions. They are part of our framework for the continued improvement of regional economies. Their functions will be focused on the twin pillars of economic development and improving the quality of life. The way to address regional disparities is to give the regions the tools to improve their economic performance, rather than seeking to constrain growth in better performing regions. Economic development will be a prime function and responsibility of elected regional assemblies. They will also improve the coordination of policy and services by bringing together regional strategies on a range of issues—including planning, housing, transport, employment and training and skills—all of which support the economic development agenda.
Through elected assemblies, people will have control over how significant proportions of central Government money are spent in their region. According to figures for 2002–03, an assembly in the north-west would have direct responsibility for programmes to the value of more than £1 billion, and it would have an important influence on other budgets totalling a further £1.6 billion. Such an assembly would thus take, or be involved with, decisions on some £2.6 billion of funding.
For almost a century, there has been economic division between the regions of our country. Development and prosperity have been disproportionately focused in the south, while the northern regions have faced the severe problems of industrial decline, unemployment and disadvantage. The Government are committed to an agenda to promote economic success and prosperity in all our regions, and we have already taken important steps in that direction. Regional development agencies—the Opposition opposed them, too, before they were set up, but they have had to eat their words—are helping that process. The next stage is to allow the people in each of the northern regions the opportunity to have a greater say in the future of their regions through democratically elected assemblies.

School Nursing Service (South-West Norfolk)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am delighted to have the chance to raise some important issues about an unsung, yet vital part of the health service—the school nursing service. When Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said:
"School nurses clearly provide an extremely valuable service to children. They have been looking after children's health for more than 100 years—the first was appointed in 1894—and they are often the first point of contact for teachers, parents and children requiring health advice in school. They often work closely with general practitioners, with primary care and sometimes with specialist paediatricians, when the need arises. They also play an important part in providing a safety net for children who have perhaps slipped past the routine development checks or immunisations offered under primary care in the early years".—[Official Report, 20 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 1128.]
It was that role of
"providing a safety net for children who have perhaps slipped past the routine development checks"—
or rather the lack of such a role in the case of six-year old Lauren Wright a constituent who died from abuse in May 2000—that alerted me to the present day work of school health advisers, as they are now called, and that led me to raise issues concerning the school nursing service today.
I do not intend to revisit the case of Lauren Wright, not least because I have been able to pursue it on many occasions in the House. However, it is worth pointing out that the independent NHS review of Lauren's case produced by the then Norfolk health authority concluded:
"The health agencies did not give Lauren Wright the best service. If they had, despite all the faults identified by social services, it is most likely that she would have been protected."
That general criticism of the role of the health service was repeated in the review's detailed criticism of the working arrangements for the school nurse in the case. There were substantial criticisms of the other agencies involved, namely education and social services, following the case. I had the opportunity to present evidence about it to the Victoria Climbié inquiry. As became all too common in such cases, there was a lack of liaison and communication between the professionals involved, but I am glad to say that a great deal has been done locally to tighten up procedures.
Some time after the Lauren Wright NHS review was published, I was contacted by Mrs. Jenny Atterwell, a school health adviser now working in the Southern Norfolk primary care trust. She wrote to me very fully in the spring of 2003 and I will read some extracts from her letter. Among other things, she said:
"I became aware that your understanding of the current school nursing service was slightly out of date."
That was the case, but she put me right, as have subsequent things that I have done. She explained the work done by the school nursing service and said that

261WH
the advisers and members of the team in her area consist of school health advisers, a staff nurse and a school health assistant. The school health adviser's role
"mainly consists of child protection work … working with school aged children/young people and their parents who are experiencing health or social problems and managing the day-to-day running of the team. Staff nurses mainly provide health care plans for conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, allergies etc … reviewing of child health records moving in and out of the area and providing advice and support to parents on issues such as bed wetting and behavioural problems. The School Health Assistants, who are nursery nurse trained, provide a screening service of vision, hearing and height to 5 year olds in school. The Staff Nurse and assistant work independently but and under the guidance of the School Health Advisor."
Mrs. Atterwell gave further details of the child protection role of school health advisers. She went into detail about what was required when there were case conferences from the health service, what was required in reports and in working with child health records. I think it significant that she added:
"The child protection role of the School Health Advisor has increased dramatically over the last 2–3 years … I have no reservations whatsoever in saying that child protection has to be of the utmost priority … However I would also say that I did not enter the school nursing profession to deal almost exclusively with child protection and at times I almost feel like a glorified social worker. The public health role of the school nursing service has almost disappeared. This role includes a lot of preventative and supportive work with children and young people, e.g. health promotion and drop-in services in high schools. I feel strongly that if there is a lack of preventative work by a number of agencies, then we will see, and I believe already are seeing, a significant rise in children and families experiencing increasing difficulties with health and social problems."
She concluded with concerns about what she described as the need to address the current serious under resourcing of school nursing services in central Norfolk. I shall raise with the Minister later the implications of that last remark. What is clear from Mrs. Atterwell's letter is that we cannot do without the essential role played by the school health advisory service, not only in child protection work but in preventive public health work with children, young people and their parents and other agencies. There will be increased demands on the service as a result of the Green Paper on children, and no doubt the forthcoming public health White Paper, which I believe will be published this summer.
The demands on a service that I already perceived as being overstretched were clarified further in two excellent meetings that I had recently with the school health advisory teams in the Southern Norfolk and West Norfolk primary care trusts. Both meetings revealed teams of enthusiastic and committed professionals. They were brimming with ideas about what their service should do, how it could be improved, how it might be expanded and so on. At present, the Southern Norfolk team is in the throes of reorganisation and there are problems about access to files and other information, but it has not diminished the team's appetite for the job and it is time-limited—the reorganisation will one day be completed.
Both teams defined their areas of responsibility in a similar way and had similar views on the way in which the skills of differently qualified members of the teams should be used. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view of the career path in the school health advisory service, what kind of qualifications people
262WH
should have at different stages in their career and how easy it is to progress from one set of qualifications, and therefore the duties and responsibilities, to another.
In the two teams, the lead school health adviser takes responsibility for organising the service, for service development and for professional development. The lead adviser also has an important child protection role to ensure that there is an extremely prompt response to child protection cases, for which everything must be dropped, and to other crises.
Newly qualified school health advisers are the major case load holders, setting up and running clinics and drop-in centres, care planning for children's complex health needs in schools—the cases are increasing all the time—dealing with child protection involving health assessments, conference attendance and working with a core group of the other professional agencies in health, education, social services and so on. They also undertake health education, facilitating the training of school staff, curriculum development and responsibility for looked-after children. Team members at staff-nurse grade share that work and review the movement of health records in and out. The importance of that responsibility cannot be over-emphasised, given the mobility of the population and the fact that so many child abuse cases eventually reveal a defective sharing of information.
School nursing support workers, who perhaps have an NNEB qualification, organise and run screening for five-year-olds. They refer children as appropriate to GPs, audiology, ophthalmic services and so on.
The Minister will be familiar with the main message from my meetings with the teams: overstretch. In the West Norfolk PCT team, in order for staff numbers and grades to come into line with the national case load size, as outlined by Dobell and Jackson, there needs to be an additional 157 hours a week, or to put it another way, the team is running with 42 per cent. of its appropriate staff quota. The staff nurse role has 38 per cent. of its required capacity, and the nursery nurse role only 22 per cent. On the other hand, a specialist school adviser, who works in the two special education schools in the area, provides 115 per cent. of the required capacity. That is an organisational difficulty, but it does not help much in the other areas of the work.
The Southern Norfolk PCT team describes itself as "seriously depleted", adding that its
"lack of numbers is not reflected in our enthusiasm, dedication to our client group, and our professional standards which remain high."
However, all team members
"agree that the level of activity in some areas of practice has increased significantly leading to a reduction in overall service, increased invisibility of the service to schools and raised levels of stress amongst team members that borders on being unhealthy. The School Nursing Team agree that this situation cannot continue."
The Minister should be concerned about that evidence. It is not that the Government have not put more resources into the NHS, but the members of the teams, and my perception, point to a lack of policy priority for this area of work relative to other parts of the health service. That was probably always so. There are more glamorous and high-profile areas, and areas to do with the Government meeting targets, reducing deaths from

263WH
cancer and heart disease. All of us understand that, but the requirements of the Children Bill and the public health White Paper can only put more emphasis on the role of school health advisers.
Now is not too soon for the Minister to be clear about her strategy for the future of school health advisers. She is bound to say that a review is going on under the chief nursing officer, but I am sure that she has her own views about what that review should say. I cannot believe that, if she has had any exposure to these professionals in the health service, she will not agree that those groups of people could do much by way of early intervention to prevent escalations of health problems and behavioural difficulties in children as they become young people.
From my experience in public service over a long period, I know that the school nursing service plays an invaluable part in helping and supporting young carers, for example. That is particularly apposite, because it is national carers week. It provides a discrete, confidential service for young people with health or emotional difficulties in school. In our county, it backs work in schools through projects such as the healthy Norfolk schools initiative and it provides the necessary professional expertise in child protection. It would like to be able to provide a full screening service for all five year-olds. Not so long ago, it was possible for it to do that in our area, but now it does not have the resources.
The Minister might like to give us her views on how valuable she thinks such a screening service would be. There may be professional differences of opinion. Some may say, "What's the good? It is a snapshot. Once you have done it, all kinds of other things can emerge, and you are not going to go back and revisit it." I understand that, but I am breaking my promise to the Minister somewhat in saying that, in the case of Lauren Wright, such a screening might have been enough to avoid her death. We cannot say whether there were many other factors. There is no doubt that, had there been a routine screening of five-year-olds in that school, the bruising that that child was suffering over 18 months—she died when she was six—would have had to be discovered by a professional view.
If school health advisers had the resources, they could give early help and advice to the parents of children with disabilities. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. I would be glad if she did. Only last week, I visited a marvellous special school, the Chapel Road school in Attleborough, Norfolk, where parents were saying that it provided an immense amount of support, once the children were at school, on how to cope with one member of the family who happens to have disabilities. However, if professional health advisers were involved as well, that would be an extremely useful step. There could be so much more support for those parents.
In "Every Child Matters: The Next Steps", published earlier this year by the Minister for Children, much was made of the need for early intervention, or, to put it another way, for preventive work on the part of all
264WH
relevant agencies. That document states on page 7 that consultation established that there was a need
"to intervene earlier through better information sharing, a common assessment framework, lead professionals, multidisciplinary teams, and the co-location of services through extended schools, Sure Start Children's Centres and other community sites."
The Minister will feel that that could be a text for the work of the school health advisory service but, obviously, it needs to be equipped for the job. In a letter that it prepared for my meeting with them, the Southern Norfolk primary care team spoke about the public health role:
"The School Nursing Team agreed that this was an area of practice that had become sadly neglected. We agreed that many of our current areas of practice had a public health link. Many issues regarding Child Protection are related to public health e.g. poor housing and poverty leading to poor health. However all we, as a primary care group, are doing is crisis managing such public health issues and not providing any early intervention or preventive input."
It put forward, as a team of professionals, proposals to improve that situation: helping curriculum development in schools, health focus days, improving access to the school nursing service, up-to-date materials, knowledge, classroom support and so on. The Minister will undoubtedly be familiar with all those things. She is bound to be an enthusiast for this area of her responsibility—she could not have had contact with the service without being an enthusiast for what it does, which is very infectious and very impressive. She is bound to see the curious discrepancy between the aspirations of "Every Child Matters" and what is happening on the ground.
The school health advisory service could do so much to fulfil the promise of intervening earlier through better information sharing and so on, as outlined in "Every Child Matters". It now needs a clear Government strategy for its work. Those in the service need to know more about ministerial thinking on the qualifications framework and on the career paths of those who work in it. I hope that Ministers understand that they have, in that part of their service, a group of dedicated, enthusiastic and committed professionals, whose provision and expertise are entirely in line with the demands of today's children and parents. I know that I shall not be disappointed by what the Minister is going to say.
The resources arc in the health service. It is a question of making this part of the service as much of a priority as possible. The school health advisory service needs the resources and that policy priority. I hope that we will hear from the Minister today that she intends to equip it to fulfil its role to the utmost.
3.49 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing this important debate. I assure her at the outset that the Government recognise and agree with her about the important contribution that school nurses can make to health priorities such as obesity, sexual health, teenage pregnancy, health inequalities and child protection, and in giving support to carers.
The other day, I was talking to my father, who happens now to live in Norfolk, but who used to be a head teacher in Doncaster, in an ex-mining area. He

265WH
talked to me about the important role that his school nurse played at that time in tackling some of these issues. That conversation and meetings that I have held with school nurses have given me an understanding of the points that the right hon. Lady makes.
The contribution of school nurses was also highlighted in "Making a Difference", our strategy for nursing, which was published in 1999. Following that, the Government funded a three-year national development programme for school nurses, including the publication of a school nurse practice development resource pack, the establishment of leadership posts and the consideration of funding for specific projects that would support school nurses.
Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether the Minister understands that although specific projects can be useful in addressing a particular need, they can also be a plague for professionals—whatever profession they are in— because they can distort their local priorities. Such professionals may also sometimes feel threatened by specific initiatives. I am sure that she knows what I mean—I am not sure how much such initiatives help.
Ms Winterton: Particular projects can be of great assistance in, for example, spreading best practice and re-emphasising the particular contribution that can be made. It may sometimes be difficult, but it is right that we should devolve power. Shifting the balance of power is about allowing local primary care trusts to make decisions that suit their local priorities. However, it is often helpful to show how specific projects can contribute towards making a difference in some of the areas that I have outlined.
Mrs. Shephard: May I give the Minister an example?
Ms Winterton: Of course.
Mrs. Shephard: In the West Norfolk primary care team, the school health advisory service has been asked to provide a particular service for the "healthy Norfolk schools" initiative, which has its roots in a national initiative. The criteria that must be applied in identifying the schools to take part in that initiative are based on the numbers of free school meals taken by the pupils. However, the measures of deprivation applied by the team are slightly different, and do not necessarily coincide. I am sure that the Minister can see that although there is much value in such initiatives, they may, on occasion, cut across local judgments.
Ms Winterton: I would be interested to know whether there are particular difficulties in the project that the right hon. Lady mentions. However, I believe it to be important that we use local projects and local initiatives—particularly in the school nursing service—to show some of the benefits that can be brought.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the 2003 Green Paper "Every Child Matters", which highlighted the importance of preventive services for the school-age population, and the need for integrated children's services, including school nurses and health visitors. She drew particular attention to the case, in her own constituency, of Lauren Wright, in which that lack of integration led to tragic results.
266WH
The right hon. Lady also said that we were undertaking a review through the chief nursing officer. The review is examining the contribution of all nurses, midwives and health visitors to children's services. However, it has specifically considered how school nurses can be supported in promoting and protecting the health and well-being of vulnerable children as part of their child-focused public health role. The recommendations of that review will be published shortly, but all those different strands point to the need to build the school nursing work force. I also acknowledge that the work force's present small number in relation to the range of important health issues that they have to tackle means that we must take steps to ensure that it is possible to enlarge it. We have undertaken a range of initiatives to support local organisations in the recruitment, retention and return to practice of school nurses and others in nursing disciplines. Most importantly, we have increased the number of nurses by about 67,000. Therefore, there is a larger pool to draw on. In the right hon. Lady's strategic health authority, about 3,000 more nurses and midwives are working in the national health service than there were in 1997.
As we have said, it is up to primary care trusts, which are the cornerstone of the NHS and are best placed to ensure that the local health service reflects the needs of the local community, to examine the changes that need to be undertaken. Between them, the Southern Norfolk and West Norfolk PCTs have been examining how to spend some of the increase of £27 million that they have received this year on improving school health services. A number of actions have been taken and I am sure that the right hon. Lady is well aware of those. I do not have time to address them in enormous detail just now, but I am sure that she will know that only last Friday, a conference was held in Norwich. It examined the services that are currently available, the skill mix in the nursing teams, and future requirements. That means that Norfolk county council and the PCTs are working closely together to ensure that they have a properly integrated service. At a local level, the message is getting through that the issue that we are discussing can play an important part in public health matters.
The right hon. Lady referred to "Choosing Health?", which will be published later this year. I have every expectation that it will receive many responses about school nurses and about what can be done with the school age population, particularly on preventive health, but also on some of the screening to which she referred.
In the time that is left to me, I want to address some of the particular points that were raised, for example, on career paths and training. We are examining the development of core competencies for those working with children, as was set out in the Green Paper, to see how their career development can be improved. As I said, the chief nursing officer review has also considered the training needs of nurses who are working with children—particularly those who are vulnerable.
On examining child protection issues, we are encouraging more proactive work with children who are most vulnerable and examining promoting early intervention, in the way that the right hon. Lady outlined, and offering support to families. Again, that is in keeping with the Green Paper's recommendations.

267WH
She referred to screening—routine weight measurements on school entry. Evidence from several reports is being considered that such screening can lead to improved protection. That consideration is taking place within the overall national framework for children; again, publication will be later this year. There is a range of ways to do things at national and at local level.
We are examining the important points that the right hon. Lady made about the role of schools nurses. I endorse that completely and the Government have been committed over a number of years to examining the role of such nurses and to how we can develop it further. The whole agenda, involving the public health consultation and the examination of the role of nurses and carers and the support that they can be given, means that the role of school nurses will be increased as she has suggested.

Pilots' Flying Times
4 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am very grateful to have secured this debate on the important and topical subject of limits on flying hours for airline pilots. I applied for the debate because I was approached by a number of my constituents who are airline pilots and who were concerned about the proposals under discussion at European level. I have considered the points that they raised and they are very important. They certainly deserve highlighting further in Parliament, so I am glad to be able to do that and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
The issue is topical because, as the Minister knows, Europe has for some time been considering plans to harmonise flight time limitations across the European Union. Only last week, Ministers discussed the proposals at the European Union's Transport Council. Owing to the fact that five countries opposed the proposals, they will be discussed further and I am glad to raise the issue today. I hope that because the Minister will have more chance to pursue the matter through the Council, he will be able to take account of the points made in the debate and the concerns outside the House.
Until now, it has been up to each country to set its limits on flying times. I am not opposed to a framework for the regulation of flying hours across the European Union; indeed I strongly welcome it. There should be Europe-wide regulations and standards to maintain high levels of safely and to ensure fair competition. However, the issue is about the level at which that regulation should be set. The UK currently has the best and strictest system of flight time limitations in Europe. No doubt partly as a result of that, our aviation safety record is the best in Europe, and we must not see a lessening of that. There must be a levelling up of European standard to match the high levels of safety provided for UK passengers and aircrews. If the proposals go forward as they stand, the fear is that the UK's high safety standards will be compromised.
The detailed proposals drafted after amendment are not yet widely available. Having tried to understand some of their complexities, I know that it is difficult to make like-for-like comparisons between current UK and proposed European standards. The bottom line is that the proposals under discussion in Europe would lead to pilots in the UK working longer hours, which concerns my constituents and me.
The bystander may ask, "What's the problem with airline pilots working an extra hour or two? How can that make such an important difference to airline safety?" When it comes to aviation safety, it can make quite a lot of difference. In an extreme case, it can make the difference between safety and a plane crash—between a safe journey and a tragic accident that could, at worst, cost hundreds of lives.
The European Cockpit Association has quoted research carried out in the United States by the Federal Aviation Authority which points to a greatly increased probability of accidents with an increase in duty time and, in particular, cumulative duty time. The research suggested that the probability of an accident increases

269WH
sixfold if the length of a pilot's duty in the air increases to 13 hours from 9 hours. As the European Transport Safety Council pointed out in a recent report:
"The operational demands of the aviation industry"
inevitably entail
"shift work, night work, irregular work schedules, unpredictable work schedules, and time zone changes".
All those factors pose challenges to human physiology. Since they relate to fatigue and performance impairment, they pose a risk to safety.
There has been a considerable degree of data collected over the past two decades on transport accidents and fatigue. In the case of commercial aviation operations, it is suggested that about 70 per cent of fatal accidents are related to human error. Not all of those will be caused by fatigue, but one reasonable estimate suggests that the risk of fatigue of the operating crew contributed about 15 to 20 per cent. to the overall accident rate in commercial aviation. It is therefore essential that we do not add to that risk through the changes that could come about from harmonisation of rules in Europe.
It is particularly important that flight duty periods are limited in line with scientific research in the area, which has been carried out in this country and elsewhere. It is essential that sufficient minimum rest periods ensuring quality sleep are guaranteed, and that provision is made for time zone transitions so that the effects of jet lag are dealt with.
Unfortunately, according to the advice that I have been given, many expert bodies believe that the current European proposals still do not make a sufficient commitment to limiting flight duty periods or guaranteeing minimum rest periods. Indeed, the case for the regulation of time zone transitions was not even included in the draft regulation of the original proposals. I am told that that is the view of the European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be aware of its report some months ago. It concluded:
"Based on our current understanding of physiological and psychological factors contributing to fatigue in aviation operations, it is our view that there would be a significant increase in the risk of fatigue-related incidents and accidents if operators were permitted to operate to the limits specified in the EP-proposal."
The committee has not had an opportunity to comment on the most recent amended proposals, but there is still concern that they could have the same results that are highlighted in the above quotation.
I am aware that new regulations would not compel UK airlines to increase the hours operated by their pilots, and I know that several UK airlines have said that the changes will be unlikely to affect them. However, it is naive to assume that commercial pressures will not influence the situation in the UK. As a result, UK pilots could end up flying more hours, even if that is not the intention at this stage. Even if they do not, it is anomalous for other European pilots to continue to fly for longer hours. It would be more reassuring to know that when a plane flies over my
270WH
constituency, or your constituency in Newcastle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all pilots are getting appropriate rest rather than just those working for UK airlines.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My constituency is not in Newcastle; it is in Gateshead and is called Blaydon.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have known that, and I hope that I have not caused offence to you or your constituents.
In the answer to my parliamentary question given earlier this week, the Minister told me that the Civil Aviation Authority believes that the current proposal, since it has been amended, is acceptable. I respect the expertise of the CAA, but the Minister will be aware that many are still concerned about the proposals—in particular, but not only, the pilots who fly the planes in which millions travel across the UK skies every day.
Will the Minister investigate why the CAA did not consult its own expert body, which is concerned about these issues? I am told that the flight time limitation group, a sub-group of the fixed wing advisory group, set up after the Bader report of 1972, was not consulted when the CAA gave its views on the proposal. I hope that, if nothing else, the Minister tells me why that did not happen, and ensures that the appropriate expert group, which involves pilots' organisations, will be consulted on the details of the revised proposals going through the European institutions.
Given that the consequences of an air crash can be so serious, we cannot afford to have anything less than the highest possible standards of air safety in the UK skies. I know that the Government are committed to aviation safety and concerned about the link between fatigue and transport accidents. Indeed, the Government have an excellent record on introducing measures designed to improve safety, not just in the air but for road, rail and shipping. Last year, I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee that dealt with one of those measures. As we have such a good record on high safety standards, it is even more important that we maintain them.
Now that the proposal for European regulation has been sent back for more discussion, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that it gives him to consider the points that I have made today, listen to the points raised by the pilots' organisations and the many safety experts, and see whether we can make an improved proposal over the next few months. I know that he has been in constructive dialogue with pilots' organisations and other bodies, but I hope that he takes on board my concerns about the need to consult, in particular, the expert group of the CAA.
At a time of considerable competitive pressure on airlines for lower and lower fares, we must never forget that our top priority in air travel must be safety. Longer hours for pilots might well cut airline costs, but that must not be at the expense of the safety of airline passengers and crews.
4.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I know that Blaydon is not in Newcastle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is by the

271WH
bye. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this timely debate. As he pointed out, flight and duty time limitations—FTL, as they are known—are a very important safety requirement. I am grateful to him for his comments on the safety record not just of this Government but of successive British Governments. Safety is paramount throughout the transport world, not least in aviation. As he suggests, it has long been recognised that fatigue could be a contributory factor in aircraft accidents. The Civil Aviation Authority's current requirements have their origins in a 1973 review of the subject, chaired by Douglas Bader. Since then, they have been subject to continuous development in light of scientific evidence and operational experience.
The current UK legal requirements on flight time limits are contained in the air navigation order. That requires operators to establish an FTL scheme to ensure that no member of the crew of an aircraft will suffer from fatigue while he is flying to the extent that it endangers the safety of the aircraft. Such schemes must be approved by the CAA. In addition, the order sets absolute limits of 100 hours of flight duty in any 28 days, and 900 hours of flight duty in any 12 months.
The preparation and presentation by an operator of any FTL scheme is complex and time consuming. A scheme needs to strike a balance between the needs of the many members of the crew and the operational requirements of providing services to various parts of the world at various times of day. Schemes also need to cover a wide range of issues and eventualities to achieve the goal of maintaining an appropriate level of safety on all flights, as my hon. Friend suggested.
The CAA therefore gives guidelines on how to establish an FTL scheme in its publication "CAP 371: the Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews—Guide to Requirements". The limits quoted in CAP 371 are for guidance only, and the CAA can agree variations to the limits if an operator can show that an equivalent level of protection against fatigue can be achieved in another way.
Of course, as my hon. Friend intimated, the air navigation order and the CAA guidance apply to UK airlines only. Foreign airlines operating in the UK have to comply with any FTL requirements established by their national aviation authority. Such FTL requirements need only follow the provisions of annexe 6 to the Chicago convention, which does not set specific limits.
Within Europe, the need for harmonised operational requirements providing a high level of safety has long been recognised, and was highlighted by the creation of the single market in air services in 1991. There have since been a number of attempts to produced harmonised flight and duty time requirements, which we fully supported. However, in view of the different FTL requirements, operational patterns and workplace agreements across Europe, this has been a fraught process. It may be useful to outline efforts made to agree harmonised FTL requirements since 1991.
The European Joint Aviation Authorities, with considerable input from our own CAA, developed standards for the certification of airlines in its "Joint
272WH
Aviation Requirement on Commercial Air Transportation (Aeroplanes)", known as JAR-OPS 1. A section of that document, known as sub-part Q, dealt with FTL and was not too dissimilar from current UK requirements. The CAA was satisfied that it achieved an acceptable level of safety. However, sub-part Q was not adopted by the JAA with the rest of JAR-OPS 1, as some JAA member states had differing concerns about various aspects of the requirement and its effect on their aviation industries.
After the failure of the JAA to agree on FTL, the European Commission had a go. It held a series of meetings with stakeholders and regulatory authorities, but was unfortunately unable to reach a consensus on a set of requirements with the interested parties. Consequently, when the Commission issued a proposal for the incorporation of the requirements of JAR-OPS 1 into EC law, it did not contain any detailed FTL requirements. When the European Parliament reviewed the proposed regulation adopting JAR-OPS 1, it decided that it was incomplete without any FTL—an understandable viewpoint.
The Parliament's rapporteur on the proposal, Brian Simpson, a UK MEP, put considerable effort into producing, in consultation with the airline and crew representatives, baseline flight time limitation requirement. It was subsequently adopted by the Parliament in September 2002 as an amendment to the proposed regulation. That formed the basis of the Commission's proposal for flight and duty time requirements.
The CAA reviewed the Commission's proposal on our behalf. Its FTL experts advised that, with a small number of amendments, the proposal could form an acceptable baseline requirement, supported by the additional requirements of individual member states. However, given w lat my hon. Friend has said, I will check that point and make sure that the FTL group of the CAA was indeed so advised.
During the consideration of the proposal by the Transport Councils aviation working group, we sought to have the proposal amended in line with the advice we had received from the CAA. During those negotiations, held just last week, as my hon. Friend said, we succeeded in having almost all the amendments we proposed incorporated in the text, which was considered by the Council last Friday.
At the Transport Council, it was agreed to defer a decision on the proposal, as some member states still had some outstanding areas of concern. Those related mainly to the differences between the proposal and their current requirements, invariably less than those of the UK, and the effect that they might have on their industry. There was no suggestion by any member state that the proposal was in any way unsafe. Indeed, during negotiations on the proposal, most member states said they believe that operational experience shows their existing FTL requirements are safe. That is the situation today. We await future developments with interest.
As my hon. Friend suggested, I have a good working relationship with British Airline Pilots Association, among others, and intend to speak to it in the time between last week's failure and any subsequent replay of the FTL directive at subsequent Councils. Thanks to the assurance of the CAA about safety considerations and

273WH
the acceptance of most of the amendments that the CAA and ourselves put forward in the Council, we were satisfied with, and were one of the countries that supported the passing of, the directive last week.
With any flight limitation scheme, one has to consider the effect of the scheme as a whole and its ability to protect against unsafe levels of fatigue. I do not demur from anything that my hon. Friend suggested in that regard. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessarily useful to compare individual limits for the EC proposals with the equivalents from CAP 371.
However, it is worth noting that the limits set by the proposal would have been legally binding, rather than just guidance—as CAP 371 is—and could be varied only through a defined process. Furthermore, a key provision of the requirement placed an absolute obligation on operators to ensure that crew have sufficient rest time and that duties are planned to ensure that crew members remain sufficiently free from fatigue to operate to a satisfactory level of efficiency and safety under all circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that the CAA was confident that the final proposal taken as a whole would have allowed it to ensure an adequate level of safety for UK airlines, but as I said, I am more than happy to meet BALPA, and other interested parties, to allay any concerns.
274WH
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate in such a timely fashion. If all hon. Members managed to secure debates on issues two or three days after those issues had been dealt with in European Councils, we might have a higher degree of topicality in Westminster Hall and parliamentary debates. My hon. Friend will have more to say on the matter, given the time that we have before it comes before the Council again. I am sure that I will spend as much time on the matter between now and when it next comes up in Council.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the CAA has an excellent—I think exemplary and unparalleled—record on safety in civil aviation. It is entirely right and proper that we turn to the CAA for guidance on issues as important as safety. It says that what was on the table last Thursday and Friday was appropriate, as amended. I would need a lot of persuading that someone knew better than the CAA what should prevail. In the gap before the next time that what is on the table is presented to Council, I am more than happy to be engaged with and persuaded that we need to do more and go further in terms of the FTL. I again commend my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter in such a timely fashion.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Four o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what resources will be available to National Air Traffic Services to ensure that it is able to carry out the airspace work in time to meet the Aviation White Paper's timetable for new runways at(a) Stansted, (b) Heathrow and (c) Birmingham; and what reports he has received of difficulties with National Air Traffic Services which might hinder this work; [178481]

  (2) what further steps he will take to ensure the robustness of the air traffic control system in the light of the construction of the new runways envisaged by the Aviation White Paper. [178482]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are satisfied—and the National Audit Office has confirmed—that last year's re-financing of NATS has put the company on a robust financial footing and that it is able to make further vital investment to expand capacity to meet future growth. Work on the investment programme has re-started and NATS will invest some £1 billion in the national air traffic control system over the next 10 years.

  I have received no reports of difficulties within the company that might hinder NATS in carrying out the airspace work envisaged for it in the Aviation White Paper. The skills and experience necessary to carry forward airspace and procedure design work in support of such initiatives are, however, highly specialised, and NATS and the BAA are currently scoping the extent of the additional work required. This will identify the specific expertise and resources required, and whether NATS will need to seek additional skills as a result of this work.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment has been made of potential change in the number of road traffic accidents as a result of moving to Central European Time. [178864]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent is a Government commissioned report, by the Transport Research Laboratory, published in October 1988, which concluded that if the UK adopted Central European Time (CET) i.e. GMT + one hour in the winter from October to March and GMT + two hours in the summer from March to October, thereby making the evenings lighter, there could be a saving of over 100 deaths per year, and taken together with serious injuries, save well over 400 such casualties.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Minister for Roads will reply to the letter from Mrs. Mich Bingham of Cumberwell Drive. [179048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been several letters from Mrs. Bingham, each of which were addressed to officials of the Highways Agency. All those received up to 8 June and requiring a response have been replied to.

  Crime (Public Transport)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many thefts were committed on(a) the railways and (b) buses in each year since 1997. [175453]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on the number of recorded thefts on the railways within Great Britain since 1998; information is not readily available for earlier than 1998.

  The offence of theft on the railway includes theft from the person, theft of personal property and theft of luggage. In April 2002 BTP adopted the National Crime Recording standard, which makes the reporting of crime more victim focused, and crime is assessed on the probability of such offences having taken place. A crime will be recorded if on the balance of probability: (a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law and (b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary. The introduction of this standard accounts for a proportion of the rise between 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Total number of thefts

  1998–99

  19,018

  1999–2000

  26,075

  2000–01

  23,670

  2001–02

  24,632

  2002–03

  32,035

  2003–04

  31,149

  No data is held centrally regarding the number of thefts committed on buses. However, it is known that there were 254 robberies from bus crews in 2001 and 294 in 2002. The Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP) has been established to look at ways to combat assaults, anti-social behaviour and vandalism at stops and stations and on vehicles and property. The Panel brings together those involved in dealing with the issue of safety and security, and includes operators, local authorities, police and unions. It is charged with the important task of facilitating the exchange of ideas and spreading best practice and is considering how the collection of accurate bus and coach crime data can be improved.

  Cycling (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Rochdale since 1997.[178559]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 10 miles of new cycle lanes in Rochdale have been provided using public funds since 1997.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were informed by the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency that they are required to resit their driving test because they failed to apply for a full licence within two years of passing their original test in each year since 1997. [177491]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not collected showing the number of drivers who have failed to claim their full entitlement within two years and have needed to retake their driving test. The Agency has tackled this in varying ways, including the issuing of reminders to drivers with unclaimed entitlement and more recently by adjusting the fee structure to allow updated licences to be issued free of charge.

  DVLA and DSA will introduce a scheme later this year to streamline the process and remove the problem of unclaimed test passes. In most cases, the system will allow the updated licence to be issued automatically following a successful test, without the need for a separate application.

  Flight Time Limitations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his letter reference MC/015200/03 of 25 September 2003, what his latest assessment is of the value of the Flight Time Limitations Requirements; and if he will make a statement. [177822]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on 14 June 2004,Official Report, columns 696–97W.

  Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants the Department has given to the research and development of Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems; and if he will make a statement. [177992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport has not given any grants for the research and development of Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems.

  Research into ISA is being carried out as part of the Department's managed vehicle safety research programme. The project began in 2001 and is expected to conclude in the autumn of 2006 at a cost of £1,951,525. An advanced digital map supporting the on-road ISA trials is funded by a separate contract at a cost of £158,383.

  The main aim of the current project is to study drivers' behavioural adaptation over time. A trial of 20 ISA equipped cars is currently under way in Leeds.

  A further project supports the main research and the general development of ISA nationally and internationally by providing expert advice on an ad hoc basis.

  The Government currently has no plans to make the use of intelligent speed limiters compulsory. We hope that industry will take up the technology in response to public demand.

  Parking
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much income has been derived by local authorities from parking(a) charges and (b) penalties in each financial year since 1997–98 (i) in total and (ii) broken down by local authority; and what proportion was collected through penalty charge notices in each of these years. [177661]

  Mr. McNulty
  Separate statistics on income derived by local authorities from parking charges and penalties are not collected centrally. Total income and expenditure on parking by local authorities in England since 1997–98 is shown in the following table. I have arranged for tables giving a break down by authorities for each year to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  £000

  Total income

  Total expenditure net

  Current expenditure

  1997–98

  638,483

  415,659

  -222,824

  1998–99

  654,685

  407,503

  -247,183

  1999–2000

  725,184

  438,277

  -286,907

  2000–01

  782,210

  465,921

  -316,287

  2001–02

  861,152

  518,453

  -342,699

  2002–03

  966,350

  586,101

  -380,249

  Pedestrian/Cyclist Accidents
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many pedestrians were injured as a result of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists on footpaths and pavements in each of the past three years; [178773]

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken into problems caused by cyclists using footpaths and pavements; [178774]

  (3) what research his Department has undertaken into the concerns of older people about cyclists using footpaths and pavements; [178775]

  (4) what guidance he has offered to police forces about (a) prevention of cyclists using footpaths and pavements and (b) steps to be taken against those cyclists who do use footpaths and pavements. [178777]

  Mr. McNulty
  The statistics on casualties in accidents between cyclist and pedestrian on a footway between 1999 and 2002 (the latest figures) are set out in the following table:

  Casualties

  Severity

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Killed

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  25

  17

  16

  14

  Slight

  61

  48

  38

  37

  All

  87

  65

  54

  51

  Cycling on the pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. Enforcement is a matter for the police. Guidance on matters relating to police enforcement is a matter for the Home Secretary and for individual Chief Constables to issue.
  935W
  The police have powers to prosecute cyclists who cycle illegally on footpaths and footways. Cycling on the pavement can also be dealt with by Fixed Penalty Notice system (£30 fine). The police also have powers to prosecute cyclists riding carelessly or dangerously.

  We have not undertaken specific research on the problems caused by cyclists using footpaths and pavements, or the related concerns of older people. The existence of such activity demonstrates a need to accommodate cyclists wishing to gain access to destinations currently served by pedestrian-only routes and we advise local authorities that they should first attempt to satisfy this demand by improving conditions for cyclists on the road network. Where this is impracticable, the solution is to formally change the status of footpaths or footways so that cyclists can legally use them. This decision is not taken lightly and such conversions often require physical changes to ensure the routes can operate safely. To this end, we have commissioned research which investigated the operation of routes formally intended for use by both cyclists and pedestrians. The purpose of this was to inform the preparation of updated advice to local authorities on this issue in the form of a revised Local Transport Note (LTN). We have also contributed to research conducted on behalf of the Countryside Agency which examined the level of interaction between these user groups on off-road routes. The latter showed that while the perception of conflict on these routes was significant, actual conflict was not. In producing the revised LTN, we are aiming to improve physical conditions on these routes and hence reduce the perceived level of conflict.

  Ports (Security)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether foreign vessels that have not complied with the International Ship and Port Facility Security code will be denied entry to British ports after the internationally agreed implementation date of 1 July; and if he will make a statement. [178731]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 782W, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

  Potters Bar Train Accident
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into the Potters Bar train accident; and if he will make a statement on progress to date of the investigation. [177812]

  Mr. McNulty
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's investigation team is expected to report to the Investigation Board in September or October 2004. The relevant prosecuting authorities will then review all the evidence to determine whether criminal prosecutions should be commenced. When that has happened, the Secretary of State expects to be in a position to take the decision on whether or not to hold a public inquiry.

  Railways (Crime)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answers of 12 May 2004,Official Report, columns 399W and 408W, on crime prevention and railway crimes, what method he used to calculate a fall of 32 per cent. in vandalism on the railways in 2002–03. [178072]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 32 per cent. reduction in vandalism on the railways in 2002–03 was calculated by the Rail Safety and Standards Board. This was based on the number of malicious acts on the Network Rail controlled infrastructure recorded by Railway Group members using the Safety Management Information System (SMIS). The percentage reduction was calculated by comparing the previous year's total for the number of malicious acts against the total for 2002–03.

  Road Safety (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on roads in Rochdale has been since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each case regarding people of Asian origin. [178558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. In the Rochdale local authority area there were 16 deaths in road accidents in 1997 and 11 deaths in 2002, the latest year for which information is available. The number of serious injuries rose by 1 per cent. from 83 in 1997 to 84 in 2002.

  Information on the ethnic origin of casualties in road accidents is not available.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road schemes(a) in the Targeted Programme of Improvements and (b) submitted for funding through the Local Transport Plan Process between 1999–2000 and 2002–03, giving for each (i) the cost of the scheme when it was first submitted for approval and (ii) the most recent estimate or final cost of the scheme. [176797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is listed in the tables which have been split by (1) Targeted Programme of Improvement schemes and (2) local transport major road schemes.

  Differences in scheme costs between first submission and most recent estimate can be due to differences in the basis on which costs have been calculated as well to underlying increases in-the cost estimate. As a result direct comparisons between these cost estimates may not be meaningful.

  Travel Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in tabular form the relative changes since 1974 in the cost of(a) motoring, (b) travelling by bus and (c) travelling by train, measured against changes in average disposable income. [178706]
  937W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows the changes in the cost of transport and household disposable income. Indices are shown in real terms and based to 1974 = 100.

  £

  All motoring1

  Rail

  Bus

  Household disposable income

  1974

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1975

  104.4

  109.2

  104.9

  101.2

  1976

  101.2

  124.3

  114.9

  100.6

  1977

  99.9

  125.0

  114.1

  98.6

  1978

  99.7

  132.0

  119.4

  105.8

  1979

  104.0

  128.8

  118.4

  112.0

  1980

  103.8

  135.6

  127.0

  114.0

  1981

  103.9

  138.6

  125.6

  113.4

  1982

  101.0

  146.5

  133.3

  113.0

  1983

  103.2

  148.5

  134.7

  115.4

  1984

  100.7

  142.0

  131.1

  119.6

  1985

  99.4

  142.4

  128.9

  123.8

  1986

  94.7

  147.0

  135.2

  128.9

  1987

  96.3

  148.4

  137.4

  133.5

  1988

  95.9

  151.3

  140.1

  140.9

  1989

  93.9

  153.2

  140.2

  147.5

  1990

  91.0

  152.2

  135.1

  152.7

  1991

  92.3

  158.8

  145.5

  155.7

  1992

  95.0

  164.2

  150.2

  160.1

  1993

  97.6

  173.0

  154.3

  164.5

  1994

  98.5

  176.3

  154.6

  166.9

  1995

  97.0

  178.1

  155.0

  170.7

  1996

  97.5

  180.3

  156.9

  174.9

  1997

  99.6

  178.9

  157.6

  182.2

  1998

  99.3

  180.1

  157.3

  182.8

  1999

  100.2

  183.8

  160.6

  188.6

  2000

  101.0

  181.6

  162.3

  200.4

  2001

  98.7

  185.3

  166.1

  209.6

  2002

  96.3

  186.5

  168.5

  213.2

  2003

  94.3

  184.3

  170.6

  218.2

  1 'All motoring' includes the cost of purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance.

  Source:

  Retail Price Index and National Accounts, Office for National Statistics.

DEFENCE

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) he and (b) the Permanent Secretary of his Department first became aware of allegations that a member of the Saudi armed forces project of the Ministry of Defence was provided with free holidays and gifts by BAE Systems between 2000 and 2002. [176053]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Permanent Secretary was made aware of the allegations on 5 April 2004 and the issue was brought to my attention later that month.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Permanent Secretary in his Department decided that no investigation was required after he received a letter from the then director of the Serious Fraud Office on 8 March 2001 regarding allegations of fraud involving BAE Systems; and if he will make a statement. [176068]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ingram) on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 429W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb).
  938W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) the Permanent Secretary in his Department held discussions with Sir Richard Evans, the chairman of BAE Systems, on the provision of free holidays and gifts by BAE Systems between 2000 and 2002 to a civil servant in the Saudi armed forces project of the Ministry of Defence; and if he will make a statement. [176072]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no discussions with Sir Richard Evans on the allegations of misconduct involving a former, but now retired member of the Saudi armed forces project. The allegations are properly under investigation by the Ministry of Defence Police, and the MOD and we will consider what further action is necessary if any once the results of this investigation are available.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05 [169002]

  Mr. Caplin
  Details of cash expenditure on entertainment by the Ministry of Defence in each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02 were provided in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 885W. Final outturn on a resource basis, which is not directly comparable with previous cash figures, for 2002–03 was £7.32 million. The provisional outturn for FY 2003–04 is £7.99 million. Expenditure on entertainment and hospitality will vary for a number of reasons, but has been rising in line with the Strategic Defence Review intention to increase engagement with other countries through defence diplomacy, aimed at preventing conflict and increasing international stability. Planned expenditure for this financial year, after allowing for the effect of inflation, is expected to be the same, or lower, than the outturn in FY 2003–04.

  Expenditure incurred on entertainment is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Faslane
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why secondary monitoring for all those leaving nuclear submarines is not mandatory at HM Naval Base Clyde Faslane. [178868]

  Mr. Ingram
  Comprehensive arrangements, which comply fully with legal requirements and have been approved by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, are in place to ensure the safety of all personnel working on nuclear submarines. Personnel exiting the reactor compartments must be monitored before they are permitted to leave the submarine (by suitably qualified and experienced workers) using hand-held instrumentation capable of detecting very low levels of radioactive contamination. This monitoring is precautionary as work procedures and protective clothing are designed to minimise the
  939W
  chance of becoming contaminated. Secondary monitoring (using a walk-through monitor), which takes place after the worker has completed primary monitoring and removed his protective clothing, is compulsory when contamination is suspected or found.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1211, if he will make a further statement to the House on the Special Investigation Branch inquiries into alleged abuse of Iraqi civilians. [177587]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I made on 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS.

  Since then it has been announced in another place that one case, involving four soldiers, will be brought to trial. A further case is now pending a decision on prosecution.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his statement of 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS, on Iraq, what the names are of the individuals whose deaths are among the cases where a decision whether to prosecute is pending. [179031]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: In my statement of 8 June 2004, Official Report, columns 4–5WS, I referred to seven cases pending a decision to prosecute on 4 May. Since then a further case has come under consideration as referred to by my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General in a statement in another place on 15 June. Of the eight cases now under consideration, five cases involve deaths. The names of the individuals are: Hassam Abbad Saied, Baha Musa, Zaher Sabti Zaher, Ali Salaam and Nadhem Abdullah.

  Trident Replacement
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what design studies have been commissioned to find a replacement for Trident nuclear submarines. [179006]

  Mr. Hoon
  As set out in paragraph 3.11 of the 2003 Defence White Paper (Cm 6041–1), decisions on whether to replace Trident are likely to be needed in the next Parliament. In the meantime, we will continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that the range of options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability is kept open until that decision point. This will include appropriate design studies.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178366]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Admissions/appeals
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if he will list, for each English local education authority, in each of the last five years, the costs of the administration of(a) primary and (b) secondary school (i) admissions and (ii) appeals. [177607]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect this information. The administration of school admissions and admission appeals is the responsibility of individual admission authorities. LEAs must delegate funding for the administration of admissions and admission appeals to governing bodies of schools that are admission authorities or carry out the administration on their behalf.

  Broadband
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the disadvantages to students whose schools do not have access to broadband services. [178928]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is well on the way to achieving the ambitious Government target of making broadband available to over 23,000 schools in England by 2006. This is a substantial and complex task.

  Excellent progress has been made during the last two and a half years. As at March 2004, 60 per cent. of schools (98 per cent. of secondary schools and 53 per cent. of primary schools) have access to broadband. We are on schedule to connect the remainder by 2006 as planned.

  In the meantime, those schools that don't yet have broadband have access to a narrower, but still significant, range of resources and collaborative opportunities through standard Internet connections. They also have access to off-line multimedia resources as can be found on Curriculum Online and funded using eLearning Credits. We are supporting teachers in the use of such resources through the National Strategies.

  We are encouraging schools not scheduled to be upgraded to broadband until towards the end of 2006, and which have expensive ISDN connections, to adopt more cost-effective, interim solutions.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanism his Department has put in place to monitor the roll-out of broadband to schools. [178929]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department works with the 10 Regional Broadband Consortia (RBCs) to procure and roll out broadband connections to schools. Becta (the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) collects LEA broadband connectivity statistics, supplied by the RBCs, which are compiled and released on a quarterly basis.

  As at March 2004, 60 per cent. of schools (98 per cent. of secondary schools and 53 per cent. of primary schools) have access to broadband. The Government's target is to connect all schools to broadband by 2006.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he proposes to take in response to the letter to him by Mr. John Wright, of the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice, of 6 February. [177437]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department wrote to Mr. Wight on 17 February confirming that the complaints against five local education authorities made in his letter would be taken up individually with each of the authorities concerned. The Department wrote to Mr. Wright again on 30 March, having concluded its investigations of East Sussex local education authority, to confirm that the complaint against the Authority had not been upheld. Further information is awaited from the remaining authorities to enable the Secretary of State to reach decisions on the outstanding cases. We expect to receive this shortly.

  Food Technology
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reform the food technology curriculum taught in schools; and if he will make a statement. [177646]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We are working with colleagues across Government to tackle key health issues, including bringing together all aspects of food education, such as nutrition, diet, cooking, food hygiene and safety for pupils of all ages. Food education is taught through science, food technology, and Personal, Social and Health Education and we will consider any curriculum implications in the light of our cross government work on this important area.

  Learning and Skills Council
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the Learning and Skills Council on the recently issued guidelines to limit college franchising arrangements with work-based learning providers; what steps he is taking to ensure that the provision of high quality training is safeguarded; and if he will take steps to ensure the early substitution of direct contracting between local learning and skills councils and the affected providers. [178232]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: My officials have not had detailed discussions with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) about the guidelines to local LSCs concerning the funding of franchised further education provision. The LSC is responsible for establishing and developing a robust and diverse network of providers to meet the needs of communities, learners and employers. My ministerial colleagues and I, with the support of officials, ensure the LSC carries out its responsibilities through regular meetings, reporting and review arrangements. As contracting decisions are the operational responsibility of the LSC, Mark Haysom, the LSC's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend detailing the arrangements adopted to ensure changes to franchised activity are handled smoothly.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations the Government have received from students in year 12 and their parents planning to take a gap year who will pay tuition fees if they secure deferred places at universities; and if he will make a statement. [178903]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from students, their parents and others about the tuition fee; to be paid by students who choose to defer their entry from 2005 to 2006.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Decisions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which planning decisions were overturned by his Department in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; and which of these concerned development on brownfield sites. [178532]

  Keith Hill
  The table details the number of recovered appeals allowed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessor department in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and the number of these which concerned development on brownfield sites.

  Type of development

  Number of recovered appeals allowed

  Number on brownfield sites

  Appeals allowed in 2001

  Retail

  5

  4

  Residential

  9

  7

  Vehicular Access

  1

  1

  Offices

  2

  0

  Minerals

  2

  0

  Footbridge

  1

  1

  Waste incinerator

  1

  1

  Gypsy/showmen site

  4

  1

  Listed Building

  6

  n/a

  Other

  1

  0

  Totals

  32

  15

  Appeals allowed in 2002

  Retail

  1

  1

  Residential

  7

  5

  Hospital

  1

  0

  Offices

  1

  0

  Wind turbine

  1

  1

  Rail freight terminal

  1

  1

  Waste disposal

  1

  1

  Gypsy/showmen site

  2

  0

  Water booster station

  1

  0

  Listed building

  4

  n/a

  Totals

  20

  9

  Appeals allowed in 2003

  Residential

  12

  4

  Offices

  1

  0

  Minerals

  1

  0

  Footbridge

  1

  1

  Gypsy/showmen site

  18

  0

  Warehousing

  1

  0

  Laboratory

  align="right"1

  1

  Menage

  2

  0

  Aircraft hanger

  1

  0

  Educational

  2

  0

  Subway

  1

  1

  Electricity substation

  1

  0

  Agricultural development

  1

  0

  Gas regulator

  1

  0

  Listed building

  14

  n/a

  943W

  Type of development

  Number of recovered appeals allowed

  Number on brownfield sites

  Other

  2

  2

  Totals

  60

  9

  Figures for 2001, 2002 and 2003 concerning transferred appeals allowed by Inspectors, on behalf of the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are tabled as follows. Information on which of these developments were on brownfield land is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of transferred appeals allowed

  As a percentage of total appeals

  2001

  4,535

  36

  2002

  5,115

  37

  2003

  6,015

  33.5

  Postal Voting
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the process is for reimbursing local authorities for the extra costs of conducting all-postal pilots in the June 2004 elections. [176249]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The process is set out in Schedule 3 of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (All Postal) Pilots Order. Regional and local returning officers will be able to claim reimbursement for services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, for or in connection with the European election by submitting an account to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister within six months of the el action. Insofar as the local elections in principal areas or parishes within the pilot regions are concerned, returning officers will be able to claim "local election pilot expenditure" from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. That will include any expenditure which is apportioned to the local election under section 15(4) of the 1985 Act, which exceeds the expenditure which he would have incurred if the electoral region within which the election (and any election the poll at which is combined with that election) is held had not been specified in section 1(3) of the 2004 Act i.e. had not been one of the pilot regions.

  Returning officers may claim advance payments prior to the election. In these cases, the balance is settled after the election when the final costs are submitted.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans for an interim permanent residence policy affecting the purchase of second homes. [178606]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the need for affordable homes for local residents in supporting balanced and sustainable communities. It is not part of our policy to address this need by removing the basic right of willing sellers and willing buyers to sell and buy property.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have left employment in his Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175672]

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

  No staff have left employment in the Office because of anxiety, stress, depression or other mental health reasons.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees in his Department took early retirement in the last financial year; and at what total cost. [171730]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office incurred no costs in relation to early retirements in 2003–04. All staff in the Office are on loan from other Government Departments or other bodies, who remain their employers.

  Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174824]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Two staff joined the Scotland Office on secondment from the private sector in 2002–03. No staff have been seconded from the academic sector.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions Merseyside local authorities have issued a fixed penalty notice for noise disturbance in each year since 1996. [178326]

  Alun Michael
  Merseyside local authorities have not issued any fixed penalty notices for noise disturbance since 1996.

  Animal Movements
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement about hauliers picking up animals in multi pick-up and drop-off sites; [178448]

  (2) how many multiple (a) pick-up and (b) drop-off licences have been issued in each of the last three years; what period they cover; how many have been renewed in each year; and if she will review the need to continue issuing these licences;. [178451]
  945W
  (3) if she will make a statement as to how hauliers can find out whether the farmers for whom they pick up and drop off animals hold the required licence; and what provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 apply in these circumstances. [178452]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answers 14 June 2004]: Any livestock vehicle taking livestock on to a farm and then off again as part of a multiple pick-up or drop-off movement risks spreading disease, either to the animals if disease is present on the farm, or to animals on the farm if disease is present in the animals on the vehicle.

  Each farm wishing to bring stock on as part of a multiple drop-off or to move stock off as part of a multiple pick-up is required to do so only from an approved point on the farm premises. The approved point has to meet standards designed to minimise the spread of disease.

  Approvals are not time limited; they remain in force until such time as the approved point ceases to meet the standards set. All approved points are approved both for multiple pick-ups and multiple drop-offs. As at 9 June 2004, there were 14,313 approved multiple pick-up and drop-off points in England and Wales.

  Given the need for continued biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of disease there are no proposals to amend the requirement that multiple pick-ups and drop-offs take place only from approved points.

  There are two approved methods for loading or unloading stock, one of which involves the use of trailers. These are set out in detail in each of the General Licences for the movement of livestock, and are available on the Department's website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/movements/sheep/sheepannexesa-c.pdf

  It is for each haulier to satisfy himself that the points to which livestock is being delivered in a multiple drop-off, or from which they are collected in a multiple pick-up, are approved for the purpose. This might be done by checking with the keeper of the livestock at the time of agreeing the haulage contract. For these reasons, there are no data protection issues for this Department. My officials would be pleased to consider with the haulage industry how this information might be made more widely available.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many hauliers have been prosecuted for picking up animals from farms in a multi pick-up vehicle without a licence approved by her Department; and if she will make a statement; [178449]

  (2) how many drivers employed by hauling companies have been prosecuted in each of the last three years for failing to adhere to the requirements relating to multiple pick-up licences. [178450]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answers 14 June 2004]: Vehicles do not require a licence from this Department before being used in multiple pick-ups of livestock. Any prosecution relating to failure to comply with the provisions relating to multiple pick-ups or drop-offs is a matter for the local authority.
  946W
  Information on the number of prosecutions of hauliers for failing to observe the livestock movement provisions relating to multiple pick-ups and multiple drop-offs has been field centrally only since February 2004, since when five prosecutions have been brought. However, this Department has been made aware of five prosecutions of hauliers for offences involving multiple pick-ups or multiple drop-offs in the period between October 2003 and February 2004.

  This Department does not hold information as to whether the person prosecuted was the driver of the vehicle concerned.

  Bathing Water Quality
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the bathing water quality statistics were for beaches in the UK in each of the last 20 years, broken down by region. [178428]

  Mr. Morley
  Comparable bathing water quality statistics for beaches are only available from 1987 after the number of bathing waters within the scope of the EC bathing water directive was substantially increased. Percentage compliance with the directive's main microbiological standards was as follows:

  Percentage

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1987

  56

  65

  57

  64

  1988

  65

  52

  77

  88

  1989

  75

  70

  83

  100

  1990

  79

  52

  70

  94

  1991

  74

  65

  88

  100

  1992

  79

  65

  76

  94

  1993

  79

  78

  82

  94

  1994

  83

  70

  76

  94

  1995

  89

  83

  88

  94

  1996

  89

  91

  91

  100

  1997

  88

  78

  94

  88

  1998

  90

  52

  94

  94

  1999

  90

  88

  99

  100

  2000

  94

  85

  99

  100

  2001

  98

  85

  93

  81

  2002

  99

  92

  100

  94

  2003

  99

  95

  99

  100

  A more detailed summary of bathing water quality statistics has been produced every year since 1986 and placed in the Library.

  Bovine Brain Diseases
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent deaths of cattle from unidentified viral brain diseases. [178674]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: Following a post-mortem examination of a suspect case of botulism in a Holstein yearling heifer in September 2003 on a farm in Cumbria, the Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VA) identified a viral-type encephalomyelitis on histological examination. Examination for the most common neurotropic viruses in the UK proved negative. It was decided that veterinary practitioners

  947W
  should be informed by a letter to the Veterinary Record that suspect botulism cases in cattle might be viral in origin. As background for the letter an examination of VLA records with similar histological findings was carried out. This revealed 21 similar cases of polioencephalomyelitis in cattle and sheep (20 ovine 1 bovine) but with different clinical presentations from 13 premises in England over the past 10 years. The Cumbrian case was reported to the UK Zoonoses Group (UKZG) which considers possible public health action with regard to existing and emerging zoonotic infections. The UKZG suggested that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) be asked to use its recently developed risk assessment algorithm to assess public health implications once more information on the case has been collated. In the light of this decision and the 21 other cases Defra has now asked the HPA to lead a risk assessment to human health on the new condition.

  Ceramics Industry
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will urgently provide to the ceramic industry the data on individual installation carbon dioxide allocations needed to assist them in their decisions on Phase I of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. [177453]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: In the National Allocation Plan published on 6 May 2004, we explained to stakeholders that installation-level allocations would be made available in late July/early August, once we have had an opportunity to incorporate comments received during the recent consultation. However, in response to a direct request from the European Commission, the UK has provided additional information relating to its NAP, including a list of provisional installation-level allocations to the Commission. This information has been provided to allow the UK NAP to be considered with the first group of NAPs later in the summer and so assist the Commission in adopting a rigorous approach when scrutinising other member state's NAPs.

  This list of provisional installation level allocations has been prepared on the basis of information available at the time of submission. We have explained to the Commission that the allocations are likely to be subject to technical revision following the outcome of our consultation exercise.

  Cremation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce the emissions of mercury from crematorium chimneys; and if she will make it her policy to ensure that the emission of mercury from cremation ceases at an early date. [178669]

  Alun Michael
  The Department consulted on a review of the technical issues relating to emissions of mercury from crematoria in May 2003 and published a summary of responses and initial conclusions in November 2003. These can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/crematoria/index.htm. We propose to issue a further consultation paper containing proposals to address mercury emissions from crematoria shortly.
  948W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much mercury is estimated to have been released into the atmosphere in the UK each year as a result of cremating mortal remains containing mercury-based tooth fillings since(a) 1979 and (b) 1997; what assessment she has made of the environmental impact from these releases; and if she will make a statement. [178705]

  Alun Michael
  Based on monitoring and expert advice, the amount of mercury emitted per cremation ranges between 0.9 g and 3 g. We are currently attempting to achieve more precision, but based on these figures, total UK mercury emissions from crematoria in 2002 will have been between 0.4 and 1.34 tonnes. We do not have estimates for other years: the mercury content might have varied according to the differences in the dental situation of those cremated, and account would have to be taken of any changes in the numbers of cremations.

  Total UK mercury emissions have declined from 44.9 tonnes in 1970 to 8.8 tonnes in 2000. The Department consulted on a review of the technical issues relating to emissions of mercury from crematoria in May 2003 and published a summary of responses and initial conclusions in November 2003. These can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/crematoria/ index.htm. We propose to issue a further consultation paper containing proposals to address mercury emissions from crematoria shortly.

  EC Water Framework Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to integrate the delivery of biodiversity action plans into river basin management plans under the EC Water Framework Directive. [176916]

  Mr. Morley
  Demonstrating how biodiversity targets can be integrated into river basin management has been allocated top priority for the Water and Wetlands implementation programme of the England Biodiversity Strategy. The Environment Agency and English Nature will shortly be commisioning a project to take this work forward, with results scheduled for March 2005. The River Ribble will be used as a test-bed for the work, reflecting its role as a pilot catchment for public participation aspects of the Water Framework Directive.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to draw up a register of existing and potential wetlands to help meet the requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive. [176917]

  Mr. Morley
  The Water Framework Directive requires that a register of protected areas is drawn up to help determine management of water bodies. This register will include protected wildlife sites of wetland character such as those designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive and candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive. The Environment Agency, in its role as competent authority for the Water Framework Directive, English Nature and others are actively exploring ways of how best to incorporate wetlands into
  949W
  integrated river basin planning and management. The River Ribble catchment is being used to test such an approach, which if successful, could be applied more widely in due course.

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether radioactive forcing will be taken into account in plans to incorporate aviation within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. [177953]

  Mr. Morley
  I assume that the hon. Member intended to ask about radiative forcing.

  It is the Government's intention to address the radiative forcing of aviation in fulfilling its Air Transport White Paper commitment to ensure that the aviation industry takes account of, and where appropriate reduces, its contribution to global warming. A decision on how the radiative forcing of aviation should be taken into account when designing the sector's participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has yet to be made. Our adopted approach on this issue will reflect the need for consensus within the EU.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list(a) hunt kennels, (b) knacker's yards, (c) renderers, (d) maggot farmers and (e) others approved to collect fallen stock under the EU Animal By-Products Regulations; [176296]

  (2) how many (a) hunt kennels, (b) knacker's yards and (c) renderers are approved under the EU Animal By-Products Regulations to collect and process fallen stock in each county in England; [176301]

  (3) how many constituencies in England have no approved fallen stock collector based within its boundaries. [176302]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Although information regarding the location of fallen stock collection and disposal premises is available, this is not kept in a format which would allow their relationship to county and constituency boundaries to be ascertained However, the State Veterinary Service is currently working on a national Geographic Information System database which will, on completion, be capable of providing such information.

  To allow premises to continue operating whilst individual inspections for approval were being carried out by the State Veterinary Service (SVS), animal by-product premises, including hunt kennels, knackers yards and rendering plants are subject to a series of general approvals.

  The general approvals do not apply to premises which have been granted or refused an individual approval under these Regulations since 1 July 2003. For other premises the general approvals cease to apply either when the premises are inspected and an approval is either granted or refused, or on 1 August 2004, whichever is the earlier.
  950W
  Prior to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which came into force on 1 July 2003, Knackers' Yards required approval under the Animal By-Products Order 1999.

  Hunt kennels, zoos and maggot farms required registration under the Order.

  In June 2003, before the Animal By-Products Order was revoked, there were 63 approved knackers' yards, 34 registered maggot farms, 90 registered zoos/circuses and 294 registered hunt kennels—not all hunt kennels collect and/or dispose of fallen stock.

  As of 1 April 2004, 13 rendering plants are approved under the Animal By-Products Regulations to process fallen stock. These are listed at Annex 1.

  My officials have arranged for a list of those premises which were approved or registered, prior to 1 July 2003, by the Department to collect/dispose of animal by-products such as fallen stock, to be placed in the Library of the House. This list will be amended as and when premises are either granted or refused individual approvals under the EU Regulation.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of hunt kennels(a) charge for provision of a fallen stock service and (b) provide a fallen stock service free of charge to the livestock farming industry. [176297]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This information is not available to the Department. although we are aware that a number of hunt kennels may provide a free service, normally disposal of calves which die on farm, in return for farmers allowing hunts to use their land.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the oral answer of 20 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1079–80, on fallen stock, what evidence her Department has received to support the statement that the role of hunt kennels in collecting fallen stock is small. [176303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Many hunt kennels traditionally dispose of calves, which are the most suitable livestock for feeding to hounds, although some may take small numbers of horses, sheep and other livestock. As hunt kennels do not operate in all areas of the UK and calves are estimated to form only a small percentage of the overall quantity of fallen stock that requires disposal the role of hunt kennels in collecting and disposing of fallen stock under the National Scheme is likely to be small.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the postal address for the National Fallen Stock Company is. [176307]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The postal address is the registered office for the Company which is the National Fallen Stock Company Ltd., c/o Saffery Champness, Stuart House, City Road, Peterborough, Cambs, PE1 1QF.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the oral answer of 20 May 2004,Official Report, column 1080, on fallen stock, what evidence she has received from the Chairman of the National Fallen Stock Company in support of his assurance that a ban on hunting would have no impact on the industry's capacity to dispose of fallen stock. [176308]
  951W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  In discussions that my Department has had with the Chairman, he has stated that in the Company's consultation with the knacker and rendering industries it was made clear that they have the capacity to deal with additional quantities of fallen stock likely to arise under the National Fallen Stock Scheme. It is true that the Company has registered a substantial level of interest in the Scheme from hunt kennels. Although they will be permitted to continue their current practice of feeding material to hounds, their presence in the Scheme will otherwise be on the basis that they have made the necessary investment to operate in a similar way to knackers yards for the collection and disposal of fallen stock.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many carcases were collected by(a) hunt kennels, (b) knackers yards, (c) renderers, (d) maggot farmers and (e) others in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [176309]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of total expenditure by her Department on(a) focus groups and (b) opinion polls in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [162760]

  Alun Michael
  The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came into being in June 2001 and information, prior to that period, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  While information is not held in the format requested, centrally-held records show that we have spent in the region of £345,000 on external market research and focus group research since Defra's creation in June 2001.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date she expects compensation to former fur farmers to(a) begin and (b) be completed. [178287]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently, consulting on a draft Order that will enable us to set up the new compensation scheme. The Order sets out a timescale for payment. We expect to have made the majority of compensation payments by the end of the year.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services (Drinking Water)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Department for Trade and Industry regarding the exclusion of drinking water from the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [168019]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The Department has been fully consulted by the Department for Trade and Industry at all stages of the GATS negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), including the EU draft offer and requests on services.
  952W
  The GATS negotiations are conducted on a request and offer basis, in which one WTO Member makes a request and the requested Member considers how to respond. Requests are no more than that. A country to whom a request has been addressed is not obliged to meet the request, whether fully, partially or even at all. Therefore it is entirely up to an individual member as to whether they include drinking water in their GATS offer.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to announce emissions reductions targets for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide; and if she will make a statement. [177952]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has a target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The six gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.

  The Government has also set itself a domestic goal of moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010 and is putting the UK on a path to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

  The Government has no current plans to set itself targets to reduce emissions of other greenhouse gases. The UK's domestic goals focus on carbon dioxide, as it is the most important greenhouse gas in the UK, accounting for 85 per cent. of the direct global warming potential of emissions in 2002. Although we have not set a target beyond 2008–12 for non-CO2 greenhouse gases, we will continue with our efforts to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated on the Irish bovine TB experiment. [177961]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Republic of Ireland Department of Agriculture has not yet published scientific papers on the findings a four-year badger culling trial (the "Four Area" Trial). The trial involves eliminating badgers over large areas to ascertain the effect on the incidence of bovine TB.

  We will look closely at the Irish results once published to establish what we can learn and apply to the situation in Great Britain.

  Squirrels
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the geographical incidence of grey squirrels in England; and what data is held by her Department on the spread of populations of grey squirrels since the species' introduction. [178082]
  953W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The first documented release of grey squirrels into the UK was in 1876 in Cheshire, with subsequent introduction to sites ranging from Glamorgan to Kent totalling more than 350 individuals. Grey squirrels are now present in every English county and absent only from parts of Cumbria and Northumberland, a small area of the Sefton coast, the Isle of Wight and Poole harbour islands.

  Numbers of grey squirrels fluctuate considerably between years. However, the population was estimated at 2.5 million in the 1990s and it is likely to have increased since then as their range has expanded. Through the Tracking Mammals Partnership, funding has been secured from both Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Peoples' Trust for Endangered Species for a scoping study to investigate monitoring strategies for squirrels to address these issues.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of grey squirrels on indigenous flora and fauna; and what recent research studies into the ecological effects of grey squirrels her Department has carried out. [178083]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The impact of the introduced grey squirrel on the native red squirrel is well known. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the spread of the grey has been closely linked with the decline and disappearance of the red squirrel from most of England. Although the two species may co-exist in some areas for many years, it seems that sooner or later the greys will dominate and the reds disappear. The exact mechanism for this replacement is not entirely clear; some recent work confirms the importance of interspecific competition, but a disease, parapox virus, which is harmless to greys but fatal to reds, may also be involved.

  Squirrel presence surveys carried out by the Forestry Commission since the 1950s recorded the presence of bark stripping damage to individual tree species in woodlands. During 2000 a survey of private and state owned woodlands within the distribution range of grey squirrels in Great Britain further investigated damage levels by recording damage severity. Current studies are investigating the effect of grey squirrel bark stripping damage to oak in terms of tree growth rates.

  The review "Possible effects of grey squirrels on birds and other wildlife", published in British Wildlife in February 2004, reviewed evidence of predation published in British Wildlife in February 2004, reviewed evidence of predation by squirrels on birds' eggs and nestlings, potential competition with birds for nest sites and food and competition with native mammals. Possible effects on woodland structure through their bark stripping activities and as a predator of tree seeds and bulbs were also considered.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of grey squirrels on the geographical incidence of the indigenous red squirrel population in England. [178084]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: Historical data show red squirrels to have been ubiquitous throughout England until the 1920s. Since
  954W
  the grey squirrel was released in the late 19th and early 20th century and their subsequent spread, the red squirrel has suffered a concurrent range contraction.

  The red squirrel seems to have made some small gains in the Yorkshire Dales, where it has been able to expand into plantations that are now maturing and producing good crops of the pine cones that it needs.

  The continuing expansion of the grey squirrel is to be expected and red squirrel conservation is focused on limiting that expansion in areas where the two species overlap. Some significant progress has been made in developing more effective and targeted ways of defending healthy populations of red squirrels against replacement by the grey squirrel.

  Whales
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will support the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) sponsored project to study the behaviour of whales in the sea off the West Coast of Iceland; and if she will make representations to the Icelandic Government to persuade them to accede to IFAW's request to undertake this research. [178797]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The request by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to the Government of Iceland for permission to study the behaviour of whales in the sea off the West Coast of Iceland was made through our embassy at Reykjavik. Our ambassador has since raised the application in contacts at senior level at both the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Prime Minister. The Government of Iceland can be in no doubt of Her Majesty's Government's full support for this request and the aims and objectives of the IFAW sponsored project. We will continue to press for a favourable response.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentencing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases, where the sentence was judged to be unduly lenient were referred,(a) Crown Prosecution Service HQ Directorate, (b) Treasury Counsel and (c) to the Legal Secretariat of the Law Offices and to himself, in each of the last three years; how many cases were accepted by her for review by the Court of Appeal and how many were rejected; and in how many cases the Court of Appeal accepted that the sentence was unduly lenient and (i) increased the sentence and (ii) did not increase the sentence. [168819]

  The Solicitor-General
  Set out in the following table are details of the data held by the CPS Casework Directorate and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers which represent figures for the last three calendar years. The figures in line one represent the total defendants whose sentences were referred to Casework Directorate. The figures in line two onward represent the total defendants whose sentences were referred to LSLO by the CPS and by other prosecuting agencies. Figures are not kept regarding whether cases were referred to Treasury Counsel for advice.
  955W

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total defendants whose sentences were referred to Casework Directorate

  287

  375

  323

  Total defendants whose sentences were referred to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  277

  340

  316

  Total defendants whose sentences were considered by the Law Officers

  234

  290

  272

  Total defendants whose sentence was referred to the Court of Appeal

  149

  134

  97

  Total defendants where Court of Appeal refused leave

  8

  2

  2

  Total defendants where leave given but Court of Appeal held sentence not unduly lenient

  12

  17

  13

  Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient by Court of Appeal

  129

  115

  160

  Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient and sentence increased

  97

  91

  153

  Total defendants where sentence held unduly lenient and sentence not increased

  32

  24

  17

  1To date

  Potters Bar Rail Crash
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the work to date of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of the Potters Bar Rail accident; and what further work she envisages the CPS undertaking. [177811]

  The Solicitor-General
  A joint investigation by the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive into the causes of the rail accident began immediately after the derailment on 10 May 2002. The police led this investigation due to a suspicion that a serious criminal offence caused the deaths, and between June 2002 and March 2004 the Crown Prosecution Service worked closely with the police advising them on the evidence submitted and to be obtained.

  In March 2004, the lead in the investigation transferred to Health and Safety Executive investigators, as no evidence of a deliberate criminal act or gross negligence causing the deaths had been established against any individual. The emphasis of the investigation is now on systems and procedures, areas that fall within the specialist skills and experience of these investigators.

  At the conclusion of their inquiries, the Health and Safety Executive will review the evidence and reach a prosecution decision. The Crown Prosecution Service is on hand to advise the police, but only if evidence of a serious criminal offence comes to light would the case be passed back to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider.

CABINET OFFICE

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what provision has been and will be made for publicising(a) the decision by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability whether or not to clear a given regulatory proposal and (b) the grounds on which the decision was made; [178832]
  956W
  (2) what provision has been and will be made for publicising the decisions of the Regulatory Impact Unit regarding whether a particular regulatory proposal requires clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability; [178833]

  (3) if he will list the regulatory proposals which have been deemed by the Regulatory Impact Unit to require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability during the past three months; [178835]

  (4) how many times the Panel for Regulatory Accountability (a) has met in the past year and (b) is scheduled to meet in the forthcoming year. [178836]

  Mr. Alexander
  It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees, under exemption 2, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Hall, Harrogate
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding central Government will make available to pay for the restoration of the Royal Hall in Harrogate; and if she will make a statement on Government support for the restoration. [178660]

  Estelle Morris
  Central Government funding for the historic environment is channelled through English Heritage. Both English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund run a number of grant schemes that provide assistance for the preservation of listed buildings of historical and architectural importance. These organisations are responsible for the allocation of funds within these schemes at arms length of Government. In the case of the Royal Hall, Harrogate, the Heritage Lottery Fund is discussing with Harrogate borough council how best to secure the building's future.

  TV Licensing Authority
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what powers the TV Licensing Authority is permitted to demand access to people's homes to check whether or not they possess a television; and if she will make a statement. [179058]

  Estelle Morris
  TV Licensing officers may enter a person's home only with their consent or under a warrant issued under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003 by a justice of the peace, or, in Scotland, a sheriff. Such a warrant may be issued only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence related to the installation or use of a television receiver has been or is being committed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  E-mail
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what further steps are to be
  957W
  taken by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate to limit the amount of spam e-mails received by hon. Members, peers, and their staff; and if he will make a statement. [178005]

  Mr. Key
  Plans to introduce a new improved spam management system are well advanced. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate aims to introduce the new system, which will offer a more comprehensive service than at present, before the summer recess.

PRIME MINISTER

  Arctic Medal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last requested a review of the requests to award an Arctic Medal; and what process was followed. [175051]

  The Prime Minister
  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans at the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Caplin) reviewed all the recent claims from veterans for new medals, including the campaign for an Arctic Medal. Those who served in the Arctic convoys were awarded the Atlantic Star in respect of their service.

  However, the Government are keeping medals for various groups of veterans under review

  Ministerial Documents
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent review has been undertaken concerning the prioritisation and distribution of documents that are marked for Ministers' attention by their private offices. [179067]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 621W.

  Second World War Commemoration
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War; and if he will make a statement. [178899]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Caplin) on 9 June 2004,Official Report, column 309.

  Stormont Negotiations
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations conducted at Stormont on 8 June between representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Fein and Mr. Jonathan Powell. [178900]
  958W
  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Murphy) had made it clear that informal discussions with all parties would continue during the European election campaign. The review of the operation of the Agreement resumed on 15 June and the outcome we are working towards remains the restoration of the institutions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aerospace
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the extent of state support for the aerospace industry in(a) the United States, (b) European Union member states and (c) Brazil in comparison with Government support for UK aerospace. [177142]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are aware of various forms of support provided by a number of other governments to their civil aerospace industries (e.g. basic R&D, product development capital or export sales financing). International comparisons are complicated by the way in which that support is focussed and whether it is repayable.

  The Government have provided strong support for the aerospace industry in the UK over many years—including support for R&D projects, repayable launch investment (almost £l billion since 1997) and export sales financing. We are also working with the industry to improve its productivity and competitiveness through the implementation of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team Report's recommendations.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of trade was between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan in each year since 1979. [178032]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The volume of trade between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan since 1979 is contained in the following table.

  UK Trade with Afghanistan

  £000

  UK Exports

  UK Imports

  1979

  9,570

  20,274

  1980

  6,831

  20,159

  1981

  7,725

  22,892

  1982

  9,341

  20,619

  1983

  10,310

  19,836

  1984

  11,891

  20,775

  1985

  13,882

  52,060

  1986

  11,443

  11,913

  1987

  10,735

  11,288

  1988

  12,109

  11,501

  1989

  5,376

  4,813

  1990

  7,816

  9,194

  1991

  6,956

  5,207

  1992

  4,926

  4,676

  959W

  UK Trade with Afghanistan

  £000

  UK Exports

  UK Imports

  1993

  5,915

  4,310

  1994

  7,830

  4,096

  1995

  7,156

  1,165

  1996

  7,581

  2,707

  1997

  9,579

  2,948

  1998

  10,565

  2,535

  1999

  3,624

  1,769

  2000

  3,251

  8,493

  2001

  3,812

  564

  2002

  2,851

  249

  2003

  9,871

  467

  Deregulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the need for reduced, simpler regulation expressed by her Ministers at the Competitiveness Council of 17 to 18 May refers to(a) deregulation or a cutting back of the Community Acquis and (b) the removal of legal texts that are obsolete without changing their legal status. [178730]

  Jacqui Smith
  The UK attaches great importance to improving and simplifying EU legislation. Simplification can contribute to reducing the negative economic impact of regulation through consolidation and codification of legislation, and through removing obsolete measures. In addition, it is concerned with identifying areas of legislation where burdens may arise from unnecessary complexity, duplication or cross-impacts, and seeking to eliminate these.

  Energy Bill
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the European Commission about the possibility of investigations into the implications for state aid of provisions contained in the Energy Bill. [178667]

  Mr. Timms
  The main state aid implication in the Energy Bill arises from the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA). DTI officials have had a number of informal meetings with the Commission services on this case.

  Imports of goods

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  UK imports from Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories (£ million)

  1,041

  1,062

  975

  911

  882

  Defence-related imports, as a percentage of total imports

  0.9

  1.7

  1.2

  0.6

  0.5

  Imports from Occupied Palestinian Territories as a percentage of total imports

  0.004

  0.000

  0.012

  0.026

  0.050

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of UK exports to Israel was in each of the last five years; what proportion of total exports were
  960W
  As a result of these meetings a formal notification of the UK's intention to support the creation of the NDA was submitted to the European Commission in December 2003. The Commission are still considering this case.

  EU Trade
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value of surplus or deficit accruing to the European Union from trade with Japan was in each of the three latest years for which figures are available. [178101]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures on the European Union's crude trade balance in goods with Japan for the period 2001–03 are given in the table.

  £million

  2001

  -19,505

  2002

  -16,248

  2003

  -18,483

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of the surplus or deficit accruing to the European Union from trading with(a) India and (b) China was in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [178128]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures on the European Union's crude trade balance in goods with India and China for the period 2001–03 are given in the following table:

  £million

  India

  China

  2001

  -187

  -28,488

  2002

  588

  -29,945

  2003

  599

  -38,269

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Israel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of UK imports from Israel was in each of the last five years; what proportion of total imports were defence-related; and what proportion of total imports were from the Occupied Territories. [178585]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to statistics compiled by HM Customs and Excise, the information is as follows:

  defence-related; and what proportion of total exports were destined for the Occupied Territories. [178586]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is as follows:
  961W

  Exports of goods

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  UK exports to Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories (£ million)

  1,298

  1,519

  1,366

  1,440

  1,377

  Defence-related exports, as a percentage of total exports

  0.03

  0.09

  0.11

  0.15

  0.02

  Exports to Occupied Palestinian Territories as a percentage of total exports

  0.023

  0.009

  0.018

  0.008

  0.050

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom; HM Customs and Excise.

  UK Strategic Export Control Annual Report:FCO, DFID, MOD, DTI.

  Medical Research Council
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to implement the concordat agreement for funding for Medical Research Council clinical trials. [178823]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The concordat is a long standing agreement between the health departments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Medical Research Council (MRC). It has recently been renewed, now to be called a partnership agreement and a copy will be posted on the websites of the Department and the MRC shortly. Implementation is done through normal operational arrangements.

  UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary are members of a trade union. [R] [178318]

  Mr. Timms
  As far as I am aware, no members of the UKAEA Constabulary are members of a trade union. About 80 per cent. belong to the UKAEA Police Federation.

  About 55 per cent. of the civilian staff of the UKAEA Constabulary are members of a trade union.

  Post Office Reinvention Programme
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what mechanisms she adopts to monitor the compliance by Post Office Ltd. with its agreement with her that 95 per cent. of the urban population will be within one mile of a post office at the completion of the Urban Reinvention Programme when it is implementing stages of that programme in urban areas; [177698]

  (2) what action she intends to take to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in Birmingham will be within one mile of a post office at the completion of the Post Office Urban Reinvention Programme. [177699]

  Mr. Timms
  Compliance with the commitment that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population nationally will still live within one mile of a post office at the end of the urban reinvention programme is an operational responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Regional Funding (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list projects within the Greater London area which have attracted European Union regional funding in each of the last three years. [178681]

  Jacqui Smith
  Thousands of London projects have benefited and will benefit from European funding from the Objective 2, Objective 3, URBAN, EQUAL and INTERREG European Programmes. Between 2000 and 2006, London will receive over £650 million from these European Structural Funds and Community Initiatives, matched by similar sums from the public and private sectors.

  A list of these projects has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Scrap Aluminium
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of scrap aluminium was exported in(a) 2003 and (b) 2000. [174975]

  Jacqui Smith
  Exports of aluminium waste and scrap increased from 141.2 thousand tonnes in 2000 to 297.4 thousand tonnes in 20031. The requested percentages cannot be calculated as there are no official figures for the quantity of aluminium waste and scrap collected (including "new" scrap).

  1Source:Overseas Trade Statistics, HM Customs and Excise.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of trade between the UK and Kenya was in the last year for which figures are available. [178680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, in 2003 UK imports of goods from Kenya were worth £217 million. UK exports to Kenya were worth £172 million. Information on trade in services, with Kenya, is not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Psychiatrists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hew many consultant child psychiatrists are undergoing training in Northern Ireland; and when each is expected to complete training. [179047]

  Mr. Gardiner
  There are currently eight specialist trainees in child and adolescent psychiatry. Of these three are expected to complete their training in 2004, two in 2005 and three in 2006.

  Cross-Border Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which cross-border bodies funded in whole or in part by a Northern Ireland Department publish the minutes of their meetings on their websites. [176890]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Loughs Agency, an agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission publishes minutes of meeting on its website (www.loughs-agency.org). To date it has published the minutes of five Board meetings

  Cultural Venues
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when building work will commence on the Arts Venue for the Cathedral Quarter; what the anticipated completion date is; what the estimate cost of the project is; and what additional funding has been identified as necessary to ensure the viability of the project. [178553]

  Angela Smith
  A business case is currently being considered for a new purpose-built cultural and educational facility in Belfast's Cathedral Quarter. No decision has yet been taken on whether the proposal should proceed. The capital costs of the project are currently estimated at between £23 million and £27 million. The Arts Council of Northern Ireland has made an in-principle commitment of £4 million of National Lottery funds towards these costs. Current projections suggest that additional revenue funding of over £1 million would be required in the initial three-year period before the facility becomes fully operational and meets its income potential.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the views expressed in response to the Approved Driving Instructors Review consultation paper. [178395]

  Angela Smith
  Preliminary analysis of the responses indicates that there is widespread opposition from the Approved Driving Instructors industry to the proposal that registered driving instructors should undergo a driving theory test, including a hazard perception test, as part of routine supervisory arrangements.

  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency is currently considering the responses in detail and in due course will make a recommendation to me, taking into account all relevant issues including the views of the industry.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times(a) he and (b) other Government officials have met representatives of the Northern Ireland Approved Driving Instructors Association regarding the proposals contained in the Approved Driving Instructors Review consultation paper. [178396]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Ministers have not met with the Northern Ireland Approved Driving Instructors Association (NIADIA) regarding the proposals contained in the consultation paper.
  964W
  (b) Officials from the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency attended a meeting of the association on 16 February 2004 at which the proposals were discussed. The agency also held meetings in Cookstown, Newry, Londonderry, Belfast and Omagh in late March. These meetings were attended by approximately 300 driving instructors, many of whom were members of NIADIA or other associations. The proposals within the paper were discussed at all of these meetings. In addition, a scheduled biannual meeting between the agency and NIADIA took place on 4 May 2004.

  Electoral Register (Fermanagh)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Fermanagh South Tyrone constituency have been excluded from the electoral register on grounds of insufficient mental capacity in each of the last three years. [162169]

  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. Gentleman in due course.

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

  Health Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decisions to withdraw treatment from hospital patients. [179087]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The decision to commence or end treatment is made by clinical staff on an individual basis, taking account of the patient's clinical condition and the relative merits and potential side effects of any particular treatment. Informed consent is an important element, as are a patient's personal wishes regarding treatment and resuscitation.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to ensure that all patients requiring MRI scans are receiving them promptly. [179115]

  Mr. Gardiner
  MRI provision in Northern Ireland is being enhanced to reduce waiting times for patients. There are currently seven MRI scanners available across the Province and three more are planned for later this year at Antrim, Craigavon, and Belfast City hospitals. A number of measures have also been taken to reduce waiting times for MRI scans including the introduction of evening scanning sessions at the Royal Group of Hospitals, use of mobile scanners, and use of private facilities.

  Higher Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Government income from Northern Ireland-domiciled undergraduates' contributions in tuition fees, student loan repayments and interest on student loans has been since 1995–96. [178242]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Tuition fees are paid by students directly to their institutions, and therefore no income is generated for Government. On the basis of Resource Allocation Budgets, student loan repayments and interest on student loans from 2001–02, the earliest date
  965W
  from which information is available, are set out in the table, which also includes, for each year, the total amount of student loans outstanding:

  £million

  Repayments

  Interest

  Outstanding loans

  2001—02

  9.264

  6.231

  321.647

  2002—03

  11.564

  6.034

  424,223

  2003—04

  13.000

  9.533

  517,839

  Unlike commercial loans, interest on student loans is charged at the rate of inflation only. This ensures that, in real terms, the amount repaid is equal to the amount borrowed.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Northern Ireland will be included in an identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement. [171763]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Identity Card scheme involving the registration of individuals and the issue of identity cards will operate on a UK-wide basis. If, as we hope, we can restore the devolved institutions at an early date, then it would be up to the devolved administration in Northern Ireland to decide what use they make of the identity cards.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Northern Ireland was considered for the identity card pilot project. [171764]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The biometric enrolment pilot being run by the UK Passport Service is not an identity cards pilot but rather intended to test the processes around, and user experience of biometric enrolment. Identity cards are not being issued to volunteers who participate in the project. Initially, pilot data is being obtained from fixed sites in England and Scotland. In the next phase of the pilot, a mobile enrolment unit will travel throughout the UK, including Northern Ireland.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used by Invest Northern Ireland in determining locations for visits by potential inward investors to create employment in Northern Ireland. [178613]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Invest NI promotes and markets the Northern Ireland business proposition as one single entity. The rationale for this approach is that internationally mobile investment is fiercely competitive and potential investors demand detailed information against a wide range of criteria such as size of employment pool, skills availability, property and infrastructure.

  Taking into account the time available Invest NI can suggest a visit programme which closely matches a company's requirements. The locations of existing investors, who participate in the inward visits, also influence the proposed visit programme. However, the
  966W
  company always has the final say in which elements of the proposed programme to accept or reject including where to visit within Northern Ireland.

  Invest NI is fully aware of its obligations in respect of securing visits to and projects in New Targeting Social Need areas, and addresses this in its illustrative incentive packages.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many minors in Northern Ireland have been questioned and cautioned in each of the last five years. [171005]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows.

  Financial year

  Number of official cautions

  1999–2000

  1,325

  2000–01

  1,314

  2001–02

  1,095

  2002–03

  1,045

  The PSNI introduced a new Youth Diversion Scheme from 1 September 2003 which provides a new framework to respond to all children and young persons under the age of 17. The scheme uses restorative interventions and the title and structure of the previous "official caution" is now called a "restorative caution".

  No statistics are available for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 August 2003.

  Since 1 September 2003 there have been 485 restorative cautions issued under the new scheme.

  Lord Alderdice
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the likely cost to public funds is of the portrait that has been commissioned of the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Lord Alderdice; and who recommended the commissioning of the portrait. [178855]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The proposal that a portrait be commissioned to mark the retirement of the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Lord Alderdice, was proposed at a meeting held earlier this year attended by representatives of the main Northern Ireland political parties. I subsequently agreed to this proposal. Arrangements for commissioning the portrait have still to be made so the cost is not yet known.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation to grant a licence for the supply of natural gas in the north-west and south-north areas.[178617]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Detailed negotiations between the Northern Ireland authority for Energy Regulation (NIAER) and Bord Gáis Eireann about the distribution and supply of natural gas to towns outside the Greater Belfast area have been continuing since December 2003. NIAER expects to publish a licence for consultation
  967W
  within the next two months and, subject to responses, would hope to issue a formal licence in the early autumn of this year.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the participants in each case supported by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in which the cost to the Commission has exceeded £50,000. [176893]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is an independent body, I contacted the Chief Executive on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and have been provided with the following information:

  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has supported two cases in which the costs have exceeded £50,000. Details of the cases and participants follow:

  1.Cullen (Appellant) v. Chief Constable of the Constabulary (Respondent) (Northern Ireland)
  Heard: 10 July 2003
  Reported at: [2003] UKHL 39
  Counsel was Seamus Treacy QC and Fiona Doherty BL instructed by Madden and Finucane Solicitors

  2. In the matter of an application for judicial review by 4E' and in the matter of the decisions of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Secretary of State
  Heard: 10 September 2003
  Decision: Not yet known
  Counsel was Seamus Treacy QC and Karen Quinliven BL instructed by Madden and Finucane Solicitors.

  Parliamentary Constituency Maps
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make up-to-date maps of Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies available to the House of Commons Library Research Section. [170035]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Provisional Recommendations for new parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland were announced by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland on 29 April. Copies of up-to-date maps for the proposed constituencies have been placed in the Library.

  Police
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Police Service of Northern Ireland officers work for the(a) Oversight Commissioner and (b) Police Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement. [173588]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are no Police Service of Northern Ireland officers working in either the Oversight Commissioner's Office or the Police Ombudsman's Office.
  968W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) salary and (b) expenses allowance is of (a) the Policing Oversight Commissioner and (b) each member of the Oversight Commissioner's team. [173589]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised by the Office of the Oversight Commissioner of the following salary and expense details for the Oversight Commissioner and his team of five evaluators:(a) The Commissioner's salary from May 2000-March 2003 was £203,290.
  The evaluators' salaries from May 2000-March 2003 were £350,602.
  (b) The Commissioner's expenses from May 2000-March 2003 were £101,043.
  The evaluators' expenses from May 2000-March 2003 were £330,571.

  The Oversight Commissioner and his team of evaluators are based in North America. They travel to Northern Ireland three times per year to conduct evaluations of the implementation of the Patten Recommendations. In addition, occasional short review meetings are held by the Oversight Commissioner and the evaluators in North America.

  The expense allowances for the Oversight Commissioner and his team of evaluators are primarily made up of accommodation and flight costs. These are paid directly to suppliers by the Office of the Oversight Commissioner and are subject to seasonal and contractual variations. The figures have been obtained from the audited annual accounts of the Office of the Oversight Commissioner.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been allocated for the(a) start-up costs and (b) running costs in the first two years of the Office of the Northern Ireland Policing Oversight Commissioner. [173590]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Office of the Oversight Commissioner was established in May 2000. The start up costs were £224,770.

  Running costs in the first two years to 31 March 2002 were £947,027, broken down as follows:
  2000–01: £272,131 (excluding start-up cost)
  2001–02: £674,896.

  Police Fund Budget
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the Police Fund budget has been spent in support of(a) RUC officers injured and (b) RUC families bereaved through terrorism in each year since its establishment. [178579]

  Mr. Pearson
  I can advise that the percentage breakdown of the Police Fund budget in support of injured officers and bereaved families is as follows:

  Direct grant expenditure as a percentage of budget

  Category

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Injured officers

  36

  40

  Bereaved families including widows

  17

  17

  969W
  A further 28 per cent. of the 2002–03 budget and 18 per cent. of the 2003–04 budget was expended on organisation project costs such as reimbursement of costs to the Benevolent Fund and client service costs such as psychological counselling services. This expenditure, in the main, cannot be broken down into individual client costs although clearly the programmes benefited both injured officers and bereaved families.

  Rural Communities (Transport)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Government are taking to assist older people in rural communities who do not have access to a car. [178611]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department for Regional Development's commitments to improving transport services in rural areas are set out in the Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002–12.

  The Strategy seeks to improve travel opportunities for people living in deep rural areas, villages and small settlements. The initiatives in the RTS, when fully implemented, will reduce inequalities in society by improving accessibility for, amongst others, people with disabilities, people without access to a car, older people and people living in rural areas. The pace of implementation of the Strategy will depend on the level of public funding, which will be determined through the annual Budgetary processes.

  The Department is seeking to improve transport opportunities for older people living in rural communities through a range of initiatives. The Rural Transport Fund provides revenue support to maintain a network of some 44 Ulsterbus rural routes, throughout Northern Ireland, which would otherwise be uneconomical to run. Older people are able to get free concessionary travel on these rural services.

  The Department also financially supports 18 Rural Community Transport Partnerships throughout Northern Ireland. These seek to meet the mobility needs of those older people and people with disabilities who live in rural areas and who are unable to make use of conventional transport networks.

  In 2003–04 the Department for Regional Development initiated a public tendering exercise (Bus Challenge) to attract new stage carriage routes across Northern Ireland. Contracts were awarded for a number of rural routes. These routes provide older people living in rural areas with more opportunities to access local facilities and link with the wider public transport network.

  Later this year the Department intends to initiate several Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) pilots in deep rural areas. It is hoped that these types of services will offer greater independence and new travel opportunities for older people living in those areas. DRT services may, for example, divert off certain sections of their route if requested and provide bookable door-to-door services for older people and people with disabilities.

  The RTS committed the Department to prepare an Accessible Transport Strategy for Northern Ireland. The ATS will focus on the transport needs of older
  970W
  people and people with disabilities. A draft Accessible Transport Strategy is currently being prepared and will be published in the autumn together with an Equality Impact assessment for public consultation. The Department aims to publish a final strategy by March 2005.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been allocated by the Department for Regional Development in each of the last three years towards the provision of public transport in rural communities in Northern Ireland. [178612]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the Rural Transport Fund the following monies were allocated to deliver uneconomic public transport services in rural areas but which were regarded as socially desirable:

  £ million

  2001–02

  1.6

  2002–03

  1.7

  2003–04

  1.8

  This Fund allowed the Department to provide revenue support to uneconomic rural routes. In addition the Fund also provides further support to 18 Rural Community Transport Partnerships who offer a range of transport services which complement the conventional transport networks.

  The Department for Regional Development recently initiated a public tendering exercise (Bus Challenge) to attract new stage carriage routes across Northern Ireland. As a result a number of contracts were awarded and which included a number of rural routes. Financial support from the Department for these rural routes during 2003–04 amounted to around –29,000.

  Fuel Duty Rebate was also provided to Ulsterbus and a number of private operators:

  £

  2001–02

  5,933,750.00

  2002–03

  5,798,369.00

  2003–04

  5,892,531.00

  Tourism
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tourists visited Northern Ireland in each(a) year and (b) month in the past 20 years. [178843]

  Mr. Gardiner
  A breakdown of the total number of non-Northern Ireland tourists over the past twenty years has been placed in the Library. Monthly breakdowns are not available for visitors entering Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, or prior to 1990 for visitors entering Northern Ireland directly.

  Truth and Reconciliation Commission
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what lessons he learned about the operation of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission during his recent visit; [178577]
  971W
  (2) what conclusions he has drawn from his trip to South Africa in relation to the suitability of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [178578]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I had a range of very constructive meetings with a variety of individuals and organisations during my recent visit to South Africa. I am sure that 972W
  they will prove useful as I consider ways in which we can deal with the past in Northern Ireland. There are many interesting lessons to be learned from the South African experience, and I will be reflecting on these. But any solution must be tailored to the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland and must command widespread support.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Active Communities Unit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Active Community Unit's expenditure on research was in 2003–04, broken down by topic. [171065]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The following expenditure on research was commissioned by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate on behalf of the Active Community Unit (ACU) in 2003–04:

  £

  ACU: programme evaluations

  Compact/Codes of Practice: Implementation

  29,526

  Mentoring Fund and Mentor Points projects

  90,442

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  3,000

  Volunteer-involving organisations: TimeBank, Do-It, Community Channel (Media Trust)

  72,000

  ACU: VCS funding and performance

  Central Government funding, 2001–02 to 2003–04

  46,278

  Local government funding, 2001–02 to 2003–04

  34,633

  State of the Sector Panel: Development Project

  12,593

  State of the Sector Panel: Fieldwork Project

  631,982

  "What works" re community involvement in area-based initiatives

  25,400

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the consequences of a youth breaking an antisocial behaviour order are. [178568]

  Ms Blears
  Breach of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) is a criminal offence. The usual range of sentencing options for juveniles up to the maximum is available, with the exception of a conditional discharge which is not available for breach of an ASBO. The maximum penalty for breach of ASBO for 12 to 17-year-olds is a 24-month Detention and Training Order. 10 to 11-year-olds can be given community orders for ASBO breaches (these are not custodial).

  Asylum/Immigration
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1567–68W, on asylum and immigration, for what reasons people are referred to medical inspectors; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in referrals seen at Heathrow. [162221]

  Mr. Browne
  Under Schedule 2 paragraph 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77), immigration officers have the power to refer any individual who is subject to 974W
  immigration control to a doctor for a medical examination at the port of entry.

  Under paragraph 36 of the Immigration Rules (HC395 as amended)
  "A person who intends to remain in the United Kingdom for more than 6 months should normally be referred to the Medical Inspector for examination. If he produces a medical certificate he should be advised to hand it to the Medical Inspector. Any person seeking entry who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for his visit or who appears not to be in good mental or physical health, should also be referred to the Medical Inspector; and the Immigration Officer has discretion, which should be exercised sparingly, to refer for examination in any other case."

  However, the long-standing policy (formalised by the 1992 Department of Health publication "Medical Examination under the Immigration Act 1971: Instructions to Medical Inspectors") is that normally only those who:

  (i) are seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for 6 months or more and have come from countries where there is a high risk of having been exposed to infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis; or

  (ii) mention health or medical treatment as a reason for seeking entry to the United Kingdom, or appear unwell are referred for medical examination.

  Only Heathrow and Gatwick have a permanent medical inspector. At other UK ports where there is no permanent medical inspector doctors are available on-call.

  There has been no change in the policy for referral of passengers to the medical inspector. It is not possible to provide reasons for the increase in the numbers referred without conducting a full and detailed analysis which would be at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum to the UK have been made in each year since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177103]

  Mr. Browne
  The table shows the number of applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1994–2003 the latest published data. Information for previous years is published in successive editions of the Home Office annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", copies of which are available from the Library of the House, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website it http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html. The nationalities provided in the publication have changed to some extent over the years, reflecting changes in the nationalities applying for asylum. Provision of a consistent set of data for all nationalities, for data back to 1979, would incur disproportionate cost.
  975W

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1994–2003

  Number of principal applicants

  Nationality

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19992

  20002

  20013

  20024

  20034

  Albania

  75

  110

  105

  445

  560

  1,310

  1,490

  1,065

  1,150

  595

  Czech Republic

  5

  15

  55

  240

  515

  1,790

  1,200

  825

  1,365

  75

  Macedonia

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  20

  50

  90

  65

  755

  310

  60

  Moldova

  5

  10

  *

  20

  25

  180

  235

  425

  820

  375

  Poland

  360

  1,210

  900

  565

  1,585

  1,860

  1,015

  615

  990

  95

  Romania

  355

  770

  455

  605

  1,015

  1,985

  2,160

  1,400

  1,210

  545

  Russia

  n/a

  n/a

  205

  180

  185

  685

  1,000

  450

  295

  285

  SAM5

  n/a

  n/a

  400

  1,865

  7,395

  11,465

  6,070

  3,230

  2,265

  805

  Turkey

  2,045

  1,820

  1,495

  1,445

  2,015

  2,850

  3,990

  3,695

  2,835

  2,395

  Ukraine

  n/a

  n/a

  235

  490

  370

  775

  770

  445

  365

  295

  Other Former USSR

  590

  785

  960

  1,325

  2,235

  2,460

  2,275

  895

  1,245

  620

  Other Former Yugo.

  1,385

  1,565

  620

  375

  535

  2,625

  2,200

  85

  90

  45

  Europe other

  535

  770

  1,035

  1,575

  1,260

  200

  415

  335

  300

  85

  Europe total

  5,360

  7,050

  6,475

  9,145

  17,745

  28,280

  22,880

  14,215

  13,235

  6,280

  Colombia

  405

  525

  1,005

  1,330

  425

  1,000

  505

  365

  420

  225

  Ecuador

  105

  250

  435

  1,205

  280

  610

  445

  255

  315

  145

  Jamaica

  110

  150

  125

  130

  105

  180

  310

  525

  1,310

  925

  Americas other

  265

  415

  205

  165

  165

  240

  155

  170

  240

  220

  Americas total

  890

  1,340

  1,765

  2,825

  975

  2,025

  1,420

  1,315

  2,290

  1,520

  Algeria

  995

  1,865

  715

  715

  1,260

  1,385

  1,635

  1,140

  1,060

  535

  Angola

  605

  555

  385

  195

  150

  545

  800

  1,015

  1,420

  860

  Burundi

  50

  95

  60

  85

  215

  780

  620

  610

  700

  645

  Cameroon

  75

  85

  105

  175

  95

  245

  355

  380

  615

  495

  Congo

  40

  80

  75

  90

  150

  450

  485

  540

  600

  355

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  775

  935

  680

  690

  660

  1,240

  1,030

  1,370

  2,215

  1,525

  Eritrea

  110

  245

  135

  125

  345

  565

  505

  620

  1,180

  955

  Ethiopia

  730

  585

  205

  145

  345

  455

  415

  610

  700

  640

  Gambia

  140

  1,170

  245

  125

  45

  30

  50

  65

  130

  95

  Ghana

  2,035

  1,915

  780

  350

  225

  195

  285

  190

  275

  320

  Ivory Coast

  705

  245

  125

  70

  95

  190

  445

  275

  315

  395

  Kenya

  1,130

  1,395

  1,170

  605

  885

  485

  455

  305

  350

  220

  Nigeria

  4,340

  5,825

  2,900

  1,480

  1,380

  945

  835

  810

  1,125

  990

  Rwanda

  100

  135

  80

  90

  280

  820

  760

  530

  655

  265

  Sierra Leone

  1,810

  855

  395

  815

  565

  1,125

  1,330

  1,940

  1,155

  385

  Somalia

  1,840

  3,465

  1,780

  2,730

  4,685

  7,495

  5,020

  6,420

  6,540

  5,100

  Sudan

  330

  345

  280

  230

  250

  280

  415

  390

  655

  930

  Tanzania

  205

  1,535

  225

  90

  80

  80

  60

  80

  40

  30

  Uganda

  360

  365

  215

  220

  210

  420

  740

  480

  715

  710

  Zimbabwe

  55

  105

  130

  60

  80

  230

  1,010

  2,140

  7,655

  3,280

  Africa other

  530

  750

  600

  425

  375

  465

  670

  670

  1,295

  1,640

  Africa total

  16,960

  22,545

  11,290

  9,515

  12,380

  18,435

  17,920

  20,590

  29,390

  20,370

  Iran

  520

  615

  585

  585

  745

  1,320

  5,610

  3,420

  2,630

  2,875

  Iraq

  550

  930

  965

  1,075

  1,295

  1,800

  7,475

  6,680

  14,570

  4,045

  Middle East other

  910

  755

  600

  675

  745

  1,045

  1,330

  1,165

  1,115

  1,065

  Middle East total

  1,985

  2,295

  2,150

  2,335

  2,785

  4,165

  14,415

  11,265

  18,315

  7,985

  Afghanistan

  325

  580

  675

  1,085

  2,395

  3,975

  5,555

  8,920

  7,205

  2,290

  Bangladesh

  310

  685

  645

  545

  460

  530

  795

  510

  720

  730

  China

  425

  790

  820

  1,945

  1,925

  2,625

  4,000

  2,390

  3,675

  3,445

  India

  2,030

  3,255

  2,220

  1,285

  1,030

  1,365

  2,120

  1,850

  1,865

  2,275

  Pakistan

  1,810

  2,915

  1,915

  1,615

  1,975

  2,615

  3,165

  2,860

  2,405

  1,905

  Sri Lanka

  2,350

  2,070

  1,340

  1,830

  3,505

  5,130

  6,395

  5,510

  3,130

  705

  Vietnam

  5

  5

  10

  10

  35

  105

  180

  400

  840

  1,130

  Asia other

  260

  385

  270

  255

  615

  1,120

  1,025

  1,040

  915

  655

  Asia total

  7,515

  10,685

  7,885

  8,570

  11,940

  17,465

  23,230

  23,480

  20,755

  13,135

  Nationality not known

  125

  50

  80

  105

  190

  785

  450

  160

  145

  80

  Grand total

  32,830

  43,965

  29,640

  32,500

  46,015

  71,160

  80,315

  71,025

  84,130

  49,370

  n/a = data not available.

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

  3 Revised figures.

  4 Provisional figures.

  5 Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003. SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999).

  976W 977W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted asylum in the UK in each year since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177104]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The table shows the number of asylum seekers, excluding dependants, granted asylum in the United Kingdom by nationality, 1994 to 2003 the latest published data. Information for previous years is published in successive

  Cases1,2 recognised as refugees and granted asylum, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1994 to 2003

  Number of grants to principal applicants

  Nationality

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20003

  20013,4

  20025

  20035

  Albania

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  25

  25

  25

  20

  5

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  10

  5

  *

  —

  Macedonia

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  5

  5

  —

  Moldova

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  —

  5

  5

  5

  *

  Poland

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  20

  5

  *

  5

  Romania

  5

  5

  5

  5

  *

  5

  15

  5

  5

  *

  Russia

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  5

  *

  *

  25

  20

  15

  10

  SAME6

  n/a

  n/a

  70

  1,355

  935

  6,290

  275

  360

  225

  30

  Turkey

  90

  50

  55

  85

  40

  85

  180

  210

  150

  95

  Ukraine

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  5

  —

  *

  15

  10

  *

  —

  Other Former USSR

  5

  10

  5

  10

  5

  10

  60

  55

  55

  25

  Other Former Yugo.

  25

  285

  1,080

  405

  70

  45

  110

  40

  10

  5

  Europe Other

  5

  5

  *

  5

  —

  15

  50

  25

  5

  *

  Europe Total

  130

  355

  1,220

  1,870

  1,060

  6,480

  790

  760

  500

  175

  Colombia

  5

  *

  10

  20

  150

  5

  60

  40

  45

  20

  Ecuador

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  10

  20

  5

  Jamaica

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  10

  *

  Americas Other

  5

  10

  5

  15

  25

  *

  30

  10

  5

  5

  Americas Total

  10

  10

  15

  35

  175

  5

  120

  70

  80

  30

  Algeria

  20

  15

  30

  105

  310

  475

  65

  65

  20

  5

  Angola

  5

  *

  10

  10

  5

  20

  70

  100

  65

  25

  Burundi

  —

  —

  —

  5

  195

  20

  85

  225

  115

  115

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  —

  20

  50

  40

  20

  Congo

  —

  —

  —

  *

  5

  5

  45

  115

  35

  35

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  10

  15

  15

  20

  10

  15

  145

  325

  155

  90

  Eritrea

  *

  —

  *

  5

  10

  5

  35

  120

  140

  65

  Ethiopia

  5

  5

  10

  20

  35

  20

  40

  90

  50

  15

  Gambia

  —

  10

  15

  5

  10

  *

  5

  5

  —

  *

  Ghana

  5

  *

  5

  10

  10

  —

  40

  50

  15

  10

  Ivory Coast

  *

  *

  10

  40

  50

  —

  15

  20

  10

  15

  Kenya

  —

  *

  5

  15

  5

  15

  50

  25

  15

  10

  Nigeria

  *

  *

  15

  65

  100

  —

  20

  25

  25

  15

  Rwanda

  5

  —

  *

  80

  145

  20

  85

  205

  125

  25

  Sierra Leone

  5

  *

  5

  5

  10

  5

  95

  165

  55

  15

  Somalia

  5

  10

  15

  985

  2,330

  130

  5,310

  2,910

  2,515

  1,660

  Sudan

  30

  10

  55

  60

  55

  40

  110

  120

  70

  130

  Tanzania

  *

  —

  *

  —

  *

  *

  5

  5

  5

  *

  Uganda

  15

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  20

  55

  35

  30

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  *

  *

  —

  —

  20

  120

  2,240

  870

  Africa Other

  10

  *

  5

  15

  15

  5

  55

  90

  70

  40

  Africa Total

  115

  80

  210

  1,460

  3,315

  785

  6,340

  4,880

  5,795

  3,190

  Iran

  100

  165

  195

  155

  125

  55

  390

  575

  395

  115

  Iraq

  380

  570

  470

  255

  510

  315

  845

  830

  715

  75

  Middle East Other

  45

  50

  80

  100

  60

  45

  115

  150

  90

  60

  Middle East Total

  520

  785

  745

  510

  695

  415

  1,350

  1,560

  1,205

  250

  Afghanistan

  5

  15

  25

  20

  35

  15

  375

  2,320

  115

  40

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  *

  —

  *

  *

  20

  10

  5

  5

  China

  15

  10

  10

  25

  5

  5

  40

  20

  15

  20

  India

  5

  *

  5

  *

  *

  *

  40

  20

  5

  10

  Pakistan

  5

  10

  5

  10

  5

  25

  125

  225

  135

  75

  Sri Lanka

  10

  20

  5

  55

  50

  20

  900

  1,440

  340

  25

  Vietnam

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  15

  25

  10

  978W
  editions of the Horne Office annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", copies of which 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/immigrationl.html. The nationalities provided in the publication have changed to some extent over the years, reflecting changes in the nationalities applying for asylum. Provision of a consistent set of data for all nationalities, for data back to 1979, would incur disproportionate cost.
  979W

  Cases1,2 recognised as refugees and granted asylum, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1994 to 2003

  Number of grants to principal applicants

  Nationality

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20003

  20013,4

  20025

  20035

  Asia Other

  5

  *

  —

  *

  5

  *

  45

  80

  50

  35

  Asia Total

  50

  60

  50

  115

  100

  65

  1,545

  4,130

  685

  225

  Nationality not known

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  225

  55

  10

  10

  Grand Total

  825

  1,295

  2,240

  3,985

  5,345

  7,815

  10,375

  11,450

  8,270

  3,880

  n/a = Data not available.

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

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

  3 Exclude cases where asylum has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  4 Revised figures.

  5 Provisional figures.

  6Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003. SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 700W, on asylum seekers, how many failed Iraqi asylum seekers have been removed from the UK in each month since June 2003 for which figures are available. [174755]

  Mr. Browne
  Estimates of the number of nationals of Iraq who had sought asylum at some stage and who were removed from the UK from between July 2003 and March 2004—the latest date for which figures are available—are shown in the table. These figures include persons departing leaving the UK after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes operated on our behalf by the International Organisation for Migration.

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, nationals of Iraq, July 2003 to March 2004

  Number of principal applicants

  Nationality

  2,3,4Iraq

  July 2003

  20

  August 2003

  20

  September 2003

  15

  October 2003

  20

  November 2003

  20

  December 2003

  20

  January 2004

  60

  February 2004

  60

  March 2004

  90

  Total July 2003 to March 2004

  320

  1Includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.

  2 Figures may include a small number of dependants leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes.

  3 Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest five and may not sum due to rounding. Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.

  At present returns to Iraq are on a voluntary basis, but on 24 February 2004 my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary announced that the UK was the first country to reach agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to begin enforced returns
  980W
  of unsuccessful Iraqi asylum seekers. A pilot scheme will allow thirty Iraqi nationals per month to be returned initially. We will commence returns when the practical arrangements are finalised.

  Information on the destination of these removals is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the nationality of those asylum seekers who were removed from the UK between April and June 2004 will be available in August 2004 from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at ttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration1. html

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being housed in local authority or housing association accommodation in the(a) Huntingdon constituency, (b) Cambridgeshire and (c) Corby constituency. [175133]

  Mr. Browne
  Statistics on the location of asylum seekers in the UK are linked to the available information on the support that the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers currently in the UK are either in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or from local authorities, or are supporting themselves. Statistics regarding the location of asylum seekers not in receipt of NASS support are unavailable.

  The following table gives data on the number of asylum seekers supported in. NASS accommodation in the Huntingdon constituency, Cambridgeshire and Corby constituency, as at the end of March 2004 (including dependants):

  Number supported in NASS accommodation (including dependants)

  Cambridgeshire Of which:

  115

  Cambridge

  —

  Huntingdon

  —

  North-East Cambridgeshire

  —

  North-West Cambridgeshire

  115

  South Cambridgeshire

  —

  South-East Cambridgeshire

  —

  Corby

  5

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  981W
  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published in the quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  CCTV (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Rochdale parliamentary constituency since 1997. [178499]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £209,536 to Rochdale council for Close Circuit Television scheme.

  Allocation of that funding locally is a matter for Rochdale metropolitan borough and the Greater Manchester police. The information is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Sir Gerald Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 188W, on correspondence, when he will reply to the letter to him dated 14 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Muhammad Rafique. [178999]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote again to my right hon. Friend on 15 June 2004.

  Crime (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts has been in Rochdale since 1997. [178490]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Rochdale is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics. org.uk

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it a statutory responsibility for health and fire authorities to be involved in crime and disorder reduction partnerships. [178430]

  Ms Blears
  Section 97(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002 amended section 5(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to extend the range of bodies who are "responsible authorities" within Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Police authorities, fire authorities and health authorities in Wales became responsible authorities with effect from 1 April 2003.
  982W
  Following discussions with the Department of Health, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England became responsible authorities with effect from 30 April 2004.

  PCTs, health authorities in Wales and fire authorities all now have a statutory responsibility to work in partnership with other partners in order to tackle crime and disorder and misuse of drugs issues locally. They are expected to play an important role in the three yearly audit of crime and drugs audit process, currently under way, and the formulation and delivery of the resultant crime and disorder reduction and misuse of drugs strategy covering the period 2005–08.

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [176511]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the public spending settlements for 2006–08 to be announced in detail later this year.

  Graffiti Removal Notices
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Merseyside local authorities have issued a graffiti removal notice to a statutory body since the inception of this power. [178328]

  Ms Blears
  This power is initially being piloted in 12 local authorities, in order to assess the impact on the businesses affected. Decisions on further rollout will be made in the light of this exercise. The power to issue graffiti removal notices is therefore not yet available to Merseyside authorities.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the processes involved in reading the information stored on the proposed identity card. [171599]

  Mr. Browne
  The identity cards scheme is still in the early design stage but we are planning for it to be flexible in offering different levels of card checks to suit the particular transactions. For example, retailers wanting to check proof of age might just check the person against the photograph on the card and the date of birth. In comparison, public or private sector organisations might check a person's biometric using a reader and verify this against the National Identity Register before providing a service.

  It is too soon to finalise how exactly the more sophisticated types of verification check will be made and the type of technology which will be used. However, as we made clear in the consultation document published on 26 April, verification checks of cards will simply confirm identity and other relevant details. The draft Identity Cards Bill also makes clear that these

  983W
  checks will only be made with the consent of the individual, unless specifically allowed under the draft Bill.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1419W, on identity cards, if he will list all the categories of person who have not applied for an identity card who, under the proposals in the draft Identity Cards Bill, will be recorded on the National Identity Register. [176452]

  Mr. Browne
  Under Clause 2(4) of the draft Identity Cards Bill, individuals who have not applied to register, or who are not entitled, may be recorded. There is therefore no definitive list of which individuals will be recorded. Examples of who could be included under Clause 2(4) include failed asylum seekers, illegal immigrants who are removed and third country nationals intending to stay in the country for less than three months but whose passport has been surrendered for bail purposes.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1419W on identity cards, what biometric data will be used in the processes being tested. [176453]

  Mr. Browne
  The United Kingdom Passport Service's biometric enrolment pilot records face, fingerprint and iris biometrics. Not all of these biometrics are recorded from each volunteer.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2004, Official Report, column 1419W, on identity cards, whether failure to produce an identity card as proposed by the draft Identity Cards Bill will provide grounds for arrest in circumstances where a non-arrestable offence is suspected. [176454]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have made it clear that it will not be a requirement to carry an identity card or to produce a card to a police officer on demand and, as such, it will not be an offence for a person to fail to produce an identity card to a police constable. The police will not have power to arrest for failure to provide an identity card.

  Police powers in England and Wales to identify a person arrested for a recordable offence are contained in section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. This section states that where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that the service of a summons is impractical or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied. The general arrest conditions include where the name or address of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable, or that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name or address furnished by the relevant person is his real name. Similar provisions under different statutes apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  984W
  These powers will be unaffected by the introduction of an identity card. As at present with existing documents, people will be free to produce an identity card on a voluntary basis (if they have one) to a police officer or to any other official as a means of establishing their identity, but will not be compelled to do so.

  Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will summarise the evaluation report produced by Oxford University on the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. [177898]

  Paul Goggins
  The evaluation report is in its final stages of preparation. We expect it to be ready for publication shortly. Copies of the summary will be sent to my hon. Friend and placed in the Library and on the Youth Justice Board website.

  Mr. Akezhan Kazhegeldin
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Mr. Akezhan Kazhegeldin, the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan, is permitted to hold any employment in the UK; and whether lie receives financial support from the British Government; [176353]

  (2) what representations he has received from Interpol on the Government's decision to grant leave to remain in the UK for Mr. Akezhan Kazhegeldin, the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. [176625]

  Mr. Browne
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 15 June 2004.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the financial position of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association; what funds have been made available to the Association; what assessment he has made of the Association's ability to continue its work; if he will publish the audit of the Association undertaken by his Department; what steps he is taking to assist the Association in maintaining its support to local neighbourhood watches; and what other arrangements he is putting in place to maintain support to local neighbourhood watches. [178234]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received representations from 32 Members of Parliament and 55 members of the public about the financial position of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association (NNWA).

  £350,000 of public funds were made available to the Association in 2003.

  The NNWA is an independent organisation itself responsible for assessing its capabilities.

  The audit was not intended for publication. Copies have been supplied to the NNWA and they may publish the report if they wish to.
  985W
  The National Association informed us in November 2003 that, until further notice, it would cease most of its support for local associations and concentrate on its commercial activities.

  The main support to local Neighbourhood Watch schemes is in the form of partnership working from the police, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, and the community safety departments of local authorities. We have asked police forces to ensure these arrangements are robust. We are also examining provision of website and advice line support.

  Home Office support for local schemes will continue unchanged. This includes the printing and distributing of Neighbourhood Watch publications worth £100,000 per annum. It also provides training materials like the "Crime Reduction Basics" and "Passport to Crime Reduction" toolkits, of which over 6,000 were sent to local schemes in December 2003.

  The Home Office is currently piloting a new quarterly community safety magazine called "The Word", with a section dedicated to Neighbourhood Watch, which will in future go out nationally.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Home Office(a) Ministers and (b) officials had contact with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association over the Association's attempts to use the Neighbourhood Watch logo in connection with private sector sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [178412]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has corresponded with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association and officials from the Crime Reduction Directorate of the Home Office and Treasury Solicitors have met them and corresponded with them on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions he has placed on the use of the National Neighbourhood Watch Association logo. [178574]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: The National Neighbourhood Watch Association logo is a variant of the Neighbourhood Watch logo, which is Crown copyright. The National Neighbourhood Watch Association has registered the Neighbourhood Watch logos as its own trademarks and the Home Office is currently holding discussions with the Association to recover them and to agree how they may be used by the Association in future.

  Personal Identification Project
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have had their data used in the UK Passport Service's Personal Identification Project; how individuals are recruited for the project; and how their consent is obtained. [172401]

  Mr. Browne
  Since the start of the trial in Glasgow in October 2003 there have been 117,427–1 October 2003 to 10 May 2004–applications processed through the Personal Identity Project system.

  All application packs for the Glasgow catchment area (Scotland and Kent) have supplementary forms included: these forms inform applicants of the trial and
  986W
  the use of the data they submit. In the final section of the form the applicant is requested to sign giving consent for the data supplied to be used in the identity search as described in the guidance notes.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much capacity building funding for the recruitment of special constables was made available to police forces in each year since its inception. [178787]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: The Specials' capacity building funding was announced in December 2003 and is in its first year. It is designed to assist Forces implement good practice, improving the recruitment, management and deployment of Special Constables.

  All 43 Police Forces in England and Wales submitted proposals. The following table shows the allocation made to Forces, covering the first 12 months of the scheme.

  Force

  Total (£)

  Avon and Somerset

  70,000

  Bedfordshire

  69,859

  Cambridgeshire

  70,000

  Cheshire

  70,000

  City of London

  70,000

  Cleveland

  70,000

  Cumbria

  65,316

  Derbyshire

  63,934

  Devon and Cornwall

  39,892

  Dorset

  70,000

  Durham

  66,820

  Dyfed Powys

  70,000

  Essex

  70,000

  Gloucestershire

  67,194

  Greater Manchester

  39,999

  Gwent

  67,516

  Hampshire

  54,684

  Hertfordshire

  62,453

  Humberside

  70,000

  Kent

  70,000

  Lancashire

  70,000

  Leicestershire

  70,000

  Lincolnshire

  23,134

  Merseyside

  65,434

  Metropolitan Police

  70,000

  Norfolk

  69,500

  Northamptonshire

  70,000

  Northumbria

  70,000

  North Wales

  63,710

  North Yorkshire

  70,000

  Nottinghamshire

  62,000

  South Wales

  69,006

  South Yorkshire

  63,400

  Staffordshire

  39,818

  Suffolk

  65,402

  Surrey

  70,000

  Sussex

  69,898

  Thames Valley

  69,779

  Warwickshire

  62,342

  West Mercia

  66,070

  West Midlands

  69,960

  West Yorkshire

  70,000

  Wiltshire

  69,950

  Totals

  2,787,070

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) successes and (b) failures of the national drugs strategy in Afghanistan. [178028]

  Mr. Rammell
  President Karzai adopted the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy in May 2003. Its aim is to eliminate opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan by 2013. I set out to the House on 9 June 2004,Official Report, columns 124–27WH the action in hand to deliver that strategy and made clear that the UK, as lead nation, remains committed to supporting its implementation.

  In the first year of implementation of the strategy, the basic counter narcotics structures have been put in place: drug control legislation, a Counter Narcotics Directorate, a Special Narcotics Force, the Counter Narcotics Police and a central eradication capability. Work is also in hand to develop alternative livelihoods for farmers dependent on opium poppy cultivation. These measures provide a sound basis for the future development of robust institutions and programmes to combat opium production and trafficking. Progress remains linked to the wider security situation in Afghanistan and to the implementation of other areas of institution building such as policing and judicial systems.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources are being made available to monitor the elections in Afghanistan. [178312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Joint Elections Management Body comprised of the Afghan Transitional Administration and UN representatives, and chaired by Interior Minister Jalali, is responsible for election preparations. As part of its electoral support plans, the UN Development Programme intends to establish an "Observation Office" to facilitate national and international election observation. The Office is intended to support information exchange between Afghan and international observers and other interested parties; provide briefing packages for observers; and develop training materials for Afghan observers.

  We are currently discussing with EU partners and the European Commission a range of measures to support the elections, including deployment of monitors and advisers. There are likely to be observer teams from a number of other countries. Work is also in hand to develop domestic monitoring capacity. Afghan civil society organisations involved in this have formed a "Core Group" to co-ordinate domestic monitoring activities.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the size of the British monitoring team during the elections in Afghanistan will be. [178313]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not yet decided on the size or nature of any UK input into the international monitoring effort for the forthcoming elections in Afghanistan. But we are looking at this, including in the light of current discussions with EU and other partners.

  Zimbabwe
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will authorise the entry of Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [179037]

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank, was not prevented from entering the UK under the terms of EU sanctions. [178767]

  Mr. Mullin
  Because he is not on the list of individuals subject to an EU travel ban and we see no advantage in acting unilaterally.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of reports of involvement in illegal foreign exchange deals involving the Zimbabwe regime of Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank. [178768]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are aware of these reports. Zimbabwean foreign exchange regulations are a matter for the Zimbabwe Government, and allegations of corruption are a matter for their police.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that Gideon Gono, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe(a) is a fundraiser for ZANU PF and (b) intends to enter the United Kingdom for fundraising purposes. [179036]

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the fund-raising visit to the UK of Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank. [178766]

  Mr. Mullin
  We understand that during Dr. Gono's visit he is encouraging Zimbabwean émigrés to remit money to Zimbabwe through the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe rather than through other means.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Bangladesh on protecting the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in that country. [178133]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continue to be concerned about the situation of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Bangladesh, and raise this regularly with the Bangladeshi Government. I did so with the Bangladeshi High Commissioner in London during his introductory call in January. The British High Commission in Dhaka raises the subject regularly, most recently when our High Commissioner met the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister on 19 May. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn), raised our concerns about the general law and order situation with the Bangladeshi Prime Minister on 25 May in Shanghai.
  989W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Bangladesh Government concerning the security situation in the country with reference to attacks on and harassment of opposition party members; and if he will make a statement. [178187]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I discussed the worrying political situation in Bangladesh with the Bangladeshi Finance Minister Saifur Rahman in London on 10 March. I stressed the importance of all parties adopting a constructive approach and working together to allow Bangladesh to address the key issues it faces. Officials at our High Commission in Dhaka regularly raise our concerns about human rights and law and order with the Bangladeshi Government, most recently when our High Commissioner called on the Foreign Minister on 19 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) also raised these issues with the Bangladeshi Prime Minister on 25 May in Shanghai.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the bomb attack in Bangladesh which injured the United Kingdom High Commissioner. [178188]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his press statement of 21 May, we were deeply shocked to hear of the events in Sylhet earlier that day in which three people died and some 50 were injured including our High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Anwar Choudhury. A copy of the press statement is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. We extend our sympathies to all the victims and their families. Mr. Choudhury was visited in hospital by the Foreign Secretary and I visited twice. I am plesed to report that Anwar is recovering well and has now been discharged from hospital. Officers from the Metropolitan police visited Sylhet soon after the event in order to assist the Bangladeshi police with the investigation, which is still on-going. We are very grateful to the Bangladeshi authorities for the support we have received, and will, of course, be following the progress of the investigation closely.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assassination of Bangladesh member of parliament Ahsanullah Master. [178189]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We noted with concern the murder on 7 May of Ahsanullah Master MP. We understand that a police investigation has been launched, and urge the Bangladeshi authorities to make every effort to bring those responsible to justice. We also urge the main political parties in Bangladesh not to let this assassination worsen their relationship. We encourage all parties to adopt a constructive approach and work together to help Bangladesh to address the challenges that it faces.

  Conflict Prevention Pool
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the 990W
  Government will be included in the Conflict Prevention Pool; and what the priorities are of the Conflict Prevention Pool. [178891]

  Mr. Rammell
  A review of the Government's work on Conflict Prevention in 1999–2000 concluded that delivery would be improved by bringing together in a more co-ordinated way the existing activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in this field. The Government therefore set up joint FCO/DfID/MOD Africa and Global Conflict Prevention Pools in 2001.

  The pools were set up with the aim of reducing the number of people around the world whose lives are affected by violent conflict and, ultimately, of cutting the number of conflicts that occur.

  Activities of these two pools seek to harness the expertise available within the three Departments across a wide range of sectors including development, security reform, public administration, good policing and equitable justice systems.

  By 2006, DfID, FCO and MOD, together and with others, will work to:
  (i) resolve existing violent conflicts and prevent new conflicts in priority countries and regions eg Afghanistan, Balkans, Former Soviet Union, Middle and Near East, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Great Lakes, Sudan, Angola, and Nigeria
  (ii) address the national and regional causes of conflict by:
  strengthening local conflict management eg through improved governance and security sector reform in priority countries and regions
  improving local peace support capacity in co-operation with international partners eg the development of a GS-Africa Peace Support Operations plan
  (iii) improve the inter-national community's response to conflict by:
  strengthening UN Conflict Management capacity eg improving peacekeeping deployments
  mobilising and supporting coherent bilateral and international action at UN, G8, EU, Commonwealth, and other forums including NEPAD
  implementing agreements to reduce the proliferation of small arms and light weapons eg international and national action plans
  (iv) tackle the Economic and Financial Causes of Conflict eg by mobilising national and international agreement to increase oil revenue transparency and corporate social responsibility.

  East Timor-Australia
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what line the United Kingdom recognises as the boundary line between East Timor and Australia. [178473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is currently no agreed maritime boundary between East Timor and Australia. We hope they will work together to find a mutually acceptable solution. We welcome reported comments by the Prime Minister of East Timor, Mr. Alkatiri, that East Timor is "open to creative solutions" and by the Australian Foreign Minister James Downer that Australia is "open to fresh ideas".

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to oppose the renewal of UN Security Council Resolution 1487; and if he will make a statement. [177720]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 58W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to help protect Iraq's cultural heritage after the planned official handover of power in Iraq on 30 June. [178126]

  Mr. Rammell
  Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) advisers to the Iraqi Ministry of Culture have been working hard to enable the Ministry to assume responsibility for its own administration. It has now done this and we welcome the reappointment of Mufid al-Jazairi as the Minister.

  The Ministry has begun implementation of an Archaeological Site Protection Plan and the CPA and Iraq State Board of Antiquities and Heritage are working together to build an archaeological site patrol force.

  In the past year the CPA has also instituted security measures at the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, and believes that these measures will suffice to protect it in future. Security upgrades have been undertaken in the Mosul Museum. No other archaeological museums now contain original objects.

  We expect to see future exchanges between Iraqi and international conservationists highlight further areas for co-operation between experts.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has asked the United States Central Intelligence Agency if it will give permission for the release of communications made by the CIA to Her Majesty's Government in respect of reservations held by the CIA over claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, following the public testimony by the CIA Director George Tenet on 11 July 2003. [178727]

  Mr. Straw
  I am withholding details of intelligence exchanges with the CIA under exemptions 1(b) and (c) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his written answer of 26 May 2004,Official Report, column 1636W, on the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), whether, in his meeting with the President of the ICRC in Geneva on 18 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (a) was made aware of and (b) raised the issue of allegations concerning the treatment of prisoners in Iraq by Coalition forces other than British forces. [179099]
  992W
  Mr. Straw
  The President of the ICRC, Dr. Kellenberger did mention briefly to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) in their meeting on 18 March that the February ICRC report contained allegations concerning treatment of detainees by forces other than UK forces, though naturally the part of their discussion which covered detainees in Iraq focused on specific allegations against UK forces. The Minister discussed the concerns raised by Dr. Kellenberger with officials on his return to London. Officials had already received assurances that US investigations were under way into allegations of abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, columns 748–49W, on Iraq, what inquiries are being conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority into the prison facilities specified in the International Committee of the Red Cross report. [175773]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition Provisional Authority is not responsible for the US and UK detention facilities which were the subject of the ICRC report.

  Israel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consequences beyond public censure the Government has raised with Israel in respect of alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions. [178582]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention repeatedly both in public and in private, bilaterally and in multilateral fora such as the United Nations and at the Conference of States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention held in Geneva in 2001. Respect for international humanitarian law is an essential feature of our efforts to bring peace to the region based on the roadmap.

  The most serious consequence of such breaches is their negative impact on prospects for achieving the lasting peace which most Israelis want to see.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to report human rights abuses committed by Israel in Gaza to the EU Association Council. [178796]

  Mr. Rammell
  Article 2 of the EU/Israel Association Agreement states that "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

  Where we have concerns over Israeli actions on human rights grounds we raise these concerns with the Israeli government both as the UK and through the EU. Following the recent violence in Gaza, EU Foreign Ministers said that Israeli Defence Force actions were "disproportionate and in conflict with international law and also with Israel's obligations under the Roadmap."
  993W
  The EU also uses the opportunity to raise issues of concern, including human rights, at the EU/Israel Association Council. The EU will consider in the autumn what issues to raise at the EU/Israel Association Council scheduled to be held at the end of this year.

  Middle East
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the(a) Palestinian Authority and (b) Israeli Government to discuss peace in the Middle East. [178132]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in constant contact with both parties at all levels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean will continue to meet senior representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government as appropriate.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will continue to promote the roadmap as the way forward in the Middle East. [178190]

  Mr. Rammell
  Yes. The Government are committed to progress towards peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet's (UN, EU, US, Russia) roadmap.

  Ministerial Expenses
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether(a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments paid for travelling and other expenses in connection with the attendance by the Minister for Europe at meetings in the course of the composition and signing of the Party of European Socialists document entitled "Political Declaration, High Level Policy Group on Globalisation: Europe 2004, Changing the Future"; whether he was accompanied to those meetings by officials from his Department or any other Government Department; and whether any officials from his Department or any other Government Department arranged the Minister for Europe's travel plans. [178746]

  Mr. Straw
  No.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal assistance was given by his Department to the five Britons arrested in relation to bombing incidents in Saudi Arabia in 2000 during their incarceration in that country; and what the cost of that assistance was. [178936]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The men detained in Saudi Arabia, as in other consular cases, were put in contact with local lawyers who provided independent legal assistance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not provide any legal assistance, nor did it provide funding for legal assistance, but we did provide the most extensive consular support.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which international treaty 994W
  to which the United Kingdom is party (a) gives legal underpinning to the possession of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom and (b) permits the modernisation of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons of mass destruction. [178728]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom is recognised as a Nuclear Weapons State in accordance with the definition in Article IX(3) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  The UK is satisfied that its possession and maintenance of its minimum nuclear deterrent is in compliance with international law.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there were on average in accident and emergency departments in each hospital in Merseyside in each of the last three years. [177856]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [176507]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the public spending settlements for 2006–08, to be announced in detail later this year.

  Air Fresheners
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research has been conducted into the impact upon(a) indoor air quality and (b) human health of the use of air fresheners; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [177478]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not undertaken any studies on the effects of the use of air fresheners on health or on indoor air quality.

  Aneurisms
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the position regarding screening for aneurisms. [178314]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom national screening committee (NSC) makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. It is currently considering Vie feasibility of implementing a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms, including resource costs of screening and of surgery. This follows a multi-centre study funded by the Medical Research Council. The NSC is expected to advise the Government later in the year.

  Anti-depressant Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set a date by which the current Review of SSRI and related anti-depressant drugs will be completed and published; and what the reasons are for the delay in completing it. [178235]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressant drugs will be(a) completed and (b) published. [178458]

  (2) what the reasons are for delays in completing the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants; [178468]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The review of the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors by the Committee on Safety of Medicines' expert working group has taken longer than expected because of the need to examine a large amount of data from a wide variety of new and existing sources. The expert working group expects to publish its report later this year.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the best estimate of(a) the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and (b) the Committee on the Safety of Medicines of the incidence of withdrawal reactions to Seroxat was in (i) July 1997 and (ii) July 2003; and if he will make a statement on the figures. [178236]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons were for the differences in the best estimate of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines of the incidence of withdrawal reactions to Seroxat in July 1997 and July 2003. [178339]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate was made by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the incidence of withdrawal reactions to Seroxat in(a) July 1997 and (b) July 2003. [178522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: Data were not available in July 1997 to allow a good estimation of the incidence of withdrawal reactions with paroxetine by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). In July 2003, the best estimate of the incidence of withdrawal reactions by the MHRA and CSM, based on analyses of clinical trials was that 25 per cent. of patients had experienced symptoms on withdrawal of paroxetine. Information about the potential for paroxetine to cause withdrawal reactions has been included in the product information since the time of licensing and has been updated to take account of the new data on incidence.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related 996W
  anti-depressant drugs to be completed and published; and for what reasons this review has not been published earlier. [178721]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The review of the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors by the Committee on Safety of Medicines' expert working group has taken longer than expected because of the need to examine a large amount of data from a wide variety of new and existing sources. The expert working group expects to publish its report later this year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued in relation to the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. [178960]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: Guidance on how to use selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) safely and effectively is provided in the product information for prescribers, the summary of product characteristics, and in the patient information leaflet which accompanies the medicine. These documents are authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) at the time of licensing and updated through the life of the product as new information on risks and benefits emerges. Information on prescribing is also provided in the British National Formulary, which is sent to all doctors in the national health service.

  As with all medicines, the safety of SSRIs is continually monitored by the MHRA with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). Articles have been published in the MHRA/CSM drug safety bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance in 1993, 2000 and 2003". These articles alerted prescribers to safety issues with SSRIs, in particular the risk of withdrawal reactions and the need to monitor carefully patients at risk of suicidal behaviour. The September 2003 edition of "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" contained a fact sheet for patients to aid discussions with their doctor about the appropriate use and possible side effects of their medicine.

  The safety of SSRIs is currently undergoing intensive review by an expert working group of the CSM. Advice has been communicated to doctors and patients as each stage of the review has been completed. In December 2003, the CSM issued advice on the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents and published summaries of the clinical trial data on which this advice was based on the CSM website. In March 2004, the CSM issued a reminder to doctors on the recommended dose of paroxetine (Seroxat) in the treatment of depressive illness.

  Autistic Spectrum Disorder
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the long-term effects of neuroleptic drugs given to people who have been misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. [178956]
  997W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The Department has not made an assessment of the long-term effects of neuroleptic drugs given to people who have been misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.

  Breastmilk Substitutes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health effects of feeding babies breastmilk substitutes; and if he will make a statement. [176766]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Department has not made any assessment of the health effects of feeding babies breastmilk substitutes.

  The Department recommends breastfeeding as the best form of nutrition for infants as it provides all the nutrients a baby needs for the first six months of life and has positive health benefits for both mother and baby in the short and longer term. Breastfed infants are five times less likely to be admitted to hospital with infections such as gastro-enteritis in the first year of life and may be less likely to become obese in later childhood. Breastfeeding is also advantageous for maternal health. Longer-term breastfeeding helps mothers to return to their pre-pregnancy weight and there is a reduced incidence of pre-menopausal breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers.

  Cannabis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what campaigns have been launched by his Department and what funding has been granted to warn teenagers about links between cannabis use and mental illness. [178346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The FRANK campaign is a £3 million a year three-year joint initiative from the Department of Health and the Home Office and is supported by the Department for Education and Skills. Launched in May 2003, FRANK aims to inform young people and their parents, carers and families about the effects and risks of taking illicit drugs. In addition, FRANK gives people advice, support and provides details of drug services. The campaign's primary focus is on Class A drugs, in line with the Government's updated drugs strategy. The risks associated with cannabis use, including possible mental health illness, are also documented.

  A Home Office-led £1 million information campaign started in January 2004 to inform the public about the changes to the law on cannabis. This included radio and newspaper adverts, leaflets, posters, postcards and education packs for schools.

  Although no specific funding has been granted to warn teenagers about possible links between cannabis use and mental illness, the Department has funded a new leaflet on the adverse health effects of cannabis, and includes a section on mental health. This leaflet is currently being printed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the letter of 27 May 2004 from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Wycombe, if he will ensure that the chair of the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority writes to the hon. Member for Wycombe with the information requested by 18 June. [178096]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority has advised that the chair of the strategic health authority will provide information to the hon. Member by 18 June.

  Delayed Discharge Fines
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which wards in hospitals in West Sussex are not liable for delayed discharge fines. [178307]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Patients for whom delayed discharge charges are currently payable under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act are those receiving acute care. The definition of acute care is based upon the patient, not the hospital bed. Therefore, there are no wards which are liable for delayed discharge fines.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when primary care trusts will take control of the dental services budget to enable them to carry out their duty of care to deliver primary dental services under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. [176705]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The £1.3 billion financial resources (2003–04) currently held centrally will be transferred to primary care trusts to coincide with the implementation of the new contractual framework for national health service dentistry. Following a consultation with representative bodies of the dental profession on our "Framework Proposals for Primary Care Dental Services in England", we are currently considering whether any revision to the original timetable of April 2005 is necessary.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been provided to NHS dentists in the Adur, Arun and Worthing primary care trust area in each of the last three years. [178304]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The gross and net fees paid to dentists for the provision of general dental services (GDS) for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 is shown in the table.

  Before October 2002, Adur, Arun and Worthing was part of the West Sussex health authority area. These figures exclude some payments to dentists such as commitment payments, maternity and seniority payments as well as superannuation payments made on their behalf.
  999W

  National health service dental service: gross and net fees paid in the GDS for the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04

  £million

  year

  Health authority (HA)/primary care trust (PCT)

  Gross fees

  Net fees1

  2001–02 to first half of 2002–03

  Year ending March 2002

  West Sussex HA

  31.6

  23.4

  April 2002 to September 2002

  West Sussex HA

  16.0

  11.9

  2002–03—second half to 2003–04

  October 2002 to March 2003

  Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT

  3.3

  2.2

  Year ending March 2004

  Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT

  7.0

  4.5

  1Excludes patient charge.

  Note:

  Community, personal and hospital dental services have not been included in this table as these are not funded separately from other services.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have access to NHS dentists in the Adur, Arun and Worthing primary care trust area; and what percentage of the potential target group this figure represents. [178305]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are 99,000 patients registered with the general dental service (GDS) dentists in the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust area at 31 March 2004.

  This represents 46 per cent., of the population of Adur, Arun and Worthing.

  Registration numbers cover patients who have registered with a GDS dentist and attended the dentist within the past 15 months. They do not include some patients who choose to attend less often.

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

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to(a) support and (b) promote NHS dentistry in Crosby. [177857]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 in relation to primary dental services represent the most radical reform of national health service dentistry since 1948. They will give a better deal for patients, for dentists and for the NHS. Under these proposals, primary care trusts (PCTs) have a duty to secure the provision of primary dental services.

  Nationally, we have provided new investment totalling £90 million over the last year. £59 million will support access, and strategic health authorities (SHAs) have been advised of their shares and are working with their primary care trusts to address access issues. £30 million is to support information technology and the balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.
  1000W
  The PCTs across Merseyside are working closely with the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA supported by the shadow Special Health Authority (dentistry) to improve local dental access using their share of the access funds: some £2.64 million in 2004–05.

  NHS Direct receives about 19,000 calls per month related to dentistry (at March 2004). Reports from the NHS suggest that about 91 per cent, of callers to NHS Direct are being advised of available sources of NHS dentistry within locally agreed standards.

  The number of dentists working in the General Dental Services (GDS) is increasing. On 30 March 2004, there were 19,313 dentists in England, up from 16,728 in 1997. Activity in the GDS has been stable. Around 60 per cent., of all general practice dentists offer 90 per cent., or more NHS care. Some 25 per cent., of all general practice dentists offer NHS care exclusively.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average distance for people to access NHS dentists is in(a) Merseyside and (b) Crosby. [177859]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The average distance to a General Dental Service surgery is 0.54 miles for people living in Merseyside and 0.34 miles for people living in Crosby.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when discussions with the Governments of(a) Poland, (b) Germany, (c) Denmark and (d) Spain on the recruitment of dentists from their countries began; [178270]

  (2) if he will list the recruitment agencies used to recruit dentists from (a) Poland, (b) Germany, (c) Denmark and (d) Spain; and what the cost of using them has been to date; [178272]

  (3) if he will list the countries with which his Department is in discussion regarding the recruitment of overseas dentists to work in the UK; and how far advanced these discussions are in each case; [178274]

  (4) pursuant to the Oral statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central of 11 May 2004, Official Report, column 22WH, on dentists, how many dentists he expects to recruit from (a) Poland, (b) Germany, (c) Denmark and (d) Spain this year. [178278]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A Government to Government agreement exists to recruit healthcare professionals from Spain. On this basis, plans are currently being developed to recruit dentists but no assessment of numbers has been made.

  The Department has signed an agreement to recruit at least 110 dentists from Poland and other parts of Europe via methods consulting. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton) met with Polish Ministers in March to discuss matters of mutual interest. Discussions on the recruitment of dentists have since been followed up at official level.

  Earlier this month, the Department, at the request of the Danish employment service, provided information to Danish dentists wishing to work in England.
  1001W
  Departmental officials met with their Indian counterparts in April and discussed how to improve the registration process for dentists who wish to practice in the United Kingdom.

  The number of dentists to be recruited from Poland, Denmark and Spain is not yet known.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what complaints he has received from(a) EU countries and (b) non-EU countries about the active recruitment of overseas dentists; and if he will make a statement. [178409]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is not aware of any complaints about the recruitment of overseas dentists.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), of 11 May,Official Report, column 22WH, how many overseas dentists he expects to start working in (a) the community dental service, (b) the general dental service and (c) hospital dental services; and if he will make a statement. [178566]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department's international recruitment campaign will focus on filling vacant posts within primary care dentistry. It is too soon to predict which parts of the national health service recruits will work in.

  Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government are giving to drug and alcohol rehabilitation schemes in the community. [178158]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: In 2001–02 the Government set up the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to increase both the quality and availability of drug treatment. At the same time the Government made substantial funding available for drug treatment through a new pooled drug treatment budget, which in 2004–05 had risen to £260 million, an increase of over 100 per cent. over 2001–02 levels.

  In addition to the pooled drug treatment budget substantial national health service mainstream monies are available for the provision of drug treatment.

  Alcohol services are largely funded through NHS mainstream monies but there are no central records of the total amount.

  The Government also recently launched their alcohol strategy in March 2004, which includes within it a goal to improve the effectiveness of alcohol treatment services.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current waiting time is for drug rehabilitation in Stroud for(a) detoxification and (b) recovery. [178466]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.
  1002W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the throughput for individuals who have been accepted onto drug rehabilitation schemes in Stroud was in each of the last three years. [178467]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Stroud is part of Gloucestershire drug action team. There were 1,073 people receiving drug treatment in Gloucestershire in 2000–01. These are the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not yet been finalised and published.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received from Consumers for Health Choice in relation to the interpretation and implementation of the Food Supplements Directive; and if he will make a statement; [176536]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from right hon. and hon. Members in relation to the Food Supplements Directive; and if he will make a statement. [176538]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Recently the Department has received numerous postcards relating to the Consumers for Health Choice campaign.

  Between 1 March 2004 and 28 May 2004, 265 representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members in relation to the Food Supplements Directive. This number includes both campaign postcards and non-campaign correspondence.

  Framework Criteria
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to determine which conditions and treatments are assessed for the introduction of(a) national service frameworks, (b) policy frameworks and (c) National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines. [176881]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In selecting a topic for and developing and implementing a national service framework, account is taken of the importance of a health issue in terms of morbidity and mortality, the scope for service improvement and the capacity of the national health service and its partner agencies to implement the framework. Similar criteria determine the areas in which the Government choose to introduce major initiatives in other parts of health and social care policy.

  The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is set by the Department, via the advisory committee for topic selection (ACTS). The ACTS consists of departmental policy officials, NICE, patient and professional groups and the pharmaceutical industry. Its role is to advise whether a topic is suitable

  1003W
  for an appraisal by NICE. The ACTS applies selection criteria agreed by Ministers and prioritises those proposals which meet the criteria, The key criteria are whether guidance would promote the best possible improvement in patient care given available resources, and whether NICE would be able to add value by issuing guidance.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prove on of 24 hour heart monitors to general practitioners' surgeries. [173635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  General practitioner practices make decisions about how they spend the income they receive, which will in some cases have been used to provide 24 hour heart monitors. In addition in 2002–03, £15 million was allocated to pay for cardiac equipment in primary care.

  Gymnasiums (Mental Health Hospitals)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what gymnasium facilities are available in each mental health hospital in England. [178347]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not centrally available.

  All new mental health buildings are designed to specific functional and space standards, which are provided in Health Building Notes (HBN).

  HBN 35, "Accommodation for people with mental illness", acknowledges that physical exercise is important both as recreation and because of the positive

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Bury and Rochdale Health Authority

  1

  1

  11

  12

  10

  1—

  1—

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  216

  225

  230

  242

  267

  1—

  1—

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  286

  267

  272

  275

  256

  1—

  1—

  Oldham NHS Trust

  347

  346

  360

  393

  417

  1—

  1—

  Rochdale Health Care NHS Trust

  244

  249

  243

  259

  308

  1—

  1—

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  900

  853

  Rochdale PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  137

  144

  Pennine Care NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  146

  187

  1Not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mental Health Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials in his Department at Grade 7 and above have worked on the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 since May 1997. [178752]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A number of officials across the Department have contributed to work on the reform of the 1983 Mental Health Act since 1997. Quantifying this information by grade could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
  1004W
  link between physical and mental health. HBN 35 states that it is a local decision whether to provide a gymnasium or a fitness room.

  Health Services (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Rochdale parliamentary constituency have access to free eye tests; and what percentage are(a) women and (b) from an ethnic minority; [178510]

  (2) how many residents in Rochdale parliamentary constituency aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests; and what percentage were (a) women and (b) from an ethnic minority. [178511]

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

  In 2002–03, the total number of national health service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority for patients in the aged 60 and over category was 189,900. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 493,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Rochdale in each of the last seven years. [178513]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the number of qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that drug treatments for patients with mental health illnesses are prescribed at the correct dosage; and what measures are taken to monitor patients for harmful side effects. [178145]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The safety of all medicines in clinical practice is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). Health professionals are asked to report any suspected side

  1005W
  effects to the MHRA/CSM through the Yellow Card scheme. When a new side effect for a medicine is identified, action is taken to inform prescribers and to minimise the risk to patients.

  Where specific monitoring of patients is required to ensure safe use of a medicine, this is referred to in the product information for prescribers (the summary of product characteristics) and in the patient information leaflet.

  MRSA
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each of the last two years have fallen ill owing to MRSA-related conditions contracted as a result of a stay in hospital in each health service area. [177721]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally. Available data from the national mandatory methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections (bacteraemias) system is shown in the table.

  Mandatory methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections (bacteraemias)

  Strategic health authority

  April 2002—March 2003

  April 2003—March 20041

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  389

  344

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  173

  148

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  455

  440

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  344

  320

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  155

  122

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  182

  202

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  215

  235

  Dorset and Somerset

  139

  100

  Essex

  149

  148

  Greater Manchester

  375

  410

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  200

  213

  Kent and Medway

  200

  203

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  189

  182

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  392

  388

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  151

  197

  North Central London

  376

  364

  North East London

  246

  253

  North West London

  387

  376

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  225

  267

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  175

  240

  South East London

  406

  397

  South West London

  244

  267

  South West Peninsula

  210

  259

  South Yorkshire

  156

  198

  Surrey and Sussex

  346

  383

  Patients waiting for elective inpatient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month-end

  NHS Trust

  Total number of Patients

  Less than three months

  Three to five months

  Six to eight months

  Nine to 11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18+ months

  March 1997

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,903

  2,638

  1,201

  668

  396

  —

  —

  —

  March 1997

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,840

  3,126

  1,677

  786

  251

  —

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,157

  3,061

  1,470

  968

  625

  33

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  6,569

  3,224

  1,087

  1,087

  412

  2

  —

  —

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,895

  2,908

  1,092

  546

  288

  61

  —

  —

  March 1999

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,357

  3,231

  1,103

  691

  318

  14

  —

  —

  1006W

  Mandatory methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections (bacteraemias)

  Strategic health authority

  April 2002—March 2003

  April 2003—March 20041

  Thames Valley

  243

  262

  Trent

  305

  337

  West Yorkshire

  357

  392

  1These data are provisional.

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of MRSA were reported in each month over the last two years in each health trust. [177988]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Annual data are available from the mandatory Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream (bacteraemia) infections surveillance system that started in April 2001 at the Department's website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/06/39/46/04063946.pdf.

  Natural Products Show (Olympia)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategy the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency adopted in terms of(a) numbers of officials and (b) method of approach for visits to stands at the Natural Products Show at Olympia on 5 April. [176963]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The medicines borderline section of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency was given six free tickets to the Natural Products Show by an industry trade association with whom the MHRA meets on regular basis. The visit was intended to help inform the Medicines Borderline Section of market trends and developments, and to help provide information to the sector. During the visit the staff had informal discussions with exhibitors about the presentation of a number of unlicensed products making illegal medicinal claims with the exhibitors and some presentational material was taken away.

  NHS Admissions (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective admissions to the NHS there were in Burnley in each of the last five years. [167946]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally on a constituency basis. Information relating to national health service organisations serving the Burnley area is shown in the table.
  1007W

  Patients waiting for elective inpatient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Months-end

  NHS Trust

  Total number of patients

  Less than three months

  Three to five months

  Six to eight months

  Nine to 11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17

  18+ months

  March 2000

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,803

  2,458

  1,190

  639

  377

  120

  19

  —

  March 2000

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,084

  2,977

  1,202

  606

  251

  48

  —

  —

  March 2001

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,554

  2,335

  1,207

  686

  326

  —

  —

  —

  March 2001

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,032

  2,924

  1,283

  593

  232

  —

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,749

  2,266

  1,165

  778

  405

  135

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  4,883

  2,532

  1,303

  692

  356

  —

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,595

  2,219

  1,223

  761

  392

  —

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  3,968

  2,375

  1,078

  432

  83

  —

  —

  —

  February-2004

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,451

  4,864

  2,354

  960

  273

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust was formed on 1 April 2003 from the merger of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare and the acute services of Burnley Healthcare. The Mental Illness and Old Age Psychiatry services of Burnley Healthcare transferred to Lancashire Care NHS Trust on 1 April 2002.

  Source:

  DH form KHO7 and Monthly Monitoring

  NHS Admissions (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Preston in the past five years. [168108]

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  months-end

  NHS Trust

  Total number of patients

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18+months

  March 1997

  Chorley and South Kibble NHS Trust

  1,857

  1,079

  463

  249

  66

  —

  —

  —

  March 1997

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,970

  4,137

  2,352

  1,445

  1,000

  18

  15

  3

  March 1998

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  2,121

  1,299

  537

  183

  102

  —

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,500

  4,079

  1,969

  1,334

  787

  257

  74

  —

  March 1999

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  2,051

  1,126

  527

  248

  132

  17

  1

  —

  March 1999

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,602

  4,154

  1,729

  1,043

  544

  132

  —

  —

  March 2000

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,967

  1,228

  453

  186

  90

  10

  —

  —

  March 2000

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,025

  4,110

  1,701

  853

  359

  2

  —

  —

  March 2001

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,926

  5,559

  1,987

  1,002

  378

  —

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,891

  5,565

  2,055

  995

  276

  —

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,445

  5,473

  2,096

  711

  165

  —

  —

  —

  February 2004

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,657

  5,642

  2,224

  791

  —

  —

  —

  —

  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

  Source:

  DH form KHO7 and Monthly Monitoring

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many three month vacancies there are for nursing posts in each(a) NHS trust and (b) primary care trust in the Thames Valle y Strategic Health Authority area; and what the three month vacancy rate is in each case. [178181]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A breakdown of the number of three month vacancies for nursing posts and three month vacancy rates for each national health service
  1008W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally on a constituency basis. Information relating to national health service organisations serving the Preston area is shown in the table.

  trust and primary care trust in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area has been placed in the Library.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of official vehicles used by his Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172775]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows a breakdown of the Department's vehicle fleet in 2003–04 by vehicle category and fuel type.
  1009W

  Cars

  Number

  Percentage

  2003–04

  Petrol

  42

  49

  Diesel

  41

  48

  Liquid petroleum gas

  3

  3

  Natural gas

  0

  0

  Total

  86

  100

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies indicate that successful lung transplants can be achieved from non-heart beating donors; and if he will make a statement. [178093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Lungs have already been successfully transplanted from non-heart beating donors in Sweden, Spain, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Research has shown that non-heart beating donors may prove to be a very good source of lungs for transplantation and should lead to further successful non-heart beating donor transplants in the future.

  Patients Forums
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations took place on the capping of Patient Forum membership at an average of 10 per forum; and if he will make a statement; [178876]

  (2) what the reasons are for the capping of Patient Forum membership at an average of 10 per forum. [178884]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The initial phase of recruitment of forum members in the three months to 1 December 2003 provided each of the 571 forums with their statutory minimum of seven members. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) calculated that membership could increase to an average of 10 per forum within its existing budget and continued to recruit volunteers with this target in mind.

  Increasing forum membership was raised as a key issue at a series of 31 regional meetings in May 2004, attended by around 1,200 forum members. In particular, forums which covered a large geographical area, for example, ambulance and mental health trusts and specialist and national hospitals, felt they needed flexibility to recruit more than 10 members.

  The CPPIH has responded by announcing that it will agree individual recruitment plans with forums for an appropriate and affordable level of membership, which could move towards 15 over time.

  Positron Emission Tomography Scanners
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of positron emission tomography scanners per head of the population in(a) England and (b) other European Union countries; [174839]

  (2) if he will publish a national service framework on the provision of positron emission tomography scanners. [174840]
  1010W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prescription Drugs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) conducted and (b) commissioned into prescription drug addiction; and if he will make a statement; [174456]

  (2) how many people in the United Kingdom he estimates are addicted to prescription drugs. [174457]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Prescription medicines that are recognised to have the potential for dependence include benzodiazepines, synthetic opioids, amphetamines and barbiturates. At the time of licensing, the available data on the potential for abuse and dependence of drugs within these classes are carefully considered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The product information for these medicines contains clear warnings about the potential for dependence and where appropriate restrictions on the licensed indications and the duration of treatment are specified in order to reduce this risk.

  Information for prescribers on benzodiazepines and opiates has been disseminated via the "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" bulletin and/or the "CMO Update", and is also available in the British National Formulary distributed to doctors and pharmacists.

  The use of benzodiazepines is the area where the greatest amount of research has been conducted. This includes a large project, costing more than £1 million, currently being conducted by the Medical Research Council into dependence in association with benzodiazepines.

  Information is not available on the number of people addicted to prescription drugs in the United Kingdom.

  Skin Care Campaigns
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on campaigns on(a) skin cancer and (b) other skin damage, induced by sunlight in each of the last 10 years. [172333]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have invested the following on sun awareness campaigns.

  £

  1999–2000

  543,000

  2000–01

  50,000

  2001–02

  126,000

  2002–03

  140,000

  Annual figures on expenditure of sun awareness campaigns undertaken by the health education authority are not available between 1996–97 and 1998–99.

  Funding of approximately £400,000 over the next three years has been approved for Cancer Research UK to run its "SunSmart" sun awareness campaign on behalf of the United Kingdom health departments, following the successful launch of "SunSmart" last year.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to conduct an audit of the two week wait rule of suspected cancer referrals. [174160]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A two week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced for all urgent referrals of suspected cancer during 2000. The Department has no plans to carry out an audit of the two week wait but all trusts have been encouraged to undertake local audit to assess the impact of the two week wait on local services and to enable the appropriateness of urgent and routine referrals against the guidelines to be fed back to referring general practitioners. The Department has commissioned the University of York, in 2003, to undertake a systematic review of two week wait audits carried out by professional bodies, trusts and cancer networks.

  The latest results of the quarterly monitoring show that 98 per cent. of all urgent referrals for suspected cancer were seen within two weeks.

TREASURY

  Fuel Price Rise
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total revenue raised by means of VAT is for each penny per litre rise in the price of(a) petrol and (b) diesel; [178284]

  (2) how much revenue he expects to raise by means of the proposed increase in fuel duty in September in the (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 financial year. [178290]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise do not collect data on VAT raised from individual goods or services. Estimates of the impact on revenues of road fuel duty rates and VAT rate changes were published in the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" alongside the 2003 pre-Budget report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Revenue estimates for all taxes and duties can be found in Table Al of this year's "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (HC 301).

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the Commission has reached a decision on the external audit arrangements for the National Audit Office. [179098]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  In exercise of its powers under section 4(5) of the National Audit Act 1983, the Commission has approved the renewal for a further two years of the appointment of Haines Watts as auditors of the National Audit Office. This arrangement covers the audits of the financial years 2004–05 and 2005ߝ06.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid his Department is giving to refugees and internally displaced persons in Serbia and Montenegro. [178967]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  My department is working with the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro to strengthen their capacity to deal effectively with the needs of refugees and Internally Displaced People. We are supporting the comprehensive Poverty Reduction Strategy, which explicitly addresses the needs of IDPs. In Kosovo we are working to create an environment that makes it easier for IDPs to return, strengthening essential public services and promoting growth and job creation.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of current development priorities for Montserrat. [178968]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We are working with the island government, to help generate local revenue and entourage private sector investment. (A new airport, for example, will be completed later this year.) Ultimately we want to enable the island to be self-sufficient, an ambition of the island government too.

  I hope to discuss progress when I visit the island next week.

  Sudan
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how his Department is contributing to relief aid in Sudan. [178969]

  Hilary Benn
  The humanitarian situation in Darfur, Western Sudan, is of grave concern. The UK has been a lead donor in the response to this crisis. We have allocated £34.5 million in humanitarian aid, as well as a £2 million contribution to the African Union Monitoring Mission for the region (through the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool).

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he expects to publish his Department's strategy for HIV/AIDS. [178970]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The strategy will be published shortly.

  Development Aid
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had on increasing the UK's overseas development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2008. [178971]
  1013W
  Hilary Benn
  Funding of official development assistance up to 2007–08 will be decided as part of the current spending review, on which discussions between DFID and the Treasury are continuing.

  West Africa
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on progress towards the millennium development goals in west Africa. [178972]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID closely monitors progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in those countries—Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, The Gambia—where we have programmes of direct development assistance. These show that progress is disappointing on many of the MDGs. There are particular challenges on child and maternal mortality and HIV/AIDs. We are working with partner Governments and other donors on how to respond.

  Information on the MDGs can be found on the UN website www.millenniumindicators.un.org.

  British Virgin Islands
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make an official visit to the British Virgin Islands to discuss the impact of EU directives. [178973]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  There are no plans for a DFID Ministerial visit to the British Virgin Islands. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's Treasury have regular contacts with territory representatives on issues of mutual interest, including the impact of EU directives.

  South America
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what UK development aid has been allocated to(a) Ecuador, (b) Peru and (c) Bolivia for financial year 2004–05. [178974]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has allocated £2.4million to Peru and £4.9million to Bolivia in 2004–05 as direct bilateral assistance. There is no allocation for Ecuador.

  DFID also provides assistance through its support to UK non-governmental organisations working in the region through the Civil Society Challenge Fund and Partnership Programme Agreements. In addition, DFID also spends about £170 million a year in these countries through its indirect share of multilateral concessional expenditure.

  South Asia
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards achieving universal primary education in south Asia. [178975]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Some progress towards universal primary education is being made in south Asia but this needs to be accelerated. In Bangladesh and India gross primary enrolment rates are above 100 per cent. but this is partly due to children repeating grades and the enrolment of under and over-age children.1014W
  Erratic data for Pakistan make it difficult to judge overall progress. More information is available in DFIDs Departmental report for 2004.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total cost of his Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [178793]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The cost of the DFID website (www.dfid.gov.uk) for the period March 2003 to February 2004 was £36,709. Staffing costs for the team of four who manage it were £111,249.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [175727]

  Hilary Benn
  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. These contain information reaching back to 1995–06. Information for earlier years and for the means of travel could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course

  All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the travel costs incurred(a) by his Department and (b) by each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years. [175647]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures for travel costs within administration cost; budgets for years for which information is readily available are as follows. Travel costs for 2003–04 are currently being collated. All official travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules contained in DFID's staff handbook.

  £

  Amount

  2001–02

  2,358,000

  2002–03

  2,645,000

  In respect of overseas travel by Ministers, since 1999 the Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the costs of Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are

  1015W
  available in the Libraries of the House. These report information reaching back to 1995–96. Information for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate costs and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course. For UK travel by Ministers, information is not available centrally for the last 10 years and to collate this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  All Ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which re available in the Libraries of the House.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on maintaining a British ambassador to UNESCO in each year since 1997. [178124]

  Hilary Benn
  The figures in pound sterling are as follows:

  £

  Amount

  1997

  30,063

  1998

  190,773

  1999

  118,175

  2000

  120,626

  2001

  124,695

  2002

  128,853

  2003

  115,732

  2004

  58,575

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what formal consultations the British ambassador to UNESCO has held with leading British museums, libraries and galleries in relation to the formation of international cultural policy in the last 12 months. [178125]

  Hilary Benn
  The current British Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has been in post for six months. During that time his main efforts have concentrated on re-establishing the UK National Commission for UNESCO which will have a role in advising Government on international cultural policy. The Commission will have representations from links with a wide cross-section of civil society, including museums, libraries and galleries. A temporary national committee has now been set up. The Ambassador has had discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on international cultural policy, and informal discussions with a number of representatives of museums including on specific issues such as help for developing countries' heritage work.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what instructions he has issued to the British Ambassador to UNESCO in relation to the position of the United States Administration on the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. [178127]
  1016W
  Hilary Benn
  None. It is a matter for individual sovereign states to decide whether they will become a party to an international agreement. The Minister for Heritage, Lord McIntosh, announced on 14 May the UK's intention to ratify the Hague Convention.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178375]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  (a) None, (b) None. It is DFID's policy to discourage the regular working of long hours. There will always be occasions when, for example, emergency situations or parliamentary demands will mean that long hours may be required as a short-term response, but DFID guidance to managers emphasises that regular long hour working must never be ignored or overlooked and that DFID has a duty to ensure the health and safety of our staff.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the level of council tax benefit for the Stroud district council area for each of the last three years. [178463]

  Mr. Pond
  Council tax benefit is an income related benefit and is paid according to the financial circumstances of the person claiming it. Therefore, there is not a single set level of council tax benefit. The average weekly amount of council tax benefit in the Stroud local authority area is in the table.

  Average weekly council tax benefit in Stroud local authority area

  As at August

  £

  2001

  10.37

  2002

  11.39

  2003

  13.14

  Notes:

  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The average amounts have been rounded to the nearest penny.

  3. Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in August 2001, 2002 and 2003.

  Attendance Allowance
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many attendance allowance claims in Scotland(a) were subject to appeal between February 2002 and February 2003, broken down by (i) disability benefit

  1017W
  centre and (ii) quarter and (b) have been subject to appeal since February 2003, broken down by month. [176762]

  Attendance allowance appeals for Scotland received at the Appeals Service (tAS) by office, for February 2002–03

  Originating office

  Number of received appeals at tAS

  Edinburgh DBC

  390

  Glasgow DBC

  890

  Disability Benefits Unit

  85

  Total

  1,365

  Attendance allowance appeals for Scotland received at tAS by office and quarter, for February 2002–03

  Quarter 1( March—ay 2002)

  Quarter 2( June—ugust 2002)

  Originating office

  Appeals

  AA claims (Thousand)

  Appeals/claims (Percentage)

  Appeals

  AA claims (Thousand)

  Appeals/claims (Percentage)

  Edinburgh DBC

  120

  56.8

  0.2

  110

  57.4

  0.2

  Glasgow DBC

  230

  48.0

  0.5

  190

  48.6

  0.4

  Disability Benefits Unit

  30

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  Total

  380

  104.8

  —

  335

  106.0

  —

  Quarter 3(September—November 2002)

  Quarter 4(December 2002—ebruary 2003)

  Originating office

  Appeals

  AA claims (Thousand)

  Appeals/claims (Percentage)

  Appeals

  AA claims (Thousand)

  Appeals/claims (Percentage)

  Edinburgh DBC

  80

  58.8

  0.1

  35

  58.8

  0.1

  Glasgow DBC

  180

  50.4

  0.4

  190

  50.9

  0.4

  Disability Benefits Unit

  10

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  Total

  270

  109.2

  —

  240

  109.7

  —

  Note:

  In the above period the Disability Benefits Unit processed the specified number of appeals on behalf of claims originating in Scotland.

  Attendance allowance appeals for Scotland received at tAS by month, from February 2003 to April 2004

  Month

  Number

  February 2003

  70

  March 2003

  75

  April 2003

  60

  May 2003

  55

  June 2003

  140

  July 2003

  95

  August 2003

  90

  September 2003

  100

  October 2003

  115

  November 2003

  120

  December 2003

  90

  January 2004

  115

  February 2004

  100

  March 2004

  105

  April 2004

  60

  Total

  1,390

  Source:

  IAD information centre. 100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  Carers
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost would be of increasing carers' allowance to the level of the full basic state pension; and what assessment he has made of the consequent effect upon payments of means-tested benefits. [178597]

  Maria Eagle
  The gross cost of increasing carer's allowance from its current rate of £44.35 per week to the level of the full basic state pension (£79.60 per week) would be around £770 million in 2004–05. After allowing for offsets in means-tested benefits the cost
  1018W
  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  would be around £370 million. Some of those who would benefit would see their increased CA payment fully eroded by reduced income support.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates use benefit rates for 2004–05 and are based on a 100 per cent. extract of CA claims on the CA computer system for May 2003, a 5 per cent. extract from the claims on the IS computer system in 2003 and a 1 per cent. extract of the housing benefit/council tax benefit claims of May 2001.

  2. The estimates do not take account of any potential behavioural changes that may result from increasing the rate of CA.
  1019W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of working age carers in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland are credited with Class 1 national insurance contributions in respect of their caring commitments. [178600]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 2003–04, a total of 520,000 working age carers in the UK who were entitled to carer's allowance, were also given NI credits for periods ranging from one week to a full year.

  Separate figures are not available for Scotland.

  Other carers entitled to CA may receive credits because they are in receipt of bend its such as incapacity benefit or jobseeker's allowance. Women who have elected to pay married women's reduced rate contributions would not receive credits.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the merits of payments for all carers. [178601]

  Mr. Pond
  The needs of carers are diverse and the support they need is not always financial. As well as having access to the full range of social security benefits and tax credits, depending on their individual circumstances, carers also have access to a wide range of support services available through local authorities and health authorities, which take account of local factors.

  Carer's allowance provides a measure of income maintenance to those carers who are spending substantial amounts of time caring for a severely disabled person, and are over pension age or unable to undertake full-time work. The Government are satisfied that targeting help in this way represents the best use of resources.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the annual additional expenditure if the qualifying period for attendance allowance was reduced from six months to three months; how many successful claimants would be affected per year; what the annual cost would be of extending entitlement to the(a) mobility component and (b) the lowest rate care component of disability living allowance to people who claim after the age of 65; how many people would gain a mobility component; how many people would gain the lowest rate care component; and if he will make a statement. [178461]

  Mr. Pond
  The requested information is not available. Entitlement to Attendance Allowance or to a component of disability living allowance can only be established when a claim is made and the actual needs of the individual are assessed. There are no reliable data available on which estimates could be made of the effects of changing the qualifying period for Attendance allowance or of the number of people aged 65 and over who might be entitled to either the mobility component or the lowest rate care component of disability living allowance if they were to make a claim.

  Smoking-Related Conditions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed invalidity benefit as a result of a smoking-related condition in each year since 1997. [178931]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available. Incapacity benefit is awarded on the basis of the functional effects of disabling conditions, regardless of their cause or of any contributory factors such as smoking. Information about incapacity benefit claimants' smoking habits is not routinely recorded.

  Specialised Disability Fund
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many grants and how much grant was given to people aged(a) under 65 years and (b) 65 years and over from the Specialised Disability Fund in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to enable people disabled after the age of 65 years to receive money under the fund. [178460]

  Mr. Pond
  There is no Specialised Disability Fund. However, the Department for Work and Pensions sponsors the Specialised Vehicles Funds and the Independent Living Funds.

  The charity Motability administers the Specialised Vehicles Funds on behalf of the Department. The funds provide grants towards the cost of specially adapted vehicles for disabled people who are eligible to apply to the Motability Scheme. The information requested is in Table 1.

  The two Independent Living Funds make cash payments directly to severely disabled people for the purchase of personal assistance or help with domestic duties to enable them to continue to live in the community. The Extension Fund is a closed fund. However, the 1993 Fund, which applies to all new claims made since April 1993, makes payments to people aged 65 or under at the date of claim. The information requested is in Table 2.

  There are no plans to extend any of the funds beyond their current provision.

  Table 1: Specialised Vehicles Funds—1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004

  Number of grants

  Total amount of grants1(£ million)

  Aged under 65 years

  1,075

  7.6

  Aged 65 years and over

  75

  0.4

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Table 2: Independent Living Funds—1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004

  Number of clients receiving grants

  Total amount of grants1 (£ million)

  Aged under 65 years

  14,883

  173

  Aged 65 years and over2

  1,585

  16

  1Rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2 Over age 65 calculated as at date of payment.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff in the Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [175362]

  Mr. Lammy
  No staff were seconded to this Department from either the private or academic sector in the 2000–01 or 2002–03 financial years. Five staff were seconded from the private sector during the period April 2001 to March 2002.

  Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Domestic Violence Courts
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of specialist domestic violence courts. [178992]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department and the Crown Prosecution Service commissioned an evaluation of five specialist magistrates courts operating in Cardiff, Derby, Leeds, West London and Wolverhampton. The results of the evaluation were presented at a national conference in London, on 22 March 2004.

  The findings of the research indicated that a specialist listing or fast-track system for domestic violence cases, which included effective support for victims, had notable and positive benefits. The Government are considering how to encourage more magistrates' courts to develop specialist domestic violence sittings. This could provide not only an improved service to court users, especially victims, but could also improve outcomes for criminal justice targets by narrowing the justice gap and improving victims' confidence in the criminal justice courts system.

  A copy of the research report will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  My Department has also set up a National Implementation Project Board to take forward the idea of developing Integrated Domestic Violence Courts which would hear both civil and criminal aspects of domestic violence cases.

  Electoral Malpractice
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the possibility of people who are registered in two electoral districts because they own two homes being able to exercise two votes in the European parliamentary elections and remain undetected. [179042]

  Mr. Leslie
  Although it is possible for certain persons to appear on two electoral registers and consequently to receive ballot papers for two different locations, it is an offence for a person to vote twice in European Parliamentary elections anywhere in Europe. Any offence, if successfully prosecuted, could result in a fine of up to £5,000. Member states exchange information about electors registered in more than one state, with the 1022W
  aim of preventing double voting. There has been no detailed assessment of the extent of this area of fraud but in response to the Electoral Commission's review of registration, the majority of Electoral Registration Officers reported no experience of such fraud.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many individuals are registered to vote in more than one electoral district. [179043]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected.

  Justices of the Peace (London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appointments of Justices of the Peace for the Greater London area have been(a) men and (b) women in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [178687]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:

  In 2000–01 there were 87 men and 107 women appointed.

  In 2001–02 there were 80 men and 81 women appointed.

  In 2002–03 there were 68 men and 73 women appointed.

  The figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  Magistrates (Retirement)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what his policy is on the compulsory retirement of magistrates; and what plans he has to raise the retirement age. [178506]

  Mr. Leslie
  The retirement age of 70 for magistrates is statutory, as specified in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. A general retirement age of 70 for judicial office holders was decided upon in the early 1990's when, after wide consultation, the then Government concluded that a retirement age of 70 was appropriate to modern conditions and this was reflected in new legislation.

  There are currently no plans to increase the retirement age of judicial office holders, but we are looking at the position in the context of that part of the European Employment Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation on age discrimination, which comes into force in October 2006.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) if he will list the travel costs incurred by(a) the Department and its predecessors and (b) each Minister within his Department, for each of the last 10 years; [175655]

  (2) how much the Department and its predecessor spent on ministerial travel by (a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and (d) helicopter, in each of the last 10 years;. [175666]

  (3) 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. [175735]
  1023W
  Mr. Lammy
  The information is as follows:

  (1) (a) Total travel costs for my Department, which covers costs for the Court Service, the Public Guardianship Office and DCA Headquarters was as per the table as follows:

  Period

  Amount (£)

  2004–05 (To 31 May)

  726,579

  2003–04

  5,913,187

  2002–03

  5,035,694

  2001–02

  4,522,177

  2000–01

  4,169,902

  1999–2000

  4,237,897

  1998–99

  3,506,760

  (1) (b) it is not possible to list the travel costs of each Minister within my Department without incurring disproportionate cost. However, aggregate travel and subsistency costs for the Private Offices, which covers costs for Ministers and Officials was as per the table:

  Period

  Amount (£)

  2004–05 (To 31 May)

  11,280

  2003–04

  64,891

  2002–03

  83,051

  2001–02

  60,220

  2000–01

  98,592

  1999–2000

  59,823

  1998–99

  40,192

  Information on previous years is not readily available.

  (2) (a) My hon. Friend the Minister of the Cabinet office has asked Nick Matheson, Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to write to the hon. Member with details of the cost of ministerial vehicles provided to this Department.

  (2) (b) (c) and (d) it is not possible for my Department to provide the full detailed information requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  (3) My Department's records cannot provide a definite, exact answer, without incurring disproportionate cost.
  1024W
  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. These report information reaching back to 1995–06. Information for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and in some cases will no longer be held. Information for 2003–04 will be published in due course.

  My Department has published rules for official travel in its staff handbook and Ministerial travel is governed by the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many employees in the Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178361]

  Mr. Lammy
  Managers in my Department are required to obtain a written agreement if an employee chooses to work more than the 48 hour average weekly limit. This information is held locally and is not readily available. I will write to the hon. member as soon as the information is available. There are currently no staff employed who are exempt from the Working Time Directive. Working hours, including those accruing on a flexitime basis, are monitored by line managers locally and no central figures are available. Managers are instructed to monitor hours closely if staff work close to or over 48 hours per week to ensure compliance with the Regulations. The Department is fully committed to reducing the number of employees required to work in excess of 48 hours per week commensurate with operational needs. It does so by adjusting working hours and redesigning jobs in order to keep such posts to an absolute minimum and the policy is kept under regular review.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pesticide Spraying
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  I have now completed a detailed consideration of the outcome of two consultation exercises regarding the introduction of buffer zones and information on pesticide use. As a result I would like to announce a number of measures designed to provide additional reassurance about the pesticide regulatory process, and to improve public access to information about pesticides used.

  First I would like to announce that the royal commission on environmental pollution has agreed to my request to carry out a special study to examine the scientific evidence on which DEFRA has based its decisions on the risks to people from pesticide exposure.

  I requested this study following a detailed evaluation of the responses made to the two public consultations launched on 21 July 2003, which sought views on the introduction of buffer zones around residential properties near farms, and how residents can best be informed of the pesticides that are being sprayed.

  My number one priority has always been to ensure that the safety arrangements we have in place for pesticides do the job of protecting the public. The independent scientific advice I have received, both from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides and DEFRA's chief scientific adviser, is very clear that the existing system provides full reassurance. I am confident that no new scientific evidence has come to light that would provide a safety based justification for buffer zones, and I have therefore decided against their introduction around agricultural land.

  Nevertheless the responses to the consultations demonstrate that there is a perception that the current arrangements, and in particular the assessment of risks, are inadequate. I have listened to the concerns of campaigners who hold strong views about how crop spraying has affected their health. Their views are undoubtedly sincerely held and although no new scientific evidence was produced to support their case, I believe the time is now right for a fresh and independent appraisal of the science. This is why I have asked the royal commission to examine the scientific evidence on which the regulatory system is based. The commission will be free to take a new and independent approach to the question. Further details about the scope and management of the royal commission's study will be released in due course.

  I have also decided to introduce new legal measures requiring farmers and growers to keep records of pesticides used on crops and to make those records available to the public via a third party. Officials are contacting general practitioners' and lawyers'
  38WS
  representatives and those for community health councils to explore whether they would act as third party representatives in such cases. These measures are at the early stage of development, and will require changes to existing pesticide regulations to put them into effect. I will bring forward proposals for parliamentary consideration at the earliest opportunity.

  In parallel, a pilot study will be set up to explore how residents living next to farms can be notified in advance of pesticide use. The study will look at the practicality and cost of various options for how notification can take place. Officials are working on the terms of reference for the study and further details will be published as soon as practical.

  These measures are in addition to a biomonitoring study already being arranged to look at the effect of pesticides in the air. There is also an on-going study, co-ordinated by the working group on risk assessment of mixtures of pesticides (WIGRAMP) into the effect of numbers of pesticides used in combination.

  I also intend to invite key stakeholders to a meeting in the near future to explain the reasoning behind the decisions made.

DEFENCE

  Defence Vetting Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The business review of the defence vetting process has been completed. The review team has made a number of recommendations and observations, which Director General (security and safety) has agreed and endorsed, and as the senior responsible officer will oversee the implementation strategy.

  The key findings of the review are that the rationalisation of the former defence vetting organisations has been successful, providing both economies and efficiencies in the vetting process and offering opportunities for further performance enhancement and business expansion. The Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) has achieved the prime aim required by its framework document and become an integrated and cohesive organisation. Standardised procedures for defence vetting have been adopted by the agency, which has successfully consolidated the majority of the disparate processes previously used within the separate service vetting organisations. The organisation is correctly sized to deliver its required output and over the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 has reduced its net operating costs from £11 million to £9.6 million, with the staff component reducing by £1.8 million.

  The review also concluded that the DVA should remain a defence agency and, as the largest UK vetting organisation, is well placed to extend its services to a wider range of other Government Departments, if required.

  I have arranged for copies of the report of the business review to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Key targets have now been set for the chief executive of the DVA for the financial year 2004–05. Building upon the progress made since it formed in 1997, these incremental targets will help the agency to become much

  39WS
  more responsive to its customers, and be well placed to move towards carrying out security clearances more quickly, without any loss of quality.

  Quality

  KEY TARGET 1:
  Through external validation, achieve at least a 95 per cent. success rating with specially selected cases, and achieve zero serious errors that should have been identified at the time of vetting.

  KEY TARGET 2:
  To complete 33 per cent. of the three-year security check and developed vetting backlog review programme.

  Timeliness

  KEY TARGET 3:
  To improve the completion time of routine cases to:

  (a) 62 per cent. of counter terrorist checks completed within 30 calendar days.

  (b) 65 per cent. of security checks completed within 30 calendar days.

  (c) 50 per cent. of developed vetting completed within 100 calendar days.

  KEY TARGET 4:
  To improve the completion time of priority cases to:

  (a) 45 per cent. of priority counter terrorist and security check cases completed within 10 calendar days.

  (b) 90 per cent. of priority developed vetting completed within 30 calendar days.

  40WS
  KEY TARGET 5:
  To achieve average completion times of:

  (a) 30 calendar days for counter terrorist checks.

  (b) 30 calendar days for security checks.

  (c) 100 calendar days for developed vetting.

  Efficiency

  KEY TARGET 6:
  To reduce the unit cost of output by 2 per cent.

  I have arranged tor advance copies of the DVA corporate plan to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Desulphurisation Plant (Aberthaw Power Station)
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to RWE Innogy plc for the construction of a flue gas desulphurisation plant at the 1,500 MW coal-fired power station at Aberthaw in the Vale of Glamorgan. Planning permission for the plant has also been deemed to be granted, subject to 29 planning conditions agreed with the Vale of Glamorgan council.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Lord Howard of Rising
Greville Patrick Charles Howard, Esquire, having been created Baron Howard of Rising, of Castle Rising in the County of Norfolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Willoughby de Broke and the Lord Fellowes.
Lord Hart of Chilton
Garry Richard Rushby Hart, Esquire, having been created Baron Hart of Chilton, of Chilton in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Irvine of Lairg.

National Offender Management Service
2.48 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to bring in legislation to implement the Carter review on the proposed national offender management service.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, some of the organisational reform involved in establishing the national offender management service, along with the sentencing proposals in the Carter report, will require legislation. Subject to other priorities in the Government's legislative programme, we are planning to introduce a Bill as soon as possible.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has been doing an extremely good job providing very wise advice and judgments? Does she also share the view that the repeated promise to put the ombudsman on a statutory footing would strengthen his role considerably and ought to be brought forward in legislation very soon without necessarily awaiting the full legislation for the Carter report?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the ombudsman is discharging his duties in an exemplary way, but whether it would be right to include that in statutory form needs further consideration.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the package of proposals justifies doing
744
away with the Prison Service and Probation Service, as suggested on page 43 of the report? Further, does she recognise that the judicial roles identified on page 42 cannot really be described as in any way new?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are not doing away with the Prison Service and the Probation Service; rather, we are forming them into a new entity which we hope will enable them to work even more effectively than hitherto, particularly bearing in mind the new structural change brought about by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judicial role will remain that which it has always been and one which we are proud that this country has had the benefit of for a long time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a major restructure of the Probation Service took place in 2001, only three years ago? Serious concerns were expressed in your Lordships' House when this matter was considered, on the basis that the Home Office seems to have an insatiable appetite for controlling everything centrally. Does the Minister consider that the National Association of Probation Officers and the probation service boards have been given adequate time for consultation? According to their representations, they are very unhappy. Will she also take into account not only the scrutiny of Parliament, but the opinions of these organisations when bringing proposals before this House?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that an appropriate opportunity will be provided for consultation. Indeed, a wide range of consultation has already been undertaken. Noble Lords know that we have held two formal public consultations on the Carter reforms. The government document, Reducing Crime, Changing Lives invited responses on a number of critical issues, and we have now published a second consultation seeking specific comments on whether the model of the new national offender management service will provide a rational and cost-effective means of delivering the NOMS reforms, whether the regional offender management boards should be chaired and so on. That is a real opportunity for consultation.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that we have an insatiable appetite for centralisation. In fact, the result of NOMS will be a higher level of local accountability, while the regional managers will have a real opportunity to make a difference.
Lord Acton: My Lords, will the proposed legislation affect the position of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and her inspectors?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it will have no effect on their independence or their ability to advise the Government on what they deem appropriate better to manage the system.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is a great deal of

745
disquiet among those in the probation service that this amalgamation will erode the skills they have developed in working in the community with offenders? Can she give an assurance that those skills will be preserved in the new structure?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have heard and understand that anxiety, but it is my pleasure to say that we believe it to be totally unfounded. We will have to rely even more keenly on the skills and aptitudes of probation officers. We have increased their number by 5,000 and we intend to have a further 2,500 in the next two years. We need these officers as never before.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, if the transition to NOMS is handled well, it could mark a step forward for justice. However, the problem is that the Government are handling it so badly that they have created uncertainty and lack of trust in what may happen. Can the Minister explain why, in advance of any parliamentary scrutiny or legislation, appointments are already going ahead and piloting of the regional system is being undertaken in the north-west?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the creation of this service could be a very good development. However, I do not accept that it is being dealt with badly by the Government. We have taken extensive opportunities to consult. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that we have had meetings with the relevant trade unions, that 10 road shows attended by Martin Neary have been held in the English regions and Wales for 3,000 prison and probation staff, along with numerous sentencers. So I do not accept that this process has not been handled appropriately. We are already seeing the benefits of the changes, as well as a welcome change of view and acceptance that this will inure to the benefit of the system and of justice.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain in detail the attitude of the trade unions representing staff working in the two services, and what was the Government's response?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, anxieties have been expressed about precisely what these changes will mean and what kind of structure is to be put in place. Those are proper concerns which the Government are seeking to address. The precise form of any changes has not yet been settled and we will continue to consult all the appropriate stakeholders to make sure that we get this right.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just mentioned consultation. What consultation has taken place with the chaplaincy services and how, in the changes they are implementing, the Government can avoid the danger that unacceptable variations will occur in the level and scope of spiritual care of prisoners between one region and another?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, the consultation process has been open to all. I cannot tell
746
the noble Lord today precisely how many chaplains have participated, but I can certainly confirm that on my visits, chaplaincy issues have been raised. These matters will be taken into account. I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord about specific consultation in this area.

Saddam Hussein
2.57 p.m.
Lord Sandberg Lord Sandberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the United States or coalition authorities about the whereabouts and status of Saddam Hussein and the legal procedures envisaged for bringing him to trial.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we consult regularly with the United States and other coalition countries both within the CPA and directly between our capitals on a wide variety of issues concerning Iraq, including detainees and future judicial proceedings against them.
Saddam Hussein is being held by the United States in a secure location. The US announced, when Saddam Hussein was captured, that he has the status of a prisoner of war under the third Geneva Convention. The Iraqi authorities envisage bringing Saddam Hussein to trial before the Iraqi Special Tribunal. The US and Iraqi authorities are in discussion about the handover of Saddam Hussein and other detainees.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Saddam Hussein has been in custody for something like half a year. He is, I think, a prisoner of the coalition rather than just of the United States. We understand that US intelligence personnel have had access to him. God knows what they have learnt: perhaps that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. Can the Minister tell us what access to him has been given to British security services?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Saddam Hussein is being held as a prisoner of war by the US. The briefing I have on access to him states that the International Committee of the Red Cross visited him in April and May.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what assurances, if any, have been given by the authorities in Iraq, a country where normally capital punishment is applied in cases of this kind? Further, what assurances have been given that capital punishment will not be applied in this case, however heinous the alleged behaviour of the person concerned may have been?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that the UK opposes the death penalty as a matter of principle. We note that the Iraqi justice Minister, Malik Dohan al-Hassan, has said that he would like to see the reintroduction of the death

747
penalty. If the interim Iraqi Government reintroduce the death penalty, we will lobby them to abolish it, as we do with all retentionist states.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that as Britain is part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, we have some standing regarding the future of Saddam Hussein? Are we happy for the decision on what happens to him to be left purely to the Iraqi Government after 30 June, or do we think that since this was international intervention in Iraq, international law and the law of the UN need to be taken into account?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I reiterate that it is for the United States and the Iraqi authorities to determine when he should he handed over.
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are aware that they are in discussion over this.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that Saddam Hussein was responsible for an act of hostage-taking in 1991 during the course of the first Gulf War, which is an offence under international law. Is it the intention of anyone to prosecute him on that issue?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a detailed answer on that question.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it appears that there is some difference of view between Mr Iyad Allawi and the Iraqi Government designate on the one hand and the Coalition Provisional Authority on the other as to whether he should be handed over by 30 June. One side says that he should be, and we understand that the Americans are saying that he should not be. Further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, what is our view? We are a key member of the coalition; we must have a view on that rather sensitive and immediate matter. What is it?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is no difference between what the Iraqi Prime Minister and the US President are saying on handing over Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi Prime Minister has confirmed that criminal proceedings will be brought against Saddam Hussein and President Bush has confirmed that the US will pass Saddam Hussein to the Iraqi authorities to face criminal prosecution. We believe, speaking for our own UK prisoners of war, that in accordance with the third Geneva Convention, the obligation to release and repatriate prisoners of war arises with the end of active hostilities, which we believe will be 30 June.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my opinion Saddam Hussein is very lucky that
748
he has been classed as a PoW? Who decided that he was going to be a PoW and who decided that the people in Guantanamo Bay are not PoWs?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the discussions between the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi interim government have decided the status of Saddam Hussein. I do not have briefing on Guantanamo Bay.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will there be a new criminal code and a new criminal process in position on 1 July, or will Saddam Hussein be tried under the criminal code and process of his own regime?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the precise details of his trial have yet to be decided.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, why is this a matter for the United States and not for the coalition?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Saddam Hussein is a US prisoner of war.

Late Payment of Commercial Debt
3.4 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their late payment of commercial debt legislation is assisting small companies; and whether they are enforcing the requirement for large companies to publish payment particulars in their annual reports.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, 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 42 days. By comparison, the average settlement time for our European neighbours was 50 days.
A recent survey by the REL Consultancy Group looked at average days payable outstanding and concluded that UK companies' payment performance was 33.6 days against a European figure of 42.4 days as a whole.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he share my disappointment that, according to a report by Leeds University published by the Federation of Small Businesses, the average payment period remains stubbornly at 46 days. Some 17 companies are named in that report as having an average payment period of more than 200 days.
Secondly, will my noble friend turn his attention to the important issue of publishing in annual accounts the payment practices of plcs? Does he recognise that there has been an increase in the numbers of those who fail to publish those practices, thereby breaching

749
company law? Will the Government act against those reprobates to ensure that small businesses can prosper and survive?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have not seen the Leeds research, although I have seen reference to it very recently. I promise that I will get hold of it and study it because there is plainly a discrepancy between some of the research findings.
On my noble friend's second point, plcs have to disclose the payment times in their directors' reports as a result of regulations introduced in 1996 by the Conservative Government. We added and enacted a commitment to publish, and the published lists appear once each year. It is certainly true that fewer plcs are complying with that requirement.
The Companies House regime deals with auditors' reports, but not with directors' reports. It says that the burden would be too great and involve looking at about 6 million documents a year. I am quite convinced that we will need to look at that and ensure that there is an overall improvement.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, are organisations funded by the public purse, whether they are government departments, nationalised industries, quangos or local government, any better at paying their debts than companies in the private sector?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think they probably are. The Government are committed to improving the payment culture in UK business in general and their own payment performance, which is an important part of the policy. The Government paid, on average, 95 per cent of their Bills on time in 2003–04, compared with a figure of 91 per cent in 1995–96. It is an improvement, it ought to get still better, and we intend it should do so, but we publish league tables and we come clean about where we need to make improvements.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that all government departments pay their small suppliers promptly, specifically the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that all government departments are now charged to make sure that they do exactly that. I have no reason to think that the Ministry of Defence is a poor performer in this regard. If it was, we would look at the league tables and be able to identify that.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Government put any pressure on Defra to make sure that the outstanding claims going back to the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 are met? These are two years out of date, and each of those companies is a small business or is linked to a small business.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I know that this is not the first time that the issue of Defra and the payment of
750
bills in relation to foot and mouth has been raised in your Lordships' House. Defra has exactly the same responsibilities to pay small businesses on time as every other department. However, the National Audit Office has also pointed out to government departments that they have an official duty to protect public funds and should not pay bills which they believe should be challenged or when they are doubtful about the data. I believe that some delays may have occurred in that context. None the less, I think that there would be criticism in your Lordships' House if the advice of the National Audit Office were to be ignored in such cases.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Government or Defra pay interest on accounts that have been outstanding since 2001?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, under the legislation, not only is interest paid but there is a sliding scale of arrangements so that people can secure the legal costs of enforcing debt payment. That is all part of the current regulatory regime.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, many charities in this country have contractual relationships, usually with local government, and care for very dependent children and vulnerable adults. Under company law, there is an obligation to pay those charities or contractual relationships on time. However, many are using charitable funds quite wrongly to cover debts. It creates a great many problems. Cannot the Government do anything to help them?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the noble Baroness. The reality is that the Act that applies to commercial debts applies only when an organisation is acting in the course of business. It is therefore unlikely to apply to payments to charities or the voluntary sector made by local authorities. There is no current plan to change the law in that regard. However, I would certainly be willing to look at any data that the noble Baroness may provide to consider what might be helpful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given the disparity between the first Answer that the Minister gave and the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—figures from the Credit Management Research Centre at the University of Leeds with which I agree—and given the questions that have been asked about the Government's own record, what I have to ask is very simple. Will the Minister confirm that the Government, through their departments, are wishing to set an example to other commercial people, and plcs in particular, about how quickly they pay? Given that they wish to set an example, is the Minister in a position to give the House any comparable figures about how the Government are performing? That is the most important issue in this Question.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, to take the last point first, the league tables show that the performance of

751
government departments is improving, from high figures to still higher figures. I hope that that will be a general encouragement to everyone in the private sector as well. I have undertaken to look at the data from Leeds. The discrepancies are not only with government data, but with commissioned data from other private research organisations. The best thing that I can do is to explore the discrepancies and see whether I can come to an understanding of the cause.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, given that at any one time some £20 thousand million is owed to small businesses by other firms, will my noble friend now consult with companies such as Next, BAA and BT, which have exemplary records of paying quickly and on time, to demonstrate that there is no competitive disadvantage in paying on time?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there are obviously good examples of best practice. One of the functions of the Better Payment Practice Group is to look at those. It takes evidence from the Forum of Private Businesses, of which I know my noble friend has been a key supporter, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and so forth—I will not go right through the list. The attempt is made in that group to find and promulgate good practice. It is a very strong asset. It allows the business community to have a strong say in what is best for that community.

Army Recruitment
3.13 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recruitment to the Army has been capped for a six-month period; and, if so, whether this is justified when the Army is under strength.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Army continues to work towards the target for manning set out in its public service agreement. Recruitment has not been capped. We have had considerable success in recent years with various measures aimed at improving recruitment and retention. However, the Army's manpower requirements are dynamic and subject to annual review.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister says that recruitment has not been capped, but there are reports that a six-month freeze on recruitment for the infantry is imminent to save costs. Are these reports without foundation? The Army is 2,960 under strength. It is dangerously overstretched. Does the Minister agree that any freeze on recruitment could result in a very serious gap in the future?
Lord Bach: My Lords, before I reply, on behalf of the House may I wish the Lord many happy returns of
752
the day? There must be better ways of spending his birthday than asking me this Question, but I shall do my best to answer it.
The noble Lord should be wary of believing all reports that he reads in newspapers, particularly the Daily Telegraph on military matters. Some measures are being imposed, including restrictions on extensions to full-time reserve service engagements, continuance—service over 22 years—and re-joins of officers and soldiers.
A measure was also implemented to allow some of those who had submitted notice to leave the Army to bring forward their exit date to this financial year, 2003–04. Additionally, there is a pause on some recruits starting their phase one basic training courses. That is likely to be in place until October. However, there is no ban on recruitment. The Army has an enlistment target figure of 11,318 for this financial year, 2004–05. Since 1 April this year, more than 1,500 have been enlisted.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, in his earlier Answer, the Minister said that there was to be a review on the dynamics of manpower. Do the Government have any plans to reduce the number serving in the Armed Forces at present and when would such plans be implemented?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have no such intention at present at all. Of course, the Army's manpower requirements are subject, as are all these matters, to annual review in the light of a number of issues, such as evolving doctrine, new technology, new equipment, possible changes to the operating environment—including current and new threats—and financial constraints.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the reply that he gave earlier to my noble friend in which he appeared to say that recruitment would continue but that training would stop? I am not sure whether I understood that correctly. He appeared to say that training would be postponed until October—that is effectively a six-month freeze on training. Clarification would be helpful to the House if an announcement is imminent. I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but could he make the position clear?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand that there is no freeze on training. However, the noble Lord will know better than anyone the vital need for each and every new soldier to go through training. It is no good short-circuiting that. It is true that the pipeline of training that leads eventually to the tank of full membership of the Army must be kept at the proper rate. There is no intention, as I understand it, to freeze training.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, reverting to the Minister's first reply, is it not straining language to destruction to apply the word "dynamic" to a manpower requirement that is lower?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's question is, "not necessarily", but we

753
are not looking to reduce the size of the Army. We are looking forward to reaching the manning levels by the end of the year 2005–06.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, what are the Government's plans for the deployment of the remaining Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have absolutely no plans to announce to the House this afternoon, I am afraid.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister reassure the House that the two famous regiments of the Black Watch and the Argyles are up to strength?
Lord Bach: My Lords, recruiting overall is good, but some areas do not do as well. It is true that the Scottish infantry regiments, to which the noble Lord referred, are a case in point. We are doing our best and the Army is taking steps to improve the numbers recruited from Scotland. He will be relieved to hear that there is certainly no ban on recruiting.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, what is the difference between there being no freeze on recruitment and postponing basic training until October?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the noble and learned Lord's question. I am not sure that I even heard it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat it. What is the difference between the Minister's statement that there is no freeze on recruitment and his statement in the course of his answers that there is a postponement of basic training until some date in October?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that I said that there would be a postponement of basic training until October. There will not be a postponement of basic training until October.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, which of the measures that the Minister read out in answer to my noble friend's Question are dictated by operational requirements, and which are dictated by the fact that there is not enough money?
Lord Bach: My Lords, more money has certainly gone into defence in the past few years than went in for a long time before that. That needs to be said. If the Conservative Party were to come to power, we know that it would reduce the defence budget by £1.5 billion in the first two years. However, the noble Lord asks a fair question. There is no doubt that there are financial pressures on us at present, and that is one aspect that affects our judgments. But the other aspects are, as I mentioned and as I remind the noble Lord, doctrine,
754
new technology and new equipment, and changes to the operating environment with all the new threats that our Army and soldiers must face today.

Driving Disqualifications
3.22 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits will result from the power given to magistrates' courts by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to impose driving bans for offences outside normal traffic infringements.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the power for the courts to disqualify from driving anyone convicted of an offence is contained in Section 146(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The power is available in relation to any offence, but may be seen as an additional deterrent in the context of anti-social behaviour environmental crime and other offences when a particular case has a link to the use of vehicles, such as kerb crawling.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. However, I may he wrong, but does she not agree with me that to the man or woman in the street—or even to a child—the handing out of driving bans for offences that are not connected with driving seems to lack one of the main elements of natural justice?
Is the Minister aware that since the guidelines to magistrates have changed, there have been one or two highly publicised incidents? One involved a senior citizen who saw fit to put up a placard warning of a speed trap. He was arrested and has received a month's disqualification and a fine of—curiously£364. There was also a motorcyclist, in another well publicised piece in the press, who similarly gave warning to others of a speed trap. Could the Minister allay the fears of the House and the general public by confirming that this is not the thin end of the wedge and that young people will not have to look forward to a future when they will receive driving bans for not separating their rubbish or for smoking in public places?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. I make it clear that the exercise of judicial discretion remains where it has always been—with the judiciary, both lay and professional. There have been other uses to which those provisions have been put. For instance, in April in Brixton someone convicted of soliciting for prostitution was banned from driving. Cars are used in those sorts of offences. In Teeside a week ago, a kerb crawler was similarly sentenced.
It is the intention for that kind of opportunity to be given to sentencers so that they can give people sentences that fit the crime. We know that to some

755
young men, their car is more dear to them than their wife, their child and almost anything else, so that may act as a deterrent.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, if it is the Government's intention that people such as Mr Harding, the pensioner who has already been mentioned, should be prosecuted for warning others that there is a speed trap, what is their view of the criminality or otherwise of the West Midlands police, who have been working with local councils across their area to produce a CD-ROM for use by the public, specifically so that the police can tell the public the exact location of each and every speed trap in their area?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I apologise if I have not made it plain, but the imposition of the sentence is a matter entirely for the magistrate or the judge. It would be quite improper of me to comment on why the court came to the decision to impose the sentence that it did. It is perfectly proper, and part of government policy, that people should know where the cameras are, should comply with the law and should not break the speed limit. I applaud what is being done and hope that everyone will comply.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point. How can it be right that it is sensible for the police to warn about speed traps to deter drivers from driving too fast, yet it is apparently an offence—because no court can pass sentence unless there is an offence in the first place—for a private individual to warn of a speed trap?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I have said—and I say this for the third time—I do not dictate how a magistrate or judge chooses to sentence.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what about the police?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says from a sedentary position. The police may charge, but it is for the judge or magistrate to dispose. The sentence is available to the court if the court deems it appropriate for that particular offender.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that a very large body of public opinion is highly supportive of this innovative approach to penalty, which is regarded as far more effective than historic forms of fining people, when the fines are often not even paid?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is right. On a number of occasions the removal of the licence—rather than giving penalty points—is seen as a salutary lesson. It helps to make people check their behaviour and not reoffend, and that is helpful to the community. Local communities very much welcome that.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Phillips of Sudbury and the Lord McNally set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The report from the Procedure Committee covers a number of matters. However, only four of them involve specific recommendations to which the House is invited to agree, so it is those that I shall briefly outline.
The proposal for a Joint European Committee is, I know, viewed with some scepticism by certain of your Lordships, who question what it will achieve over and above the excellent work done by your Lordships' European Union Committee. Indeed, the amendment to be moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is a clear signal of that scepticism. But noble Lords who attended the Commons Standing Committees on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the EU Intergovernmental Conference were disappointed not to he able to participate fully in those committees. The current proposal is intended to address that by establishing a genuine Joint Committee.
The Procedure Committee took the pragmatic view that when joint initiatives between the two Houses are proposed, it would be preferable to be fully involved rather than to decline to participate. The committee therefore recommended that we should "suck it and see" and review the impact of the new commit tee after two Sessions. The proposal originates with Her Majesty's Government, so I shall leave it to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to reply in detail to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and other noble Lords, may make.
As for the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Thursdays, I emphasise to your Lordships that that proposal was not of the noble and learned Lord's own seeking, but was put forward by the usual channels. I know in what esteem the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is held in the House and how sorry we shall all be not to see him in his place on the Woolsack on a Thursday. However, I know, too, that your Lordships attach great importance to the noble and learned Lord's regular attendance at Cabinet. The Procedure Committee's recommendation would apply only to those Thursdays when Starred Questions coincide with a meeting of

757
Cabinet. The noble and learned Lord would attend the House as usual on a Thursday when the Cabinet did not meet.
The number of Starred Questions and the time allowed for them will be one of the matters to be considered by the Leader's Group. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have complained about spending 40 minutes on Questions on days when only four questions, instead of the permitted five, have been tabled. The Procedure Committee took the view that this modest change to revert to 30 minutes on Tuesday and Wednesday whenever there are only four questions could sensibly be implemented straightaway.
The last matter for decision is the reinstatement in the Companion of the guidance on pecuniary interests shared by few others. The passage was omitted from the Companion after the new code of conduct was agreed. No similar formula appears in the code but it does not appear to have been the intention of the House to relax this traditional caution when it adopted the code. The Committee for Privileges and the Procedure Committee have both recommended its reinstatement. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the second report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 99).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. REVIEW OF WORKING PRACTICES
The committee took note with approval of the intention of the Leader of the House to establish a Leader's Group to review the package of changes to working practices agreed by the House in July 2002. The committee agreed to consider the report of the group after the Summer Recess, and to make recommendations to the House before the end of the current Session. The details of the group are to be announced by the Leader in a Written Ministerial Statement.
2. PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT EUROPEAN COMMITTTEE
The committee considered a proposal from the Government for a new committee involving both Houses in debate of European matters. This would be a successor to the Commons Standing Committees on the Convention on the Future of Europe, and on the EU Intergovernmental Conference, which a number of Lords attended. However, unlike its predecessors it is intended that this new committee should be a genuine Joint Committee in which Lords could play a full role. The proposal is for a committee with a remit to cover all aspects of the EU's work, by means of general debates, and statements from and questions to ministers and others. It would not conduct investigative or scrutiny enquiries, nor adopt substantive Motions or make reports.
Although some doubt was expressed about whether a new Joint Committee would add significantly to the work already done by the European Union Committee of this House, we recommend that this House should co-operate with the House of Commons in establishing such a committee. The details of its operation will need to be settled in agreement with that House, but we recommend that:
—The committee should be open to all Members of both Houses
—The quorum should be low (perhaps two from each House)
—The committee should be given the power to permit the participation of United Kingdom MEPs
—The committee should be given the power to allow statements from and questions to European Commissioners and other EU officials
—The committee should meet no more than four times a year
758
— The committee should adjourn for divisions in either House
— The title of the committee should be simple and avoid confusion with other types of committee in either House, perhaps Joint European Committee
— The chairmanship should reflect the joint nature of the committee
—The committee should not automatically follow Commons procedures; for example a speakers' list for debate would be desirable
— The effectiveness of the new committee should be reviewed after two sessions.
3. PROPOSAL FOR JOINT MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
A proposal for joint meetings of members of the House of Commons and members of the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) was drawn to our attention. Lord Elis-Thomas, presiding officer of the NAW, proposed that the initiative should also involve this House, particularly to allow Joint Committees to meet with committees of the NAW for pre-legislative scrutiny.
The proposal was recently considered by the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons, which recommended that there should be an experiment in joint working with the NAW before further consideration as to whether joint meetings are necessary or desirable. To that end it recommended that the Welsh Affairs Committee of that House should be authorised to invite members of the NAW to participate in its proceedings, until the end of the current Parliament.1
We agreed that in principle we would favour involvement of this House in this process, particularly in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny by Joint Committees. We will watch with interest the experiment in joint working to be undertaken in the House of Commons, and make recommendations to the House in future if appropriate.
4. LORD CHANCELLOR'S LEAVE OF ABSENCE
The Lord Chancellor is frequently unable to be present in the House for Starred Questions on a Thursday morning, owing to a clash with the regular meeting of Cabinet, and on those occasions it has been his practice to take his place on the Woolsack for a brief period at some other point during Thursday's sitting. However, that can be disruptive of business particularly, for example, during a complicated Report stage of a Bill. We therefore recommend that the Lord Chancellor should have leave of absence on any Thursday when Starred Questions coincide with a meeting of Cabinet.
5. TIME ALLOWED FOR STARRED QUESTIONS
The time allowed for Starred Questions on Tuesday and Wednesday was increased from 30 to 40 minutes when the number of questions was raised from four to five. On several occasions, however, there have been only four questions on those days, and there have been complaints that 40 minutes is then too long. We therefore recommend that the length of time for Starred Questions on Tuesday and Wednesday should revert to 30 minutes whenever there are only four questions, to keep in line with practice on other days of the week.
6. COMPANION GUIDANCE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS SHARED BY FEW OTHERS
We endorse the conclusion of the Committee for Privileges2 and recommend that the following passage should be reinstated in the Companion to the Standing Orders:
"Members of the House should be especially cautious in deciding whether to speak or vote in relation to interests that are direct, pecuniary, and shared by few others".
1 House of Commons Procedure Committee, 3rd Report 2003–04, HC 582
2 House of Lords Committee for Privileges, 1st Report 2003–04, HL 69
Lord Marlesfordrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "with the exception of item 2 (Proposal for a Joint European Committee), which is referred back to the committee".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should remind your Lordships that I am a member of the European Select Committee and one of the sub-committees. However, I speak entirely for myself and in no way purport to represent the views of any of the committees or, indeed, any member of a committee.
I believe that the reputation of the House of Lords has never been higher. In fact, it has grown, not only in the revision of legislation but especially in the monitoring and scrutiny of matters connected with the European Union. That is an area that is affecting more and more the lives of the citizens of our country and it is therefore right and proper that Parliament should devote considerable time and effort to it. I am asking for item 2 of the report before us to be referred back to the committee not because I reject any suggestion of the need for such a committee as has been proposed by Mr Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons. I move that it be referred back because neither the functions nor the operating methods, as at present revealed to us, seem to be sensible or convincing.
I hope I may be allowed to remind the House how the two Houses deal with European matters at present. The methods have evolved in parallel and have long worked together. The House of Commons has had a European Scrutiny Committee since the 1970s, now under the long-established chairmanship of the honourable Member for Clydesdale, Mr Jimmy Hood. It performs a sifting role, examining all EU documents, and it recommends, in brief terms, those items that should be debated on the Floor of the House of Commons or should he referred to one of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons. It is not responsible for considering the merits of proposals from Brussels.
Our European Select Committee and its seven subcommittees scrutinise European proposals forwarded to us by the Government. They also produce in-depth reports on particular issues. The membership of these committees makes the greatest use of the experience and expertise of Members of your Lordships' House. My impression has been that the reputation of the House of Lords reports on Europe is not equalled by those of any other Parliament in the EU. The committees of the two Houses exchange papers and their Clerks are in daily contact. Twice a year, the two committees meet to exchange views and there is a more informal meeting twice a year between committees and MEPs to exchange views on topics of the day.
Therefore, when it is necessary, there is already full and serious collaboration between the two Houses on European matters. This proposed committee is to replace the ad hoc House of Commons Standing Committees on the European Convention and the EU Inter-governmental Conference. These committees had a very real and important job to do. All Peers
760
could attend and many did so and, arguably, these committees may well have a role in the future. They were focus committees. They worked well.
This proposed committee has no such task. It is to have the most general remit, as the Procedure Committee report states,
"to cover all aspects of the EU's work".
In other words, it is to overlap and duplicate everything. Yet it is not to investigate, scrutinise or make reports. The scarcest resource in either House of Parliament is the time of Members. I believe that such a committee would divert time, except, of course, that most of us try not to waste our time. It is therefore no surprise that the quorum for this new committee is to be low:
"perhaps two from each House".
It is also proposed that there should be a power for the participation in the committee of UK MEPs. To integrate further the work of both Houses with the European Parliament may be desirable but I believe that it raises important constitutional points that deserve proper debate in their own right. I suggest that they should not be slipped in in this way.
Mr Hain's proposal to the Procedure Committee has the whiff of cosmetics. Some of us are already uneasy at some of the constitutional changes proposed by the Government, which have a similar scent. Such ideas must be properly tested on the hard anvil of need. The timescale for Lords' consideration of this proposal was required to fit into the timetable of the Commons' Modernisation Committee. Our Procedure Committee was not even allowed to wait for a date when the chairman of the European Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, could take part in the discussions.
The report states:
"Some doubt was expressed about whether a new Joint Committee would add significantly to the work already done by the European Union Committee of this House".
The test of added value is a crucial part of the justification for this proposal. As revealed at present, it seems to me that it merely muddies clear waters. That is why I believe that we should ask the Procedure Committee to have another go. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "with the exception of item 2 (Proposal for Joint European Committee), which is referred back to the Committee".— (Lord Marlesford.)
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is a valued member of the Select Committee, for making it clear that he is proposing his amendment on a personal basis and not on behalf of the European Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair.
Our committee discussed the proposals put to the Procedure Committee and I wrote on behalf of the committee to the Leader of the House with some observations. I am rather disappointed not to see them printed in the Procedure Committee's report. However, most of the points of detail need not trouble your Lordships this afternoon.

761
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I agree very substantially that there was little enthusiasm in the committee—putting it very mildly indeed for the proposed new joint European committee. Members expressed serious doubts about the added value of the initiative and I told the committee how fully I shared its concerns on that point. That said, I should inform your Lordships that I also gave the committee my view that we should accept the Procedure Committee's report, subject to two assurances and one important clarification, to which I shall return in a moment.
My principal reason for offering this advice to the committee was that, in my view, to do otherwise risked giving the impression to the other place that we are not in a mood to co-operate further with them on this issue at this time. Is that the right signal to send at this stage of the continuing discussions between the two Houses? I do not think so.
Some noble Lords may argue that all that the House is being asked to do this afternoon is to consider an amendment allowing for more reflection in the Procedure Committee. My response is that the amendment is in fact unnecessary because to all intents and purposes the Procedure Committee is still seized of this issue. As I understand it, if the House today agrees the Motion of the Chairman of Committees unamended, the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee in another place can then proceed to a discussion on a number of important points of detail. Hence, I see this, as it were, as a Second Reading at this stage.
Therefore, I hope the Chairman of Committees can give the House this afternoon a simple assurance that, once the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee have exchanged views on points of detail and, one hopes, agreed a suitable modus vivendi and a modus operandi, a final, considered proposal from the Procedure Committee will be put to this House. That would provide the essential safeguard for those concerned about what is being proposed. If at that stage the House does not like what emerges, it can reject the proposal forthwith.
I personally hope that it will not come to rejection. Perhaps I may explain why. Grave as are my doubts, matched by the doubts expressed in the Select Committee, about the real value of this venture, it is clear that another place, including the Government Front Bench, are determined to establish a new European Committee. I understand that another place agrees to a sunset clause, as mentioned by the Chairman of Committees, calling for a review of the Joint Committee's effectiveness after two years. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we be prepared at least to try it out for two years and then pull out if the verdict is that it is adding no value, or worse, is detracting from the work of your Lordships' Select Committee.
We are just a year away from 1 July 2005, the date on which the United Kingdom assumes the presidency for six months of the European Union, a period during which our two Houses will be jointly responsible for
762
hosting a series of significant inter-parliamentary meetings and events involving our colleagues from the national parliaments of the other 24 member countries and the current applicants for future membership. To enter the run-up to that period with a disagreeable atmosphere reigning between the two Houses does not seem to me to be at all sensible. That is another reason why I believe that we should, if our conditions are met, give it that two-year trial. To that end further discussion with the Modernisation Committee should not be delayed while the Procedure Committee, as a result of this proposed amendment, is required to go back to what is virtually square one.
In conclusion, I turn briefly to the two important clarifications that I seek. First, what does the Procedure Committee mean when it says that,
"The Chairmanship should reflect the joint nature of the Committee"?
If this is a proper Joint Committee, as your Lordships have pressed for, the chairmanship should be equally shared between appropriate Members of both Houses. But first we have to know what the committee is for. If it is to be a debating forum, a panel of specially selected deputy chairmen from the two Houses will probably do the trick. But in that case we are left with the question of who would set the agenda for the committee. Would it be the Government? Alternatively, is it envisaged that each House will appoint a chairman for the committee who will jointly propose an agenda? I do not know. For that reason I seek clarification.
Finally, it is perfectly obvious that a Joint Committee, as described in the Procedure Committee's report, could never conduct the kind of detailed scrutiny undertaken by our own sub-committees. But that it might eventually try to do so is a fear that some noble Lords have, and not without grounds, given the official briefing, for example, prepared for the United Kingdom delegation to a recent conference on subsidiarity at the Committee of the Regions which I attended a couple of weeks ago in Berlin, and which seems to go entirely in the other direction. May we therefore have reiterated today the assurance given us by the Deputy Leader of the House on 11 February that the new committee would not in any way trespass on our scrutiny work? Can the Chairman of Committees say whether such a provision could be written into the Standing Orders of the new committee, which I would wholeheartedly advocate?
Subject to satisfactory clarification of the chairmanship question and assurances on no trespassing, and particularly an assurance that the Procedure Committee will put to the House a considered proposal once detailed discussions with the Modernisation Committee are concluded, I would be minded to advise the House to support the Procedure Committee.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have some difficulty in disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, not on the basis of his approach to this matter, but because he sums it up by saying that we need to know what the committee will do. One can understand that another place is fairly relaxed about this. It has massive resources compared with anything available to this

763
Chamber. We are short of accommodation for committees, as is well known. We are short of people to staff the committees. Cases are put to the proper authority to seek time for select committees which are turned down for no other reason than that we lack the resources to deal with them.
One looks at what the committee sets out to do. It will not conduct investigative or scrutiny inquiries nor adopt substantive Motions or make reports. We do not know what it is going to do. It is being set up because some Members found it slightly embarrassing not to be able to continue the arguments they were having with the existing committees. I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said. I do not believe that it makes any sense to establish a body of this kind, which is going to have a quorum of two on each side, and which sets out quite clearly not to get involved in any reports, substantive Motions or inquiries. There are many things which could be subjected to reports and substantive inquiries. It is foolish to put them on one side while we make up our minds what we will do.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I shall not repeat some of the points which have been made: I agree with all of them. I come from a pro-European background. I suggest to noble Lords that after last Thursday's elections both Houses should reflect very seriously about Europe and how we handle it. It does not seem to me that this very thin schedule of proposals reflects what the country at large wants both Houses to do. Therefore. I certainly have great reservations about what is proposed here.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, freed from the shackles of office, I can say what I think personally about this, but I shall not. I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in his remarks. It is also important that we are absolutely sure that this matter comes back to the House for a definitive debate on which we can make a decision. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made. The committee should be given the power to allow statements from and questions to European Commissioners and other EU officials. But not to report on those meetings seems ludicrous.
I would not want anything I say today to appear as any reflection on our colleagues in another place. Mr Jimmy Hood and I worked very well together in tandem over seven years when we were chairmen of our appropriate committees. Certainly, the point that we have always made is that the two committees do totally different things. They are complementary. The idea that you can somehow put them together and find some synergy or something totally different seems to me very strange indeed.
I am glad that a low quorum is recommended because the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard about this matter was that one of the problems with these Joint Committees was the somewhat erratic membership of the Commons. Recently I watched rather an old programme on the Parliament Channel. It was obvious that when Mr Pat Cox was being interviewed by a joint group from both committees,
764
this House was well represented. The Commons was represented by Mr Jimmy Hood until the last few minutes when one of his deputies came in. I do not criticise the Commons for that. Its Members have jobs to do and very often they cannot spare the time. In this House noble Lords who sit on the Select Committee and its sub-committees dedicate their time to doing that, and they do it extraordinarily well in my experience. However, the idea that there should be a quorum greater than two might wreck the whole process.
I personally would be willing to go along with this stage of the proceedings provided that most of the recommendations are agreed to and that the measure comes back to this House for detailed discussion at a later stage. Then we can decide whether or not we want to go ahead with it. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that by failing to go ahead with it we are in some way insulting the Commons or trying to stop Parliament working appropriately on European matters.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Marlesford I am a member of the European Union Committee chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I am also chairman of Sub-Committee D that is involved with the environment and agriculture.
I should like to assure my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who have spoken against the formation of this Joint Committee, that all the arguments that have been aired in the past few minutes were discussed very thoroughly in the Select Committee. Many of us were very doubtful about this proposition, but in the end we came to the same conclusion as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell; namely, that there may he things to be gained by having a Joint Committee with the Commons, particularly when—I stress this as my own view—over the next year or two European Union matters will clearly he of very great importance, and interest and will be discussed by all of us. Against that background—whether we discuss the European constitution, the reform of the CAP or the handling of the new members the more that we can share information with the other place, the better.
During the years that I spent in the other place—I was in the other place for quite a few years—I realised that our attempts to look very closely at European legislation were, to say the least, pathetic. Some noble Lords will remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon set up Standing Committees particularly to consider European legislation. Frankly, they failed due to a lack of people turning up. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with some humour made the point that the quorum is only two on either side. All of us made that point in the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. However, I do not see that as an argument for not moving forward with this proposal at the moment. It is right for us to have as many Joint Committees with the Commons as is possible and reasonable. It is good for them to get to know us better and for us to get to know them better. It is particularly

765
relevant at the present time when there is so much of interest and of great importance happening within the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford asked what would be the added value of the committee. It is perfectly true that we do not know that yet, but we shall not know unless we try it and see. It is arguable that it could have added value. The fact that it has been given a two-year period in which to prove itself—something for which we all asked—is in itself a safeguard. I very much stress the two points that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made; namely, that all of us on the Select Committee would like to see genuine equal alternate chairmanship and equal membership as between the other place and this House. If the committee were run on that basis it would represent a step forward at a very important time. I hope, therefore, that we shall support what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said and, despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is one of my oldest friends, that we shall not go along with what he suggested.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I agree with all the comments made by the previous speaker. I merely wish to add one other on the subject of added value. As a member of Sub-Committee E, I am aware, as are all the committee members and many who are not, of the very detailed inquiries that all the committees make into important pieces of legislation, and of how valuable that is. However, it does not attract public attention. The general public are left completely cold by that level of investigation. By having more of a debating approach to these matters and by occasionally having a distinguished member of the European Commission or someone else address the committee or give evidence, one could make a contribution to the public debate on European matters.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I speak as a former member of one of the European Union sub-committees serving under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the noble Lord, Lord Radice.
It seems to me that there are two questions to which we need answers, and that we do not have those answers as yet. The first question concerns what the new Joint Committee would do, and whether it would do any more than the extra wheel, which appears to have no contact with the road at all, that you see on gargantuan lorries. Secondly, would the creation and the work of a new Joint Committee detract from the value and the reputation of what our own European Union committees do? I stress the word "reputation" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, the work of the House of Lords European Union committees has a very high standing not only, no doubt, in this country but also in Europe itself. It would be very regrettable if any new committee were to detract from that value or the good work that those committees do. I hope that if the proposal goes
766
forward to the next stage, when we debate the subject again we shall be given assurances that cover both those questions as we really do not have sufficient information as yet.
Lord Roper: My Lords, as a member of the Procedure Committee I should like to say how much I support what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. It seems to me that this is an experiment. We have said that, if we can negotiate satisfactory arrangements with the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, we should like the new committee to sit for a period of two years. It is worth remembering that as the new committee would not meet more than four times a year, that would mean at most eight meetings before we reached a view whether it should continue.
The new committee would be of a quite different character from the sub-committees of both Houses that meet on a regular weekly basis. The new committee would meet relatively rarely to take evidence or to put questions to, for example, a senior Minister dealing with European matters or a commissioner. Therefore, it would have a different character. It may not provide any added value but, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said in opening the debate, the Procedure Committee felt that we should suck it and see.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I can help the House by making a number of matters clear. This is a matter that is entirely for this House to decide. However, I remind the House that my noble friend the Chief Whip and I are constantly asked to ensure that this House is represented along with the other place when committees are proposed. I also remind the House that in the discussion on the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference in September 2003, concern was expressed by a number of Members of this House that it was not a Joint Committee.
I appreciate the points of detail that were raised this afternoon with respect to the working of any Joint Committee. The only argument at the moment is whether the House of Lords should participate in a Joint Committee, and that is entirely a matter for this House.
On the specific points raised, the proposal is that the committee would debate European issues and have the opportunity to ask questions not only of government Ministers but of European Commissioners. It would not engage in the kind of detailed scrutiny undertaken by committees of this House. In terms of process, the Modernisation Committee in another place is looking at this matter. They have engaged to take the temperature of the Procedure Committees of both Houses, so there is the opportunity for this House to make its views absolutely clear.
I finish by reminding the House that this proposal has already been greeted positively by the European Scrutiny Committee in another place, so some form of

767
committee is likely to go ahead. It can do so merely as a Commons committee, if that is what this House wishes.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall answer some of those questions posed to me as chairman of the Procedure Committee. I will not go into the merits or otherwise of this European Joint Committee. That is not my affair and has been well debated. In passing, I was armed to answer questions on the other three or four recommendations in the committee's report. I am most disappointed that nobody has asked me any questions on them.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that we were not able to find a mutually convenient date for him and the Procedure Committee to meet. We did our best, but there was great difficulty in the timing. We wanted to have our recommendations out in time for them to be considered—and, I hope, agreed to—by the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. We probably made an error in not printing the letter from the Leader of the House and the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, as an annexe to the Procedure Committee report. It might have made a better report if we had done so.
The noble Lord asked for a particular assurance about what would happen next, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Obviously, when we see what we can agree with the committee in another place on our recommendations, the Procedure Committee will have to meet again and discuss the details of how this arrangement will work. The Procedure Committee will then have to make a report to this House, as it is doing today. At that moment, as the noble Lord said, this House could throw the whole thing out if it did not like the look of it. That is definitely what would happen.
There is a lot of detail to be worked out regarding the chairmanship of the committee. If it is to be mainly a debating chamber, one of the panels of deputy chairmen from either House could take the chair. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, that leaves the important question of who would set the agenda, which needs to he settled.
The last assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked was whether we could put into the Standing Orders of the committee the fact that it would not trespass on the work of the main European Union Committee of this House. I am very keen that it should not do so. We would do our very best to implement that suggestion.
I hope I have answered the questions asked of me as chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I leave it at that. Let us see what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, wishes to do.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have obviously listened very carefully to everything that has been said. I started by saying that I was not necessarily opposed to such a new committee, but that it was unclear what it was for and whether it would add value. I am very glad that almost every Member who has spoken has echoed those sentiments. The Chairman of Committees has effectively
768
indicated that the further consideration of the Procedure Committee will be the equivalent of a referral back. We have the assurance that if the later consideration with detail—when we are told what it is actually for and how it will work—proves unsatisfactory, we will able to reject it.
In that context, I am perfectly happy for the Procedure Committee to give further thought to it, along the lines of the undertaking given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gambling (Regional Casinos)
4.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the Government's response to Recommendations 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill (Cm. 6253), which focus upon the definition, location and economic and other implications of the largest casinos; and the further statement of government policy on casinos published with Cm. 6253;
That a committee of eight Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons for this purpose;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville,

L. Donoughue,

V. Falkland,

L. Faulkner of Worcester,

B. Golding,

L. Mancroft,

L. Wade of Chorlton,

L. Walpole;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
And that the committee do report by 22 July 2004.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Access to Justice
4.7 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury rose to call attention to matters which may inhibit access to justice; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, legal aid has been a prevailing passion of my legal life. I was co-founder and first chairman of the Legal Action Group in 1972, did legal aid work from the start of my career, and my firm only ceased to do it in May of this year for reasons that I shall highlight later.
One of the most telling marks of a good society is the way in which it treats those without the wherewithal to maintain their legal rights. One of the landmarks of the post-war Labour government was the Legal Aid Act, which gave 80 per cent of households access to legal aid. That proportion was still 70 per cent in 1979, and now probably languishes somewhere around 40 per cent.
The subject of the debate is not, however, confined to legal aid. It is drawn so as to provide a wide canvas for contributions of noble Lords. Access to justice is significantly related, for example, to the 12,000 to 13,000 pages of new laws which we pour out from this House and the other place every year. This output is simply indigestible and overwhelming. It turns citizens into subjects. It is also one reason why the cost of legal aid overall, and per case, rises, particularly in the criminal sphere: from £1.5 billion in 1997 to £2 billion now. For example, this Government have created over 600 new criminal offences since they came to power, and have just announced a policy to encourage nearly 20 per cent more prosecutions. Those policies and these laws have a direct impact on legal aid.
Another inhibition on the access to effective justice is the continuing breakdown in community cohesion. That is why recent legislation, centralising the administration of the courts system and reducing the ability of justices of the peace to run their own show, is counter-productive. It means the continuing closure of local courts, which directly diminishes geographical access and local ownership of the courts, and causes loss of local knowledge by the Benches.
When I first entered the House six years ago. I was confronted with the Access to Justice Bill, championed by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, assisted by the present Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. So much of the long and hard-fought debates was a form of shadow boxing, with Ministers who had little or no first-hand experience of legal aid, advised by a huge team of civil servants, none of whom, I ascertained, had any such experience. They argued from principle and theory, as I saw it, with many of the rest of us endeavouring to argue from unaccommodating reality. That their intentions were admirable, there is no doubt. That there were serious problems with legal aid also is undeniable, particularly the escalation in cost. In what follows I do not want to belittle the continuing difficulties let alone crow, "I told you so" in relation to those debates, although I certainly could.
As there is sharp disagreement about the current state of access to justice, I shall seek primarily to analyse the real position, although in doing so I will of course point the way to improvements.
We accept that the cost of improved legal services has to come from somewhere and that it will invariably compete with other pressing needs. It also has never been part of my approach to claim universal competence for my profession. Any scheme has to deal with defects. But somewhere along the line the combination of too little first-hand management, dirigiste managerialism plus an excess of bureaucratic interference have brought us to the present pass.
That in short is a legal aid scheme, or community legal service, where demoralisation among solicitors and other legal advisers who serve it is now very general; where the provision of legal advice and assistance is very patchy and the talk is of deserts; where the eligibility criteria for help are too stringent; and where the whole scheme is dominated by criminal legal aid to the detriment of the civil sphere.
Perhaps I may give a few statistics which are relevant to the debate. I have already mentioned the growth in the legal aid budget over those seven years. However, in view of the massive increase in laws, crimes and the rest of it, the £1.5 billion to £2 billion might be thought not enough let alone too much. Some £1.1 billion of the £2 billion is spent on the criminal legal aid budget, leaving less than £900 million for the civil budget. That budget is split 93:7 between solicitors in private practice and not-for-profit entities. One million people were helped last year by legal aid, compared with 3.5 million in 1997, when the green form advice scheme was still available. The number of civil cases is 8 per cent down; criminal cases, 18 per cent up. The cost per civil case is 3.4 per cent up; per criminal Crown Court case, 9 per cent up. In 1990, 30 per cent of solicitors' income derived from legal aid. That figure is now down to 13 per cent and falling.
The other point that I would briefly mention is that there are 70,000 solicitors in private practice today, 85 per cent of them in firms of four partners or fewer, comprising more than 9,000 firms and nearly 13,000 offices. The budget for legal aid is about 5 per cent of the budget for the National Health Service.
I turn briefly to the very recent independent review—published on 1 April—of the Community Legal Service, commissioned by the DCA and done by Matrix/Sheffield University and Richard Moorhead. To be fair, they said they were "impressed with progress made" in establishing and developing the Community Legal Service. However, they pointed to five areas where improvement is badly needed, one of which was clarification of the aims and strategy of the CLS, particularly in relation to social exclusion. They called for an evidence base for the Legal Services Commission policy on, for example, its selection of not-for-profit providers as compared with private practice providers, and specialist providers as compared with generalist ones.
The reviewers called for much better processes, to which I shall return. They concentrated on quality, which they found severely lacking—an issue to which

771
I shall refer later. They then looked at the localised impact of the work of the legal aid scheme and had a lot to say about community legal service partnerships, which are in a bad way.
If there is one problem above all others that needs to be urgently addressed it is that of withdrawal of solicitors from the Community Legal Service. As I have explained, they are the predominant suppliers. As of 1 April, according to the independent review, there had been an 18 per cent drop in the number of contracts awarded under the Community Legal Service since the first award three years ago. In the latest tendering round there was a 10 per cent reduction in the number of contractors applying for contracts. Although the Legal Services Commission states that it will be able to find suppliers for all the contracts it needs, the fact remains, as Keith Vaz MP put it to the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 24 February:
"We have a legal aid crisis … solicitors are deserting legal aid in droves. It simply does not pay for them".
Mr Vaz was, of course, involved in the Access to Justice Bill as a Minister.
A very telling section in the forceful written evidence by the Law Society to the same committee, which is inquiring into legal aid and will shortly publish, I believe, was this:
"There has been a marked decline in the morale of legal aid providers. In 2003 the Society embarked on a nationwide consultation … to hear directly from legal aid practitioners about their assessment of problems on the ground and their ideas for an improved system. What emerged was a picture of great dissatisfaction with the way the system was operating. The predominant feeling was that the Government was running the legal aid system into the ground and legal aid practitioners expressed great doubts about being able to continue to provide a service for their clients".
The society concluded by saying,
"on current trends the prospects for the future of publicly funded legal services are bleak. Those providing legal aid are a comparatively elderly cohort of the profession. The enormous gulf in earnings prospects between those in commercial firms and those in publicly funded work means that despite their social conscience few newly qualified solicitors feel able to pursue a career in legal aid firms or the not for profit sector".
The earnings differential is 100 per cent to 200 per cent and in some cases 300 per cent.
From its research this year the Law Society found, and I can vouch for this, that about half of all trainees would like to expect to do legal aid, along with non-legal aid work, but only about one in 12 is likely to do so. Few legal aid firms are even able to afford trainees at all, and the system is dying at the roots. The brutal fact is that with legal aid rates frozen for so long, against a backdrop of the costs of running a legal practice running ahead of general inflation, the viability of doing legal aid continues to be undermined and destroys the goodwill of solicitors.
The Government should not pretend that the practitioners who have left legal aid can be easily tempted hack or that the gap can be adequately made up either by technological novelties, supermarket methods or—the greatest and fondest hope—by putting ever more burden on the not-for-profit sector.
772
That was the hope of the 1970s, yet today there are fewer than 100 law centres, wonderful though they are, and even the 1,000 or so citizens advice bureaux cannot match the 12,700 solicitors' practices. Moreover, the CABs will soon tell you that their effectiveness depends partly on partnership with their local practitioners from whom they can get pro bono help and to whom they can refer difficult cases.
So as the CAB and the Law Society's recent evidence manifestly shows, growing deserts of legal aid availability now exist. Ross Cranston MP QC, former Solicitor-General, gave evidence to that effect before the Constitutional Affairs Committee, making the point that,
"the argument might he that"—
his constituents in Dudley—
"have to get on the bus or train and go off to Birmingham, but culturally that does not happen".
The independent review said that the,
"near unanimous view is that serious gaps in service provision exist across the country".
The detailed work by the Law Society and CAB makes that abundantly clear.
I should like to say a quick word about telephonic advice, as a great deal of hope is put upon the shoulders of that type of advice. For 10 years I was a non-executive director of the second biggest telephone legal advice provider in the country. We employed fleets of law graduates and a few solicitors. However, those services, as admirable and important as they are, and though they serve as entry and initial advice points, are of very limited use, particularly in cases of any complexity or where the client has difficulty in analysing their own problem, let alone communicating it over a telephone.
So of all the things that have been identified by the Law Society, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, the Legal Action Group, citizens' advice bureaux, the recent independent review and others, as inhibiting access to justice, at the root are two things. The first is levels of eligibility. It is notable that the Legal Services Commission's own research finds that almost 40 per cent of people asked had a serious legal problem where they needed help, but only one out of five of those people received it.
The second is the availability of accessible, appropriate advice. Apart from rates of remuneration, and more important, I suggest, there is the issue of the LSC method of running and auditing its contracting system. I have cited the DCA report, which calls the process,
"over-complex, burdensome, costly and bureaucratic",
and have referred to its conclusion about the inadequacy of quality monitoring. When Philip Ely, the chairman of the Legal Services Commission, gave evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, he said:
"The processes in which we are engaged measure process as much as anything. They do not measure quality of advice".
That makes a mockery of the constant assurances that we have had from Ministers, including during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill, that it is quality

773
at which all these reforms are aimed. It is rather like marking the performance of the English football team not by the result but by how many shots at goal it had.
The operational comparisons by the LSC of the legal profession with supermarkets and with Nissan plc, which were given as examples by Clare Dodgson, chief executive of the LSC, to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, does not warm the hearts of the legal profession.
To summarise, eligibility must be grappled with. If we purport to have equality before the law and a national advice service, we must live up to it and provide the wherewithal. Remuneration must be the subject of an independent review board. Paperwork must be slashed. Quality must be assured not by a paper chase but by peer review. We must ring-fence civil legal aid. We must ration not by case starts but by criteria governing the scope of and eligibility for legal aid. We must restore local justice. We must maintain innovation—as I readily accept that the LSC has done—and we must accept, above and beyond all else, that the legal aid scheme and the money put into it is an investment in the fairness, justice and effectiveness of our society and that money spent in that direction can prevent a great deal more expenditure further down the line. I beg to move for Papers.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The thoroughness of his preparation, combined with the vigour of his presentation, make him always a joy to hear. I am glad that he took a broad attitude to the concept of access to justice, because I think that the matter is a good deal broader even than he described in his speech.
In the 1970s, a massive, four-volume book was published entitled, Access to Justice, edited by Mauro Capelletti, professor of law at the University of Florence and at the University of Stanford in California. It was a comparative study across the world. I contributed a small piece discussing some of the early alternative dispute resolution procedures that were beginning to develop in the United Kingdom. A number of other countries had experimented much more widely, and in the UK since the 1970s, we have come quite a long way.
The noble Lord will recall that the county courts had been set up in 1846 as a practical, low-cost method and machinery for obtaining redress for small businessmen and private individuals. However, subsequent to 1846, the county courts had become dominated by lawyers and complex rules of procedure so that, by the 1970s, we saw the beginnings—very useful they were—of the small claims procedures within the county courts, which were genuinely low-cost and avoided the risk of paying the fees of the opponent's lawyers if the case was lost. That general rule of having to pay the costs of the winning side's lawyers is one of the greatest inhibitions to access to justice, and has been with us for so long, but it does not apply in small claims procedures in the county court.
774
During the same period, various trade bodies, such as the Association of British Travel Agents, devised low-cost arbitration schemes, of which disappointed consumers could take advantage, and the statutory public sector ombudsmen schemes, which were introduced during the 1960s and 1970s, were replicated by private sector ombudsmen schemes, enabling consumers to seek redress at no charge. Mediation was yet another developing option.
Last month, the Better Regulation Task Force, which usually receives wide support and interest in this House, published a report entitled, Better Routes to Redress. It made a number of sensible recommendations to make those various useful redress or access to justice schemes to which I just referred more comprehensive and effective.
The Government seem keen on ombudsmen schemes and developing them further. For example, a scheme for student complaints is set out in the current Higher Education Bill; a judicial ombudsman is planned; and an ombudsman to oversee the new pension protection fund is in the Pensions Bill now going through the House. Members of this House will know, having considered only a few years ago the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, that the biggest ombudsman operation so far is probably the private sector financial services ombudsman scheme. It has a considerable caseload. Not unnaturally, it is led by a solicitor and it has already been shown to be very useful.
As an aside, not all private ombudsman schemes have statutory backing, and there is a problem with some of the non-statutory schemes. If a trade organisation sets one up for a few years and some of its members do not like some of the outcomes, it can be brought to an end. That happened a couple of years ago to the funerals ombudsman scheme, which many people found useful. It was brought to an end, allegedly for financial reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will be well aware that a couple of years ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who was at that time head of civil justice as Master of the Rolls, paid considerable attention to alternative dispute resolution schemes when he undertook his thorough review of the civil courts system. He recognised that access to justice, to use the phrase used by the noble Lord in his Motion, can take many forms other than the most obvious one of litigation in the ordinary courts. He also recognised the advantages that small claims and ombudsmen procedures have of being more informal, less adversarial and possibly needing less attention from lawyers.
However, I would say that enthusiasts of alternative dispute resolution schemes—and I count myself one of those—must be watchful both when they are set up and later to ensure that the rules of natural justice and the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a fair trial are adhered to. After all, we are all today talking about access to justice. All sides in a dispute must feel that fair procedures are conducted by an independent body or person, whoever that may he, especially when they do not take place in the familiar, ordinary courts.

775
The courts will remain the main forum for major disputes, especially between parties of substance, regarding the matter of claiming redress for wrongs, including breach of contract. However, many kinds of alternative dispute resolution schemes for small claims are essential if people are not to be left without access to justice, apart from the theoretical option of going through court procedures that they cannot afford. The briefing that I received from the Law Society—the solicitors' side of the profession—rightly says that access to independent legal advice is one of the fundamental rights of citizenship. Who would deny that? Surely, we must all be in favour. But if we over-rely on the ordinary courts as the main machinery through which justice is obtained, the legal aid bill is likely to rise to excessive proportions.
My message to the Department for Constitutional Affairs—a title that I am not yet used to—is that if, as a new department, it is looking for a motto, it should be, "let a thousand flowers bloom".
4.31 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is broad. It provides the widest possible scope for debate on matters which may inhibit access to justice. Therefore, I shall not follow up the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. While I listened to him with great interest and have read the papers sent to me by the Law Society, the Bar Council and so on, and because I ceased practice at the Bar 13 years ago and am rusty and out of touch, I shall confine myself to matters that inhibit access to justice in rural areas such as mid-Wales, where I live, and north Wales, which I know well. Those two areas and other similar areas seem to be suffering from a so-called process of "rationalisation" in the provision of courts and other concomitant facilities, without sufficient regard to local requirements or heeding the views of responsible local magistrates, legal practitioners, local councils and so on.
In July 1997 the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in a speech to the council of the Magistrates' Association said, among other things:
"I know that some of you have expressed a fear that the provision of local justice may be lost in the drive for efficiency. Let me assure you that your fear is misplaced."
Was it? In a Statement to your Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord sought to provide further reassurance. He said:
"I am committed to local justice. Many decisions, for example about providing court-houses to match need, will properly remain to be taken at local level".
But here comes the rub. He continued:
"But justice delivered locally is not the same as justice organised locally". —[Official Report, 29/10/97; col. 1059.]
Clearly, he did not intend that locals be entrusted with such organisation. He would leave that to be decided centrally, organised by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I have two examples of the problems that have arisen. I shall quote from an article by Mr D Cwyfan Hughes of a well-known firm of solicitors in Holyhead, who pointed
776
out that the North Wales Magistrates' Courts Committee published a draft strategic plan in August 1996. Its overall aim was to,
"provide an effective system of local justice".
However, it has recently been decided that there should,
"be offices only at Caernarfon, Llandudno and Wrexham to serve the whole of North Wales area and that all other Court offices shall be closed",
including that at Holyhead. The article continued:
"The Courthouse and the Magistrates' Clerk Office at Holyhead are housed in the same building. There are also designated rooms for the Probation Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. In fact, the Courts' administration for the whole of Anglesey was based at the Holyhead Office … The police station is one of the busiest police stations in North Wales. The security arrangements regarding the holding and transport of prisoners is satisfactory at Holyhead only. In excess of two million passengers pass through the Port of Holyhead annually. The busy court sits 3–4 times a week".
Yet it has been decided to close the Holyhead court office. No doubt administrators looking at a map might not have appreciated the importance of Holyhead's position vis-à-vis Ireland and the rest of north Wales.
Turning to my own area of mid-Wales, consequent on local government reform by a previous government, a huge, unwanted, unmanageable county was created called Powys, abolishing the historic counties of Breconshire, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. That move completely ignored history, geography, loyalty, transport facilities and patterns. Trading links follow the river valleys in mid-Wales and are often east to west, rather than north to south. Transport facilities have to be examined regarding the plans for courts in mid-Wales. There are very few railways or facilities for travelling. In the old days I have no doubt that the police, who were more co-operative because they were rightly better regarded, would facilitate the carrying of defendants to court.
My noble friend Lord Livsey is anxious to follow up that point about the courts in mid-Wales, because access to justice is being severely restricted there, particularly in Powys. Much of that is related to geography and history. Only four magistrates' courts are left in Powys. Arrangements were in train for a multi-purpose courts centre at Newtown and there is a perfectly good courts centre in Brecon. I agree that when all the facilities are in one building—the High Court, the county court and so on—that should be done. For example, there was a magnificent court building in Brecon, where I used to attend assizes many years ago. Apparently, the proposal for it to he the main building has been put aside and, to the astonishment of magistrates and local councils, there was a plan from the Lord Chancellor's Department to establish a new court complex in Brecon on the outskirts of a new development.
What has happened to the proviso of the Lord Chancellor that decisions on such matters are to be taken locally? Unless that is done, magistrates, police and so forth will find difficulty in getting to courts. The LDC must pay far more regard to local opinion. Some years ago, it was proposed that Llandrindod Wells

777
offenders should be brought to Newtown or vice versa. That is nonsense when one considers the distances involved and the lack of public transport in that area.
I raise the matter today because the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor to this House and to the Magistrates' Association have not been fulfilled and it is time they were.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, today's debate is about matters which may inhibit access to justice. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says he is happy for it to go wider and I believe that it should do so. The real subject for debate today should be "the provision of justice" and "justice as a public service".
On the news last night, it was said that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were urgently turning their attention away from Europe and towards the provision of public services. They meant, of course, education, health and public safety. But why not justice? In the development of all civilised societies, the development of some system of justice, rudimentary though it may be, came a long time before consideration was given to health or education. That was not accidental. It was of supreme importance and it remains important to this day.
It has to be a system which is available to all on equal terms. That is of the essence of any public service. And this also creates a major problem for the justice system in this country. As we all know, it could not begin to cope if any significant number of cases were brought or defended by litigants in person.
Perforce the courts have been obliged to enlist the assistance of a corps of people whose task is to assist the court by investigating and presenting cases to the courts. We call them "litigation lawyers", although they would not necessarily have to be lawyers, provided they were properly trained and subject to proper professional supervision. Essentially, they are performing a function which is part and parcel of justice as a public service. This is emphasised by their own and the courts' insistence that, in case of conflict, their duty to the court overrides their duty to their clients.
Logically, this would meant that all or part of the expense of employing litigation lawyers should in all cases be met by the public purse. I do not go as far as that, but I want to draw attention to the extent to which we have gone, and are increasingly going, in the other direction. It is a wholly one-sided public/ private partnership.
Magna Carta contains an undertaking by the King not to sell justice to any man. This referred, of course, to the sale of justice on a selective and corrupt basis. Today, the state sells justice not on a corrupt but on a wholesale basis. We have arrived at a pay-for-it-yourself system of justice.
That is no exaggeration. Under the Government's present policy, litigants are charged fees intended to recoup the cost of the court rooms, the cost of the court service and even the salary of the judge. In addition,
778
they have to meet the cost of employing litigation lawyers unless they are resorting to the small claims court which, to its great credit, is designed to cope with do-it-yourself litigants.
No doubt we shall be told that there is legal aid and that court fees can be remitted in extreme circumstances. But eligibility for legal aid is continually being eroded either more or less arbitrarily or in favour of any other system which avoids the involvement of the public purse, such as conditional fees.
Today's practitioners may not be aware that when legal aid was first introduced there were few no-go areas. I believe that defamation was one. Eligibility was very generous by current standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out. Litigation lawyers from both sides of the profession were paid at market rates less 10 per cent. It was both simple and fair.
It seems to me that the time has come when serious consideration should be given to setting up a Royal Commission or some such independent and informed body. It should be invited to review the whole system of justice as a public service. Meanwhile, claims such as that 50 per cent of the criminal legal aid budget goes on 1 per cent of heavy cases for the benefit of "fat cat lawyers" are inaccurate, irrelevant and stupid.
The true comparison is between the degree of skill involved and the time spent on preparing and presenting the totality of the heavy cases as compared with that attributable to the totality of the run-of-the-mill cases. I do not know what the answer would be, but I know that it would be nowhere near the quoted figures. Nor, wherever the fault may lie, is it seemly that informed discussion on fees between the Government and the profession should be replaced by what appears to me to be oriental bargaining.
I welcome the debate and hope that it may be followed up by some action.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for introducing the debate. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Filkin may find himself in some crossfire from mid-Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke about the problems of mid-Wales and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will address them. I, too, will do so because the problem in mid-Wales is possibly a paradigm for how magistrates' courts shut down all over England and Wales are depriving access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay. It is a problem which my noble friend must address.
First, I want to declare a non-financial interest. I am patron of the Llandrindod Wells Spa Town Trust and as such I have an interest in Llandrindod Wells. I gave my noble friend notice of the points I would make and I wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on 6 June this year explaining what I was about and what I would say. I therefore hope that he has considered all those points and will have a substantive response to those of us who object to the closure of the Llandrindod Wells magistrates' court.

779
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, expressed the problems perfectly well. The first is the geographical distance that defendants and witnesses may have to travel if the court is closed down—namely, to Brecon or to Newtown—is such as to deny them access to primary justice. There is no convenient public transport and there is no private transport of any convenience. Some time ago that difficulty was put to Yvette Cooper by a delegation from the town council of Llandrindod Wells.
I hope my second point is recognised by my noble friend. I believe that a considered view of our party—it is perhaps one of those views that I would support more than others—is that we should encourage local community spirit. As Llandrindod Wells is the site of the main office of the Powys County Council and as it has been designated as one of the towns in mid-Wales that is to be developed and enlarged, the spirit of the community is all the more important.
To be perfectly honest with my noble friend, I have been surprised how strong the feeling is about the magistrates' court in Llandrindod Wells. People come up to me in the street, as I am sure they do to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and say, "Why is the court being closed down?". It is a matter of community. It is a central mark of status in an important regional centre.
Apparently Yvette Cooper was sympathetic to the delegation's arguments, but pointed out that it was up to the Powys County Council to put forward proposals to maintain the court in Llandrindod Wells. The parish council apparently felt that if it did so, it risked financial assistance being given for new premises in Newtown. Frankly, that argument falls down in the face of the denial of elementary access to primary justice by those members of the community in and around Llandrindod Wells who cannot afford to go to Brecon or to Newtown. It should not be beyond the wit of man to tell the parish council in one form or another to revise its plans, even if it means a marginal increase in costs.
I am sure that I do not have to emphasise to my noble friend how important this matter is in mid-Wales and in Llandrindod. After all, it is a growing town. We believe in a community spirit. It has status. Llandrindod has a community spirit and that should not be wilfully set aside.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak on access to justice. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising the subject of access to justice in Powys. My contribution will relate mainly to the denial of access for the whole of Radnorshire. It will result in some of the poorest people in the most sparsely populated area of England and Wales being faced with a 60-mile round trip to a court where little or no public transport exists. In geographical terms it is the equivalent of making the people of west London attend court in Reading, but with no public transport to get there.
780
I believe that the urban decision makers need a geography lesson. Radnorshire and central Powys are parts of the county of Powys. I declare an interest in that I represented the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire in the other place. It is the third largest constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom. Powys, if transposed to southern England, would stretch from the Severn Bridge to Hammersmith Flyover, a distance of 130 miles. Powys is the most sparsely populated area of England and Wales, three times more so than Cumbria, the most sparsely populated county in England. In that respect it is equivalent only to the Highlands of Scotland. In the past 20 years, 16 courts have been closed in Powys. They range from Presteigne, Crickhowell, and Llanwrtyd and I could name many others.
The old counties to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred of Montgomery, Radnor and Brecon, are now administered through three shire counties, which are under the umbrella of Powys County Council. The current proposal is for magistrates' courts to be reduced to two in the county. There were six and then five; Newtown has one, but it is not being used at present. We shall be faced with two courts 60 miles apart. That will leave only two courts in Powys which occupies between a fifth and a quarter of the whole of the land area of Wales. Of course there are courts in Brecon and Newtown, but it leaves only one court in Montgomeryshire, the old county, one in Breconshire and no court in Radnorshire.
The result is that Radnorshire people cannot get to court, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has stressed. Defendants and witnesses cannot get to court on time and there is a deprived population with only 76 per cent of average EU gross domestic product, many of whom are elderly and infirm. Solicitors on legal aid cases are reluctant to travel more than 20 miles. There is outrage in local communities at these proposals.
All Radnorshire county councillors support the retention of Llandrindod magistrates' court and today county councillors Margaret Morris, the retiring chair of the Radnorshire committee, and Fred Barker have brought with them a 3,500-name petition to support the continuation of the Llandrindod court. The people who have signed the petition rightly feel that their human rights are threatened.
I want to address the process of how this came about. It does not do credit to the system. I believe that this is the case in many other areas of the United Kingdom. The proposal to reduce the number of courts to two came from the Dyfed Powys Magistrates' Court Committee which has now been abolished as a result of the Courts Act 2003. The magistrates' court committees have been replaced by courts boards, provided for in Part 1 of that Act. My complaint is that Powys County Council members were hoodwinked and coerced into supporting only two courts in Powys by the threat of the withdrawal of funding for upgrading of the two courts in Brecon and Newtown if they opted for a third court in Llandrindod Wells.

781
I quote Powys County Council minutes in which Mr Peter Townsend, the former chief executive of Dyfed Powys Magistrates' Court Committee,
"confirmed that travel to the two Courts was a major consideration for the Magistrates Court Committee but legislation required that there be better accommodation and access issues but that the funding issue would prohibit the retention of all Courts"—
I underline "all courts"—
"currently within the County".
The minutes go on to say:
"He advised Council that if all Councils in the Dyfed Powys area were not in agreement that the bid should be made the finance of the proposals would therefore fall and the current buildings would by virtue of the legislation be taken out of use and the administration of justice within the County would then become uncertain".
The councillors were faced with that in their decision making.
What is perhaps even worse is that the local MP, my successor, Roger Williams, was sent an e-mail from the clerk to the magistrates' court which said:
"The procurement of the two Court Houses for Powys has reached a critical stage. If it is undermined now, then the investment which is planned for Powys will be lost. The support of the Local Authorities has been critical … the achievement of this investment and any wavering of this support could be fatal to both schemes … There is a real risk, that not only will the investment in new Courts for Powys be lost, but the current Court Houses will be closed sooner rather than later because they do not meet the standards required of them. Powys could be left with no effective Court … provision at all".
Frankly, that is unacceptable in those terms, but it is what councillors were threatened with by the chief executive of the magistrates' courts committee before they voted on the issue.
I believe that the matter can be resolved. A bullying tactic was used by the clerk of the magistrates' courts committee as I have just described. No councillors on the county councils want to see a withdrawal of funding for Newtown and Brecon courts. However, they were forced into a situation where they had to protect their own areas; the majority of councillors were in Breconshire or Montgomery indeed, Radnorshire's were then outvoted. This is a classic divide-and-rule tactic not worthy of the Lord Chancellor's department.
No appeal could be made to save Llandrindod court. The MCC's strategy worked, denying access to justice to the people of Radnorshire on financial grounds, not on the basis of people's needs. The MCC imposed a flawed system of decision-making on the county. Its arbitrary powers were underlined to me in a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, dated 7 October 2003. Now the MCC is being abolished.
People's needs must be foremost; they have a right to an accessible court, to a criminal justice system in their own locality and to a justice system delivered in an affordable, secure local court. Llandrindod court building, which adjoins a police station, is not even owned by the Lord Chancellor, but by the Police Authority. Its budget could easily be used to upgrade the building at a very modest cost.
782
I can quote cases of, for example, a mother whose children were going to be taken into care but who could not get to court because she had no means of transport; witnesses hitch-hiking, trying to reach court on time and often failing; and the cancellation of some hearings due to the inability of witnesses to attend. Do we really want a criminal justice system more akin to a banana republic? I am sure that the new Powys County Council and its chief executive will want to appeal against the closure of Llandrindod Wells court.
However, I need guarantees from the Minister that allocated, existing funding to Brecon and Newtown courts will not be withdrawn as a result of a Llandrindod appeal. The needs of the people of Radnorshire and the accessibility of their court are crucial factors in their own right. The Lord Chancellor has the powers within the Courts Act 2003 to put these matters right, particularly as regards the location of court houses. I interpret, therefore, that he has the power to specify the location of a court. I hope that he will accede to these circumstances in the case that I have made for Llandrindod today.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, adequate access to justice involves that it should be available to people at modest cost or, if they cannot pay, with state aid; once they enter the system, its systems should be efficient; and, throughout, they should have the benefit of quality service by lawyers, judges and everyone else. All that costs money, and, in our present justice system, is organised through the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Expenditure on the system is not, and cannot be, open-ended. It has taken time, and will take time yet, for we lawyers, and perhaps we politicians, to realise that when, a few years ago, the Treasury imposed its own control on the justice system by making the budget of the Lord Chancellor's department clearly and rigidly part of the three-year spending round, from then on the budget for justice in this country would be fixed. It is a very long learning curve for some of us, but it is an important one that we should fully acknowledge. If, as is now a fact, the Department for Constitutional Affairs must work within a budget, then it and we need new thinking.
The first aspect is the budgetary approach, of which I shall give some examples. The PSA target among many for the Department for Constitutional Affairs is that over the next three years it will increase value for money from the criminal justice system by 3 per cent a year: £57 million a year or £171 million over three years a cost that must be saved to reach the Treasury target. Secondly, expenditure on asylum and immigration in the past year was £204 million, much of which was a direct consequence of a policy decision by the Home Office to accelerate decision-making and consequent appeal processes that could not have been forecast by the ministry, which had to foot the bill. Thirdly, criminal legal aid costs generally have risen, particularly in respect of very high cost criminal cases.
Those three examples—budgetary control, an unexpected budgetary upsurge and a criminal justice system costing more and more—present a budgetary

783
picture in which perhaps the thinking should be as follows. First, there should be a review. The ministry has instituted, wisely, a fundamental legal aid review that will carry on throughout this year and report on the best way to operate our legal aid system in the years to come. That shows foresight; I commend it and hope its constitutional role—because it has one—to work for access to justice will be recognised by all its participants. At a secondary level, there is a review of very high cost criminal cases. It is about to report; I will not comment further on it.
The first step—review—is being undertaken; the second step is surely transparency. If you have a fixed budget in a sector in which the demand is permanent and an increase is always sought, it is essential, is it not, that as a ministry you tell the public what is going on, you are open about the budget and are ready to publish the figures and to debate solutions?
Lastly, a most important consideration is that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is not a ministry of justice. It runs the justice system, so it must absorb within its own budget extra expenditure created for it by legislation and policy directives from other ministries over which it has no control. That unique position should always be recognised in debates on the budget for our justice system. Is it not time, perhaps, as the department's own review a month or two ago suggested, that we started thinking about an impact assessment of legislation referable to legal cost, in particular for the Department for Constitutional Affairs? If it is significant, the ministry in question should cater for that cost, wholly or partly, and not leave it to the justice system to be moulded, squashed and squeezed to meet that extra expenditure, which it might not have anticipated.
I wish to make three points. I commend entirely the remarks of my noble friend Lord Borrie about the wide variety of means by which people can have access to justice outside the courts system. But the courts system is the most expensive part of our system and will always be so. Courts are places where rights are recognised and penalties imposed, with enforcement the consequence.
Very high cost criminal cases constitute 1 per cent of the caseload and cost 40 per cent of the budget. That is a bizarre relationship between cost and volume which, I suspect, on a rough estimate, runs at £400 million to £500 million a year.
As a lawyer, I simply do not accept that those cases must continually get longer, more complex and, as a result, more expensive. That simply indicates closed thinking by the people in the system. We have to change. How can we do that? The Financial Services Authority should be given—it now has been given—real effective enforcement powers, just as the SEC has in America. Fraudsters are scared to death of the SEC because they go in front of it quickly and are made to pay heavy financial penalties if they want to escape going to court—and it works. Why are we different?
784
If people have to go to court, why do we need a six-month trial? A fraudster from Wall Street goes before a judge within a month of being arrested. His trial takes place after three months and usually lasts a month or two. Why are we different? Case management should be much tougher. There should be a front loading of costs in order to make the defendant realise, in many cases, the futility of defence. Why do we not have plea bargaining? If there has been a financial crime that is damaging to the community, such as a drug case involving huge amounts of money, the people involved should be able to plea bargain. If proceeds of crime are to be pursued, part of the results should go towards paying for the justice system.
I turn now to public interest law. The image of the wealthy lawyer is totally miscast when it is applied to small firms working in housing, benefits, mental health, asylum and immigration for little profit, but with great commitment to public good. Yes, there are rogues: today's Guardian told us that there are some in the asylum and immigration system. As the Legal Services Commission recognised, they are in a minority.
Nothing that we do should deter such lawyers who have the public interest in mind from continuing to practice. Nothing that we do should diminish the number of people who are prepared to do that sort of work in the future. If our system is worth anything, it will be judged by what we do for the least able people, who are the people that the public interest lawyers best serve.
Finally, I turn to civil legal aid. I find the tension in the fixed budget system whereby a criminal overload in terms of legal aid costs has to be met by civil legal aid reductions very worrying. Why do we not review civil legal costing again; for example, continue the legal aid fund, make a person who wins a case pay something back to the fund and consider paying a winning defendant's costs to introduce discipline? We should make it something other than yet another step towards the American contingency fee system, with all its dangers.
In conclusion, access to justice is important because it represents fidelity to the law, if it is present. Fidelity to the law produces respect for the law. There is no respect without access and reasonable cost with efficient systems and good quality service.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I underline the comments that have been made by my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Livsey of Talgarth in relation to the position of the magistrates' court in Llandrindod Wells. I fully support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said on that topic.
I cannot resist using a familiar legal phrase or saying: "I once had a case". I recall at Llandrindod, with a great deal of affection, a case where I was acting for a farmer in a boundary dispute. On the morning of the hearing, his opponent—the neighbouring farmer—said that the boundary was delineated by a line of tree stumps. The court adjourned to inspect the tree stumps. My client said

785
that they were not there, but, sure enough, they were. He walked to one of them and said, "I am not having this", and he pulled it out of the ground. It really was a case of the evidence having been planted: every single one of those tree stumps was planted. But nevertheless I lost. I have never quite understood why that was the case.
Turning now to more serious matters, in 2001, the Lord Chancellor's department and the Law Centres Federation published a paper entitled, Legal and Advice Services: A Pathway out of Social Exclusion. It stated:
"Lack of access to reliable legal advice can be a contributing factor in creating and maintaining social exclusion. Poor access to advice has meant that many people have suffered because they have been unable to enforce their legal rights effectively, or have even been unaware of their rights and responsibilities".
As noble Lords know, social exclusion is a term that is applied to people who suffer from a variety of linked problems, such as unemployment, lack of skills, bad housing, bad health and family breakdown. It frequently happens that such problems occur in clusters. One problem, such as bad housing, leads to bad health, and so forth. Ultimately, a combination of those problems can lead to crime and the very costly means of dealing with crime—imprisonment.
The Community Legal Service, which was a 1997 manifesto commitment by the Labour Party, was supposed to focus on the issues that affect the everyday lives of the "disadvantaged and socially excluded". The Community Legal Service was set up in April 2000 under the Access to Justice Act 1999 with the aim, as the Lord Chancellor recently said, of,
"improving … access to justice and promoting people's rights … through ensuring that legal advice is readily available for those that most need it".
Of course, the Act also removed almost entirely standard personal injury work from legal aid funding. Its contracting system was designed to shift legal aid expenditure away from civil representation towards areas of social welfare law that are associated with the fight against social exclusion. In fact, in recent years, there have been reductions in the contracts let by the CLS in family welfare benefits, housing, debt, employment and consumer issues. The independent review of the CLS that reported in April 2004 said:
"As welfare benefits, debt and housing are numerically the most significant and are more closely associated with social exclusion, the overall picture does not support the view that contracting has refocused LSC funding by directing it towards social exclusion".
So the policy of moving legal aid funding away from personal injury cases and court cases towards areas that involve social exclusion has failed. On the one hand, the aims of the Government are not being met. On the other hand, in the past year, funding for personal injury cases has disappeared and the number of contracts that are awarded regarding family, consumer, mental health and clinical negligence has been significantly reduced.
This highly critical report that was published last month was greeted by the Legal Services Commission with a press release on 29 April, which was headed,
786
"Community Legal Service in Good Health". That was directly contrary to that which the review had said. Clare Dodgson, chief executive of the LSC, said:
"The good health of the Community Legal Service is a result of us ensuring that we spend taxpayers' money only on quality solicitors' firms and advisers, and that legal aid meets the needs of communities throughout England and Wales".
That was the blah that was put forward in answer to the critical review.
What did the review say? It found a lack of leadership and aims in the Community Legal Service. The partnerships that were set up under the scheme were regarded by a majority of the participants as less than effective in improving access to justice; that is, the local authorities, the not-for-profit organisations and so forth which played a part.
I shall quote again from the review:
"The Review established a lack of clarity about the intended outcomes of the CLSPs, as well as no consistently used method of measuring outcomes. Little evidence has emerged that the system of partnerships, as currently set up, can guarantee success in achieving the intended outcomes of the Community Legal Service. The unevenness in provision of advice and information services (both geographical and thematic)"—
resulting in the deserts that we have heard about and the fact that not all areas of legal advice are covered—
"mitigates against partnerships being able to guarantee the provision of effective and appropriate high quality and timely information and help".
That is from a review published last month.
The CLS appears to have spent its time and energy in organising. It has set up 208 community legal service partnerships and then looked around to find out what it could then do. It is doing very little. The recent response was disappointing. The crucial problem is of course funding. The review noted that:
"The CLS budget appears vulnerable to policy changes"—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a moment ago—
"particularly those made by other government departments, with the civil legal aid budget being eroded by the increasing demands of the criminal legal services agenda in particular".
Lack of money means that practitioners naturally move away from unprofitable work. Legal aid work is no longer a viable career. Solicitors cannot afford to train people in work of this nature and, on present trends, the future of publicly funded legal services is bleak. Deserts are emerging in which people are unable to obtain the legal advice they require.
Providing public offices and employed solicitors in such work is no answer either. The capital costs of creating a nationalised service mean that that cannot be cost-effective, however much the Government may like to stand on the necks of solicitors all over the country. In fact, I would say that the Government are destroying access to justice. The network of high street solicitors has been able to serve the public in those very fields of social exclusion by setting off the unprofitable nature of their advice and representation services against their profitable private work.

787
I speak as a former solicitor. I recall taking a case concerning war pensions to the Divisional Court for nothing. I was instructed by my brother, also a solicitor and acting for nothing. I appeared in the court on my own with, on the other side, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I am happy to say that he lost on that occasion. But as solicitors and counsel from the provinces we were prepared to do that because we had a public commitment to the matter.
What is the Lord Chancellor's answer to the criticisms made by the authors of the Independent Review of the Community Legal Service? Does he accept those criticisms and, if so, what is he going to do about them? The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to high-cost criminal cases. I have such an interest in this matter that I do not think that I should address noble Lords on it at all. All I can say is that it is the most ridiculous, bureaucratic, time-wasting and inflexible way of monitoring what goes on in court. Case managers are appointed to every team. I was involved in a case recently where there were eight defendants with eight teams, every one of which had a case manager sitting somewhere in Red Lion Square. Before we could do anything, such as look at a piece of paper handed to us in court, we were supposed to ring up our case manager and ask, "Can I look at this plan which has just been handed to me?". That is the sort of bureaucratic rubbish that arises in the present system. I seriously hope that the Government will do something about it, and very quickly.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the effects on justice for the citizen of the decline of the legal aid system were vividly described by my noble friend Lord Phillips, and I was much impressed by the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the lack of imagination shown in the organisation trials. But I want to deal with a rather different point. As part of our concern that citizens have access to justice when they need it, we should be concerned about the way legal aid is spent. When money is wasted on legal aid, the amount available for deserving cases is reduced.
I want to draw attention to one particular case in which some £15 million was spent on legal aid that should never have been sanctioned. It happened before the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999 but, as the Legal Services Commission has acknowledged, some salutary lessons should be drawn.
I refer to the action brought against some pharmaceutical companies in a claim that MMR was the cause of autism. The case has been very carefully documented in a book called MMR and Autism by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, to be published on 29 June. I have been personally interested in the MMR dispute as part of a more general interest in the increasingly fashionable rejection of the evidence-based approach to scientific and medical issues.
Let me start with the background. For many years before the MMR vaccine became a matter of public controversy, there has been a campaign against
788
vaccination. Immunisation is one of the success stories of modern medicine, and it is a huge success story. It has virtually eradicated a large number of serious diseases such as whooping cough and measles.
Yet a group of people who believe in homeopathy and alternative medicine has long campaigned against vaccines, and has taken that campaign to the courts. These are people who distrust modern scientific medicine and seem to believe that we should go back to nature and pre-Enlightenment days, preferring remedies sanctioned by centuries of use, as if medical treatment is like some kind of antique furniture whose value increases with age.
A case claiming that the pertussis vaccine caused brain damage was considered by the High Court in 1988. The court found conclusively against the plaintiffs. However, the anti-vaccine campaign recently became a prominent public issue after Dr Wakefield's notorious paper was published in the Lancet in February 1998. It argued that some eight cases of autistic children that he had examined suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
That parents of autistic children should believe in such a link is completely understandable. If your child shows signs of autism after receiving the vaccine, it is natural that you should suspect there may be a link. When you find that other parents have had the same experience, your suspicions seem confirmed. But of course the coincidence of timing does not prove a link. Post hoc does not necessarily mean propter hoc. It so happens that the age at which the MMR vaccine is administered and the age at which the first signs of autism appear often coincides.
In fact, the case against a link between MMR and autism and, indeed, the evidence that MMR is safe has always been overwhelming. Epidemiology is not a science that the public or many journalists seem to understand, but studies of millions of children have shown that there is no higher incidence of autism among children who have received the vaccine than among those who have not. Scandinavian studies are particularly reliable because these countries have long-established immunisation programmes, relatively stable populations and high quality public health records.
Nor has any mechanism ever been discovered that could show how MMR might cause autism. The case made by Dr Wakefield has been totally discredited. Those who originally associated themselves with his article in the Lancet have all withdrawn. He himself has ceased to talk to the medical profession and now says that all he has ever learnt about autism came from talking to the parents of autistic children. He has retired to a research centre in Florida run by an evangelical Christian.
The case put forward by the lawyers to claim compensation against the manufacturers of the vaccines has also altered dramatically over time. In 1994, when they obtained legal aid, they argued on behalf of some 100 families that MMR causes a wide range of effects, including brain damage, epilepsy, arthritis and auto-immune diseases. Then they

789
modified the claim to one that it caused autism only, but warned that we were facing an epidemic of autism. Subsequently they argued that MMR has the effect of causing autism only in a very small number of especially vulnerable cases.
When Dr Wakefield's paper first appeared in the Lancet, the lawyers acting on behalf of the families raised the issue with the Committee on Safety of Medicines. This ruled that there was no evidence of a link. The MRC has twice considered the issue and come to the same conclusion. It is fair to say that there has never been any evidence of a link.
I return to the issue of legal aid. Despite the lack of any evidence in support of them, in 1994 the Legal Aid Board, as it then was, funded claims for compensation against the pharmaceutical companies. It was the first time that legal aid was granted for the specific purpose of financing scientific research to see if a case could be made—not because there was a prima facie case but to see if there might be.
As Dr Fitzpatrick has recorded, the so-called research was then left to a group of lawyers who had no relevant scientific competence. There was a 16-strong team. Only three had a scientific qualification, at the level of basic university science degrees. None had any experience of postgraduate study or research. This team, mainly then consisting of lawyers, was apparently to discover evidence in a deeply complex field of science, evidence that had eluded top specialists in the field. The team was going to disprove the findings of a large number of carefully conducted, international studies, in a variety of countries, covering millions of children, all of them showing no link between MMR and autism.
After 10 years and the expenditure of more than £15 million, not surprisingly, no evidence has emerged to provide a prima facie case. Earlier this year, the Legal Services Commission withdrew support and declared that the failure to find evidence meant that the case was very likely to fail. It also observed that aid should never have been granted, because the courts are not the place to prove new medical truths.
As a result of the MMR campaign, in which the lawyers, funded by legal aid, have played a prominent part, vaccination levels have dipped below the level which provides herd immunity and the lack of respect for scientific evidence by journalists may well cause a recurrence of a nasty disease that had been virtually eradicated. Pharmaceutical companies have been discouraged from developing vaccines, which may yet cause a serious public health problem. But that is not an issue for this debate.
I think that in these circumstances, it is right to describe the granting of legal aid and the waste of public money that resulted as a scandal. I believe that it was the second largest amount of legal aid ever spent on a single case, except for a previous class action about tranquilisers that also failed. From the start, it was a disgrace that legal aid was ever granted. The so-called research was, and was always likely to be, a farce. None of the families has benefited by one penny from the whole operation. The Legal Aid Fund has
790
been depleted and, indirectly, the access to justice for others, who might have benefited from the proper use of £15 million, has been prejudiced.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the fourth day of the debate on the Address on 2 December 2003, in cols. 217 to 219 of Hansard, I referred to the statement of Tony Blair just before becoming Prime Minister in 1997, when he said:
"Labour's goal of improving access to justice is an essential part of our commitment to social justice".—[Official Report, 2/12/03; col. 217.]
I then identified four headings designed to show that that commitment had been seriously eroded. Those headings were asylum and immigration; crime; civil claims; and the rapidly diminishing facilities for advice—the advice deserts.
I do not for one moment expect your Lordships to have any recall of such an unstimulating event. But I shall not profit by repeating what I said in order to fill up time in this debate. Instead, I will concentrate upon the position of the Bar as it stands at the moment. Next to my wife, the Bar has always been my first love. The position which has now been reached, in which the Bar and the Government are at loggerheads, is terrible.
Before dealing with the Government's action following their publication entitled Delivering Value for Money in the Criminal Defence Service, I stress that the Bar has always considered that it is a referral service that must be judged by its competence and its ability to deliver. The Bar has long recognised the need to demonstrate that continuation of an independent specialist referral Bar is in the public interest and that the Government must achieve value for money in the purchasing of legal aid cases.
I shall list the actions which the Bar has taken with a view to trying to improve the present position. First, there is the pro bono work. A thousand members of the Bar contribute to schemes involving several thousand hours of unpaid work, for which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, when elected Leader of the Bar, can properly take credit for much of the original initiative.
Secondly, there is the graduated fee system, successfully proposed and negotiated by the Bar with the Lord Chancellor's Department to standardise, as far as possible, fees in criminal work and, later, in the Family Division. The scheme came into force in 1995, on the clear understanding that the fees would thereafter rise with inflation. The Government have refused to implement this, with the result that the fees now paid are out of date by nearly 10 years.
Thirdly, the front-loading of the preparatory work necessary for effective plea and direction hearings is intended to ensure, well before trial, that those who are going to plead do plead, and that no further time is wasted on preparing for a fought case.
Fourthly, there is the consultation between the Bar and the judiciary to discover ways of speeding up trials. That is a recent event, and the consultation is still pending.
Fifthly, corporate insurance to fund long fraud defences should be considered, with a view to relieving the Legal Aid Fund of those costs.
Sixthly, plea bargaining enables the defendant to appreciate—subject, of course, to the material remaining consistent with the committal papers—the nature of the punishment which he is likely to receive, depending upon whether he pleads or fights the prosecution. That is not designed for Chambers hearings, but for expression in open court.
Let us see how the Government have used their monopoly employer status to impose—for that is in reality the position—fees that no self-respecting, responsible profession could possibly accept and still remain the strong, independent and competent source of advice and representation that is essential in a democracy.
Under the very high cost cases scheme—the VHCCS—there are four distinct categories of cases. The first category is the very complex fraud case, such as the Blue Arrow or Maxwell case. The second category is the very long fraud case. Those two categories are exceptional and likely to occur only once or twice in a year, so I will concentrate on the third and fourth categories, which cover serious cases where sentences are likely to be life or very many years' imprisonment, or documents are likely to consist of many files.
To give your Lordships a flavour of the position in those cases, a problem arises with very serious non-fraud cases that fall within these categories. They may be complicated, multi-handed murders or multiple rape and sexual abuse cases, complex drug cases or other professional criminal activity. Such cases are grossly under-remunerated in comparison with fraud cases. The present qualifying criteria are irrational, vague, subjective and inappropriate. In addition, the rates of payment in categories three and four are so inadequate that the scheme should be simplified to categories one and two only, with an appropriate division of cases within these two bands.
I will give noble Lords a flavour of the rates. The rates imposed in the scheme represent cuts of more than 50 per cent in the fees previously determined by taxing masters as fair and reasonable. At the bottom end, a junior who may be defending in a murder case is eligible for payment of £50 an hour—which is £35 after standard expenses—and a net rate for court work as low as £15.50. In the highest possible category of case—such as the Blue Arrow fraud, of which there are likely to be only one or two a year, as I said—the leading QC is eligible to be paid a net hourly rate of £126 for preparation and £60 for advocacy. Those are less than half the rates previously paid and perhaps a quarter of the rates normally paid for private work at the Bar. By way of comparison, the current solicitor's work for advocacy in a magistrates' court under legal aid is £62.36 per hour.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, may I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that
792
he has already exceeded his 10 minutes? The House would be most grateful if he would bring his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord Ackner: Yes, my Lords, I certainly will. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for telling me off.
In relation to the position offered by the Government, it is not surprising that the cases are either not being dealt with because the contracts are not acceptable or dealt with pending reconsideration by the Government of whether fees should be charged at all. That is why I said that the position is quite lamentable. I close on that depressing note.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I no longer have a personal interest to declare as I have ceased to be in practice at the Bar. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for introducing this debate and I agree with everything that he said—a statement that I am not always able to make.
I agree with a great deal. I agree with the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, of small claims courts, ombudsmen and alternative dispute resolutions. I agree with the condemnation of the withdrawal of local justice from rural Wales spoken to eloquently by my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Livsey and by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, all of them distinguished representatives of the Taffia. I agree with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, that provision of justice is an essential public service. I agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in a particularly thoughtful and realistic speech, that there should be a legal cost impact assessment in new legislation and that there should be a British equivalent of the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
I agree with the criticism voiced by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the Community Legal Service. I agree with my noble friend Lord Taverne that we must avoid the waste of money of funding expensive cases that have no evidence-based hope of success behind them. I agree with the praise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for the Bar's pro bono activities. However, I regret that we heard nothing from the Conservative Back Benches and I hope that that is not a sign of a lack of interest in a proper system of legal aid. For many people, access to justice requires legal aid—the provision of advice and representation by lawyers paid for by the state. Without legal aid, access to justice is denied. For that reason I wish to concentrate this afternoon on legal aid, especially on civil legal aid.
The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949—the legal aid Act—was one of the great reforming statutes of the Attlee government. The 1949 Act gave access to justice, both civil and criminal, to many people who had not had it and eliminated archaic practices such as the dock brief. However, problems have arisen with legal aid over time. The main problem has been its escalating cost. I recognise that the problems require solutions that I do not like but which we may have to accept. We have to accept, as does the noble Lord,

793
Lord Brennan, that civil legal aid cannot be demand-led as it was until 1999. The Government are entitled to set financial limits on civil legal aid as they do with health and education.
Criminal legal aid is a different matter. A defendant faced with a serious penalty must be given legal aid if he or she cannot afford to pay for it. That is a requirement under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, much as I dislike them, I fear that conditional fees are here to stay in certain kinds of action for damages. Conditional fees are settling down to some extent and it is encouraging that some of the notorious ambulance-chasing companies which sponsor them have gone out of business. The system needs reform, but I doubt if such practices can be eliminated.
Of course, the corollary of cash limiting is that legal aid cases must be prioritised. Priority must be given to cases that raise issues of general public importance or in which the absence of legal aid would cause real hardship to the applicant. I do not think that public money should be spent, as it used to be, on supporting an action about the ownership of a boundary hedge, for example, however likely that action is to succeed. Where we really need legal aid is to prevent someone losing their livelihood or their home; or being denied compensation for a loss that has already occurred; or being forced to live in a building whose condition is a risk to health; or being forced into bankruptcy by a loan shark.
The Access to Justice Act 1999 contained a serious flaw, as we pointed out at the time. That flaw is the fact that both criminal and civil legal aid are paid for out of the same pot. As the figures for uncapped criminal legal aid increase, as they have done year by year, that reduces the amount available for civil legal aid. The consequences of the reduction in real terms in civil legal aid have been made clear in evidence given to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs in the other place in connection with its forthcoming report on legal aid. That evidence has come from, among others, the Law Society, the Law Centres Federation, the Legal Action Group, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, the citizens advice bureaux and others. They all speak to the same effect.
The evidence says, first, that the Government continue to impose grossly inadequate financial eligibility limits. Millions of people are ineligible for legal aid and millions more are eligible but must pay a contribution. Only those with incomes at or below the income support level qualify for legal aid without a contribution; others must pay a third of their income above the income support level. The figures from the report show that the need to make contributions is a serious deterrent to applicants.
Secondly, it is quite plain that advice deserts are developing. The Law Society's evidence is that there are no legal aid solicitors providing help with welfare and benefits law in Sheffield, Calderdale or Rotherham and only one in Leeds. There are no legal aid housing solicitors in the county of Kent. Citizens advice bureaux have reported that 68 per cent of the bureaux have
794
difficulties in finding a legal aid solicitor for immigration issues; 58 per cent for family cases; and 60 per cent with housing.
Thirdly, the number of solicitors with controlled work contracts has fallen by 17 per cent since January 2000. Fourthly, the number of cases that solicitors can take is falling; new case starts fell by 10 per cent in the first eight months of 2003–04, against the previous year. Over the past 10 years, while the number of practising solicitors has increased by 50 per cent, the number of firms doing legal aid work has decreased from 11,000 to 4,361.
As has been pointed out, there is a problem with lawyers who are no longer prepared to act in legal aid cases. Legal aid lawyers are walking out on legal aid and switching to work for unaided clients. Many of them chose to work in legal aid for preference, but if the gap between them and their colleagues in private practice is too wide they will leave, for the sake of their families if nothing else.
I believe that we are facing a crisis in the legal aid system. What are the solutions? The first and most obvious one is to ring-fence civil legal aid. Civil and criminal legal aid serve entirely different purposes and there is no reason why, as a result of an increase in crime, people should lose their rights to legal aid for family cases, housing cases or benefit cases. The increase in criminal legal aid should be paid for out of government contingency funds.
Secondly, the Government must be prepared to put more money into legal aid. They may say that that money is needed for schools and hospitals, but a family living in a house which the landlord refuses to repair; a wife bringing up children in poverty because her husband or ex-husband refuses to meet his obligations to them; and an employee sacked from a job on grounds of race discrimination—all those people need legal help alongside a health service and education for their children.
We are seeing the gradual collapse of a legal aid system of which this country could once be proud. We can be proud of it no longer.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I agree with everything that every one of your Lordships has said so far in this debate. Indeed, I am sure that I would have agreed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would have said if he had had further time to say it.
The seeds of the difficulties that we face in this matter were mainly sown by the Access to Justice Act 1999. Among its manifold defects, the one that is most relevant to today's debate is the combined effect of capping the total legal aid budget together with the amalgamation of its criminal and civil components. That point was, indeed, eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The criminal fund is demand-led and the demand is rapidly growing, so the civil fund is being squeezed, with the consequence that the poor and socially deprived desperately needing help in areas such as housing and welfare are unable to get the legal support that they deserve. In 2002–03, for example, the criminal legal aid overspend was in the order of

795
£270 million. The central change required, therefore, is for the Government to take immediate steps to ring-fence civil legal aid, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
The present situation simply cannot conform with the obligations imposed on the Government by the Human Rights Act—which were obligations that they decided to impose on themselves when they introduced the human rights legislation in 1997 in your Lordships' House. It cannot be right that the Government can be meeting those obligations if the scale of the civil aid budget depends on the scale of the criminal aid budget.
It is not a testing intellectual challenge to reach that conclusion. If the criminal aid budget, instead of increasing by £270,000 in 2002–03 had increased by £1 billion, where would the civil aid budget have been? That does not add up, either politically or constitutionally. The Government must move in this area immediately if they are to meet their own obligations under the legislation that they themselves enacted.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, expounding Conservative Party policy on this matter?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am expounding the obligations that any government, whether a Conservative one or the present Government, would have to meet under the Human Rights Act.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in his splendid contribution to the debate, the recent report—the independent inquiry—commissioned by the Government themselves and published in April, is a very telling condemnation of the existing situation. The report makes it clear that the CLS is failing to meet its aims. For example, it found that,
"little evidence has emerged that the system of partnerships, as currently set up, can guarantee success in achieving the intended outcomes of the CLS".
It found that over half the advisers working in the CLS responding to a questionnaire,
"did not believe their CLSP had been effective in improving access to justice for the public".
It found that there was a "near unanimous view" that serious gaps in provision exist across the country, and that there is currently a,
"lack of overall accountability for the CLS",
and no clear dedicated leader driving change within the CLS, meaning that the,
"agenda for the CLS is not sufficiently clear".
That system is a system that the Government willed on us by the Access to Justice Act 1999. What are the Government going to do about the report? It clearly demonstrates that the system over the past four years has lamentably failed in an area that is absolutely central to individual rights. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has also cited evidence from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that corroborates the conclusions of this report.
796
The wider issue of access to justice in relation to magistrates' courts has been raised by a number of speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is a fact that, since 1997, 96 magistrates' courthouses have closed in England and Wales while only 14 have opened. Many of these closures have been in remote rural areas. As a party, we have repeatedly expressed concern at the distances that defendants, witnesses and victims must now travel to attend court. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has also spoken out about the threat to local justice from such closures. They undermine community life and prevent magistrates responding to local concerns in a way that helps to give a real sense of justice.
The Government continue to assert that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates' courts are for each magistrates' court committee to determine in consultation with its local paying authority. Those committees are not, as I understand it, statutorily required to inform the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of proposed courthouse closures and these closures are not subject to any appeal system.
The Government continue to insist that the number and distribution of magistrates' courts is nothing to do with them. That is plainly hypocritical. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the previous Lord Chancellor have said on many occasions that local justice, locally delivered is central to the Government's philosophy.
How can that principle possibly conform with their attitude to magistrates' court closures, especially when the Home Office has been insisting for many years now that the human rights convention requires substantial new expenditure in courthouses in order to protect the human rights of the defendant? If these expenditure requirements, causing many closures, are to be insisted upon by the Government, then surely the Government should be assisting the magistrates' courts to meet those obligations. It cannot be right that expenditure should be met from local sources.
To conclude with two general thoughts, I was struck by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, about the need to look at the question of the provision of legal services in the context of the provision of public services generally, suggesting that the Government ask themselves to what extent the provision of justice is similar to the provision of health services or education and to what extent it is distinct and to draw appropriate conclusions from that.
I was also struck by some of the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about where we ought to go next. In civil legal aid matters, advisers have to grapple with legislation of increasing complexity. In the area of environmental law, the best way to tackle pollution is to create technologies that do not generate it in the first place. Equally, the best way to reduce the expenses of civil legal aid in areas such as housing and welfare law is to produce simpler legislation. Perhaps the costs of the complexity of future legislation in these areas should be borne by the departments that generate it.
6.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I am genuinely glad that we have had the opportunity of this debate because this is a central issue of public policy and politics. I am also glad that, in opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, signalled that the issue is wider than legal aid, although legal aid is obviously a significant part of the debate.
In my 20 minutes, I shall seek to answer a number of points raised and, at the same time, to share with the House the current thinking in government on these issues. There will be further opportunities to see that thinking later in the year when we publish our strategy for the next five years but it is so relevant to this debate that I would not be doing the House justice if I did not give at least a taste of some of those issues. If I do that, I shall not be able to answer every single point that has been raised. Even if I spent my 20 minutes solely on that, I would not be able to do so. I make a commitment that I shall either write individual letters or a more comprehensive response to Members. I think that if I at least try to set out the broader picture of the Government's perspective on measures that inhibit access to justice I am helping the House more than if I am simply in responsive mode.
The central aim of the new department is to focus on what the public experience as problems and on how to change the systems and services to meet those problems better. Therefore, taking that approach to the problems that inhibit access to justice, I will set out four initial points and will then sketch out some of our thinking on the direction of travel, not solutions, for trying to make improvements. The first point is that the number of justiciable problems in society is extremely large. The evidence from Hazel Genn's work, the work of the Legal Services Research Centre and our own research this year demonstrates that at least 50 per cent of the public experience significant justiciable problems over a three-year period. In other words, we are talking about very large numbers of problems that are not trivial and that affect the public to which, in theory, a legal system might be able to find some solution.
From that research, we also know what the public say about the ways in which the state and society currently offer solutions to those problems. They believe that they take a long time to resolve and they are right. They are unclear about where to go for advice, apart from the CAB and solicitors. They know that the CAB is very busy and that one cannot get in and their perception is that solicitors are at times expensive. Justiciable events are seen by consumers as being difficult to resolve and the experience of those who try to resolve them is seen as being harder than they had expected. The public feel that the legal system is expensive, complex, slow and stressful.
I now turn to the criminal system, which we have not talked about much this evening. Maybe some noble Lords thought that it was outwith the terms of reference of this debate. I do not think that it is. In terms of access to justice in the criminal area system,
798
I shall articulate three issues that are of public policy concern. The first is the issue of attrition, the ratio between the number of offences committed and the number of convictions. Put coarsely, the public's perception of this is that the criminals get away with it.
The second issue, which is perhaps more neglected, is that the system focuses, almost inevitably, on major criminal issues and the evidence is that they are not always the issues of most concern at community or local level. The criminality that matters most to people at local level is a range of miserable, low-level crime or anti-social behaviour that erodes the quality of life in the community.
The third issue about the criminal justice system and whether it is seen by the public as delivering the results and justice that they hope for is that, as a result of historical evolution, the system clearly focuses on the offence and on coming to a fair decision about whether that offence was committed. The focus is on the offence, not the offender, and the extent to which it is possible to prevent re-offending is only an ancillary focus. As far as many members of the public are concerned, certainly as far as many of the crimes they have touched on, reducing re-offending is probably the issue that matters most to them. Those are some of the challenges and problems that the criminal justice system faces in terms of giving the public access to a justice system that does what they want.
I suggest that the third issue that is potentially an impediment to improving access to justice is the historical and rather simple equation, made by all of us, of the courts with the justice system. That is not to say that the courts are not an absolutely fundamental foundation of our society, the rule of law and of the quality of this country. We rightly hold them in very high respect. But a focus which sees the courts as the central or preponderant model, particularly in an adversarial role, has certain consequences. That is not universal, but they have the characteristics of being high skill, high cost and slow.
Part of that historical tradition has been that we have not been particularly energetic as a society. The Government take more than their fair share of blame in that respect for developing alternative resolution models which are fit enough for purpose although not perfect.
Another part of the problem in terms of access to justice is entrenched thinking. There is a good argument that more money would make life better and that is self-evidently true. But the argument that we would simply resolve the problems by throwing more money at them does not stack up if one gives it much thought. Put at its crudest, if one thought about a totally free service to citizens, which allowed them to take justiciable action on any of the problems, one can imagine the consequences in the scale of growth of demand on legal services and the legal system.
Simply thinking that by throwing money at the problem we will solve it will not do. That is not say that there is not a proper political debate to be heard about whether the right level of money is being used.

799
I shall set out relatively quickly a limited number of areas where we believe we have to apply more intellectual effort and government muscle. First, there is the ghastly phrase, the concept of proportionate dispute resolution. Looking at the problems in society we need to be much more creative in identifying mechanisms to resolve those problems which are proportionate to the problems and the cost. We have an agenda of about four or five issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if the legal system is clearer and more simple, in theory, and if one is an optimist, it is more conceivable that the public can see what is the message of the law and therefore give clearer guidance about what to do. That must be an object of policy even if we are pretty poor at fulfilling it.
Linked to that there is clearly a thrust towards early resolution. The more that one can resolve justiciable problems earlier, clearly in principle it is better and it is certainly lower cost.
There has to be more action to improve the understanding of rights and responsibilities by the public. Matched with that is helping them to decide how to deal with problems themselves. If one considers how many of us do resolve justiciable problems, it is not often by going to court or employing a lawyer. We develop a range of skills and techniques to try to make the person with whom we are aggrieved negotiate and come to an agreement which is acceptable. Many people do not have those skills and therefore we have to think of that as well as an object of public policy if we are to make much impact on the very large number of justiciable problems which the state can never expect to solve simply by the formal court process or the legal aid subsidy process.
Lastly, it is quite clear that we have to promote a range of tailored and innovative alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes. If there was more time I would share some of the thinking on the family, which is one of my areas of focus. There is massive potential there, but we have only just started on that. The present Lord Chief Justice set us that agenda in 1996. We have a lot further to go on that.
The second area is the issue of better education, information and advice. It is directly relevant to the issue of trying to make it more possible for more people to find solutions themselves to their justiciable problems rather than believing that we can provide a lawyer for everyone to resolve every problem. Therefore, the Government have to develop a cross-governmental strategy on advice and information in these areas. It does not exist at present and it is a challenge to government to see how they address the matter.
At a smaller level, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, signalled, there is a role for telephone advice. The noble Lord's views appeared to be more half-empty than half-full on that. If we look at that in terms of public policy and how NHS Direct has shifted our perception as to how one can give information and advice on a subject as sensitive as health and what a success that has been, that raises a serious question as to how we go further on telephone information and
800
advice for the public and how they can better resolve problems. A national telephone advice service on debt and welfare benefits will be announced in July.
As regards the agenda of issues which the Government have to consider, there is the matter of better court resolution processes. Clearly, in some areas such as money claims on line, we see through using electronic processes at relative low cost the ability to resolve and give judgment on a very high number of money claims in relatively simple terms. As regards tribunal reform, we are looking not simply at how we give people a day at a tribunal, but how we turn that into a process where we try to promote pre-tribunal resolution to problems rather than having a hearing, if that can be done while meeting the tests of justice.
We obviously have to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, and also as regards case management initiatives. He also said that we should look elsewhere and use that as a challenge to us as to whether the situation should be as it is at present. He instanced the example of fraud. International comparisons are useful to us because they do not have to be exactly as it is here.
Those are some of the elements of what we shall be doing in terms of bringing fresh thinking over a five to 10-year period rather than an instant fix. I turn to the extremely painful and sensitive subject of court closures in mid-Wales about which the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Livsey of Talgarth and Lord Phillips, and others spoke The painful truth is that the decisions to close court houses are made by local magistrates' courts committees in consultation with the paying authority. If the decision is appealed against by the paying authority to the Lord Chancellor, he has a locus on it and can do something about it. But if not, he has no statutory role or power of intervention. It was not prayed against by the funding authority and therefore there is no locus by the Lord Chancellor.
We could spend a considerable amount of time on this issue. Perhaps I may write in detail to all noble Lords who spoke on the matter. I believe that is the fairest way to do justice to their queries.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I have one point for the Minister to consider. The issue to which he has just referred has been complicated by the private finance initiative, which is a totally different issue. It impeded the ability of the local council to appeal.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall take that issue away. I will look at it as part of the response which the department gives.
I turn very briefly to the issue I raised as to the misfit, as regards public concern, between the criminal issues which matter most to them and the focus of attention of the criminal justice system itself. These are very early days, but we are looking at establishing a community justice centre in Liverpool, building on thinking by the Lord Chief Justice and others. It is to try to see if there

801
are different ways of handling quality of life, low level offending, anti-social behaviour, property damage, harassment, prostitution, vandalism, fly-tipping, graffiti and nuisance drunkenness. One may ask what that has to do with this debate, but we have to find some ways of getting better purchase on these issues because they do not find much space in the current criminal justice system and yet they are matters on which the public judge as to whether we have effective access to justice in our society in a large measure.
I turn to the issue of who we subsidise and legal aid. Since 1996–97, expenditure on legal aid in cash terms has risen by 30 per cent. We make European comparisons with what we spend in Britain on civil matters. I am using that aspect because it is hard to make a fair comparison with criminal matters for obvious reasons. The average spend per capita on civil legal aid in England and Wales is more than £10. The next highest average spend in a non-UK country is Denmark at £4. The average spend per case on civil legal aid is more than £3,000 in the UK. The next highest average spend in a non-UK country is Denmark at £2,000. We are spending more on civil legal aid in this country than any other European country. That does not mean that we are necessarily spending enough, as has been well argued, but it certainly gives pause for thought whether we have reached perfection in the way in which we apply limited resources to the resolution of civil problems in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in an impressive speech was clear that there are certain realities of life. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on making that point. He did not always enjoy those realities but he did not fudge them. Essentially, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the provision that we are discussing cannot be demand led, that government are entitled to set limits for obvious reasons of public policy, and that budgetary limits are a reality of life.
It has been argued that if civil was ring-fenced, we would have a different debate. However, we would still have the same debate as we face; namely, how do we get best value for the public within a limited constraint of resource, which will always be conditioned by political choice, and can obviously go up or down? It is in that context that a number of reviews which we have commissioned are relevant to this issue. The most important one is the fundamental legal aid review that has been commissioned and is looking root and branch at the questions—as it should—of who we subsidise, for what actions and for what processes, because each of those three have an effect on the eventual cost. From what I have said previously, I obviously see the issue of the processes as germane to the question of who we subsidise and for what actions, because if you can get more economical processes for the same level of money you can subsidise more cases coming into the system. That—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Am I right in thinking that the fundamental review, which I think has been ordered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, is an internal review and will not, therefore, have external input at its crucial stages?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. It is an internal review which I believe is being carried out in conjunction with other parts of government. However, at this stage it is a pure piece of policy work by government. I expect that we shall publish it when it is completed; perhaps we shall publish it when it is completed—either way, a debate will need to be held on its conclusions.
In the time available to me I shall not do justice to the many detailed and important questions that were asked about legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to the Matrix review. We are certainly considering how the recommendations should be taken forward. As regards demoralised legal aid lawyers, we have had a very good response to recent contracts, both civil and criminal. We have had a positive response from firms. We have not been hit by a massive aggregate supply problem. Clearly, there are some geographical issues that need to be addressed, but there is no difficulty as regards people coming forward at the rates that are being offered.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that we want to consume the minimum amount of expenditure on bureaucracy consistent with meeting public policy tests of value for money and protection against misuse or abuse. Clearly, that has to be an objective.
As regards the quality of legal aid suppliers, the specialist level of quality mark addresses quality through requirements to have qualified supervisors, effective supervision and an effective management system. It is much more of a quality control system than it ever was in the past—for example, five or 10 years ago. However, that does not mean that it is perfect.
As regards advice deserts, if the model is that one has to have a solicitor and an office in every town, I think that there will be areas with no provision. However, if the test is whether the citizen is able to get effective access to the advice that he or she needs, there are alternative ways of addressing that.
I shall not talk in detail about very high cost criminal cases. I shall not even rise to the bait that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Clearly, there is a need to look at the underlying drivers of cost in very high cost criminal cases for reasons that were touched on in the debate. However, those negotiations are actively with the Bar at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to the impact assessment of legal costs on new legislation. There is a principle in government that whichever government department initiates a policy that bears costs on other departments, there is an expectation that the originating department has to pay for the cost consequences. That was not always the case. I do not claim that the position is perfect now but it is obviously

803
fundamental for a downstream department such as the DCA; otherwise, one just picks up the consequences and burdens of everyone else's costs, and that is disastrous.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned the simplification of conditional fee agreements. I agree with him that further simplification would provide a better deal for the customer, the solicitor and for the defendant. We published an initial consultation paper last summer and have been working with stakeholders on the details of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, gave a powerful and reasonably historical description of a legal aid scandal. I think that he used the word "scandal". Following the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999, we have strengthened the processes by which cases are scrutinised. I very much hope that such a case could not happen again. However, it would be foolish of me to be totally optimistic about that.
I apologise as I am failing what the Whip will tell me is the Lord Ackner test. Therefore, I should come to a conclusion. I regret that I have not been able to give more detailed answers. I shall seek to do that either individually or through a more collective response. I welcome the debate. It has been an important issue on which to engage the House. We must return to it on future occasions.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for summing up. It was the more commendable as he was the only non-lawyer contributor to this debate apart from—I hasten to add—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend—I did not say my noble and learned friend but was tempted to—from Powys.
It is also encouraging that the Minister was open-minded in a number of the responses that he gave to points raised in the debate. He talked of cross-party involvement and coming back to this issue. I have the sense—as I am sure many noble Lords do—that this has been a debate in the nature of a taster, so wide and important have been the issues that were discussed.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that of the issues that I dealt with in opening the debate, which were taken up by many noble Lords, there has not been any satisfactory response on the split between criminal and civil legal aid—the ring-fencing issue. The issue of legal aid remuneration as regards solicitors has not been touched on at all and yet that is at the root of the decline in the system. I urge the Minister to read what has been said in this debate about that and the evidence because decline in the system there certainly is. If the Minister thinks that the Law Society is just making up the idea that there is severe demoralisation within the legal aid fraternity, or that the Legal Aid Practitioners Group is not of the same mind, I hope that he will think again.
There are many other matters that it is not appropriate to raise at this juncture except to thank most sincerely all those who have taken part in this debate. Legal aid has often been called the Cinderella service. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken about it
804
today with, if I may say so, a degree of commitment that bodes well for our future deliberations on improvements to the system. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government and Regional Assemblies
6.28 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally rose to call attention to the case for moving power from Westminster and Whitehall to local government and democratically elected regional assemblies; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two questions may arise concerning this debate. One concerns its timing and the other concerns why I should initiate this debate about local government and devolution. On the matter of timing, this debate takes place a week after the local elections have taken place. One might have thought that this debate would offer opportunities to indulge in hustings and soapbox debating. However, I claim that it is far better to have this debate after the dust of battle has settled when we can look ahead on this important topic.
As to myself as choice of mover, it is true that I have been in and around Whitehall and Westminster for almost 40 years in various jobs. I do not come from the local government tradition, with the experience of many in this House and the other place. But nearly four decades of experience have convinced me that if we are going to modernise our government and make it fit for the 21st century, we have to move away from what we became in the 20th century: the most over-centralised state of any modern democracy. I hope this debate will explore whether we have had that leap of imagination in government necessary for a real movement of power out of Whitehall and Westminster, rather than just the appearance of it.
There is a concern that Labour's new localism is simply its old centralism dressed up for the occasion. We have an over-powerful executive and a Parliament that is, very often, either unwilling or unable to provide checks and balances. That is why we on these Benches continue to seek a reform of Parliament at national level. We also believe that better governance could be achieved by devolving power out of Whitehall and Westminster, and closer to the people. For that reason, we have in the past supported the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the Greater London Authority. We continue to support the idea of regional government for England.
Before 1997, we shared a common agenda with the Labour Party through the Cook/Maclennan report. It became a blueprint for change, largely carried out in the first years of this Government: the Human Rights Act; the various parliaments and assemblies I have referred to; the Freedom of Information Act. One of the problems we face is that, as they have stayed in office, the Government have assumed some of the arrogance of power. We clearly saw that in the ill

805
considered decision to impose postal ballots on the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside. That clearly had more to do with the political calculations of John Prescott in Yorkshire and Humberside, and Ian McCartney in the north-west, than any notion of making sure that the ideas had been thought through and the implementation was effective. If we appoint an independent referee such as the Electoral Commission, we should listen to it.
In passing, I understand this rush to find new ways of encouraging people to vote, and that there is a certain increased credibility when turnout is up. But it worries me, not just because of the dangers of corruption. The act of voting is, in its way, part of the social contract between the citizen and government. I subscribe to a comment made by the late Hugo Young, that we should perhaps cherish more the 50 per cent who do vote, rather than pursue too vigorously the apathetic and those who are not playing a part in the process. That may be a side debate.
The lesson of the postal ballot and other matters is that if you want constitutional reform to stick, you must at least try for cross-party consensus. That is particularly true in light of last week's local election results. I am not going to indulge in cheap party politics by suggesting that the Labour Party is now the third party of local government, or that a Labour vote is a wasted vote in many areas. But it is true that the great northern one-party bastions of local government are no longer there. That is an altogether good thing as far as local democracy is concerned. The problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister has gained a reputation for approaching some of these matters from too narrow a view of party advantage rather than seeking broad consensus. That is why I was delighted—and I hope the Minster will expand on this in his reply—that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has today published a discussion pamphlet on the future of local government, encouraging greater participation in the debate on the future shape of local government by the public at large and interested groups.
If we can get the leap of imagination that transfers real power, we are in a "win-win" situation. Not only do we get the benefit of better governance, we also attract a higher quality of people who will want to take part in doing a real job of work. We on these Benches also believe that the case for a fairer system of local government funding must be looked at.
One of the reasons I initiated this debate came from the experience of local election campaigns, and my own experience in the north-west and elsewhere. I know my noble friend Lord Greaves will expand on that later. I am very worried that the promised referenda in the autumn are in danger of being lost unless the Government take on board the legitimate criticisms made of their approach so far. The Government have to convince people that their regionalism consists of more than moving power to the regional "quangocracies". There is a danger that if we leave too much power in central hands, and take too
806
many powers from genuinely local bodies, it will produce cynicism and a rejection of the whole proposal. It will indeed be a recipe for a "no" vote.
Devolution will only work if it consists of a genuine transfer of real power to the regions. That devolution must be based on strong regional democracy to tame unelected regional government. There is a real danger in the way the Government are approaching this that what we will get is not devolved government based on democratic accountability, but some devolved government to bodies that are not themselves democratic, and are still basically in the hands of the Whitehall machine.
My view has always been that two of the most misunderstood words in English are subsidiarity and federalism. They are abused, particularly in the European context. I myself have always been a federalist, and I believe that there are certain matters best dealt with on a European basis. There are some matters best dealt with by this Westminster Parliament, some matters best handled by devolved regional assemblies, some matters will continue to be best handled by local government, and some by parish and neighbourhood bodies as well.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene, but I will not get the chance to speak until I wind up the debate. There will not be the referenda in the northern regions unless this House approves the orders for the referenda. It would be very helpful if, during the course of this debate, the Liberal Democrats would make their position clear on whether they are going to assist the flow of those orders through this House. Obviously, they must be passed before the Summer Recess.
Lord McNally: My Lords, one of the reasons that we initiated this debate was to tease out of the Government their basic philosophy on these issues. If I may say so, much will rest on the persuasiveness of the Minister's reply to what I hope will be a constructive debate. We are the Liberal Democrats; we are here to help. Much more seriously, we are simply putting down a warning which I think will come from many parts of the House. Regardless of whether we co-operate in getting an autumn referendum through, the Government will lose the referenda if they do not convince people that they are about a real transfer of power.
I hope that as the debate unfolds and the Government take on board this spirit of constructive criticism we will make the progress that the Minister wants. That is why we would like to hear his response to the Liberal Democrats' ideas on a local income tax. There is no doubt that one of the problems that has bedevilled devolution and the transfer of power is the problem of local government finances. I was an official when Tony Crosland told local government that the party is over. It was no good central government sweating blood to try to control public expenditure if local authorities did not give a damn about how much expenditure increased. Even the dreaded poll tax was an attempt to try to tie local government expenditure to some kind of consequence at the ballot box.

807
We on these Benches would also advocate PR at local government level as a very healthy way of encouraging people. Given the right levels of responsibility and resources, people of real ability in all parties can still be attracted into local government. If we can get the right kind of devolution, it would be more efficient and mean less bureaucracy. It would deliver genuine subsidiarity and leave regions free to decide their own priorities in a whole range of areas. At the moment, the Government seem very coy about how far they will move power into the regions.
It is on that basis that I encourage the debate. In the debate so far the Government have made a declaration of intent, but that has left a suspicion that the leap of the imagination—what today's discussion pamphlet called "the vision"—truly to transfer power is still absent. In today's press release from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister says that, today, he wants to kick-start the debate. I hope that that is what we will do in this debate. I beg to move for Papers.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for initiating this debate. It is a great privilege to be number two in the batting order, which I used to be in cricket but have not hitherto been in the House. But the Benches around me indicated the passionate interest that the Labour Party takes in these matters. So that might account for my presence.
I speak for two reasons. First, the Government's programme of constitutional reform has been very remarkable. It has been a programme of modernisation, but it is incomplete without attending to matters of regional and local government in England. We have seen this extraordinary policy of devolution elsewhere, which is one of the most astonishingly radical programmes of a government in modern times. I believe that it is actually more coherent than is often stated; it is not haphazard. I think that there are underlying principles of accountability and indeed of decentralisation which underpin the policy. However, it is not satisfactory because there is nothing about England.
England has been called by the Constitution Unit "a black hole" in the constitutional reforms. An article in Parliamentary Affairs, varying the language slightly, called it,
"a gaping hole in the devolution settlement".
Let us all agree that it is at least a hole in some sense. The natural way to fill that hole, I think, is through extending the principle of regional government.
I intervene for a second reason which I suppose is more theoretical. There is a great deal to be said, including from these Benches, on the imperatives of decentralisation, pluralism and the dispersal of power. That, it seems to me, is the principle that underlies our deliberations this evening. It is a natural theme, no doubt, for the Liberal Democrats, following the lead of our greatest Prime Minister, Lloyd-George, who spoke a great deal on these matters. It should not be inimical to Conservatives. Conservatives throughout their history have celebrated locality and place. They
808
have not always been at all stern, unbending unionists, from the Primrose League in the 1890s to John Major in the 1990s.
From these Benches I would like to say that decentralisation is also a very sound policy for the Labour Party. The Labour Party for a long time in its history was the party of decentralisation. Its association with centralism and the idea that the gentleman from Whitehall knows best is a relatively recent innovation in the party's history. It was not the view of the Webbs, who espoused municipal socialism. It was not the view of Keir Hardie or George Lansbury or the ILP. R H Tawney, a great theorist who had a great effect on many of us on these Benches, argued that a socialist society was feasible only if it was based on popular—by which he meant local—decision making. That is the argument underlying much of Tawney's writings, including particularly The Acquisitive Society.
The Labour Party's stance changed—which I as an historian think was fairly recently—in the 1930s, namely with the unemployment of that decade, the Second World War and the experience of the Attlee government. It is rather melancholy to me in a way that one of our greatest reforms by one of our greatest statesmen, Nye Bevan's National Health Service, had the effect of riveting centralism on our social services, which was opposed, of course, by Herbert Morrison and others at the time.
So I welcome very much the fact that the present Government are showing signs of reversing this trend and returning to their roots. They have had RDAs and regional assemblies. We have the dispersal of government agencies, and now we have the proposals for regional referendums—I believe that that is the plural. I hope that that is something that will take place. Most certainly, I hope that we have something to reverse the tendency by which Great Britain has been one of the most centralised countries on earth. It has been so for many centuries, since the time of the Tudors.
Much of the debate will rightly focus on England, and most of my comments will focus on England—I live in England, and I like living in England—although they apply also to Wales.
It is extremely important that we take devolution further than has hitherto come in Wales. So I would very much introduce the plea to my noble friend that the Government eventually listen very positively to the report of the Richard commission. The commission unanimously—unanimously despite all the debates—strongly supported a case for meaningful devolution, giving Wales over a period of years precisely the same legislative powers as Scotland. At the moment we have a false devolution in Wales. We have a situation in which the National Assembly cannot get its views adequately across. It has no direct power over legislation, other than regarding the whims of the Cabinet and this House. Its weakness compared with Scotland is an anomaly. The Assembly once asked for seven or eight measures that it thought might be introduced on behalf of Wales, but no time was found for any of them. That is not satisfactory and that was

809
the view my noble friend Lord Richard and the fellow members of his commission, who represent all political parties and none.
The main stumbling block is regarding the Welsh Labour MPs. They will deliberate later this summer and one could well see self-interest in that they might be antagonistic to more power being transferred to the Assembly—but they will have much power. It is proposed that the Sewel convention be extended to the Welsh Assembly and there will be plenty for the Welsh Labour MPs to do.
Regarding England, there are two strong grounds for more regional government—a democratic case and an egalitarian case. There should be a democratic basis for effective regional government in Wales—and England cannot be left in limbo as it is the largest part of the United Kingdom with 85 per cent of the population, especially when democracy has been extended to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would support the view that has come from many sections of the Government that there should be regional assemblies, with planning powers and powers far greater than those of the RDAs, that are elected on a democratic basis. We have had some negative arguments for regional government—including the extension of government agencies, call centres and so on, to different parts of England. I welcome the part played by John Prescott, who is frequently derided in this House for, frankly, snobbish reasons. I have heard some noble Lords talking about him and they should be ashamed of themselves. He deserves great praise for being innovative and positive, not least in his document, The Northern Way.
Can my noble friend the Minister comment on the question of transferring regional government from John Prescott's department—despite the initiatives that he has taken—to the Department for Constitutional Affairs? That would have a different, more constructive and thrusting view of devolution and regional government than the present system.
The other case is egalitarian. I imagine that my noble friend, as a socialist, as I am, realises that socialism is about equality, or so we are told. The present structure is unequal. It encourages and perpetuates disparities between different parts of England, which date from the end of the First World War and have become ever wider. The comparators of economic performance indicate and underline that. John Prescott and Gordon Brown have spoken positively in such terms. The current operation of the Barnett formula is an obstacle, because it is unfair to many areas of England and perpetuates the present regional economic divide in this country.
The elected regional assemblies envisaged for the northern parts of England could be proactive. They could attract new resources and new elements of economic activity to areas of low growth. John Prescott has talked about transport policy. There are many other areas in which effective regional assemblies could operate, including housing, learning and skills policy and so on. In view of my own background, I would like to see universities playing a positive role in regional government. That is not a novel idea—for seven years I
810
had the privilege of being the vice-chancellor of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and we regarded ourselves as very much a motor of economic activity in agriculture and the introduction of small industries and so on to rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, would know about that. Regional assemblies would be an element of reddressing the inequalities in our country that have grown inexorably under Labour and Conservative governments over the past 25 years.
I conclude by congratulating the Government on taking regional government seriously. They are often derided—we have heard speeches in this House that are not historically accurate about the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy and so on, which I hope we can do without this evening. The Government deserve praise for making a good start. Referendums, it is to be hoped, will take place in northern areas. There are also proposals for regional authorities in other parts of England, including those of the Royal Society of Arts for the south-west. If we had more effective regional government, as has been proposed, we would have a reflection of and a complement to the constitutional reforms that have been introduced hitherto in this country. They would also reflect the pattern of many other European countries—for example in the federal state of Germany, where regionalism has been the motor of change. There are many variations between European countries, but I hope that Britain can reflect that too.
I welcome this debate and the Government's proposals and I look forward to my noble friend's response. Devolution is part of the fabric of this country in Scotland and Wales and I hope that it will become stronger in Wales. Hitherto, we have had little reflection of that in England. In the words of the famous poem, the people of England have not yet spoken, but in parts of that great country, perhaps they will do so.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for this debate, because there is much to be discussed. There is much in what he says about over-centralisation. However, the key question is what sort of devolution is appropriate. One of the questions is whether devolution to existing authorities is the way to proceed, or whether there should be devolution to new authorities.
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, but I do not agree with a single word he said. I cannot accept for one moment his argument that regional government is somehow the English answer to Scottish devolution. In another debate I referred to comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place at the Second Reading of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. He said that the Bill offered opportunities for the English regions similar to those offered to Scotland. That was complete nonsense. No one has suggested for one

811
moment that regional authorities in England will have any powers such as those that have been afforded to Scotland.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that was suggested during the negotiations on the Act of Union in 1707 and the idea has been around ever since.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am talking about the situation today and not the situation in the 18th century. Devolution has been granted to Scotland on a scale that no one suggests will be granted to England under the present arrangements. I have no doubt that from time to time over recent years people in the north of England have felt they have been somehow disadvantaged as a result of the Barnett formula and Scottish devolution. But perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, hinted, the answer would be to look at the Barnett formula. I have no doubt that if one were to ask someone in a pub in Newcastle whether he would prefer regional government and more councillors or more money as a result of a change in the Barnett formula, he would soon give a straight answer—which would not be in favour of regional government.
In the past few days I have been thinking about events back in 1970. Jim Callaghan, as he then was, was Home Secretary and he did not like the recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. So, he carried out his statutory duty and laid before Parliament the orders to give effect to the commission's proposals and then arranged for the Labour Party to be whipped to defeat the orders.
There is some sort of parallel between that and Labour's cavalier approach to the electoral system when they determined to press ahead with compulsory postal voting throughout the north of the country in last week's elections against the advice of the Electoral Commission. It seems clear that Labour, in the event, paid a penalty for that, as probably did the Labour government in 1970. The behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, over the proposals of the Boundary Commission had some effect on voting in the 1970 general election.
Recent events have shown not only that manipulating the electoral system to try to gain a party political advantage does not always pay—as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, it is better to try to deal with these matters by cross-party agreement—but that when elections to a number of bodies are held on the same day under a variety of voting systems, even if the instructions to voters are plain and easily understood—and not plain wrong as they were in London—there is almost bound to be trouble. The public will be confused; ballot papers will be spoilt; and results will be challenged.
I go on from there to suggest that if in a small country such as ours there is a plethora of authorities with different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, there can be confusion not only on polling day. It is of the essence of democracy that voters should be able to call to account those who they believe have not carried out properly the duties which have been given to them. They can hardly do that if they cannot see clearly who is responsible for what and what governmental body is
812
responsible for what. That is a good reason for having no more bodies with a share in government than is really necessary.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth put it in this way:
"Fragmentation of powers, far from empowering the people, leave them uncertain as to who to hold accountable for public policy".
There is a great deal in that and we should all bear it in mind. Of course there is a case for moving powers from Westminster and Whitehall to existing organs of local government, but I would submit it is much more difficult to justify giving powers to a new tier of government and virtually impossible to justify giving such powers at the expense of existing local government.
That, when you boil it down to its essentials, is exactly what Labour's plans are about. Their proposals are about change at the expense of local government because not only are powers like planning being taken from local government, but, if Labour get their way and assemblies are set up, the organs of local government closest to the people, the district authorities, will go entirely.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is simply not true to say that planning is taken away from local government. The giving of planning consent is a local government matter at district council level. That will remain the case and there are no plans to change it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I cannot agree for one moment. The giving of strategic powers to new regional authorities clearly diminishes the powers of the planning authorities. And the planning authorities are the county councils, so I cannot follow the noble Lord's argument.
The regions of England we are talking about—I have made the point many times but it must be made again—are artificial creations drawn on the map by bureaucrats and not for electoral purposes. They were drawn to delineate the area of responsibility of government offices. They are not, with the possible exception of the north-east, areas to which people feel they owe loyalty. They are not areas within which people feel they belong to one community. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will agree that the farmer on the banks of the Solway is unlikely to talk of a resident of Bootle as a fellow citizen of the north-west. I should imagine that there are few residents of Cheltenham who think they belong in the south-west, or residents of Banbury who think they are in the south-east. I would not think you would be able to find one.
However, it is over these artificial regions that it is hoped the new assemblies will preside. They will be remote bodies—far more remote than existing local authorities. And the more they are built up—these bodies to which people owe no natural loyalty and with which people have no natural affinity—the more they will weaken the organs of local government to which people naturally relate.

813
In the north-west, the regional assembly will be entirely dominated by Manchester and Merseyside, where the bulk of the population live, and if people vote for a regional assembly, they will rue the day when the counties lose their authority which was so skilful in balancing urban and rural interests.
The Motion before the House refers to moving powers to regional assemblies. And I have to say bluntly that I am against these assemblies whether they have powers or not. I am against regional assemblies whose purpose is just to put a veneer of democratic respectability over functions already exercised in the regions, but I am also against regional assemblies with real powers.
If the assemblies get no more than minimal powers, which as far as I can judge seems to be the intention, they will be no more than an expensive and pointless extra layer of government. Assembly members will no doubt demand high salaries and expenses, like those drawn by the one and a half day a week Members of the Scottish Parliament, and they will expect good accommodation and well paid staff. And then they will hunt around for something to do.
But I am bound to say I am just as much against regional government with real powers. I see no gain in Parliament at Westminster being further diminished and regions built up at Parliament's expense. Again, it is all about democracy and accountability. At present, we have a simple and transparent system of democratic accountability, with the man and woman in the street linked via his or her MP direct to government. The person can go to his Member of Parliament and the Member of Parliament can go to government and get a reply for his constituent. I ask myself where is the advantage in having more and more power drained away from our Parliament to, on the one hand, undemocratic institutions in Europe and, on the other, to assemblies in the regions, unless of course one wants to see our Parliament lose all meaning and become part of a federal Europe of the regions. I do not want to see a balkanisation of England and a federal Europe and, judging by last week's results, neither do the British people.
But at the end of the day, there is one thing that we and the Liberal Benches can agree on; that there is little excuse for the Government's failure to say clearly what powers they intend regional assemblies to have. One leaflet put out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seems to confirm my worst fears. It tells us what members of assemblies are most likely to be up to. The pamphlet reads:
"An Assembly could represent the Regions in Brussels, lobbying for the Region at European level".
In plain words, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to believe that it will be in Britain's interests for assembly members to go off to Brussels to try to screw more out of the Commission than the region next door. If anyone thinks that that sort of activity will be good for amity and make for a happier country, he must have taken leave of his senses. To adopt the elegant phraseology of the Prime Minister, we really need that like a hole in the head.
814
We are all waiting anxiously to hear what the Minister has to say and I want to ask him just one question. Does he stand by the statement he made on 5 March last year at col. 813? On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, suggested that there would be more enthusiasm for regional government if there were a statement on the powers and functions of the assemblies before the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied with his customary candour:
"We could do that, my Lords. However, I think that the penny dropped during the Second Reading of the legislation that there are no new powers and no new funds".—[Official Report, 5/3/03; col. 813.]
Does the Minister stand by that statement now?
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, began his speech I thought that we were going to agree that there is a strong case for moving powers from Westminster and Whitehall to at least some form of local government or regional assemblies. However, as he developed his argument, he seemed to deny that there is any case at all.
Lord Waddington: No, my Lords. I thought I had made myself quite clear. I believe that there is a case for some considerable additional devolution to existing local authorities, but there is no case for devolving powers to new authorities.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, at least we can agree that there is a case for devolving powers from the centre. I hope that the Minister in his reply will agree with that.
On the subject of regional assemblies, I shall take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing the debate so that we can discuss these important issues. I believe that there is a strong case to be made for regional assemblies. We need to make a good start before the referendums take place.
I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he describes asking someone in a pub how he feels about having a regional assembly. If that person in the pub fully understood that at the moment so many of the decisions affecting regions are made by unelected regional development agencies, by the Government Offices for the Regions and by Westminster, and that crucially the regional development agencies, which are in no way democratically accountable, hold the funding for such a wide range of projects, the case would be made for elected regional assemblies.
Perhaps I begin to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in agreeing that we do not need additional layers of government at regional level. I deeply regret that in the previous local government review, led by Sir John Banham, the Government at the time bottled out following through and making the case for unitary authorities everywhere. If we had unitary authorities throughout the country, backed up by very strong parish and town councils, we would

815
have a much more transparent system for the voting public. It would be clear to them that they had one local councillor and councillors who represented them on the principal authority dealing with a wide range of the functions that they really cared about.
Rural areas still have county and district councils and I am not making a case for the abolition of either. I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. I am making a case for unitary authorities. I have learnt the bitter lessons from the last local government review—I was in local government at the time. The arguments about where the boundaries should be were some of the most sterile that I have ever heard and were a total turn-off for the public. I believe that that has led to the further disillusion felt by the public and it is one reason why the electoral turnout for local government elections has dropped.
I turn to another reason why I believe that turnout has dropped. It is no good the Government casting around for other solutions, such as postal voting, unless they solve the issue of devolving powers, and to devolve powers they must loosen the straitjacket that they have imposed around local government.
In 1997 when the Labour Government were elected I hoped that they would stand by what they said about local government having powers. At the time they quite correctly analysed that local government was not in a healthy state and needed help. There were monolithic councils that did not scrutinise what they did and did not perform at all well in the interests of their citizens. At that time the Government correctly set up the Improvement and Development Agency to help those councils in two ways: first, by peer review, which was a strong and sensible way forward, and, secondly, by showing the examples of best practice that have developed into the beacon council scheme, which has much to commend it.
However, the Government then went off the rails. They introduced the comprehensive performance assessment whose targets and goals mean that every council up and down the land is terrified of failing the assessment. The Minister may say that fear of failure is good because it drives people to perform better. I do not believe that fear is a good motivator in any circumstance. Further, it takes away from the voting public the ability to choose between different models of how things may be achieved.
Having targets and some form of measurement is important, but if the Government are to reawaken interest in local democracy, they must move to a system of measurements, targets and scrutiny that relies far more on public opinion of how a local authority has performed than on central government stating the targets and delivering their own policies and targets through local government. In that way, local government is no better able to perform true local democracy than under the préfecture system in France. Of course, in France there is local government and a préfecture, whereas in England the Government have made local government its own préfecture.
On what really matters to people, such as housing, crime and health, local government can only tinker around the edges and write a strategy that it discusses
816
with partners. It needs to be re-enabled to take back some decision making and delivery that the public expect. The public do not like talking shops, nor attending endless workshops. They ask what action will happen at the end and local government now has to say, "We cannot take any of this action; it will be taken by our partners". A good place to start may be with the Housing Corporation, which at the moment is funded to deliver the housing function, together with registered social landlords.
I believe that local government should still have a more primary function in delivering with registered social landlords and others, and the form that that delivery of housing units in its own area will take should be decided by local government. That is one area that I believe that the Government could free up and give local government a far bigger role.
Finally, other quangos are unelected and much less regulated. I do not believe that they have to go through anything like the same stringent performance measures as local government. Why is that? Are the Government more relaxed about quangos? Of course, they appoint those who chair them, who, I believe, in turn have a hand in appointing those who sit on them. We need a bonfire and a sieving mechanism for such quangos and we must decide which ones we need. I hope that the Government come good on the Haskins report and devolve a lot of those responsibilities to local authorities, certainly those in rural areas.
When we debated in this House the system of election to the European Parliament, we rightly chose a PR system. I regret that I voted for a closed-list system, because people regret the loss of connection with their own MEP. We must press the Government to return to an open-list system. That would entirely reinvigorate people's wish to vote for their MEP.
7.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to begin with the statistic with which I hope—the clock permitting—to conclude. When public expenditure is decided on, in this country the decision, allocation and accountability is 78 per cent conducted by central government. It will not surprise noble Lords that the second country in the EU on that measure is France. What surprised me was the extent of the gap: the UK, 78 per cent; France, 44 per cent; and in Denmark dropping as low as 29 per cent. The centralisation of the UK is truly exceptional. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, even as recently as 100 years ago, it was not so. It has got very much tighter, which is chiefly to do with the growth of one body: Her Majesty's Treasury. It is, like the poor, always with us, I am afraid.
The argument here is about accountability. I had the privilege recently of debating with the right honourable gentleman Mr Oliver Letwin. He began his argument by saying that the state had failed. When he said that, he was speaking about the state as manager. There he had a very strong case. I have listened to my noble friends Lord McNally and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, both of whom

817
described feelings about the state exercising accountability that are entirely and painfully familiar to me as a university teacher.
The state does not know how to teach, how to conduct local government, how to practise medicine, or how to practise law, so in all those areas it relies on one of the heresies of the 20th century: that there is an abstract art called management, independent of the thing to be managed. That is unfortunately not so. In all these areas, the state imposes on various public service professions standards many of which they do not accept. The remark of my noble friend Lady Miller about different models was absolutely crucial. In this regard, change of government makes absolutely no difference; that is why I think that it is Whitehall more than Westminster that we should be discussing.
However, what Mr Letwin did not say is that, if the state has failed as a manager, equally the market has failed as a provider. It is not in the nature of the market to do things that can be done only for non-market objectives; nor is it in its nature to provide a universal service; it is simply against the nature of the beast. Nowadays, the performance of the Post Office clearly illustrates that. For my part, I would not say that I have a Post Office anymore. The nearest is a mile and a half away, in exactly the opposite direction from those shops to which I most usually go. So it is, if not prohibitive, at least severely discouraging. At a time when the Government are so aware of the need for people to take casual exercise to avoid obesity, to close down the post offices to which people used to walk must carry a medical as well as a social cost. I would like to know whether that has been quantified.
We need the state as provider but not the state as manager. How we make that distinction is the really interesting thing. Just over 10 years ago, I wrote a book on academic freedom in which I attempted to lay out the boundaries of what was properly the state's business and what was properly that of the universities. I showed it to an old friend from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals lobby of its great days in the 1980s. She said, "Yes, this is absolutely fine. But how on earth are you going to make the Treasury pay attention to it?" It was a fair question, because our real enemy is the monopoly power of the Treasury. A monopoly will always, in the end, behave like a monopoly. Power corrupts, and monopoly power is no exception.
The point in our thinking of a commitment to regionalisation is that we will then have 11 bodies, or whatever number it is, capable of competing with each other. The depth of disillusionment among public servants, which I have felt quite strongly, will then be able to have an outlet: in going to serve the region that offers the best terms for doing one's job, according to one's own conscience and in the way that one thinks is most useful. Those regions that respect their professions the most will attract the best staff; therefore they will attract the best results, and, presumably, a number of members of the public. Regions can attract that vital element of competition, together with a local power of raising revenue, where
818
a centralised model such as we have under devolution at present simply cannot do it. It is because we believe in the virtues both of the state as provider and of competition as a defender of standards that we have hit on the model that we have. It will be extremely interesting to see how it develops.
This is not a proposal for public services to be unaccountable. I have been accountable to Whitehall, and, in a different system in the United States, to my own pupils. I found accountability to my own pupils nothing but valuable. When they had a complaint, it was always worth listening to. Sometimes there was a reasonable answer to the complaint, sometimes there was not, but one could not go into the discussion with either assumption firmly in one's mind. I remember one dreadful mistake that they made, but it was the only one. They complained that one person did not have his mind on his lectures. They did not know that his daughter was desperately, painfully ill all term and died in great pain in the seventh week of term. They were quite right; if they had known a little more, I do not think that they would have said what they did. Otherwise, their criticisms were pretty well infallible. I shall never forget the pleasure of taking to one of my colleagues a copy of the Yale Course Critique which said that his lectures were one of the things that went a long way to making the high cost of a Yale education bearable.
So I am not one of those people who believe in unaccountable professionals—very far from it. I married a pupil, to whose academic judgment I was accountable for 40 years. I wish I still were at this moment; I would be doing something much better than I am now. But it must be accountability to an informed audience. It will mean, obviously, a vast amount of shake-up and a great deal of disturbance.
I rather thought that there would be people here who would say that it could not be done. I suspected that they might include the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. When I saw that he had been put in front of me in the speaker's list, I thought that he could not, but I underrated the noble Lord's ingenuity as a debater, which is very great. It was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who said that it could not be done. Well, why is it that it can be done in every other country in Europe? I do not believe that the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans, the French and everyone else have administrative talents which are totally denied to the British. So if they can do it, why cannot we?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, tell it not in Gath nor in the streets of Askelon, but the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, coincides, in principle if not in wording, with a Motion that the Conservative Party would have put down for debate in a fortnight's time if the noble Lord had not anticipated us. We may not share the same bottom line with the noble Lord's party, but we are united with them in our recognition of the significance of the subject. So we thank the noble Lord for providing us with this earlier opportunity, even if a senior Front-Bench opener has taken over what I, in my innocence,

819
believed to be inherently Back-Bench debates on Wednesdays. That must complicate matters for his noble friend who is winding up.
I congratulate too my noble friend Lord Waddington, who is a passionate and doughty fighter for true localism in local government. What united my noble friend with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and, incidentally, with myself, during debates on the recent paving Bill was agreement on the Orwellian or even Alice-like quality of legislating for referenda on regional assemblies when some regions had already set up their own regional assemblies—not even calling them shadow regional assemblies—without any prior legislative or statutory underpinning or foundations. It is no wonder that the electorate, even the most mature electorate in the world, has sometimes been confused. That constitutes a poor run-up to referendum campaigns.
It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose oratorical span of subjects and issues is so broad. At the Westminster and Whitehall end of this Motion, his ancestor Lord John Russell was the only Prime Minister to sit in Parliament for my former constituency, or a part of it, while holding the premiership. Within my own party Arthur Balfour was one of my predecessors, but not when he was Prime Minister, and the younger Pitt secured 56 votes in the seat at an election in the 1780s while Prime Minister, but without actually standing in the election himself.
The paving Bill is of course one of the grandparents of this debate. No doubt my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, in winding up will remind us of the practical data with which we could not be supplied during the Bill's passage, but which those voting in a referendum will need to know if the proposition is not to become a pig in a poke.
My contribution to this debate will seek to be philosophical rather than overtly polemical. In the far-off days when I attended the Harvard Business School, I recall being taught that a measure of the health of an organisation was how low within it decisions were taken. In government, I can also remember being taught that there was not a natural read-across in that regard from the private corporate sector into the Civil Service, although I cannot help remarking that different departments had different hierarchical levels at which submissions to Ministers were signed off. To at least my untutored eye, it always seemed that the departmental morale was highest in places where the signing off was at the lowest level, not least because it then afforded the maximum number of people a presence at subsequent ministerial discussions.
Although the read-across into local government again is not a perfect one, instinct and intuition tell me that the relationship between government, with a lower case "g", and the Government is likely to be best where those doing the governing are closest to the governed. That is a fortiori truer still where the representatives emerge from the comparative anonymity of a closed-list system, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, alluded.
820
Where I live in south-west Wiltshire, parish councils thrive despite the recent brouhaha about the declaration of interests, and are much better reported in the local press than are that other index of local life—village cricket matches. I acknowledge that the diocese of Salisbury has a high incidence within its own parochial system of team ministries, but in a rural environment that degree of collaboration across parish boundaries is no bad thing. Local government within a county can survive the bisection of parliamentary constituencies.
The recent European elections are a useful preface to the referenda. We had a debate shortly after I entered your Lordships' House on the desirability of regular briefing of the electorate on European developments. I remember arguing that one of the problems of building the European cathedral, in de Gaulle's metaphor, was that, mutatis mutandis, the Dean and Chapter had not kept those in the parish pews decently informed about either their plans or, indeed, what was happening. To borrow an analogy from D-day, they missed Montgomery's point that the morale of troops is better when the maximum amount of information is shared with them. Elites and establishments, elsewhere on the Continent as well as here, have been parsimonious, even patronising, in that regard. "Not for you to bother your little heads", they might imply. In these elections, continent-wide, they have paid a price for that attitude.
Of course, I acknowledge that UKIP enlivened the election, not least for the media, and its very simplisticness played well against the prevailing uncertainty. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But I am less concerned about UKIP than I am about the BNP. The comparison between the BNP vote in the local elections, where it stood only selectively, and the vote that it secured in the European elections suggests that voting for an extremist party—qua party—may be an easier decision for voters to take than voting for a particular identified individual. Certainly, lists are the enemy of properly representative democracy, and that has implications for regional assembly elections, if there were to be such, when representatives would already be much further from their electors.
The jury is now out on postal votes. They are now the subject for the Electoral Commission review. I shall simply await the outcome of that. But clearly something went wrong. I sincerely hope that the Government will never again diminish the authority of the Electoral Commission, which is a sensible and worthwhile innovative body, by riding so roughshod over it as they did on postal votes, where patently more worth rested in the commission's caution than in the Government's recklessness. The elections threw up a good quota of fatuous statements, but none more so than Mr Hain's claim that the Government had afforded more people the opportunity to vote. What did he think that one man one vote meant before the Royal Mail's entry into the process?
But the Motion comes back to regional assemblies. There, I hope that we shall take a long, hard look at London's powers and what they have achieved. I have alluded before in your Lordships' House to Glenda

821
Jackson's ragbag of strategies in the Greater London Authority Act, which were presumably included because it was supposed to be a strategic authority, and her assertion that under the Act they must be reconciled to meet its terms. She has thus spawned an industry of conflict reconciliation and bureaucratic paper shuffling, but there are no hard results that one can detect from that process of reconciling strategies.
If there are worthwhile virtues in regional government—I realise that some of your Lordships' House perhaps on my side would deny any—they lie in transport and spatial strategy. While I acknowledge central institutions must retain some control of transport policy in the capital, a greater degree of regional authority, especially where it relates to interchanges with the general network, would be to the good. Here, in this particular case, a clear means of resolving conflicting strategies between the Mayor and Transport for London on the one hand and the Strategic Rail Authority on the other, is important.
In principle, transfer of many powers from the centre is generally to the good. We know that the transfer is hindered by central government's distrust of what local government might do with it, but trust the local authorities is as pertinent an injunction as trust the universities or, more largely, trust the people.
Outside your Lordships' House, I might run into more criticism within my own party for my belief that our own local government policies as a party were better when they were largely formulated by those who had profound personal local government experience. Within your Lordships' House, our Front-Bench spokesmen on local government and environmental matters, including my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, have just such experience, both in a major county council and in a major local—indeed royal—borough. In my view, they are much the better for that.
I greatly look forward to my noble friend's wind up tonight and, in bipartisan terms suited to your Lordships' House, I look forward to the Minister's as well. He has had a lot of practice in these debates in recent weeks.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate about moving power from Westminster and Whitehall to democratically elected regional assemblies. Like many Welshmen, I have moved around the country during my career. I lived in the north-east of England during the time of the reign of T Dan Smith and I lived in the south-west of England during a time when lots of other interesting political shenanigans were going on. The Minister and his department are dealing with devolution for England, and I believe there is enormous scope for that, certainly in the areas in which I have lived.
I want to follow briefly the foray made by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, into Welsh politics, although I realise that the Minister does not have authority in that respect. Nonetheless, the noble Lord, Lord Morgan,
822
made the point about the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the issue of the reform of our constitution. That is a schism at the present time.
We should have a separate debate in this House on the Richard commission. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has applied for such a debate and I hope that the Government will be generous enough with their time to enable it to take place. There are many lessons for regionalism throughout England and Wales when we examine what was said by the Richard commission. I shall allude to one or two of its recommendations and its discussions on the relationship between Westminster and Whitehall with the Welsh Assembly, because some of those comments on Westminster and Whitehall's attitude to Wales apply equally as well to the regions of England.
The reason I am addressing the subject of the Richard commission is that power, so far as Wales is concerned, lies here in Parliament, and we are hamstrung so long as we have only secondary legislative powers. That is demonstrated in reality by the fact that during the first fours years of the operation of the Welsh Assembly Wales took only one primary legislative Bill of its own through Westminster per year. That was the case until recently, when the Bill for a children's commissioner for Wales blazed a trail, along with the NHS (Wales) Bill, as well as clauses in education and local government Bills which apply to both England and Wales. That illustrates some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan.
On Whitehall and Westminster and its relationship with the Welsh Assembly, the Richard commission report makes comments that I am sure would be echoed if applied to many regions of England:
"The Assembly Government benefits from close engagement with Whitehall departments in developing policy and legislation affecting Wales. Goodwill and co-operation are important in making the relationship work. However, the Assembly Government is the junior partner in the relationship and making different arrangements for Wales is a complication for hard-pressed central departments which can cause delay even when there is no objection to giving the Assembly Government what it wants".
If we were to exchange a particular region of England for the words "Assembly Government", we might come to a similar conclusion.
On the accountability of the Welsh Assembly, in particular in relation to Parliament, the report states:
"There is a fundamental problem of split accountability—policies are proposed by the Assembly Government in Wales but are scrutinised and adopted by different politicians in Westminster".
That is a crucial criticism which can be mirrored by the state of the British constitution as it stands at the moment.
The Richard commission has a vision for the role of the Assembly when it states:
"The Assembly is the democratically elected representative body for the whole of Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government should be able to formulate policies within clearly defined fields and should have the power to implement all stages for effective delivery, in partnership with the UK Government and other stakeholders. The Assembly Government should be able to set its

823
own priorities and timetables for action. It should be accountable to the people of Wales through the elected Assembly for its policies and their implementation".
Without making a meal of the Richard commission report, and before we have a full debate on its conclusions, I want to say only that two of the most important recommendations were for the Welsh Assembly to have primary legislative powers and, indeed, for it to be elected by the single transferable vote. Pungent criticism was made of the present closed list system of regional members because it produces a two-tier representation in the Assembly. That is a lesson for elected assemblies throughout the United Kingdom.
The proposals set out in the Richard commission report would mirror in Wales the legislative arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. Welsh MPs should take a leaf out of the book of their Scottish colleagues, where the Sewel convention has given Scots MPs substantial influence over legislation with the mutual agreement of the Scottish Parliament. That is in addition to their substantial influence in Westminster on Treasury, foreign affairs, defence and many other matters. I believe that Welsh Labour MPs in particular have little to fear. It is certainly my own and my party's view that the Richard reforms should go ahead without delay. I hope that a constructive debate on the subject will be held in this House very soon.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an elected member of Pendle Borough Council.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Greaves: Whether my noble friends will cheer what else I am going to say, I am not sure, but I thank them for that.
My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer repeated the general view that turnouts for local elections have declined. That is true if you look at a particular period over the 1990s and into the early part of this decade. As I said at Second Reading of the regional elections pilots Bill, that is not necessarily true if you look at a longer timescale. It looks as though turnouts bottomed over the past two years and perhaps were about to rise. What we saw on Thursday, quite independent of the postal vote pilots that took place, was an increase in turnout for local elections.
That rise may have been influenced by the fact that the elections were held on the same day as the European elections. It is possible that some people who would otherwise not have voted in either of the elections may have decided to vote in both because they wanted to vote in one. Nevertheless, it is clear that the general turnout for the local elections, independent of the postal pilots, rose perhaps by around 10 per cent. That is to be applauded.
824
It is clear that there were three reasons for the increase in turnout in different parts of the country. First, there was increased interest in the European elections. Where a freestanding European election vote was held, and with no postal pilot, turnout went up. Secondly, turnout rose more steeply where local elections were held on top of the European election and, thirdly, it rose even more where an all-postal pilot took place. We shall look at all the figures with great interest and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to talk about the all-postal pilots and what is to happen in the future. I certainly have a store of nice horror stories about them that we picked up over the past few weeks.
I do not want to talk about that today but, using the north-west as an example, I should like to talk about the relationship between turnout and the size of the local authorities. That is important, in view of the proposals for local government reorganisation, should people in the region vote for a regional assembly.
Looking at the five counties, the turnout in Cheshire was highest at 44.2 per cent. Almost all of them held local elections there, which was one factor. The average size of the local authority at district level is approximately 96,000. In Lancashire, turnout was 43.2 per cent, with the average size of local authority being 77,700. Five of the 14 districts did not have local elections. In Cumbria, turnout was 42.6 per cent, the average local authority is 63,500, and half of them did not have local elections. All those areas had relatively high turnouts of between 42 and 44.5 per cent.
In Greater Manchester, where the average size of local authority is 188,500, the turnout was down to 40 per cent, despite the fact that they all had local elections. In Merseyside, where the average size of authority is 205,600, the turnout was down to 38.3 per cent.
Those figures show a clear correlation between the size of the local authority and turnout. Why is this? It is not particularly the size of the authority that people are concerned about but the size of the ward in which they are voting and how close the councillors who represent them are to the people living in those areas.
Within the shire districts, on average, one councillor represents 1,000 to 1,500 people. In the metropolitan districts, it is four, five, six, seven times that number. People are far less likely to know their councillors and the candidates who are trying to get elected. A Government who are on record weekly as saying that they want to increase turnout in elections as one of the fundamental improvements they want to make to our democratic system must take this on board: the more local the people or the councillors who stand for election, the higher will be the turnout of people who will vote for them. My district in Pendle had a turnout of 51 per cent which was the highest in the region, and we are quite proud of that because we, too, believe that this is important.
Why am I raising this in connection with a debate on regional devolution? The problem is that the Government's proposals for regional assemblies—I hesitate to use the word "devolution", because very little, if any, devolution is involved in the proposals—are tied to a reorganisation of local government. I

825
cannot find any polite words to describe the proposals for my part of Lancashire. They are ludicrous. We are to be given the choice of two huge, monster local authorities, in which, inevitably, even if the size of the council goes up to 80 or 90 members, each councillor will have to represent far more people than is currently the case.
We are being offered a choice of a unitary county council for the whole of Lancashire, from Carnforth and the Arnside peninsula in the north to west Lancashire, Ormskirk, Skelmersdale, which is a Liverpool suburb, and up into the hills where I live in east Lancashire. We are being offered one local authority for that whole area, representing 876,169 electors and a population of about 1.1 million. If somebody tells me that that is local government, I tell them they do not know the meaning of the words in the English language. It is the abolition of local government as we have known it, and this council would be responsible for most local services.
There is an alternative. We are to be offered the amalgamation of Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale and the Ribble Valley, with a mere 216,029 electors. That is larger than all but four of the existing metropolitan districts in the north-west, apart from Liverpool, Manchester and two other big ones—an area which consists of lots of medium-sized and small towns and huge rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, knows that very well, as he has lived there for most of his life.
We will have a huge authority, extending from the borders of Preston in the west right up into the hills on the borders of Lancashire and from way up in the Bowland fells in the north down to the edge of Greater Manchester in Rossendale. This is a ludicrous proposal—everybody locally thinks it is a ludicrous proposal. I do not know who wanted it, but the Electoral Commission came up with it. Here we have, out of the blue, a choice between two unitary authorities, both of which, in my judgment—and, I believe, in the judgment of the vast majority of people who live in our part of the world—are quite unacceptable. I believe that this is one reason why the regional referendum in the north-west is extremely unlikely to be won by the Government on their present proposals.
We are told that it is all to do with an obsession with size. The Boundary Commission was told that existing metropolitan authorities, let alone existing unitaries such as Hartlepool, and the Welsh unitaries, which are much smaller than this, are out of the question because the Deputy Prime Minister issued advice and guidance, and said that there had to be these huge, monster, Frankenstein bodies. That may or may not be the case, but I believe that if the Deputy Prime Minister did this, he has shot himself in the foot.
Many of us in the north-west who are passionate about regional government would campaign with huge enthusiasm and gusto for something remotely like the Welsh model described by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. But we are not being offered the Welsh model. The noble Lord said that because Wales did not
826
have anything like the powers of Scotland, it was an anomaly. The north-west is not even being offered anything like the powers of London, where the Mayor has considerable authority over all kinds of things. We are being offered a talking shop, and what few powers it has will largely be moved upwards from local government and not downwards from Westminster. There are other problems with its size and how representative it would be, but we could live with those if there were not these other problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked whether people in Solway and Bootle—people on the Solway Firth and people on the Bootle harbour front, no doubt—think they are in the same region. Territorial areas always have problems at the margins. Some of the great conflicts and wars in Europe have been over fairly obscure places, such as Alsace and Lorraine and Schleswig-Holstein. That is always a problem.
I believe that the north-west is a region and deserves regional government. The current system works fairly well and achieves turnout of 40, 45 and 50 per cent in their local elections. The Government are proposing to tear up the local government map and go for something that is pretty feeble and hopeless.
I said all along that I would not make up my mind how I would vote in the referendum until after last week's elections. It will require a very great improvement in the Government's proposals to get me to vote "yes". At the moment, you can put me down as a "no". What is being proposed in the north-west is not worth a kettle of fish. The Government will destroy a lot of active, functioning, democratic local government in order to achieve it, and I am afraid that I cannot stomach that.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, there has been agreement in this extremely interesting debate on at least one point—namely, the need for greater devolution of power from Westminster. Having said that, the question then arises that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, posed directly, of where this devolution should go. Should it go to local government or to the regions of England? On these Benches, we believe that it should go to both.
As far as local government is concerned, there are problems of role, powers and funding. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer dealt very well with the problems of the powers of local government. The internalising of the prefecture model is a marvellous analogy that I will take with me from this debate. As far as funding is concerned, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the key point that if a quarter or less of the funding for local government is set by local government, the scope for that local government to exercise discretion is severely curtailed. However, I will spend most of my time this evening talking about the issue of regional government because that is the area where the bulk of the debate is likely to be over the next few months.
I start with the practical experience that we have of regional government—or national government, as they would call it—in Scotland and Wales. In Wales, one remembers that the referendum decision to establish an Assembly was only very narrowly passed.

827
What has happened since? First, it is clear that, even with the limited powers that the Assembly has, a whole raft of measures has been introduced in Wales because they were wanted in Wales and Wales is different from England. The Richard commission refers to two—the nationwide free bus passes for the elderly and disabled scheme and free prescriptions, but there are many more. The Assembly has been able to exercise its discretion.
Secondly—and again the Richard commission brings this out—if you talk to people in Wales who interact with the Government from outside the Government about whether they would prefer to work with the Welsh Office or the Assembly, there is near unanimity that they would prefer to work with the Assembly because it is more responsive to what they say. It is also interesting and instructive that the commission found a broad consensus not for turning back the clock, but for moving forward to deal with some of the constraints on self-government in Wales by expanding the powers of the Assembly.
I have some very limited direct experience of the views of people in Scotland on devolution having attended last week a conference on youth crime where I was able to talk to representatives of local authorities and NGOs in Scotland that are grappling with that issue. Again, there was unanimity that it was better dealing with the Scottish Executive than it had been dealing with the Scottish Office. The words "more responsive" and "more innovative" were used.
Those comments begin to address one of the major criticisms of devolution to the English regions—the question of adding a layer of bureaucracy. There was always an identifiable bureaucracy in Scotland and Wales—the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office—which had plaques on their walls and Ministers who exercised the bureaucracy. However, the truth is that there has always been bureaucracy at regional level in England—now called the Government Offices for the Regions, which in their previous incarnations were the departments and their outposts. However, these immensely powerful bodies, which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, overlooked in his contribution, are unknown to the people of the regions, who do not know that they exist, far less how powerful they are.
Other criticisms of regional government, some of which were made tonight, also need addressing. Understandably, one might ask whether this will cost a vast amount more than the current system. In one sense, it will clearly cost more because there will be a new layer of political oversight and scrutiny. The Richard commission makes that clear. However, as the inaugural chairman of one of the northern RDAs said to me when I raised this question with him some time ago, the public policy outputs in his region would be significantly improved if the region had greater discretion on how it spent government money. Therefore, significant efficiency savings will be made that are lost at the moment because one has a national, rigid implementation of policy established by the gentleman in Whitehall—it is nearly always a gentleman—who certainly still believes that he knows best.
828
The proposed powers of the assemblies are the weak feature of the Government's position. The Government have got into a real intellectual muddle in the way that they have looked at the powers of the various bodies that have been established. One can begin to understand, at least in part, the difference between the powers given to Scotland and Wales. The structure that has been set up and the powers that have been given to London almost defy logic. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who questioned what had been achieved by the Mayor, because we do have the congestion charge which we would not have had otherwise and which, for good or ill, is a major public policy development.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was not arguing about specific things such as the congestion charge, but about the series of strategies that litter the Bill and still have to be resolved and reconciled when, in my view, they do not produce any benefit.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I agree that the power to write strategies, which is one of the major powers that we have in London and is envisaged for the English regions, is far more likely to cause confusion. However, in the cases of London and the English regions, that is because not enough power has been devolved. As we approach the referenda, the question of powers is first, "Is half a loaf better than no bread?", and secondly, "Will the power given in the first stage be the final level of power? Even the White Paper stated that there are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to assemblies as time goes on. The Richard commission and the push for greater power in Wales are examples of how one can expect a certain dynamism in the development of these assemblies. Although I barely dare mention it at this stage, the analogy with the European Parliament seems relevant. That body had virtually no powers when it was established, but it now has a lot o powers. Why is that? Because the case for giving it greater powers has been demonstrated over decades.
We also need to work hard to demonstrate the advantages that we hope might accrue from regional assemblies, because they are not fully understood. I do not have time to deal with all of them, but there is certainly a strong case for giving the regions authority to tackle the problem of economic disparity, which, under this Government, has got worse rather than better. Figures out today show that since 1997 earnings growth in the north-east has been 22 per cent while in London it has been 80 per cent. Is Whitehall grappling with that issue? Is there a strong regional policy to deal with it? No, there is not. Unless there are politicians in the regions whose careers depend on doing rather better than that, we shall not see any significant diminution in the disparities in regional economic performance.
In the next month we shall hear the Government's thoughts about the timing of referenda and the powers that will be given to regional assemblies. I believe that a draft Bill might be forthcoming in July. I urge the Minister, as many noble Lords have this evening, to

829
strengthen the powers originally considered for the assemblies. A number of areas have been raised this evening: transport is an obvious one, learning and skills is another, and there are many others. I agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves to the extent that the ability to win a referendum in the north-west or anywhere else will be enhanced if we can demonstrate to the electorate and to those who might stand that these bodies will have significant powers.
As for the region that I know best, Yorkshire and the Humber, at least it looks as though the debate will have a keen political edge. Yesterday, Paul Sykes, who has been funding and supporting UKIP, issued a wonderful statement about his attitude to the referendum for a regional assembly in Yorkshire. He said:
"Where do we now turn our attention?"—
meaning UKIP.
"To regional assemblies. To have a Brussels-inspired assembly governing Yorkshire would be the low point in my life and I will fight tooth and nail to stop this being imposed on our region. Surely, we have enough government from Brussels without these regions that are basically going to be the puppets of Brussels. For anyone to say that these have been dreamt up in our nation, they are fools and have been misled".
I am clearly a fool and, I hope, a happy fool. If Mr Sykes puts in the maximum that he can under the legislation, he will be able to spend some £590,000 of his own money from himself and UKIP on the campaign. That and his statement suggest that there will be a very strong political edge to the campaign in Yorkshire. I urge that the Government, when we enter the lists on this matter, do so with the same kind of commitment that we are seeing from some of the opponents of regional assemblies and that they do not adopt the milk and water approach to campaigns that we have seen on Europe.
In recent days and months there has been much soul-searching about the state of politics and political life in Britain. There is clearly no single solution, but one component must be to revive local government by enhancing its role and its ability to raise its own funds and to give people in the regions a direct voice and real power over the delivery of public policy objectives.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like all noble Lords I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing this debate on devolution. While I am on my feet at this stage, lest I forget later, I thank my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for their contributions. I shall pick up some of the points made in the debate, but I have enjoyed listening to it so much that I may miss some. I certainly will not do it justice.
There is a fortunate coincidence in the timing of this debate, in that it comes two days before the inter-governmental conference in Europe, dealing with the European constitution, which deals with precisely parallel issues to these—that is, the division of responsibilities between levels of government. I do not know whether one can devolve powers upwards; I suppose that probably one cannot and that there must be
830
another word for it. But behind the question lies the issue of the nature and character of a nation state and what makes a nation state, which includes control of defence, finances, social affairs, the legal system, and so on. We do not need to have the argument. But the argument is there and I hope that, when the Prime Minister goes to the intergovernmental conference, he will remember it. I hope that he will also remember it when he comes back because that debate is exactly paralleled by this debate tonight. We are talking about what powers are appropriate for local government and the nature and character we expect of local government. It is a precise parallel.
With the exception of the possible regional structure—I put it that way at the moment as there is no absolute certainty about how the coming months will work out—English local authorities have a very long history. Counties have existed for a thousand years or more. Of course, there has been increasing legislative change over that time, particularly over the last century. It is most depressing to go into a chief executive's office and look at the shelves of books of laws that affect county councils. There are about two books that cover the first 25 years of the last century; about 20 that cover the second 25 years; about 40 that cover the third 25 years; and since that time one needs a library to contain the legislation that has been passed. That says something about the way we deal with things.
District and unitary authorities are the successors of the old town councillors, with similar long histories. Below that, there are still town councils, local councils and parish councils, which I have always regarded as the foundations of democratic local government in this country. All of them were centres of civic pride. They were centres of community and social development long before modern government regulated them into subservience. If devolution means anything, it means that we must begin to return to that state of affairs.
We know what the situation is now. There is law, statutory regulation and statutory guidance, with which one must comply. There is guidance and statutory plans, with which one must comply. If one does not, one does not get the money. One has to comply with best value. There is comprehensive performance assessment that every local authority has to go through. If it does not, or it does not succeed, it is downgraded and loses a degree of financial independence. That is estimated to cost about £1 billion. It is a totally non-productive expenditure in the interests of the general electorate who local authorities serve. Local authorities have to do what Whitehall wants in the assessment. They have to comply with Whitehall's view of what local government must do.
This is a far cry from the early days of the Audit Commission, when we had comparative statistics. Every local authority wanted to improve its performance in those comparative statistics. This huge machinery of government on top was not needed. It is no wonder that the public increasingly see local government as the agent of the centre and become increasingly bored with what is going on. That is where we are. Civic pride has

831
diminished and many people are reluctant to come forward as candidates for local authorities. The Government's solution to this is more of the same.
I must spend a little time on the regional issue as so many noble Lords have mentioned it. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, rightly argued in favour of Wales. It would be unpatriotic of him not to do so. He welcomed the Richards report, which advocates even greater power for the Welsh Assembly in order to parallel Scotland. But that is not on offer to England, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about the power of government offices for the regions. The powers that they have are not on offer to the regional assemblies. Those offices have clear remits to carry out government policy. The way the Government arc establishing the regional assemblies, if they eventually get off the ground, means that they will have to do the same thing. But that should not be the purpose. They should have independence.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, seemed to think that competition between regional assemblies could be more effective than the Treasury when it came to winning funds. I find that argument somewhat naïve because I think that the Treasury will win. If we are to have devolution to local government and regional assemblies, if they exist, then the financial responsibility which should accompany it can only come if, and only if, the Treasury itself is prepared to cede some of its authority.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a little what I said. I was perhaps indistinct. I was referring not just to the quantity of money, but to the degree of control and freedom from Treasury interference in its detailed allocation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the qualification, but I do not hedge my remarks. The problem for the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in particular is that he needs to remember that most of the English regions are larger than Wales and Scotland. To argue that Wales should have primary legislative powers and then to expect English regions to be established on a chimera of authority is again surprisingly naïve. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he was referring to my argument which he misunderstood. The naivety was on his side. My view was that devolution and regionalisation is a cumulative process. Just as we have a process of change and are on the cusp of change in Wales, I imagine that in future we shall be on the cusp of change in the English regions also. It will take a long time, because there is a long transitional process.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I accept that it might be a long process, but I am not sure that I am prepared to accept that the United Kingdom Parliament is prepared to cede what it sees as most of its authority because it is largely an English Parliament. There are huge constitutional difficulties which could lead, as I believe my noble friend Lord Waddington, said, to an
832
England of the regions, a Commission in Brussels, and a United Kingdom Parliament that has virtually nothing to do. We need to think very carefully on that.
I turn now to the powers of regional assemblies. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has dealt with the structural problems. The powers of regional assemblies are being established specifically so that they comply with government policy. That is not devolution, but agency. That should not be happening. If regional assemblies are established then the transitional costs of the structural change to be made, if the Government are to have their way, have been estimated variously, depending on the system, at between £1 billion and £3.5 billion. That is wholly unproductive money giving no service to the public at all and merely fulfilling the whim of the government of the day. I cannot accept that that is sensible. I do not believe that it is a reasonable thing to do.
If we believe in devolution, and I do, we should begin by making the existing system of local government work. I can understand the Minister and his colleagues in another place being frightened of that because most of the badly performing local authorities in the country are controlled by members of his party. That is an unfortunate reality which he has to live with. The reality is that if we believe in local government and devolution let us make the system that we have work properly. Let us get the authority back down to the local counties and to the local communities where it properly belongs. That will re-stimulate interest. Only after we have that right should we begin to discuss the question of some other structure which might or might not work if it were given proper authority.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate with some helpful and useful speeches. I had a prepared speech which covered most of the points that were raised. However, I have written my own speech as the debate progressed, although writing my own speeches sometimes gets me into trouble.
I want to reply to this debate with honesty and clarity. I apologise that I shall not discuss Wales. I say that with due respect to my noble friend Lord Morgan and to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I have nothing in my brief on Wales. I might get into trouble if I told the Deputy Prime Minister that there was a consensus that regional government should be passed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. However, I understand why that point was raised.
I shall start with some of the points that I planned to make and then I promise that I will respond to some of the really useful points that were raised in the debate. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mc Nally, on securing the debate. He is right about its timing. It is much better to hold the debate today when we can have the rational reasonable debate that we would not have been able to have had it taken place last Wednesday. I fully accept that. The noble Lord very kindly batted the ball back to me that I tossed to him during the intervention. I shall do my best to respond to that.

833
The Government have taken substantial steps to reverse the trend of what I think everyone accepts has been excessive centralisation in the way the country has been run over the years. However, we have tried to do that with a degree of consensus and consultation rather than abolishing local authorities and county councils willy-nilly without any consultation whatever, as happened in the 1980s and 1990s. We have gone about it in a different way. We think that our record is strong and demonstrates how seriously we have addressed the genuine devolution of power from Westminster and Whitehall to the rest of the country.
We have devolved some but not all powers to Scotland and Wales. We have restored city-wide government to London. We cannot now be accused of being the only major capital city without city-wide government. We are now offering the chance of devolved power to the English regions. I was delighted to hear noble Lords speak persuasively in support of devolution to the regions, although the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is dead against that. I take the point that the noble Lord made about city councils. We want to continue to devolve appropriate powers from the centre save in one area which I shall discuss in a moment. The next few weeks will be crucial. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not have the chance to vote no in the referendum unless he is prepared to support orders in this House that will allow the referendum to be held in the first place. We are trying to let the people decide. I hope that people will not stand in the way of the referendum. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, half a loaf is better than no loaf. Here is a measure that we can build on, as I think was said during the passage of the relevant legislation. It will not be too long before the relevant date is announced. I have no information about that but it must be imminent. It will certainly be announced before the Summer Recess.
The vast majority of the functions that we transfer to elected regional assemblies are currently carried out by central government and their agencies in the region or by unelected public bodies. That is why I make the point regarding no new powers. We have not invented powers; it is a question of transferring powers. Those powers will make a difference to vital areas such as job creation, planning in the sense of regional spatial strategies but not planning application decisions, housing, transport, culture, the environment and the Fire and Rescue Service. The Fire and Rescue Service is the only exception to the principle that assemblies' functions will be devolved from the centre and not taken up from local level. That is because we believe that the challenges of resilience in the face of terrorism require broader co-ordination of the Fire and Rescue Service. We are discussing that on the Bill that is currently before the House.
The elected regional assemblies will be elected by people in the region and accountable to them. This will democratise an existing layer of regional governance that is unelected at the present time. We can argue about the degree of involvement, but there is no democracy in the
834
regional quangos and the government regional offices at the moment. Our policies will give the public an opportunity to help to shape their local government. In answer to one key point criticising the system, these elected assemblies will be elected by proportional representation.
I am pleased to say that not one elected body that has been set up by the Labour Government since 1997—with the approval of Parliament—has used first past the post. The system is so discredited that the Government have not felt able to push first past the post for any of these new bodies. It is fair to say that we could not export first past the post to one emerging democracy among the former communist countries in eastern Europe, or South Africa. Unfortunately, I speak with the zeal of the convert, so I have to shut up at that point. That is one of the great problems when you have been converted from one system to another: you can go overboard. But I think I have made the point that PR would be a good exercise even for the other place at some time.
Our vision for local government is twofold. In the short term we are working to give local authorities more flexibility and opportunity. In the longer term we are looking for a more holistic approach, with the new financial arrangements which have come into force in this financial year: the new borrowing powers, new freedoms and flexibilities and a substantial increase in the powers to local authorities. We are trying to decrease unnecessary bureaucracy for all local authorities by imposing less inspection, less ring-fencing and far fewer plans. There is very little ring-fencing of finance from the centre now. We are giving them more power to borrow and invest and deregulating consent requirements. We are giving them more financial autonomy, with the power to charge for discretionary services, enabling them to retain income from some fixed penalty notices, fines and other incomes.
We are moving to give power to trade to fair, good and excellent authorities, and providing further freedoms on the use of income from fixed penalty notices. We have also established the Innovation Forum for Excellent Authorities. This facilitates improved and more substantive dialogue between central and local government on improved delivery of shared national and local priorities. Already, the forum has initiated projects in six key areas: reducing hospital admissions for older people; early years and school improvement; community safety; integrated public services; local governance and partnership arrangements; rationalising local targets. It has established pilots to improve these services.
This will better equip the local strategic partnerships—which are an innovation—to be more effective in meeting national and local priorities, and pooling budgets with joint commissioning of services, achieving a long-term vision for those local authority areas.
Looking further ahead, we are developing a vision and strategic approach to local government for the next five to 10 years. We have published a document today. It is only a short document, but it is our contribution to starting that debate, setting out key issues and our overall

835
approach. This strategy project will recognise the importance of strong local government, which we want, as weak local government has been a problem.
Key issues that impact on local government need to be considered in a coherent and holistic way, as part of an overall vision and strategy with a longer-term view. This includes the way local government will interact with the new regional structures. The strategy project will start a long-term, 10-year vision of what outcomes we are seeking; set out a clearer role for local councils in securing these outcomes, based on their democratic responsibility for leading and governing local places; link this to the development of key issues across central government; develop a new settlement between local and central government to deliver this, providing clearer responsibility and accountability on all sides. I agree very much with the point the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made about where the decisions are made.
The regional assembly referendums are a chance for a whole tier of government to be democratised by consent. We have delivered devolved governments to the Scots, the Welsh and to the people of London, and now the other people of England can choose and have a voice. It is the decision of the people but they cannot make that decision unless this House—and the other House, of course—actually passes the necessary orders to allow the referendums to take place later in the year. By the time the referendums take place, and hopefully by the time the orders come before this House, there will be much more information available on the powers, the sequencing and maybe the draft legislation which we are using our best endeavours to produce.
I think I have answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I am not going to get into a debate by giving way, because I do not have time. But I stand by everything I said. I know that people are using the odd sentence here and there a bit out of context. However, it is clear that the transfer of powers to the regional assemblies—to democratise powers that already exist and are being used by undemocratic bodies—means that there are no new powers. The key point is the way in which the democratic control of those powers is exercised.
The budget is another issue. The block grant—the block sum of money—will be for the regional assemblies to divide up as they choose. It will fund a range of bodies including the regional development agencies and others. At the moment that is done behind closed doors. The block will be the same regardless of whether the region has an elected body. We have said that. I do not mind how my words are used—that is part of the political knockabout—but that is the position and it has to be made absolutely clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of list systems. My personal view is that open lists are better than closed ones. I think that people should have a greater choice when they are voting on a list system. If you are going to have a PR system in large areas, you cannot necessarily use additional member systems. If you start going down the road of list systems, one issue has to be considered from the
836
democratic point of view: the fact that putting crosses or numbers against people's names concentrates the mind.
The point was made in an earlier speech that people seemed to have a greater propensity to put a cross against the BNP last week because they were not putting their mark against the name of a person. I think that that should be addressed. There is no government policy on it because the decision was made to go with closed lists. However, we are experimenting and it is very early days. We have not used PR and these kinds of electoral systems in this country for long. The seven years since those systems were introduced is but a blip on the timescale.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a very powerful speech. I will draw all noble Lords' speeches to the attention of Ministers, but I will do so particularly in the case of the noble Earl's speech. He contrasted expenditure control in France with that in the UK: 78 per cent in the UK against 44 per cent in France. I have another figure which I have carried round with me since I came across it some years ago when looking at the connection between local councillors and the people. Each MP in the House of Commons represents more or less the same number of people based on a quota boundary system. It is 69,000, although it can vary by plus or minus 10 per cent. There is nothing like that in local government where ward sizes vary enormously.
In France, roughly one in 100 adults is elected in some form to the government structure. In this country, one in 1,600 adults is elected. So the overall figures show that, compared with France, people in this country are 16 times more remote from local government and administration. So we should ask ourselves why people are not as interested in getting involved in local government and decisions here as they clearly are in France, where they have more control over expenditure, as was indicated in the noble Earl's figures.
I am not replying to the speeches in any particular order. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that it is quite good to use the lowest level of decision-making. I think that that is true for every organisation, including commercial organisations and, as the noble Earl said, universities. I am sure that it is true also in local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, dealt with turnout based on council size. I do not have any figures on that, but I certainly hope that the Electoral Commission will consider it in its analysis of what happened last week. Did the postal votes really have a dramatic effect? I do not know. I do not have any figures on that at the moment. Clearly a higher percentage of people voted, but perhaps the percentage was not as high as one would expect based on the experience of other pilots. As we know, that was not the first postal voting pilot; there have been others. I certainly hope that the noble Lord's analysis, based on council size, turnout and whether the elections were for local government, will receive attention.

837
I should add that Paul Sykes can spend all the money he likes, but if UKIP goes round telling lies about the referenda and the regions, it is for all the other democratic parties to nail that lie-making. That is the fact. These regional assemblies are not the creatures of Brussels. The boundaries were not drawn up in Brussels; they were drawn up by a previous Tory government in this country—for other purposes, I accept, but we have not changed the boundaries.
So if Paul Sykes and UKIP start telling lies, as the signs are that they will, they must be nailed by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National Party—all legitimate democratic parties. I know that we have political banter between us, but UKIP must be done for telling porkies on a grand scale if that is what it starts doing. It will try to use money, along with lies, to swing the election. That is as bold as I can be on that; I do not think that I can sugar-coat it any further; that is where we are.
On the proposal for local income tax, elected regional bodies have no fund-raising powers; I must make that clear. That was part of the proposal. Of course, there will be legislation, subject to a yes vote in one of the referendums, to set up regional assemblies. The House has not debated a Bill for the regional assemblies; we have debated only a Bill for the referendums to give people the choice. That will come later and I suspect we will have lots of debates on fund-raising powers of the assemblies. I confirm that the election will be by proportional representation. I have made my great plea for PR all over.
I am now giving the government view. We have no plans to change the regional boundaries. As I have repeatedly made clear, there is a good debate to be had about some counties that are thought to be in the wrong region. Examples were given—such as Banbury—and I have previously used the example of Chipping Camden, which is 40 miles south of Birmingham but in the same region as Cornwall, as Lands End. That is ludicrous. But we have the boundaries we have.
We said to start with that we would rather test public opinion on the boundaries we have then spend what would be a couple of years arguing about the boundaries. We have always said that we are open to later review, but not for the purposes of setting up elected regional assemblies. My note goes on to say that those boundaries were drawn up by a Conservative government in 1995.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the question of the regional assemblies, what happens if we arrive at the referendums later this year and the Electoral Commission has not yet reported on the experimental system used last week? What system of election will be used in that event?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we know that the proposal is for postal voting. I make no bones about that. Let us be clear. There will be two questions in some areas, because of the local government matter; one understands that. We are not voting for people. There is no issue of someone being elected or unelected in those referendums.
838
I do not say that that devalues the report from the Electoral Commission on postal voting. I have personal experience of some really dodgy practices under postal voting—even within political parties. So it is not plain sailing. On the other hand, one may balance whether there is a vast improvement in turnout against a price to pay, or whatever. The fact is that with the referendums, we are not comparing like with like with the elections last week, where the elections were for parties that resulted in people being elected from the list system or directly elected for local councils on first past the post. I am not knocking the idea that we should take account of them.
I do not know the sequence from when the Electoral Commission will report. As I said, to hold referendums in the autumn, the orders will need to come before the House before the summer recess. That is clear. The powers of elected regional assemblies will be much greater than those of the current regional chambers, although the regional chambers style themselves as regional assemblies—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
This is a good one and worth reading out because I want to be open with the House. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of Lancashire reorganisation. The answer is, "Don't comment on this". There is a perfectly valid reason for that. A legal consultation is under way about the boundaries and local government structure for setting up the regional assemblies. It would be quite out of order for Ministers to pronounce on that while it is under way. We are genuinely a listening government, so we will treat the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, tonight as an entry to the consultation process concerning what he believes about local government. I am sad that he has already decided to vote no when he has not yet seen the orders.
I have done my best to reply in the spirit of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. There is a real issue about our over-centralised state. We have taken some measures in the past seven years to address that. They are not good enough, not far enough and not fast enough, but they are part of a journey along the road. That should be the spirit of the Government's response. We have made but a start and there is a greater vision for the next five to 10 years which we will seek to develop in consultation with the parties and the public—and there will be free and fair debate in this House and the other place.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, 30 years ago I was travelling with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to an election meeting on the outskirts of Birmingham, when we heard the noise of a young candidate on a loudspeaker extolling the virtues of the noble Lord, who said, "let's stop". It was not on the schedule, but that was the first time that I had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in action. I enjoyed it then and I enjoyed it again tonight. He was probably as close to the party line then as he was tonight.

839
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, slightly chided me that I was leading on this debate as a Front-Bencher. Without revealing too much about what goes on in those secret Liberal Democrat party meetings, that decision concerned the old matter of the soldier who found that he was a volunteer, because everyone else in the line had taken one step back. I do not regret that because this has been a timely debate in which all of the contributions have been part of that kick start for which the Deputy Prime Minister called today.
Regarding the experience of London, I suspect that the London assembly proposals were drawn up as a straitjacket for what the Government perceived as the inevitable Livingstone mayoralty. You do not get these things right if you draw them up to deal with a single personality or a single party. Therefore, the spirit in which the Minister responded was entirely welcome, but he has realised that it is not me he must convince; it is the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and there is not much time to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill
8.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has come from the Commons, where it was introduced by my honourable friend Mr Jim Sheridan, the Member for West Renfrewshire, and I pay tribute to his skill in steering the Bill through the other place and building a network of support for it, so that every interested stakeholder has worked with him on it and fully supports it. Both he and I have received much help from Defra, for which we are grateful.
In the past two days I have received letters and e-mails supporting the Bill from the Association of Labour Providers, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Farmers' Union, the Fresh Produce Consortium, Safeway, Asda and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. The Bill is supported by many other organisations and bodies, including Church Action on Poverty.
I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who had intended to speak tonight but now cannot do so, sent me a note. It says:
"My interest in this Bill arose out of events involving the (illegal) employment of migrants from China in East Anglian fruit farms (where large numbers of Chinese are used) and the tragedy of the Morecambe Bay cockle pickers in February this year."
He concludes:
"I strongly support statutory licensing of gangmasters empowering regular inspection of their registers of workers and business practices to ensure they abide by our employment and business laws. If gangmasters are left unregulated, they are likely to exploit migrant workers, to flout health and safety standards, deny British workers legitimate employment, and avoid paying taxes that are due from them as employers."
Agriculture and horticulture have long depended on casual workers at times of peak activity. The work includes the grading, packing, cleaning and processing
840
of produce and shellfish. Legitimate gangmasters provide a valuable service and they have nothing to fear from the Bill. The Association of Labour Providers fully supports the Bill.
I do not propose to take the time of the House by going over the history, the voluntary codes, Operation Gangmaster and the rest. We are where we are and the Bill now sets up a licensing and regulation system which will deal with the criminality of certain gangmasters who are perhaps some 20 per cent of the total. It is further estimated that, in total, between 60,000 and 100,000 workers are involved as gang workers.
The criminal gangmasters commit offences on health and safety, wage regulation, social security benefits, housing, immigration controls, VAT and taxation. They move fast and they are adept at escaping the clutches of the law. The only way to deal with them is to have a proper system by which gangmasters are known, registered and licensed. There must be a system to ensure compliance with the licence system and, crucially, enforcement when an offence under the Bill is committed.
Because of the time constraint on us today, I will describe only the main components of the Bill. The Bill will apply to the whole of the UK and cover agricultural and horticultural work, the gathering of shellfish and the processing or packaging of any products that derive from these industries. It defines a gangmaster as anyone employing, supplying or supervising a worker to do work in these areas. It will apply to gangmasters operating in the sectors outlined whether they are based in the UK or offshore. It also covers all subcontractors.
The Bill extends the full protection of the law to any individual worker undertaking work to which the provisions apply. It establishes the gangmasters licensing authority. This body will be a non-departmental public body sponsored by Defra with a clear line to a Defra Minister. The authority will consist of key industry stakeholders and representatives of government and enforcement agencies. It will set the conditions of the licence after consultation; process the licence applications; set and collect licence fees; establish a public register of licensed gangmasters; have the power to modify, suspend or revoke licences under a licence appeal system; and proactively enforce the licence conditions.
The Bill establishes the following offences. First, operating without a licence. Secondly, obtaining or possessing a false licence or false documentation which is likely to cause another person to believe that a person acting for the gangmaster is licensed. Thirdly, using an unlicensed gangmaster, which would be subject to reasonable steps and due diligence defences. That is important for farmers who have shown that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are employing a licensed gangmaster, if it turns out that they have been defrauded by someone pretending to have a licence. Lastly and importantly is the offence of obstruction of enforcement officers, or compliance officers, exercising their functions under the Act.

841
The Bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to enable the assets of convicted gangmasters to be seized. The Bill also amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make operating without a licence, or possession of a false licence, arrestable offences. The Bill also gives an enforcement officer the power of arrest for these offences.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint enforcement officers to enforce the criminal offences of operating without a licence and possessing false documents. It also gives them rights to enter premises, search premises to take possession of any items from premises; require the production of relevant records; inspect and take away records, including computers; and order attendance of persons before them. Extremely importantly, the Bill opens up a gateway between departments, the authority and other enforcement agencies to facilitate the exchange of enforcement information connected with the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before each House of Parliament on the operation of the Act. I hope that that report will state that the authority has been able to approach, on a voluntary basis, all the supermarkets and that they have all agreed that they will take produce only from suppliers who use licensed gangmasters. That is extremely important.
The Bill also sets out the requirements of regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State through statutory instruments to set up the gangmasters' licensing authority and to give it the required licensing powers; to set up a system of appeals; to clarify the rights of users of gangmasters; and to clarify what it is reasonable for those users to do to establish that a gangmaster is licensed.
All the regulations made under the Bill will be made in accordance with the current government practice on the use of delegated powers. That will include early discussion with key stakeholder interests, the publication of draft regulations, the preparation of a regulatory impact assessment, the conduct of a small firm's impact test and the formal consultation allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for comment.
The Bill has deliberately been drafted very widely to cover the wide range of activity so that defined work can be excluded by regulations which will also define the circumstances in which a licence is not required; for example, agricultural contracting or the sharing or the swapping of farm labour.
As I have said, illegitimate gangmasters are adept at finding loopholes. The flexibility of statutory instruments is a distinct advantage in this kind of situation in not having to amend primary legislation. One can set down the criteria in the Bill and produce regulations to exclude all those activities that we know should not be included, such as agricultural contractors, the sharing or swapping of farm labour or whatever.
842
A full explanatory memorandum has been submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am aware that the Constitution Committee of this House has reported on the Bill. I understand that my noble friend Lord Whitty will respond to the report when he replies for the Government.
We hear a great deal about the regulatory burden on business. This Bill introduces a regulatory system that is warmly supported by legitimate gangmasters, farmers, processors, suppliers and retailers and those who deal with the welfare of immigrants, the Churches and many other organisations. The Bill has been warmly welcomed by all the stakeholders who have been involved with it. I hope that the Bill can now proceed to Royal Assent and on to the statute book so that a proper licensing and regulatory system can be set up to bring to an end, once and for all, the criminal activity that I have described. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
8.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and believe that it will provide considerable protection for a vulnerable group of necessary workers in our society. It will also provide a legal framework for employers who want to use gangmasters. However, while the Bill is welcome, it is only the beginning of an answer to a much more complex phenomenon. I want to make a few general observations and then a couple of points about particular clauses in the Bill.
Last Friday a significant conference took place in Norwich on the impact of migrant workers in the county of Norfolk. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has drawn attention to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Chan, about Chinese migrant workers in west Norfolk being in particular danger and difficulty. Some detailed research, commissioned by the Norfolk Constabulary with the support of the county strategy partnership, was presented to the conference. It is an important piece of work, as the researchers managed to get into a very shadowy and withdrawn community in King's Lynn and west Norfolk that generally treated the researchers, even those who could speak their language, as if they were from the Immigration Service and were about to deport them. The work was astonishingly delicate and difficult.
It is to that report's introduction that I owe some of my education about the scale of global migration. According to statistics published last year, one in every 35 people worldwide is now an international migrant—that is 2.9 per cent of the world's population. If all those migrant workers were brought together in one place, they would make up the world's fifth largest country. With the population of the least developed countries growing, those living in poverty are bound to seek wealth in richer countries. The prospect of a cheap labour force in the industrialised world is bound to be attractive, so the dynamic is unlikely to change.

843
However, poverty was certainly not the only reason that brought so many Chinese migrant workers to west Norfolk. Last week's research revealed, for example, that one migrant worker came here because he feared arrest and imprisonment in China following his participation in a political protest. Another was here because he feared for his future in China because of his association with the rather unusual quasi-religious movement the Falun Gong. So fear drives migration as much as economics. It was distressing to discover in that research how easily one set of fears in China is replaced by a different set here, not least because of the way in which migrant workers fall into the hands of gangmasters, often from their own community.
Then there are the fears of the host community. Last week's research showed that the number of Chinese migrant workers in King's Lynn over the past year was between 300 and 500 at its peak, although it has been variously described to me, and published in the press, as being 1,500 to 2,000. The figure was exaggerated. The research also showed that a lot of low-level racial abuse and violence was occurring, which migrant workers, for obvious reasons, did not report to the police, leading to the perpetrators feeling satisfied or even vindicated by their actions, and also to greater local lawlessness. It is the withdrawn nature of some communities controlled by gangmasters that fuels local suspicion. Even though migrant workers often undertake tasks for which there is an inadequate local labour market the assumption remains that they are taking jobs that belong to local people. Their separated and hidden existence, together with significant language harriers, reinforces that impression.
I mention all this because, even when this widely supported Bill becomes law, significant work in community education and community cohesion still remains to be done. Bringing gangmasters into a framework of licensing will not alone do that for us. We badly need to align the labour requirements in business, farming and food processing with our immigration policy. Equally, there is a lot to be done to improve access to education, health and even reliable financial services for migrant workers.
Elsewhere in Norfolk, we have a significant number of Portuguese migrant workers. The fact that they are there legally from another country in the European Union does not make their situation necessarily straightforward. However, there is good practice to commend. During the past two years, Bernard Matthews—there is no greater Norfolk name—has recruited 1,000 Portuguese workers directly from Portugal, without using gangmasters, agencies or middlemen. Each worker is given three weeks' English tuition at a local college and receives health and safety training. There is a health and safety officer on the factory floor who speaks Portuguese. Workers are given plentiful introduction in their own language to the local facilities provided.
Of course, the number of Portuguese workers in Norfolk is much higher than the number of Chinese workers. The Churches and other voluntary agencies have begun to play their part in serving their needs. Some Churches are now conducting services in
844
Portuguese in places such as Swaffham and Thetford where one would not expect them. Celebrations of Portuguese life and culture are developing in mid and west Norfolk, not least prompted by the fact that all football supporters' eyes are rather mourn fully directed to Euro 2004.
However, the truth is that many of those migrant workers have complex religious and spiritual needs to meet. The provision of decent pay and accommodation is but part of that. Later this year, an ecumenical group that we have set up in Norfolk intends to publish a manifesto in Norwich Cathedral reminding the Christian community of its core values in welcoming the stranger and loving our neighbour.
It is certainly true that the connection between the growth of the BNP and some of the consequences of the numbers of migrant workers is beginning to be noticeable. One notices that BNP literature is starting to be circulated in the very areas where migrant workers are most found, even in an area like ours.
The system of gang labour bringing groups of people together on a daily basis to work on local farms is thought to have originated in the village of Castle Acre in Norfolk as long ago as the 1820s. Gangmasters soon emerged because someone needed to organise and supervise those teams. Generally, it was a regular labourer with organisational drive who transformed himself into a gangmaster and who benefited by receiving a portion of the wage of each member of the group. It is easy to see how a corrupt system can develop gradually from that.
It is also easy to see that quite small exchanges of labour and agriculture between one farmer and another could be mistaken for gangmastering. Clause 6(2) may prevent that—I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carter, refer to it—but until we see the regulations, we do not really know. Equally, we need to make certain that the onus for licensing remains with the gangmaster himself. The need for labour in my part of the world is often immediate. It is easy to see how an employer could be misled or tricked.
Clause 13 requires employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the gangmasters with whom they do business are licensed. Again, we do not know what those reasonable steps might be until we see the Secretary of State's regulations. There is quite a substantial amount of regulatory detail that could be the devil. We do not want to prosecute responsible but hoodwinked employers. As the Bill presently stands, that is what I fear.
I wish the Bill well, but in some areas it has a very strange vagueness. What is not vague is the community work that still needs to be done. Certainly, the Churches and faith communities in our area stand ready to participate in that.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I should like to give my support to this Bill and to wish it a speedy passage. It is tackling an aspect of agriculture that has been allowed to persist largely unchecked for too long.

845
While governments have been reticent in coming forward with legislation, I trust that enough parliamentary time will be given to secure this largely uncontroversial Bill. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Carter for introducing it tonight and for securing widespread approval, and to Defra for facilitating the process.
I should like to declare an interest as a dairy farmer and must say at the outset that I have never used a gangmaster. As a rule, dairy farmers do not have a need for seasonal labour. There may be seasonal operations that are undertaken, for example, by agricultural contractors, but those are not subject to the provisions of this Bill. The supply of low-skilled labour to farmers and growers on a short-term basis to meet peaks of activity, such as planting, picking and packing, is crucial to the running of certain crop enterprises, especially to meet the exacting contractual requirements for fresh produce that are set by their customers.
Farmers find it virtually impossible to source these key workers locally at short notice. Increases in the number of permits for the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme, SAWS, have been helpful although insufficient. There will continue to be a need for a pool of labour to meet peak demand periods. The best estimates put the size of this activity at approximately 3,000 gangmasters, of whom 250 are relatively important, using several thousand casual workers.
But that labour flexibility must not come at a price. Many suppliers of labour are reputable and comply with the various legal requirements such as working time, tax, health and safety, and so forth. They are also careful not to use people who should not be working because they are either receiving benefits or are illegal immigrants. The recent establishment of the Association of Labour Providers has given these gangmasters an effective collective voice. However, as the EFRA Committee in another place reported in December,
"there are powerful economic incentives pulling in the direction of non-compliance".
The workforce is mainly foreign and the influx of large numbers in unregulated use can pose significant difficulties regarding housing and social services to local authorities.
The complexity of the problems increases as the EU boundaries expand, in that with the accession of the 10 new member states, workers from those countries generally become able to find more lucrative work in other industries. The licensing of gangmasters promises to clarify the effective enforcement of the law, which will benefit workers, remove the stain on the reputation of agriculture and generate funds to the Exchequer that will counterbalance the funding requirement of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
Turning to the Bill, I am content that the impact is accurately targeted at the correct people, as set out in Clause 3(5). Similarly, Clause 6(2) specifies the circumstances where a licence is not required. I am concerned that the cost of audit inspections, and hence
846
the licence fee, should be kept under tight control to limit the added costs that undoubtedly will land at the farmer's door, adding to his pressures. There must also be a willingness to commit a sufficient level of resources for effective enforcement, which will tend to work against the tight cost controls I have just mentioned.
In that regard, I look to the supermarkets. They must give a clear indication that they will sign up to the Ethical Trading Initiative code of practice currently being developed. In the short term that code will be a precursor while the licensing authority becomes a reality in around 18 months' time. The code will be operated by the new Association of Labour Providers, and it should not be ambitious to think that supermarkets could be highly constructive in either direct funding to mitigate the industry's added costs, or at least providing in-kind secondment of staff. That would be welcome evidence of the supply chain working co-operatively.
Clearly there is further crucial work to be done in setting up the precise regulations, such as, for example, the regulations to be brought forward under Clause 13(3), to define what are "reasonable steps" for the farmer or grower to take in order to satisfy himself that the gangmaster was acting under the authority of a valid licence. After all, it is the gangmasters who are to be controlled, not the farmers. However, at this stage the intention is clear and I trust that the Bill will be supported on all sides of the House.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too welcome this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on explaining it to the House so thoroughly and comprehensively. The only thing that I do not like about the Bill is its name, as it gives the impression of having medieval origins, which of course in reality may well be true. However, I was interested to learn that the right reverend Prelate believes that gangmastering started in Norfolk not all that long ago. But a politically correct name such as "purveyor of unskilled labour" is perhaps a bit of a mouthful.
I declare an interest as a farmer in Scotland, although it is many years since my family farm employed gangmasters. However, they do operate in my part of the world. I am also delighted that the Bill is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom.
As other noble Lords have said, there has been a great need for this Bill for many years. If only the relevant authorities were doing their job, then it would not be necessary. I have one or two minor concerns which I would like to air, especially having spoken to various gangmasters. I very much hope that the real rogue gangmasters will be properly targeted and that the genuine gangmasters will not be hassled.
I am always apprehensive and nervous about new legislation, particularly where it is liable to become overly bureaucratic. I very much hope that the Minister will do

847
all he can to ensure that the bureaucracy to implement this Bill is kept to the absolute minimum, especially as there is, of course, a difficulty in knowing the difference between a legitimate gangmaster and a rogue one. I believe that the licensing authority will need extremely good PR from the outset if this Bill is to succeed.
When evidence was given to EFRA in September last year, it was horrifying to think that in this day and age people can be exploited to the extent that they are. I heard only last weekend that not far from me, in the Borders of Scotland, Portuguese workers were being charged £70 a week for a room, whereas I find it impossible to let a nice two-bedroom cottage for more than £45 a week.
It is to be abhorred that rogue gangmasters ignore all the most basic health and safety legislation, and I cannot help but feel that the estimate for workers' undeclared income tax and contributions of up to £100 million could, in reality, be doubled, trebled or, indeed, quadrupled. This, indeed, could prove to be most useful genuine revenue for the Exchequer, once the Bill has become law.
I, too, believe it is important that all retailers, wholesalers and, indeed, processors, become involved in this Bill. As such, it is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned, that the cost of licensing fees is kept to a realistic level and that the whole food chain commits to this scheme. Needless to say, there are rumours that the Bill is going to increase the cost of fresh vegetables greatly. I simply do not believe this to be true. It is worth remembering that food today is ridiculously cheap; I remind your Lordships that 40 years ago, 40 per cent of the annual wage was spent on food, whereas today that figure is just under 16 per cent—a very dramatic change.
My final point is that I believe that the licensing authority must be given real teeth if this legislation is to work. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take these points on board, and I wish the Bill well.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this is the third time that I have spoken today, and I am looking forward to eating my sandwiches in my office, in much the same way as I ate sandwiches when I was a member of a gang, long ago and far away.
The need for such a Bill to control gangmasters was quite apparent in the days when I was a student. All one summer, I worked in a gang. We were ill treated and very badly paid. I remember two things clearly about the summer I spent in Lincolnshire as a Welshman. First, I remember being told by a brutal gangmaster, along with the rest of the gang, to work through a torrential two-hour thunderstorm with huge flashes of lightning, scrabbling around in the field for potatoes and getting them on to a lorry in the corner of the field bound for Manchester which, we were told, had to leave at 10 o'clock at night.
My second memory was the more interesting phenomenon of two blonde sisters from Grimsby who looked good, but as soon as they opened their mouths,
848
there was a torrent of expletives deleted. I hope that it is not too sexist, but I named them "Hell's Belles". I am sure that immigrant workers are still having such experiences in their first experience of Britain.
I have lectured to agriculture students on the organisation and capabilities of gangs, introducing them to the concept of gang work days—easily calculated, incidentally—and work rates relating to the different teams of machinery and workers, usually related to harvesting a huge variety of crops.
Timing, in the dynamic of farming and horticulture, is crucial. Crops have to be harvested when they are ripe and ready. In some cases, that may be in the middle of the night. The gangmasters Bill must not, through too bureaucratic a system, delay the essential time-frame of harvesting—that is crucial, and I say that as an agriculturalist. The exclusion of agricultural contractors from the Bill is essential in this context.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the introduction of this Bill and, in particular, Jim Sheridan MP, whose Private Member's Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. The Government appear to have adopted quite a large chunk of that Bill and have rightly given Jim Sheridan a lot of support.
The need for the licensing of gangmasters in Clause 1 is absolutely essential, as is the setting up of the licensing authority. I welcome the Bill unreservedly. It is long overdue. One has only to mention the words "Morecambe Bay" to identify the urgent need for this legislation. The exploitation of people must be halted in its tracks.
Clause 2, which provides for licensing and inspection and the activities of gangmasters to be constantly reviewed, is essential. The other clauses set out the administration of the licensing of gangmasters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that enforcement is extremely important. There must be sanctions for those who break the law.
I believe that there is widespread support for this Bill not only in the farming community but in the population at large—and rightly so. I sincerely hope that the supermarkets and other outlets take this legislation extremely seriously. The regulations associated with the Bill must be spelt out and as much as possible incorporated into the body of the Bill. There must be no room for doubt on this issue. Indeed, I believe that we will come to a situation in which gangmasters realise their responsibilities and discharge them as such, especially in relation to the human rights of people who work on the land.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing his Private Member's Bill today and for openly explaining to Members of your Lordships' House why this Bill is drafted so widely. I also record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who agreed to meet the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and me last week to go through some of our anxieties. I am grateful for that and for the back-up work that we have had. In his comments—I shall not repeat

849
them all—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was quite right. Where criminal activity is going on it needs dealing with very severely.
As I continue my contribution, the noble Lord should not be surprised because I have already explained to him that I have concerns—which reflect some of those expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—that so much is left to regulation and is not included in the Bill.
Before I begin my contribution, I declare that I am president of a not-for-profit organisation called Concordia, which exists to assist overseas students, especially those from Europe and the newly accepted countries, to find seasonal work in the UK during their university and college courses. I understand that some 50 or 60 per cent of them are linked by their courses to agriculture or horticulture work, so it is a useful way of giving experience to the students. Usually, the work is farm-based, but not always, as their interests encompass everything to do with food production.
Concordia began its life way back in the 1943—I asked how old it was—and has a good reputation for supplying hard-working, committed workers who are a credit to the colleges that they represent. The UK farms and other work places all treat the workers well and most have been employing such students for many years. In total, there are nine companies like Concordia without which overseas students would have greater difficulty in obtaining the experience that they seek. Similarly, farmers and processors, particularly those who specialise in seasonal foods, would have a greater difficulty in obtaining the labour force that they needed if such schemes were not in existence.
The fact that there are irresponsible and corrupt gangmasters should not cause the Government to pass legislation that is unduly onerous for honest labour brokers, nor should it result in extra bureaucracy or unfair responsibilities for honest employers—something to which other noble Lords have referred. It should not be rushed through Parliament without careful and thorough examination of some of the consequences.
At the earlier consideration of this Bill in another place, my honourable friend Owen Paterson listed the legislation that is already in place and could be used to control many of the activities of dishonest gangmasters. I can do no better than to draw the House's attention to what he said. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 allows for fines of up to £5,000 on employers of illegal immigrants. To date, the Government have brought 22 proceedings under Section 8 and eight people have been found guilty. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 applies to anyone working in Britain legally or illegally. The Health and Safety Executive covers the coast down to the low-water mark and has acknowledged that it is aware of a near disaster on the Cumbria side of the Morecombe Bay before Christmas last year. The
850
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 could be used by the DTI through the Inland Revenue to raise wages. The Agricultural Wages Act 1948 could be used by Defra. The Employment Rights Act 1996 covers deductions from pay and termination of employment requirements. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is empowered by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to inspect anyone carrying on an activity associated with labour supply.
Those are Acts, guidelines and statutory instruments that cover tax, benefit, fraud, VAT rules and national insurance requirements. It is clear that over the years the government of the day have been aware that there was a problem. One of my anxieties is that if there are such a large number of Acts already that would cover some of the problems that we are discussing, it only really underlines the need to enforce Acts. It is no use having more legislation unless enforcement is made.
How many individuals operating as labour brokers have been charged in the past five years with breaking any of the laws that should bind them? Can the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explain why those laws have not been used more rigorously to stamp out the very practices that we have debated tonight, which are well known and appreciated by all those who seek to satisfy market demand in a legal, upright and honest way?
The Bill before us today is motivated by a genuine horror at the Morecombe Bay deaths—something that we all felt with great shame, possibly shame that such a thing could happen for such despicable reasons—and possibly in recognition that the Government must be seen to be doing something. Our job in this House is to analyse that something, to prove that it answers an identified need in a way that cannot be fulfilled by any existing legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we should protect farmers and businesses that give no cause for concern from measures that could seriously disadvantage them and ensure a quick implementation, with a resulting elimination of the problem.
My earlier comments on the raft of existing legislation that applies to the situation show that I am not convinced that the Bill will improve matters unless it is enforced. The various departments concerned, which I have named, have not been able to control the problem using the instruments that they have already at their disposal. What guarantees will there be that a new batch of tools will be any easier to use or more readily enforceable? For example, will the employment of an enforcement officer be more effective than a similar increase in the number of HSE inspectorate staff charged with policing this area?
To be effective, this legislation will have to rely to a large extent on policing the users of seasonal labour. Honest brokers such as Concordia have an entry in the phone book. They have an office that does not change from decade to decade, never mind month to month. They are known and easy to investigate. With a little joined-up thinking between government departments,

851
they can he given a clean bill of health readily, easily and quickly. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the problem is the dishonest, fly-by-night, always-on-the-move merchant who is a totally different prospect. How can one catch someone who has no permanent address, who uses the Internet with a different post box for each assignment, who pays no tax of any sort and has as many different identities as phases of the moon? One goes after farmers and food processors and takes up their time.
I find myself in agreement with Owen Paterson. The Bill is not the only way of solving the problem. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 can surely be used to introduce a gangmaster's licence. It could have been. However, as I said earlier, the Bill will succeed only if it is quickly and fully implemented. How many inspectors will be employed? How many enforcement officers will be deemed necessary? How will they operate? Will the lists of food processors that they draw up be licensed by each local authority and will they then visit them? Or do they consult the Yellow Pages for farmers' phone numbers and ring round to find out whether they use seasonal labour? Will they talk to Customs and the Immigration Service for information on the whereabouts of recent immigrants?
I understand that the Health and Safety Executive already has the power to investigate any worker at any time in any place in Great Britain. The Morecambe Bay problem is not confined to people supplied by gangmasters. There are many individuals, and small groups, risking their lives daily in pursuit of what they perceive to be free gain. I understand that the lifeboat has already been called out more than 30 times this year.
I have raised several questions this evening. I support the aims of the Bill and I wish it well but I have reservations, as I have already indicated. I am very anxious to see that all employees are looked after properly and are employed reputably. But, as it stands, the Bill is woefully short on detail as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, acknowledged. Is it envisaged that the gangmaster licence fees collected will cover only the registration system or will they be used to implement the enforcement side as well? I do not think that that is clear at this stage. Paragraph 78 on page 14 of the Explanatory Notes states that:
"Once operational the Authority will be self-financing".
My concerns on the Bill are reflected not only by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, which the noble Lord touched on earlier, but by the Association of Labour Providers, also quoted by the noble Lord. I acknowledge that it supports the Bill, as do the NFU and all the other organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, but it states that it is important to understand that legislation itself will not be sufficient to deal with this problem. There needs to be greater enforcement of existing legislation by the existing enforcement agencies.
852
Like the noble Lord, I looked at the comments made on the Bill by the Select Committee on the Constitution—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will refer to this. There are eight very important points. To start with, the committee comments on the fact that the Bill originally introduced by Jim Sheridan has been totally transformed and that many of the present Bill's 30 clauses have been incorporated without debate.
The third paragraph states:
"Public interest in the Bill has been magnified by the Morecambe Bay tragedy and by recent media reports of many types of abuse connected with the provision of gangs of labour for casual work. An effective scheme of licensing will need to restrict these abuses and encourage good practice, as well as to maintain a structure for providing casual labour when this is urgently needed in agriculture".
That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, quite rightly highlighted.
Paragraph 4 states:
"But the status and constitution of the Authority and the appointment of its members is left to regulations. It is therefore impossible to know from the Bill whether the Authority is intended to act autonomously, and the quotation above regarding general or specific directions does not make that position clearer. The Authority is to exercise a very wide discretion under this Bill. By clause 7(1), 'The Authority may grant a licence if it thinks fit'".
Further it says:
"clause 8(1) is a very broad power".
I shall not go through them all because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will pick up on some of the points within this recommendation. It is hugely important. There is pressure on us to try to gel this Bill through as quickly as possible. I would hate any Member of this House to think that I did not support the Bill. I am concerned that so much of the proper detail is not on the face of the Bill and we do not have it to hand.
Paragraph 8 of the committee's remarks states:
"The Bill would be improved from the perspective of administrative justice if it were to address questions that are fundamental to the scheme of licensing that it proposes to create, and we so recommend".
So it is not just me and other people who have raised issues with me. The Select Committee on the Constitution has questions which it has put and which we have had the advantage of reading.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We support the principles and aims of the Bill. But there are some very real questions which I hope the Minister will cover when he responds.
9.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter and to Jim Sheridan for making it possible to consider this Bill, which deals with a very important issue. I give my thanks to the Members of the House who have spoken tonight, all of whom have, at least in principle, accepted the need for such a Bill. I do not need to go over it in great detail.

853
The right reverend Prelate and others described some of the matters which arise from the dark side of the gangmaster situation. It was quite dark even when the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was concerned with the business. It has undoubtedly got worse. It is now not only a question of exploitation of vulnerable labour, but there are also links with illegal immigration, illegal working and other aspects of criminality quite apart from the issues of tax and social security fraud.
We need to start from the proposition, which my noble friend Lord Carter, underlined, that the agriculture and horticulture industries need casual and seasonal labour, often at short notice and for very short periods. We want to facilitate a situation whereby that can happen in a legitimate and decent way, in which the employees of the gangmasters, or labour providers, as we would prefer to call them, although not many do, can operate with respect for the other laws of the land.
Because there is increased awareness of this difficulty there have been various initiatives. There has emerged a very clear consensus in the industry, which includes the Transport & General Workers' Union and the NFU. They do not see eye to eye on all occasions, but on this they are united, as with the Fresh Produce Consortium and the supermarkets. The initiative for this was established by Mr Zad Padda, who himself was a gangmaster or labour provider from the West Midlands. He looked at the trade and saw that there were very damaging aspects to it undermining the legitimate and decent gangmasters who operate this trade.
I thank all those parties, in particular Mr Padda, Jack Dromey from the TGWU, Tim Bennett from the NFU and Doug Henderson from the Fresh Produce Consortium who have come together to make this measure work. There has been a big input into the drafting on the part of the Government, but that was done on the basis of a consensus in industry.
The support for this Bill and the need for it are clear. However, a number of noble Lords have queried the nature of the Bill. I need to make clear to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Baroness that the drafting of the Bill requires some flexibility and some use of secondary legislation—probably more than might be the case in certain other circumstances. In order to address that problem we have provided, and will provide, further indications of the outline and the first drafts of key statutory instruments so that we can consider them before the Bill completes its passage through this House. After that, there will, of course, be formal consultation in the normal way.
The licensing system is in the best interests of legitimate labour providers, of farmers who want to do business in a sensible way and of those they employ. It will create the conditions that drive out the thugs, the bullies and the more dubious gangmasters who undermine that legitimate activity. The industry, or parts of it, have attempted to make progress on this matter and are in the process of drawing up a voluntary code of practice. However, we recognise
854
that that is not enough, partly because a large section of the industry will not sign up to a code of practice on a voluntary basis and partly because it is difficult for someone further down the chain to know whether the provider of labour, and of the produce of that labour, has used legitimate gangmasters who observe the code of practice. That is why we need a mandatory register.
It is true that most of our concerns are covered by existing legislation. It is clear that government departments have an obligation to enforce that legislation on gangmaster activity. A very substantial effort has been made to co-ordinate that on a better basis through Operation Gangmaster and Operation Reflex. There are currently 11 gangmaster investigations under way and there have been some recent successes. Successful action taken against gangmasters, including on tax and VAT, have led to what is called "adjustments" of £16 million worth of tax and 2,300 cases have been taken up regarding social security benefits. Therefore, action has been taken by the authorities.
However, in a sense, the noble Baroness answers her own question regarding why the raft of legislation to which she referred needed further action to enforce it effectively. By and large that legislation is drafted to deal with static, or at least permanent and identifiable, employers and employees who live and operate in this country legitimately. However, if you are dealing with people who employ labour who may have a vulnerable status, and are in the relevant location for only a day or two, further measures are required. Those fly-by-night people to whom the noble Baroness referred can only really be targeted by identifying to whom they supply labour and who uses the products of that labour.
This measure is supported by the whole of the food chain. While we need the whole range of Customs and Excise inspectors, tax and social security inspectors and the enforcement officers provided under this Bill, we also need the trade to check that operators have a licence. In a sense that is an insurance policy for the retailer and the farmer. They need to check whether produce has been provided by someone who has a licence. If that is not the case, there is a prima facie case for investigating that and for ceasing to obtain supplies from that source. I refer to an industry code, as it were, enforced on a voluntary basis, but it requires a mandatory register before it can work.
I think we all accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the Select Committee of another place say, that the licensing system, of itself, is not enough. The trade as a whole, and the enforcement agency, have to operate in order to ensure that the licensing system brings about the benefits that we are looking for. The noble Baroness, incidentally, referred to the Employment Agencies Act, which originally provided for this form of registration. But that part of the Act was repealed by the Deregulation and Contracting Act of 1994, and it would not be possible to do this under that Act as it now stands.
One of the reasons why we have drafted some of the clauses quite widely, to address the biggest problem in the nature of the Bill, is that gangmasters are adept at exploiting legislative loopholes to avoid legal

855
obligations. They may find a way around what we provide for in the initial statutory regulations. We therefore need to cast the Bill relatively widely, to ensure that we can catch up with such manoeuvres. Subordinate legislation can be changed more easily to do that. In order to do so, we need to make sure people understand what the secondary legislation will do, and that is why I am proposing to give at least an outline indication of that.
As to the points of the Constitution Committee—which I have noted and am concerned about—I can answer the bulk of those points in relation to the powers which are not explicit in the Bill. For example, it is not our intention to use licensing to restrict the number of labour providers. The only denial or removal of a license would relate to the exploitation of workers or illegal behaviour. The Bill will make explicit provision for regulation to exempt certain types of work and certain circumstances from the licensing scheme. It is that broad in order to deal with the problems that I have described. We will, as my noble friend Lord Carter explained, exempt genuine agricultural contractors who supply machinery and labour. We will not include within the Bill those farmers who loan workers to their neighbours or further afield. Nor would we wish to include processes which change the nature of the product, such as turning fresh meat into a meat pie.
All that is subject to consultation on the statutory instruments, but it is a clear Government intention that we would not include those people.
As far as concerns the establishment of the authority, day-to-day responsibility for the design and operation of the licensing scheme will rest with the authority, whose sole role and remit will be established through these regulations. The ultimate responsibility to Parliament, however, will be through the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about charging. The fees will cover the registration system and operation of the authority, and there will be other resources provided in order to deal with the enforcement officers envisaged under this Bill. The bulk of the enforcement in the wider context, however, will be by the existing agencies, which will make use of these new powers to exert—by withdrawal of the licence, or recommending to the authority the withdrawal of the licence— pressure as regards other offences.
The licensing authority will be an executive NDPB, and will have the normal constraints applied to it. The membership of the authority will represent farmers, trade unions, supermarkets, labour providers, voluntary bodies and the various enforcement agencies. The body's function will be to prevent the exploitation by gangmasters in relation to their recruitment and employment, compliance with tax, national insurance, VAT, other general employment law and, of course, immigration and illegal working law. It will be clear what the responsibilities of the authority are, and the anxieties expressed by the Constitution Committee will be dealt with in the secondary legislation.
856
The other point that the Constitution Committee raised was the need for a robust and independent appeals mechanism. I accept that. Appeals will be heard by an appointed person. We will be discussing that with the Council on Tribunals and colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that we can establish a means of appealing decisions from the tribunals as I think the committee wanted.
I think that that deals with most of the issues raised except for the need to ensure that this does not impose too great a burden on the farmer or grower. Checking not only needs to be simple; it also needs to be quick. It will be incumbent on the authority to ensure that there are means whereby the individual farmer can check whether someone who says he is a gangmaster is in fact the gangmaster he claims to be. The farmer will have to be able to check and show due diligence if challenged rather than face prosecution if the case proves to be otherwise. He will have taken reasonable steps to check. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said that in harvest time such checks need to be quick, simple, understandable and effective. We certainly take that point. We will certainly take it on board in the licensing system.
Subject to that, I believe that we have a Bill that can be made to work. We will take it not on its own but with other measures taken by the trade and the government's enforcement agencies, in order to deal with the very nasty end of a very difficult employment situation which affects tens of thousands workers in our country, some of whom are here temporarily while others are here permanently. All of them face the potential of encountering a small but significant group of gangmasters who are exploiting their position. Those gangmasters give the agriculture and horticulture industry a bad name that it does not deserve.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify one point? As the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, will the different bodies that will implement it work independently in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, or will there be one encompassing body for the whole United Kingdom to deal with licensing?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will be one encompassing body although some of the agencies that will need to be associated with it—for example, the police—are devolved. Most of the offences that may be connected with this are in fact UK offences. So it will be a single UK authority.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken and for their support for the Bill. I am afraid that I forgot to declare a past interest. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, reminded me of his experience in a gang. I also have experience in a gang, on a building site in Crawley. I was engaged at 4 p.m. but I was sacked at 4.30 p.m. as being completely unsuitable for the type of work. I was getting rather less in my wheelbarrow than the rest of the gang were getting on their shovels, and I am still owed a day's

857
pay. I was also struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, remembered the sisters from Grimsby and the fact that they were blondes.
Almost all the questions have been answered by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the small exchange of labour which we all know goes on in farms. That is explicitly excluded in the draft statutory instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned SAWS—the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. That is specifically excluded by regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a fair point about the range of Acts, but of course that shows the overlapping and confusion there has been.
858
Enforcement will be so much easier with a single authority with a single lead Minister responsible. There is an industry consensus that that should be achieved. She asked then some detailed questions about the number of inspectors, the cost and so on. A very detailed schedule of the cost is available which I will certainly send to her. I think that that will provide all the information that she needs.
As I said, I think that my noble friend the Minister has replied to all the other questions.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Relations Bill
(Fourth Day)
Wednesday, 16 June 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I call Amendment No. 77, there may be a Division on the Business of the House, in which case, whoever is speaking, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 39 [Information and consultation: Great Britain]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 37, line 3, leave out "satisfying" and insert "or agreements at the level or levels of the undertaking that the management of the undertaking may reasonably determine and which satisfy"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 78. I do so with some difficulty because this part of the Bill depends on the Secretary of State publishing no less than four documents. The first is the Government's response to the consultation that they held about the consultation process, which of course is of the essence of the Bill; the second is the revised regulations; the third is the DTI's guidance on those regulations; and the fourth is the guidance note from ACAS on the practical procedures.
The noble Lords, Lord Sainsbury and Lord Triesman, have both acknowledged that the failure to supply those documents in a final form to employers' organisations, as well as to Parliament, during the consideration of the Bill is "unfortunate". I should have thought that a stronger word might be appropriate. Nevertheless, I thank the Ministers for their courtesy in providing me in draft form such material as is currently available. That has been helpful. I may need to reserve my position for a later stage of the Bill when these vital documents are published in their final form.
I now turn to the amendments, which, as the Committee will have discerned from the marginal note to Clause 39, relate to the very wide topic of the provision of information and consultation. This clause seeks to implement the EU information and consultation directive but, not for the first time, the Government are proposing to go further than the directive requires and carry out gold-plating. They are
GC180
failing to take advantage of the provision for exceptions to the basic information and consultation process.
Article 5 provides for two types of arrangement different from those stipulated in Article 4. One relates to agreements existing at the date that the directive was introduced into member states; the other, which is even more significant for the future, is a negotiated agreement entered into at any time with the workforce or, indeed, with the workforce's representative. In other words, the Government have it in their power, without infringing their treaty obligations, to introduce flexibility—a word to which I shall return in these remarks—into both this Bill and the regulations that they will shortly lay before Parliament.
Clause 39(3)(b) relates to the contents of the, as yet unpublished, draft regulations concerning the initiation and conduct of negotiations between employers and employees (and employees' representatives) on the subject of, first, providing information to employees and, secondly, consulting about that information.
The clause requires the parties to reach an agreement satisfying conditions which these unpublished regulations will prescribe in relation to the process of informing and consulting. Amendment No. 77 would clarify that provision and remove possible grounds for dispute as to the number of employees to be informed and consulted. Obviously, that will not be an issue for the smaller firms, where the area of consultation and the persons to be informed will be 100 per cent of the workforce. But the amendment would permit the employer to determine what level of the undertaking should be involved in that process. "Reasonably" determine is the qualification that I have introduced into the amendment because that is not a word from which I shy away.
The problem that the amendment seeks to resolve is best explained by a hypothetical example. Let us consider a conglomerate, running different and diverse businesses, with one making, say, widgets and another publishing magazines. In a matter requiring information to be disseminated and consulted on relating to just one of those businesses, there is no reason why the workers in the other should be consulted.
In a business which comprises several trades, in a matter wholly affecting only one of those trades there will usually be no reason why the union representing another should be involved in the consultations. Why, for example, should the electricians be involved in matters relating to changes in the working practice of the carpenters unless they too are affected? Why should the entire workforce of a large company be potential consultees when only a handful are involved in the matter? For example, Lloyds TSB has 72,000 employees organised into 21 separate divisions. It simply does not make sense to have representatives from those 21 different businesses to negotiate on something that may affect only one of them.
If the employer is not able to reasonably select one appropriate unit—I stress, "reasonably" select—there will be one giant works council for each large company, and that would be too far removed from the employees involved to be of any use whatever to them.
Consistently throughout the consultation process the employers have made it clear that they want the law and regulations to be framed in the manner that best suits their employees and the individual businesses. The Government echoed that sentiment in the very first page of the first chapter of the consultation document, which states:
"There should be no single static model for information and consultation—a 'one size fits all' approach will not do."
However, by chapter four the Government contradicted that very sensible sentiment by stating,
"A number of provisions in the proposed regulations assume that information and consultation will be organised at the level of the undertaking".
In the hypothetical example and the actual example of Lloyds TSB that I gave earlier, I illustrated how impractical that may be. The difficulty is that without the regulations being tabled there is no certainty which way the Government will jump. What is required by employers in commerce and industry is that they should have the legal certainty to make agreements below the level of the entire undertaking if that is what they wish. Even more importantly, what business needs is agreement at the level of the workplace, whether it be a factory, workshop, warehouse, office, shop or even, say, one branch of a national chain of supermarket—for example, Sainsbury's. The Minister is not here so he would not perhaps know about that. It is where people work, at the workplace, that most issues arise and where employee involvement and engagement is clearly most beneficial.
In Germany and France the level of consultation is the "establishment" because that gives a much bigger degree of flexibility. What is really required on the issue of information and consultation is "flexibility", a word I have mentioned before. In my submission, Amendment No. 77 provides exactly that.
Amendment No. 78 is a much simpler matter. It seeks merely to tidy up some very loose wording at the end of paragraph (b). Currently the words in parenthesis state:
"whether that provision or consultation is to be direct or through representatives".
Directly with who? Obviously it must be with the employees, so why does it not state that? The purpose of this corrective amendment is to make that clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. She said, as I understand it, that the objective of the amendment was to ensure that the management could determine the level or levels of the undertaking at which consultation would take place. There could very well be a situation in that event where levels were not included and workers felt that they should be. So there would be a problem in that
GC182
certain people who felt they should be involved would not be involved because the management had not chosen their particular level. It seems to me that this issue is most appropriately dealt with by regulation. I have not seen any draft regulations, but surely that is why the Bill says,
"Regulations … may make provision",
and then sets out general principles.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: First, we have not seen the regulations, and I totally accept that it is a little difficult—which is what I said. When we have the regulations we may know a little more. I was trying to make the point that the level is much more flexible abroad. It is not flexible here; the level is only on the undertaking. That is why I put in the amendment that the management should "reasonably determine" what would be the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
I was also making the point that in dealing with a huge business with different, separate sections, the provision may not be good for industrial relations. I used the example of carpenters and electricians. If what you are working for with the carpenters has a bearing on the electricians, that is completely different, and the level is that they should both be there. But if not, one will end up in a huge organisation with loads of people, which makes the negotiations that much more difficult.
I was trying to say that the provision should be flexible, so that it can be suitable for particular businesses that have to inform and consult.
Lord Triesman: I start with a quick comment about the regulations and the draft guidance. Obviously, I understand everyone's desire to have seen the material before the work of this Committee began. I regret that ongoing discussions between the CBI and the TUC have not made it possible. It is much better that those discussions are thorough and come to a proper conclusion because that would probably help us all, rather than any exchange that, with the greatest of respect, we might have. I understand that the material is now very near completion, and I hope that some of the earlier thinking on it has been of assistance.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are closely linked, and I would like to take them together. Amendment No. 77 picks up on one of the outstanding issues identified in last year's consultation document on the information and consultation regulations; namely the level at which information and consultation agreements can be struck. I think that that goes to the substance of the concerns of the noble Baroness. I hope that I will be able to reassure her that the amendment is not necessary.
In any case, whether or not I succeed in that, I make the point that the amendment is not consistent with the framework agreed between the CBI and the TUC for implementing the information and consultation directive. I am very keen to see that balance of agreement sustained if it possibly can be.
It was clear from the consultation that there is a need for sufficient scope for information and consultation agreements to be struck at levels other than that of the individual undertaking; for example, to make sure that arrangements could cover a group of undertakings, or only parts of an undertaking such as an individual establishment. That is one of the objectives that the noble Baroness has put to us. It will do that.
The point was made in the consultation that if the legislation is to work in practice it is vital that the regulations should permit information and consultation to take place at a variety of different levels, and those specific drafting changes to the legislation would be needed in order to achieve the required flexibility.
In the light of this concern, I want to make it absolutely clear that we want to allow consultation arrangements to be set up at a level different from that of the individual undertaking and that we will be making specific changes to the legislation in order to achieve that. We will also spell out in guidance that the regulations do not automatically require that information and consultation is carried out at the undertaking level.
It may very well be that there is very little between us on this issue. I do not want to minimise a difference that is genuine, but it may be that there is not in this case such a difference. The regulations already provide sufficient flexibility for different arrangements to exist within different establishments, both through preexisting agreements and newly negotiated ones. We appreciate that this may not be all that obvious from the text of the legislation. For those reasons, the guidance must make it plain and be in detail. We envisage saying something to the effect that the regulations do not automatically require information and consultation to be carried out at the undertaking level. Both pre-existing and newly negotiated agreements may provide for different consultation arrangements in different parts of an undertaking, as long as the employees in the undertaking as a whole are covered by some arrangements.
3.45 p.m.
A key point to note is that the legislation sets only limited requirements as to the contents of agreements negotiated under it. It purposely allows the employer and negotiating representatives considerable flexibility to agree arrangements that are best suited to their particular circumstances. I entirely appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, but it is not possible to accept it. One of the fundamental principles of the framework for implementation agreed with the CBI and the TUC is that information and consultation arrangements must be agreed with the employees.
This amendment would allow management to decide unilaterally at what level the information and consultation arrangements should operate, and for that reason it should be resisted. I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have been able to give about the degree of flexibility, which I believe exactly meets the suggestions, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 77.
Amendment No. 78 is not necessary. All it does is remove the brackets from the part of Clause 39(3)(b) that refers to the fact that consultation may take place directly with employees or through representatives. One of the aspects of the CBI/TUC framework was that information and consultation agreements may provide for information and consultation to be carried out directly with employees or through employee representatives. As with other parts of the framework, the key point is that whatever arrangements are put in place must be agreed with the employees. That is the baseline foundation for all of this. It is what Clause 39(3)(b) already provides for. I hope that in that light the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think that I made it clear at the beginning that in any event I would reserve my own position. Until I see the regulations that the Minister was talking about, which he suggested would give the necessary flexibility, I cannot be sure of my position. We have not seen that document, so we do not know. It was important to air what we saw as the potential problem, and leave it at that. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) for the information to employees and the consultation of them expressly to exclude those matters which by law or by custom and practice can be construed to be matters relating to terms and conditions or employment normally reserved for collective bargaining between an employer to whom the regulations apply and a recognised trade union;"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 79 is, at least at this stage, a probing amendment, which is a funny thing to say because they are all probing amendments. I tabled it because of the considerable concern expressed by the Engineering Employers' Federation and the European Study Group about the meaning of two words that appear in the draft regulations. The Minister will recall that I voiced this concern at the meeting that we held after Second Reading. The two words are in draft Regulation 18(1)(c) of the draft Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations.
The words are "contractual relations". Those words are incorporated in the regulations presumably following some phraseology in a European edict. Here is the danger. Translations of technical terms from one language to another can easily, and often do, produce a totally different result. As it is, the words "contractual relations" are already being interpreted by some specialist lawyers as including changes to the terms and conditions, working and employment conditions and even with regard to pay and conditions. Of course, that is not what the regulations are intended to cover. The term—if the Government insist on continuing to use it instead of a less ambiguous and

GC185
less elastic phrase—must be defined as narrowly as possible to ensure that it excludes issues that should or would be the subject of collective bargaining between employers and employees and recognised trade unions.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, was kind enough to write to me after our meeting and was quite helpful on that point. However, as I told him at the meeting, it is essential that the interpretation should be placed on the parliamentary record, where, in the event of any continuing doubt about the meaning of the words, the Government's intentions should be available for judicial notice. I beg to move.
Lord Triesman: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendment. It is important to generate, so far as we can, some common understanding of what the directive is about and what it is not about. The Government have always been clear that it is about the consultation of employees and not about codetermination or joint decision-making. Nor is it about collective bargaining or negotiating. I want to say that clearly, as the kind of on-the-record statement that the noble Baroness asked for. I believe that it accords completely with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville in his letter of 26 May.
When the Government consulted on draft regulations last year, one of the issues on which we sought views was the potential overlap between the obligations created under the information and consultation regulations and those in existing collective agreements. The general view, including that of the TUC, was that in most cases the interaction between a collective agreement and an information and consultation agreement should not prove too problematic, and the employer ought to be able to work with the respective bodies to determine how the arrangements would work in practice. On that basis, therefore, the Government do not propose to make any special arrangements under the information and consultation regulations with regard to collective agreements.
Although I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, I fear that it is not possible to accept it. I take the point that is a probing amendment, designed to elucidate the facts. We cannot accept it because, although a typical collective agreement will cover pay, hours and holidays as a minimum, such agreements may well include other matters and often do, because the parties mutually consent to covering other matters. Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 defines a collective agreement as one that may deal with a range of matters, such as the machinery for consultation or the allocation of work between workers or groups of workers. In other words, a collective agreement could well cover matters about which there is required to be information and consultation under the information and consultation directive.
That said, the emphasis of the directive is on changes and events of a major nature. Article 4.2(c) refers to information and consultation on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or contractual relations. In the normal course, there will be no need for employers to consult under the information and consultation procedures about the routine outcomes of the collective bargaining process.
One effect that the amendment might have is to deny information and consultation rights to employees who are outside the scope of the collective agreements that operate in their undertaking. More generally, it could also restrict the scope of an information and consultation agreement in workplaces where no collective agreement exists, so that information and consultation took place only on a residual number of issues not normally dealt with by collective bargaining in cases where such bargaining exists. It is not possible to exclude matters that are the subject of collective bargaining from the scope of the information and consultation regulations in that way, because that would be an incomplete implementation of the directive.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel that she has probed sufficiently on the main facts, and that the statement with which I started makes clear the bottom line for the arrangements in terms that she will find helpful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his long reply. I accept that he started off by making a short statement and then we went into a rather long explanation. I am sure he will understand when I say that I am grateful for what he said. I shall read it most carefully and speak to those who have advised me about their concern, to see if they are equally satisfied. With pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Information and consultation: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 82A:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
"WITHDRAWAL AND REPLACEMENT OF NOTICES
(1) After section 22 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) insert—
"22A WITHDRAWAL OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

(1) Where an enforcement notice has been served (and has not already been withdrawn or rescinded), an officer acting for the purposes of this Act may withdraw the enforcement notice by serving notice of the withdrawal on the employer.

(2) Subsection (3) applies if an enforcement notice is withdrawn and either—

(a) no new enforcement notice is served in accordance with section 22B; or

GC187

(b) a new enforcement notice is so served, but the notice of withdrawal states that subsection (3) applies.

(3) If an enforcement notice is withdrawn and this subsection applies—

(a) after the withdrawal no penalty notice may be served under section 21 in respect of any non-compliance with the enforcement notice before it was withdrawn;

(b) if any penalty notice was so served before the withdrawal, it ceases to have effect and any appeal against it must be dismissed;

(c) any sum paid or recovered in respect of any such penalty notice must be repaid to the employer with interest at the appropriate rate running from the date when the sum was paid or recovered;

(d) any appeal against the enforcement notice must be dismissed;

(e) after the withdrawal no complaint may be presented or other civil proceedings commenced by virtue of section 20 in reliance on any non-compliance with the enforcement notice before it was withdrawn;

(f) any complaint or proceedings so presented or commenced before the withdrawal may be proceeded with despite the withdrawal.

(4) In subsection (3)(c) "the appropriate rate" means the rate that, on the date the sum was paid or recovered, was specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.

(5) Where subsection (3) applies the notice of withdrawal must indicate the effect of that subsection (but a failure to do so does not make the withdrawal ineffective).

(6) Section 21(6) has effect subject to this section and sections 22B and 22C.

22B REPLACEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

(1) This section applies if an officer withdraws an enforcement notice.

(2) The officer may at the same time as he serves the notice of withdrawal (and if he is of the opinion mentioned in section 19(1) or (2A)) serve on the employer a new enforcement notice under section 19 relating to some or all of the workers to whom the old enforcement notice related.

(3) The new enforcement notice may not relate to any workers to whom the old enforcement notice did not relate (but this is without prejudice to any power that arises apart from this section to serve an enforcement notice relating to those workers).

(4) If the new enforcement notice includes a requirement under section 19(2) as respects a worker, it must relate to the sum due to the worker under section 17 in respect of the employer's failure previous to the new notice to remunerate the worker as mentioned in section 19(2) (regardless of whether that failure occurred to any extent before or after the service of the old notice).

(5) The new enforcement notice must—

(a) indicate the differences between it and the old enforcement notice that it is reasonable for the officer to consider are material; and

(b) unless the notice of withdrawal states that section 22A(3) applies, indicate the effect of sections 22C and 22D.

(6) A failure to comply with subsection (5) does not make the new enforcement notice ineffective, but a notice that does not comply with that subsection is not to be treated for the purposes of sections 22A(2), 22C(1) and 22D(1) as served in accordance with this section.

(7) The reference in subsection (1) to an enforcement notice does not include an enforcement notice served by virtue of this section.

22C EFFECT OF REPLACEMENT ON PENALTIES WHERE SECTION 22A(3) NOT APPLIED

(1) If an enforcement notice is withdrawn and a new enforcement notice is served in accordance with section 22B, this section applies unless the notice withdrawing the old enforcement notice states that section 22A(3) applies.

GC188

(2) Where this section applies, subject to subsections (3) and (5) the withdrawal of the old enforcement notice does not affect—

(a) any penalty notice that before the withdrawal was served under section 21 in respect of any non-compliance with the old enforcement notice;

(b) the power under section 21 to serve a penalty notice in respect of any non-compliance with the old enforcement notice before it was withdrawn.

(3) If—

(a) before the withdrawal of the old enforcement notice a penalty notice was served which included an amount for a day's non-compliance with the old enforcement notice as respects a worker, and

(b) that amount could not validly have been included in the penalty notice if the old enforcement notice had been as it should have been according to the new enforcement notice,

the penalty notice shall be treated as withdrawn under section 22E at the same time as the old enforcement notice is withdrawn.

(4) Where subsection (3) applies, section 22F (power to replace penalty notice) applies—

(a) as if the cases mentioned in section 22F(1) as cases in which that section applies included the case where a penalty notice is by virtue of this section treated as withdrawn; and

(b) as if the references in section 22F(2) to the amount and particulars that the officer considers should have been stated in the penalty notice were to the amount and particulars that he considers should have been so stated if the old enforcement notice had been as it should have been.

(5) A penalty notice served by virtue of subsection (2)(b) must not include an amount for a day's non-compliance with the old enforcement notice as respects a worker if, had the old enforcement notice been as it should have been according to the new enforcement notice, that amount could not validly nave been included in the penalty notice.

(6) The words after paragraph (c) in section 22(3) shall not apply for the purposes of any appeal against a penalty notice continued in effect by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above or served by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above.

22D EFFECT OF REPLACEMENT ON APPEALS AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WHERE SECTION 22A(3) NOT APPLIED

(1) If an enforcement notice is withdrawn and a new enforcement notice is served in accordance with section 22B, this section applies unless the notice withdrawing the old enforcement notice states that section 22A(3) applies.

(2) If an appeal has been made under section 19(4) against the old enforcement notice and the appeal has not been withdrawn or finally determined before the time when that notice is withdrawn—

(a) that appeal ("the earlier appeal") shall have effect after that time as if it were against the new enforcement notice; and

(b) the employer may exercise his right of appeal under section 19(4) against the new enforcement notice only if he withdraws the earlier appeal.

(3) If an appeal is made under section 19(4) against the new enforcement notice (or by virtue of subsection (2) above has effect as if so made), section 19(9) and paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 21(7) apply in relation to any penalty notice—

(a) continued in effect by virtue of section 22C(2)(a), or

(b) served by virtue of section 22C(2)(b),

as they apply in relation to penalty notices served ill respect of the new enforcement notice.

GC189

(4) Where this section applies—

(a) after the withdrawal of the old enforcement notice no complaint may be presented or other civil proceedings commenced by virtue of section 20 in reliance on any non-compliance with that notice before it was withdrawn;

(b) any complaint or proceedings so presented or commenced before the withdrawal of the old enforcement notice may be proceeded with despite the withdrawal and replacement of that notice.

22E WITHDRAWAL OF PENALTY NOTICE

(1) Where a penalty notice has been served on a person ("the employer") (and has not already been withdrawn or rescinded), an officer acting for the purposes of this Act may withdraw the penalty notice if he is of the opinion—

(a) that, in the case of each of the allegations of failure to comply with the enforcement notice in respect of which the penalty notice was served, the facts are such that an officer who was aware of them would have had no reason to serve any penalty notice on the employer; or

(b) that the amount of the financial penalty is too great because the penalty notice is incorrect in some of the particulars which affect that amount; or

(c) that the amount of the financial penalty is too great because its calculation is incorrect.

(2) The withdrawal shall be effected by serving notice of the withdrawal on the employer.

(3) If a penalty notice is withdrawn and is not replaced under section 22F—

(a) any sum already paid or recovered in respect of the penalty notice must be repaid to the employer with interest at the appropriate rate running from the date when the sum was paid or recovered;

(b) any appeal against the notice must be dismissed.

(4) In subsection (3)(a) "the appropriate rate" means the rate that, on the date the sum was paid or recovered, was specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.

22F REPLACEMENT OF PENALTY NOTICE WITH NOTICE IMPOSING LOWER PENALTY

(1) This section applies if a penalty notice is withdrawn because the officer is of the opinion mentioned in section 22E(1)(b) or (c).

(2) The officer may, at the same time as that notice is withdrawn, serve by way of replacement a new penalty notice under section 21 in which—

(a) the amount of the financial penalty is the amount (which must be less than that in the old penalty notice) that the officer now considers should have been the amount stated in the old penalty notice; and

(b) the particulars stated under section 21(2)(c) to (e) are as he now considers they should have been in that notice.

(3) The new penalty notice must indicate—

(a) the differences between it and the old penalty notice that it is reasonable for the officer to consider are material, and

(b) the effect of subsections (4) to (7),

but a failure to comply with this subsection does not make the new penalty notice ineffective.

(4) If a sum was paid or recovered in respect of the old penalty notice—

(a) an amount equal to that sum (or, if more than one, the total of those sums) shall be treated as having been paid in respect of the new penalty notice; and

(b) any amount by which that sum (or total) exceeds the amount payable under the new penalty notice must be repaid to the employer with interest at the appropriate rate running from the date when the sum (or, if more than one, the first of them) was paid or recovered.

GC190

(5) In subsection (4)(b) "the appropriate rate" means the rate that, on the date mentioned in subsection (4)(b), was specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.

(6) Subsection (7) applies where—

(a) a new penalty notice is served by virtue of this section; and

(b) an appeal has been made under section 22(1) against the old penalty notice and has not been withdrawn or finally determined before the time when that notice is withdrawn.

(7) In such a case—

(a) that appeal ("the earlier appeal") shall have effect after that time as if it were against the new penalty notice; and

(b) the employer may exercise his right of appeal under section 22 against the new penalty notice only if he withdraws the earlier appeal.

(8) The reference in subsection (1) to a penalty notice does not include a penalty notice served by virtue of this section.

(9) This section is without prejudice to any power arising apart from this section to serve two or more penalty notices in respect of the same enforcement notice."

(2) In section 19(6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) (cases where appeals against enforcement notices are allowable), in paragraph (c)(ii), for "incorrect" substitute "too great".

(3) In section 22(3) of that Act (cases where appeals against penalty notices are allowable), for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—

"(b) that the amount of the financial penalty is too great because the penalty notice is incorrect in some of the particulars which affect that amount; or

(c) that the amount of the financial penalty is too great because its calculation is incorrect."

(4) Nothing in subsections (2) and (3) affects sections 19 and 22 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) as those sections have effect for the purposes of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30)."

The noble Lord said: Under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 as presently drafted, compliance officers are unable to withdraw enforcement or penalty notices, even if they realise that they have made an error or new evidence comes to light. Employers are understandably often unwilling to comply with incorrect notices, and tribunal hearings are the only way to rectify the notices which both sides know to be incorrect. That is obviously an inefficient way of conducting any kind of business because it introduces delays into the process and means that the workers will have to wait longer to receive the arrears to which they are entitled. It also wastes the time of the tribunals.
In essence, therefore, the new clause that the Government have tabled allows officers to withdraw enforcement and penalty notices and replace them with corrected notices where necessary. Obviously the new clause is a little more complex than that, or else it would not run to six new sections and to so many words. None the less, I have stated the essence of it.
This might be the right moment to mention that the Government covered this proposal in our consultation paper on the package of minimum wage amendments in August last year. Responses to the package of amendments, now set out in Clauses 41 to 43 and this new clause, were supportive and no one expressed any reservations about this proposal.
I want to say a tiny bit more in detail about the clause because it is lengthy and the background is important. Section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 allows compliance officers to issue enforcement notices requiring employers to pay the minimum wage in future, and to pay arrears due in respect of the past. These notices set out the workers that have been underpaid, the pay period or periods in question, and the amounts due to each worker. For example, an enforcement notice might, say, cover five workers owed £100 each in connection with work done in April 2004.
It may be worth adding at this point that the Inland Revenue resolves the great majority of cases—around 95 per cent—without the need for formal notices. We are talking about a minority of cases here, perhaps 50 per year, where an employer has not readily agreed to pay the arrears due. If an employer refuses to comply with an enforcement notice, Section 21 of the Act allows officers to issue a penalty notice. These are calculated on the basis of the numbers of workers covered by the enforcement notice, multiplied by twice the hourly rate of the minimum wage and, usually, the number of days that have elapsed since the enforcement notice was issued.
To use the example I gave a moment ago, the penalty notice could cover five workers at £9 per day twice the current adult rate—for, say, 60 days, hypothetically, if it was issued in June. That would give a fine of £2,700 payable to the Exchequer. It is worth noting that the amount of the fine is not dependent on the amount by which the minimum wage has been underpaid. If the amount of the underpayments was incorrectly stated in the enforcement notice but the number of workers was correct, the size of the fine would not be altered.
As I mentioned, these notices are sometimes issued for the wrong amount. That could arise because of mistakes made by the compliance officer, who might wrongly include a worker in the notice or perhaps miscalculate the arrears due. There could be a number of other mistakes. That is what the amendment seeks to remedy. I hope that the Committee will feel that, although the issue covers a small, complicated element of law and may cover only a limited number of people, it is right that every individual be subject to the same justice in this regard. That is why the amendment is worded as it is. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As the Minister said, the amendment is very long—it covers no fewer than six pages—and it was nice that he explained it in detail. Even though I have read it, it is much better when someone explains it.
The amendment seeks to make major changes in the Government's National Minimum Wage Act. These were needed because, if there are errors, they have to be put right. The Minister may feel that he can answer my only question: why has the matter taken so long in the course of the Bill to be rectified? I am amazed that
GC192
it was not brought up in the other place so that it could be dealt with there. It is an issue that we would want put right at the first possible opportunity.
Lord Triesman: The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. As work on the Bill has gone forward, relatively small anomalies have been detected that have themselves led to changes. In this case, it was during the process of consultation that a relatively small number of anomalies and unfairness became apparent. That combination has led to this result. Even if it is late in the progress of the Bill, I am happy that we have the chance to put right an injustice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Provision of money for trade union modernisation]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 47, line 36, leave out "or may become"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 83, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, which all relate to what the Government call a "modernisation fund"—or, in the words of the title of new Section 116A, to,
"Provision of money for union modernisation".
We are talking about the provision of an unspecified amount of money—the Government have spoken of £10 million—for the somewhat vaguely defined purposes described in new Section 116A(1), which is being added to the 1992 Act. Amendment No. 83 deals with a more specifically objectionable purpose.
New Section 116A(1)(c) provides for the provision of services to persons who are members of the union—which is fair enough—and also to persons who,
"may become members of it",
which is not. That is why I seek the removal of the provision that allows union funds to be given to nonmembers.
There will be every temptation for the unions to use that fund as a recruiting tool. Every day we see insurance companies offer free gifts to people if they will take out a policy. All kinds of other commercial concerns offer inducements to potential new customers if they will only sign up. Credit cards offer interest-free facilities, banks offer low interest and so on. It takes no imagination whatever to conceive of a union offering inducements to potential recruits to join, such as discounts from various shops, vouchers from M&S or other chain stores, cut-price holidays and so on. Those may all be legitimate recruiting tools—I do not suggest for a moment that they are not—but they should be provided with the union's own funds, not at the taxpayers' expense.
That is why "or may become" must be removed from the clause, as called for by Amendment No. 83. Although I have singled out those three words for specific attention, it should not be assumed that I do not regard some of the other vague provisions of new Section 116A(1)(a) to (e) as any less difficult. For example, why should the taxpayer be asked to fund the

GC193
holding of ballots? They should be part of a union's normal activities and funded from its own resources, not from a government handout.
I expect that we ought to say, "Perish the thought", but what about the possibility that unions which receive money into one pocket—money that they would otherwise have had to find from their own resources for their normal purposes—will be able to recycle it into funding the Labour Party out of the other pocket? We all know that—and it is quite right too—the unions support the Government and that our party often gets a lot of help from big business. That is the reality of life. However, if the Government are giving out taxpayers' money for a specific purpose that is what it should be used for.
I understand the Government's problem in giving a specific description without being too prescriptive about how their largesse should be distributed to and used by their friends in the unions. Amendment No. 85 shows the way the problem is to be tackled. It is not by specifying how the money should be used, but by indicating how it shall not be used.
There are several very moderate prohibitions which the Government can easily accept as reasonable and, more importantly, as the proper protection of the public funds. The funds should not be used for recruiting or retaining members; to further industrial action; for political or campaigning purposes; for the support of a political party or a candidate; to fund a serving politician at any level of government; and not for any of the political purposes already set out in Section 72 of the 1992 Act not already covered.
That last provision is necessary because it might be possible to argue that the vague purposes of the new modernisation fund defined in the present Bill could override Section 72. In other words, this would be a belt and braces provision. I see an official looking a little vague. If I am saying something which is not the case, he will clearly give a note to his Minister. The matter is rather vague at this stage.
Subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to frame rules for the operation of the fund and that those rules should incorporate the prohibitions that I have just proposed. I am well aware that in the case of the partnership fund, the DTI has established a measure of control over the money that it distributes by the very nature of the application form that it issues and the criteria that it applies in granting or refusing applications. I simply do not think that that is good enough. In dealing with powerful unions exercising considerable political influence, there should be clear rules to be followed by the Secretary of State in authorising the allocation of funds.
In my preamble to the list of prohibited purposes, I referred to money being used directly or indirectly. "Indirectly" is defined in subsection (6) so as to prevent the union utilising the fund for normal union functions, and thereby to free up the money it would normally have used for other purposes. In other words, contributions by the Government from the fund are being ring-fenced for the specific purpose covered by the application.
There is at present no cap on the fund, although, as I said earlier, the Government have mentioned a figure of £10 million. I have proposed a cap of that figure, but it will be noticed that I have suggested in subsection (6) that the Government can return to Parliament for more if the scheme proves workable in the long term. Similarly, in subsection (7), I have proposed that the fund should be subject to a sunset provision, unless Parliament renews it for five-yearly periods from time to time. These large funds cannot be distributed by the Government to what are in some respects political organisations without a considerable degree of transparency and public scrutiny. I think that that is important. Subsections (8) and (9) require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the allocation of the modernisation fund, and for the union strictly to account to him, and through him to Parliament, on how the fund has been used.
I cannot believe that the moderate controls that I have proposed in Amendment No. 85 could be regarded as anything but reasonable, entirely proper and constructive. However, before I formally move the amendment, I should like to turn to Amendment No. 86. The Government should not simply dish out money without any constraints on the recipient union. I have proposed two such conditions. The first is that the union should provide matching funds. If the project is such a good idea, the union should be willing partially to fund it out of its own resources. That would avoid the possibility of unviable schemes being proposed or schemes being extravagantly implemented. There is a stipulation that donated funds must not come from another union, to avoid possible mutual back-scratching. Secondly, I propose a cap of £100,000, which is 1 per cent of the entire fund, for any one project—not to any one union, but simply to any one project. That limitation is self-explanatory.
We have severe inhibitions about this scheme and about the idea of using public funds to subsidise the unions. There is no question that we would be reconciled to letting the Government have their way subject to the safeguards that are proposed in this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I welcome new Clause 51 to establish a union modernisation fund. I gather that there have been initial discussions between the DTI and the TUC and that the fund will probably become operational around June 2005.
A consultation paper is to be produced, which will set out the criteria for making bids for funding. Projects likely to attract funding would include the promotion of diversity, which is important in today's labour world; the development of information technology systems; and similar matters. There will be a management board, and there will be consultation about structure and membership. As the TUC puts it, the fund, which is a tiny fraction of the government money given to help businesses, will allow unions to adapt to changing circumstances and work more effectively across the industrial relations sector. It will allow unions to improve communications with their

GC195
members, enhance participation in union structures, and ensure that unions fully reflect the diversity of the present-day labour market.
Those who oppose the fund often do so because they are ignorant of the valuable work that unions already do for their members. All too frequently, unions attract attention only in disputes, when they are invariably presented in a negative way. For example, Amicus, which is my union, provides a range of services for members, including legal aid. We have our own training college at Bishop's Stortford, where we run courses for union representatives on a wide spectrum of subjects including, importantly, schemes for member trustees in pension schemes. We also train union representatives, which is becoming more and more necessary in the light of the rather complicated legislation that we have been debating.
Previous Conservative administrations have often been fully aware of the benefits provided by unions and the work done by them. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was Minister at what was then the Ministry of Labour, a deal was negotiated whereby unions had grants towards their education programmes. I well remember the discussions that took place at the time, and my union benefited as a result.
This is an entirely worthwhile endeavour, on which the Government should be congratulated. The Bill as it stands does not require amendment. Many of the items listed in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness will be covered when the consultation takes place and when, as I have indicated, the management structure is established. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendments.
Lord Razzall: With the exception of her last-but-one sentence, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, just said. The difference between the two opposition parties—occasionally on this Committee there are three opposition parties—is that I do not feel, although no doubt the noble Baroness will deny it, that in reality the Conservative Party is in favour of the proposal at all. That is where we on the Liberal Democrat side differ. We think that this fund is an extremely good idea and that the amendments that the noble Baroness is proposing would provide far too rigid a fetter on the operation of the fund. The one sentence of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with which I disagree is that this clause requires no amendment at all. I think there are certain concerns in that area. However, I propose that we debate those issues when we deal with Amendment No. 84. I do not support the noble Baroness's amendment because I feel that it will fetter the operation of this potentially very valuable fund.
I do not understand the Conservative position on this matter. I should have thought that anything that can be done to help to modernise and educate trade unions in this area would be to the benefit of all political parties, let alone the body corporate.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad to see that we have had a widespread, even if at times conditional, acceptance of the Government's notion. We might ask a number of questions about it; we might ask whether it is new. People have sometimes said that it is not new—my noble friend Lady Turner suggested that—but that it goes back a lot further to the Whitley report in 1918, when a Conservative-dominated commission recommended that the government should assist, advance and subsidise the development of trade unionism. It occurred during and after the Second World War in the nationalised industries and was introduced in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 under a Conservative government. It has been said that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in particular, gave money for trade unionism education. Therefore, there is no reason why this should not be pursued after seven years of a Labour government.
Of course there have to be conditions, and of course there cannot be a list of every possible thing on which this money is to be spent. However, several people have said—it is said again in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—that there should not be any money for political purposes. I think that is agreed. In fact, there is a clear provision in statute which states that the money for political purposes which trade unions give to the Labour Party—or perhaps to some other party; it is a matter for the union—must come out of a separate fund. If that is the case, it would be quite wrong—I should be surprised if the Government suggested it—if money from this fund could be transferred into a trade union political fund. If it was transferred into a trade union political fund, of course, it could not possibly be lawful for it to be used.
But some of the qualifications advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which are embodied in her amendments, give me cause for concern. I do not quite understand why Amendment No. 83 should apply only to paragraph (a)—in other words, the money should not be used for increasing the range of services unless it is limited to existing members—but all the other matters listed in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and so on are not limited to existing members. I do not see why paragraph (a) should be taken out and not the remainder.
Indeed, if one has a fund of this kind, I do not see why it is to be used only to assist and advance existing members. Like many organisations, trade unions have to grow if they are to remain the same size. The average union loses about 30 per cent of its membership a year. If it did not try to recruit and offer services to new members, it would get smaller and smaller in the same way as do banks, financial institutions and similar organisations, which have to advertise to gain new customers and new members or they continue to shrink. I do not see any reason for making a distinction of this kind.
Of course, there must be control. There must be limits, and we can argue about the limits in the regulations. However, Amendment No. 86, tabled by

GC197
the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, seems to go much too far. It says that there must be matching provision. It is, I suppose, a less immediate and precise imposition than saying that the union cannot have money, if it can be shown that the union is saving money. People sometimes say that we cannot give money to the unions because, whatever they are given, they just spend it in ways that they would have spent it anyway, thus saving their own money. Well, of course they do: that is what subsidies are about. That is what happens when we give money to the Royal Shakespeare Company: it puts on more shows. That is the whole idea. If we were to say, as people sometimes do, that the Royal Shakespeare Company could not do this or that unless it provided matching funds, it would not take the money, as it would not be much good to it.
We try to improve the functioning of an institution—any institution—that we think is worthwhile. We want such an institution to have more organisers and better offices, because we think that it is a worthwhile institution. If we say before we start that the institution cannot save money in doing so or must provide matching money, we defeat the whole idea. It makes no more sense to have Amendment No. 86, which relates to the unions, than it would to do something similar for all other institutions, including employers who get money from government.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies on behalf of the Government, I must respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She gave a list of all the excellent projects in which the union is involved and, undoubtedly, could use the money for. I was not giving such a list. In fact, I made a point of saying that I was not talking about all the things that the union could do. Rather, I was talking about the difficulties that I would have if the union were to do certain things.
The noble Baroness also said that there would be rules, a consultation document and regulations. It may be that that will clarify the position; I know not. I was making the point—I do not think that she answered it—that there were things for which the fund should not be used.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Clearly, he thinks that I have gone too far, but he also has a problem with the modernisation fund. No doubt he will explain that in a moment.
I have particular difficulty with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said. He talked about the objections that he had to a couple of things in my amendments. In particular, he said that he could see no reason why the modernisation fund should not be used for recruiting new members. I made it clear that there was no reason. I accept that unions are in the business of recruiting new members, but the point that I was making was that that should be a matter for the union, not for the taxpayers.
The noble Lord did not like Amendment No. 86 about the matching funds. He is entitled to that view. I was trying to give a reason for it by suggesting that
GC198
that would stop the fund being used for frivolous projects. The fact that the noble Lord did not like one aspect of the amendment does not mean that he dealt with all the reasons why I said that there could be problems. The only person who dealt with that point was the noble Baroness, who said that there would be regulations and that that might become clear.
Having said all that, I await with interest what the Minister will say on the matter, as no doubt everybody else does.
Lord Triesman: I shall direct the bulk of my remarks to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. Amendment No. 83, although it comes earlier in numerical sequence, is consequential on the main points of Amendment No. 85 and refers to new subsection (4)(a), proposed in Amendment No. 85.
In combination, the amendments would place a remarkable list of conditions and limitations on the use of the moneys that would be provided under the administration of the union modernisation fund that we wish to establish. The noble Baroness described it as a moderate list. I do not know whether numbers are a direct contrary indication but there are 20 restrictions that I have counted in the amendment and some of them are fairly forceful.
Perhaps I may set out, as briefly as I can, the background issues that I would ask noble Lords to consider. We are living in a world which changes rapidly. The world of work changes rapidly and we want an environment in which there are modern and efficient institutions. Among those I would hope that there would be a general consensus that trade unions should live in that modern world as modern and efficient institutions.
We do a good deal in this country—some may argue about whether it is enough—and invest in various forms of help and subsidy to ensure that businesses can behave in a modern and efficient way and take on the tasks of competition. That can be no bad thing on either side. From a philosophical point of view the idea that a very small element—against the backdrop of all the other kinds of subsidies that are available on the other side of industry it will turn out to be a very small amount of money—is somehow not to be used in one direction or another could be an unrealistic restriction.
I wholly agree with my noble friend Lady Turner about the issues in which unions now seek to engage; that is, issues on diversity, information technology, and the improvement of management and structure. Whilst that discussion was taking place—I am grateful for the debate—I thought of some of the things that unions have funded which have been exciting innovations, but I could not say, hand on heart, that they had never led to the recruitment of additional members.
I shall give one example which may help by way of illustration. Two major unions—I think I am right in recalling that it was USDAW and the GMB—put together a number of workshops in Manchester to teach information technology and came up with the innovation, because children were doing so much of

GC199
this work at schools, that it should be done with families, and that children should help to teach their parents.
The interesting thing about it, quite aside from getting people who might not otherwise have broken into the use of information technology to do so, was that it may well be the case that some of those parents felt moved to join the unions that had sponsored that. Those kind of things reflect a flexible and modern attitude to a modern work environment and we should welcome them.
I shall go through the fundamental points raised. The noble Baroness asks why we should help in the funding of ballots. The answer is that we may very well want to encourage innovative forms of balloting, including the use of e-balloting and other techniques which might increase the turnout in ballots making the results of whatever is being voted on that much more legitimate. These are all examples of trying to think our way into a modern environment and being responsive to it.
I shall return, in the next group of amendments, to the point about political funds because I do not think that it is helpful now to go through the whole of the argument. It is better to do it in one clean block. I remind noble Lords that this is enabling legislation. It is based on the enabling power contained in the Employment Relations Act 1999, which led to the establishment of the Partnership at Work Fund. It too was short and did not set out the detail of the fund, although I do not remember at that time anyone moving a set of restrictions about the use of the fund of the kind that we have seen today.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that there may he a genuine difference here as distinct from some of the issues across these tables. I believe, and say, that the Conservative Party has opposed this change root and branch at every stage. I cannot recall it being supported. It is possible that the party opposite does not want to see the money going to trade unions. I think that it may feel that that would empower trade unions and upset balances which it does not wish to see change in the direction in which these proposals may lead.
The amendments that we are discussing convince me that that is the ideological difference. It is fair enough for people to have ideological differences, but this is one such difference and we should not try to avoid the conclusion that is drawn. The amendments would shackle the fund. Perhaps I may give a few examples.
4.30 p.m.
According to Amendment No. 85, many things should not be supported either directly or indirectly. One is the recruitment and retention of members but, as mentioned by other noble Lords, recruitment is entirely central to what a union does. My noble friend Lord McCarthy made that point just a few moments ago. A similar example would be if a condition were placed on a business support scheme stating that businesses should not increase their sales turnover as an indirect result of having received assistance,
GC200
whereas of course the intention is to make businesses more successful. That is the point of the scheme. If we said that about a business, it would be regarded as absurd.
Any modernisation of a union is bound to have an impact on its ability to recruit. If a union has an efficient back-room operation or is aware of diversity issues of the kind mentioned by my noble friend Lady Turner, it is bound to be more attractive to potential members and better able to recruit them. The amendment provides a definition of "indirect support" at proposed new subsection (6), but that definition is very broad and I think that very few bids for support would ever pass such a test.
Amendment No. 86 would create a statutory rule requiring a 50 per cent matching of funding. We are discussing the idea of matching funding with stakeholders, and most recognise its advantages. It shows that the union is committed to a project and has a strong stake in it. It also provides scope for modest-sized funds to support more projects. However, it is far from certain that anyone would want to consent to a 50 per cent rigid formula. There could be strong advantages in varying the proportion from project to project, depending on the circumstances and objectives. That is the way in which the Partnership at Work Fund has operated.
Amendment No. 86 also proposes the setting of maximum amounts for any assisted projects. That would ensure that more projects could be funded. However, it is unclear why we need to prescribe a maximum in statute. It is also unclear why the figure of £100,000 has been selected. We certainly would not want to rule out the possibility of funding a large project if it met the selection criteria fairly. Indeed, large projects may have a greater chance of bringing about the transformational change that we seek.
The amendments refer to matters that one would expect to be addressed in most support schemes. We may adopt some of the ideas in the final design of the new fund following the consultation process, but there really is no need to set them down as hard and fast rules in primary legislation. Again, that would hobble the process and pre-empt the outcome of the detailed consultations, which are going very well.
We have had about a dozen meetings with interested parties, employers and professional bodies, as well as with unions, and we have identified with them a list of issues that we need to address in designing the fund. Those have been informal consultations. As we announced previously, we intend to publish a full consultation document this autumn which will set out the detailed rules of the fund in draft to which everyone can respond. It is likely that a further round of informal consultations will precede its publication. We shall be open and we shall take account of all opinions expressed before finalising the fund's rules.
As the noble Baroness will have anticipated, we cannot accept the amendment and I respectfully ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. Of course, he would

GC201
not expect me to do anything other than read very carefully in Hansard what he has just said. However, I want to make one or two points. I have already put on the record what I said—my notes will be handed in—so that noble Lords can read it.
The noble Lord said that, in any case, he is sure that the Conservatives do not want such a measure and so on. I said that we have severe reservations or inhibitions about it but would be reconciled provided there were certain safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned that there would be regulations and that those would be included. I think that the Minister repeated that. Obviously we shall see whether that is the case.
I would like to make one point. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on there being no reason why the provision should not be used to recruit people as it would happen automatically, the Minister gave the example of what happened in Manchester and said that he could think of several schemes where, as a result of education and money used in such a way, new members joined the union. I totally accept that, but that is different from what I said in the amendment. We are saying that the money should not be used to induce people to join the union. That is quite different from saying that, on a good scheme, in due course a parent working with a child might think joining quite a good idea. That would be the result of a training scheme, but it is not an inducement.
We need to get a lawyer to look into the meaning of "inducement", which I think goes further than the example given by the Minister. Taxpayers' money should not be used for normal activities. All the education programmes are fine; I have no objection to anything referred to by the noble Baroness and confirmed by the Minister. At this stage, obviously, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 84:
Page 47, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not provide money to a trade union under this section that is to be used for the furtherance of the political objects as set out in section 72 of this Act (political objects to which restriction applies)."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should apologise to the Committee for arriving slightly late, and also say that that was not because the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees and I took more than two hours to complete the mile for Comic Relief in which we participated at lunchtime. However, neither of us did it in under four minutes.
I did not want Amendment No. 84 to be grouped with Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86 for the reasons that I gave on those amendments, because I do not share all the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on the Bill. However, I expressed my concern at Second Reading. When a Labour government bring in such a measure, it behoves that government to make it absolutely clear—I suggest that they do so in the Bill—that the fund cannot be used directly or
GC202
indirectly for political purposes. The argument against me would be that the law as it stands probably prohibits that happening.
Having said that, I would have thought it important and a necessary protection for Her Majesty's Government in such circumstances to have, directly in the Bill, an absolutely categorical provision that demonstrates to all the anti-trade union commentators, newspapers and politicians that the accusation that there has been a political fix, as a way of subsidising trade unions, is not true. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the point.
The amendment is our go at drafting a provision, and it may not be as felicitous as it could he. However, the general point is absolutely clear. I hope that the Government will accept an amendment, in either this form or some other, that they can bring forward if they wish, that makes it absolutely clear in the Bill that the fund cannot be used for political purposes. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: It may surprise the noble Lord that I very largely agree with him. As he says, one can argue that the law exists already. The point is not simply to cite Section 72 of the consolidation Act, but Section 71, which states that there must be a fund and that a union cannot spend money unless it comes out of it. That fund is subject to all kinds of regulations. A very strong case could be made for saying that we are there now, so why do we need additional regulations or laws?
On the other hand, the noble Lord is right that people will say that the money is being spent on political objectives. In such a context you cannot really reply, "Let them say that". The difficulty with that is that unless you frame the words extremely carefully—and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says—we could get into a lot of litigation in which people might say that this, that, or the other thing is quasi-political, or that there is a political aspect. The Government would be very much criticised if as a result of that they created a whole series of cases in which people said that at the margin 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent of this grant was being spent in the wrong way. I look forward to hearing what the Government says, because this is a very real problem and it needs to be safeguarded in some way or other.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That was an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He will be surprised to know that in one respect he certainly agrees with me. There is no way that I do not agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. In fact, Amendment No. 84 is identical to subsection (4)(f) of Amendment No. 85: the wording is exactly the same. So it would be churlish of me not to get to my feet to support the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I simply do not think that he has gone far enough.
I certainly support the noble Lord. I am amazed that for once, and only once through several employment Bills, I find that I happen to be on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
Lord Triesman: It is always a particular delight to be present at epoch-making moments in history. I thank noble Lords for giving me that opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said in clear terms at Second Reading—and he has repeated his view here today—that he does not in principle oppose the use of public funds to support the modernisation of unions. He made a most effective intervention on that in our last debate, and I am grateful to him for that. He has put the case as well as I could, and I appreciate it.
Various concerns have been expressed that the Government have established the power in Clause 51 for party political purposes. Amendment No. 84 is a manifestation of that concern, not necessarily in this room but perhaps in the public eye. We have repeatedly explained that this is absolutely not the case. Let me repeat that assurance today. The moneys will not be used to inject money into the political funds for trades unions from which the Labour Party or other political parties could indirectly benefit.
At Second Reading I did my best to explain why that could not occur. The moneys will be paid in to general funds of unions, and the law explicitly prohibits payments from the general fund of a union into its political fund. Therefore, the moneys dispersed will be completely sealed from political contamination.
However, I note what the noble Lord has said, and indeed what noble Lords on all sides of this debate have said. He has made the case for us to put the issue beyond doubt into the Bill. In view of the repeated concerns expressed on that point, I can see the value in so doing. I think that it is good of him to assist us in looking after the good name of the Labour Government and the Labour Party. I appreciate that very much. I say that not at all frivolously. I accept that these issues of reputation are fundamental to the good name of political practice and political life in general.
I am not certain, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has said, whether the words exactly achieve the ends, but I do not want to make a particular point other than to say that it would place an onus on Ministers and those who administer the fund to judge whether moneys would be spent on political objects when individual bids for support are made. That could create difficulties. I give the assurance today that we will look again at this matter. We shall draw up an amendment of our own for your Lordships' consideration on Report, which will achieve exactly the same objective as Amendment No. 84. I can see strong support on all sides, which I welcome. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Razzall: I thank the Minister for what he has said. I should say for the record that the preservation of the reputation of the Labour Party was not my sole
GC204
motivation for bringing forward the amendment. However, in the light of what he said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
"UNOFFICIAL INDUSTRIAL ACTION
(1) Section 237 of the 1992 Act (dismissal of those taking part in unofficial industrial action) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The Secretary of State shall make appropriate arrangements for the provision of penalties to be incurred by an employee who takes part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial action when a member of a trade union.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall make appropriate arrangements for the provision of penalties to be incurred by a trade union when it is considered not to have acted in a manner appropriate to the discouragement of an unofficial strike or other unofficial action.
(2C) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate on the form penalties will take and shall publish the responses received pursuant to those consultations.""
The noble Lord said: My instinct tells me that I shall not receive the same support from the Government as I did on the previous amendment.
To some extent this is a probing amendment. However, it also seeks to make a substantial point. If we are to have another Employment Relations Bill—this is the third or fourth that we have had in recent years—we on these Benches believe that the opportunity should be taken to deal with the issue of unofficial strikes. Those of us who travel on the line from the Hammersmith tube depot to central London—or, indeed, who are reliant on certain areas of the Post Office—do not need to go too far to know that there are significant difficulties at the moment with unofficial strikes.
The purpose of the amendment is to make absolutely clear that penalties will be imposed on trade unions which are, unofficially but tacitly, encouraging unofficial strikes. I suspect that the Government position is that they do not want to get involved; that these are matters for the employers, who have perfectly sufficient remedies if they wish to get involved. However, when we are talking about quite significant areas of the public sector, I do not think that the Government can simply say that it is only a matter for the employers. They should take powers to provide for penalties being imposed on individuals and unions in such areas. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: The concordat is dissolved. What does the noble Lord mean by "penalties"? After all, the late Conservative government left us in a situation, embodied in the consolidation Act, in which there is no doubt at all that if workers go on strike without constitutional authority, without a ballot or without the support of their executive, they are acting unlawfully, wrongfully, and employers can if they wish dismiss them. That is quite clear.
It is also quite clear under the consolidation Act 1992 that, unless the unions, in a sense, disavow such workers and separate from them—unless in the end the unions take action against them—they, too, can be made liable. Indeed, in the past, in the Conservative government's period of office, they were. The miners' strike was all about that. So there are powers. By golly, the powers are there.
The reason why we do not read much about the use of the powers is that we have a very low level of strike activity—I know it does not feel like it if you travel on the London tube now and again—the lowest for a very long time. That strike activity, on the whole, is official. The one thing the Conservatives did with their legislation, their series of Acts, was to make trade unions responsible for the use of industrial action.
But if someone says, "We want to go further"—I think this is what the noble Lord is saying—they cannot be asking for more powers for employers because they already have powers that they do not use because they think it is counter-productive in terms of industrial relations. That is their right. So the powers must be there for the Government.
In that context, we come to the meaning of "penalties". Surely they are criminal penalties of some kind. They cannot be contractual penalties because no contractual issue is involved. The noble Lord must be saying that we should go back to the early 1970s and to the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Then, the government were given a whole range of criminal sanctions, which of course the Thatcher government were much too clever to get into. That must be what he is saying. I do not think that that would help or that the Government would do such a thing, but I want to know whether I have got the matter right.
Lord Razzall: I am perfectly happy to elucidate for the noble Lord. As I said at the beginning, this is a probing amendment. However, if one reads proposed new subsection (2C), the whole point is that the Secretary of State would consult all sides of industry and anyone appropriate, including the noble Lord, to decide what penalties were appropriate in what circumstances.
The purpose of the amendment is to flush out the Government's position on what is happening in certain sectors of industry. Of course I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that strikes in British industry, the public services and the public sector are at their lowest ever number. However, there are certain black spots which show no signs of getting any better, where there are significant allegations of trade unions being involved behind the scenes, or of encouraging or turning a—I was going to say a black eye; often the people who turn an eye in those disputes do get a black eye—blind eye to what is happening and tacitly encouraging it.
One purpose of the amendment is to obtain a clear statement of government policy. Are the Government saying that it has absolutely nothing to do with them when the people of London are disadvantaged by
GC206
unofficial strikes and where care is taken by the union to avoid overt actions? It is a perfectly understandable position but, if that is what they are saying, they should say so. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I believe that the Government should move further. At present, the two most prominent examples are to be found in certain branches of the Tube system in London and in the Post Office and the Royal Mail, where there are clearly significant problems of this nature. Do the Government propose to do anything about the issue or are they simply saying that the law as it stands is perfectly satisfactory?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: When the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, moved his amendment, he started by saying that his instinct was that the Government would not accept it. Although he did not say so, I suspect that he might have thought that my instinct was to welcome such a probing amendment in order to flush out the position. The truth is that the public are totally inconvenienced by these strikes in that kind of quasi public sector.
My only other comment has nothing to do with the amendment, but, as an aside, has to do with the language that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, used. He talked about the "late" Conservative government. In future, I should prefer it if the term "former" Conservative government were used. "Late", to me, means that someone has passed over. When we have just done so extraordinarily well in terms of the share of the vote in the three elections that have been held, I do not think that the word "late" is correct. The Conservative Party is alive and kicking.
Lord Triesman: I shall resist any temptation, difficult though it is.
Lord Razzall: Do not go there!
Lord Triesman: The amendment seeks to significantly tighten up the law governing unofficial industrial action. I believe that it could he based on what might be three flawed presumptions. The first is that unofficial action is widespread. I shall come back to any estimates we can make of the amount of unofficial action, but in 2003 the number of days lost during strikes was a shade under half a million, 499,000; whereas the days lost in industrial action in the 1980s on an annual basis were around 7 million days per year. So, we are not talking of a huge phenomenon.
The second presumption is that the existing law is weakened and does not deter such action. I want to address that specifically. The third presumption may be that each case, however rare or infrequent, is none the less very grave and causes disproportionate inconvenience. I think that I have heard that point around these tables. The problem there is that to legislate for everyone right across the whole of the trade union movement on that basis would be punitive and probably would not succeed.
On the first point, there is no evidence of an emerging problem that requires yet more controls and penalties to be introduced. Occasionally, it is true that

GC207
large or high-profile strikes do occur. That is part and parcel of living in an open and liberal democracy in which people have the right to do that. It is the nature of unofficial action that it is short lived and usually represents a spontaneous reaction by the workers concerned to an incident at work.
Official statistics do not distinguish between official and unofficial action. Therefore, it is right to say that there are no truly reliable figures on which the Government can rely in this area. However, because stoppages are at an all-time low, there is no indication that unofficial strike action has significantly risen.
Reference was made in the other place to research undertaken by Dr Gregor Gall of the University of Stirling, who is an authority on unofficial action. According to his estimates, unofficial action accounted for about a quarter of the days lost in 2003. That is certainly an increase over earlier years. However, the figures on days lost through unofficial action vary considerably from year to year and are dependent on the occurrence of a few larger strikes, which may distort the figures and make one year look particularly bad. Where such larger strikes do take place, they are normally of very short duration. It follows that although unofficial action remains a feature of our industrial relations, the data that Dr Gall produced do not suggest that it is a dominant or highly problematic feature.
On the second point, British industrial action law already contains powerful disincentives for those taking or contemplating unofficial action. For the individual concerned, there are no protections against dismissal. In practice, workers think very hard indeed about taking any form of industrial action in any case because a loss of wages always results, but in the case of unofficial action, the chances are that workers risk losing their livelihood.
Perhaps noble Lords feel that under the current arrangements unions can tacitly support unofficial action that their local officials may be encouraging. I believe that that is the burden of the point put today. I should point out that unions can also lose their immunities if that is the case. My noble friend Lord McCarthy made that point. Large penalties could then follow, of up to £250,000 depending on the number of members in the union. To avoid such very serious consequences, the union must—I put the word in quotes to emphasise it—"repudiate" the action as soon as reasonably practicable after it has come to its knowledge. In other words the union must take steps publicly to dissociate itself from the action. I say from experience that that is generally done with a good deal of energy because the size of the possible fines, much less the seizures of properties or sequestrations that can occur are a very powerful disincentive in those circumstances.
5 p.m.
The repudiation must be undertaken by the most senior figures in the union—that is, the executive, president or general secretary. It is therefore not a matter that can ever be delegated to a minor official
GC208
who carries no weight or authority among the membership. A written notice of the repudiation must be sent to the union committee or official concerned. Local lay representatives can be left in no doubt that they should not be instigating or supporting the action.
The union must give written notice of the fact and date of repudiation to every employer concerned, and do its best to give such a notice to every individual member of the union who could be involved. Many hundreds of letters—many thousands in some cases—would therefore be involved. The written notice of repudiation must contain a statutory warning which reminds the members that while taking unofficial action they have no right to complain of unfair dismissal. Individuals could not be unaware of the risks that they would be taking.
The overall effect of the provisions is that, if union officials have anything to do with the organisation of unofficial industrial action, the union would have a choice: it could let the action continue, in which case the organisation of that action will be the legal responsibility of the union—although, in practice, as it will not have been balloted, it will have been organised unlawfully—or, alternately, the union can repudiate it in the way I have described.
The steps needed to repudiate effectively are by no means trivial. Indeed, unions regularly complain that they regard them as very onerous. Moreover, the law requires the senior figures in the union, after repudiating the action, to behave in a way consistent with the repudiation; there is no shilly-shallying about that kind of operation, nor can there be. That stops the union repudiating the action one week and then acting to support it soon afterwards, or from one day to the next. It means that unions must continue taking action to ensure that their lay representatives do not organise or direct the unofficial action.
I hope that I have demonstrated that there are strong disincentives in the law against taking or organising unofficial action for both unions and individuals. The amendment would create two powers for the Secretary of State to "make appropriate arrangements" in relation to industrial action.
The first power, outlined in subsection (2A) in the amendment, relates to arrangements for the provision of penalties for union members if they take unofficial action. The second power, outlined in subsection (2B) in the amendment, relates to arrangements for the provision of penalties for a union "when it is considered" not to have acted in an "appropriate" manner to discourage unofficial action.
There are real problems in the wording. For example, it provides no legislative mechanism that would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, whereby the Secretary of State could make,
"appropriate arrangements for the provision of penalties".
The proposed penalties on unions could perversely create more unofficial action, inspired by factions within a union that wish to embarrass the leadership. One or two of the examples given in this Room could very well fall into that category on occasions. That

GC209
situation would come about if every action by any union member could lead to a penalty being imposed on the union itself. However, the truth is that the second power is also not necessary; the existing law already prevents unions giving surreptitious support to unofficial action.
We have no intention in the legislation to release unions from their obligations in that regard. I again want to make that completely clear. That is why the amendment is not necessary. From experience, I believe that it could be counterproductive. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Razzall: I shall obviously read what the Minister said with interest. In the mean time, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 52 to 55 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 50, line 26, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 88, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 89. We are back again with our old friend "sole or main", which we debated to some extent yesterday but in an entirely different context. Yesterday, we debated amendments to Clause 28 that would have removed the words "sole or main", and we tried—unsuccessfully—to persuade the Government to remove those words from the description of the employer's purpose and insert "the purpose". We did so with the support, as we saw it, of the Joint Committee. Even the Joint Committee's later report seemed to give some qualified support to our position, as it suggested that the inclusion of the words "sole or main" in Clause 28 should be kept under review. I think that there was some agreement on the part of the Government that it should be kept under review. So, it is surprising to find, in Schedule 1, that the Government are seeking to remove the words "the purpose" and substitute "sole or main". In other words, they are doing the reverse of what we wanted to do in Clause 28.
One of the reasons why we propose that neither paragraph 6 nor paragraph 7 should be included is that the sole reason for including them in the schedule is to replace the words "the purpose" with "the sole or main purpose". We do not know why that should be necessary with regard to Section 146 of the 1992 Act, which relates to action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities. The same goes for Section 148 of the 1992 Act, which relates to consideration of complaints. The Government's reason for including paragraph 7 in the schedule is to delete the words "the purpose" and substitute "the sole or main purpose". That is contrary to what the Joint Committee originally recommended with regard to Clause 28.
I cannot understand why it should be felt necessary to do that, and I would like the Minister to say whether there is any record of an incident or any history that has prompted the Government to remove the words "the purpose", with reference to the employer's purpose, and substitute "sole or main purpose". I beg to move.
Lord Triesman: When we considered Clause 28, we debated the "sole or main purpose" tests contained in the new rights not to be offered various types of inducement. In Schedule 1, the Bill introduces a similar test into the existing terms of Sections 146 and 148 of the 1992 Act, which both currently refer to the "purpose" of the employer's acts or failures to act. Those sections provide protection against detrimental treatment by the employer on the grounds of trade union membership or activities.
The changes in the schedule are designed to create a consistent set of provisions across trade union rights. Equally, I understand that my noble friends are consistent in their desire to oppose that approach, wherever it appears. Inevitably, similar issues arise in this and our earlier debate. I apologise in advance if I repeat points that were made then by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
As well as achieving consistency across those closely related provisions, our insertion of the "sole or main" test will bring helpful clarity to the law. The tribunals have to deal with situations where several purposes might have driven the employer's conduct. If that occurs, Sections 146 and 148 are unclear about the consequences because they are framed on the premise that there is only one purpose involved, rather than a number of purposes. It is highly likely that, in such cases, the tribunals would interpret the current wording as referring to the "sole or main" purpose, but the existing wording leaves the position open to at least some doubt. That is a potentially confusing situation that does not help any of the parties to enforce and respect trade union rights.
I think that the nub of my noble friends' concerns is their belief that the introduction of the "sole or main" test into the sections will diminish the existing protections that they provide. But, as I have argued, the extent of the existing protections is not as wide as they have argued. The "sole or main" test would probably be applied anyway, when a complicated case arose. Moreover, Clauses 28 to 30 will significantly extend the entitlements in Sections 146 and 148. The entitlements will apply to workers and not only to employees. They will cover detriment for using the union's services and they will apply without the limitation imposed by the Ullswater amendment.
Therefore, I cannot accept that we are taking a step backwards in the Bill. Our proposals significantly enhance the protections within Sections 146 and 148. In the light of those comments, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: There is not much point in keeping this discussion going but I think that we shall have to return to it. I should like the Government to use their

GC211
resources to provide one or two concrete examples of tribunals—I have never heard of any—where this has caused doubt, trouble and concern and where we have seen the poor tribunal members racking their brains about it. I do not think that it does that at all and it is up to the Government to provide some evidence for what they say.
I have no evidence to back up my side, as it were, but I believe that the existing wording would make it more likely that the case would go in favour of the workers. That is why we want to leave it as it is. But perhaps the Government could tell us whether the last 10 cases—I do not know how far back one would have to go—went in favour of the workers or in favour of the employers and whether any great difficulty arose.
I suppose that, en passant, we must also ask another question to which the Government might provide an answer. If they want to change the phrase, why do they not use the word "principal"? They have never explained to me why they have used this term of art—"sole or main"—which they got from nowhere. If they want to insert another phrase, why do they not use the word "principal"? They have said on certain occasions that "principal" is the same as "sole or main", but that makes the situation even more absurd. Therefore, if we are to return to this matter, perhaps the Government could do a little homework in the mean time.
Lord Triesman: I shall respond very briefly. I can see that the JCHR was worried that tribunals would find the "sole or main" test too difficult to apply because the question might be asked: are we asking tribunals to do the impossible in making fine distinctions between the main and subsidiary purposes of an employer? I would not for a moment pretend that it is an easy matter to decide.
However, I make the point that tribunals are expert and accustomed to assessing such issues when presented with the arguments put forward by each side. I say to my noble friend Lord McCarthy that when tribunals hear unfair dismissal cases, for example, they frequently assess the principal reason for a dismissal and they make similar fine judgments when applying the terms of existing Section 146. They try to deal with what they consider to be the critical facts rather than the side issues. I believe that that is a generality in the life of tribunals.
In asking my noble friend to withdraw the amendment, I am not suggesting any departure from that proposition. I shall certainly look across tribunal cases to see whether an argument has been submitted which I have not considered thoroughly enough. I do not think that that is the case, but I am always open to further improvement in my knowledge.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for those comments but I still do not believe that we have been given any evidence that the present wording in the two sections of the 1992 Act has caused any problems. That point was raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. Therefore, we can see no reason for utilising that legislation to change the wording to comply with the Employment Relations Bill. There
GC212
does not seem to be any connection at all. I am very much afraid that we feel that the existing protection under the 1992 Act could be undermined by the use of the wording "sole or main". As we have indicated throughout the discussion on that wording, the Joint Committee has itself expressed some concerns about it and has expressed the desire that it should be kept under review. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 52, line 39, leave out "after "paragraph" insert "19F(5),"." and insert "for "22(2), 27(2)" substitute "19F(5), 22(2), 27(2), 27D(2) or (3),"."
The noble Lord said: We have already debated Amendments Nos. 90 to 97. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendments Nos. 91 to 96:
Page 52, line 41, leave out "after "paragraph" insert "19F(5),"." and insert "for "22(2), 27(2)" substitute "I9F(5), 22(2), 27(2), 27D(2) or (3),"."
Page 53, line 22, leave out "after "paragraph" insert "19F(5) or"." and insert "for "22(2)" substitute "19F(5), 22(2). 27(2), 27D(2),"."
Page 53, leave out line 25 and insert "for "22(2)" substitute "19F(5), 22(2), 27(2), 27D(2),"."
Page 53, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 133(2) (ballot on de-recognition under Part 5 of that Schedule)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "reference in paragraph 119(2)(a)" substitute "references in paragraphs 119(2)(a) and 119D(3)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for reference in paragraph 121(4)" substitute "references in paragraphs 119E(1)(b) and 121(4)".

( ) In paragraph 147(2) (ballot on de-recognition under Part 6 of that Schedule)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "reference in paragraph 119(3)(a)" substitute "references in paragraphs 119(3)(a) and 119H(1)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for "reference in paragraph 121(4)" substitute "references in paragraphs 119E(1)(b) and 121(4)"."

Page 54, line 10, leave out paragraph 29.
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
"31A (1) Section 191 of that Act (application to the Crown) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), omit the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d) and after that paragraph insert—
"(da) the reference in section 98B(2)(a) to the employer's undertaking shall be construed as a reference to the national interest, and".
(3) In that subsection, in paragraph (e), for -references", where it first occurs, substitute "any other reference".
31B In subsection (2) of section 192 of that Act (provisions applicable to service as a member of the armed forces on the commencement of that section)—

(a) in paragraph (aa), after "sections", where it first occurs, insert "43M,?; and

(b) in paragraph (e), after "sections" insert "98B(2) and (3),".

31C (1) Section 194 of that Act (provisions of the Act which have effect in relation to employment as a member of the staff of the House of Lords) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), in paragraph (c), after "sections", where it first occurs, insert "43M,".
(3) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) For the purposes of the application of section 98B(2) in relation to a relevant member of the House of Lords staff, the reference to the employer's undertaking shall be construed as a reference to the national interest or, if the case so requires, the interests of the House of Lords."
(4) In subsection (3) for "the provisions" substitute "the other provisions".
31D (1) Section 195 of that Act (provisions of the Act which have effect in relation to employment as a member of the staff of the House of Commons) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), in paragraph (c), after "sections", where it first occurs, insert "43M,".
(3) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) For the purposes of the application of section 98B(2) in relation to a relevant member of the House of Commons staff, the reference to the employer's undertaking shall be construed as a reference to the national interest or, if the case so requires, the interests of the House of Commons."
(4) In subsection (3)(d), after "undertaking" insert "(other than in section 98B)".
31E In section 200 of that Act (application of certain provisions of the Act to police officers), in subsection (1), after "sections", in the second place where it occurs, insert "43M,".
31F (1) Section 202 of that Act (restrictions on disclosure of information: national security) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b), after "sections", where it first occurs, insert "43M,".
(3) In subsection (2)(g)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after "section", where it first occurs, insert "98B,"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "(2)," substitute "(2A),"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Triesmanmoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 56, line 14, column 2, at end insert—

"In section 191, the word "and"

at the end of subsection (4)(d)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Committee adjourned at sixteen minutes past five o'clock.

  Rwanda: Rape Victims
  Rwanda: Rape Victims
  Sex Offences: Consultation
  Sex Offences: Consultation
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  Africa: HIV/AIDS
  Africa: HIV/AIDS
  Sudan: Debt Relief
  Sudan: Debt Relief
  Edinburgh Military Tattoo
  Edinburgh Military Tattoo
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Road Bridge Expansion Joints
  Road Bridge Expansion Joints
  Deafblind People
  Deafblind People
  Orchards
  Orchards

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I announced on 19 November (Official Report, vol 413, cols. 39–40WS) that the Ministry of Defence would not seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Mrs Hulme and the Pensions Ombudsman v the MoD. I also announced that, as appropriate, the department would review previous decisions on entitlement to pensions where death in service or injury that resulted in invaliding was due to service and where Armed Forces Pension Scheme administrators have previously not accepted War Pension Scheme decisions on attributability; that awards would be backdated; and that the department would consider compensation to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of pensions over the period of non-payment.

  I can now advise the House that those pensioners, widows, widowers or their estates who will receive backdated pension benefits as a result of this judgment will also receive interest on those payments. Where the error occurred within the last six years, the interest will be based on the scheme's usual formula of simple interest. Where the error occurred beyond six years, interest will be based on a formula using the rate of RPI plus 2 per cent compounded. This is consistent with the formula used in compensating those who were affected by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme tax and related pension errors, which I announced to the House on 15 December 2003.

  Work has begun on identifying the cases involved and we hope that back payments and interest will be paid within one year to those who were affected.

  Defence Estates Corporate Plan: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As detailed in the Defence Estates corporate plan 2004–09, the following key targets have been set for the agency for 2004–05.

  Key Target 1: To improve the condition of the defence estate for fitness for purpose and condition by:

  Delivering 1,640 single living accommodation grade 1 bedspaces under Project SLAM, and reporting on the provision of 4,307 bedspaces delivered under parallel projects, and improving service families' accommodation by delivering 500 upgraded properties.
  WS 30
  Ensuring that at least 70 per cent of MoD sites of special scientific interest in the UK meet the criteria for satisfactory condition.

  Key Target 2: To provide an estate of the right size, by increasing the number of personnel on core sites by 4 per cent by 31 March 2005, producing business cases to support the MoD estate rationalisation plan by December 2004, and by achieving accrued estates disposal receipts of £661 million from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008, including £126 million from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.

  Key Target 3: To improve customer satisfaction and service delivery, by decreasing customer dissatisfaction with service families' accommodation by a percentage point by 31 March 2005, compared to the outcome as at 31 March 2004.

  Key Target 4: To implement key 2004–05 milestones for MoD estates change initiatives by achieving the contract award for the housing prime contract by 31 July 2004 and the regional prime contract (southeast) by 30 November 2004.

  Key Target 5: To produce the necessary strategies and to establish target baselines in support of the Defra sustainable development in government requirements.

  Key Target 6: To integrate baseline information to inform the methodology for demonstrating value for money efficiencies from prime contracting, and to reduce the management margin of vacant housing to 10.7 per cent by 31 March 2005.

  I am placing a copy of the new Defence Estates corporate plan in the Library of the House.

  Met Office: Key Performance Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The chief executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the Armed Forces, government departments and local authorities, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the general public. The Met Office also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate.

  Over the past 12 months the Met Office completed the challenging relocation of its headquarters and operations centre from Bracknell to Exeter. It was one of the biggest moves of IT capability undertaken in Europe, with no interruption in output or customer service. Some 1,000 staff transferred to Exeter in a project that was completed on time, to budget and against quality standards set. The move to new premises supports new ways of working and an advanced technology and IT infrastructure, which will result in increased resilience and data reliability for the Met Office's customers.
  WS 31
  To reflect the established strategy of investment and growth, the Met Office has adopted a new target relating to growth. A new target has also been included to ensure that the Met Office is prepared for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 1 January 2005.

  Previously the Met Office has had a target set against commercial contribution. This has become less relevant given that there is no longer a clear distinction between commercial work and public sector work. This target has therefore been discontinued.

  Key Target 1: To achieve an increase in value for the numerical weather prediction index (measuring forecasting skill) of at least 1.4 by 31 March 2005, from the level achieved at 31 March 2004.

  Key target 2: To deliver an operating profit before strategic investments of at least £15.5 million in the financial year 2004–05, while making strategic investments of between £5.8 million and £6.8 million.

  Key target 3: To achieve a return on capital employed of at least 3.5 per cent in the financial year 2004–05.

  Key target 4: To achieve direct services growth in both government and non-government revenue of at least 4.1 per cent in the financial year 2004–05 from the 2003–04 baseline, while maintaining direct services operating profit.
  WS 32
  Key target 5: To have in place, by 31 December 2004, basic procedures to answer requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to review by 31 March 2005 the initial operation of the procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

  Key target 6: To develop, by March 2005, an efficiency measure which demonstrates the continuous improvement in value for money of the National Met Service (including the Public Met Service and relevant parts of the National Met Programme).

  Aberthaw Power Station: Desulphurisation Plant
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Statement.

  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to RWE Innogy plc for the construction of flue gas desulphurisation plant at the 1,500 MW coal-fired power station at Aberthaw in the Vale of Glamorgan. Planning permission for the plant has also been deemed to be granted, subject to 29 planning conditions agreed with the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.