Sitting of 26 May 2004

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

Speaker's Statement
11.34 am
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Clerk to read the private business, I wish to make a brief statement about security. My statement follows a meeting of the House of Commons Commission yesterday, and advice from the joint committee on security, which met on Monday.
In relation to the Chamber, I have suspended the right of Members to sponsor guests to the Special Galleries. This restriction will remain in force until further notice. Only people personally invited by me will be able to access the Special Galleries. Peers will have access to their usual section in the Gallery. I have instructed the secretary of the Press Gallery that only those who hold press passes are, for the time being, allowed into the Press Gallery.
Prior to last week's incident, the police and security services had embarked on a thorough review of security in the parliamentary estate. They will produce an interim report with recommendations covering matters of immediate concern as soon as possible. Those recommendations will be considered as soon as they are received and any measures which need to be taken will, in the first instance, be announced to the House.
I realise that the restrictions on access to the Galleries will cause inconvenience for some Members and for others, but I am sure that the House will appreciate that it is in the interests of all who work in this building that the lessons of last week's incident are learned and acted upon.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
IPSWICH MARKET BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Political Donations
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What his proposals are for the registration of donations made to political parties operating in Northern Ireland. [174921]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): I announced on 6 May that the Government were minded to let the current order exempting the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 expire in February next year. Part IV regulates donations to parties so that foreign and anonymous donations are prohibited. The Government are aware of the reasonable demand in many quarters for greater transparency and accountability. I have invited views from all interested parties on what new arrangements might be made.
    Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are not opposed to the four Sinn Fein non-Members having facilities in the House, but expect them to be around occasionally so that they can be nobbled and so that alternative positions can be put to them?
    My right hon. Friend's financial approach is important. What arrangements are being made with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that massive donations to Sinn Fein from Canada, America, New Zealand and Australia are prevented in both jurisdictions?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will know that since the original disapplication the situation in the Republic has changed, and greater restrictions have already been imposed. He will also know that in the United States contributions from foreign nationals have been prohibited for more than 30 years. That includes Governments, companies and individuals.
    It is for those who wish to have a unique position in Northern Ireland to make the case. We recognise that there are some special circumstances, but given the law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic—and, as I have said, in other countries, notably the United States—those who want the current exemptions to continue must try to make that case.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We welcome the Government's move to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this regard, but is there not a greater problem—the substantial funding that one political party, Sinn Fein-IRA, receives from the criminal activities of its paramilitary wing? I recently met the Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell. He said that the IRA, through its criminal activities, was raising between £10 million and £20 million a year, much of which was channelled into Sinn Fein's political activities. Is that not where action is needed, to end that criminal activity and the funding of Sinn Fein through its criminality?
    Mr. Spellar: Of course, the first aspect is to prevent the criminal activity in the first place, rather than the application of the funds. As I said in my previous answer, there are strong arguments for greater transparency in funding. Candidates and parties have to file election returns, which can be open to challenge and investigation. There are several avenues; this is just one of them. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this is part of an approach to dealing with criminality by paramilitary groups not just in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic of Ireland, too.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: In view of that last reply and the fact that the Government

    1551
    believe, as confirmed by the Independent Monitoring Commission, that certain political parties and paramilitaries are one and the same thing—IRA-Sinn Fein, the Loyalist Volunteer Force-Progressive Unionist party—will the Minister explain how he is going to monitor the funding arising from paramilitary activities to the particular political wing of the organisation? How can that be done? Will he set in train any further legislative requirements to pursue that—either through statute or by criminal investigation?
    Mr. Spellar: I certainly look forward to seeing the responses from all political parties to my proposals on political funding and the expiry of the current regulations in February next year. I am also minded that there are special circumstances—the hon. Gentleman will be aware of them—involving the intimidation of donors in Northern Ireland, and I recognise the particular relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the special relationship that citizens of the Republic of Ireland have on the electoral register of the UK more widely. I am aware of the difficulties, but, equally, I am strongly persuaded of the desirability of having the greatest possible amount of transparency in order that the undesirable activities that the hon. Gentleman identified can be exposed and, hopefully, prevented.
    David Burnside: I welcome the Minister's response. Anything that brings greater uniformity across the UK on the registration of political funding is, I believe, to be welcomed. However, the important point is about the sourcing of the political funding of political parties. The Minister will realise that many courageous journalists in newspapers such as the Sunday World and the Irish Independent have made serious allegations about the sources of funding of Sinn Fein. Can the Minister be more specific and give the House a commitment that he will speak to the Chief Constable and the chairman of the Electoral Commission to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission investigate the criminal funding of what should be normal democratic activity in Northern Ireland, which Sinn Fein does not carry out?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My point earlier—in response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—was that the initial criminality and its gains are the first matter of concern for the PSNI and, indeed, for the authorities in the Irish Republic. Co-operation between those forces against the criminal activities of all the paramilitary groups, which are extorting considerable sums of money from the people of Northern Ireland, is crucial. At the same time, we are looking into taking further measures under electoral funding regulations in order to prevent that money from being diverted into political activity.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned the Independent Monitoring Commission and the fines that some political parties had to pay. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland are concerned that the precedent established by the IMC
    1552
    might be extended to them, particularly in areas where they are seeking to bring people in, rather than being associated with paramilitary activities? They are worried about losing their funding and jeopardising the good work that they are doing. There is a real fear of a return to the Hurd sanction of political vetting.
    Mr. Spellar: I fully understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, and I should be more than happy to examine any specific instances of which he may be aware. We want to enable people who have been involved in paramilitary activity, but who have seen the error of their ways, to play a constructive part in the development of peace and reconciliation. However, we intend to come down very heavily on people who continue to undertake paramilitary activity, to live off their fellow citizens in Northern Ireland and to destabilise the situation.

    Electoral Register
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on the state of the electoral register in Northern Ireland. [174922]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): The current electoral register for Northern Ireland published on 4 May contains the names of 1,076,940 individuals.
    Mr. Swire: All hon. Members will have welcomed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, to which Her Majesty's Opposition provided much good input, both here and in the other place. By December 2002, 10 per cent. fewer people were entitled to vote in Northern Ireland. We have just heard how the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland is to be brought into line with the rest of the UK, but is there not something to be said for bringing the rest of the UK into line with Northern Ireland in respect of the amount of evidence needed for registration of voters? In that way, we could achieve unanimity, here and in Northern Ireland, on the ability and entitlement to vote.
    Mr. Spellar: With the greatest respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I think that that question ought to be addressed to my colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Surely my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that there are 20,000 fewer people on the electoral register this year than there were last year, and that there are major discrepancies between the Northern Ireland census and the electoral register. Is not it time for us to review the legislation, given that we want more people to vote, not fewer? Should we not try to encourage voters to return?
    Mr. Spellar: There are a number of reasons for the change identified by my hon. Friend, and one is the end of carrying forward, which obviously has had an impact. In addition, members of the police and prison services are reluctant to register, as parties with links to paramilitaries have access to the full register. However, I fully acknowledge that that is not the whole story. For

    1553
    example, studies of the demographics show that under-registration is more common in working-class areas. Along with electoral registration officers and officials in my Department, I am considering what measures can be taken to ensure that the register—which is probably the most accurate that we have ever had in Northern Ireland—is as comprehensive as possible. We want every citizen in Northern Ireland to be able to vote and to exercise the franchise, on 10 June and in other elections.
    Lembit Öpik: The Electoral Commission published a very authoritative report on the Northern Ireland elections last year, and it included some recommendations. What plans do the Government have to implement those recommendations and the observations made in the report about the electoral register?
    Mr. Spellar: I am examining all the representations made to me about the electoral register and voting practice, but the need for an identification card at polling stations is becoming more widely understood by people and political parties, as is the need to register. We need to keep the electoral register honest and up-to-date but, as I said in reply to the previous questioner, I am concerned that we try to use a number of mechanisms to make it more comprehensive.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: In ensuring—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There should not be all this conversation going on. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman, who is asking a question.
    Mr. Dodds: In ensuring that those people who are properly entitled to vote in Northern Ireland are able to do so, will the Minister tell the House in more detail what he is doing to promote the take-up of the electoral identity card, especially in working-class areas, where people may lack other photo ID that would enable them to vote on election day?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has provided various facilities. I fully accept that the system could be improved, and we are more than willing to receive recommendations and suggestions in respect of weaknesses and possible improvements. As I said earlier, we want to ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are registered in their proper locations.
    We want to facilitate voting by those on the register, including people with disabilities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are undertaking work in that area. We also want to ensure that the person who turns up at the polling station to vote is the individual who is registered. I am sure that hon. Members understand the need for that degree of accuracy. Considerable improvements have been made, but that does not mean that we cannot make further changes that will lead to further improvements.

    Soccer
    David Taylor: What discussions he has held with the Irish Football Association regarding the implementation of a soccer strategy. [174923]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): There have been ongoing discussions with the Irish Football Association—the IFA—at official level, leading up to the association's decision on 6 April 2004 to proceed with the implementation of the changes required under the soccer strategy. I met with the president of the IFA immediately following that decision, on 7 April, and discussions have continued since with officials, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the association. Terms of reference and membership of the soccer strategy implementation group have been agreed and the group, which includes representatives of the IFA, held its first meeting on 24 May.
    David Taylor: Football has the power to forge links between divided communities and to combat the poison of the sectarian bigotry that led to the premature end of the International career of Neil Lennon, the former Leicester and now Celtic midfielder. Only last week, death threats were painted in the area around his home in Glasgow. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how much of the welcome £8 million that the IFA has dedicated to football in Northern Ireland will be used to develop the skills of all young players there and, in particular, encourage them always to play the game and never to play the man?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Angela Smith: My hon. Friend can tell from the response from the House that we all entirely agree with his comments. I wish to put it on the record that I totally and utterly condemn the attacks on Neil Lennon, both in Northern Ireland and in Glasgow. In fact, Northern Ireland has been deprived of a talented international player. Sport has the power and the capacity to bring people together. The IFA has an officer dealing with sectarian issues, Michael Boyd, and it will bring forward proposals on youth development work that will address the situation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that Windsor Park is in my constituency. Will she give an undertaking that the necessary finance will be forthcoming to upgrade the ground for the European matches, which will include games against Austria, Azerbaijan and Poland—not forgetting England and Wales—to meet the regulation standards? Will she also join me in congratulating the IFA and other sporting bodies in Northern Ireland that have campaigned to root out sectarianism in sport?
    Angela Smith: I have had no official approach from Windsor Park to contribute to upgrading the facilities, but I hope that international games will continue to be played there. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the proposals for the infrastructure of sport in Northern

    1555
    Ireland and, if a site can be agreed, a multi-sport stadium. I congratulate any sport that takes action to root out sectarianism.

    School Exchanges
    Chris Ruane: If he will give financial assistance to the development of exchange programmes between schools in Northern Ireland and (a)the UK mainland and (b)the Irish Republic. [174924]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): This year, my Department has provided financial assistance of £275,000 for a number of exchange programmes with schools in both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the teachers who have organised those exchanges. Both teachers and pupils have found the programmes to be of enormous benefit to the learning experience and my Department is currently exploring ways of extending exchange opportunities with both Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
    Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Last year in my constituency, Mr. Alun Jones, the head of Ysgol Dewi Sant—a Welsh-medium school—tried to organise an exchange with a Gaelic-speaking school in the north. He asked me if I could access funding, but try as I might, I could find no funding for that visit. Does my hon. Friend agree that school exchange visits are a valuable way of breaking down barriers and prejudice, and that funds should be made available for school exchange visits between the north and the UK mainland?
    Mr. Gardiner: I entirely endorse those remarks. Language is important—tábnactach ĺ an teanga. It is good that those schools have had the opportunity to make that exchange.
    When it was inaugurated, the east-west programme involved just Britain and the Republic of Ireland, but it has been extended to allow exchanges between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic and Northern Ireland. Although it is in its infancy, increasing money is being put into that, which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to access.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will not the exchanges with the mainland reveal to pupils' parents a shocking disparity of treatment? If the status of a selective school is to change on the mainland, there will be a ballot. In the Province, it is being done by ministerial fiat, in the face of the express wishes of the people.
    Mr. Gardiner: This was supposed to be a question about education exchanges. The hon. Gentleman has given us an education in an exchange of questions. However, on the issue of the Costello report, it is the express wish of two thirds of the population in Northern Ireland, as estimated in the household survey, that the 11-plus should be abolished, and that is what we propose to do.

    Devolved Government
    Mr Andrew Mackay: If he will make a statement on the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [174925]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): We hope to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. That requires a complete end to paramilitary activity and a commitment on all sides to the future stability of the institutions, and we are working towards that goal. Formal activity in the review of the operation of the agreement is now on hold for the European election period, but it will resume after 10 June, and we hope then to engage in a period of more intensive political dialogue.
    Mr. Mackay: Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, wrote in the Sunday Independent last week that
    "the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA … is a relationship of complete subservience, ideologically and factually.
    There cannot be any question of the restoration of the Good Friday Agreement institutions on the basis that one party exercising executive power will take political direction from a group of people who are actively directing paramilitarism."
    Does the Secretary of State agree?
    Mr. Murphy: We have always said that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked and are part of the same republican movement. That is most certainly the case. We also believe that we will not resolve these difficulties until the question of paramilitary activity, in this case by the IRA, is dealt with, too. Until that is dealt with, I cannot see the restoration of the institutions.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is not it a bitter irony that those who conceived, wrote, negotiated and set up the Good Friday agreement are no longer central to the negotiations and therefore cannot ensure that the institutions are set up? In those circumstances, the two Governments have to be the custodians of the Good Friday agreement. Can the Secretary of State tell me what plans the two Governments have to ensure that Sinn Fein does not milk the Good Friday agreement for its own party political and paramilitary reasons, and that the Democratic Unionist party does not strangle the Good Friday agreement after sucking every ounce of power and influence from it?
    Mr. Murphy: I hope that all parties in Northern Ireland will address the issue of restoring the institutions after the European elections, and I believe that all parties are serious in wanting to see the restoration of devolution, but I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
    Mr. David Trimble: It is now six months since the election to the non-existent Northern Ireland Assembly. Does the Secretary of State agree that it has been six months of failure—failure by republicans to end paramilitarism, and failure by the DUP to develop a coherent policy or to achieve progress? Is not

    1557
    it now time for the Government to bring matters to a head, get the parties to put up, or else shut down on the pretence that devolution is now possible?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has been a disappointing six months—of course it has. We have not restored the institutions and we want that to happen but, as I said in my previous answer, I believe that every party in Northern Ireland wants to see that restoration. I repeat, too, that after the European elections we will resume intensive negotiations with the aim of setting up those institutions.
    Mr. David Lidington: I think that the Secretary of State and I agree that the current arrangements for considering Northern Ireland legislation through Orders in Council are profoundly unsatisfactory. Does he accept that the logic of the Government's position and the logic of the Dublin Government's position is that we should now proceed on the basis that constitutional politicians from both Unionist and nationalist traditions should be able to form an Administration in Belfast and that they should not all be punished by the continuing refusal of Sinn Fein-IRA to withdraw from paramilitarism?
    Mr. Murphy: But we have two aims—one is obviously to ensure that we restore the institutions and get devolved government back in Northern Ireland, and the second is to see an end to paramilitary activity. We shall expend all our attention in both those directions.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Lembit Öpik: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Lembit Öpik: The Prime Minister will know that the parents of the four recruits who died at Deepcut army barracks are angry about the resistance to holding an independent public inquiry, even though the deputy chief constable of Surrey police, Bob Quick, has said that the issues require further independent scrutiny. Although only a public inquiry can properly address the systemic issues, I ask the Prime Minister to assure me that if the parents ask the Attorney-General to reopen the inquests the Ministry of Defence will not object and that the Ministry and Surrey police will be instructed to co-operate fully.
    The Prime Minister: May I, first, again offer my condolences to the families of the soldiers who died? The families can, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, apply to the Attorney-General for authority to ask the High Court to order fresh inquests into the deaths. I assure
    1558
    him that we will co-operate fully should such an order be made. There has been a very detailed police investigation of the deaths, with about 900 witnesses being interviewed and 1,500 statements taken over 15 months, and we are grateful to the chief constable of Surrey police for his report. Whatever happens, it is important that we learn the lessons from this and take action now in areas where improvements are needed.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am very pleased to see that there are policy differences on Iraq between my right hon. Friend and President Bush. Will he tell President Bush that it is important that the interim Government in Iraq have as high a status as possible, but that that will be much less likely if the multinational force remains under US command?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend so early in Prime Minister's questions, but I have to say that we are absolutely agreed that full sovereignty should be transferred to the Iraqi people and that the multinational force should remain under American command, which is natural as they have the vast bulk of the soldiers.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Prime Minister said yesterday that while operational control of our troops in Iraq after 30 June must remain with British commanders, final political control over their deployment will be a matter for the Iraqi Government. I make it clear that I support that view, which is entirely consistent with the need for the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June to be real and not cosmetic.
    The Prime Minister also said yesterday that no decision had been taken about increasing the number of British troops in Iraq and that the matter is kept under constant review. What factors will inform that decision, and what would need to change for additional troops to be deployed?
    The Prime Minister: The factors that influence the decision are the need to ensure that our objectives in Iraq are properly secured, so it is a question of whether any additional troops, or different deployments of troops, would help to secure the objective of a stable and secure Iraq, where there is sufficient security that the political process can work. In the light of some of the comments overnight. I say that there is no doubt at all that the new Iraqi Government must have full sovereignty, that the multinational force remains by consent and that ultimate strategic and political decision making pass to the Iraqi Government after 30 June. Of course, once strategic decisions have been made, the running of any operation will be under the multinational force and its commanders, and there is no question, not merely of US troops, but of UK troops not being able to protect themselves, of their lives being put at risk or of their being under anything other than US and UK command.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the force of those comments. For almost a month, British troops have been preparing to leave for Iraq within weeks. It was reported this week that various options were drawn up at a meeting of the armed forces chiefs last week, which

    1559
    are expected to be presented to the Cabinet tomorrow. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would not be acceptable to announce the sending of more troops to Iraq during the parliamentary recess, which begins on Friday?
    The Prime Minister: I am absolutely sure that Parliament should be kept fully informed of any announcement of additional troops. The reason no decisions have yet been taken is that we are looking at all the strategic options available to us and at the requirements on the ground, but as soon as that is clear we will, of course, inform Parliament.
    Kate Hoey: Would the Prime Minister like to give a formal welcome to the visit of the Dalai Lama this week? Given that he has known for some six months that the Dalai Lama is visiting, is he really telling us that he could not find half an hour in his timetable next week to meet the Dalai Lama? Is that because he has been told not to do so by the Chinese?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not. I have met the Dalai Lama on previous occasions, and I will be very happy to meet him again on subsequent occasions. Tibet is a matter of concern not just to Labour Members but to Members on both sides of the House. We raise the issue constantly with the Chinese, most recently on the visit of Premier Wen, when we had a significant and long discussion on Tibet.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following the exchanges of a few moments ago, when I asked the Prime Minister last week whether the transfer of full sovereignty in Iraq would mean that the new Government there would have control over their prisons, the Prime Minister replied:
    "The answer to that is yes. The new Iraqi Government must have full sovereignty after 30 June. That will give them the rights that all sovereign Governments have."—[Official Report, 19 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 972.]
    However, just over an hour ago, I received a faxed letter from the Prime Minister's office, in which he goes on to say:
    "The exact division of responsibilities for prisons and detainees policy is one of the issues we will need to discuss in detail with the interim Government, once announced, as part of the wider discussions about the mandate of the multinational force."
    Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, in the light of that recently received clarification, he is now stepping back from the categorical assurance that he gave last week?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am not stepping back from it at all. After the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June, the ultimate decision about whose control the prisons remain under has to be a matter for the Iraqi Government. All that I explain to the right hon. Gentleman in the letter is that until the Iraqis have the capability—for example, sufficient trained prison officers—there may well be a division of responsibilities between the multinational force and the Iraqis, but the ultimate political decision making and control will rest with the sovereign Iraqi Government. I hope that that is clear.
    Mr. Kennedy: But does not the shift in clarification on so many issues from one week to the next show what has
    1560
    bedevilled the entire situation? What, for example, would the Prime Minister say in response to General Zinni, who was President Bush's special envoy to the area in the build-up to the war, because he has said that the preparations were characterised by
    "false rationales presented as justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; and the unnecessary distraction from the real threats"?
    Has not this entire sorry episode, before and after, been characterised by inadequacy at the political top?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is that those people who are against the conflict remain against the conflict. In relation to the issue of sovereignty, let me make one thing clear to the right hon. Gentleman: there is a difference between sovereignty being transferred to the Iraqi Government—that should be full and undiminished sovereignty—and the practical necessity that multinational forces will have to remain to support the new Iraqi Government. That will mean—in relation to operations or, for example, the running of the prisons—that there will have to be a division of responsibility, but the point is that, after 30 June, the forces remain there with the consent of the Iraqi Government and not otherwise. I would have thought that that is clear.
    As for the aftermath of the war in Iraq, there will, of course, be people who carry on making criticisms of the war. I simply say that the right hon. Gentleman must accept that his position is such that if we had done what he had wanted us to do, Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. I have to face up to the consequences of the decision that I took but, with respect, he has to face up to the consequences of the position that he took.
    Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservatives have threatened to reintroduce the poll tax. Those of us who were in local government when the poll tax was introduced will not only recall the cuts that accompanied it, but its intrinsic unfairness, particularly to low-income households and the elderly. Will he confirm that this Government will relish the battle against the Conservatives in the current elections, with the Conservatives having resurrected the spectre of the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not introduce anything as damaging as the poll tax, which was once described by the Leader of the Opposition as right and fair. Neither will we reintroduce 3 million unemployed and underinvestment in our national health service.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The CBI says that the temporary workers directive would cost Britain 160,000 jobs, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that it is a litmus test of Europe's commitment to economic reform. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in condemning Labour Members of the European Parliament, who rejected his advice and voted in favour of it in the European Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we believe that changes to the directive are necessary. That

    1561
    is precisely what we are trying to secure, and I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since this Government joined the social chapter—which he said would cause the loss of 1 million jobs in the UK—employment has actually increased by 2 million.
    Mr. Howard: I am not surprised that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about his Members of the European Parliament. His Government have estimated that extending the working time directive would cost British business at least £9 billion, but his Members of the European Parliament have rejected his advice on that as well. They voted in favour of extending it. Will he join me in condemning the voting of his Labour Members of the European Parliament on that issue?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear, as I said a moment ago, why we believe that changes are necessary to the working time directive. However, let me just point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is this Government who have managed to increase employment in British industry, and it is not this Government who put 17 per cent. interest rates on British industry. That is why this Government continue to operate in the interests of the economy and jobs.
    Mr. Howard: All the questions were about Labour Members of the European Parliament, and we have not had any answers to them. Is it not true that the Government have given up completely on their Members of the European Parliament, so much so that when the Leader of the House was Minister for Europe he had to go pleading to Conservative Members of the European Parliament to vote Labour Members of the European Parliament down? After all this trouble from Labour Members of the European Parliament, will not the Prime Minister be as relieved as the rest of us when there are fewer of them after 10 June?
    The Prime Minister: When we are talking about hon. Members of the European Parliament, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pay a little attention to what his noble Friend Lord Tebbit said the other day. He said that Tory European election candidates
    "have been strong-armed into affiliation to the federalist European People's Party"
    and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anaesthetising them
    "into acquiescence of a bland, centrist, politically correct agenda."
    He should take up issues of the European Parliament with his own side, not mine.
    Sandra Osborne: May I thank the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for introducing assistance for those people who will lose their pensions when their company goes into receivership? That has come as welcome news to more than 200 of my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that those affected are made aware of how they stand as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: As we said last week, we will engage in detailed discussions with unions, employers and others to try to make sure that the money that we have set aside is used most valuably. This is a good
    1562
    example of how people, when they are genuinely in trouble, are helped by the Government. It is important that we recognise that this is a distinct group of people who had to contribute to their occupational pension. In future, people will be protected by the new legislation that the Government are introducing.
    Tony Baldry: The Commission for Africa brings a welcome focus on the need to renew the war on poverty, but do we not need a new commission that can advise us how to restore and repair the fractured relations between ourselves and the world of Islam?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that a commission is the right means of doing that, although I do not exclude the possibility, but I entirely agree with the basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that there is a real issue about the relationship between the Arab and Muslim world and the west. I happen to believe, as he probably does, that much of that is based on misunderstanding and on propaganda aimed at dividing the two of us, but it is important that we try to look for ways to heal that rift. because it is immensely dangerous. It is certainly something that we are considering, and it will form a major part of our G8 discussions in a few days.
    Llew Smith: The Secretary of State for Wales recently described the announcement by Coleg Gwent to close certain college departments in the county, in particular those teaching engineering, catering and other courses in my constituency, as "astonishing". Does the Prime Minister accept that removing a skill base adds to the difficulty in trying to attract highly skilled engineering jobs to an area still suffering from high unemployment and steel closures? Does he also accept the difficulty of developing tourism in what is one of the most beautiful parts of Wales when the catering department is being closed? Will he instruct the Secretary of State to meet the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly to discuss the issue and to put pressure on those who made the decisions to withdraw the closure programme, because the management and corporation of Coleg Gwent and, indeed, Education and Learning Wales—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question is too long.
    The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern because I know that the area that he represents has suffered unemployment difficulties with the losses at Corus. I understand that the Secretary of State has already met the First Minister to discuss the issue, and I know that my right hon. Friend is happy to meet my hon. Friend to take the issue forward. I am sure that my hon. Friend's views will be closely considered.
    Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister know where Saddam Hussein is and whether he is still alive? Is he aware what measures the Americans are taking to encourage Saddam Hussein to reveal the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know where Saddam Hussein is not: he is not in a

    1563
    presidential palace running Iraq; he is not brutalising his people; he is not threatening the security of his region, and this world is a safer, better place without him in government.
    Jim Knight: Dorset receives the lowest local government settlement of any of the shire counties in England. Will the Prime Minister reflect on that, given that many of my constituents are dependent on council services? Can he reassure them that he rejects the proposals of other Dorset politicians, who advocate swingeing cuts in local government funding as part of plans for massive public spending cuts?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased that we have increased the grant to Dorset by 6.3 per cent. this year, well above the national average, and that we have increased the grant to councils by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, compared with a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in the last four years of the Conservative Government. I can assure him that we will not follow the path set out by the shadow Chancellor of freezing, in real terms, council expenditure, which would be a £2.5 billion cut in services.
    Ann Winterton: The Prime Minister will be aware that people in the Congleton and Tatton constituencies have opposed Scottish Power's bid for an underground gas storage plant at Byley. Our constituents won their case, only for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to overrule the decision of one its own inspectors. What is the point of holding an expensive, five-week public inquiry if its findings are set aside in such a cavalier fashion by someone who has presumably not even set eyes on the site?
    The Prime Minister: There is a process in place, and it must be followed through. The hon. Lady will know that, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, anyone who wants to challenge a decision can ask for it to be referred to the High Court and that that has to be done within six weeks of the date of the decision. Of course, there has been a thorough-going consultation with everyone involved, but in the end it is a planning process and has to be handled in the normal way.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the boundary committee published proposals for unitary authority boundaries in areas that are holding elections for regional assemblies. Does he not agree that we need to get rid of two-tier local government up and down the country, whether we get a yes vote in the regional assemblies or not, as it is inefficient, expensive and bureaucratic?
    The Prime Minister: We welcome the completion of a significant step towards the holding of referendums for elected regional assemblies in the autumn. We will consider carefully the final recommendations, and decide what options for unitary local government we will put to the electorate in any forthcoming referendums. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that While there is a powerful argument for regional
    1564
    government so that decisions are taken closer to the people, it is none the less correct to make tiers of local government underneath regional government unitary because that would be more effective.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Prime Minister agree that an administration that took over a severely debt-ridden council, saved 2,000 jobs when people were threatened with redundancy, leads the way in waste recycling and became the first Welsh council to be shortlisted by the Local Government Chronicle as the most improved council in the UK, deserves the support of electors?
    The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman may be missing out a few facts. I am afraid that, before I give him a considered answer, I will look into them.
    Andy King: Will my right hon. Friend continue his commitment to invest in our health services? My own hospital trust has improved dramatically from zero stars to two stars under this Government, and St. Cross hospital in Rugby, which was doomed to closure under the Conservatives, now has a new orthopaedic ward, a new stroke ward, 24 additional consultants and a magnetic resonance imaging scanner—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Prime Minister is doing a good job.
    The Prime Minister: It does indeed take a long time to list the achievements of the national health service as a result of that investment. Every waiting time and waiting list is better than it was in 1997, we have record investment going into the national health service—that applies to in-patients and out-patients—and we know that all of that would be put at risk by the patient's passport.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: Ten years ago, a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. The pilots, who were killed in the crash, were later held to be guilty of negligence. Now that the Prime Minister of the time, John Major, and the Defence Secretary of the time, Malcolm Rifkind, have said that that unjust verdict should be overturned, will the Prime Minister agree to have a meeting with an all-party group to bring fairness and a conclusion to this matter?
    The Prime MinisterI am, of course, always prepared to meet an all-party group on the issue. I will look at it in the light of what has been said by the previous Prime Minister, but I give no guarantees that we will change the decision. A decision was taken at the time, which was endorsed by this Government as well, but I understand the very strong feelings that there are, not least among the families of the pilots. I am very happy to meet an all-party group, but that has to be done without any prior commitment or guarantee as to what the outcome would be.
    Mr. David Borrow: The boundary committee referred to by my hon. Friend

    1565
    the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) yesterday recommended that the West Lancashire district council area should be split between Wigan in Greater Manchester and Sefton in Merseyside. That would be disastrous for my constituents living in west Lancashire and would risk undermining the referendum campaign in the autumn. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to discuss ways of improving that recommendation?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. We must consider any recommendations or representations that are made, but no decisions have been taken. If an area is to move towards regional government so that decision making, as it is now in Scotland and Wales, for example, is taken closer to the people, it is important that underneath that the local authority system is made more effective.
    Mr. John Hayes: The green belt is supposed to be a parcel of land around urban areas to prevent them from encroaching into the countryside, so why are the Government building on the inner green belt and adding to it only in areas of the north of England, far from where development pressure is greatest? The Library says that answers on the subject so far from Ministers are imprecise and evasive. Why are the Government being evasive about their greenbelt policy? What do they have to hide?
    The Prime Minister: We have increased the amount of green belt, not reduced it, since we came to power—[Interruption.] Oh yes, and what is more, I tell Conservative Members that we have increased the proportion of development on brownfield sites from where it was under the Conservatives. But every responsible person knows that in the south of the country in particular, there is a requirement for additional housing, and if we do not face up to the decisions on that the people who will suffer are generations to come, particularly first-time buyers, who will not have a place to live. The present Government have protected the green belt a darn sight better than the last one.
    David Winnick: I supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein and I offer no apologies for that, but has not the reputation of the coalition forces suffered great damage in the past few months owing to the sickening abuses and crimes carried out in the main by American personnel against Iraqi detainees? Would it not help the credibility of the United States and the coalition if the United States Defence Secretary and his deputy had enough self-respect to resign their positions?
    The Prime Minister: I have already made clear my own views on what happened at Abu Ghraib prison, as
    1566
    indeed have the United States Administration. I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that at the same time as we condemn unreservedly and without qualification what took place at Abu Ghraib and indeed any abuse of Iraqi prisoners, it is worth pointing out that British and American soldiers risk their lives, and in some cases lose their lives, in order to help Iraqi people. That balance should be maintained.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: The Prime Minister knows that the east midlands is one of the all-postal pilot regions for electoral purposes, and also that the ballot papers are due to be distributed about today. Is he aware, however, as I have just become, that printing delays mean that local authority ballot papers are not yet even in the hands of the returning officers, and that they are unlikely to be available before the weekend? Will he intervene immediately to forestall an electoral shambles?
    The Prime Minister: Like the hon. Gentleman, I became aware shortly before Prime Minister's questions that there was an issue in relation to the ballot papers. I am told that returning officers are on target to post ballot packs by the deadline on 1 June. We have confidence that the regional returning officers will be able to rise to the challenge. However, as a result of the information that has come to us this morning, I will look into the matter and make sure that the measures that have been taken are sufficient to meet the challenge.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome the news that there is to be a review of our outdated gun laws, but does the Prime Minister share my astonishment that Home Office officials have ruled out action on replica weapons before the consultation even takes place and in the very week that the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, "Guns, Community and Police", cites replica and imitation weapons as a major part of the problem? Surely that makes a nonsense of the whole process. Can he do something about it?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, we have introduced tougher controls on imitation firearms. In particular, there is now a new arrestable offence under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 of carrying an imitation firearm in public without reasonable excuse. Any imitation firearm that is readily convertible to fire live rounds is now classed as a prohibited firearm, and there is a minimum sentence of five years for carrying such a firearm. The Home Office review is absolutely open. As he and other hon. Members will readily understand, the problem is exactly how to define an imitation firearm. We must ensure that we get this right, to target the evil to which he rightly draws attention without having an arrangement that is overly and unnecessarily bureaucratic and that would end up disrupting people in a way that we do not intend.

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.31 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that each year the Government has pledged a 'generous' increase in local government funding, yet council tax in England has on average risen by three times the rate of inflation every year since 1997; observes that the cumulative additional council tax burden since 1997/98 is £1,716 for a typical Band D household; deplores the failure of the Government to recognise its role in generating the underlying pressures leading to council tax increases, including new responsibilities, compliance requirements, red tape, targets and assessments imposed by central Government on local authorities; further notes that unfunded cost pressures force councils either to introduce disproportionate increases in council taxes or cut local front line services; and believes that this is a further indicator of growing centralisation and Whitehall interference in local communities, eroding local democracy and weakening democratic accountability.
  In just over two weeks' time, local elections will be taking place across much of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party believes in the importance of local democracy and local democratic accountability. That is why we alone of the major parties are fighting the local elections on local issues and, in particular, on the record of the Conservative party in local government—a proud record of delivering better services at a lower cost than councils of any other political persuasion. That is the key measure of local government performance, and if we are to have a reinvigorated local democracy, which the Opposition support, and a restored sense of local accountability, there must be transparency about the relationship between council taxes and local decisions, and clarity about where responsibility lies for the pressures that lead to increases in council tax.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of the proposals at the moment is the introduction of a local sales tax, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said would be a local tax on the poor. Under the proposal, some 12,000 households in my constituency that now receive council tax rebates would lose that support. Will the hon. Gentleman stand at the Dispatch Box and reject such proposals, which are being put forward by the Tory candidate in my constituency?
  Mr. Hammond: I am somewhat surprised that the first intervention in this debate was about local sales tax. I was anticipating that it might have been otherwise. I will not rule out suggestions of a local sales tax any more than I suspect that the Minister will rule them out. Like us, he is awaiting the outcome of the balance of funding review, which I believe is having its last meeting today. We will see what the balance of funding review has to say about the various options that it has considered. When we have that information, we can have an informed debate in the House about the future of local
  1568
  government finance. I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and his reservations about local sales tax. I could list a number of other reservations about the practicality of such a tax, but I think that it is important that we are prepared to look at the output of this very important review, in which Conservative local government players have been participating along with members of other parties.
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The balance of funding review will have further meetings, as well as the one that is taking place today. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in last week's Opposition Day debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats, I made it clear that the proposal for a local sales tax met none of the objectives for fairness and effectiveness and was therefore, in our view, entirely inappropriate. I am surprised that he has not taken a similar view.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister seems to be prejudging the outcome of his own review, which is surprising. He says that further meetings will occur, but last week he indicated that he hopes to publish the results of the review before the House rises for the summer recess, and I hope that those meetings will not prevent him from doing so.
  Over the past few weeks, the House has had several opportunities to debate local government finance. We have debated the capping regime, the budgets set by local authorities, the balance of funding review itself and alternative proposals for funding local government, including local income tax, which the Liberal Democrats favour and which would impose an extra £693 a year tax burden on the average, hard-working family.
  In the frenzy to cap, review and replace council tax, it might be too easy to lose sight of the central point: council tax has gone through the roof under this Labour Government, and its level is leading to widespread discontent with the system. Under this Government, the average band D council tax has increased by 70 per cent. to a record £1,167 a year, which is nearly £100 a month out of taxed, take-home income.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have adopted a relentless, systematic and cynical policy of moving money from the shire counties to the inner cities, which has left counties such as Norfolk and Suffolk in an impossible position? There is nothing inherently wrong with council tax; what is wrong is how the Government have behaved.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. Labour's operation of council tax has raised two problems: first, fiddled funding and secondly, the imposition of unfunded cost burdens on local government. The Audit Commission acknowledges that the Government have been shifting funding away from the south-east to the north and the midlands.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
  Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
  Mr. Hammond: I shall make some progress, and then I shall give way.

  1569
  Before we go any further on capping regimes or reviewing alternatives to council tax, we should examine more carefully the drivers behind soaring council tax. In most cases, those drivers are outside the control of local government, and many of them have got central Government's fingerprints all over them. The purpose of today's debate, which has been called in Opposition time, is to focus attention on the underlying cause of high council tax increases: the burdens imposed by central Government.
  Mr. Miller: Just for clarity, is the hon. Gentleman actually saying to the people of Cheshire that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government was wrong to shift the balance to correct the huge disadvantage introduced by the original formula?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is absolutely right when he says that the changes in the funding formula have shifted funding from some authorities to others, which has driven council tax increases in those authorities that were losers in that process, and I shall return to that point.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I shall give way in just a moment.
  Honesty and transparency on the causes of soaring council tax and on the responsibility for the additional burdens now being borne by local council tax payers are essential if the elections on 10 June are to be an opportunity for the electorate to pass well informed judgment on local government up and down the country. Those elections are also an opportunity to send a message to this meddlesome, interfering, bureaucratic Government about the cost burdens that they are imposing on local councils, which local councils are forced to pass on to council tax payers.
  When the Minister made his capping statement four weeks ago, he performed a ritual—although it was the first time that he has capped, I have seen the routine before. He built up a head of righteous indignation about proposed council tax increases, claiming that they are unjustified because
  "the Government have provided all local authorities with above-inflation increases in general grant."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
  Every year we hear that the settlement is generous and that above-inflation council tax rises will not be necessary, and every year average rises are three times the rate of inflation. The implication of the Minister's view, which is deeply resented by well-run local authorities of all persuasions, is that council tax increases are the result of incompetence, inefficiency or sheer bloody-mindedness.
  Mr. Peter Pike: I was a member of the Committee that considered the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which introduced the current system of local government taxation. At that time, we pointed out that the biggest single problem was the gearing
  1570
  factor, which causes massive council tax increases. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that is a serious flaw in the current system?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman should know about massive council tax rises, as during this Government's period in office his local authority has increased council tax by 60 per cent.
  Let us analyse the Minister's statement on capping. He said that the floors and ceilings imposed in this year's settlement ensured that all local authorities received an increase above the retail price increase: a minimum of 3 per cent. for shire districts and 4 per cent. for social services and education authorities. However, the combination of the operation of the ceiling limiting the increase for areas of population growth such as Telford and Wrekin, which is one of the Minister's capping victims; the passporting of education spending above formula spending share; and the effects of transitional phasing of changes in the grant distribution introduced in 2003–04 meant that many authorities would face the need for above-inflation council tax increases, even if it were true that 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively represented a real measure of local government inflation—but it does not. As the Minister well knows, local government inflationary pressures are significantly higher than the increases in the retail price index, and the negative effects of many Government policy decisions are magnified because of the nature of the services that local government delivers and the type of work force who are employed to do so.
  The Audit Commission's report into the causes of high council tax increases in 2003–04 estimates that local authorities collectively face some £2.3 billion of national cost pressures in respect of existing services. That is more than half the total increase in local authority spending. The Local Government Association estimates that local government inflation is running at between 4 and 6 per cent. Some authorities—for example, Kent, which recently made a submission to the Treasury in support of its position—argue that local pressures effectively leave them with higher still rates of inflation.
  We accept, of course, that there is no typical local authority, because each one faces a different mix of local cost pressures on top of national ones. Leaving local variations aside, however, it is simply disingenuous for central Government to ignore the real local government inflation rate, and it is frankly misleading to describe a 3 per cent. grant increase as above inflation in any way that is meaningful to local government.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. Will he explain to the House how his policy, as set out by the shadow Chancellor, to freeze expenditure on all but two defined public services—thereby freezing at inflation the vast majority of local authority expenditure—can be reconciled with his argument?
  Mr. Hammond: As the Minister knows, school spending—[Interruption.] The Minister dismisses that with a wave of the hand, but it happens to represent 40 per cent. of local government spending, which is a fairly large slice, and we have made it explicitly clear that it will be increased, Beyond that, as the Minister knows,

  1571
  the overall total for all services across all departments will be frozen for a period while we try to plug the fiscal black hole that we will have inherited from this Labour Government—[Interruption.] The Minister is waving his hands again. He appears not to have read what his colleague the Chancellor said in his Budget speech—that he could make 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings by cutting 40,000 jobs. The Secretary of State for Health has identified substantial savings that he can make in his Department's budget. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that during an initial two-year period we cannot identify waste and bureaucracy that can deliver the savings that need to be made.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Did my hon. Friend notice that last week, when the Secretary of State for Health announced that he would be able to cut bureaucracy, he said that he intended to do so by disestablishing about five groups that have been set up since 1997?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having spent valuable weeks of my life in Standing Committee establishing the National Care Standards Commission, I was dismayed to see that the Government are ripping up that legislation, which is only a few years old, in order to introduce yet more different tiers and types of bureaucracy.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the Conservatives plan to cut local government expenditure by £2.5 billion. If he is trying to claim that those cuts will be achieved through reduced waste and bureaucracy, when will he identify that waste and bureaucracy? Will it be before the election?
  Mr. Hammond: First, the hon. Gentleman needs to listen more carefully. I was careful to re-emphasise that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he will freeze spending on other departmental totals in aggregate. I realise that Labour Members do not find it convenient to acknowledge that. Nothing has been said about local government grant spending. Where the savings will be made to achieve that depends to a large extent on the work that the James review is undertaking on the scope for savings on waste and bureaucracy in government. The Government's parallel review is also examining that.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I must make a little progress but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  Central Government are responsible for many of the cost pressures on local government. Employers' national insurance increases have added £280 million a year to the pay bill. Labour's pension tax has hit local authority pension funds by an annual figure, which is now close to £250 million. The need to make good the hit on those funds has compounded the pressure on local authorities, which are already facing additional
  1572
  contributions as a result of the previous revaluation, and will probably be confronted with even higher contributions through the next revaluation.
  Mr. John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Liberal Democrat councils are the worst offenders, shoving up council tax much faster even than Labour, let alone prudent Conservative councils? Is it not a bit rich that they now want a rip-off local income tax—a Liberal Democrat hand in your pocket— to pay for their spendthrift ways? Will he condemn that and say just how much it will cost us?
  Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. I condemn it absolutely and have already said that the Liberal Democrat local income tax proposal would impose a tax burden of an extra £693 a year on the average working family.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I must make a little more progress.
  Public sector pay settlements have run significantly ahead of RPI and thus represent a pressure over and above that included in the RPI figure. The most graphic example is last year's teachers' pay settlement at 2.9 per cent., leaving employers with a £60 million unfunded shortfall over and above the spending for which the Government had budgeted. Local authorities also have to face the cost of the pay evaluation exercise and work force reform in schools.
  Let me run through the list of cost pressures that local government faces in delivering existing services. Losses due to the changes in the system of rent allowances and housing benefits, although capped, continue to represent a significant hit on some shire district councils. At every level, local government faces a wave of litigation costs. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has calculated that local authorities face bogus or excessive claims of £117 million per annum above the cost of legitimate claims. Before someone asks, I have no idea why the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is putting the figures together.
  Manchester's litigation budget is bigger than that for repairing broken paving slabs—the cause of many claims. Bradford city council has had to set aside £5 million for the potential cost of meeting a retrospective claim for equal pay, which is being brought on a no win, no fee basis. Doubtless other local authorities will be watching that case with some trepidation.
  The Home Secretary has bailed out the Criminal Records Bureau, which has already piled costs on to local authorities through its spectacular inefficiency, with a massive 142 per cent. increase in fees. That is an additional burden of £15 million on local government. Personal social services costs are escalating out of control. Care of the elderly and looked-after children are both demand-led services, the demand for which is soaring, and which central Government consistently underestimate in setting notional budgets.
  Unit costs are spiralling. We warned the Government that the Care Standards Act 2000 would have a disastrous effect on the availability of care places and

  1573
  their cost unless funding were increased significantly. It has devastated the sector. Rising staff costs, soaring property values and the imposition of new standards and inspection regimes have caused many care home operators to exit the market, squeezing supply and leading to rising costs for local authority purchases.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has gone through a list of pressures that have led to huge council tax increases over the past seven years, particularly in Lancashire. Does he agree that if the people of the northern regions—including the north-west, where the Ribble Valley constituency lies—vote for regional government in the referendums, that will not only add huge increases to the council tax bills of everyone living in the north-west, but, thanks to the decision announced by the boundary committee yesterday, make local government far more remote from local people, not closer to them?
  Mr. Hammond: That would make local government more remote from the people and it would cost the council tax payer. The Government are insisting on reorganising local government in any area that is foolish enough to choose an elected regional assembly on unitary lines. Cambridge university estimates that the cost of local government reorganisation alone would add £110 to a band D council tax bill, and that is before taking any account of any local precepting power that regional assemblies may be given under the regional assemblies Bill, which we have not yet seen.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Hammond: I must make progress. There is a very long list of burdens that this Government are imposing on local authorities and I want to ensure that the House is aware of them all.
  All social services authorities face bed-blocking fines, for which some funding has been provided, and the associated bureaucracy, for which none has been provided. Hampshire county council has received £1.2 million from the Department of Health as a grant so that it can recycle it as fines to the local NHS acute hospitals, but it has had to take on an extra 28 people to manage the flow of paperwork and payments and to monitor the system—an extra council tax burden and a piece of absurd bureaucracy.
  The landfill tax escalator—increases in the landfill tax without any offsetting reductions elsewhere—is rising to £18 a tonne in April next year and is destined eventually to get to £34 a tonne. It may raise the Treasury £600 million this year, but £360 million of that £600 million will be paid by local authorities, which are by far the largest disposers of waste. All those specific and explicit cost pressures come on top of the pernicious and substantial cost of grade inflation, to which authorities in low unemployment areas are routinely forced to succumb in order to recruit and retain the staff they need to continue to deliver local services.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I had not wanted to interrupt the long list of extra burdens that the Government are putting on local authorities, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of these initiatives are being introduced simultaneously? I give him a concrete example from my constituency: Broadland district
  1574
  council wrote to me the other day to say that the extra increases in recycling requirements and for wheelie bins, for example, mean that the market cannot cope, so, on average, if people can get hold of a wheelie bin, it costs £2 to £3 more, which, cumulatively, adds another £120,000 to £180,000. That is a practical example. There is a blizzard of these initiatives coming in, and local government is in despair.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have reached the end of my list of burdens causing cost pressures on existing services, but I have not yet started on the list of new initiatives that central Government are imposing on local authorities, including initiatives related to waste management.
  As a result of the national cost pressures that I have outlined, as well as many others that we do not have time to go into, many authorities face the need to make above-inflation council tax increases, even before taking into account the burden imposed by the wasteful inspection and audit regime, the effect of passporting and the additional responsibilities being imposed—year in, year out—on local government.
  Richard Younger-Ross rose—
  Mr. Hammond: Some additional burdens—
  Mr. Bellingham: Do not forget Younger-Ross.
  Mr. Hammond: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is throwing figures around like confetti, but will he confirm that the key figure is this: the average increase under Conservative councils for the last six years is 8.9 per cent., which is larger than for all the other parties?
  Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the key figure for most council tax payers is this: despite the fiddled funding and the new burdens, Conservative councils cost an average of £57 less under band D council tax—[Interruption.] The Minister says no, but Conservative councils cost an average of £57 less under band D council tax than either Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities in England.
  Some additional burdens on local government that I shall discuss in a moment represent genuine services delivered to the public, but the red tape and regulation of the Government's barrage of different inspection regimes are pure dead weight on the shoulders of local government. Local authorities are subject to best value performance indicators and plans, comprehensive performance assessment, examination by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the Ofsted process, scrutiny by the benefit fraud inspectorate and the adult learning inspectorate, as well as inspection by something called the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates the annual direct cost of external inspection of local government functions to have been £600 million in 2000–01. It notes that that figure excludes indirect costs—local authority compliance, avoidance costs and

  1575
  opportunity costs, not to mention the negative impact of such a prescriptive regime on local initiative and staff morale.
  Overall, the Local Government Information Unit estimates that those indirect costs added a further £400 million a year in 2002. That cost will have risen since, as comprehensive performance assessments have been rolled out to all tiers of local government, making the current cost of the Government's bureaucratic inspection regime well in excess of £1 billion a year. Early promises that high-performing councils would be subject to less inspection have not materialised; nor has the promised exemption from capping.
  Guildford borough council—a Conservative-run council rated excellent by its comprehensive performance assessment—had to submit nearly 900 different files of paperwork to get the rating. For ease, it put them on CD-ROM. That amounts to 400 megabytes of information that had to be prepared and checked by council staff, all at the expense of local council tax payers, of whom, incidentally, I happen to be one.
  A Local Government Association publication, "Improving the Quality of Life for Local Communities", contains an informative cameo relating to one district council employee's experience of the inspection regime. Let me give the House a flavour of it:
  "During the autumn of 2003 we had a three week performance indicator audit…
  Then came the supporting people inspection team, which spent a week inspecting procedures in housing and benefits … and a short visit from the DVLC inspection service…
  This was swiftly followed by a best value inspection for street cleaning services…
  Immediately after was a visit by the Surveillance Commission … Whilst all this was going on the district auditor was inspecting our final accounts arrangements … we were having to produce our IEG3 (implementing electronic government) statement to the government office, receiving feedback on our capital strategy and asset management strategy (which had to be submitted to the government officer earlier on in the year), and work on the submission of our Housing Investment Strategy and Business Plan which has to be submitted to the government office.
  Oblivious to the pressure and demands on us, the government office were continuing to send out requests for information—we had to fill in a resilience questionnaire … we were asked to submit a crime and disorder self assessment document, provide information illustrating local application of 'liveability' initiatives, just to mention a few of these requests…
  The Benefit fraud inspectorate are coming tomorrow".
  That is just one small shire district council. Conservatives have pledged to slash the £1 billion-plus wasted on these centralised local government inspectorates.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: In a moment. We will abolish the bloated comprehensive performance assessment and axe the so-called best value system. We believe that the whole inspection regime should be scaled back to a light-touch approach appropriate to the risk. That means leaving competent councils to get on with the job, with only occasional inspection, while focusing attention on the small number of failing, mainly Labour and Liberal
  1576
  Democrat-run councils. The cost of the audit inspection process and the diversion of officer time and attention from the delivery of front-line services add to the sense of frustration and disempowerment in local government, and must be stopped.
  On schools passporting, even after the £340 million of additional money that the Government found this year to avoid another fiasco in schools, there are still six education authorities with education spending above the formula spending share, for which passporting has been a trap that led to their entire grant increase from central Government being passported to schools. Clearly, for those councils the Minister's insistence that all authorities have had an above-inflation grant increase has a particularly hollow ring.
  They have no choice but to cut services elsewhere and raise council taxes. A regime that penalises those who were voluntarily spending above their formula spending share on schools has to be wrong, and clearly sets perverse incentives for the future.
  As if there were not enough central Government burdens already, local authorities face myriad new responsibilities. High among them is the waste management agenda. The European Union's landfill directive, which requires a significant reduction in landfill, and the Government's waste recycling targets, which they have introduced in an attempt to achieve that objective, impose huge additional burdens on local authorities.
  Mr. Raynsford: No.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister says "No", but the LGA estimates that local government will need half a billion pounds over each of the next three years to achieve the targets that the Government have set.
  Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when the Chancellor announced the changes to the landfill escalator in his pre-Budget report, he made it clear that arrangements were being made to ensure that the impact on local authorities would be cost-neutral?
  Mr. Hammond: This is the point of today's debate. We hear it all the time: "The impact will be cost-neutral". If the Minister talks to the LGA, he will find that it is a recurrent theme. In discussions with Departments and agencies, local government is told that the impact will be cost-neutral—and what local government invariably finds is that the regulatory impact assessments are inadequate. They underestimate the cost, and local government and council tax payers ultimately pick up the tab. That is part of the reason for Labour's soaring council taxes.
  Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend mentioned the costs of litigation to local authorities. Does he agree that it is shameful that authorities such as mine, South Bedfordshire district council, are forced to spend huge amounts of council tax payers' money to fight the planning system, when the Government could very simply apply stop and enforcement orders to unauthorised Traveller developments? That is unacceptable to council tax payers.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large amount of unplanned expenditure

  1577
  that local planning authorities often incur in dealing with unexpected major planning inquiries. He knows that I am very sympathetic about the particular case he mentions. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is present, as she is aware of our concern.
  Only last week my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) told the House that his council's effort to meet the Government's waste recycling targets had led it initially to propose a 30 per cent. increase in its council tax, just to fund that initiative. That is only one of many examples of good local authorities' diligently seeking to comply with the guidance and directives of central Government, as they are bound to do, without the funding to do it. The end-of-life vehicle directive will in the short term increase the number of abandoned cars, and in the medium term substantially increase local authorities' disposal costs.
  Quite rightly, all local authorities have stepped up their emergency planning in the wake of 11 September—including district authorities, which receive no funds at all for that activity. Upper-tier and unitary authorities are estimated to be spending £17 million above the funded level on emergency planning. Following the Licensing Act 2003, there will be an increase of between 500 and 1,000 per cent. in the number of premises that local authorities are expected to license. Fees will be set centrally. That is something over which local authorities have no control, and there are real fears that year-on-year revenue costs will exceed the fee revenue generated. The immediate concern, however, is that there is no provision anywhere for the start-up costs. Authorities are estimating first-year deficits of anything between £40,000 and £700,000, depending on the size of the authority. Those deficits will have to be met by council tax payers.
  Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will impose substantial direct and indirect costs on authorities. Many are recruiting full-time compliance officers, and anyone who understands how institutions respond to freedom of information will be aware of the huge additional indirect cost that is incurred as working practices change and sensitive material is handled differently in response to freedom of information pressures.
  Roger Casale rose—
  Mr. Hammond: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been very persistent.
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very detailed exposition of local government finances, but what seems to be completely absent from it—I do not know whether he has a blind spot, or is conveniently leaving this out—is any mention of areas in which costs have actually gone down. I am thinking of, for instance, the lower costs of servicing local government debt when interest rates are as low as 4 or 5 per cent. rather than 14 or 15 per cent., as they were under the last Government; or, indeed, the costs of collecting council tax. I wonder what the costs of collecting council tax would be if the Conservatives ever returned to power and reintroduced a poll tax, as they seem to be planning to do.
  Mr. Hammond: There is no reason to suppose that the costs of collecting council tax would change as a result
  1578
  of a change of Government. But the hon. Gentleman is right: of course costs have fallen in some areas. Those step changes have occurred in the past and have been absorbed into the baseline, like many additional costs incurred over the past seven years that I have not mentioned today. We are now talking about the current pressures on councils—new duties under the Homelessness Act 2002, the burdens associated with the shambles of our asylum system, and the recurring investment costs necessary to meet the Government's e-government targets for local government.
  Time constrains me from straying into, and discussing in any depth, issues of fire service modernisation and the new burdens on the police. Both represent partially unfunded central Government burdens, and will become a charge on local council tax payers.
  Sadly there is no light at the end of this particular tunnel, or if there is it is coming from a train approaching from the opposite direction. Legislation, directives and regulations currently in the pipeline, both domestic and European, will add billions of pounds of additional costs to local government's baseline over the next few years. In a submission to the 2004 spending review, the LGA identified literally dozens of sources of additional cost pressures. They are too numerous for me to list them. As I mentioned earlier, if the Government succeeded in their ambition of establishing elected regional assemblies in any region, there would be the additional huge cost of local government reorganisation.
  Local government is buckling under the torrent of legislation, regulations, red tape and bureaucracy. For most authorities it is no longer about exercising community leadership, choice and local discretion. Budget pressures resulting from these burdens mean that central Government's agenda squeezes out local priorities, while council taxes spiral upwards and disillusion with the local democratic process multiplies.
  In theory the burdens of new legislation on local government are supposed to be met by the relevant central Government Department, and in fairness to the Minister I believe he has reiterated to his colleagues in Government that that is the rule. The practice, however, is very different. Departments faced with a charge on their existing budgets for additional costs to local government have consistently underestimated the impact of change.
  I have here a memo of a meeting between the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services and the Food Safety Agency. Typically—I am told—the FSA's initial position was that the implementation of a dozen food safety directives would have a negligible or zero cost implication for local government. There is no realism about the cost of change to local government, and there is no effective system of post-implementation review of regulatory impact assessments.
  The end result of all these central Government burdens on local government will be soaring council taxes. Ministers can stand at the Dispatch Box and wring their hands, but, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, the outcome is not an accident. This Labour Government have, until recently, made no attempt to conceal the fact that their policy of shifting grant to authorities in the north and the midlands would lead to higher council taxes in areas that Ministers

  1579
  considered could afford to pay. It is a deliberate shift of burdens on to local council tax payers. But the extent of central Government's underfunding of cost pressure and the scale of imposition of new responsibilities mean that it is not just the authorities that Ministers intended to target that have had to post massive council tax rises. The proportion of local government revenue spending funded from the council tax has risen from 20.5 per cent. in 1996–97 to 25.3 per cent. in 2004–05. That is a clear and unequivocal measure of the degree of underfunding of the burdens imposed on local authorities by central Government.
  Not surprisingly, the public has reacted to the soaring level of council tax. The talk is of capping, reviews and alternatives, but there were no demonstrators and no martyrs in court when the band D council tax was £689. It is not the tax that prompted the public backlash, but Labour's turning of council tax into another stealth tax—increasing it by the equivalent of 3 per cent. on income tax.
  Alongside the additional pressures next year, we have hanging over us like the sword of Damocles the £340 million extra provided this year, which the Government have said that they will not consolidate into the baseline for 2005–06. That is the equivalent of an £18.70 band D increase in council tax next year—more than 1.5 per cent. before anyone has spent a single extra penny.
  To conclude, and as we approach the local elections, perhaps the worst aspect of all this is the undermining of the transparency and accountability of local government. It is the so-called environmental protection and cultural services block—it has no single Minister to defend it, but has many local discretionary services within it—that always takes the hit and absorbs the cuts in local services, as local priorities have to give way to the central Government's agenda.
  The council tax payer sees soaring bills, but at the same time experiences cuts in the services that are most important to him and his family. With the deluge of new responsibilities and burdens set to continue, with ring-fencing remaining a significant factor and with a capping regime in place, there is simply nothing that he can do about it, other than go to the ballot box on 10 June and send a clear and unequivocal message that local council tax payers have had enough of the torrent of burdens and bureaucracy that this meddling, interfering, bureaucratic Government are imposing on our local authorities.
  1.11 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that the Government has increased grant to local authorities by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, in contrast to real terms grant cuts under the previous government; endorses the firm action taken by the Government to reduce council tax increases in 2004–05 to the lowest level for nine years; notes that Labour councils have the lowest average Council Tax increases at 4.7 per cent. and the lowest average level of Council Tax at £870; congratulates the Government on its commitment to enhancing the delivery of public services by local authorities and notes the evidence from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of
  1580
  significant improvement in local authority performance; welcomes the extension of substantial freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, including the prudential borrowing regime replacing the capital controls imposed by the previous government; notes with concern that all of these advances would be jeopardised by the policies of the official Opposition which would freeze expenditure on most local authority services; contrasts the Opposition's current rhetoric with its track record of centralisation when in government; rejects its opportunistic approach; and endorses the Government's commitment to high performing local authorities delivering effective local leadership and quality public services in the most cost-effective way.'
  Last week, we had an Opposition day debate on local government finance initiated by the Liberal Democrats. It was not, I have to say, their finest hour. Indeed, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) suggested less than half way through the proceedings that the House should adjourn because the Liberal Democrat case had been so comprehensively demolished.
  Today, it is the turn of the Conservative Opposition. Given their own lamentable record in government and their remarkable failure to develop any new policy proposals in this area, it might appear to the impartial observer to have been a rash decision to choose this subject for debate. New that we have heard the case put by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we know that it was. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman: he is an able and assiduous Member and has made the best he could of the very bad hand that he was dealt.
  Of course, that raises the question as to why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was asked to lead for the Opposition. Over the past few weeks, we have been entertained by various musings on local government from the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). They would appear to be in the lead for their party. Yet cometh the hour, and cometh neither the man nor the woman! It is perhaps not surprising, given their recent accident-prone outings-the suggestions of a return to the poll tax only yesterday from the hon. Lady, and toe-curling, born-again localism from the hon. Gentleman.
  I particularly enjoyed the observation of the hon. Member for North Essex in a speech to the New Local Government Network last month when he said:
  "Eighteen years of Conservative government not only failed to halt many aspects of centralisation, but unwittingly accelerated it".
  I love the use of the word "unwittingly". It must feature in conversations with his own father, who was one of the most senior Ministers in that Government, responsible for many of their extreme centralising tendencies. Let us imagine the discussion between the hon. Gentleman and his father: "Dad, what were you thinking about when you unwittingly abolished the Greater London Council?"
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I can tell the Minister what he was thinking. He was thinking about smashing the hard left in London, which we succeeded in doing, only for Ken Livingstone to be allowed back into the Labour party. Can the Minister explain that?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his father was taking centralist action to attack local authorities. There we have it. That is the natural tendency of the Tory party.

  1581
  Although they try to pretend that they have changed, we know that the reality is that the Conservatives are deep centralisers. It is hardly surprising, then, that neither the hon. Member for North Essex nor the hon. Member for Meriden chose to speak in this debate. Their party's record in government was one of cuts, centralisation and failure. Their attempt to present themselves today as the champion of local government is risible. Local government is not so easily fooled.
  Let us first look at the Conservatives' record. Their period in office was marked by year-on-year cuts in funding for local government. The figures speak for themselves. Throughout the 1980s, local authorities experienced continuing real-term reductions in grant, year on year. Then, after the chaos of the poll tax and the rationalisation of non-domestic rates, we saw a further period of real-term cuts in grant. Here are the figures: in 1995–96, minus 1.9 per cent.; in 1996–97, minus 0.1 per cent.; in 1997–98, when they set the grant rates before being ousted from office, minus 2 per cent. The Conservatives were cutting grants and telling local authorities that they expected them to keep council tax down—with threats of capping. That was the position when the Conservatives left office.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister confirm that the average band D council tax increase under the last Conservative Government was just less than half the average band D council tax increase during the period of the Labour Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will confirm that during the 18 years of the Conservative Government there was a chaotic trend, first with huge increases in domestic rates, then abolition of those rates and the chaos and injustice of the poll tax, followed by a vast increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent. in order to cushion the council tax so that the figures that the hon. Gentleman his just quoted could be achieved. As a result of that decision, everyone's VAT bills were subject to a 2.5 per cent. increase. It is pretty rich of the hon. Gentleman to try to claim credit for low council tax figures at that time, when they were achieved at the price of large VAT increases.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: As someone involved in local government during the last two years of the Tory regime, I know that the problem was not just the cuts imposed from the central Government. In my own county, over the Tories' final two years, there was a 20 per cent. increase in the council tax along with massive cuts in teacher numbers, in education and across the board.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend reminds us of what life was like in the mid-1990s when the Conservatives were in power. It was grim. We saw schools that were underfunded, social services that were desperate and local authorities that had to lay off staff. Local authorities were unable to deliver the sort of services that local people expected. That was the atmosphere at the time, but Conservative Members now try to pretend that it has all disappeared and been forgotten. People
  1582
  working in local government know the reality and they will go on reminding the Conservatives of their lamentable record in office.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister realise that there is a trend? I worked in local authorities in the early 1970s, when the Conservative Government were forcing cuts on local authorities and cuts in services. When my wife worked for local authorities in the early 1980s, the Tory party imposed further cuts in services. Is there a trend here?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout its period of relatively recent history—my memory may not go back as far as the hon. Gentleman's—the Conservative party has a consistent record of cutting grant to local authorities and, in parallel, telling them that if they do not keep the council tax down, they will be capped. I shall return to the issue of capping in a few moments because it provides an interesting insight into the shape of today's Tory party. Before I do, however, I want to say a little about what has happened since 1997.
  Since we came into office, local authorities have received real-terms increases in grant every year, adding up over the seven years of the Labour Government to a cumulative 30 per cent. real-terms increase. That is a wholly different scenario from when the Conservatives were in power. Conservative Members know that that is true and it shows up their own shabby record, so they try to divert attention by claiming that the grant increases have not matched the demands placed on local government.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has again referred to a 30 per cent. real-terms increase. Will he acknowledge that local government inflation pressures are significantly in excess of the retail prices index? He is right to refer to 30 per cent. in excess of RPI, but is not the real increase in local government inflation very much smaller?
  Mr. Raynsford: Local government cost pressures have reduced in certain areas but, in others, the pressures have increased. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there was a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in grants to local authorities during the final four years of the previous Conservative Government, when the pressures on local government were also increasing. In contrast, there has been a real-terms increase of 30 per cent. in grants over the past seven years. It is simply not credible for the Opposition to complain about pressure when the shadow Chancellor says that a Conservative Government would freeze grants to local authorities. He expects those authorities to cope with all the pressures to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but with no extra money. That is the real recipe for large council tax increases.
  I said that the Opposition want to divert attention from their record by saying that the grant increases have not matched the demands placed on local government. In one respect—that of rising public expectations—I am happy to plead guilty. The public now expect their local councils to do more, and to do it better. Gone are the days of hopeless resignation when the Conservative

  1583
  party was in power. Then, local authorities were starved of resources and the public despaired of any prospect of improvement.
  I am more than happy to celebrate the transformation over the past seven years to a climate in which people are no longer prepared to put up with excuses and poor performance. They can see the new schools, the extra teachers, the extra policemen on the beat and the real improvements in public services that this Government are determined to deliver. We make no apology for wanting local authorities to do better. Our comprehensive performance assessment has made a very important contribution to creating a climate in which continuous improvement is expected.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister claims that there has been a continuous improvement. Will he accept the verdict of the local electorate on 10 June as a conclusive and authoritative judgment on whether the people of this country are happy with the Government's performance?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he thought that the electorate should take decisions based on local rather than national issues. I agree with that and openly concede that the Conservative party generally did well in last year's elections. However, I note that it did not do well in areas where Conservative councils had a poor performance record. For example, the Labour party won control in Plymouth, and the Liberal Democrats did the same in Torbay. It is a healthy sign when the electorate identify failing councils and vote on local issues at local elections. We should not try to assume a national swing, with councillors standing or falling according not to their own merits and performance but to their party's performance nationally. The hon. Gentleman tried to make a localist case today, but anyone who cares about localism will agree that we ought to be working for a framework in which local elections reflect the performance of the local council. I hope that he will accept that.
  Of course, the cynics on the Opposition Benches, who have derided every initiative that this Government have taken to improve public services, take pleasure in criticising the comprehensive performance assessment. They ought to do their homework and have a quick surf on the internet to see what Conservative councils are saying. Last week, I had fun looking at internet and website references for the Liberal Democrats and I have had the same pleasure over the past few days in relation to Conservative councils.
  For example, in Bracknell Forest, council leader Paul Bettison has said:
  "Independent reports show that we have strong systems backing up improving services. I am pleased with these results and determined that we will go on improving and providing high class services at the lowest possible cost."
  In West Sussex, council leader Harold Hall has said:
  "Receiving the 'excellent' rating was an independent endorsement and a vote of confidence that confirms we are going in the right direction and have programmes in place to improve performance further."
  1584
  We are working with local authorities to improve the standards of service that they deliver to their residents but, as I made clear last week, we are also taking great care to ensure that new burdens imposed on local authorities are fully funded. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may not have been following last week when I spelled out the working of the new burdens doctrine, so I shall do so again.
  All Government Departments are made aware that, when they introduce initiatives that will lead to an increase in costs for local authorities, they must provide the funding to cover those costs. Similar procedures apply in respect of private Members' Bills, many of which, although well intentioned, could also impose new costs. If funding to cover the new costs is not available, the new legislative provisions have to be amended to remove the burden.
  For example, in the current year, we have had detailed discussions about the introduction of the new licensing regime, a matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has made it clear that fees will be set at levels that allow full cost recovery by local authorities.
  Local government representatives will be aware that we have added funding for initiatives such as local authorities' responsibilities under the Enterprise Act 2002, for which we have provided an extra £5 million above spending plans over the 2002 spending review period. We have also made available an extra £1.8 billion for the changes made to the funding of teachers' pensions.
  Mr. Edward Davey: On the new burdens rules, the assessment of the costs of the services being transferred is crucial. Why will the Minister not give the task of estimating the costs to the Audit Commission? Why has he left the job under the control of his and other Departments?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the assessments are reached through discussion and negotiation between Government and the Local Government Association. He will have heard the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talk about the list that the LGA has drawn up of the new pressures that it anticipates over the spending review period. That list has been submitted to the Government and I was present at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the matter was discussed. We will continue to discuss the matter with the LGA and a further meeting has been arranged. Eventually, we will come to a conclusion about what level is appropriate.
  The House will understand that, in any negotiation, the parties involved are likely to overstate their cases, as they know that they may have to give a bit of ground later. That is a proper and appropriate way to proceed.
  Mr. Davey: I have in front of me the rules on the new burdens for local authorities. They state that, where possible, Departments should seek independent corroboration of the figures. If the Minister is prepared to go that far, why not a little further? Why does he not pass the matter over to the independent watchdog for local government financial matters? Why does he not

  1585
  give the job of deciding the estimates of the costs to be transferred to the Audit Commission? If he did, the House and local government would be very pleased.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is a slightly odd debate when I hear from the Conservative Opposition a wish virtually to eliminate, or at least drastically cut, the role of the Audit Commission, and from the Liberal Democrats a desire to give it more work. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a clear statement of his intention to scrap the comprehensive performance assessment, which is a major part of the Audit Commission's work. The two Opposition parties are pursuing directly opposite points of view. We believe that the Government's approach is appropriate and right. It is a serious way, with representatives of local government, to address and resolve the question of extra cost pressures.
  Mr. Hammond: Regulatory impact assessments have to be prepared, but local government representatives tell us that hindsight shows that those assessments have consistently understated the costs to local government. It would be a great help if some measure of independent involvement in those assessments could be established. For example, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has cost local authorities £18 million a year more than the regulatory impact assessment compiled when the legislation went through the House suggested. That is the sort of problem that local government faces.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have two things to say in response to that. First, the hon. Gentleman now argues for additional regulatory work. Earlier, he said that the Opposition would tear up the regulatory burden, but now he wants more regulation. That is classic: the Opposition claim to be non-regulators, but when it suits them they are happy to say that they want more regulation. That is typical of the Conservative party's incoherent approach.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, as with any analysis of this nature. some of the figures will turn out to be not entirely accurate Some estimates are too low, others too high. That is part of the natural process in any negotiation of this sort. I assure the House that we take the new burdens doctrine very seriously and work to ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to meet the additional obligations placed on them by Government or by private Members' Bills.
  Mr. Chris Mole: I welcome the new burdens approach that my right hon. Friend described, and as a practitioner in local government in the 1990s, I contrast it with the introduction of legislation by the Opposition. For example, the child protection legislation required social services authorities to respond to orders of the court placing children in secure accommodation, but gave local authorities no control over the high individual weekly costs of that accommodation. Local authorities could not budget properly for those costs and the then Government made no provision.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend was of course leader of a council and has practical experience of such
  1586
  matters, so he speaks with great authority—[Interruption.] It was a worthwhile and sensible contribution and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) would have wanted to listen to it. He is on a learning curve in respect of local government and he would learn a great deal by listening to my hon. Friend, who has great experience in such matters.
  My hon. Friend made a valid point, which was that when the Conservatives were in government, they used to impose new burdens on local authorities. He mentioned child protection, but I could add examples of legislation on housing, disability discrimination and health and safety. Legislation on all those issues imposed new burdens on local authorities up to 1997—the difference was that, at the time, the Conservatives were cutting grants to local authorities. The Conservatives said to local authorities, "Do more, and we will give you less. And if you increase your council tax by too much, we will cap you." It is sheer hypocrisy for them now to present themselves as the champions of localism.
  We are putting in place a framework to ensure that local authorities can improve services and are fully funding the new burdens that we are placing on them. We are also ensuring that local government has new powers and greater flexibility to act for the benefit of its areas. The Local Government Act 2003 provided a raft of substantial new freedoms that help authorities to deliver services in new and innovative ways, engage with their communities on local priorities and work more closely with local business. They also help authorities to improve value for money arid drive down costs.
  The first—the showpiece element of the 2003 Act—is the new prudential borrowing regime, which puts local authorities in the driving seat in taking decisions about their borrowing. Opposition Members do not like to be reminded that the prudential regime replaces the strict centralist controls over local authority capital spending that their Government introduced in the 1980s, when the father of the hon. Member for North Essex was Secretary of State.
  Secondly, there are the new freedoms to charge and to trade, which will increase choice in the delivery of public services and, in the case of trading, generate additional income. Authorities are already benefiting from the retention of revenue from fixed penalty notices and they can retain the income from reducing discounts on second homes, an option which has been widely taken up by local authorities this year.
  While we are on the subject of charges, let me remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who today poses as the champion of local authority discretion, of the very different line he took as recently as this February when we debated the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. He did not argue for discretion then. Indeed, he tabled amendments that would have specifically prevented fire and rescue authorities, many of which currently charge for certain services, from doing so; so much for the thin veneer of localist rhetoric. Behind the facade, there still lurks the old Tory centralising tendency.
  We have not forgotten about partnerships with business. The 2003 Act provided the enabling powers to set up business improvement districts, which allow local

  1587
  authorities to work with local business. The local authority business growth incentives scheme will allow authorities to retain part of the increases in their business rate revenue. That scheme will give councils a real incentive to work with business to encourage growth.
  Mr. Mole: My right hon. Friend mentioned the two schemes to assist business. Does he recall that only yesterday the CBI gave evidence to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee about how it welcomes those schemes as positive forces to improve the relationships between business and local government?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the widespread support that those new initiatives receive from all interested parties. Those powers can make a real difference to the way authorities operate and the way that they can work with their partners. They also give councils the scope to provide more services and to engage with business to improve the local environment.
  The Government are also acting to cut bureaucracy and reduce unnecessary controls. So far, we have abolished 39 consent regimes and are currently proceeding to eliminate a further 54 such obligations, 22 of which are covered by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which has already received Royal Assent.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: If the Minister is really concerned about cutting bureaucracy, can he explain why he has capped Herefordshire council to the tune of £253,000, when the rebilling cost will be £100,000?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not asked Herefordshire council why it increased its council tax by an amount that the Government concluded was excessive. It is the subject of discussion. The authority has made representations and I shall consider them. After the purdah period associated with the local elections, I shall make our decisions clear. I shall address the issue of unreasonable council tax increases in a moment, and I hope that he will be interested in what I have to say.
  We are working with the Audit Commission to ensure that the inspection process is proportionate and targeted, and to cut back on unnecessary inspection burdens. Overall, the volume of inspections this year will fall, and high performers will benefit from dramatic reductions. For example, Hampshire has received only one voluntary inspection in 2003–04, compared with nine inspections over the previous two years. Similarly, with ring-fencing, we have unfenced a total of £750 million of grants this year, reducing the percentage of grants that are ring-fenced from more than 13 per cent. to around 11 per cent. We are on course to get it below 10 per cent. next year. We are committed to a framework that encourages and empowers local authorities to do more and to do it better, to give leadership to their communities and deliver high quality
  1588
  services. But we are also absolutely clear that authorities must deliver value for money, and keep the demands that they make on council tax payers as low as possible.
  As hon. Members know, after last year's unacceptably large council tax increases, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that we expected local councils to come in with much lower increases this year and that we would if necessary use our capping powers if authorities set excessive budgets. I am glad to say that the vast majority of local authorities heeded that warning and, led by Labour councils, have set much lower increases this year. The figures speak for themselves. Labour councils increased their council tax on average by 4.7 per cent., Conservative councils by 5.4 per cent. and Liberal Democrat councils by 6 per cent. That is clear evidence that Labour councils cost less as well as delivering better services for their communities.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister's figures would not stand up to scrutiny by any schoolboy statistician. Does he recognise that, to give in to pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister, local authorities have had to sacrifice the priorities of local people? Local authorities have had to accommodate the priorities of central Government and the burdensome pressures from Whitehall.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Local authorities that increased their council taxes by unreasonable amounts last year have this year recognised the reality that the public will not accept unreasonable large council tax increases and moderated their demands. That is good and I am surprised that he does not welcome the trend—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex mentions capping. I do not know how he has the cheek to do so, given his party's stance. When the Conservatives were in government, they capped and capped and capped. We voted against universal, crude capping, which is what they used to do. Authorities were capped, year after year. We have taken a different approach: we reserved powers and we have used them selectively this year.
  The Conservatives have tried by selective use of statistics to hide from the harsh truth. They tried to claim that Labour councils benefited from more generous grant increases. That is not true. Labour councils received an average 5.9 per cent. increase, but Conservative councils received 6.1 per cent. They tried to pretend that the Government had rigged the grant system so that all the money "went north". That is not true—[Interruption.] Such comments have been made time and again—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to want to ignore what he and his colleagues said last week—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have frequent conversational interjections from a sedentary position. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they should do so formally in the normal way.
  Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The grant increases for the three northern regions this year were 4.8 per cent. in the north-east, 5.2 per cent. in the north-west and 5 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humber. The grant increases in the four southern regions were 5.4 per cent. for London, 5.9 per cent. in the eastern region, 5.6 per cent. in the south-east and 5.5 per cent. in the south-west.

  1589
  That is more clear evidence that Tory propaganda is completely untrue.
  The Tories pretend that they are in favour of low council tax but they have sat on their hands when the Government have taken action to cap excessive council tax increases. This was the party that introduced capping in the 1980s. It was the party that capped, capped and capped again when local authorities were starved of resources and facing grant cuts.
  Now, despite the clear evidence that their Back Benchers want effective and tough action to be taken to stop unreasonable council tax increases, the Tory party is reluctant to say one way or the other where it stands on capping. No wonder Lord Tebbit is fed up. No wonder he has denounced it for its
  "bland, centrist politically correct agenda".
  I much prefer the more robust line that another absent Tory Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), used to take. He said:
  "residents have the right to be protected when their Council runs out of control and spends excessively".
  I agree. Sadly, he too has been airbrushed out of the picture by the Tory party.
  Chris Ruane: I concur with my right hon. Friend that there is no need for the excessive increases. I refer him to a parliamentary question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, which asked
  "what the total central funding for local government was in each of the last 25 years".—[Official Report, 4 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1435W.]
  From 1991 to 1997, it was £42 billion, £43 billion, £42 billion, £43 billion, £42 billion and £42 billion. However, from 1998 onwards, it was £42 billion, £44 billion, £47 billion, £49 billion, £50 billion and £53 billion—a 30 per cent. real-terms increase in funding from central Government to local government.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In case the Minister does not know—he would wish this to be said if it were one of his colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is in plaster following an accident. Perhaps all hon. Members would like to know that. It is important to set the record straight. Through no fault of his own, he cannot be here today.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that and I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. As I say, I enjoy his robust approach and will welcome his return to hear a rather more robust line from the Conservative party than the mealy-mouthed approach that it has taken towards capping.
  The Opposition have no policy and no credibility. They have tried to forget their own lamentable record in office, and in the most opportunistic style, which is all too common in the regime of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), they have sought to reinvent themselves as the party of compassionate and caring localism.
  1590
  No one will be deceived. The party of the poll tax, of year-on-year cuts, of compulsory competitive tendering, of capital controls and of crude and universal capping, cannot miraculously transform itself by donning the sheep's clothing that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has unconvincingly tried to wrap himself in today. Their motion is inaccurate, insincere and frankly incredible. The House should reject it.
  1.43 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I take the opportunity to send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I hope that the pickled hon. Member is not plastered for too long.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a detailed speech, talking about the financial burdens that the Government have placed on local authorities. I agree with much of his analysis, but the Minister was right to say that the hon. Gentleman was suffering from amnesia. Whether that was deliberate or unwitting is difficult to tell, but the Tories' record on centralisation and burdening local government does not bear analysis. The Minister has done a good job in highlighting that record and how dreadful it was for all those involved in local government when the Tories were in power.
  It has been an embarrassing day or two for the Conservatives and their local government team. First, we had the report and interview in The Times about whether the poll tax would be part of their policy. That has now been clarified. It no longer is, although it was in black and white that it was going to be considered. In the Financial Times today, their former local government spokesman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), suggests that the Conservatives should advocate relocalisation of business rates, so some thinking seems to be going on in the Conservative party, but quite where it is leading we do not know. At the moment we have a vacuum in Conservative policy on local government finance. We know what the Conservatives are against, and we know they can make negative attacks on the Government and on the Liberal Democrats, but we do not know what they are in favour of.
  When the Conservative leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was asked by The Daily Telegraph what his position was on the council tax, he said that he was very worried. The journalist therefore asked what he was going to do and he said, "I don't know." That was in April 2003. We hoped that he would have a few lessons, do a policy review or something like that. After all, he was the Minister in the Conservative Government who brought in the poll tax and helped to bring in the council tax, so he has some expertise on local government finance. We thought that the Tories would come up with some policy.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was also responsible for bringing in water charges in their current form, which have added great misery to people

  1591
  in the south-west, who face huge rises not just in council tax this year, mostly in Conservative authorities, but in water charges.
  Mr. Davey: It is not surprising that the Conservatives do not talk about their record in local government, because it is appalling. Now they make excuses for not putting before the electorate before the local elections on 10 June policies on council tax and local government finance. They say that they are waiting for the report of the balance of funding review. That is a derogation of their duty. Before a democratic process, local electors need to know what the Conservatives' position is.
  Mr. Hammond: What is the position of the Government then?
  Mr. Davey: At the moment we do not know, do we? The hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not think that that excuses him. It shows that both the Conservatives and the Labour party are undermining the democratic process by not being honest with the people of Britain.
  We do have one bit of Conservative policy on local government finance. We heard the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was debated earlier—say that he wants to reduce spending on local government by £2.5 billion. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, in exchanges with the Minister, tried to clarify that it was about reducing bureaucracy and waste, but the Conservatives have not told us in detail where that money will be saved. They have not said that it will come from reducing spending on education, social services, the environment protective cultural services grant or anything like that. All the voters know is that there will be a £2.5 billion cut. Whether that will be achieved through savings, or whether the balance will be picked up by increasing council tax by 10 per cent., we do not know. The Conservatives are abusing the electorate by not coming clean on that.
  Mr. Hammond: For the record, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has said that total non-NHS, non-schools departmental expenditure would be held constant for two years. He has said nothing specifically about the local government finance settlement. The hon. Gentleman is extrapolating.
  Mr. Davey: The point is that the Tories are not giving us much detail. We have to try to fill in the blanks. If the Tories are going to go into these elections and the next elections as the policy-light party, the voters will find them out.
  Despite the Conservatives' difficulty over all these issues and the huge black hole in their thinking, the motion is difficult to oppose because it is factually correct. For a start, council tax has gone up way above inflation since 1997. It has reached painful levels, as the Audit Commission report in December made crystal clear. Part of the reason was the extra pressure put on councils by the Government. The Minister's continual reluctance to admit that does not add to his case.
  The Tories' list of charges in that respect was fair. I want to add to it. They made one omission. We have had a debate about which councils, controlled by which
  1592
  parties, are setting the highest council tax, but I think that, if one is going to present a fair position, one should take the average over a number of years. Let us look at average council tax rises by councils run by different parties over the past six years, which I think is a fairly good run, to ensure that different years, when different councils were funded poorly by the Government and others were not funded poorly, are taken into account.
  According to that analysis, Independent-run councils had an average increase of 8.3 per cent. over the last six years, Lib Dems had an average of 6.9 per cent., Labour councils had an average of 6.8 per cent.—not a lot of difference—while Conservative councils were the highest, with an average annual council tax rise of 8.9 per cent. I am not surprised that that figure did not appear in the speech of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Year on year, over the last six years, the Conservatives have been increasing council tax and I think they will pay for it.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman want to try to find an excuse?
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the same data series for band D council tax? He knows very well that the distribution of properties in local authorities controlled by different parties can distort those figures. What are the percentages in band D?
  Mr. Davey: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of band D in one council over the last six years: Liverpool. Six years ago, the Liberal Democrats took control of Liverpool council. At that time, the band D council tax was the highest in the country—a legacy of the failed Labour administration—but now it is down to 70th. That is the result of six years of Liberal Democrat policies: reducing council tax and improving services in the city. That is why the Government's independent watchdog has shown that the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool have massively improved services in the city and that is why the private sector is backing Liverpool Liberal Democrats by investing £2 billion in the city centre, working in close partnership with the council.
  Mr. David Cameron: As the hon. Gentleman is so proud of the Liberal policy record, can he clear up this point? His colleague, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), was asked in an interview:
  "Will regional assemblies have tax raising powers—like Scotland—and if so will it be a regional income tax?"
  He replied: "Yes and yes". Is that official Liberal policy?
  Mr. Davey: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask about the Liberal Democrat record rather than about our policy, but I am more than happy to answer him. In fact, I answered that point in a debate last Monday. The Government are proposing that regional assemblies should be funded by council tax precepts. We want to scrap council tax precepts; we do not think that they are a good idea. If voters support regional assemblies—
  Richard Younger-Ross: If!
  Mr. Davey: Indeed. If people vote for assemblies, and assemblies are formed and the grants passed down, they

  1593
  should have tax-raising powers. National expenditure and national taxation should be cut pound for pound. There would be no increase in overall taxation, which is what the Conservatives are trying to imply; the burden of national taxation would remain exactly the same.
  The motion is correct to list the unfunded cost pressures on councils and to argue that they are indicators of increased centralisation under Labour. I want to consider those pressures in four parts. First, there are extra burdens due to the extra controls in the grant system. In his speech, the Minister said that the Government had been reducing the ring-fencing of grants, but they still have a long way to go.
  Secondly, burdens are imposed by the number of plans that Whitehall demands from local authorities. I shall analyse what the Government are trying to do about that and show that they have failed to reduce the number of plans. The third set of burdens comes through inspection regimes. Again, the Government are trying to address that problem, but again they are failing. Finally, the Government promised to lift the burden of Conservative financial constraints on local government, but they are dragging their heels on that, too.
  Let us examine what the Government say about the significance of ring-fenced grants in relation to council tax in the freedoms and flexibility paper published by the Office of the Deputy Primps Minister last year. Paragraph 42, "Revenue ring fencing", states:
  "It limits their discretion to vary spending priorities to meet local needs and the absence of such flexibility contributes to pushing up council tax. Ring fencing also substantially increases bureaucracy for councils and in many cases the grants themselves are poorly focused on delivery."
  For once, the Government were actually admitting to failure.
  What is interesting, however, is that in 1997, even under the Conservatives, the amount of ring-fenced grant was only 4.5 per cent., but by 2002 it had almost tripled to 12.4 per cent.
  Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Davey: I am sure that the Minister wants to intervene to tell me that the trend is downward, but I shall tell him about the effects of passporting, about the redefinition of ring-fencing and about the fact that all the ills his freedoms and flexibilities paper describes are still with us in spades.
  Mr. Raynsford: Actually, I was not going to say that; I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would accept that certain services, such as "Supporting People", where very large transfers of funding affect very vulnerable people, need to be protected for a period of time to ensure that those services continue. Does he accept that there is a genuine case for ring-fencing in those circumstances, which was pointed out in the paper to which he referred? Although we are fully committed to reducing ring-fencing, does he accept that the Local Government Association agrees that for certain services, such as "Supporting People", the ring fence is appropriate?
  Mr. Davey: I am not sure that all the money in grants for "Supporting People" needs to be ring-fenced and I
  1594
  shall list some other grants that certainly do not need to be ring-fenced. The Government have set themselves a target to reduce ring-fencing to less than 10 per cent., but that is still double the amount they inherited from the Conservatives—hardly an ambitious target. They are reducing the number of ring-fenced grants; it was 45 in 2003–04 and is set to be 33 in 2005–06—a reduction of 12. However, when we examine particular ring-fenced grants we wonder why on earth they remain ring-fenced.
  The standards fund will continue to be ring-fenced in 2005–06; £990 million ring-fenced and outside the flexibility of overall budget setting. A range of health service grants is ring-fenced, amounting to £300 million. About 10 police authority grants are ring-fenced. They are all separate and I cannot see why they need to be within that category; they could be included in the basic formula and the Government have not explained why that should not be so.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no point in the Government's removing ring fences only to replace them with so-called targeted grants that can be clawed back if they are not spent on the targeted areas?
  Mr. Davey: I completely agree. The Government have been redefining and have given themselves a new set of categories; they are trying to manipulate the amount going into ring-fenced grants by reclassifying them. The ring-fenced category still exists; everything in the grant is controlled and has to go to a certain service and the local authority has no discretion whatever. Then there is a new and interesting category that the Government call specific grants. That may be what the hon. Gentleman meant by targeted grants. There is a little flexibility but the money has to be spent on a certain service; it cannot go into the general pot. Finally there is the formula grant, where there is discretion.
  Redefining the grants does not make things better. In addition there is passporting, which covers so much council grant—more than 50 per cent. in some cases—especially in relation to education. The Minister has failed to explain the difference between a passported and a ring-fenced grant. The truth is that there is no difference. When one adds passported grants to ring-fenced grants, the amount that the Government control and are forcing local authorities to spend in a particular way has gone up massively. That is micromanagement to an absurd degree and gives the lie to the Government's claim that they are the localist party.
  The freedoms and flexibilities paper said that inspection regimes would be reduced and that there would be a far lighter touch. There would be a three-year "inspection holiday" for excellent authorities; for good authorities there would be a minimum
  "of 25% reduction in inspection activity".
  Fair authorities would receive lighter-touch targeted inspection, while poor or weak authorities would receive targeted inspection. We have contacted authorities in the various categories and in many cases those aims have not been delivered. If the Minister disputes that, he only has to intervene from the Dispatch Box.
  We understand that some excellent authorities have not enjoyed the three-year inspection holiday that was promised in the freedoms and flexibilities paper—a

  1595
  point covered in the Local Government Chronicle last week. Good authorities have not seen the amount of inspection reduced by 25 per cent. Does the Minister want to deny that?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he heard me say earlier, Hampshire had only one inspection last year—a voluntary one—compared with nine over the previous two years. I could give him many similar examples. He should understand that some excellent authorities are not excellent in education. We always made it clear that there would be a continued role for the inspection of authorities where education did not achieve the highest standard, because education is such an important service. On good authorities, our latest figures suggest that the volume of inspection is about 22 per cent. less than last year, so we are very, very near that 25 per cent. target.
  Mr. Davey: I can accept what the Minister says, but I will talk to the local authorities that have been contacting us. The odd example, such as Hampshire, may meet his criteria, but other authorities are still being over-inspected, despite the Government's promises. The Government need to go much further; they must adopt a much more strategic approach to minimising the impact of inspection.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge told us what such an approach would mean for district councils. I was going to read the same page, but I will not detain the House by reading it again. All I will say is that he did not do the Local Government Association analysis justice because, at the end of the list that he read out, it said that it was looking forward to a comprehensive performance assessment peer review the following February and that there were more than 10 different inspections in six months. As the hon. Gentleman also said, a whole list of Acts of Parliament will affect councils and increase the regulatory burden, with a series of specific new burdens, such as the work force reform.
  I happily admit to the Minister that it is not that one is against some of those proposals. Some of them are very sensible, such as those on freedom of information. Of course the Liberal Democrats are in favour of that sort of approach. but we need, first, to ensure that there is a more co-ordinated approach if regulation is increased and, secondly, to give local authorities far more support than has been the case hitherto.
  I touched on the new burdens paper in an intervention, when I said that we would like the Audit Commission—a totally independent body—to be responsible for assessing the costs of those new burdens. That paper, which was published last month, also concerns me because the Government will not make their proposals retrospective in any way. The Government have placed a lot of burdens on local authorities in the past seven years, and we have been analysing those burdens in today's debate. No proposal in that paper suggests that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Departments will reconsider and say, "We gave you that cost. We didn't give you the resources. We are now going to put that right." If the
  1596
  Minister made such a commitment today, he would get support from both sides of the House and, particularly, from those in local government.
  Mr. Mole: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, on the conclusion of such an analysis, the Liberal Democrat Treasury team would commit themselves to making such a pledge. Although I entirely understand the point that he makes, there is, of course, a financial burden of some significance to the national Exchequer in what he is saying.
  Mr. Davey: I would certainly support the Government if they were prepared to make that commitment.
  The new burden rules paper, which bears re-reading, is also interesting because it does not apply to all new burdens. Paragraph b says:
  "the requirement does not apply to policies which apply the same rules to local authorities and to private sector bodies (for example a change in the rate of employers' national insurance contributions), unless these have a disproportionate effect on local government."
  Despite the way that the Government spin all the increases that they say they are providing to local authorities, it is very clear that they will not take into account those extra burdens, so we consider their rhetoric and say, "You're not delivering on the things that you promised."
  I now wish to move from the inspection regimes and extra burdens to the plan requirements. The Government said in the freedoms and flexibilities paper that they would reduce the number of plans that they require of local authorities in all respects—education, social services, housing, civil contingencies and so on. To be fair to the Government, they published a paper in July 2003, wrote to all chief executives and said that they would reduce the number of plans. The problem is that local authorities have had no update since July 2003, and there is huge uncertainty about whether the proposals consulted on last July will be implemented and, if so, when and how.
  Even if the Government were to tell local authorities today that they will press ahead with the reforms described in the July 2003 paper, some local authorities are probably engaged in drafting the plans and strategies and meeting the Government's bureaucratic demands, so money has been wasted already. Even if we read that paper and say that it represents a good attempt at deregulation, we are left with the impression that it is a bit of a numbers exercise.
  I should like to ask the Minister—perhaps his junior Minister can answer during his winding-up speech—how many of the plan requirements in the July 2003 paper will result in the abolition of documentary requirements. To any objective reader of that document, it looks as though many of those documents, plans, strategies and requirements are being merged. They are simply being subsumed into one large service plan, so that the amount of work, bureaucracy and cost imposed on local government is not being reduced. There is simply a numbers exercise to reduce the statutory requirement for plans.
  Moreover, the Government are now trying to make out in that paper that they are reducing the number of plans to 16, but that is still a huge number of plans for

  1597
  small authorities, such as district councils, to draft, and most of those plans must be submitted to central Government, so the Government are still looking at local authorities' every action.
  I shall finish by considering the Government's failure to produce financial freedoms for local authorities. In their 1997 and 2001 manifestos they promised greater reforms, but they have not delivered on all those promises. The Minister was right to say that they have delivered on the prudential capital framework. He knows that we supported and campaigned for that framework, and he continues to have our support. There are already signs in local government that that policy is beginning to tackle some of the investment backlog that the Tories bequeathed in things such as roads.
  The Government promised other things such as trading powers—it is all in the Local Government Act 2003, which received its Royal Assent in September, yet the order has still not been considered in the House so that its provisions can be brought into effect. The Government also promised in their 1997 manifesto the relocalisation of business rates. They said that they had been campaigning and consulting on that before 1997, yet that pledge has still not been met. Perhaps that will be done in the balance of funding review, but that will be seven years after the Government's 1997 pledge.
  Even where the Government haw introduced some of the financial freedoms that they promised—for example, on the charging regime—they have very carefully restricted them. The Minister looks puzzled, but he will know that the Local Government Act 2003 restricts the charging regimes to just pure cost recovery. The Local Government Association, which is cross-party, says that that is far too restrictive.
  Mr. Raynsford: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands the difference between trading—where authorities have an opportunity to make a profit, but where they are required to operate in a company structure, on which consultation has taken place, which is why we have not yet introduced the order—and charging, where it is not appropriate, without protection, for authorities to be able to trade essentially against the private sector from a privileged position. That difference between charging and trading is well understood, and I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats supported it.
  Mr. Davey: The Local Government Association certainly argues against the removal of cost recovery. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the debates on those clauses of the Local Government Bill were truncated, partly because of a lot of time wasting by Conservative Members. I very much regret that, because we could have had some detailed arguments about the charging and trading regime. I wonder whether there will be a chance to return to that because there are concerns in local government that the charging and trading regime is not working as originally envisaged.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talked about a new set of cost pressures that have been placed on local government, particularly in respect of inflation. Local authorities provide labour-intensive
  1598
  services. Their wage bills are increasing by 4 or 5 per cent., partly because of national arrangements, and they have absolutely no control over that. It is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that local government gets a good deal in the forthcoming spending review, so that those cost pressures, which local authorities cannot control, are met under the grant agreement.
  The motion is good in so far as it goes. It is right to point out that the financial burdens have increased under this Government, and I find it bizarre that the Minister is not even prepared to admit that. In fact, a lot of his programmes are intended to try to row back, which suggests that there is some recognition in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government's programmes have been burdensome and part of the reason why council tax has increased.
  The motion fails, however, in one major respect: if we are to tackle some of the financial burdens, yes we must cut inspections, reduce the number of plans and remove the ring fences around many of the grants, but we must also deal with the fundamental, underlying issue—financial autonomy for local authorities.
  As we debated last week, we believe that there is a clear case—whether in terms of accountability or the gearing effect—for local authorities to have much more control of their financial future. Until we get reform of local government finances, which should include local income tax and a relocalisation of the business rate, we will not be able to deal with that.
  I have a final question for the Minister. He spent a long time last week attacking the Liberal Democrats' local income tax proposals, but we know that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy put forward a paper to the balance of funding review. The paper does not represent Liberal Democrats' policy; it represents CIPFA's view of the local income tax. Is the Minister prepared to consider that proposal and to consider local income tax in a different form from the one that we are proposing, and possibly in combination with the council tax? We need to know, and this is a good chance for him to clarify the situation. We look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), answer that question.
  2.10 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I welcome this debate on local government. It is timely, as we are currently in the throes of local elections in our towns and cities. I am the first Back Bencher to speak, and as I served as a local councillor for years before I came to this place and have served as a Minister, I would like to move the debate beyond a discussion of council tax settlements in previous years. Wider issues are at stake.
  I wish to add a little historical perspective and to push the boundaries forward by offering a vision of local governance that deepens our democracy for the future. It is the vision of increased participation, decision making and provision at a local level which I firmly believe the Government are working towards.
  I came into local politics in the mid-1970s, and it is easily forgotten that between 1955 and 1975 local authority expenditure tripled, in constant prices. That led to an assumption of dependency on the centre, with funds based on centre-driven growth year after year.

  1599
  Such a mental template became engrained and it has defined the central Government-local government relationship over the past half century.
  Today, local authority spending consists of only a quarter of all public expenditure in our neighbourhoods and localities. There has been a fiscal shift and, with it, a change in responsibilities, including the key responsibility of working to eliminate poverty in our neighbourhoods. We must not lose sight of that. The shift in responsibilities means that we must also look at a range of providers that are not limited to local government.
  I remind the amnesiacs in the Conservative party of what happened in the early 1980s. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Conservative Government's chaotic approach, and so it was. We did not even have the benefit of annual budgeting, and our budgets were cut by two thirds. I chaired a housing committee at the time and I remember the effect of stopping and aborting programmes. I remember receiving a budget, setting it out, putting out tenders for re-roofing and then being told by the then right hon. Member for Henley, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, "Oh no. Hold up your budgets, and call the tenders back in. We are going to cut the budget halfway through the year." We did what he said, but he then found a bit more money and told us that we had to spend it by 31 December. That meant that the tenders for re-roofing went out in September and the houses had to be re-roofed when the work was least likely to be done—in the winter. I am sure that the then Secretary of State was not stupid; it was done deliberately to discredit local government by making it look inefficient and unable to deliver. We had less than annual budgeting, but we have come way long from that, not least in respect of the comprehensive spending reviews introduced by this Government. They are most welcome.
  Some of us have long memories of the Conservative Government's contempt for local authorities in principle, and strangulation of their budgets in practice. However, I want to put that row to one side and to suggest more positively that we can look forward to breaking out of the mid-20th century debate about the relations and tensions between central and local government. We are still a little fixated on the axis of that debate, and we need to focus on the project of deepening local democracy, which involves participation and engagement at a local level in our neighbourhoods and communities. We must ask how that relates to the changing roles of local governance, the national state and, increasingly, to the international agencies that make local contributions.
  In societies all over the world, local government's role is being rethought. What does it mean in the context of changing welfare states and increased globalisation in our economies? In recent decades, local government's institutions have been changing their structure, systems of operation, political practice and models of service. I recall the establishment of the local ombudsman in 1974. That moved things on. In 1976, the Layfield committee tackled local-central financing arrangements and dealt with the questions of fiscal tension as the centre gave more resources and asked whether local authorities could retain powers over decision making on
  1600
  priorities at a local level. As a member of Leeds city council, I submitted to the Widdicombe committee in 1986 evidence that addressed relations between committee structures and local authority service departments.
  Under this Government since 1997, we have seen the emphasis shift from providing services alone to taking on the challenges of community leadership and identifying and meeting the needs of local areas in partnership with central Government, with business, with voluntary organisations and, I hope and emphasise, with local people—a dimension that we must intensify and improve. We need new efforts to encourage flexibility, and the new deal for communities—to mention just one element introduced by the Government—encouraged the introduction of the neighbourhood partnerships, which we can build on.
  In 2003, the Audit Commission, in its "Comprehensive Performance Assessment—Scores and analysis for single tier and county councils", gave most local authorities in Britain positive marks for their overall management and political competence at leadership levels. Best value and better service delivery were making a positive impact, myriads of new partnerships had been established and new local authority executive structures had been adopted with remarkable speed and efficiency. Most had also improved their participation and consultation strategies, but I would suggest that they had started to introduce them.
  I want to point out, however, that most of that reform has been in terms of top-down, nationally developed changes. Although initiatives and resources coming down from above—from the centre—are welcome and necessary, they need to be embraced by initiatives at ground-floor level if we are to reach those whom we sometimes refer to as "hard-to-reach people" and tackle the poverty in inner-city, urban and some rural neighbourhoods. If not, the developing acronymic list of hundreds of separate budgetary initiatives will appear not as welcoming regenerating rain on communities, but as hailstones that hammer down and quickly disappear, leaving people feeling damaged without having understood their impact.
  Local government core functions have changed. I suggest that there is a much richer, new complexity of inter-governmental networks and what I would describe as a multi-level of governance, which includes, for example, community safety provision, police and fire authorities, crime and disorder partnerships and drug action teams. On education and skills, we have not just the new learning and skills councils, but colleges of further education, universities and employment action zones, as well as schools and early-years provision. Health and well-being is a new dimension that has emerged in the past 10 years. The primary care trusts that the Government introduced and the Sure Start partnerships are all part of a new multi-mix of integrated local service provision.
  Budgets are being blended in new ways, but communities must embrace them so that they understand them and can make them work to serve everyone in the localities. I am trying to suggest that the traditional model of local government, with its key task of delivering services as part of the welfare state—it used

  1601
  to be roads, schools and houses—funded from local rates and a central Government grant, has fundamentally shifted.
  We have now to consider a new model of networked community governance in our neighbourhoods. That is an invitation to people to participate in building those networks, working with them and delivering services. We need to focus on the needs of local communities, to search out local issues, points of conflict and contact, to develop and work towards local solutions, to reconcile conflicts at a local level and to work across boundaries for more integrated practical solutions. In other words, we need to try to improve the quality of life in our neighbourhoods using a range of services, some of which were not encapsulated in previous central and local government models. That networked community governance is no less susceptible to the conflicts that have always occurred over what we might call "goal definition" or determining local priorities.
  I support the Government amendment to the motion, as far as it goes, but I might have added another line, saying "We will continue to look at new and innovative methods of engaging and ensuring local participation." Let me give a practical example. Leeds is now widely acknowledged as one of Britain's most successful cities, but it is not without its inner-city challenges of poverty and social exclusion, including the neighbourhood in which I live. In my constituency, we called people together under the banner of the West Fest conference, inviting them to participate in a consultation process. We are now taking that conference to every corner of every neighbourhood. Its purpose is to engage people, listen and spell out the new complexities of partnerships in multi-level local provision. That includes traditional local government services, but also health services. It involves the police, voluntary groups that provide services for elderly and young people in the neighbourhood, and arts groups and others who provide light entertainment and stimulate imagination in our communities. It involves sports groups who add to the work of the officially provided services by engaging people in activities.
  We are experimenting with the development of local people's neighbourhood plans. We say what we need and what we can do together. We must be aware of the complexity of the available services and consider how to knit everything together to meet the needs of the locality, as articulated by the people themselves. Our local councillors in Kirkstall, for example, are involved in a groundbreaking plan for the Kirkstall valley. It will ensure that in the heart of Leeds—from the city centre, through the inner city and out towards the ring road—we will have a sustainable, clean, green wedge of parkland, available for local people as a leisure resource. It will cut a swathe through the inner-city neighbourhoods. We are engaging local communities in the design and development of that plan.
  The council is restructuring and re-engaging with the people under the new, dynamic leadership of Councillor Keith Wakefield, who seems to spend most of his time on the streets. I do not mean that pejoratively; I mean that he is out and about, listening to people and engaging with them. I emphasise the word "listening", because he is finding out what people's needs are. He is using new methods to try to include people in the delivery of services, because they should be part of that process.
  1602
  Out of the West Fest we developed workshops to take into the neighbourhoods on subjects such as local community economic development strategies and social enterprise projects. On the latter point, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned that the Government had promised things that they had not quite yet delivered. I do not concur, because a Bill on community enterprise is about to come to the House from the other place. I am looking forward to that, because it will enable councils to develop community enterprises so that people can open boarded-up shops and set up businesses in them, employing local people and providing goods and services to the neighbourhood.
  We are considering providing local public transport, using minibuses in the neighbourhoods that seem to be beyond the larger bus services. We should use the resources that we have, building them into community services. We can take the process further. We are looking at displacing loan sharks by setting up credit union networks. We are developing local schools as centres where community resources are available, day and night and at weekends.
  Local participation models are subtler, more difficult and more complex than others, and we need to develop more ways of coming together, replacing complaining with planning and working together to make decisions for the benefit of our neighbourhoods. They are not easy, quick-fix models. They completely invert the top-down approach of the past, which went from central Government to local government to neighbourhood. We should not be setting at odds community participation, through local meetings, and representational democracy in the form of elected councillors. They should be working together. We need them both, so we must find new ways to integrate the representative democracy model with the participative democracy model, to deepen our understanding and practice of democracy.
  Let me add another idea to the notion of new localism, to push it a step further. I ask the Government whether there is any space for experimenting with new ways of delivering services, new forms of accountability and the development of a more enabling local state as well as a more enabling national state. The top-down approach must be related to the bottom-up initiatives. For example, let us look closely at local service delivery. Why should the meals on wheels service for a person in my street come from seven miles away, through all the traffic, to arrive there, perhaps, the day before so that someone has to reheat it? Why cannot meals on wheels for the stuck-at-home elderly come from the same street, from someone who lives in the neighbourhood, trained and paid to deliver that service? What I am saying is: let us decentralise meals on wheels.
  Why do we not look at service delivery for care of the elderly, care of the sick and child care, including after-school clubs, in local neighbourhoods? Why do we not think intensely micro and see what we can do to meet the needs of the unemployed, such as training, in communities, particularly in inner-city neighbourhoods? Where in the neighbourhood can we look, in future, for resources to meet local needs and to redevelop and rebuild the basic community? We need more new thinking about the practice of local politics and service delivery, but we also need new systems of local governance to develop that.

  1603
  I shall end with two quotations. The first is from what some Members may think is a strange source: a work called "The Great Disruption", by "The End of History" man, Francis Fukuyama. He was talking about engaging people in groups. We know what it is like when we go to a meeting with people who have never been to a meeting before: they shout for what they want. walk out and go back home. We cannot organise community participation on that basis; there must be some vague rules of the game. Fukuyama said:
  "If members of the group come to expect that others will behave reliably and honestly, then they will come to trust one another. Trust is like a lubricant that makes the running of any group or organisation more efficient … If people can be counted on to keep commitments, honour norms of reciprocity and avoid opportunistic behaviour, then groups will form more readily, and those that do form will be able to achieve common purposes more efficiently."
  That blends the demands for efficiency, best value and delivery, and at the same time sets out a template for the values that we need to solve collective problems in our neighbourhoods.
  I know that it is not the done thing in a speech in the House of Commons to recommend a book—it suggests that we might have been reading or misspending our time in the Library. However, in the words of Professor Gerry Stoker from Manchester university, in a seminal book called, "Transforming Local Governance":
  "Local government is there to influence the major social and economic dimensions of its locality even if it is not directly responsible for a particular service or policy issue".
  The community leadership role is especially important in ensuring
  "co-ordinated and effective collective action to tackle the everyday issues that matter to people in their localities".
  I recommend Professor Gerry Stoker's book, but everyone in Parliament, whatever their political party, should be much more positive about developing and transforming local governance, which we should support, encourage and champion. I would also make a modest exhortation to the Government to do more to address the challenge of enabling more bottom-up participation and development, which could regenerate and reshape our communities in future and ensure that they are inclusive places that we enjoy living in.
  2.30 pm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose contribution was thoughtful and constructive. His own experience of local government came through very clearly indeed in his proposals. He told the House that he joined local government in the early 1970s. I joined it in the mid-1960s, and would be more complimentary about it than he was. In those days, the relationship between local and central Government was much closer, more constructive and less party political.
  I liked the fact that the hon. Gentleman's speech made very little reference to party politics. He made one or two asides about the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but most of his speech was about achieving local government that met the needs and expectations of the people whom it serves. I therefore congratulate him on his thoughtful and constructive speech.
  1604
  I am sorry that the Minister for Local and Regional Government has left the Chamber.[Interruption.] I am well aware of the reason why he left—he is, I accept, a busy man. However, my contribution to this debate will also form the basis of a strong case that I shall put to him in a meeting on the allocation of resources to Macclesfield borough council that he has granted my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and myself. If he reads my speech in Hansard or if it is reported accurately to him by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), he will learn the essence of our case.
  Interestingly—and some hon. Members may find this surprising—I oppose my council on the issue of the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing. Local government should give meaningful tasks to elected councillors. In Macclesfield, the council has been forced to transfer its housing stock. The gross revenue from rents in the borough is £14 million a year, but the council has to hand back to the Government £8.5 million in negative housing subsidy. The borough has also been disadvantaged by the Local Government Act" 2003, under which capital receipts that debt-free authorities—Macclesfield is such an authority—are allowed to keep are reduced from 100 per cent. over three years to approximately 30 per cent. As a result, my council does not anticipate having sufficient resources left to maintain to the highest standard the council housing that it owns and administers. It will not be able to improve and refurbish its housing stock to the standard that council tenants expect, so it has been forced to consider a transfer. The Government have accepted its application to transfer, which now depends on whether the council tenants agree with it or not.
  I have sought to present the facts to the House, as there should be another way of dealing with the matter. It is wrong that my authority, which is debt free, should have to pass much of its rent revenue to the Government. Financial assistance to maintain, refurbish and improve housing through the use of capital receipts is being cut by the 2003 Act, which reduces the capital receipts that councils can retain from 100 per cent. to 30 per cent, so I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister can look at that. It is odd that a Conservative Member of Parliament should be supported by a Labour councillor who stood as my opponent at the last general election, other Labour councillors and a large number of council tenants, who are traditionally considered Labour supporters. The current arrangement is unfair, and the Government should find a way to allow Macclesfield to retain sufficient resources to maintain its council housing stock to an appropriate standard. Incidentally, the decent housing standard set by the Government is far below the standard set by Macclesfield council for the standard and quality of municipal accommodation in the borough. The Government are well aware of that, because I went to see the Minister for Housing and Planning, who kindly said that Macclesfield has a good reputation concerning the standard to which it maintains council property.
  Turning to the revenue support grant, the Under-Secretary will know that fundamental changes were introduced to the grant formula in the 2003–04 settlement, following substantial consultation with local

  1605
  authorities. That meaningful and lengthy consultation identified the fact that local authorities throughout the country require stability in the formula so that they can produce a robust medium-term financial strategy and can accurately predict the level of external support required. The new formula was introduced for the financial year 2003–04, and, I emphasise, we were told that it would be fixed for three years to allow for proper forward planning. It included an element of funding for "staying in business" and had floors and ceilings to dampen the effect of any major changes to individual authority settlements.
  The floor was set at 3 per cent.—that is, no authority would receive less than 3 per cent. increase. The ceiling at that time was set at 12.5 per cent., so no authority would receive more than 12.5 per cent. There were, as we all know from our experience, winners and losers as a result of the new formula, but all authorities would receive a minimum increase of 3 per cent. on the adjusted base. However, significant changes were introduced in the 2004–05 settlement. The provisional settlement was announced in November 2003 and an initial examination of the figures revealed a significant reduction in Macclesfield's allocation, from £7.226 million in 2003–04 to £6.422 million in 2004–05.
  It then became clear that there had been some important changes to the formula, in that rent allowances and council tax benefits would be 100 per cent. funded by direct subsidy, and the national park grant—part of my authority's territory is within the Peak national park—would be paid directly to the national park authority. The floor was initially set at 2.2 per cent.—below the rate of inflation—and the ceiling was set at 2.8 per cent., lower than the floor for the previous year, 2003–04. Macclesfield's settlement was at the floor, giving an increase on a like-for-like basis of £137,000 or, in cash terms, just £18,000, equal to 0.25 per cent.
  A further announcement, I am pleased to say, was made in December 2003, increasing the floor to 3 per cent. That resulted in a like-for-like increase of a further £50,000, raising the £137,000 to £187,000 or, in cash terms, £68,000, equal to just 0.9 per cent.—less than 1 per cent. For Macclesfield, the result of that poor and unfair settlement is that an increase in expenditure of 6.5 per cent. had to be funded from an 8.4 per cent. increase in the council tax. Savings in the region of £500,000 had been identified by the council from efficiency savings and by redirecting funding from lower priority service areas. The 6.5 per cent. increase in expenditure includes the nationally agreed pay settlement of 3 per cent. and substantial investment to meet the national agenda for recycling and e-government set by the Government. I hope the Minister can see the unfairness faced by Macclesfield borough council.
  The external settlement does not even cover the cost of delivering the national agenda. Having regard to the gearing effect, we have little option in Macclesfield but to raise the required revenue through the council tax. My council and the Conservative group that controls it apologise to the residents of the area for having to increase council tax by a greater percentage than they would have wished, but in order to continue to provide the services to the standard that people expect and to meet the additional burdens placed upon local government by central Government, they had no alternative.
  1606
  To make matters even worse, the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who has had to leave, announced that he would use his capping powers if council tax increases were excessive, and that capping may be applied even to—I use his words—"excellent" and "good" authorities. Clearly, the problem facing some authorities is accepted by the Government. I only hope they will look into these unfairnesses and see whether anything can be done to rectify them.
  In summary, the overall situation is that the very limited increase in the revenue support grant for Macclesfield borough council does not in any way—I emphasise that—cover the additional cost of maintaining the services currently provided, and at the same time allocate additional resources to deliver what people believe is right—the national agenda set by the Government. With a cash terms increase in the external settlement of only 0.9 per cent. and an increase in expenditure of 6.5 per cent., we are, in the Macclesfield borough, forced to raise the additional revenue from council tax.
  I have sought to present my case factually. I have not sought to score party political points. Every statistic that I have quoted is not selectively chosen by me. It is the reality of the financial situation facing the Macclesfield borough council. Debates such as this are useful for Members of Parliament to advance constituency cases. I am only sorry that some of my colleagues have not chosen this debate to put forward a case. Another colleague plans to speak and will certainly get in. It is the duty of a Government to consider properly and fairly and to respond accordingly to any unfairnesses that are drawn to their attention by constituency Members of Parliament.
  2.46 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Minister's comments in his closing remarks, when he said that he was against universal capping, will sound hollow to my constituents, who have had their council tax capped, their police authority grant capped and their fire authority grant capped. Let me make it crystal clear that I do not want to see council tax rises. I loathe the increased financial burdens that the Government have stealthily piled on to council tax payers. However, the steps that the Government have taken to allow councils to reduce the financial burden are derisory and ineffective.
  The Government have capped Herefordshire council by £253,000. That is a sick joke, as it will make virtually no difference to anybody. It cuts just 7p a week off band D council tax, yet it leaves Herefordshire council with even more of a struggle to comply with the increased layers of bureaucracy that the Government have imposed, without receiving adequate Government funding. Herefordshire council is not generously funded against need. It is the most sparsely populated unitary authority in England in which to deliver services so, for example, the cost to the council of the school transport bill is much higher–almost £6 million. Any increase in fuel costs will have a significant impact on the cost in the future.
  The council is 36th out of 46 unitary authorities in terms of the level of grant received per head of population through the formula spending share. It is

  1607
  £140 below the average throughout all unitary authorities. The grant from the Government is woefully inadequate. The Government have already removed £5.2 million from the budgets of the former Hereford and Worcester county council and Herefordshire district council, at the point of reorganisation in 1998. The annual repayments of reorganisation costs for Herefordshire council totalled £13 million. It is being repaid on an annual basis, amounting to £1.9 million on this year's council tax.
  The county lost £1.8 million extra in the formula spending share because of the Government's delay in implementing population data changes following the 2001 census. Herefordshire council has clearly been heavily disadvantaged by the Government's funding. The formula spending share does not come close to adequately reflecting the cost of delivering the increasing demands and financial burdens placed on local authorities by the Government, such as recycling targets, the transfer of licensing responsibility, library standards, benefit regulations and national care home standards, to name but a few.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned the implementation of electronic government as well.
  The Government's own changes to local authority finance last year meant that the council had to increase council tax by 17.5 per cent. to achieve the FSS level of funding—an increase in the burden on the council tax payer from 32 per cent. to 37 per cent. of total expenditure. However, the council has not compensated for Government underfunding by levying much higher levels of council tax. At £959.53, its band D council tax is below the national average for unitary councils. Despite the disadvantages that this Government have imposed on Herefordshire, the council is committed to reducing the levels of council tax over future years, but demands from this Government, who do not care about the constant increases for the individual council tax payer, make that commitment extremely difficult to fulfil.
  The council cannot be seen as a profligate authority. The Audit Commission's judgment gave the council the maximum overall score for the use of resources, and its pattern of spend has not moved significantly by comparison with those of other authorities since it was established in 1998. According to the comprehensive performance assessment, the authority is a good authority in terms both of corporate assessment and its service assessment.[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene? Apparently not.
  In the field of education, the council can demonstrate good performance in the outcome for pupils attending its schools. It has consistently maintained the spend on education at FSS level and has passported the required increases to its schools, despite facing the financial burden of the highest cost per pupil for school transport of any education authority—an issue that is, of course, linked to the rural nature of the county. However, despite the fact that there are four upper or single tier authorities that have higher levels of council tax than Herefordshire, but have avoided capping, the
  1608
  Government have decided to cut £253,000 from Herefordshire's calculated maximum budget requirements.
  The proposed revision of £0.25 million equates to a reduction in band D council tax of £3.80 a year, but the estimated rebilling costs, which I mentioned to the Minister earlier, are more than £100,000, which generates an extra cost of £1.25 per annum at band D. The Government's decision to cut the budget is no more than a pathetic party political move ahead of the 10 June elections.
  Sadly, the picture for central Government costs and funding is no better for Hereford and Worcester fire authority and the West Mercia police authority, which have both been neglected by Labour Government funding. They have both been capped and forced to cut front-line services because of the increased demand on local authorities. Hereford and Worcester is the only fire authority to be capped in 2004–05, by £2 million, but the cost to the authority of rebilling council tax payers is approximately £0.5 million, and the estimated cost of associated expenses is another £100,000. All together, that amounts to a £2.6 million reduction of the amount being invested in fire services.
  The Government do not fund Hereford and Worcester fire authority fairly, allocating a grant worth only £14.72 per person, compared with the average allocation of £19.50 per person for all other combined fire authorities. Hereford and Worcester fire authority protects 5.3 per cent. of the area covered by all combined fire authorities, but it receives only 2.5 per cent. of the total Government-allocated grant. Under the same financial pressure that it faces from increasing local government bureaucracy imposed by this Labour Government, the authority will now have to struggle even harder to deliver the services on which the local communities depend which in turn threatens to undermine public confidence in the fire service.
  The fire authority has expressed deep concern about the impact of that reduction on its ability to deliver an effective service to the communities. Instead of cutting the amount that the local service must spend on wasteful layers of bureaucracy, the Government are forcing the fire authority to cut the money that it can spend and invest in community safety and well-being.
  That will result in a cut in front-line services. No funds will be targeted at investing in a modern fire and rescue service aimed at promoting a much greater sense of safety, security and community well-being. Furthermore, the cuts will result in a loss of 195 jobs in the fire authority, with the loss of 39 per cent. of the posts supporting front-line work, 27 per cent. of the whole-time firefighters and 13 per cent. of retained firefighters. Bringing about, in a period of weeks, a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in the size of the brigade is bound to damage the safe and efficient provision of a fire and rescue service.
  Despite being in the top half of forces by size and population, West Mercia police authority was excluded from the additional £340 million of Government grant funding for English local authorities that was announced on 11 December 2003. The support that West Mercia receives from central Government is the fourth lowest amount of grant per head of all shire police forces, while it is also the fourth most economical

  1609
  force in terms of cost per head and would need to spend an additional £10.6 million to equal the average of the 31 English shire forces. Nevertheless, the authority has been capped by £517,000. The force has no choice but to bridge the funding gap with council tax increases, because this Government have not provided nearly sufficient funding to accommodate the gross financial burdens that are incessantly imposed on local authorities.
  All Herefordshire's local authorities have been inadequately funded by the Government, and they have been capped to score party political points. The underfunding, along with the increased financial burdens placed on local authorities by central Government, has forced the authorities to turn to another source of funding—the council tax payer. That has led to a diminished front-line service.
  I deplore the way in which this Government have increased the burden of council tax on my constituents. They have not only increased financial burdens on local authorities, but have not provided nearly sufficient funding to pay for layer upon layer of bureaucracy. Consequently, there has been a cut in front-line services, which is a great shame.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give examples of the layer upon layer of bureaucracy that he suggests exists in terms of permanent posts, locations, costs and so on?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am delighted to give the hon. Gentleman examples. mentioned the extra cost to the education department resulting from sparsity of population; I think that it is an extra £6 million. We also have library standards, recycling targets, transfer of licensing responsibilities, benefit regulations, national care home standards and the implementation of electronic government, to name but a few of the examples that I have. I hope that that answers his question.
  David Taylor: I am not sure that it does. To people in this Chamber and elsewhere, bureaucracy is an activity that exists for its own sake, and not because it is raising standards, providing new facilities or driving up quality. Such activities are not necessarily bureaucracy. Is that not merely a vacuous, hand-me-down phrase that is used when people want to have a go at either Governments or local authorities?
  Mr. Wiggin: Whether the definition of bureaucracy suits the hon. Gentleman or the Government is not the issue. What we are seeing is a council, fire authority and police authority that are performing way better than the average, but are being cut and capped.
  As I see it, the problem is that the Government have a fundamental belief that they should be targeting percentage increases instead of real financial increases. That results in a mismatch in constituencies such as mine. We can call it bureaucracy or haggle over the definition, but the fundamental problem that I and my constituents face—none of us wants to pay a penny more council tax than we have to—is that in areas such as the one that I represent, local performance and the funding that the Government provide do not match up.
  1610
  As I said, the police authority would have to spend an extra £10 million to reach even the average level among the shire-type forces with which it would be compared. At one stage, I hoped that I would have to pay a lower council tax rate, as I live in my constituency. Unfortunately, however, the nature of the capping and the cuts that will have to be made means that they will be extremely damaging and that they will not deliver the financial saving that I had once hoped for.
  I am deeply disappointed that the Government have taken this line with Herefordshire, West Mercia and the Hereford and Worcester fire authority. I urge the Minister to think very carefully about what he is going to do in terms of the safety and protection of my constituents, and I hope that he will revisit that decision.
  2.59 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: I declare an interest in that my wife, who used to work for Devon county council, has been seconded to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I understand that I should put that on the record.[Interruption.] I have not asked her whether she enjoys the work, but she has been in post for three weeks.
  I am glad that the Minister for Local and Regional Government has returned to the Front Bench. After I intervened during his opening remarks, he said that he could not remember as far back as me, which should worry both him and us. I checked in "Dod's", and the Minister is eight years older than me, so I hope that his memory is not becoming shorter, although that might explain his comments about Labour policy.
  The Minister keeps repeating the phrase "Groundhog Day" in debate. He last used it in a debate on local government finance, in which he stated that the Tories were returning to an issue that the Liberal Democrats had raised 10 days previously. However, we have become used to the Tories repeating our remarks from 10 years ago—they catch up in the end.
  In that debate, the Minister referred to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in which my hon. Friend made a clear case for local income tax, but he went on to say that Liberal Democrats
  "are no better than snake oil salesmen peddling quack remedies".—[Official Report, 17 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 759.]
  What is his problem with snake oil salesmen? What did a snake oil salesman do to him in the past that makes him dislike them so? What remedy did he purchase that did not work—we have only to look to see what it might have been? He should think of the snakes that the snake oil salesmen must kill.
  I am glad to see extra Conservative Members in the Chamber for their Opposition day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?"] It is their Opposition day, not ours. The debate is welcome, because we can revisit the issues, pressure the Government to provide answers that they did not give last week and test the Conservative party on its lack of policies on this subject.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has a selective memory for council tax rates, and hon. Members have showered figures like confetti today. I did not originally intend to speak, so I have not gone to my local authority to obtain a wealth of figures with which to regale the House on the evil of the Government's settlement in Devon or Teignbridge.

  1611
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did not answer my question about the average figure for council tax rises over six years. It is all well and good to pick one figure from last year and conclude that the Conservatives did quite well, but I am more interested in the overall figure covering a number of years. The Conservative party's track record over six years is not very good. The average increase in council tax in Conservative-run authorities is 8.9 per cent. per annum, which is greater than that under the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the independents.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman address the important issue for my constituents, which is that their local authority has been capped? Until last year, the Liberal Democrats ran Herefordshire council, where council tax increased by 14.3 per cent. Despite that rise, the Liberal Democrats also managed completely to deplete the reserves, and a great deal of the funding that we have levied from council tax payers has been used to repay that depletion. The hon. Gentleman should not take his eye off the ball, and I hope that he bears in mind some of the terrible things that his party has done to councils.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Cheap points scoring turns people off politics, which is one of the great tragedies of these debates. [Laughter.] Any hon. Member can stand up and criticise an authority run by another party by saying, "In such and such a case, that council hugely increased council tax."
  The response to the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is to examine Torbay, which the Liberal Democrats currently run and which is being capped—Torbay has a problem because the Tories used to run it. One can always counter such arguments, but it does not take us forward, and the overall trends are far more significant.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to inform the House about his connection, through his wife, with Devon county council, which the Liberal Democrats ran until the last county council elections. The Liberal Democrats completely depleted the county's resources, for which we are now paying. It is all very well to say that that is a cheap political point; it is also a factual point, as was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) mentions the depletion of resources, but what did the Conservative party do in Shepway? It not only emptied the cupboard but took out the shelves as well.
  The hon. Member for East Devon and I have worked together on issues relating to Devon county council, which is currently run by not one party, but an amalgamation of four parties. The Devon example shows that parties can work together on funding and come up with a common case on why Government figures are wrong and on why the Minister must listen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that
  1612
  Conservatives in Devon have worked with the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and independents to come up with a common position. Cheap points scoring does not occur in Devon county council because the parties understand that they must work with each other.
  Mr. Swire: That is the Liberal Democrat trick of pretending that nothing is political and that they are nicer than the mainstream parties. It is entirely correct that different parties currently work together in Devon; my point is that when the Liberal Democrats worked alone, they depleted the council's resources, which is why council tax had to go up so much last year.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Last year, the Conservative leader of Devon county council, Margaret Channon, recommended an 18.2 per cent. increase.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Devon protests too much—he attended the same briefings as me, and I understood that he supported his county council. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and independents supported the rise, which was fair because of the bad grant settlement.
  Last year, the hon. Member for East Devon said that the increase in Devon was the Government's fault because of the grant settlement, but the Conservative party also says that the Government have been taking money from the south to give to the north. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways, because it is one thing or the other.[Interruption.] Last year's grant settlement in Devon was a scandal.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made some pertinent points about what has happened in his local authority. I listened to him carefully and, although I do not know the details, he appears to have a strong case that Macclesfield has had a raw deal.
  I hope that the Minister listened to what he said, but I have to say that when we pleaded the case for Devon last year, our words fell on deaf ears. Perhaps he has snake oil in them. The pensioners' protest started as a protest against East Devon council, which is run by the Conservatives and which imposed a sharp rise of 18.2 per cent. The greatest burden on local authorities is having to administer the council tax system—a goliath of a machine that is not very effective at raising money.
  The poor funding for Devon last year resulted partly from the basis on which grants are given—that is, house value. I had thought that the hon. Member for East Devon accepted that—perhaps a selective memory is contagious in this Chamber. The problem in Devon is that although we have high property values, we have low incomes. It is a gross mistake to make assumptions about what people can afford on the basis of the value of their property. In effect, that suggests that a person has to move home to be able to afford their council tax. That is to be resisted, and it is one of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats have tried to put forward alternatives.
  Mr. Wiggin: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the local income tax that he propounds will have the same effect? In areas such as his constituency, which may have an elderly population with an income that is

  1613
  generally much lower than average, people will still be forced to move house to avoid the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party wants to introduce.
  Richard Younger-Ross: That is not the case at all. The grant would be calculated and rebalanced on the basis of the new local income tax, which would resolve the problem. The local income tax would only replace the funding that is already raised by the council tax. One of the reasons why pensioners were protesting in Devon is that they found that 11 per cent. of their income was being paid in council tax. If Conservative and Labour Members are happy that 11 per cent of the income of an elderly couple should go towards council tax, that is fine: let them sell it to the country. I would argue that one of the reasons why people are signing up to our "Axe the Tax" petition is that they feel that that proportion is too high.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Richard Younger-Ross: Let me finish the point; I have already given way several times. Although I was asked to extend my speech slightly, I might get some odd looks if I extended it too far.
  Under a local income tax, the people who paid it—hon. Members should bear in mind that many pensioners would not have to—would pay only about 3.85 per cent. of their income towards it. As a result, some 70 per cent. of the population would be better off.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Everyone will gain.
  Richard Younger-Ross: No, I am not saying that. About 30 per cent. of the population would lose out. It is a fair tax, not merely a cheaper tax. Hon. Members here would lose out, the Minister would lose out, and I would lose out, but the average person would not lose out.
  Mr. McLoughlin: When we had this debate a few weeks ago, the Minister pointed out that the proposal would take at least two years to take through the legislative process and up to seven years to implement. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Richard Younger-Ross: No, I do not. As usual, the Minister was trying to present the worst-case scenario. He was very selective when he read out the data from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
  Mr. Swire rose
  Richard Younger-Ross: I have already given way more than enough, and I want to make some progress. I have two or three more points to make.
  One of the most important aspects of council tax or any local tax is its transparency. The grant system is not transparent. I once heard it said that the Minister was about the only person who understands the maths involved in what he says.[Interruption] I am not sure whether he is shaking his head or nodding. The present system is immensely complex, and many people do not understand it; consequently, they do not trust it or see it as being fair. Even if it were fair, people would not judge
  1614
  it to be such. I would argue that it is unfair because of the burden that it places on people on low incomes, especially the elderly.
  Mr. Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Richard Younger-Ross: For one last time, as I have not given way to a Labour Member.
  Mr. Mole: I wanted to make a point about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but it has completely escaped me, so I shall come back to it later.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I said earlier that memory loss is contagious—the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that it is extremely contagious and has spread to the other side of the Chamber.
  An other concern that people have about local government is the ability of central Government to interfere. That is not a new phenomenon. I used to work in the architects' department of a local authority—Elmbridge in Esher. I lived in Weybridge and went to work in Esher. The local authority was inefficient and there were many problems. The Government of the time were forcing through reductions in funding that led not to improvements, but cuts, in services. During the 1980s, when my wife was allowed to be involved in politics, we ran campaigns together against those cuts.
  In the 1990s—sadly, under the Labour Government for some of the time—there have been cuts in services in some areas because the funding formulae have not worked out. The Minister is looking at me quizzically. I shall give the example that I gave when I was a newly elected Member. The 15 local authorities in the south-west made a joint statement to the Minister saying that the funding for social services was inadequate—particularly for child care, which meant that they were having to transfer resources from elderly care to child care to cover their child protection work. That led to the underfunding of care home and elderly care services in the south-west.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that although there are undoubtedly real pressures on social services—no one denies that—the Government have made provision in this current spending review period for 6 per cent. real-terms growth in social services spending? That very large financial commitment is far different from what applied when the Conservative party was in government.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I will give the Minister five out of 10 for that. I accept that there has been some funding, although at the time that I am describing the director of social services estimated that local authorities were underfunded by £8 billion, and the Government have come close to that figure. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that a further £1 billion would be required to maintain care home services.
  As far as I am aware, that £1 billion has not been found. Consequently, there is still pressure on the care homes sector. The Minister nods in agreement with that.
  Centralising tendencies continue to exist. I served on the Committee that considered the Fire and Rescue Services Bill where we made it clear that we believed that

  1615
  the Government displayed centralising tendencies on that. We therefore disagree with the statement that there are no centralising tendencies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a point about a subject that we often forget when we make our calculations and consider the costs to elderly people, our taxpayers and local people in our communities—water charges. They used to be part of the rates but they were taken out of the rates and badly privatised by the Conservatives. The equalisation grants that existed were not reintroduced. Consequently, the south-west pays some of the highest water tax bills in the country, and even higher water tax bills are expected. Overall, that means that we face council tax rises and water charges that are above inflation. That is unacceptable.
  3.21 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: This afternoon's debate has been interesting. I was tempted to agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who said that we should look forwards, not backwards. He did not convey that message to Labour Front Benchers. It was extraordinary to hear the Minister visiting the perceived sins of the father on the son, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Perhaps it is a sign of the Government's desperation as we approach the local elections that he has to hit out not at Opposition Front Benchers but at their parents. That is a little below the belt.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) drew attention to the fact that not as many of our colleagues as there might be are participating in the debate. The reason is simple: they are all out campaigning throughout the country. They are saying that people should bear in mind what has happened in the past and compare the previous situation with the current position. They will spread the message from York to St. Ives and places further north, west, east and south that the Audit Commission's first report in 2002 graded 27 per cent. of Conservative councils excellent. Only 12 per cent. of Labour authorities made the grade and, alas, only 11 per cent. of Liberal Democrat-run authorities were in the same category. Perhaps that is not surprising.
  To show that the results were no flash in the plan, the second comprehensive performance assessment, which the Audit Commission announced on 18 December 2003, published updated results for the 150 single-tier and county councils that the first report covered, and a familiar pattern emerged. Conservative-run councils had the highest overall service scores, averaging 3.3 out of 4, compared with 2.9 for Labour councils and, perhaps again unsurprisingly, 3 for Liberal Democrat councils. The Audit Commission found that Conservative councils were more likely to be ranked as excellent and least likely to be ranked as weak or poor. Today, my hon. Friends are relaying those facts with confidence and conviction on the doorstep.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swire: I should love to give way but I am running short of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I shall deliver a
  1616
  little more of my speech and then I should be delighted to give way to the Minister as long as he does not attack my late father for something that he might or might not have done 20 years ago.
  This afternoon's debate is about the added burdens that central Government have placed on local government. What better place to start than the comprehensive performance assessment burden? The Local Government Information Unit, not the Opposition, has calculated the figures. It estimates that the annual cost of external inspections of local government is approximately £600 million. That figure does not include the indirect costs of inspection such as compliance, council staff time and avoidance or displacement effects, which amount to probably another £400 million.
  I want to talk specifically about the genuine reasons behind the council tax rises in Devon. I shall not go over old ground and the reason for finding the resources so severely depleted by the Liberal Democrats, who had run the county badly for so long. The Audit Commission recently published, "Council Tax Increases 2003/04 Why Were They So High?" Doubtless, it is compelling reading for those with insomnia. It found some interesting answers that I shall examine in more detail later. It states:
  "Analysis by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy shows that the total amount that was provided in the local government finance settlement for education was sufficient to meet increased education costs at an aggregate level, with a real 'uncommitted' increase in spending of £225 million."
  CIPFA also pointed out that that was equivalent to less than 1 per cent. of local government spending on education. Perhaps the Minister is thinking, "So far, so good." However, the combined effects of the passporting requirement, designed to ensure that all councils increased spending in line with Government requirements, and local choice to spend more than the passported amount, led to an increase in spending in aggregate of £200 million more than the Government had allowed for.
  Several factors led to greater pressure to increase spending in 2003–04 than in 2002–03. Employers' national insurance contributions increased by 1 per cent.; employers' contributions to the teachers pension fund increased by 5 per cent., and the pay award for local government staff was approximately 0.5 per cent. above the previous year's amount. Together, those factors contributed to more than half the total increase in local government budgeted spending in 2003–04.
  Authorities face a combination of pressures: national and local cost increases, increased demand for services and Government requirements. There is no doubt that one of the major factors behind the increase in council tax has been, as we have heard time and again this afternoon, the steady transfer of responsibility to councils, often without the funding, for matters such as care of the elderly and road maintenance.
  In 1995–96, central Government contributed 65 per cent. of net costs to East Devon district council. In 2003–04, they contributed only 49 per cent. That reduction occurred because costs continually increase as new responsibilities are placed on district councils such as East Devon without the provision of additional funding. Even the Government's finance watchdog, the Audit Commission, which investigated this year's council tax rises, stated:

  1617
  "There are a number of external pressures on councils to increase spending, and therefore, council taxes. These include:
  Pressure from central Government to spend more to meet Government priorities."
  Devon gets one of the lowest grants in the country. It receives a staggering £182 less per person than the national average—more than 20 per cent. less per head than the national average and mow than 28 per cent. less than the north-east. If Devon received the average grant per head of population, it would mean an instant cut of £120 in the average band D council tax bill or an extra £128 million to spend on care services, roads, public transport and schools.
  Even compared with our neighbour, Cornwall, Devon receives £67 less grant per person.
  The Audit Commission report on council tax commented:
  "We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in Council Tax."
  Despite the Minister's protestations to the contrary this afternoon, the Government have also changed their rules on sharing out grants this year, taking money that should have come to Devon and of her southern counties and giving it to the midlands and the north. Devon county council lost more than £10 million at a stroke from budgets for care services, roads, libraries and recycling, with Whitehall's decision alone adding 5 per cent. to Devon people's council tax bills.
  As from 1 April this year, my district council, East Devon, lost a source of income that previously financed most capital projects there. I refer of course to selling off council houses, which previously allowed it to build up capital reserves of, at one point, about £20 million. That in turn allowed it to keep its part of the council tax rises very small indeed, but that is to go and 75 per cent. of that money will go elsewhere, resulting in a capital loss to East Devon of £1.8 million. In addition to the capital loss, the council tells me that it had a £2 million shortage in day-to-day running costs and had to consider increasing charges for services that it provides and cutting other services and grants.
  I could go on, because I have so much to say, but I know my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) wants to begin his speech shortly. I conclude on this. We have heard much this afternoon about the balance of funding review and it is unrealistic of the Liberal Democrats to expect Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to give detailed alternatives to council tax at this stage.[Laughter.] Liberal Democrat Members laugh, but perhaps we are not as flexible as the Liberal Democrats.
  In the Brent, East by-election, Liberal Democrats went around handing out facsimile £100 vouchers saying that everybody who voted Liberal Democrat would get £100 back on their council tax. What has happened to that policy? Like so many other Liberal Democrat policies, it has evaporated into the ether of questionable electoral honesty. They are going to replace that with some other form of income tax, but we will shoot their fox by showing hat that will cost the average council tax payer in the west country and elsewhere more than they have anticipated.
  There is no doubt that local people are suffering. The system is not working. More is being asked of local councils. Local councillors are being undermined by
  1618
  having to cut services and they have to increase council tax as well. Something needs to be done. Clearly the Government are not the right party to do it.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who spoke with his usual force and vigour. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  This has been a worthwhile debate. We have been trying to solve the mystery of two facts, which are, on the face of it, contradictory. It is a fact that central Government support for local councils has increased, no doubt about it. The figure is 30 per cent. in real terms, as the Minister said if not once, then several times, but it is also a fact that council tax has increased rapidly, right across the country, by, on average, 70 per cent. for a typical band D property. Nobody was warned about that increase but everyone has paid it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), in a powerful speech, placed the responsibility on the Minister and his Government. He set out in great detail the extra burdens and costs placed by central Government on local government. He placed the Minister, as it were, in the library with the lead piping—responsible for the mugging, if not the murder, of the council tax payers. He is absolutely right and made a wholly convincing case.
  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and the fact is that almost every council has had the same experience. The Minister is asking us to believe him and to disbelieve all of them, but I just do not think that we can. Let us consider the figures as they relate to some of his colleagues who are in the Cabinet. The tax increase for the average band D property in the Prime Minister's constituency between 1997 and 2004 is 65 per cent. In the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency, there has been a 60 per cent. increase, while in the Chancellor's—this is one of the advantages of holding that post—there has been an increase of only 36 per cent. In the Home Secretary's constituency, the increase is 59 per cent.
  Let us consider all the different types of authority: shire districts, on average, up 90 per cent.; shire unitaries up 69 per cent.; metropolitan boroughs up 47 per cent.; inner-London boroughs up 53 per cent.; and outer-London boroughs, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) knows, up 83 per cent. My point is that the increases are across the board—every single council has suffered in the same way.
  The Minister made an interesting speech that mainly delved into the past—so far back, indeed, that he talked about the role played by the father of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). My hon. Friend came back with a good rejoinder, which was that his father had been the hammer of the Labour left. I always thought that the Minister had suffered in his time at the hands of the Labour left—I remember when he stood in other parts of London—so I had thought that he would be grateful for the hard work of Lord Jenkin.
  The Minister then described a world in which the burdens on local councils were matched by extra revenues. I did not recognise that picture of a world that, as far as I can see, does not exist. Both the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and my hon. Friend the

  1619
  Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked the Minister an interesting question: why should the Audit Commission not judge the extra cost of the burdens when the Government are considering how to fund local authorities? The answer was non-committal and I hope the Minister will return to the issue when he winds up. Those extra burdens are a real problem. Why not give the Audit Commission more responsibility for identifying them? If that had already been done, some of the arguments that we have had this afternoon would not have been necessary.
  The Minister said little about the general question of cost pressures on authorities. I would say that he should get out more to meet them, but obviously if we continue to engage in Opposition day debates such as this we constrain him to appear at the Dispatch Box.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton began his speech with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). When he used the word "plastered", it occurred to me that, in his party, that might be what could be described as a career-limiting joke, but we all enjoyed it. He made some good points. For example, he pointed out that, in 1997, ring-fencing accounted for only 4 per cent. of local government spending. The Minister says that he has been cutting it back, but he has not yet cut it back to that level. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton then made the valid point that while ring-fencing may be decreasing, as passporting and specific grants are rising, local government spending is still hugely constrained.
  Stealing a point that I had intended to make, the hon. Gentleman spoke in some detail about the long list of plans that authorities must produce and the fact that some are now being combined. The Government's legislation is showing a slight Blackadder tendency, in that every Bill must have a cunning plan at its heart. Homelessness, transport and all other legislation begins with the instruction "You, the local authority, must draw up a plan." He made a powerful point in saying that, although the number of plans is being reduced, planning activity—the number of pages of work—will probably remain the same even following the combination.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) told us about something called the Westfest—I assume that it is the Leeds Westfest. I know that he is a keen folk guitarist; I do not know whether he joins in the Westfest, but I hope that he does. He said that the Government were pushing decision making down to local level, which I find hard to square with current experience. He also said that we should break out of the tensions between central and local government. I think that we would all agree with what he said about the importance of involving local people in genuine partnerships in all our constituencies. He spoke of the need for a new model for local government that is much less top-down and that involves participatory as well as representative democracy, and many of us would agree with that as well.
  The hon. Gentleman made the interesting suggestion that we should try to devolve services such as meals on wheels to much lower levels. I agree, but problems arise when there are strict national standards that are difficult to meet and a number of instructions coming from
  1620
  Whitehall. Those of us who represent rural constituencies find that our courthouses, police stations and care homes are under pressure because they cannot meet the national standards. People tell me that they would rather have a courthouse, albeit a small one, than no courthouse at all. We shall need to do more work on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) gave us a preview of the case that he will put, along with my hon. Friend the. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), on the resources given to Macclesfield borough council. He spoke powerfully of the need to allow authorities to plan ahead and spoke at length about floors and ceilings. There are those of us, new to this game, who feel that we have already hit more floors than Frank Bruno and seen more ceilings than Zsa Zsa Gabor, but my hon. Friend was clearly on top of the issue.[Laughter.] An unfortunate phrase, perhaps. He made the point that council tax gearing made the tax increase in Macclesfield worse and I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically when he goes to see him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) referred to the capping of his authority. It has experienced a triple whammy: county, fire and police have all been capped. He said that a cap of £250,000 was proposed, but re-billing would involve huge costs. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his speech.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) told us that his wife now works for the Deputy Prime Minister and that he had not written a speech before coming here today. Putting the two points together, I suggest that his wife, who is clearly an expert in local government matters, should write his future speeches.
  We had something of a "south-west fest" between Devon Members—north, south, east and west—and we heard the wonderful statement from the hon. Member for Teignbridge that we could not have it both ways. I thought that that was exactly what the Liberals had been doing for years, but I must have missed out on something. I agreed with him when he said that we needed transparency. All local government finance systems need transparency, but I question whether we would get it from a local income tax. In areas with a low-income base, there will be an even bigger grant system with even more equalisation. To that extent, it will not be a local tax and it will certainly not be transparent. The Liberals are indeed trying to have it both ways.
  As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon spoke with great power and told us all to go canvassing. He is my Whip, so I shall obey him. He spoke with great knowledge about Devon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge went much further than providing circumstantial evidence. He provided proof that burdens have been added to local authorities and he mentioned three—bureaucracy, costs and unfunded liabilities. I do not understand how the Minister can deny the existence of those burdens. He talked about comprehensive performance assessments and best value. I have to tell him that I visit councils up and down the country and they all say the same thing about the auditing and checking system, the paper work and associated costs. In fact, it is difficult to get them to talk

  1621
  about anything else. They find it largely unnecessary and very expensive. People sometimes ask about our policy: one thing that we could do straight away is to reduce the bureaucracy and burdens that local councils face. That is exactly what we will do.
  The Minister mentioned costs. There is a list of costs that local authorities have had to face in the last two years: national insurance, bed blocking, fuel duties, landfill taxes, the Criminal Records Bureau, extra pensions provision, the Labour pension tax and many more. The Audit Commission report of last year has already been quoted, but it bears quoting again. It states:
  "National cost pressures taken together account for about £2.3 billion out of the total increase in councils' spending of £4.3 billion. In other words slightly more than half the total increase is due to national pay and price inflation, increased national insurance and general population growth."
  That is the report of an independent body: it is authoritative and beautifully makes the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge put to us.
  On the liabilities added to local councils, I accept that many of the objectives are worthwhile, but there are far too many of them, they have been initiated far too quickly and not enough funding has been given to meet them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned legislation such as the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Licensing Act 2003 recycling targets, e-government targets and others.
  I greatly enjoyed one of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned in his speech. He told us about the Local Government Association having to draw up its liveability plan. There must be times when people working in local authorities start losing the will to liveability and wonder when they are going to get on with the business of providing services, rather than providing information to the Minister.
  I want to deal with the nonsense that we have heard about average council tax. It is mentioned in the Government amendment to the motion and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The Conservatives compare what people actually pay and examine the banes. We have used band D, but any band could be used. Thai is the fair and right way to assess it and it leads to the conclusion that Conservative councils cost people less—in fact, £57 less than Labour or Liberal councils. The idea of comparing average council taxes across the board is ludicrous, as anyone who has looked into the problem knows. It ends up being a comparison of how high house prices are in different parts of the country.
  Let me quote the Library on this point, as I am sure that we would all accept its utter and complete impartiality. In its standard note of 4 May 2004, it states:
  "Using a council tax per dwelling figure for comparison is not suitable. This is because in different local authority areas the mix of dwellings by value may be significantly different from another. The average band D council tax figure accounts for this."
  1622
  In other words, the Library endorses our approach. Peter Kellner, more likely to be a friend of Labour than the Conservative party, wrote:
  "The proper way to judge figures is to compare like with like—say, band D figures, council by council … On this issue, Labour is wrong and the Tories are right."
  Mr. Raynsford rose
  Mr. Cameron: I will not give way, as I have only a minute left. As I was saying, it is nonsense to talk about average figures and much better to examine the band figures. Councils and council tax payers throughout the country have been let down by Labour. The 1997 Labour manifesto could not have been plainer when it stated:
  "Local decision making should be less constrained by central government."
  How can Labour Members possibly claim to have fulfilled that pledge?
  We have had more and more spending ring-fenced and determined by Whitehall, and more and more spending has been passported through—again, determined by Whitehall. Taxes, costs and charges have been increased by central Government. Extra bureaucracy has been piled on by central Government to such an extent that many councils now have several employees who just tick boxes and fill in forms insisted on by Whitehall. Extra liabilities are imposed by almost every Government Department.
  Taxpayers and local councils desperately need a Government who will cut bureaucracy, which we will. They desperately need a Government who will not add extra burdens to local government without providing resources. Every year, the Government say the same thing—"It's a generous settlement"—but, every year, the same result occurs: an increase in council tax at three times the rate of inflation. Most of all, we need an honest and open way of assessing the costs, pressures, liabilities and burdens about which hon. Members spoke today. In the meantime, all voters have every right to lay the blame for high council taxes at the door of No. 10 Downing street, and on 10 June, they will have the chance to send the Government a message by voting for Conservative councillors and I for one hope that they will do so in large numbers.
  3.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I was chairing a meeting of the balance of funding review, which has been debating—perhaps in slightly different detail—the intricacies of the future of the balance of local government funding. Interestingly, Professor Gerry Stoker, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), has contributed to those discussions.
  We have had a short, yet helpful—at least from our point of view—debate on local government finance. It is the second such debate in the past seven days.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and

  1623
  Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggests that that is because of the local elections, but unfortunately local elections seem to bring out the worst in the official Opposition and the minor parties.
  Last week, the Liberal Democrats paraded their proposal for replacing the council tax with a local income tax. That would be an utter nightmare, and we comprehensively demolished the proposal last week. This week, the Tories have let slip their plans to reintroduce the poll tax.
  Mrs. Spelman: The Minister was not here for the start of the debate, so for the complete avoidance of doubt and his benefit, may I express categorically that we are not considering bringing back the poll tax?
  Phil Hope: That was an interesting intervention. I am holding a copy of The Times dated 25 May, which has the headline, "Tories seek answers in poll tax". It says:
  "Elements of the widely hated poll tax may be revived by the Conservatives in their local government policy review in an effort to ease the council tax burdens on pensioners."
  It says that when the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was asked whether
  "that meant that some of the principles of the poll tax would be considered for inclusion in the plans, she said: 'We will look at that."'
  If there is to be a U-turn by the Conservatives today and another tomorrow, and if we see the usual muddle, confusion and complexity of Conservative party policy, I guess that the local electorate will be able to deal with that at the ballot box, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) invited them to do.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister talks about muddle and confusion. Does he recall the first time that the present Deputy Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to talk about local government finance? That was more than seven years ago, and he assured us that he would make local government finance easier to understand. Does the Minister believe that his right hon. Friend has succeeded?
  Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has increased local government finance by no less than 30 per cent. in real terms. However, enough of the muddle and confusion of the Conservative party, let us hear more about the Government's delivery to councils to fund local services.
  It is quite entertaining to watch the Conservatives and Liberals trying to trade insults with each other, but the fact is that the Opposition motion is dreadful. It does not contain a single positive word about the future of local services or local government. It is a wholly negative diatribe—we have heard nothing more than that this afternoon—which contains no acknowledgment of the tremendous work that local government does, serving local communities, or of the real improvements in performance. Local authority staff, managers and elected representatives of all parties work hard to secure better services for local people, but that was completely ignored by Conservative Members.
  1624
  For this Opposition day debate, a grand total of two Conservative Back-Bench speakers bothered to turn up. A few more have gathered towards the end to lend moral support, but this—
  Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to criticise Opposition Members for not turning up for the debate, when he did not turn up for the first part of it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is concerned more about putting that on the record than with eliciting from me a ruling on a point of order—which that was not.
  Phil Hope: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Conservative motion is disappointing, but the Liberal Democrats tried to amend it by offering three slogans to be added at the end. That does not say much for Liberal Democrat policy. The party seems to have simply walked away from the problem.
  The Conservative motion is an entirely negative diatribe about local government, which does not acknowledge the achievements under this Government. The Liberal Democrats agree with it completely. I consider the sum total of Tory and Liberal Democrat attacks on local councils to be simply unacceptable.
  A political party must offer the electorate a narrative about where it has been in the past, where it is now and where it is going in the future. The story that best matches the Conservative narrative is rather unseasonal just now. It is "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens—but in this version the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), stars as the Tories' very own Ebenezer Scrooge.
  Three ghosts haunt the land of local government—the ghosts of Conservative past, of Conservative present, and of Conservative future. The most familiar is the ghost of Conservative past. I will say more of the poll tax later, but it was an appalling debacle. It caused VAT to be raised to 17.5 per cent. It was a very unfair system, and placed a greater burden of taxation on people. It led to real-terms cuts in grants to local councils over a number of years, most notably a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in local authority grants over the final four years of the previous Government.
  We must not forget, either, the impact that compulsory competitive tendering had on services. Crude and universal capping was introduced at that time, as were centralised controls on local council capital spending. I hesitate to mention certain measures introduced by the Tories in Westminster.
  Under the Conservatives, crime doubled and police numbers fell. This Government inherited a backlog in council house repairs that amounted to £18 billion. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said today that he would make representations to the Government about improving council houses in his area, but perhaps he will explain why this Government inherited a backlog worth £18 million and council houses in such a poor state.
  Many hon. Members used to be councillors, committee chairs or leaders of local authorities in those

  1625
  dark Tory years. They remember all too well the dreadful impact on their communities of the centralised and harsh regime imposed by the then Conservative Government. That regime damaged many of our poorest communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was chair of housing in Leeds council at the time, and he told the House about his experience of having to sort out the mess. We know the impact that the past had on local communities.
  Have the Opposition learned their lesson? The ghost of Conservative present suggests that they have not. Since 1997, the Conservatives have opposed all efforts at devolution. They opposed the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. They opposed devolution to London. and elected regional assemblies for the three northern English regions. They have opposed every Labour Budget, even though this Government have given a 30 per cent. real terms increase in grants to local councils. They have voted against key areas of legislation to improve local services—in respect of education, housing, planning, policing, transport and child care—which right now are delivering better services for our communities.
  The ghost of Conservative present means that Tory councils are putting up council tax this year by more than Labour councils. On a band D average, Tory councils are raising council tax this year by 5.4 per cent. The truth is that Tory councils cost people more.
  The Conservatives have pressed the Government about the burdens being placed on local government, but it would help if hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench spoke to their colleagues on the Back Benches.
  The private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) would provide that all regulatory impact assessments conducted by the Government should be externally audited. Can anyone imagine a more unnecessary, bureaucratic, duplicatory, cumbersome burden on local government than that Bill? That is evidence of the reality of what the Conservatives want, and it is in direct contradiction of their Front Benchers.
  The Opposition may say that their job is to oppose—although they look rather foolish doing it—so let us look at the Tory alternative, the ghost of Conservative future.
  Mr. Cameron: Given that the Minister did not turn up at the beginning of the debate, will he spend a little time answering the serious speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)? I thought that that was what one was meant to do when winding up a debate. He should answer the points that they made.
  Phil Hope: Unless I am much mistaken, this is an Opposition debate, led by the Conservatives on their proposals on local government finance. I apologise for misleading the House in last week's debate, because I said:
  "The first thing is that the Conservatives will not repeat their poll tax disaster: for that, we can be thankful."—[Official Report, 17 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 784.]
  1626
  I was wrong, and I apologise to the House. The poll tax was not only wrong in practice and in principle but it was political suicide, and it is no wonder that the hon. Member for Meriden was on her feet within 30 seconds—
  Mrs. Spelman rose—
  Phil Hope: Here she is again.
  Mrs. Spelman: There is no excuse for the Minister's not having heard what I said. He does not even have the excuse that he was not here. I shall repeat again, in case he does not retain information very well, that there is categorically no question of us returning to a poll tax.
  Phil Hope: I have been quoting Dickens, but I turn to Shakespeare:
  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
  It was unedifying last week to see the Liberal Democrats trying to stuff back into the hat the £100 rabbit that they pulled out at the Brent, East by-election. Now the reverse is happening. The Tory poll tax rabbit that we thought had been firmly stuffed back into the hat has popped back up again. We may only be able to see its ears at present, but it is there. The electorate can see it, too.
  The poll tax is the least of the Conservatives' worries. Both Conservative contributors to the debate—the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Macclesfield—made heartfelt pleas for more money for their local councils. That is laudable and understandable. However, perhaps they should consult their Front Benchers about their policies. Not only will we get a new poll tax from the Tories, but they have promised a massive £2 billion cut in grants to local councils. On 16 February the shadow Chancellor revealed that in the first two years a Tory Government would freeze spending on local councils. That would inflict immense damage on local authority services. There would be cuts in neighbourhood warden schemes, cuts in CCTV schemes, cuts in school crossing patrols, cuts in refuse collections, cuts in meals on wheels, library staff and social workers. Streets would not be cleaned and crime would rise.
  To make matters worse, the Tories have promised to end resource equalisation. That is the mechanism that ensures that the Government give more support to those areas that have greatest need. Under the Conservatives we would have cuts for all, but bigger cuts for those in most need. It is a disgrace.
  I shall conclude by reminding the House of Labour's policies. We have increased grant to local councils by 30 per cent. in real terms. We have seen significant improvements in local authority performance, as shown by the comprehensive performance assessment. We have given new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. We have introduced an effective best value approach to improving local services and we have seen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, tangible improvements to people's lives. That is a positive vision for local government, working as community leaders, delivering better services, working in partnership with others—including the business community, the voluntary sector and the Government—
  Mr. McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Questions:—
  The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 326.

  Division No.190]

  [3:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Allan, Richard

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Amess, David

  Gamier, Edward

  Ancram, rh Michael

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Bacon, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Baker, Norman

  Goodman, Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Grayling, Chris

  Barrett, John

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Greenway, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gummer, rh John

  Bercow, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Blunt, Crispin

  Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Brady, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Brake, Torn(Carshalton)

  Heath, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Breed, Colin

  Hendry, Charles

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hermon, Lady

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Holmes, Paul

  Burnside, David

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Burstow, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Cameron, David

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Chidgey, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Clappison, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Lamb, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cotter, Brian

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Cran, James(Beverley)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Curry, rh David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maclean, rh David

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Doughty, Sue

  Malins. Humfrey

  Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Evans, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, rh Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  1628

  Öpik, Lembit

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Teather, Sarah

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  Randall, John

  Thurso, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trimble, rh David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whittingdale, John

  Selous, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

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

  Willis, Phil

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gregory Barker

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burden, Richard

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Burgon, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Cairns, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Baird, Vera

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barnes, Harry

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Challen, Colin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Best, Harold

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Borrow, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Connarty, Michael

  Brown, rh Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Corston, rh Jean

  Browne, Desmond

  Cranston, Ross

  Bryant, Chris

  Cruddas, Jon

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  1629

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Efford, Clive

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green &Bow)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lammy,David

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Laxton. Bob(Derby N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Lewis, van(Bury S)

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, rh Thomas

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mc Donaqh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  McFall John

  Grogan, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hain, rh Peter

  McGrady, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacShane, Denis

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Heyes, David

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Miliband,David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  1630

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mole, Chris

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Julie

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

  Southworth, Helen

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spellar, rh John

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Owen, Albert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Straw, rh Jack

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Plaskitt, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purnell, James

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Trickett, Jon

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

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

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  White, Brian

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Williams, Betty(Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Sawford, Phil

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Short, rh Clare

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Simon, SiÔn(B'ham Erdington)

  Wright Tony(Cannock)

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gillian Merron and

  Smith, Angela(Basildon)

  Margaret Moran

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Government has increased grant to local authorities by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997, in contrast to real terms grant cuts under the previous government; endorses the firm action taken by the Government to reduce

  1631
  council tax increases in 2004–05 to the lowest level for nine years; notes that Labour councils have the lowest average Council Tax increases at 4.7 per cent. and the lowest average level of Council Tax at £870; congratulates the Government on its commitment to enhancing the delivery of public services by local authorities and notes the evidence from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment of significant improvement in local authority performance; welcomes the extension of substantial freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, including the prudential borrowing regime replacing the capital controls imposed by the previous government; notes with concern that all of these advances would be jeopardised by the policies of the official Opposition which would freeze expenditure on most local authority services; contrasts the Opposition's current rhetoric with its track record of centralisation when in government; rejects its opportunistic approach; and endorses the Government's commitment to high performing local authorities delivering effective local leadership and quality public services in the most cost-effective way.
  Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had an indication from Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or, indeed, the Department for Constitutional Affairs that they are prepared to make a statement, before the House rises, on the emerging chaos in the distribution of postal ballots? That is particularly important in my region, where, as with other regions in the north of England, an all-postal ballot will take place for the European and local elections. I have received notice from my returning officer today—other returning officers in the north-west region replicate this view—that, owing to problems with the printing of postal ballots, there may be a delay of up to a week in sending them out. Of course, that may have a catastrophic impact on the election. Have you had any indication that the Government will make such a statement?
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been huge concern in the House over the past few months about the Government's decision to proceed with this very large-scale postal voting pilot in the face of clear advice from the Electoral Commission that it was not safe to do so. It now appears that Conservative Members' worst fears have been realised and that the process is already descending into chaos. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the responsible Ministers come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to explain?
  Several hon. Members/rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is an opportunity to enter into a debate on this matter. The straightforward question to the Chair is whether I have received an approach that a statement be made. The answer to that is no; I have no notice of such a request. However, hon. Gentlemen have clearly raised what appears to be a serious matter, and I hope that those on the Government Front Bench have noted it and that we shall see the consequences of that.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House rises tomorrow. A few weeks ago, a Minister from the Dispatch Box gave the House an absolute assurance that everything was all in order for the postal
  1632
  ballot pilots to go ahead. I have heard in my constituency that the postal ballots have not gone out in Amber Valley because of the same problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) mentioned. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, should possibly communicate to Mr. Speaker that it is unacceptable for us not to have a statement on this issue at 7 o'clock tonight, so that the Government can inform us what is happening. The Prime Minister said today at the Dispatch Box that he was making urgent inquiries. If he was making urgent inquiries, the House should also be told what is going on in this shambles. The timetable is very tight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was essentially the same point of order. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has detracted from the importance of the matter that has been raised, but it is not a matter that the Chair can rule on. The answer is that there has been no approach to the Chair as yet for a statement, but I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what has been said and the record will be considered if a decision has to be made as to whether any further action is to be taken before the House rises. I cannot add to that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the point of order. I can rule on a fresh point of order, but I cannot take the same one.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a fresh one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the chance to dispel my scepticism.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to be sceptical, but you have done me a slight injustice. You will know that the Chair has the capacity to take an application for an emergency question. As you know, such an application is normally made in the morning before half-past nine, but there is a discretionary power to take an application for an emergency question later in the day. Do you have the discretion now to take such an application?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would never knowingly do an injustice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If he or any other Member wishes to pursue that line, it would be a matter of approaching the Speaker's Office in the normal way. It is not a matter on which I can rule from the Chair.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling. Unless there is a new point of order, I do not think that there is anything more to be said.
  Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that those of us who debated this issue heard Ministers give categorical assurances from the Dispatch Box that all would be

  1633
  well, what opportunity is there for Ministers to correct the record of the House if they do not make a statement today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is plainly not a fresh point of order that I can rule on. The matter has been aired and its importance is clearly understood. There are opportunities for action to be taken in response, but there is nothing further that I can say now. I do not believe I am justified in holding up further progress in the proceedings on the Order Paper.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with this matter.
  Peter Bottomley: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be original.
  Peter Bottomley: I have seldom been accused of being anything else.
  There is a procedural point: it is open to the occupant of the Chair to suspend proceedings so that discussions can take place between the usual channels to find a way of getting a statement or a debate I have already voted in the European elections; I have been treated more fairly than other people.
  Suspending the House for five or 10 minutes, so that the Government can make a statement about how they intend to proceed, might be the most useful way of resolving the problem. This is not just a party game played out here; it is a matter, in the east midlands, of people not being guaranteed a vote in a form that the Government dictated they should have it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is no case for suspending the sitting of the House, which has business before it There is absolutely nothing to stop the most intense traffic between the usual channels, if that is seen as a way of progressing the matter.

  Town Planning
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that development of the Green Belt continues unabated under this Government; believes the Government's Communities Plan will be unsustainable and will damage the quality of life of millions of people in this country by concreting over green fields and destroying rural communities; further notes that the Government's targets for brown field development have actually led to the loss of green spaces in suburban areas through infill development; and further believes that communities through their local authorities, not remote regional bodies, should be able to decide the priorities for local development.
  If I may beg your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall start by pointing out my tie. You will notice that it is the tie of the Deepings rugby club, and I am wearing it today to celebrate the success of its under-13 and under-14 teams, their coaches and the staff. I know that the whole House will want to celebrate that success with me.
  One reason for the motion is the fact that Conservative Members want to expose the truth. I shall tell some home truths—truths about the homes that should be built on brownfield sites as part of an urban renaissance and truths about the houses that are gobbling up the green belt. In exposing those truths, I shall reveal the Government's trickery, for which I do not blame the Minister for Housing and Planning. He is a good man. I blame the Deputy Prime Minister and the regime under which the Minister is unfortunate enough to work.
  Mr. John Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Deputy Prime Minister had hardly come into office when he gave planning permission, later overturned, to build the largest estate on a greenfield and green-belt site almost in Britain's history, near Stevenage, a town that could do with redeveloping from within rather than spreading out across the countryside?
  Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend's typically apposite intervention gives me the opportunity to explode a myth. We may hear from Labour Members—my right hon. Friend will be ready for this, as he always is—claims that the Conservatives are against all development. Of course the Conservatives are not against all development, but we believe that development should be in character and keeping with existing settlements. It should be of a scale that is appropriate to those settlements and in line with the wishes of local people.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members on this side of the Chamber cannot hear the hon. Gentleman because he keeps turning round. That is unfair because the debate should be for all to hear, not just those on one side of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that is something of which the hon. Gentleman would never be accused. It

  1635
  is a fair point. I have had to rule on a number of occasions because Members at the Dispatch Box, on both sides of the House, tend to move around and, generally speaking, it is helpful not to do so. The more that is addressed to the Chair, the more that will be heard and picked up by the microphones.
  Mr. Hayes: I will, as is appropriate, address my remarks through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will face you as much of the time as possible, to our mutual benefit and enjoyment, I hope.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that that will add to the pleasure of my afternoon.
  Mr. Hayes: Not for the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have made my day.
  Mr. Mark Prisk:Without wishing to test my hon. Friend's patience, may I return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about the decision on Stevenage, which matters to the people in the immediate area and also sets a dreadful precedent? Does he agree that it sets the tone for the Government, who are blind to the precedent that the Deputy Prime Minister has established? The destruction of the green belt will be remembered for many years when they are long gone.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right that that will be the Government's legacy. The whole House and the people of Stevenage and elsewhere will be disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister is not in the Chamber today, because he stands indicted, as my hon. Friend suggested. He ought to come to the House and explain himself.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to the point that my hon. Friend made about the Deputy Prime Minister and the intervention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), did he see the article in The Sunday Telegraph, which said that gardens
  "have been officially classified as 'brownfield sites' ripe for redevelopment under planning guidance issued by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister"?
  Will he call on the Government to explain their position, and on the Minister who, as he said, is a good man, to disown it?
  Mr. Hayes: As if in anticipation of my hon. Friend's pithy and appropriate intervention, I had planned to deal with that precise matter. First, however, I wish to make some progress.
  The Government, as I said, have been engaged in trickery. Like all dud coins, their cons have two sides, but we have come to learn that their currency is spin, not substance. This particular con is about the green belt and brownfield development. Like all confidence tricksters, Ministers initially sounded plausible. Greenfield development has increased under this
  1636
  Government. I am pleased that the Minister does not dispute that, because in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who leads for us, he revealed that in 2000, 430 hectares of the green belt was developed, whereas in 1997, only 405 hectares were developed. There has therefore been a steady increase in the volume of green belt developed under the Government.
  When challenged on the subject, however, the Government are imprecise and evasive about details. That is not my analysis or judgment—I am not guilty of exaggeration or hyperbole, to both of which I am virtually immune—but the considered view of the House of Commons Library, which says:
  "Government replies to PQs asking how much building has taken place on green belt land are normally evasive, mentioning the overall strategy…but not precisely answering the questions."
  I know that you will be struck by that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as, indeed will all hon. Members, who rely on parliamentary questions for good, accurate information. I have already said that the Minister is a good and straightforward man and, apart from anything else, he will be disappointed in himself.
  The Government's claims about the green belt have focused on overall strategy, but they have not given clear details. When challenged, they have claimed that they have increased the green belt in net terms, but their own figures show that the increase from 1997 to 2003 is based on a few limited areas. The increase in England was 24,800 hectares, almost all of which is in four areas. One would expect the pressure for development to be greatest in those areas, and one would expect to find them around London and in the south-east and the south of England. I had a close look at the words of Mr. Duncan Sandys—the Minister will be familiar with his words and, I suspect, reads them in bed every night.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys made it clear that the purpose of the green belt was to produce a tight strip of land around urban areas to prevent their encroachment into the surrounding countryside, that it should be a narrow strip of land and that it should be where development pressure was greatest. It was designed, he said, to prevent "urban sprawl".
  So where were the areas that the Government added to the green belt? In Tyne and Wear, York, south-west Yorkshire and the north-west. The increases can be attributed to smaller areas within those regions: Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Ryedale, Bolsover, Doncaster, Blackburn and Vale Royal. In fact, 91 per cent. —almost all of the increase—can be attributed to Blyth Valley, Tynedale, Bolsover and Blackburn.
  What are the areas like where the green belt has been increased? The Tynedale council website which I looked at describes the area as forestry dominated and truly remote—not the area most likely to suffer from urban sprawl, not an area under pressure for development, but an area that describes itself as "truly remote".
  The Bolsover website describes the greenbelt area as situated on the north-eastern fringes of Derbyshire bordered by the Peak district and Robin Hood's Sherwood forest—elegiac, picturesque; not a place, one imagines, where people are desperate to build vast numbers of new houses—the kind of desperation that is fuelling the development mentioned by my right hon.

  1637
  Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in his early intervention, the kind of development so resisted by the people of Bedfordshire, Kent and Northamptonshire, who know what they face in relation to their communities and the supporting infrastructure.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey rose—
  Mr. Hayes: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is about to defend the attack upon our green fields.
  Dr. Starkey: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I suggest that he does not try to guess what I intend to say. In the title to the debate and in his remarks so far, he has referred to urban sprawl. Would he be so kind as to explain what he means by urban sprawl? His discourse thus far suggests that he regards any extension of urban space to be ipso facto urban sprawl. Is he therefore suggesting that no towns or cities should increase in size at all, and that all development should occur within the existing boundary of an urban space?
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady either did not hear what I said or did not listen to what I said. I said that sprawl, defined not by me, but by the architects of the green belt, was the urban area encroaching into the surrounding countryside. I went on to speak about development that was out of scale, out of character and outside the wishes of local people. I should have thought that was pretty plain. I wonder what the hon. Lady would say to her constituents and people close to them when they were faced with developments of the kind that I described—out of scale, out of keeping, out of character, against their wishes and without supporting infrastructure. I wonder whether she would defend her constituents or kowtow to the Government's position. That is a challenge for her, and I know she will meet it with her usual diligence.
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Mr. Hayes: I shall briefly give way to the hon. Lady, as a matter of courtesy.
  Dr. Starkey: Naturally, I always listen to my constituents, but most of them live in houses built on greenfield land, as virtually the whole of Milton Keynes was, so they understand the balance between the need to protect the countryside and the need to provide affordable housing for young people.
  Mr. Hayes: I shall come to affordable housing, but the protection of the countryside requires more than fine words. We had fine words from the Prime Minister before 1997, when in an interview in Country Life he spoke about how much he revered and loved the countryside. It was a passing relationship that he soon got over.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: In pursuit of an attempt to find out where houses might be, were the hon. Gentleman's party ever to come to power,
  1638
  I note in the Order Paper the phrase, "town cramming", which presumably the hon. Gentleman does not approve of, and the reference to
  "the loss of green spaces in suburban areas through infill development",
  with which the hon. Gentleman does not agree either. So where would the houses actually be? Would they be anywhere at all?
  Mr. Hayes: There is a difference between town cramming and urban regeneration, but I shall deal with that point later, as I feel that I must make some progress. I know that the situation is uncomfortable for Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman is a very diligent Member of Parliament who takes his work seriously, and he takes a great interest m housing and speaks with great authority about it. I know that he is uncomfortable about some of these issues. If he were not a balanced man, he would not have that discomfort, but he is such a man and he will share my disquiet, as well as a degree of the embarrassment that I think the Minister feels deeply.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bedfordshire, in which my constituency is situated. In Luton, we are running out of brownfield sites and using everything that we can, but there are 7,000 families in housing need. Is he telling my constituents that they will not be rehoused, because we are never going to build on greenfield sites outside our town?
  Mr. Hayes: No; indeed, I met a delegation of people from Bedfordshire a few weeks ago, and they argued very strongly that there was a need for development, but not of the nature or on the scale that the Government imagine, and not in the way in which the Government choose to do it—outside the consideration of local people, against their interests and with a minimal chance for them to have a say. I suspect that the people in Bedfordshire, rather like people in my constituency in Lincolnshire, want incremental development of a scale and character that are in keeping with what is already there. It is the speed, scale and nature of development, as well as its location, that are fundamental. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept that we need to build houses—we always have done, and we always will—but where those houses are built, how local communities are involved, the infrastructure to support them and their relationship with the landscape are matters of which everyone in this House should take account, and which Governments in particular have a duty to handle responsibly.
  Mr. John Redwood: I am attracted to my hon. Friend's idea that local opinion should carry more sway. What changes would he like to see in the present planning system to guarantee that that happens?
  Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend will know that I spoke about these matters at some length on Monday. He was one of the first people to demand a copy of my speech, because he takes a great interest in these things. I said on that occasion that the planning system is typically unresponsive. It is esoteric and it frustrates developers and bemuses members of the general public.

  1639
  The Government had an opportunity to do something about that in their Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but rather than rooting planning in the community and making a transparent system, as the Minister said he wanted to do, by removing power and giving it to remote regions, I suspect that the Bill has made planning all the more esoteric and distant from the people who are affected by the decisions of planning authorities. I share my right hon. Friend's distaste for that attack on local democracy, which has been carried forward in the Minister's name. I am a supporter of local democracy, and I want planning decisions to be taken as locally as possible, as clearly as possible and in a way that is well understood by local people. in line with local wishes; but I shall say a little more about that in a few moments.
  The areas where the Government have extended the green belt have been well away from the areas where they should have done so. Indeed, the Library says in precise terms:
  "These are probably not the areas in England where there is most pressure for development."
  That would be bad enough, but the other side of the coin with this Administration is their failure to come clean about brownfield development. Once again, I went to that definitive source of information, the House of Commons Library. You might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I believed, in my innocence, that brownfield land would include disused factories, empty warehouses and sites that needed redevelopment and would benefit from new initiatives, new housing, bringing in new people and building new buildings. That is in line with comments that were made earlier from the Labour Benches. It has been made clear in various interventions that such development is necessary. It is certainly necessary when what we replace is worse than the new development.
  Brownfield land includes not only those sites, but according to my information, any land in the curtilage of an existing structure, which relates to the earlier point about gardens.
  A close examination of the statistics shows that a substantial proportion of what the Government claim is brownfield development—brownfield development is hard to measure because the Government do not give precise answers, but I have examined the national land use database statistical record from September 2003—is not built on what would generally be recognised as brownfield land. That developed land consists not of scars on the landscape that should have been built on, but green spaces within urban areas—developments at the bottom of people's gardens. Frankly, that is the other side of the dud coin, and it is a con.
  The Government easily met their targets for brownfield development, which is an achievement that the Minister trumpets and discusses with great confidence, because the land that they have developed is not, by any reasonable definition, brownfield land. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is an expert on such matters.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of a case in my constituency, where the council proposed to take away some council tenants'
  1640
  gardens in order to meet the Government's targets for building on brownfield land? Given the Government's policy of rebuilding on brownfield land, all council tenants should watch out, because their gardens might be taken away for development.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend had briefed me on that additional point. I am always grateful for his expertise and enormous knowledge, which he often displays in the Chamber and in Committee. Once again, he has added an extra charge against the Minister, whose charge sheet grows ever longer, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) will add to it too.
  Dr. Whitehead: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to get the definition right. Does his definition of brownfield land solely consist of land upon which bricks have physically been placed—the building's footprint—and does he define the marginal land around such a site as greenfield land? If a paving stone or some gravel had been placed on land in order to access a building, would he define the site as being in-between greenfield and brownfield land? He claims that the Government definition of brownfield land is vague, but is his definition of brownfield land as vague as that which he is attacking?
  Mr. Hayes: Most hon. Members would expect brownfield development first and foremost to take account of those sites that, by their continuation in their current form, are a scar on villages, towns, cities or the landscape. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is well travelled, and he knows that many former commercial or industrial sites, which have not been redesignated for housing and which will never be reborn as industrial or commercial sites, would be appropriate for residential development. If I were lucky enough to be the Minister for Housing and Planning—one day, I hope to hold that post—I would develop those places and examine the mechanisms that the Government have put in place to bring that about.
  We know that the development of contaminated sites poses some problems but it is not impossible to review the regulations, fiscal arrangements and the law to examine whether we can use more of those sites. In opposition, we are having such discussions with all the interested parties as we develop our thoughts and policies.
  Somewhere much further down my list might be the issue of in-fill, but it certainly would not be my top priority. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Members and, I suspect, Labour Members, too, would want first to have clear information about precisely what has been developed so far. I defy anyone to glean that information in precise terms from answers that Ministers have given or from the tabular information that is available from the Minister's Department. There are indications that a great number of back gardens have been developed. We can all make the calculation in approximate terms, and we all have anecdotal information from our constituencies concerning land that has been developed and is described as brown field, but is in fact nothing of the sort. Will the Minister give a

  1641
  commitment to provide better-quality information that breaks down the figures to tell us precisely what kind of land is being developed and called brown field?
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I have already given way to the hon. Lady twice, and I want to make a little more progress because many other hon. Members want to speak. I will try to give way again later on.
  The motion refers to the communities plan, which was alluded to in the exchanges that took place during my opening remarks. The Government believe that an extra 200,000 houses should be built in the south-east in addition to the 900,000 new homes that are planned up until 2016. The communities plan is designed to deliver 120,000 houses in the Thames gateway area alone. There are profound concerns about the implications of that for community, sustainability, environment and infrastructure. Yesterday, I was in Northamptonshire. I was engaged in some hard work, but I had the chance to talk to local people and take their view of the communities plan. I have a shocking revelation for the Minister—it was not a positive view. People are extremely worried about its implications for south Northamptonshire. They see it as filling the green space between villages. They believe that it will create commuter areas because communities will be unable to provide the employment or services to make them self-sustaining, so people will have to use those villages and towns as dormitories to travel elsewhere. They feel that their local opinion, although it has been voiced, is not being heard where it matters—at the Minister's desk, on his telephone and in his mailbag. They are frustrated that the considered opinions of local people are being overridden.
  We have to look again at the communities plan. I am not sure that it is ever appropriate to override local opinion in this way, but there is another side to it. If development is skewed into four areas in the south of England, where economic activity and employment are already substantial and there is already a disproportionately large portion of the nation's wealth, what does that say to the other parts of England and the kingdom? What does it say to the north-west and the north-east? What does it say to people in my own dear county of Lincolnshire? It says that we are going to build more homes and create more jobs and wealth where homes, jobs and wealth already exist. The other side to the communities plan is about kicking against a proper concern for the different parts of Britain many of which are desperate for a boost.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a communities plan—such as the situation that existed under the Conservative Government whom he supported—the pattern of planning decisions for housing development was characterised by housing estates being tagged on to towns and villages, often on appeal, in an unsustainable way that was disconnected from jobs and local services and increased the amount of car travel? That is what happens when a negative attitude is in the saddle and there is no sustainable communities plan. If the hon.
  1642
  Gentleman rejects the sustainable communities approach, does he have revised ideas on how things should be done?
  Mr. Hayes: What a good point the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right: much post-war development has been characterised by the sort of unacceptable development that he describes. Housing estates have been tacked on to the end of towns, as he put it. They are often not in keeping and character with the towns and introduce a population to the area who do not assimilate easily, perhaps because they are commuters or drawn from a specific group. For example, estates of bungalows are targeted at older or retired people. To get the community working, there needs to be good social mix, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman acknowledges.
  My vision is of incremental development in towns and cities that is in keeping with them. No town or village should be preserved in aspic—all communities must grow and develop. All communities evolve, but it should happen gently, appropriately and with the consent and support of local people. That is not rocket science; it is the way in which most communities have developed from time immemorial. Suddenly increasing the size of a small town or village by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. is a recent phenomenon. We then wonder why that did not work, why the community did not hang together, why the local infrastructure could not support it, why people could not get on a dentist's or doctor's waiting list and why they had to travel further for work and leisure, with all the attendant undesirable effects.
  We need a complete rethink of the way in which we plan for the future, which must be rooted in communities. "Predict and provide" produced the mess that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) described and Government policy has now mutated into "dictate and provide". That is likely to be even worse. The communities plan needs careful evaluation. In my view, it needs more—it requires challenge. That is not only my view. The Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is as sceptical as me. Its report states:
  "The impact of such a housing programme on the environment could be unsustainable…The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions of Europe, has not been fully assessed … The additional homes could place excessive demands on the environment leading to the loss of green-field sites and excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources."
  I could go on, but perhaps that would embarrass the Minister even more. The Labour-dominated Select Committee took a measured and considered view of his policy and criticised it in fierce terms. With the Select Committee, local communities and the combined might of the Opposition Benches against him, he is under considerable pressure. I hope that he will bend under it in favour of what is right and good. One might have believed so, but we must now consider the revelation of the Barker review of housing supply.
  Mrs. Barker, not content with the massive increase in supply that the Government propose, does not simply want the communities plan to be implemented but up to 250,000 more houses to be built every year. Let us imagine the implications of that for the green fields of England. Not a community in Britain would be safe from the Government if they adopt the Barker review. Although they have not said that they will adopt it—they know the political consequences—they have not said that they will not accept such targets.

  1643
  The Government claim that supply will have an effect on house prices and that affordability will be tackled by building countless more houses. I remind the Minister that new housing constitutes 1 per cent. of the housing stock and 10 per cent. of the transactions. To affect the price of housing by supply requires the sort of building—and more—over 10 years that Mrs. Barker proposes. That means not a few hundred thousand extra houses but possibly between 2 million and 3 million more. They would be built on the green and pleasant land that I love and will defend with my hon. Friends.
  I should move on before I become too elegiac, but the Minister needs to come clean with us about where the Government stand on Barker. Will they go along with it and accept it or do they share my reservations? Let us have an honest answer on whether they believe in a development land tax. Let the Minister say today, "We believe in such a tax." It is recommended in Barker. Let him honestly say that the Government believe in a housing policy, in the words of Kate Barker, independent of local government. Let him say he believes that; let us have an honest answer on Barker.
  I will tell the House my answer on Barker. I know that housing prices are influenced by interest rates, the disproportionate allure of home ownership in Britain, the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles and the level of non-housing borrowing secured against housing equity. Frankly, those things drive up and hold up house prices. To apply a supply-side solution to those demand-side issues is crude and unlikely to work. It would mean stamping on the wishes of local people, which is precisely what Kate Barker recognises. That is why she wants to transfer all the power to regional authorities, which would impose those targets on local people.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I will, because I said I would.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is saying that the relationship between supply and demand has no effect on house prices? If he is saying that, can he explain why the increases in places such as Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge, where there is a relatively finite housing supply but increasing demand for it and prices are going through the roof, have nothing to do with that relationship?
  Mr. Hayes: Of course there is a relationship between supply and demand, but the hon. Lady, who clearly has studied these matters in some detail, will understand that the history of that relationship in this country shows a remarkable insensitivity as between supply and demand. In a textbook economic model, one would expect supply to increase to feed demand. One would expect a close relationship between supply and demand, but, if anything in this country, the most surprising thing about the housing market is the insensitivity between the two, not the closeness that she suggests.
  I simply say to the hon. Lady that she has to answer some questions about the 2001 census data, which have been largely ignored by Kate Barker and certainly
  1644
  ignored by the Minister and the Government, but which reveal that the ratio of dwellings to households is changing. There is an increasing number of dwellings—1 million more—against households. That is 300,000 more than in the previous census, and 900,000 fewer people in this country than previous Government estimates show. I am amazed that Kate Barker did not take that on board. Frankly, the fact that she did not undermines the arguments on which her report is predicated.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the last 25 years, while the population of the United Kingdom has increased by 4 million, so has the number of households? Those figures reveal the most startling demographic changes taking place in our society. Any solution of the housing problem must begin by addressing those changes.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The real housing crisis involves not the net supply issue, but the relationship between provision and need. Look at building history: far more family homes have been built. typically in greenfield areas, than have houses suitable for single-person households. There are far too few adapted houses, wheelchair-friendly houses and houses for older people. There are far too few opportunities for those who want to downsize. Often, older people want to downsize because it is much more convenient for them to live in a smaller property, but they cannot do so while staying in the community in which they have lived and to which they owe their loyalty.
  There are all kinds of supply issues, and all kinds of issues involving the match between provision and need, but those are not taken seriously into account by Kate Barker's report. I have heard nothing from the Government about them either.
  Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I want to end my speech, and I know the hon. Gentleman will make a pithy and powerful speech of his own later; but If he wants me to give way briefly, because I like him so much I will.
  Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He pointed out that there were now 1 million more houses than households. That is partly due to the large and increasing number of second homes. Does he accept the principle adopted by us, and indeed the Government, of ending second-home council tax discounts?
  Mr. Hayes: As a matter of principle, I try never to support or agree with the Liberal Democrats. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however. One of the repercussions of what I described as the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles has been people putting their money into property, and the Government's pension shambles—I know that the Minister is not personally responsible for that, and perhaps he is embarrassed about it—has exacerbated the problem. The hon Gentleman is right: the explosion in second home ownership and the buy-to-let market should be dealt with. The truth is, however, that if people had felt mote secure about other kinds of investment that explosion would not have happened.

  1645
  The motion calls for a very different approach. As I said earlier, what we need is an urban renaissance. We need to tie housing policy closely to regeneration policy. We need to understand that the only way of regenerating our towns and cities is to reachieve the population mix that will make them vibrant and viable. We do understand that sustainability means having the public services, the employment, the life in our towns and cities that will make people want to live in them and bring up their children in them.
  We believe that the Government's policy of seeing housing as separate from those things—as I think they do—is misguided, short-sighted and against the interests of the communities who resent so bitterly what the Government will impose on them by concreting over so many of our green fields. There is a different approach, a new vision. We need policies built on sound foundations. We need to help more people afford homes of their own. We need to ensure that everyone has a warm, safe home built to last—the least advantaged as well as those with good fortune. We need to give local communities control over how they develop. We need to protect and enhance our precious environment. And we need to regenerate urban Britain, building high-quality homes on brownfield sites.
  Those are our goals—goals that are at the heart of authentic conservatism. The idea of a home can inform this party, but it can also inform the Government, and it can inform our nation. Homes are a proper symbol of social justice, of security, of private ownership, of independence from intrusive Government, of local identity and of embryonic community life. We need to find homes for people so that they can enjoy all those things. We need to give the people the homes that they want to anchor them for life's journey.
  5.3 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "applauds the Government for maintaining the amount of Green Belt in England and its pledge to maintain or increase the amount of Green Belt; notes that development of previously developed sites for housing has a crucial role in meeting local needs for housing in the Green Belt and welcomes the Government's crackdown on urban sprawl, by adopting a sequential approach to the release of land and planning growth where it is needed; supports its proactive approach in improving the sustainability of rural communities; applauds the Government's success in achieving its previously developed land target early and increasing average densities of new development, which have helped to take the pressure off green fields; applauds the Government for introducing new planning policies in PPG17 to protect open spaces of value to the local community; and praises the Government for introducing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to improve the speed and quality of decision making and place sustainability at the heart of the planning system, and for its new emphasis on community involvement, ensuring local people's views are an integral part of the plan making process."
  As the House knows, I am a devoted parliamentarian. I relish the opportunity for debate. and it is nice to be so much in demand. I have been here for quite a few Opposition day debates of late.
  Of course the Government are fully aware of the importance of housing and regeneration. That is why we pushed it to the top of the political agenda, and why we
  1646
  are investing a massive £22 billion through our sustainable communities plan over the next three years. Now it seems that after years of silence and inaction, the Opposition have finally woken up to the significance of these issues.
  Of course, those of a less charitable disposition than my own might think that today's debate has something to do with the imminent local elections and that there is an element of opportunism, even scaremongering, on the part of the Opposition in raising these issues in the terms that they have today. Use of such vulgarisms as "town cramming" and "concreting over the countryside" is part of that. Indeed, complaining at the same time about too much development in towns and about concreting over the countryside might seem to some like a classic case of trying to have it both ways. Far be it for me to say so.
  The fact of the matter is that the Opposition's record speaks louder than their rhetoric—and we have certainly heard plenty of that this afternoon. After all, it was the Conservative party that stood idly by while development gobbled up our countryside. Thousands of little boxes were spread across our land, all at dismally low housing densities, most of them designed for nowhere and built anywhere. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, less than 5 per cent. of retail turnover was based on stores outside existing town centres. By 2000, it was growing to nearly a third and rising, as the effects of the big out-of-town shopping centres—the Conservative legacy—began to be felt.
  In fact, during the 18 years of Tory Government, nearly 13 million sq m of out-of-town shopping floor space was developed—shopping centres, retail parks and superstores—and the consequence was the devastation of our historic town and city centres. I wonder, even now, whether the Opposition have fully woken up to the significance of the legacy of unsustainable sprawl that they left to us.
  Let us take one example of that legacy. The motion begins by noting that
  "development of the Green Belt continues unabated".
  Continues from when? Well, let us just consider the facts, using published Government statistics. They show that in 1996, of all the new homes built, 2 per cent. were built in the green belt; and in 2001, 4 per cent. were built in the green belt. Let us be clear: new building does not just happen. It often takes years between the granting of the planning permission and the completion of the development. It often, we think, takes too long, which is why we have brought in our planning reforms to speed up the process.
  The plain fact of the matter is that many, if not most, of the planning permissions for this doubling of new build in the green belt in the late 1990s were granted under the last Tory Government. So if the Opposition insist on talking about the despoliation of the green belt, we all know who the guilty party is—them.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Keith Hill: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will inject a note of common sense into our proceedings.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his rave review. Does he accept that a larger number of

  1647
  people are coming into this country—legally and illegally—than are leaving it? Some external bodies believe that it could be as many as 250,000 extra people a year—equivalent to a city the size of Southampton, which would be necessary to house them all properly. What does the Minister believe is happening in that respect and what impact is it having on the housing market? What would be a sustainable rate for granting people from abroad the right to live and work here?
  Keith Hill: We certainly are in pre-election mode, are we not, with that sort of typical Tory scaremongering? Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman that population growth stemming from various sources is, of course, a significant driver of the demand for housing. We should also be aware—I believe that my old jousting partner, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) put his finger on the problem—that there are other significant drivers.
  More than 40 per cent. of the demand for new housing arises from natural demographic changes in our population. Some are to be welcomed. For example, we live longer; the elderly do not vacate homes on the scale that they did in the past; many people choose to live alone. That is their choice. Unfortunately, other factors—family discord, divorce and so forth—are significant drivers that can often force people to live singly.
  There are therefore many factors at work. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned the Thames gateway, and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), may want to say something about the true Conservative position on that development. After all, it stems from the work of Lord Heseltine, that visionary who used to represent Henley. However, the fact is that two thirds of the growth in housing demand in Kent arises from changes in that wonderful county's existing population. Folk there live longer and choose to live singly, but they also suffer from some of our society's disorders.
  Let us be clear: it is not a question of blaming the enemy outside, but of recognising that serious changes are occurring in our society that we must try to accommodate.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
  Keith Hill: No. I shall try and let the hon. Gentleman in later but in these short debates, with many hon. Members wanting to speak, I am conscious that Front-Bench speakers must be as brief as possible.
  I want to be reasonable about the green belt, which we all cherish. It is wrong to whip up hysteria by making exaggerated claims about its loss. Nearly two thirds of new development in the green belt has been made on land that was previously developed, and total use of green-belt land amounts to only 0.02 per cent. a year.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has been silent, at least in a formal sense, throughout our exchanges so far. I have been courteous enough not to draw attention to her, but if she insists on protesting about the green belt I shall draw the House's attention
  1648
  to her website, where she makes it clear that she entered politics to protect the green belt in her locality. I am not surprised: after all, the Conservative Solihull council adopted the development plan on 22 April 1997—that is, before the general election of that year—that led to the loss of some 260 hectares of the Solihull green belt.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the Minister accept that the Government pulled the rug out from under Solihull council's feet when they redefined what constitutes a brownfield site? They said that my constituents' back gardens were brownfield sites, and in so doing they set neighbour against neighbour. The council found it extremely difficult to defend itself in court.
  Keith Hill: I provoked the hon. Lady to speak. I am not sure that central office will approve of that, on this of all days. She knows that redefining gardens as residential land capable of development has been part of the land use classification system since 1975. The Opposition did not challenge that when they were in government, and we inherited that approach from them. I may say more about that if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mi. Mitchell) intervenes on me later.
  Planning policy guidance note 2 is there to protect the green belt. It confirms that the green belt must be protected as far as can be seen ahead, sets the defining boundaries and provides a presumption against inappropriate development. The guidance is working, and we stand by it.
  In addition, the Government have set clear targets for each English region, including those regions that contain the growth areas, to maintain or increase the current area designated as green-belt land in local plans. That is the policy that the Government are pursuing.
  On a more serious note, I need to say something about the recently published green belt statistics.
  On 29 March 2004, I announced in a written parliamentary statement the release of new statistics on the change in the amount of green belt in England between 1997 and 2003. They showed an increase of around 25,000 hectares in the amount of green belt identified in adopted local and unitary development plans. It was subsequently pointed out to us that the published figures contained errors, including a significant transcription error for which, as the Minister, I of course take full responsibility. In addition, minor corrections have come to our attention in relation to three other local authorities. That is why, in a reply on 10 May to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), I published a summary of revised figures for green belt increases between 1997 and 2003, giving the corrected figure of around 19,000 hectares.
  In the light of those errors, I want to assure the House that further work is being carried out on checking the revised figures, in order to ensure that they are now robust. That will take two to three weeks. Once we are satisfied that they are accurate, a revised statistical release will be issued and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I apologise to the House for the errors. The House will, I know, understand that such things happen, but they should not, and for that, I apologise. However, I should remind the House that statistical errors do nothing to undermine the fundamental point that I want

  1649
  to make today in relation to the Government's record on the green belt: since we came to office, there have been significant increases in the green belt in England.
  Some 19,000 hectares were added between 1997 and 2003, with a further potential 12,000 hectares proposed in emerging local plans. If those proposed increases come to fruition, that would be a creditable 31,000 additional hectares—an area bigger than that covered by Birmingham city council. I contrast that record with what happened between 1993 and 1997, when the green belt increased by a mere 2,000 hectares. Already we have expanded the green belt in our first six years 10 times more than the Tories did in their last four years, and we expect to do better.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister has been honest about the error in the figures, and I accept what he has said. However, I question the proportion of green belt that has been added in areas where development pressure is not the greatest. Most people see the green belt as a means of preventing urban sprawl where development pressure is greatest, and that was its original intention. Why is the Minister adding to the green belt in places where that is not so?
  Keith Hill: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman received my apology. I understand his point, but if he looks in detail at the figures that I published on 10 May he will see that significant reductions have not been made in the green belt in areas of development pressure—and, in some cases, it has been increased. Major green belt additions between 1997 and 2003 were made in places such as Blackburn, Doncaster, Coventry, Stafford, Christchurch and west Lancashire. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that those in the midlands and north of England are at least as entitled as those elsewhere to receive the advantages and the protection of the green belt.
  Let me say loud and clear that we have no plans to relax planning controls on the green belt. The fundamental policy aim remains to keep land around urban areas permanently open, to prevent urban sprawl and to protect the countryside from encroachment. Where green belt boundary changes are proposed, we want to be satisfied that all opportunities for development within the urban area contained by the green belt have been properly considered, including brownfield land.
  Mr. David Heath: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about a particular aspect of development in rural areas. Many of my constituents are getting increasingly irate—I do not believe that they are motivated by discrimination or bigotry—about the fact that Travellers' sites are being allowed on private land where my constituents would have no hope whatever of having permanent development allowed. That is causing friction where there was none before. Is his Department prepared to do something about that, because I fear that it will result in very bad race relations in some parts of England?
  Keith Hill: I appreciate the temperate way in which the hon. Gentleman raised that issue. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, it is an issue not merely for those who live in the countryside but for those who live
  1650
  in urban areas. I assure him that my Department is alert to it. We are active on that subject and we expect to make proposals for revised guidance and more effective enforcement in due course. I hope that that gives him and his constituents some reassurance.
  It is important that local people should also be involved in decisions about the green belt, so the need for boundary changes should be considered first in a review of the regional spatial strategy. Only when the need for change has been firmly established should detailed changes be considered through the local plan process. That ensures that local people have a full opportunity to make representations or object to proposed changes.
  The Opposition accuse us in the motion of "concreting over green fields",
  of losing
  "green spaces in suburban areas through infill development"
  and of "destroying rural communities".
  Mr. Patrick Hall: The Conservative spokesman was generous today in acknowledging the shortfalls of the speculative, mainly private housing development that has too much characterised the past few decades. I think that I am being fair in saying that his solution is to favour incremental, small-scale growth that is decided by local communities. I agree that much development could be dealt with like that, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strategic issues to do with demography, household change, employment, transport, pollution—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hall: Those cannot be dealt with—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I rise to my feet, the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. His intervention is far too long, especially when there is very limited time for debate.
  Keith Hill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a nutshell, I agree with my hon. Friend. Where appropriate, it is right to make small-scale development, but we should not delude ourselves, as a House or as a society, that the pressure for new homes that is already present in London and the south-east can be dealt with by small-scale development about which the local community is the sole arbiter. That is simply unrealistic. We have to go for the larger-scale development that the Government have set out for growth areas. That applies to his constituency and I am grateful for his strategic vision on that approach. We are already bringing in the essential infrastructure and public services that need to be present at the beginning of a housing development and that in the past were unfortunately often brought in at the end, if at all.
  Mr. Hopkins: I reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that we cannot cope with the 7,000 families waiting for new homes in Luton by small incremental changes?
  Keith Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is, as he and I well know, not invariably the case, but I

  1651
  wholeheartedly endorse his observations on this occasion. The sort of proposals being made in his locality for what are, in essence, urban extensions offer a way forward, but the scale might have to be substantial. There is a housing need that must be addressed and no shilly-shallying can avoid that reality.
  I shall try to press on. I am aware that I have already been speaking for a significant time.
  On the terms of the Opposition motion, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1996 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), published the Green Paper, "Household Growth: Where Shall We Live?" It was an extremely tentative document; perhaps the Conservative Government could see the shades of night closing in and did not want to over-commit themselves on policy.
  Nevertheless, the Green Paper contained two important themes. The first was the need for intensification of existing residential areas, including, I am bound to tell the House, the use of gardens. That is in paragraph 6.2—town cramming, I suppose the present Opposition would call it. The second theme was the recognition that not all necessary housing development could be located in existing urban areas—"concreting over the countryside", in their terms, I suppose
  Let me put these questions to the Opposition. What has changed since 1996? Do they believe that they got it wrong in 1996? If they did, what is their answer now to the question they posed themselves only eight years ago?
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Keith Hill: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who might care to answer my question.
  Mr. Hayes: I am reminded of places such as Macclesfield whose Member of Parliament is our distinguished hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and where the local council and community want incremental development of the type that I was advocating, yet the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister's boss, put a moratorium, through strong guidance, on all development in the town.
  Keith Hill: I am aware of the issues in the north-west of England, which are a matter for lively debate in the area, but I must point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, in the preceding period of the regional plan, there was an excess of supply over demand in the region, so the Government clearly have to respond to that reality. Secondly, the Government have ambitious plans for the regeneration of cities in the north-west, so significant new build will be needed in those areas as part of the regeneration process.
  I shall continue, but I may be a little churlish in dealing with future interventions. We all know that, at present, there is a lot of Tory local election propaganda about the Government wanting to concrete over the countryside, but the blunt fact is that the legacy of the Tories was unplanned urban sprawl. That is why the Labour Government introduced a sequential approach:
  1652
  brownfield first, greenfield last. That is why we set a 60 per cent. brownfield target—and it is working. In 2002, 64 per cent. of new dwellings, including conversions, were built on such Land.
  Our policies will not only reduce the profligate waste of greenfield land so characteristic of the executive home developments that were so beloved of the previous Government but help to ensure better designed developments that provide for a wide range of needs.
  We have already seen rises in housing density. The density of new dwellings in England in 2002 was 27 per hectare, a figure that had remained unchanged at 25 since 1996 and was a great deal lower before then. We want further rises. We have already said that in the south-east we want all planned dwellings built at an average of 30 per hectare, up from the 25 we inherited. By 2016, as a consequence, we will have saved 4,000 hectares of land from new build, an area equivalent to the urban area of Ipswich. We recently announced a new initiative to bring 1,650 hectares of surplus public sector land into use for new homes—an area equivalent in size to the London borough of Islington.
  Part of our success in protecting the green belt has been the result of revitalising our cities. They now have a vitality and self-confidence that has been missing for years. That was admirably highlighted in the report, "A Tale of Eight Cities", published by my Department recently.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer rose—
  Keith Hill: I am hurrying on, but I feel that I owe it to my hon. Friend to give way one last time.
  Mrs. Cryer: My right hon. Friend has spoken about brownfield development. A developer in my constituency is anxious to develop a brownfield site that is perfect for that purpose, but the previous owner has a waste disposal licence from the Environment Agency. Apparently, neither the current owner nor I can do anything to about that and it is deterring him from developing a perfectly good brownfield site.
  Keith Hill: I often observe in these debates that there is nothing more deadly than the friendly intervention, and that was a perfect example. I am entirely unsighted of those issues. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend were to write to me. I shall seek to reply to her, within the constraints of my quasi-judicial role as a Planning Minister. I hope that that gives her some satisfaction.
  The truth is that people are returning to our cities, which are cleaner, safer, greener and creating more jobs and prosperity for their populations and regions. Take Manchester. Fifteen years ago, fewer than 300 people lived in the centre of that city of nearly half a million people. Now, the city centre has a population of 15,000 people, and it is growing. Many of them are young people who have colonised refurbished Victorian warehouses. Similar trends are evident in most of our major cities' central areas and they are expected to grow substantially in the next few years, with the planned new residential developments. That regeneration is welcomed, but some apparently, think that we are planning to build in people's back gardens.

  1653
  Let us not forget the wider reforms to the planning system. We need to put planning back at the centre of local decision making and to restore pride in both planning and planners. That is why the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so recently passed by the House, introduces a simpler and more flexible local and regional plan-making system, promoting better community involvement and giving local people more say in what their local environment looks like. For the first time, we have given the planning system the statutory purpose of contributing to sustainable development.
  Let me make it entirely clear that our vision of creating sustainable communities applies equally to rural areas. The fact is that some of our rural areas are suffering, not because we are hellbent on concreting over the countryside, but because local people cannot afford to live there. That is why we have doubled the Housing Corporation's target for low-cost housing in villages from 800 in 2001 to 1,600 last year and why we will build a further 3,500 low-cost homes in villages over the next two years. That is why we are taking further steps to make it easier for councils to limit the resale of ex-council housing in rural areas, so that those homes are reserved for local people. There are now 30 such areas— up from 24 in 1997—and soon there will be 35. That is not rhetoric; it is real action to protect rural communities.
  The choice offered to the House today is simple. We can go forward with this Government's policies: strong, successful, vibrant towns and cities; better designed, more sustainable new development in which homes, jobs and services are planned together, not left to the mercy of the market; and safeguarding our countryside by prioritising brownfield land, increasing the green belt and taking practical action to protect rural communities. The choice is a positive vision of sustainable communities or a return to the sprawl of the past.
  The Opposition bring to the House a record in which out-of-town retail devastated our urban shopping centres, our great provincial cities were ravaged by boom-bust economics and low-density housing sprawled across the countryside. The House has a choice: to go back to the mistakes of the past or to embrace a positive agenda in which economic progress, social justice and environmental concern go hand in hand. The Opposition's motion offers nothing. It reminds us of their past failings. It tells us that they have nothing to offer for the future, apart from opportunism and sloganising. I urge the House to reject the motion.
  5.34 pm
  Matthew Green: We have just heard two speeches, but neither would bear a huge amount of detailed scrutiny.
  The Conservatives' motion is broadly on the point and for that reason we shall support it. However, it is only broadly there. There are difficulties with the Government's approach to planning. They are over-centralist. The recent Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill takes powers away from local authorities and passes them up to unelected regional authorities. We tried to prevent that but unfortunately the Tories caved in and the Government got their way.
  1654
  The Government are over-centralist in their approach to housing numbers; that point has already been discussed. They cannot allow for local variation. Most parts of the south-east are screaming out that they do not want as many houses as the Government want them to take. However, for the past six months I have been asking for an extra 1,000 houses in South Shropshire, but the Minister still cannot provide them because of the centralised approach that is taken.[Interruption.] He says that he is working on it, and I hope he is. We wait with bated breath in my area.
  Overall, the Government's approach fails to trust local authorities as effective planning authorities. The new Bill gives local authorities a greater ability to plan, but the imposition of central targets over that process is the problem. That is where the Minister will discover that the nirvana and vision that he portrayed at the end of his speech will fall down. He needs to give way a bit and trust local authorities more.
  In the Department, housing and planning are almost in separate silos. They are not seen as one and the same thing. I realise that the Minister speaks on both issues, but there is a lack of joined-up thinking between the planning system and the need for more affordable housing. The planning system is not used as a vehicle to deliver affordable housing. Several options are available, but they have not been taken up. Too much work takes place in silos.
  None the less, the motion is a bit rich given that it comes from the Conservatives. We have heard the Minister outline their past failings, but the very title of the motion, "Town Cramming and Urban Sprawl", gives the game away. They are worried about building in towns and building outside towns. They clearly do not want building anywhere. In fact, the purpose of this debate was to allow certain Tory Back Benchers to jump up and say, "I do not want all these extra houses built in my constituency." We heard that several times during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. This is not "nimbyism" but "nimcyism"—not in my constituency. The Conservatives say that they want more affordable housing as long as it is not built in their constituencies. They will quite happily build it everywhere else as long as it is not in the places that they represent.
  Dr. Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the other point that came across in the Tory spokesperson's speech was that the Conservative party wished to direct people to where they should live in England? That is not in the south-east but up north where there is a lot of space. The Conservatives also want to direct people into the sort of households that they should have. The Conservatives believe that people are spreading out too much and that they should live together whether they want to or not.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Lady may have a point, but there is a consensus that housing density should increase. She was verging on saying that that should not happen. However, in broad terms I agree with her.
  I have experience of local Conservatives in my area. Their approach to development seems to be to say no to everything. In fact, the Conservative party appears to have a planning policy that is "Always say no". It is the

  1655
  most negative approach to development that I have ever seen. It does not matter whether jobs or anything else are at stake; it is simply a matter of "Let's say no".
  We have seen the Conservatives' failures in government. Let us not forget that out-of-town supermarkets were developed under the Conservatives, and that in places such as Malvern, supermarkets have devastated the town centre. I am worried that this Government will reverse their policy of stopping such developments.
  Mr. Patrick Hall rose—
  Matthew Green: I will not give way because I am conscious of how much time was taken up by the first two speeches and I realise that other Members want to speak.
  There is a policy vacuum in the Conservative party. The one occasion on which the Conservatives announced a policy on planning and housing was Monday. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the announcement and then appeared on "Newsnight", where he was well and truly Paxman-ed about it. It was a bit of a "Newsnight" mugging. It may not be fair—I do not think that Jeremy Paxman is fair—but it revealed that the policy did not require any legislative changes and might have an inflationary impact on the housing market. When the Conservatives announce a policy they have a problem, but the rest of the time, when they do not have a policy, they are just the party that likes to say "No".
  The Conservatives' wanting to take on the planning issue in local elections would he understandable if they had stood up for what they say they believe in. Let us turn to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. An amendment on the transfer of powers to unelected regional authorities was ping-ponging between the two Houses. This House may not have been made aware that the Conservative motion before the House is their second. They put one on the Order Paper and then changed it. The first said at the end that
  "local authorities should be able to decide the priorities for local development, not unelected regional authorities",
  but they removed those words. I wonder why. They are embarrassed that their Lords let them down and allowed the Government to proceed with a Bill that transfers powers to unelected regional authorities from county, metropolitan and unitary authorities. Far from defending the rights of local democracy, they caved in, and they changed the wording of their motion because they are so embarrassed about it.
  Mr. Edward Davey: What does my hon. Friend think may be the implications of that for next year's county council elections? This year's local elections have reared their head in today's debates. Does my hon. Friend think that the Liberal Democrats could campaign on this issue in the 2005 county council elections?
  Matthew Green: I would be very surprised if Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the counties did not point out the Conservatives' failure to defend elected
  1656
  members over unelected regional authorities. I would also be surprised if it did not get mentioned in the odd "Focus" leaflet. Members from other parties like to mention "Focus" leaflets, but before they jumped up I thought that I would do it for them.
  I have had another experience of the Tories wearing their local planning hat. It comes from the other local authority in my area: Tory-run Bridgnorth district council. I do not often mention it; frankly, it is best not to mention it most of the time. A supermarket is to be built in the centre. of Bridgnorth. The issue is not whether that is right but the approach that the Tories took. They allowed the senior planning officer to do all the negotiations with the supermarket on his own. He then wrote the development control report stating whether the company should get planning permission, and he spoke in the debate. That was allowed by Conservative-run Bridgnorth council. It then allowed the planning officer to interfere with the legal officer's duty by trying to prevent councillors from speaking because he thought that they might be opposed to the development. The most recent failure is the fact that a meeting was held in secret to discuss the deal and the application, which are one and the same, and councillors who turned up were given the relevant papers and told that they had to hand them back at the end.
  That is how the Conservatives run local planning: they do it in secret with no regard to proper and decent practices.
  I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to condemn the conduct of Conservative-led Bridgnorth council.
  I hope that in her winding-up speech the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will touch on planning policy statements. We have spent 18 months debating the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, but the detail that is critical to whether or not someone gets planning permission is included in planning policy statements, which have replaced planning policy guidance. PPSs, however, are never debated in the House. They are produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, are the subject of consultation, and are signed off by Ministers. They are crucial to planning decisions but we never have an opportunity to debate them. We can argue about the system of planning in a planning Bill, but we can never debate the nuts and bolts of the planning system.
  If the Minister for Housing and Planning believes in an open and accountable planning system, he should allow us to debate PPSs, which come up regularly for review. Draft PPS6 has raised a number of concerns, because the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury appear to have had an influence in allowing out-of-town supermarket developments again. I believe that the ODPM is concerned, but has issued the statement none the less. PPS6 favours developers of large-scale multiple retail units over other retailers such as small shops in town centres, which could be damaging to town centres. We know how much damage was caused in the 1980s when supermarkets were built on out-of-town sites, but there is concern that PPS6 will lead to exactly the same problem again. A husband and wife in my constituency have summed it up very nicely:

  1657
  "The centres of small market towns all over Britain will be destroyed just as they have been in France, more small businesses will fail, and many of the jobs created in these new shopping centres will be at the expense of our existing ones. We are constantly being urged to use our cars less and yet new housing developments in the countryside will only encourage more commuting. Why doesn't the Government actively encourage the owners of town centre properties to refurbish…?"
  With PPS6, we are in danger of creating more large out-of-town shopping centres. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that that is not the intention and that if necessary, the Government will change the statement.
  Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend has mentioned out-of-town developments. The Opposition said that they were going to stop such developments, but they started the process. My hon. Friend may be aware that a Conservative Secretary of State allowed a number of years for the ban to come into effect, by which time all the supermarkets had submitted their applications, as has been pointed out. If the supermarkets are allowed to re-establish themselves on such sites, that will sound the death knell for even more town centres. Does my hon. Friend agree that the supermarkets are causing the strange death of merry England?
  Matthew Green: I would not want to vilify supermarkets or go as far as Lord Rooker, who speaks for the ODPM in the House of Lords. Only a couple of months ago, he referred to
  "the spivs in the retail industry"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2004; Vol. 657. c. 854.] —
  not, I think, one of the highlights of recent ODMP speeches. There are, however, problems with supermarket developments, particularly on out-of-town sites.
  I turn to another planning policy statement—draft PPS7, which covers rural areas. I have two concerns, which I hope the Minister will address. One is the general nature of PPS7. I quote from a constituent, a member of the local Campaign to Protect Rural England, who makes a powerful point, although perhaps it is expressed a little too strongly:
  "My main overall concern about the Draft is that it appears to be very heavily biased in favour of almost any form of economic development almost anywhere in the countryside. There is totally inadequate emphasis on the importance of the countryside as a valuable and vulnerable asset in its own right—and on the consequent importance of safeguarding it for its own sake."
  I hope the Minister will give assurances that draft PPS7 will not allow significant business development of an inappropriate sort in the countryside. Clearly, farm diversification needs to take place, but that would happen under the current PPG7. I hope the Minister will begin to address some of the concerns that are being raised about relaxing the rules too much in draft PPS7.
  There is a second and more serious problem with PPS7: its potential effect on affordable housing. The Minister knows that one of the few ways of creating affordable housing in rural areas is through the use of exception sites. Draft PPS7 appears to rule out the use of exception sites for affordable housing in rural areas. That will have a dramatic effect because it will drive the young people away from the villages to the urban
  1658
  centres. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the intent of PPS7, and that if that is its effect, she will change it.
  Finally, I turn to an issue that the Minister raised, but which was not touched on by the Conservatives, surprisingly—that is housing density. I am surprised that with all their worries about town cramming and development spreading out into the countryside, the Conservatives did not mention housing density. Perhaps they were worried because the figures for housing density when they were in government were pretty awful.
  The Minister trumpets the fact that housing density is going up, but the figures are still dismal. The most recent figures we have, which I am sad to say are from 2002, show that 27 dwellings per hectare is being achieved. According to the Government's guidance the percentage should be higher. The median point of the range being discussed would be 40 dwellings per hectare—higher than the Minister mentioned. If that had been achieved over the past few years, 40 per cent. more homes would have been produced on the land that has been used since the Government came to power. That is the effect of getting the housing density numbers up.
  We do not need estates of executive homes with gardens. We need more dense construction, because that is the way of delivering the affordable houses that we need. We do not deny that we need extra housing. We will not put our heads in the sand like the Conservatives and pretend that we can get away with no more extra houses. We need extra houses, but we need to make sure that they will not devour the countryside. I shall not become all Elgar-like, as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was, talking about "green and pleasant Land". I thought he would get on to "dark Satanic mills" after a while.
  The debate, as is always the case when we are coming up to local elections, has been a lot of froth and very little policy. We know the Conservatives have no policy. We know their record is appalling. All they can do is point out some of the problems that the Government have created, and we agree with the words of the motion because they analyse some of the problems correctly.
  The Government, if one believes them, say, "Don't worry. We've got it all in hand. It's all going to be sorted", but their policies do not add up to sorting the problems of affordable housing and protecting the countryside, which could be achieved if they reviewed the policies. I urge the Government to look seriously at integrating housing and planning policies more closely. I do not believe they have done so sufficiently. That lack of integration is leading to the problems that give rise to debates such as this on the Floor of the House.
  5.54 pm
  Colin Burgon: I am aware of the time, so I shall try to cut my comments short. The Conservatives will be pleased that my thunderous attack on their policies in the 1980s will have to be dropped; I shall stick to some fairly positive things.
  I want to bring a northern perspective—if I am allowed to mention the north in this debate—to the issue of town planning and urban sprawl. I shall illustrate my

  1659
  comments with examples from my Elmet constituency, which is full of towns and villages of markedly different characters that are very conscious of their identities. I share the desire of local people to maintain their own geographical integrity, for want of a better phrase. We do not want villages such as Micklefield to merge with towns such as Garforth, and we do not want Garforth to merge with Kippax or, God forbid, Kippax to merge with Allerton Bywater, where I live.
  As I hope has come through in the debate, people are realistic enough to recognise that new homes are needed, and the Minister outlined why they are needed. The reasons include a change in housing patterns and household formation, the fact that we are living longer and the fact that, thanks to a Labour Government, wealth and affluence are growing. My area faces high demand because it is considered a pleasant place to live that has very good facilities. When I travel around the constituency, people tell me that they want their sons and daughters to be able to get a house there and to live in the area when they get married or move into relationships.
  The big question is—the Labour party has had a big conversation, so perhaps we should have a few big questions—where should we try to build those homes? Part of the answer to that big question is: on brownfield sites. I do not recognise portrayals, such as those of the Conservative party, of the developments that the Government have encouraged. I am here today to praise Leeds city council for the success that it has achieved with housing developments in brownfield locations.
  The last figures that I looked at, which were for 2003–04, showed that 80 per cent. of all new homes built in the great city of Leeds in that time were developed on brownfield sites. The positive impact is that, in the review of the unitary development plan for Leeds, we have been able to remove some 352 hectares from planned development and move it back into green-belt land. In areas such as Scholes and Kippax in my constituency, that has been well received. The only blot on the landscape, if I may use that phrase, is the plan for large-scale development at the northern end of Whinmoor, which I will do my best to oppose and defeat. That development would come on the back of the proposed extension to the ring road.
  I am not following a nimbyist line on this issue. My constituency has four or five key brownfield sites, and they are not in people's back gardens. I am amazed that anybody thinks that we could hit housing figures by building in people's back gardens. All I can say is that some of the Conservative Members who have spoken must have exceptionally big back gardens.[Interruption.] Perhaps they have front gardens as well—
  Mr. Robert Syms: And drives.
  Colin Burgon: They even have drives; they have everything, the Conservatives.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman on that point. This is a question not of houses with big gardens, but of where developers may
  1660
  knock down two, three or four houses to obtain access to a large stretch of land that he and I would regard as gardens, so that they can put up 16 or 24 flats. That is the point.
  Colin Burgon: I accept that, and I am glad that we are seeking to promote a better definition. Some of the terms that were thrown about earlier were a bit too loose, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  In my constituency, there are several brownfield sites. There is a petrol station at Micklefield with a car park alongside it, as well as the Swarcliffe development and two other sites—one in Wetherby and another in my home village of Allerton Bywater. The crucial point is that developments on such sites are helping us to meet housing demand and, importantly for people in my area, to protect the adjoining green belt.
  That is particularly apparent in the case of the millennium village, which I shall deal with later.
  In terms of northern house prices, Wetherby is an expensive place to live. People in Wetherby say that they cannot get on the housing ladder and stay in that pleasant market town. If one calls into Wetherby for a cup of tea—hon. Members might consider this when they drive up the A1—the Micklethwaite Farm development site, which is a classic example of a brownfield development, is just before the river on the left-hand side as one drives into the town centre after pulling off the A1.
  House prices are high in that area, so I am particularly pleased that 23 of the 102 properties on that site are affordable homes, ranging from two to five-bedroom units. They have been sold to a housing association that will run them and let them at social rents, which is good news for people in Wetherby. That is one way to begin to address the grave housing shortage, which—let us be blunt—the Conservatives' policy of selling off council houses has exacerbated. There can be no debate on that point.
  In my home village of Allerton Bywater, we are blessed with one of the Government's millennium villages—the first one was in Greenwich, and now the scheme has moved on to Allerton Bywater. The project has been run under the guidance of English Partnerships, which is brilliant at engaging people in the democratic process, helping them to understand what the development is about and addressing their fears and concerns.
  The 25-hectare millennium village site is a good example of mixed-use development. The site formerly provided jobs for 1,400 miners, and the millennium village has brought jobs back into the area as well as housing. The village includes 500 homes, 100 of which will be sold under shared equity schemes. As a result of those schemes, 20 per cent. of the houses will enable younger people to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. I have spoken to representatives of English Partnerships, who say that local people welcome the scheme.
  The millennium village consists of well-designed, high-quality housing, which is important, and it has also revived our community buildings. The old school, which was in a state of disrepair, has been renovated as a community centre and library, and the miners' welfare building, which houses the cricket and bowling teams

  1661
  and various other activities, has been rebuilt and will be reopened shortly. In that sense, the development is a boon. The crucial point is that the millennium village has saved a beautiful swathe of greenfield land between Kippax and Allerton Bywater, which will not be built on because the millennium village partly meets housing need.
  Having listened to Conservative Members today, I urge them to get in touch with the leader of the Conservative group in Leeds, who followed a duplicitous and dishonest policy of opposing that development while demanding the protection of the green belt. Tough choices are necessary in such matters, and we supported the development in order to protect the green belt.
  I have a few additional points for the Minister. I hope that PPG3 will not be weakened, because it has been crucial in developing a sequential approach to housing development—brownfield first; greenfield later—and we should try to strengthen it.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) discussed PPG7. Although PPG7 was brought in to revive the rural economy, it is used like a blunderbuss. It should not be used in metropolitan districts—it was used to introduce agricultural activity on the doorstep of one of the biggest conurbations in Leeds. In that case, a factory was built on the green belt in my constituency solely to promote agricultural or rural revival. That was totally inappropriate, and I hope that we examine that point in the future.
  Village design statements are very popular in my constituency, and they should be given even greater weight in the planning process. I should especially like to mention the residents of Bardsey, who spent vast amounts of time developing their village design statement and finished up losing a big battle on mobile phone masts.
  Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Countryside Agency has just stopped giving grants to communities to produce village design statements as part of the vital villages scheme? I hope that he regrets that as much as I do.
  Colin Burgon: I do regret it, although I welcome the fact that we introduced the policy. Perhaps it will change. However, I do not want to be like the Liberals by facing both ways at once.
  Another aspect of urban sprawl is that when driving on motorways or major roads, one sees redundant trailers and lorries parked in fields with huge advertising signs on them. That adds massive clutter to the countryside, but nobody ever seems able to do anything about it. It is not only local firms that put them there, but multinationals such as IKEA and McDonalds.
  We all tramp round the streets delivering leaflets—at least, some of us do; some people pay to have it done— and we can see that something that makes a real difference to the feel of an estate is the presence of trees. Our planning legislation should enforce the provision of trees in public spaces. There is nothing like trees for breaking up the straight lines of buildings and giving variety and colour to an area, as well as for promoting wildlife.
  1662
  I hope that the Government will continue to encourage bringing life back to our cities. A classic example is the great city of Leeds. Twenty years ago, one would steer clear of the city centre, especially on a Saturday night; now, it is absolutely packed with people. It is a lively place and people are living in it. We should do more to encourage that, because the more people live in the centre, the more pressure is relieved on the edges in constituencies like mine.
  We should continue to have tight planning regulation. I do not want us ever to be like the countries with poor planning regimes that lead to hideous sprawl and inappropriate developments, which many of our constituents see when they travel. I could mention several countries, but I do not want to fall out with them, because they might not allow me to visit them in future.
  Thanks to this Labour Government, the whole basis of urban and rural land use policy is far more coherent and based on sound principles. Now that we have got coherence back into the system, our job is to continue to move forward.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Certain aspects of this debate are of great and grave importance to my constituents. In Sutton Coldfield, we are groaning under the weight of vexatious and unwanted development proposals. We have made some progress over the past year, but it is no thanks to the Government. I am pleased that the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), are on the Front Bench today, because they both have some understanding of the problems. Indeed, on the day that the Minister was promoted, he responded to my Adjournment debate on a similar subject. He recently agreed to meet me and a senior councillor from Sutton Coldfield to discuss the issues. I have also indulged in a great deal of correspondence with the Under-Secretary, some of which is ongoing.
  I want to make three specific points in supporting the motion ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). Overall, my key point is that far too few decision-making powers are in the hands of the local community and that the planning system is slanted too much in favour of developers. We have to rectify that situation in the interests of our constituents.
  First, brownfield development is taking place in areas where no one expected or intended that it should.
  There is a great deal of difference between wasted and undeveloped industrial land, which needs to be cleaned up and returned to productive use, and the sort of back gardens about which the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) and I exchanged views a moment ago. The confusion between infill in the back gardens of houses and industrial development land causes enormous upset and great vexation to people who live in my constituency and similar communities. We all know what brownfield development is meant to be, but the concept has been greatly abused through lack of a clear interpretation.
  Secondly, communities, through local authorities, must have more power in decision making. It is proposed that three bungalows on Little Sutton lane in

  1663
  a lovely part of Sutton Coldfield be demolished to make way for a large number of flats. Everyone opposes that. The three local councillors and I are opposed to it and up to 1,000 people who live in the area have said that they do not want the development. However, the developers are back after being turned down. They can take informal advice from the planners and they threaten to appeal. My constituents are defeated. We cannot match the way in which developers push through proposals, using the well-known weapon on appeal of a slick London barrister. The developers bank the money and move on, and my constituents are left with the disruption and misery caused by a process that should not lead to the results that often ensue.
  Once one or two such developments occur in an area, people wake up one morning and find that its character has completely changed. The effect of great density in an area such as my constituency on doctors' surgeries, schools, parking, roads and so on is incremental and immense. We do not oppose the Government's point about the need to build houses or the density arrangements. However, in a city such as Birmingham, those houses must be built in the right area and the authority must be able, under the law, to discriminate between an appropriate and an inappropriate area.
  In my constituency, developers presented a proposal for Brassington avenue, which is in the heart of Sutton Coldfield. Although many of us welcomed the original proposal, as soon as that welcome for good sense about density was made public, the developers upped the number of flats that they wanted to build and lost the sympathy of the area and the people who had initially examined the proposal and genuinely believed that it might prove appropriate.
  Thirdly, I set the Government a test of their sincerity about the green belt. Peddimore will be a familiar name to the Under-Secretary. It is a site that was removed from the green belt under my predecessor, Lord Fowler, and made a site of regional significance in the west midlands. That was done on the ground of prospective enormous inward investment by the electronics industry. However, it never materialised. The result of a unitary development plan inquiry was devastating. The inspector not only found in favour of the arguments that I and others in my constituency presented and dismissed the council's argument, but made it clear that the council had not even assembled a proper argument.
  The Labour council in Birmingham is trying to subvert the inspector's ruling through the draft regional plan and ask the Under-Secretary and the Department to leave Peddimore as a site of a regional significance outside the green belt. The test for the Under-Secretary and the Department is to listen to what all those people who attended the inquiry said. Let the Under-Secretary hear the authentic voices of local communities speaking for the areas where they live and return Peddimore to the green belt. There is no user for the site and no case for its being out of the green belt. Alternative, much better sites exist and there is a damning case against its current status. I urge the Under-Secretary to examine the evidence carefully and ensure that Peddimore goes back into the green belt.
  1664
  I have been relatively brief about an enormously important subject in Sutton Coldfield. We must ensure that local communities have a much better defence than currently exists. I detect some sympathy for those views from the Under-Secretary. I hope that she will redouble her efforts to find ways of ensuring that the planning system can provide that defence to local communities, which are far too exposed.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning? Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for the first part of his speech, which I shall read with great interest in tomorrow'sHansard, but the latter part I entirely agreed with. He has a great grasp of the important issues we are discussing today.
  I heard all the speeches from the other Front-Bench spokespersons, and I take issue particularly with the Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who, on the one hand, said that planning should not he too centralised and, on the other, that people do not want to live in silos. Unfortunately, local authorities, to some extent, are silos. They can deal only with matters within their boundaries. Central Government must have a role—
  Matthew Green: How much?
  Mr. Hopkins: I have nothing against central Government; indeed, I strongly support them and their planning role. They need enough power to do the job properly. My constituency of Luton, North has a desperate housing shortage. We are running out of brownfield sites and we are doing our best to put as much housing as is reasonably possible within the borough boundaries, but we need to expand to house people. We are talking about people on the council house waiting list, not those in large houses. They are the ones who need homes; we need social housing.
  The word "planning" greatly appeals to me. It has a socialist flavour of which I entirely approve. Of course, the great advance was made by the post-war Labour Government and the Silkin Act, and we owe them a debt. I am fully in favour of planning—sensible planning—and indeed a central role. Only central Government can solve the problems we have in Luton.
  Like many other areas in the south-east, Luton has a serious housing problem. There is a shortage of housing, as well as a shortage of affordable housing, and we need more council housing in particular. There is a similar situation in many other areas. We need to build reasonably near to Luton, but we also have to build in other local authority areas. I have discussed these matters with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), in whose constituency some of the new houses will undoubtedly be built. Some of my constituents may finish up living in his constituency, over time.[Interruption.] They are fine people and I want them to be properly housed in decent homes, wherever they live.
  Clearly, planning law is designed to have a negative effect—to prevent development where it is inappropriate—but it also ought to have a positive aspect so that it promotes development where it is

  1665
  appropriate. To the north of my constituency, there are areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and areas that should not be built on, but there is also pretty average farm land that is entirely appropriate for new housing.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend's use of the word "positive" brings me to my feet, and I very much agree with him on that. Does he agree that, rather than approaching these matters involving housing development and the sustainable communities plan as a threat and something with which to generate fears, which is what the Conservative motion seeks to do, we can be positive and confident about the many interrelated social, economic and environmental benefits that will flow from a strategic look at those issues and which will help society?
  Mr. Hopkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention. If we are to have more housing, the logical place to build it is around existing large towns, especially towns such as Luton, which are below a critical mass at which they can become more interesting. We have heard about the splendid city of Leeds, which can sustain theatres. I was going to say that it can sustain a successful football club, but that would have been unfortunate.
  Nevertheless, big cities can sustain much more interesting facilities than medium-sized and larger towns such as Luton. Luton and Dunstable, together as a conurbation, cannot yet sustain facilities of the kind that I want in our area. I look forward to the expansion of our conurbation to such a size that it reaches the critical mass at which we will be able to have a big, successful football club, an Olympic-sized swimming pool and a professional theatre.
  That is what I am looking for, and I like to think that my constituents agree that Luton could become an even more exciting place if it was larger and we also had decent homes for our people.
  There is much to be said for the Government's plans, and I entirely agree with their approach.
  A point I have made to local authorities in my area, to people who live there and to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is that we should build the benefits into new housing developments. Small spinneys and woodland areas could be made into green corridors forming a link with the existing conurbation. That would make life much more interesting for everyone in both places, and would preserve what is best in the rural element of urban areas. One of the great successes of planning is our preservation of green areas in towns. Certainly there are some nice parks in Luton, and we want to preserve them.
  Mr. John Horam: I entirely agree that we should build an element of greenness into new developments. The problem is that in areas such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and my own constituency, gardens are being filled in, and the concentration on new housing is eliminating the rural, green aspect that we value so much.
  Mr. Hopkins: Local authorities in my area strongly agree that green areas should be preserved and green corridors created.
  1666
  I have not much time left. I want to make one or two important points. In recent months I have had some conversations with house builders. I asked them whether they were interested in building on brownfield sites; no, they were not. Were they interested in building social housing? No, they were not. Were they interested in contracting to build for local authorities or housing associations? No, they were not. What they were interested in was building on greenfield sites where they can get the development value and build expensive executive homes.
  The Government must intervene to ensure that that does not happen. There must be a much greater role for the state at local and national level to ensure that we build the houses that are needed, not those designed to bring big profits to builders. If that means a degree of subsidy to reinvent and recreate the great local authority housing of the past, which housed so many of my friends when I was young, so be it. I am a strong supporter of good local authority housing development, and I believe that it must have a major role in the future.
  We must stop the house builders, the developers and the free marketeers ruining our countryside and making it a place where many of my constituents will never be able to find houses because they will be unable to buy, and where a small minority of people will live in large executive homes. Low-density housing will do nothing to introduce some sort of equality and social justice.
  There are many more points that I would like to make, but perhaps that will suffice for now. I strongly support the Government's position, and will vote against what the Conservatives have proposed.
  6.23 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). Given the limited time, I hope he will excuse me if I do not pick up all his points.
  In an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I pointed out that over the last 25 years the population of our country had increased by 4 million, but so had the number of households. That reveals a dramatic change in our country's demography. Let me give one or two more statistics. The number of lone-parent families has doubled in the last 35 years. The number of single-person households is now 30 per cent. of the total. Conversely, the number of households consisting of married couples and children—what we regard as the typical British family of yesteryear—has fallen from 33 per cent. of the total to 20 per cent. I mention those figures because it is certain that whatever problems we may have in meeting the housing aspirations of the people of our country in the next few years, the task will become immeasurably more difficult.
  Let us also remember two other factors. First, in the last 25 years, car ownership has increased from 14 million to 27 million; and, secondly, we are becoming an ageing population. That has occurred not only because we are living longer—due more to medical science than to the Government, though I sometimes doubt whether Government Members realise it—but because of the falling birth rate. We need more dwelling units and, apparently, smaller homes.

  1667
  I do not believe that there is any all-embracing, single, simple solution. We need different approaches and different policies for different areas. I should like briefly to outline my seven-point policy.
  First, green belt policies have been the undoubted success of post-war planning policy. I believe that they should be inviolable and that Governments should support them. On the one hand, they have prevented towns joining each other, and on the other, they have prevented ever-increasing sizes of conurbations.
  Secondly, we should place even greater emphasis on the use of brownfield sites. One problem is that so many of them are contaminated, making it more expensive to prepare the land for housing. Those sites also tend to be based in areas where building is more expensive than elsewhere. The Government have made changes to section 106 agreements, whereby in return for certain planning permissions being granted, the developers make contributions for the benefit of the community. I believe that the revenues from section 106 agreements should be put into helping developers with the extra expense of developing brownfield sites.
  Thirdly, it is possible for us to be much more imaginative. In the old days, we used to think in terms of high-density development and building multi-storey blocks of flats in cities and large towns. However, the ingenuity of architects and planners now suggests that it is possible to have higher-density, low-level development. I would like to see the Government choosing sites in our great cities and very large towns and holding a competition for the design and layout of high-density development. The high standards of health and security that we demand would have to be met and "defensible spaces", to use the modern jargon, provided for people to live in. The winning schemes should be built. After people were invited to assess them, they could readily be sold off at a considerable profit.
  Fourthly, we need a firmer policy to protect our pleasant suburbs. Too many impersonal blocks of flats have been allowed to replace pleasant houses, and too much unrelieved "tarmacadaming" for off-street parking has been allowed to replace gardens. Providing more places for cars as well as building more flats has been a problem.
  Fifthly, we need to encourage the conversion of more existing non-domestic buildings—warehouses, old mills and so forth—into providing homes. Interestingly, in my part of the country, the value of homes is higher than the value of offices. Some suitable offices could be transformed to become housing stock.
  Sixthly, we must have minimum development on greenfield sites. I am not naÏve enough to suppose that no such development will take place, but it should be a last resort and occur only when it can be shown that there are no more suitable brownfield sites in the area. It should be possible, on a village-by-village basis, to look at smaller communities and settlements to see whether sensible development could make them more viable. That could mean that the local sub-post office does not have to close and that a bobby on the beat and a doctor could be based there locally. A village could thus be transformed into a more economically and socially viable unit.
  1668
  My seventh point is that we need a more imaginative policy to reverse our declining urban areas, particularly in the north.
  Finally, the motor vehicle has changed the way in which we live as well as having a profound effect on our town planning. Why do we not earmark areas in some big cities in which people may live, provided they do not own a vehicle when that is their choice? We might be surprised to find that many people, especially those in our great cities, would like the option of not having a car, yet being able to live in a quieter environment. It is key to making our inner cities and town centres decent, safe and attractive places once again. We need enthusiasm, imagination and commitment; and would it not be wonderful if we could get all-party agreement on how to go ahead and achieve that?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I want to focus on my constituency because it reflects many points made by hon. Members, especially those made by my hon. Friend the Member tor Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) in the context of his constituency. Fareham's population has expanded significantly. In 1961, 58,000 people lived in the borough of Fareham and by 2001 the figure had grown to 108,000. Most of the development has taken place in the west of my constituency, and in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s—especially—it was well planned and environmentally friendly. However, brownfield sites are now being used to intensify development, especially in the western part of Fareham.
  Nursing homes have closed and have been replaced by large blocks of flats. A block called Paxton court with 24 two-bedroom flats is being built to replace only three bungalows on Locks road in my constituency. Last week, there was a planning application to build 53 flats in five blocks, with car parking and access, on the site of only two or three houses in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield identified the problem of more intense development taking place in already well developed areas. The pressure on such sites is continuing not only in the west of my constituency, but in other parts, because the council is required to build more houses to meet the Government's planning targets.
  It was interesting to note that the Minister for Housing and Planning referred to one of the last brownfield sites in Fareham. Some 1,650 hectares of land have been transferred from the ownership of the Department of Health to that of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a former hospital site, and although part of it has been developed as a hospital, much of it consists of green fields. I will be intrigued to find out whether one of the last remaining green areas in the west of my constituency will remain as a place where children can play, or whether the fields will be built upon under the stewardship of that Department.
  Why is there such an intensity of development in my constituency? Hon. Members referred to PPG3 and its guidance on population densities. The increase in the density of housing to 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare is leading to more intense developments on relatively small plots of land, so 24 flats are being built on the site of three bungalows and their gardens. More flats are being crammed into such areas.

  1669
  The classification of brownfield sites to include residential homes must be examined. The Government's adviser on density said:
  "They made very large gardens in the 1930s and it is possible to sub-divide the plots with alleys and paths to introduce denser development".
  Such an increase in population density is occurring in my constituency, and the Government are keen for that to happen.
  An issue that arises from density of development and the focus on brownfield sites is the change of areas' characters. Park Gate, which is in my constituency, is a mixed residential, office and light-industrial area.
  However, the demand for brownfield sites for housing makes it very attractive for businesses to close down and sell their land, or to convert light industrial and commercial premises for the purpose.
  That is what is happening, but there is no debate in the local community about the nature of the area. People who may be able to walk to work now will be forced by the change in use to drive to work. That will put pressure on the already crowded roads in the west of my constituency.
  The increase in the density of development also places pressure on the existing infrastructure. I return to the example of Paxton court, where 24 flats have replaced three bungalows. The amount of traffic on the roads will be between six and eight times greater as a consequence of such intense development of so-called brownfield sites, but the transport infrastructure in the area—both the local main roads and the M27—is already suffering a great deal of pressure from existing developments. Increasing the intensity of residential development and using more brownfield sites will add to the pressure on the transport infrastructure.
  The Government have held no end of inquiries and reports. The south coast multimodal study was the most recent, but there is now to be a further study of transport needs in south-east Hampshire. Those inquiries merely put off the decisions that need to be made if the transport infrastructure is to be improved in my part of the county.
  The increase in intensity of development has not increased the stock of affordable housing available for the doctors, nurses and teachers needed to cater to the needs of the growing local population. In part, that is because the price of the sites being used has been bid up—the pressure to develop on brownfield land has meant that developers have to pay higher prices for land. Those increases have been passed on to the people who buy the flats.
  Flagstaff House is a development on the site of a former nursing home. A one-bedroom flat there costs £150,000—six times the average earnings in Fareham. The increase in housing density does not equate to an increase in affordable housing to meet the needs of key workers who might wish to live in the area.
  The intensity of development and the strains being placed on the infrastructure mean that there is much opposition in the local community to the impact of the planning process. People are starting to feel disfranchised from the process, and to believe that the local council is almost powerless when faced with central Government planning guidelines. If we are to restore confidence in the integrity and transparency of the planning process, we must ensure that local people are able, through their local councillors, to influence more of the decisions that are taken about the future of their communities.
  1670
  That is not happening at the moment. It is important that we reconnect people with the planning process. People in Fareham are asking for a fairer deal.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I begin by declaring my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as I have an interest in a family property and building company. I also want to apologise to those Back-Bench Members of all parties who have not been able to contribute to the debate. I know that they will be frustrated, but it is inevitable that Front-Bench speakers will want to explain what they say in attack or defence, and that they will take many interventions.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) suggested that, in future, it might be appropriate for the House to spend more time debating policy planning statements. I agree, as planning is a major issue in many constituencies. Many constituents are affected by it, yet most policy planning statements are not discussed here before they go out to local authorities for consultation. I think that the usual channels should consider whether those statements should be discussed more fully in Parliament. both when they are introduced and later, when we can see how they affect the communities that we represent.
  Earlier, there was a little spat about rural planning, when it was clear that there were differences of opinion. We should spend more time in the Chamber on such matters, as that may be the best way of securing a holistic view from Members of Parliament.
  In this short debate, we have heard some very good contributions. The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) talked about the big conversation and being the voice of the north. His main concern was ensuring that the communities he represents were not joined up to the urban sprawl of the city of Leeds, which takes in many rural and semi-rural areas. We heard a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who glowed when he mentioned the word "socialism". He wanted to make Luton an even more exciting place than it is at the moment, and strongly defended the Government's policies.
  We heard a traditional and thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who made seven points—unlike President Wilson, who had 14 points. It would be worth the while of the Minister for Housing and Planning to read those points—he was not in his place when my hon. Friend spoke—because they included some very good ideas for the future direction of development. We also heard some good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
  This debate is about town cramming and housing density. The Minister laid great emphasis on the fact that he wanted to increase density and there are certain parts of the country where higher density development is appropriate. In my own constituency, there are one or two former industrial sites near the quay and the former port that could be developed at higher density, and could include more affordable housing. However, PPG3 and the revisions of it in March 2000 are having an unintended consequence. Many parts of my constituency contain family homes with large gardens.

  1671
  What happens is that developers pick streets that used to be middle class, family areas, they buy up two or three homes together or make a large offer to one resident, and then they put in an application for high-density development. As Poole is a seaside resort, the applications tend to be for flats. After the developers get one property, they try to get others, so often multiple applications are made. As a result, the communities feel disfranchised and frustrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said.
  The consequence, as property after property is turned into flats, is that all the people who protested that they did not want the character of the area to change decide to sell up and move out. That means that the essential nature of the area changes. An aerial photograph of Poole would show mainly trees and gardens, but we are gradually losing trees and gardens and in their place we have higher density development. However, that development is not in affordable housing, but in expensive flats, many of them second homes.
  We are losing family homes, trees and large gardens, so the nature of my constituency is changing. That theme is also apparent in Meriden, Sutton Coldfield, Fareham and some of the leafier suburbs of London. It perhaps affects Conservative Members more, because of the nature of the constituencies that we represent. In the past two general elections, the Conservative party was hard hit and the leafier suburbs and rural areas are just about the only ones where we have some representation. In any case, high house prices and the Government's pushing of higher density development through PPG3 have combined in a pincer movement on my constituents.
  Planning committees are pushed, by PPG3, to allow higher density developments in the face of great opposition, and they are now demoralised and upset. The planning department in Poole has told me that the development control officers in the Sandbanks, Canford Cliffs and Parkstone areas have to be rotated—like officers on the Russian front—because of the stress caused by residents telephoning and e-mailing when an application causes great concern.
  That is a feature of Britain. It is certainly a feature of the suburbs and it is changing the essential character of our towns. That is why there is legitimate concern about how PPG3 is implemented.
  We all believe in some degree of national guidance, but I wonder whether there is a way in which one could be more specific about what is and is not appropriate for high density in a local area. My party believes that more of these decisions should be made locally. The only way to sort out the detail and to decide what is and is not appropriate for development is to give more powers to local authorities.
  Perhaps areas should be designated as low-density areas in a particular borough or urban area to save its essential character. As it is, people tend to make areas of a borough conservation areas where that is not necessarily appropriate, because they feel that may be a means to ensure that density levels are lower.
  Essentially, that is the charge that we make against the Government. Statistics and figures are bandied across the Chamber, but much brownfield development
  1672
  is on urban land that was a garden or a drive, or had been previously the site of a bungalow, now demolished. That is our legitimate concern. When my constituents hear that the Government, in their push for higher density, are commissioning a further study from Cambridge university's Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, which is spending £1.75 million to look at even more ways to encourage density in suburbs, their natural reaction is to think, "Goodness, there will be more pressure on us to increase density where it may not be particularly appropriate."
  That is why the Opposition are on the attack today. Our communities feel that they are under pressure and are being threatened. Many of our citizens feel angry and disenfranchised. The consequence of that in the long term is not good for politicians. When planning committees, residents and even MPs feel that they cannot have any impact on what goes on in communities, and that national circulars, Government inspectors and regional officers have more impact on their towns, we are in great difficulty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) covered many issues, and I will not repeat a lot of what he said, but there is concern about how the sustainable communities plan will impact on some areas of the south. Although building over green fields is something that one has to do, the Government have planitis—they seem to have a plan for everything, largely by extrapolating and assuming that the trends will continue, making the situation in many of the areas under great pressure rather worse.
  The other day, I was talking to the leader of Kent county council. He says that quite a lot of land there is appropriate for housing, but that there is not the infrastructure—
  Keith Hill: We are spending £446 million on infrastructure in the gateway.
  Mr. Syms: The Minister says that, but Kent says that the Government are not being so proactive in establishing that infrastructure. We must have balance—we must have infrastructure as well as development. Many people in our communities are concerned that the two do not go together—people get the development first, with all the downside and the difficulties, but they do not get the infrastructure later.
  The Campaign to Protect Rural England, for example, is concerned about the sustainable communities plan. It says:
  "Growth on this scale could devastate the countryside in a region already under severe pressure. And it could further damage declining urban areas which desperately need investment and attention-not just elsewhere in the region but right across the country."
  The south-east is under great pressure. The Government need to think again. The Thames gateway makes sense but some of the other plans are rather too ambitious.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a compelling point on the green belt, which is a great legacy of the Conservative Government of 1955—Duncan Sandys introduced it. It was meant to save land for the long term. It was not meant to be a temporary thing that could be moved at the will of a Government when people felt that it was no

  1673
  longer relevant. At the moment, green belt is being built on where there is already development pressure and green belt is being added where there is no pressure. Doncaster may be a lovely place but I do not think that it faces the same pressures as areas in the south-east.
  That is art issue of real concern.
  My hon. Friend made powerful points about Barker. The report did not take the latest census material into account: there are 900,000 fewer people in the UK and 720,000 empty homes, 300,000 of which are in London. There is a very good argument for looking into the management of our housing stock and freeing up that stock before we build on green fields across the country.
  There is legitimate anxiety about the changes in our communities. I understand the Government's concerns about affordable housing and the need to increase density in certain areas, but in fact what is happening is that many leafy suburbs, and some rural areas, are undergoing substantial change. That is causing great concern to our constituents and the problem must be dealt with; otherwise the anger that already exists will grow. We need a more flexible approach than the Government have shown so far.
  I hope that my colleagues support our motion, because the House should make clear its view of the Government's policy.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) raised issues about planning policy guidance. He may have heard the Deputy Prime Minister on the radio this morning; my right hon. Friend made it clear that we ale not changing the approach to out-of-town developments. Nor does the draft planning guidance mean reducing support for affordable housing in rural areas: quite the reverse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) described the value and importance of the millennium village in his constituency. As his neighbour, I can testify to the importance of that programme, which is regenerating the coalfields area with a new approach to mixed development and the building of mixed, sustainable communities.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) raised concerns about his constituency, many involving planning cases, on which, as he knows, I cannot comment. I shall deal later on with some of the broader issues that he raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) set out clearly the pressures on housing in his constituency. He made a powerful case about the need for more development and housing in the south-east.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made some important points, many of which I agree with, about the value of good design and the potential for city centre redevelopment. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) complained about development and greater density, while simultaneously complaining about affordability in his constituency. That very much epitomises the issues we face in London and the south-east.
  1674
  I want to pick up some of the points made by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and will start with the issues raised about the green belt. Opposition Members have professed grave concern for the green belt, yet figures published by the previous Conservative Government showed that, in the 1980s and the 1990s, they slashed the green belt. The Labour Government have already increased the amount of green belt and we have made it clear that we need to protect the overall level of green belt in every region. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, that is a "darn sight better" than the Conservative party managed to do.
  As Opposition Members know, we have also increased the proportion of new houses built on brownfield sites. So far, the Thames gateway scheme has involved more than 80 per cent. brownfield development, with a density of 37 dwellings per hectare. That substantial brownfield development is a good thing.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that we should go back on the sustainable communities plan and that he does not support the four growth areas. I fear that is yet another example of Conservative Front-Bench Members not talking to each other, because what did the shadow Chancellor tell the Medway Messenger last week? On a visit to the Thames gateway, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We should be proud when we carry forward major schemes like this."
  The Government are indeed proud to be taking forward the Thames gateway development to provide much-needed homes for people who live in London and the south-east.
  Let me deal with gardens. It is Chelsea flower show week so it is a good time to champion gardens. I point out to Opposition Members that nothing has changed for Britain's gardens. The definition of "previously developed land" has not changed. In 1975, under the category "Residential", the national land use classification included
  "houses, flats, sheltered accommodation where residences have separate front entrances and adjoining garages, gardens, estate roads and pathways".
  That definition was used by Conservative Governments for 18 years, and it included gardens.
  The figures on the proportion of brownfield development produced by redeveloping existing residential areas—knocking down houses and rebuilding—has remained broadly unchanged for many years.
  The hon. Member for Poole made slightly more thoughtful points about increasing density undermining the character of certain areas, but planning policy statement 3 and PPS 1 strongly stress the importance of design. Local planning authorities, frankly, should take a much more assertive approach to the quality of developments, the quality of life in an area and design issues. Greater density does not necessarily produce a decline in the quality of life—quite the reverse.
  There is a fundamental problem with the Conservative party's position on planning. The hon. Member for Ludlow was right. The Conservatives do not want to build houses in the green belt. They do not

  1675
  want to build houses as infill. They do not want to build them in the countryside. They do not want to build them in towns. They do not want to build them anywhere. They say that we should put more houses on surplus employment land. We agree. That is why we are changing the guidance, but that will not solve the problem—all the jobs that we are creating have to go somewhere, too. Admittedly, if the Tories got back to office and returned to their boom-and-bust approach, they might create rather more surplus employment land, but I presume that that is not the strategy that they had in mind.
  The last time that we had an Opposition day debate on housing, I said that the Conservatives did not have a grasp of the figures and that their sums did not add up. They wanted to build more affordable houses and cut the housing budget by £400 million. Their sums are bad enough, but it seems that their spatial reasoning is pretty ropey, too. Last time, I pointed out that houses cost money, that they do not grow on trees and that they do not fall from the skies. Now, I have to point out that houses take up space. They have to be built somewhere. They cannot be built in the sky or in trees.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he wanted incremental, gentle development. He was presumably referring to the low levels of building that we saw for too many years. That will simply not provide the homes that we need—the homes that he said that he wanted to provide to anchor people for life's journey. The Conservatives have a strange position. They admit that there are problems with affordable housing and rising house prices, but they then seem to go into complete denial about the relationship between housing prices, housing demand and housing supply. The Tory economic record in practice was abysmal, but at least they used to manage the rhetoric of supply and demand. Somewhere in their years in opposition, they seem to have ditched even any pretence of economic analysis, to fall back on good old nimbyism instead.
  The analysis in the Kate Barker report was very clear on the relationship between housing prices and supply. An overwhelming array of evidence and analysis shows the need for more homes to be built. Various figures have been quoted, and one published assessment stated that housing need would grow by an extra 170,000 every year, owing to household growth. What document did that come from? It was not from the Barker review or the sustainable communities plan, but from the Green Paper on housing growth, published in 1996, by Tory Ministers. In 1996, they thought that household growth would be 170,000 a year. Now, they think that there will be no household growth at all. In 1996, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), wrote in his foreword to the Green Paper:
  "So let us not take refuge in the fond hope that all this will not actually happen."
  Household growth is already happening. Household supply has fallen too far. We need more homes. The Tories should face up to facts and support the development of sustainable communities. Frankly, if they had done that 20 years ago, we might be in better shape right now.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 321.

  Division No.191]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Allan, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Amess, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gummer, rh John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Bacon, Richard

  Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Baker, Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Barrett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Heath, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hendry, Charles

  Bercow, John

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Holmes, Paul

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, rh Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Breed, Colin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burnside, David

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Lamb, Norman

  Cameron, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chidgey, David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Cotter, Brian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James(Beverley)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maples, John

  Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Flook, Adrian

  Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Paice, James

  Francois, Mark

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, rh John

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Rendel, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  1677

  Ruffley, David

  Thurso, John

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Tonge Dr. Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tredinnick, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Turner Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watkinson, Angela

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Steen, Anthony

  Willis, Phil

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Syms, Robert

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. John Randall and

  Teather, Sarah

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark. Paul(Gillingham)

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Baird, Vera

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony

  Coleman, lain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook rh Robin(Livingston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Corston rh Jean

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cruddas, Jon

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Best, Harold

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Curtis Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dalyell, lam

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  David Wayne

  Browne, Desmond

  Davidson, Ian

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham. rh John

  Burnham, Andy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cairns, David

  Doran Frank

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Dowd Jim(Lewisham W)

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Casale, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Challen, Colin

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  1678

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Lepper, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  McAvoy, rh Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Heyes, David

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hodge, Margaret

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Miliband, David

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mole, Chris

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Julie

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, rh John

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan(Felthem)

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  1679

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Ruane, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Claire

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watts, David

  Short, rh Clare

  White, Brian

  Simon, SiÔn(B'ham Erdington)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Betty(Conwy)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Angela(Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Spellar, rh John

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Vernon Coaker and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 164.

  Division No. 192]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Borrow, David

  Austin, John

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Baird, Vera

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Bryant, Chiris

  1680

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Burgon, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Burnham, Andy

  Hain, rh Peter

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  Cairns, David

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

  Casale, Roger

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Caton, Martin

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, rh Jean

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, rh John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Denham, rh John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Kidney, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

  McAvoy, rh Thomas

  McCafferty, Chris

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  1681

  McWalter, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mallaber, Judy

  Short rh Clare

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela(Basildon)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Starkey Dr. Phyllis

  Moran, Margaret

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morgan, Julie

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner Bill

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Picking, Anne

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Tipping Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope Greg(Hyndburn)

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Vaz, keith(Leicester E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Ward, Claire

  Purnell, James

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Watson, Torn(W Bromwich E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts David

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  White Brian

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Wicks Malcolm

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

  Williams Betty(Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Wood Mike(Batley)

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruane, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Barrett John

  Bacon, Richard

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  1682

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lamb, Norman

  Bercow, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Breed, Colin

  Lidington, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Burns, Simon

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Burnside, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Maclean, rh David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cameron, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Chidgey, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Collins, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cotter, Brian

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Paice, James

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Redwood, rh John

  Doughty, Sue

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Flook, Adrian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Francois, Mark

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  Sanders, Adrian

  George, Andrew(St Ives)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Simmonds, Mark

  Goodman, Paul

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

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

  Grayling, Chris

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Gummer, rh John

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hancock, Mike

  Steen, Anthony

  Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Heath, David

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Teather, Sarah

  Holmes, Paul

  Thurso, John

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Watkinson, Angela

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  1683

  Wiggin, Bill

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Mr. John Randall

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the Government for maintaining the amount of Green Belt in England and its pledge to maintain or increase the amount of Green Belt; notes that development of previously developed sites for housing has a crucial role in meeting local needs for housing in the Green Belt and welcomes the Government's crackdown on urban sprawl, by adopting a sequential approach to the release of land and planning growth where it is needed; supports its proactive approach in improving the sustainability of rural communities; applauds the Government's success in achieving its previously developed land target early and increasing average densities of new development, which have helped to take the pressure off green fields; applauds the Government for introducing new planning policies in PPG17 to protect open spaces of value to the local community; and praises the Government for introducing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to improve the speed and quality of decision making and place sustainability at the heart of the planning system, and for its new emphasis on community involvement, ensuring local people's views are an integral part of the plan making process.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to raise the issue of ballot papers in the European and local government elections in the Hazel Grove constituency. Unlike other hon. Members, who have come to the House to say that their constituents have not received ballot papers, I have come to the House to say that my constituents have received ballot papers and that they have been issued with the wrong ones. In two polling districts of the Bredbury and Woodley ward in my constituency, electors have received ballot papers containing forms for the local government elections in the Edgeley and Cheadle Heath ward, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey).
  Madam Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that that is causing grave confusion to electors in not only my constituency but that of the hon. Member for Stockport. Have you received representations from Department for Constitutional Affairs Ministers that they want to come to the House to explain what will happen next? If not, will you use your good offices to encourage them to do so at the earliest possible moment?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not received any such request from the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The matter raised by the hon.
  1684
  Gentleman is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is of serious concern, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will note what he has said.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the light of your ruling that you have not received such notice, if the position remains the same tomorrow, will it be in order for the procedures of the House to be used to make a request to Mr. Speaker for the relevant Minister to come to this House and answer a question about the matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that all hon. Members are free to submit such a request to Mr. Speaker for his consideration.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not questioning your ruling, but this House must be concerned about people being disfranchised. What is happening in the Stockport metropolitan area, Cheshire and other areas of the north-west—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the matter to develop into a debate. I have answered the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
  Mr. David Heath: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this on a different matter, Mr. Heath?
  Mr. Heath: It is a related matter, but not the same matter. I seek your guidance because it is important for hon. Members to be aware of the procedures of the House given the extraordinary chaos that is developing across the whole of the north of England with regard to postal ballots.
  If a request to the Speaker's Office is placed this evening as a matter of urgency, will it be considered tomorrow morning—if no opportunity arises this evening for a Minister to come to this House—so that the Minister can come to make a statement on a matter that most of us are extremely concerned about?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I genuinely understand the concern of hon. Members on such an import ant matter. I therefore suggest that they make their representations to the Speaker's Office as soon as they wish.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  the matter of the Report of the Richard Commission be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

  the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 6th July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and half-past Four o'clock to consider the matter of the Report of the Richard Commission, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Derek Twigg.]

  PETITIONS

    Post Office Closures
    7.30 pm
    Bob Spink: My constituency, like many others, has suffered from post office closures. We recently had three post offices closed, not to be replaced, and a further three post office closures are now threatened. I wish to present two petitions—one to save the Benfleet high road post office and one to save the Victoria corner post office in Hadleigh. I hope to speak about those tomorrow if I manage to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first petition reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Cllr Dave Cross, Cllr Tom Skipp and others of like disposition sheweth
    That there is great public concern caused by the proposal to close the Post Office in the High Road Benfleet which will damage our shopping area and threatens the very fabric of our community, hurting vulnerable people the most and that this closure, coming after so many other Post Office closures, is insensitive.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall implore the Government to change its policies on Post Office closures and on the payment of benefits and pensions and the provision of full banking services so that Post Offices are made more viable and retained.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.
    The second petition relates to the Victoria corner post office. It states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Miss Elizabeth Govier, Cllr Beverley Egan and others sheweth
    That there is considerable concern over the proposal to close the Post Office at Victoria Corner, Kiln Road, which serves people from Thundersley and Hadleigh and Benfleet, and that this closure would damage our shopping area and threatens the fabric of our society and community, hurting vulnerable people the most, particularly in the light of so many other recent Post Office closures.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to change its policies on Post Office closures and on the payment of benefits and pensions and the provision of full banking services so that Post Offices are made more viable and retained.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Northern Cyprus
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.–[Derek Twigg.]
    7.33 pm
    Ann Winterton: When Cyprus is debated in this House, we usually hear the Greek Cypriot point of view, but the Turkish Cypriot case is rarely heard. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to redress the balance.
    The international community asked for the self-determination of the two peoples of Cyprus on the future of the island and the decision has now been made. The Annan plan, on which the two peoples of Cyprus voted on 24 April, was presented to the world by the United Nations, the European Union, the Americans and the British as fair to both sides. It gave neither side as much as they wanted. On 16 April, the Secretary of State of the United States described it as the end of the process. He said:
    "There is no Plan B…There is nothing else coming along."
    Kofi Annan himself said:
    "There is no other plan out there—this is it."
    The two peoples of Cyprus accepted these statements in good faith and voted accordingly.
    Turkish Cypriot voters had serious doubts about whether the Annan plan would secure their physical, economic and cultural future in the island, but they were nevertheless willing to give it a chance. The Greek Cypriots were not.
    Likewise, Turkey had serious doubts about whether the plan would create a sustainable settlement or cause instability and conflict, as proved to be the case with the 1960 settlement. Nevertheless, the Government of Turkey worked hard with the Turkish Cypriots, the United Nations and Greece to negotiate the Annan plan and pledged to do whatever was required to support it. No fair-minded observer could have expected Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots to do more.
    European Commissioners Verheugen and Patten said on 21 April that they felt cheated by the Greek Cypriots. Indeed, Commissioner Verheugen said:
    "I feel taken for a ride by the Cypriot Government."
    How much more cheated do the Turkish Cypriots feel? For more than 40 years, they have been subjected to physical and economic deprivation and debilitating uncertainty and it is time to put an end to that. It is simply not fair to the Turkish Cypriot people to expect them to endure that hardship any longer and there must be no more attempts to force unwilling parties together. Nor is it fair to penalise Turkey a moment longer in respect of Cyprus.
    The European Union said that Turkish Cypriots could not be left out in the cold if the Greek Cypriots voted no and the former have therefore called on the EU and the international community to lift the restrictions to which they are subjected and give them financial assistance to repair the damage done to their economy by those 40 years of restrictions.
    Sympathetic words are not enough and specific action must be taken to lift the restrictions without further delay. Adjustments to the restrictions and the modest financial assistance promised so far is simply not

    1687
    enough. In particular, it is wrong to expect the Turkish Cypriots to accept financial aid channelled through the Greek Cypriot Administration. Direct air and shipping services to and from Northern Cyprus must be permitted without further delay and Turkish Cypriot students must have access to education here at the same cost as Greek Cypriot students. Turkish Cypriots should not be expected to export their goods through the territory controlled by the Greek Cypriots and EU inspectors could be based in Northern Cyprus.
    The international community should also remove visa restrictions. When Greek Cypriots do not need visas, Turkish Cypriots should not need them. It is especially disgraceful that the elected leaders of the Turkish Cypriots should be told to get a visa before they can enter the United Kingdom, even on official business and I ask the Minister for an assurance that this insulting treatment will be stopped forthwith.
    The visit of our high commissioner to Prime Minister Talat's office was welcome but our Government should go further and invite President Denktash and Prime Minister Talat for a meeting with the Foreign Secretary. They should also upgrade our high commission office in the north, with senior UK staff actually living in the north. Relations with the Turkish Cypriot mission in London should also be upgraded to permit the same contact as the Greek Cypriots have.
    Some people believe that there would be something unfair or unjust in that. Others think a threat to international peace would remain. To explain why that is not the case, it is necessary to deal with the international perceptions of the reasons for the situation in Cyprus, which are so fundamentally mistaken.
    The Turkish Cypriots are aware that Greek Cypriots had to abandon their homes in 1974, but they did not wish to abandon their homes in 1958, 1963, 1967 or 1974, which they had to do for mutual defence. The Turkish Cypriots did nothing to deserve the violent attacks to which the Greek Cypriots subjected them in those years and which resulted in the death of so many of their men, women, and children, and the separation of the two peoples of Cyprus.
    The Turkish Cypriots did nothing to deserve expulsion from all their positions in the republic, of which they were co-founders, nor did they use their veto power unreasonably, as is so often alleged. The Turkish Cypriots were heavily outnumbered, had no modern weapons and Turkey was, in 1963, in no position to protect them.
    Our former Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, said in his memoirs that if the Greek Cypriot leadership could not treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings, they were inviting the invasion and partition of the island. Those were prescient words. The Turkish Cypriots called on the guarantor powers—Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom—for help in 1964 and 1967, but none could or would put a stop to the actions of the Greek Cypriots.
    It is hard to believe that the United Nations allowed the Greek Cypriots to get away literally with murder and then rewarded them by treating their officials as the Government of Cyprus for the next 40 years. The Greek
    1688
    Cypriots sought to justify their position by reference to a so-called doctrine of necessity, but they had created the necessity themselves.
    On 12 March 1964, the British Government agreed with Turkey that the title "Cyprus Government" could mean only a Government who act with the concurrence of its Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members. There has of course been no concurrence since 1963, but that essential point has been quietly forgotten.
    This is what the Foreign Affairs Committee found in 1987:
    "When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the changes to the Constitution enacted in their absence".
    In other words, they could resume their seats if they agreed to fundamental constitutional changes to the great disadvantage of their people, imposed on them by force of arms.
    Accordingly, even if there had been any substance to Greek Cypriot claims that they were operating the Government alone of necessity because the Turkish Cypriots were leaving their places vacant, there can be no justification for that claim after July 1965.
    The Turkish Cypriots are willing to forgive the Greek Cypriots and to forget the past, but not while they continue their attempt to strangle the Turkish Cypriot economy by restrictions on trade, communications and sport and continue to force diplomatic isolation on their state.
    It would not be surprising if hon. Members had a different view of those events, because for the past 40 years the world has been given a skilful version of the story almost entirely from the Greek Cypriot point of view. That is because the Greek Cypriots have had all the Cypriot embassies and high commissions for themselves since 1963. They also occupy Cyprus's chair at the United Nations and in all other international bodies, while the Turkish Cypriots have been excluded from that time until now from all the normal channels of international communication.
    The Turkish Cypriots have been prevented for 40 years from having normal trade and communication with the outside world, but what have they done to deserve that discrimination? Their only crime was to be Turkish in an island that Greek Cypriots wanted to turn into a Greek island, by force of arms if necessary.
    It is important to remember that, although the Greek Cypriots are more numerous than the Turkish Cypriots, their relationship with each other has never been one of majority and minority. The two peoples joined together as co-founders when they established the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and successive Secretaries-General of the United Nations have acknowledged that fact. The Annan plan makes it clear that their relationship is one of political equality, where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other.
    The United Nations has never authorised an embargo against the Turkish Cypriots, but the Greek Cypriots were able to place them under restrictions from 1963 to 1974 because they had physical control of the island. By 1974, Greek Cypriot officials had already been accepted for the purposes of day-to-day business by most states and international organisations as if they were lawful

    1689
    representatives of Cyprus, and they were able to persuade the world that Cyprus had been subjected in 1974 to an unprovoked attack by Turkey.
    In fact, when the civil war broke out on 15 July of that year, the Turkish Cypriots again feared for their lives and called on the guarantor powers for help, as the United Nations force could not, or would not, prevent the violence. This time, after waiting 11 years, Turkey responded to their call by landing troops. Britain did nothing to help.
    The Greek Cypriot leader of the anti-Makarios faction, Nicos Sampson, said on 26 February 1981:
    "Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis"-
    annexation to Greece—
    "but I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus".
    Having dealt with Sampson, it would have been absurd for Turkey to depart and leave the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, who had been responsible for their persecution for the previous 11 years.
    Turkish soldiers are needed in the north of Cyprus until the Turkish Cypriots can survive without them. We all know from the 1950s that even the British Army could not disarm the local militia in Cyprus. Notwithstanding those risks, the Turkish Cypriots were willing to accept the Annan plan's reduction in Turkish troops to a mere 650 men—a force that could not even defend itself—and still the Greek Cypriots object.
    After 1974, they enforced their restrictions against the Turkish Cypriots by persuading other countries, and more recently by persuading the European Court of Justice, that it was illegal to trade with or fly to any part of Cyprus without the permission of the "Government of Cyprus"—which meant, in practice, the permission of the Greek Cypriots themselves. The purpose of the restrictions was to bring the Turkish Cypriots to their knees and force them to accept a settlement on Greek Cypriot terms. Fortunately they have not succeeded, but it puzzles most Turkish Cypriots to find that the Greek Cypriots also complain about, for example, the ancient heritage in the north—which I have been fortunate enough to see for myself—but do their best to prevent international experts and donors from giving the Turkish Cypriots any help.
    The Greek Cypriots were also able, by using international acceptance to their advantage, to secure judgments against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights in property cases. In fact the second division of the island, which occurred in 1974 and caused property losses on both sides, was caused by the incomparably more serious violation of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots, none of whom has ever been compensated.
    Some people think that the economic embargo should not be completely lifted because Turkish Cypriots might not then wish to unite with the Greek Cypriots. It is also said that to lift the embargo would be to expose the Greek Cypriot tourist industry to unfair competition from the north. In fact, the reverse is true. The south enjoys an unfair advantage, because the Turkish Cypriots cannot have direct flights to the north or get the investment that they need.
    1690
    By 1983, the Turkish Cypriots had concluded that it was impossible to achieve a reconciliation with the Greek Cypriots. One important reason was the attitude of the Greek Orthodox Church, along with the extreme views of its leadership. It is clear from the attitude of the Church to the Annan plan, including threats to Greek Cypriot voters that they would be barred from heaven when they died, that that is as true today as it ever was.
    The Turkish Cypriots therefore had no alternative but to establish their own state, although the international community never understood the compelling reason for that. The Greek Cypriots were able to obtain Security Council resolution 541, which has dissuaded other states from recognising the Turkish Cypriot state. The resolution calls on the world to recognise only one state in Cyprus, but has advisory force only, and relates to events of more than 20 years ago. The situation today is completely different, especially following the referendum earlier this year, and states need no longer feel that the resolution requires or even advises them not to recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
    It is sometimes claimed that the UN has also called on all states to recognise the Greek Cypriots as the Government of Cyprus, and that the British Government do so. In fact, on 28 April 1980 the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place
    "we have conducted a re-examination of British policy and practice concerning the recognition of Governments. This has included a comparison with the practice of our partners and allies. On the basis of this review we have decided that we shall no longer accord recognition to Governments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 1980; Vol. 408, c. 1121W.]
    On 30 July that year, the then Minister of State reiterated that
    "the British Government recognise States, not Governments."—[Official Report, 30 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 723.]
    That was affirmed again on 12 November 1987.
    Accordingly, if the British Government recognise states, not Governments, neither the Greek Cypriot nor the Turkish Cypriot Administration are recognised by the United Kingdom as the Government of Cyprus. We should therefore stop referring to the Greek Cypriot Administration as "the Government of Cyprus," as the Americans have already done.
    On 25 April 1980, the Government declared that they would
    "decide the nature of our dealings with regimes which come to power unconstitutionally in the light of our assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control of the territory of the State concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 1980; Vol. 408, c. 1122W.]
    Clearly, any such assessment would conclude that the Greek Cypriots are able to exercise effective control of the southern part of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriots of the northern part, and that they are both likely to continue to do so.
    So far as international peace is concerned, the Turkish Cypriots have no aggressive intent toward the Greek Cypriots, and it is they who have opened the border. There is no Berlin wall in Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots know that they have nothing to gain by attacking the north, and Turkey and Greece now have a mature

    1691
    relationship with each other. It is unrealistic to regard Cyprus as a threat to international peace. Turkish Cypriots are as determined as anyone to fight terrorism, drugs and organised crime, and are already co-operating fully with the international law enforcement agencies. The only reason why extradition is not possible is that other countries have not as yet signed an extradition treaty with them.
    Turning, in conclusion, to the people who had to leave their homes in Cyprus as a result of the violence of the past, of course the Turkish Cypriots are concerned about them—as, indeed, are we all—but the dispossessed persons were not only Greek Cypriots. Many Turkish Cypriots have been dispossessed more than once, as they were forced out of their homes in the 1950s, the 1960s, and again in the 1970s. Families have now been resettled for 30 years and more, and the clock cannot be turned back. The Turkish Cypriots' consistent policy, with which I agree, is that everyone on both sides should stay where they are and be compensated. The Annan plan gave 80,000 Greek Cypriots the chance to go back, but they rejected it.
    The property issue must now be dealt with once and for all, and Turkish Cypriots have appealed to the international community for funds with which all those people who lost their property on both sides can be compensated. The British Government should respond generously to that appeal and give further funds with which the Turkish Cypriots can repair the damage done to their economy by 40 years of unjust restrictions.
    7.52 pm
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) for raising this important matter. In the short time left for me to reply, I shall try to respond to some of her points. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not enter into a full historical discourse on the problems of Cyprus. The hon. Lady made a passionate appeal and I hope that she will not disagree with me when I say that she made a strong partisan appeal from the position of the Turkish Cypriots. Had the debate taken place with more expert hon. Members of all parties present and with more time to spare, I could have replied in more detail to some of the historical points that she made.
    Much wrong was done to both communities over the years. The British Government are now seeking not to right all the wrongs of the past, but to move forward. If we allow today to be the prisoner of the past, as Winston Churchill once said, we will never build a future. I do not believe that there are many in the international community who think that the way forward is a unilateral—and, if I may say so, provocative—recognition of the Turkish northern Cypriot state. That is certainly not the position of the United States or of Prime Minister Talat. It is not the position of all those who are working constructively to find both an international and, in particular, a European solution to the problems of Cyprus. It is undoubtedly through membership of the European Union—through its good offices and trading practices, its support for human rights and the rule of law, and other EU values—that a way forward can be found.
    1692
    I regret, of course, that we are not discussing today the courageous decision by the Cypriot people to form a new united Cyprus republic. Had both communities voted "yes" in the referendum, this debate would have taken place under very different terms.
    We must not lose sight of the fundamental goal, which is to work to reunite Cyprus. It is not to encourage a sectarian split, if I might call it that, of the two communities into two states. I believe that the internal dynamic of the EU, combined with proposals to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots—which I hope will address some of the specific and important questions raised by the hon. Member for Congleton—can provide a catalyst to bring both communities together.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed this matter with Mr. Günter Verheugen, the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, this very afternoon. He fully supports encouraging both communities to come together, and the hon. Member for Congleton quoted him accurately earlier. He is concerned that, whereas the Turkish Cypriots voted clearly in favour of the Annan plan, the Greek Cypriots rejected it.
    The immediate next step is the publication of the UN Secretary-General's report on his Good Offices mission. I certainly do not want to pre-empt that document. We will work in concert with the UN and other partners to ensure that we co-ordinate on next steps. Those comprehensive proposals for reuniting the island were a result of years of work, and compromise. Much of the finalised document is the result of the work of Cypriots themselves.
    I repeat that I firmly believe that the plan provides a fair, just and lasting basis on which to reunite. There is no plan B or C. The referendum provided a chance for the Cypriots to state their views on their future, and we must respect the result. However, it is right to suggest that Greek Cypriots need to reflect on whether they made the right decision.
    I believe that it was a great shame that the Greek Cypriots voted no, and that it was a mistake to reject the Annan plan. That offered the best possible compromise, and a basis on which a united Cyprus republic could have functioned effectively in the EU.
    The Annan plan had clear advantages. Half of all Greek Cypriot refugees would have returned to their former homes, under Greek Cypriot administration. A property restitution scheme would have given dispossessed owners a much improved system for getting back a share of their property, and compensation for the remainder.
    In addition, the plan contained strong and effective protections against migration from Turkey upsetting the ethnic balance of the island. Also, the amount of Greek Cypriot territory would have increased from 64 per cent. to 72 per cent. of a unified state, and the UN had agreed to oversee the transfer of territory to ensure that that happened according to the timetable. At the end of the process, the number of Turkish troops on the island would have been reduced to just 650 soldiers, as the hon. Member for Congleton noted, with great force. Finally, almost all the federal laws of a new united Cyprus republic, including the excellent economic arrangements to ensure financial viability, were drafted by Greek Cypriots.

    1693
    In the past 50 years, there have been movements of people all over Europe. We accept that the future of our common EU must be based on interdependence rather than on separatism. People must accept the facts as they are today: they must not hope for a return to the past, or to some imagined past that never properly existed.
    We fully support the EU policy, agreed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, following the referendums. Cyprus has changed. It would be wrong simply to return to the status quo prior to the referendums. We strongly believe that the Turkish Cypriots, who voted for a peaceful resolution of the Cyprus problem, should not be penalised because the Greek Cypriots rejected the UN settlement plans. Turkish Cypriots demonstrated their desire to be in the EU, as part of a united island.
    That is why it is so important that our country and our Parliament take a lead in strengthening the integration of the European Union, so that Cyprus can find a peaceful role within it. We must reject the views of the separatists and anti-Europeans who would encourage those in Cyprus who want to divide the island permanently.
    The hon. Lady asked about visa restrictions on students from the Turkish north and high-level visitors. It is simply a question of visas being appropriate for members of the European Union. Many Turkish Cypriots will be members of the EU by dint of having Republic of Cyprus passports. Turkish Cypriots from the north with such passports will be eligible for the same student visas as any other member of the European Union. The issue of university fees will be dealt with by the normal procedures that cover all EU member states.
    We will approach the increased trade and travel activity with northern Cyprus on the basis of two principles. We will continue to work for the objective of
    1694
    reuniting the island as a bi-zonal, hi-communal federation. It would be wrong, therefore, to recognise the north of Cyprus as a separate, independent state. As I understand it, that is certainly not the wish of the present elected leadership of the Turkish Cypriots.
    On trade, which is a matter of exclusive community competence, we are waiting for the Commission to bring a proposal to the European Council. In the Government's view, the Turkish Cypriots should be able to trade directly with the EU, importing and exporting through ports in north Cyprus. That will mean putting in place measures to permit duty-free imports of all goods wholly obtained or substantially manufactured in the north, provided that they satisfy the necessary EU checks and requirements. There would, of course, be a requirement that the goods enter via recognised border inspection posts, which could carry out the necessary checks.
    We also await suggestions from the Commission for spending the €259 million structural funds earmarked for helping the north "catch up" with the EU acquis. We imagine that to that end the Commission will identify a mix of projects on infrastructure, environmental standards, training and legislation harmonisation. The Government, together with our European partners, seek to send a positive message to the Turkish community in northern Cyprus that Europe is their friend. We hope that Turkey as a whole can start accession talks to join the EU in due course. The future of Cyprus lies in the European Union, as the Mediterranean is a strong part of the future policy—
    The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at three minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Lupus
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Janet Dean: I am delighted to have secured this debate on behalf of the all-party group on lupus. The group was formed just over four years ago and has almost 100 members from both Houses of Parliament, many of whom were encouraged to join by constituents suffering from lupus. The debate is timely, in that it enables us to recognise the achievement of the international lupus community in celebrating world lupus day on 10 May 2004. That was the first world lupus day, and it was held in conjunction with the seventh international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus and related conditions in New York city. The congress brought together hum reds of doctors and researchers, as well as representatives from patients' groups from around the world.
World lupus day focused on the need for increased research into the causes of, and a cure for, lupus, improved health care services, diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and better epidemiological data on lupus globally. It highlighted the fact that researchers believe that at least 5 million people worldwide have lupus, with more than 100,000 cases developing every year.
Lupus affects people from all countries, but it disproportionately affects people c f certain races and ethnicities, and women are nine tithes more likely than men to suffer from it. Increasingly, there is worldwide collaboration on studies and clinical trials of potential new therapies for the condition, and efforts to identify a cause and cure for lupus are being co-ordinated internationally.
World lupus day was under the direction of an international steering committee of 11 people, who represented 21 countries on several continents. Lupus UK's director, Brian Hanner, was one of the main forces behind the initiative. Lupus UK is Britain's national charity dedicated to the support of lupus patients and celebrated its 25th year in 2003. I was extremely proud to be asked to be a national patron of the charity last year.
I should like to say a little more about the disease. When I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on lupus in April 2001, I explained the name systemic lupus erythematosus. "Systemic" means throughout the system. "Lupus" is Latin for wolf, and refers to the wolf-like rash across the cheeks of many lupus sufferers. "Erythematosus" means reddening or inflammation. Such reddening can affect most parts of the body. There is another form of lupus called discoid or cutaneous lupus, which is limited to the skin.
Systemic lupus erythematosus is an auto-immune disease, in which the body attacks itself rather than the bacteria or viruses that the immune system is designed
430WH
to attack. The resulting inflammation can affect many areas of the body and can cause many different symptoms. Some people get only a few; others may have most of them. Nearly all patients with lupus suffer arthritis. About half have diseases affecting their lungs and/or heart, and skin rashes affect about two thirds of patients. Almost half of patients are photosensitive, a third have kidney problems, and about a quarter have central nervous system involvement.
Other symptoms include Raynaud's syndrome, in which the patient's fingers turn white, red or blue in the cold, and hair loss, mouth and nasal ulcers, fatigue and weakness. The body's temperature control can go wrong, causing both shivers and sweats. Inflammation of the kidneys can cause protein in the urine, kidney impairment and, in some people, renal failure, resulting in the need for dialysis or kidney transplant. When the central nervous system is affected, symptoms can range from headaches or migraines to seizures. Patients can suffer transitory visual problems, grand or petit mal seizures, and involuntary tics or muscle twitches. Patients can also suffer from depression and cognitive dysfunction, with effects such as short-term memory problems. Lupus and the associated anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome, or Hughes syndrome, can also cause miscarriages.
With such myriad symptoms, one might think that lupus would be easy to diagnose. Yet, in many cases, it takes several years for a diagnosis to be made. Patients may present to their GP one or two of the symptoms at any one time, but most will never have all the symptoms, so GPs do not necessarily immediately think of the possibility of such a little-known disease. That is why we must continue to raise the condition's profile.
Last weekend, I attended the Lupus UK national conference in Bristol. One speaker—a consultant in maxillofacial radiology—told delegates that all dental undergraduates are taught about the oral manifestations of lupus. I was greatly cheered by that, and I would be grateful if the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), told us whether the manifestations of lupus also form part of a GP's training. It is vital that primary care practitioners faced with a patient with several of the symptoms should consider whether those symptoms are linked and there is a possibility of the patient having lupus.
To endeavour to get the message to primary care trusts, and hence to GPs, I, as chairperson of the all-party group on lupus, recently circulated to all Members of the House a booklet, entitled, "The Big 3", written by Dr. Graham Hughes, the eminent consultant rheumatologist at the Louise Coote lupus unit at St. Thomas's hospital. I am pleased and appreciative that the document was passed to primary care trusts by many MPs.
It is right that we attempt in any way we can to raise awareness of lupus in the medical profession and the wider community. I am therefore delighted that the information on lupus that appears on NHS Direct Online has been updated this week. I commend the information that it contains. Not only does it list the various symptoms and the possible causes, which include sunlight exposure, stress, viral infection,

431WH
hormonal factors and genetic tendency, but it explains how diagnosis is made and outlines the various treatments available for the condition.
There is no cure for lupus. Treatment depends on the severity of the disease in a particular individual and can range from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used to treat arthritis, to anti-malarial medications used in the treatment of skin rashes, tiredness and muscle and joint pain, through to much more aggressive treatments using steroids and immunosuppressant drugs, such as cyclophosphamide and azathioprine. Although most of the drugs used have not changed during the past 20 to 30 years, the methods of administration have improved, thereby reducing the serious side effects, such as thinning of the bones caused by high doses of steroids.
Survival rates for lupus patients have greatly improved over the past 50 years. As with many medical conditions, it is sometimes difficult to balance a description of the many manifestations of the condition without scaring people into believing that their situation is dire. Many people have mild lupus and live well into old age. There are those who have it severely, but it settles down and, for a long time, they may be in remission after the initial aggressive treatment. Some women sufferers find that their lupus subsides with the menopause. Others have such severe symptoms that treatment fails. There remains a considerable high mortality rate from the disease in its early stages, and young people, sometime in their teens and 20s, can lose their fight against the disease.
Other people who might die prematurely are those who have had the disease for many years, where their internal organs, including their heart and lungs, have become damaged, either from the disease itself or from the necessary toxic drug treatments that they have received over the years. Often, such people will not have lupus stated on their death certificate, so it is impossible to assess the full extent of the mortality rate of lupus.
The good news is that many lupus patients who might once have died from kidney failure now survive because of dialysis and transplants. It is vital that more research is carried out into the causes of, and treatment for, lupus. I commend charitable organisations, such as Lupus UK and the Arthritis Research Campaign. for the way in which they fund research into lupus. ARC funds projects throughout the UK, including in London, Manchester and Sheffield. ARC's remit is to fund other rheumatic diseases as well as lupus, but Lupus UK was set up solely to support lupus patients, their families and their carers, to increase awareness of the disease and its impact, as well as to fund research and to educate general public and health professionals about lupus.
Mr. Dennis Turner: My hon. Friend has achieved a great success in initiating this debate. I invite her to pay tribute to Yvonne Norton, chairman of our west midlands lupus group and vice-chairman of the national group. She has made a majestic contribution, although a lupus sufferer herself. I record the thanks of our parliamentary group and thousands of lupus sufferers
432WH
throughout the country for her dedication and commitment. She is a wonderful person, and we are very grateful to her for all her efforts.
Mrs. Dean: I do indeed pay tribute to Yvonne Norton. Without her the all-party group would not exist and Lupus UK would certainly be the poorer. She has done wonderful work in the west midlands region and nationally. I also pay tribute to the chairman of Lupus UK, Ronnie Gourley for his hard work, and we should remember the founder of Lupus UK, Cheryl Marcus, who was at the conference at the weekend. Without her interventions and forethought in the early days, the charity would not have been established. Our thanks go to all of them.
There are currently around 7,500 members of Lupus UK, with 30 regional groups, which are governed by voluntary committees. I pay tribute to all at Lupus UK and all the individual members, some of whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the recent national conference. The national support group is invaluable. Lupus UK members not only lobby their MPs to join the all-party group on lupus, to attend the meetings of the group and to sign early-day motions—early-day motion 1069 entitled "World Lupus Day" has more than 200 signatures attached to it—but they provide support and encouragement to each other.
Lupus can be an incredibly lonely disease. If sufferers know no one else who has the disease they can feel very isolated. Because it is not as well known as other conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, other people will find their symptoms difficult to understand. Sufferers and their families may find the symptoms difficult to understand. GPs may also not understand them until a diagnosis has been made. Reading Lupus UK'sNews and Views or meeting other sufferers helps many patients and their families to understand the condition better and to realise that they are not on their own.
Because lupus is a chronic disease there is a need for close monitoring, sometimes by a patient's own GP, sometimes by consultants in specialist units. Often those will be rheumatology units or specialist lupus units such as the one at St. Thomas's hospital. There are concerns that patients are not able to receive appointments at such centres of excellence as frequently as might be ideal. I would be grateful to the Minister for any reassurance that she can give about access to specialist treatment facilities for lupus patients.
Another issue raised through the all-party group on lupus concerns the employment of specialist lupus nurses at various centres of excellence throughout the country. Currently Lupus UK funds several specialist lupus nurses who provide valuable ongoing support for patients with this unpredictable and frightening condition. The idea is that local primary care trusts should ultimately pick up the costs of these specialist nurses, but in some cases that can prove difficult. I should be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister provided me with some hope that that will be rectified.
I am pleased that so many members of the all-party group on lupus are here today to support this Adjournment debate. I know that members of Lupus UK greatly value the involvement of Members of Parliament in their fight for greater recognition of lupus.

433WH
When the all-party group was established, a survey of all Members of Parliament was carried out to establish their knowledge of lupus. I reported the results in my previous Adjournment debate in 2001. Of the 153 MPs who replied to the survey—that response was pretty good in itself—51 were aware of constituents with the disease, five had close family members affected by it and 24 had friends who suffered from it. I hope that, by now, parliamentarians' knowledge of lupus will have increased even further through the work of that group and because of contact from constituents.
I am well aware of the effect of lupus on individuals and their families, because both my late mother, Mary, and my late husband, Alan, suffered from the disease. For all who are affected by lupus, I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the Government will do all that they can to ensure that the medical profession is well informed about the disease, so that diagnoses are made earlier, sufficient it funding is made available for research into the disease and patients can access specialist treatment when and where it is needed.
9.46 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: When I retired as a doctor, I did not think that I would end up in this place, and when I arrived in this place, I did not think that I would be talking about lupus, which was, if people can understand the phrase, one of my favourite illnesses when I was a doctor. A doctor looks at it in the opposite way from a patient. For a doctor, a favourite illness is one that he thinks he knows something about, he thinks he knows how to diagnose and he thinks he knows how to treat. My problem today is that, because I have given quite a lot of lectures on lupus to general practitioners, students and junior doctors in the past, I must be careful not to give a straight medical lecture, which would not be appropriate. I shall therefore say a little about the name of the disease, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and research.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This might be an appropriate moment for me to remind hon. Members that the first of the three winding-up speeches will start 30 minutes before the debate concludes. I must therefore try to allow all other hon. Members to contribute by 10.30 am. A further three are in line to speak.
Dr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no intention of going on for hours; I am sure that I can say what I need to in 10 minutes or so.
I accept the definition of the name "lupus" that the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) gave. However, I visited my local safari park not long ago and looked at the wolves, and they do not actually have a rash on their faces, so I much prefer returning to the archaic mediaeval Latin, which describes lupus as an eating ulcer or cancer. That is exactly what lupus does. It clogs blood vessels, which means that bits of tissue inside and outside die. The person affected looks as if a wolf has been gnawing at them. The Bible talks about "ravening wolves", and Shakespeare talks about men returning from battle and eating like wolves, but Mrs. Gaskell got it best. She uses the phrase
"deaden the gnawing wolf within",
which is a marvellous quote to describe lupus, because lupus sufferers have a gnawing wolf within.
434WH
Diagnosis in medicine is similar to bird watching. If we are interested in birds, we know exactly what a bird looks like and, from reading about it, its habits. Those of us who know anything about birds know that a willow warbler and a chiffchaff are identical until they open their beaks. Equally, we can look at books, but we cannot recognise various of the wading birds until we really observe them.
I was a general physician with a wide range of interests and a special interest in rheumatology. This may sound hard, but it is not meant to: one almost collects illnesses, and diagnosis becomes the most fascinating part of the job. Seeing someone whose symptoms have gone undiagnosed for years—as with lupus—and being the person who puts their finger on the problem gives one great satisfaction and makes the patient a friend for life, because one then takes them on.
It is splendid that the hon. Member for Burton secured the debate. As she said, diagnosis of lupus is difficult because it mimics other illnesses. One of the first patients whom I saw was a lady who had been diagnosed as having regular clots in her lungs, but the X-ray appearances of repeated pulmonary emboli are similar to those of repeated appearances of vasculitis in the lungs, when the lungs shrink.
I know that my lectures to local GPs had some effect because, as long ago as 1979, I received a letter from a GP about a lady who had had a series of attacks of swollen knuckles associated with a rash of both cheeks and her upper lip. He wondered whether she had systemic lupus erythematosus, and of course, she did. There are many causes of recurrent chest pain, early strokes, and epilepsy, so the only way to diagnose lupus is to be aware of it as a possibility, and do the necessary referral and tests. Oddly, some of the simple tests of acute inflammation—this is an inflammatory disease—that a GP would expect to act as screening tests do not. Lupus is one of the few inflammatory diseases that can completely fox a doctor, as normal tests would pick up some of the inflammatory diseases.
The hon. Member for Burton referred to prognosis. In 1943, all but two of a series of 30 patients were dead in three to eight months. By 1970, survival rates were much better due to treatments, and because the way in which those treatments are used is better than 30 years ago, survival rates are improving. Still, however, patients can be given a gloomy prognosis by somebody who does not know much about lupus. A lady came to me in floods of tears because her husband had been talking to her GP and had been given a fearful prognosis, which he could not keep from her. That needed correction.
On treatment, as has been said, there have been no new drugs in about 30 years, which is very disappointing. I wrote a review article on lupus as long ago as 1970, and in the introductory paragraph, I wrote:
"Since 1948 the advances in our understanding of lupus have been dramatic and exciting. One feels that the final answer must be close at hand."
Sadly, that was 34 years ago.
When I arrived in Parliament, I was staggered to find that there were so many all-party groups related to health issues; my latest list shows that there are 66. Of those, a large number refer to important health issues, but about half refer to single illnesses, where there are pressure groups of patients who feel that those illnesses

435WH
are not getting a fair crack of the whip so far as staffing and resources are concerned. Lupus is one of those, and it is very deserving because it is controllable in most cases. If it is not picked up and controlled, it costs the NHS vast amounts in support and treatment of late complications. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister ideas about raising awareness, which should not cost too much money. Most local hospitals have a rheumatologist, who will diagnose the disease if someone is referred to them, and there are also specialist centres. I hope that Government funds will increasingly be pushed into the research into lupus, and I would like to hear some encouragement from the Minister on that.
9.55 am
Liz Blackman: First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate and pay tribute to her hard work over the years, not only in raising awareness of lupus, but in campaigning for better services. In comparison, I know little about it. I belong to an east midlands group, I am a member of the all-party group and I have constituents who have lupus. For those reasons, I intend to confine my remarks to one or two specific points about it.
Lupus is an auto-immune condition; in fact, it is a spectrum of disorders. Its symptoms can range across any medical book, in any combination. They can be mild or extremely severe and can move from one to the other in the blink of an eye. That makes diagnosis extremely challenging. Yesterday, I rang the lupus expert centre in Nottingham, and I asked a clinician whether there was any evidence that patients were rattling around less at general practitioner level before being referred to that centre. He said that there was. I asked him what he put that down to and he said that it was partly because of the work of Lupus UK in raising awareness, and because there is an excellent centre in Nottingham. Of course, communities of GPs liaise and link with a local or sub-regional centre of excellence, and naturally improve their education in that way.
Unfortunately, there are still gaps in the service and an awful lot of stories about people struggling a great deal to get a diagnosis. Nevertheless, diagnostic tests are much more available to GPs, including auto-antibody tests, and there is evidence that GPs are using them more. Therefore, there are encouraging signs, but there is a lot more to be done.
A patient who receives a diagnosis of lupus may follow various pathways. People might be lucky enough to live in an area where there is a sub-regional centre of excellence, such as Nottingham, Newcastle, Birmingham, or Leeds; St. Thomas's and the Middlesex have also been mentioned. What has happened is that a group of experts have come together and made the service excellent. They have a specific interest. Their backgrounds are in haematology, immunology, rheumatology and renal services. For some reason, a catalyst has brought them together and they have knit the service together well.
However, those sub-regional centres do not exist everywhere. There are some good local lupus facilities that can offer treatment for the aggressive presentation
436WH
of lupus, but they do not necessarily have the same kinds of facilities as the sub-regional centres. Many patients find themselves in local hospitals where the training and expertise in management simply is not at the same level. I wondered whether the Minister would say whether there is an additional role for strategic health authorities, to ensure that those excellent services are much more coherently available across the country. I would be grateful if she examined that. Primary care trusts also have a role in terms of funding and commissioning services.
At the heart of the lupus issue, because of the nature of the condition, is patient self-management. The patients know their condition best; they know when symptoms change. However, at the heart of that is the need for investment in resources for good education for patients, so that they can see the signs, access the relevant services and make a distinction between signs that might indicate a stepping-up—a more aggressive presentation—of the disease, and signs that herald something much more common that we all get from time to time.
At Nottingham, the PCTs have gathered together and funded two specialist lupus nurses. They are invaluable: patients can access them at any time, and if those patients have an aggressive episode, they are rapidly signposted to the appropriate services. Specialist nurses for many conditions are coming through now, and I would like to see more coming through for lupus. Patient self-management is phenomenally important.
I want to move on to treatment other than self-management. One large aspect of tackling the condition is the drugs regime. As has already been said, there are far more effective drugs, and cocktails of drugs, available now than ever before. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, many years ago a person given a lupus diagnosis thought that they had—and in many cases, they did have—a death sentence. That is no longer the case.
I am delighted that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is evaluating prasterone for systemic lupus erythematosus. Thai is very good news. However, there is a problem with developing drugs for a condition such as lupus, because the disease is still relatively uncommon, and drug companies do not have the same motivation to develop a drug that will be used only by a relatively small number of people.
However, there is scope for international cooperation. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton that that is happening much more actively. Of course, the global demand is much larger than demand in any specific country. Cooperation, ought to be stimulated and enhanced.
In that context, NICE has recently given the green light to a drug called rituximab, which has proved very effective in treating non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and I gather that there is some kind of read-across to the treatment of some types of lupus. However, there would need to be clinical trials prior to any evaluation by NICE of that drug in relation to lupus. Again, we fall into the trap: who would sponsor those clinical trials to establish whether that drug would read across and be effective with lupus patients?
Finally, I ask the Minister where we are with the national service framework for long-term conditions. I know that the focus is on neurological conditions, but

437WH
obviously there is also an intention to set high standards for generic long-term conditions. It would be good to know how that initiative is progressing, because it will offer a template to ensure that there are more joined-up services and more equity in the system.
10.4 am
David Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), whose constituency almost borders mine, on securing it.
When my hon. Friend described developments in public awareness, particularly those that have occurred in this place, she characteristically understated her own contribution. Her arrival here on 1 May 1997 coincided with a significant increase in awareness among parliamentarians and those linked to Parliament.
Although it is one of the least- known conditions, lupus affects some 5 million people across the globe. There are more than 50,000 sufferers in this country, which means that each Member of Parliament has 70 to 100 lupus sufferers in his or her constituency. Lupus is more common than better-known illnesses, such as leukaemia and multiple sclerosis. However, despite its prevalence, relatively little was published on it until recent years. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) was active in this area as long ago as 1970.
Little has been published about the effect of lupus on sufferers, or what can be done to relieve it, but at last lay people like us are steadily learning more about its effects and treatment. That owes much to the admirable and unstinting efforts of Lupus UK, the national registered charity to which my hon. Friend re erred earlier, which supports those with systemic and discoid lupus and assists those who are approaching the long process of diagnosis.
Treatment depends a great deal on the professionalism, skills and energy of those who work in units such as the one just a few hundred yards from here at St. Thomas's hospital, which is led by Dr. Graham Hughes. We look to volunteers, who raise so much money for the vital, pioneering research that is taking place, and we ought to put on record our admiration for the work that they do. Politicians, such as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), and the all-party group, of which I am happy to be a member, need to raise the public profile of lupus and raise awareness of what is being done and what lies ahead to be tackled.
Lupus is a worldwide disease. There is international co-operation in researching its causes and tackling people's concerns. World lupus day was two weeks ago. In New York city, there was the international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus and allied diseases, where more than 100 patient and advocacy bodies were able to share information and develop or strengthen collaborative initiatives to find a ca use of and a cure for lupus. October 2004 has been designated awareness month.
What are the priorities for the lupus campaigners? The resources for medical research have yet to catch up with those for other conditions of comparable
438WH
magnitude and severity. Much more work is needed to develop safer, more effective therapies for the disease. We have heard that no wholly new therapies have been introduced for more than three decades. That says a great deal about the Cinderella status of lupus. Existing treatments can be toxic and often, perversely, cause life-threatening health problems that may be worse than the primary disease. Much more remains to be done to resolve such chronic difficulties.
Several international studies have shown that lupus has a considerable impact on the health care system and on society, owing to its complexity and treatment. Depending on which organs are affected and the frequency and severity of disease activity, individuals with lupus may have to take multiple medications, be treated by physicians from several medical specialities and undergo numerous evaluations and procedures. Worst of all, they may be hospitalised several times a year.
Substantial progress has been made on morbidity and mortality in the past half-century. We have heard some of the figures. In the 1950s, the five-year survival rate was around 50 per cent. Nowadays, the 15-year survival rate is some 85 per cent. However, lupus still has a serious effect on the quality of life of those who suffer from it. Fewer people die from it, but the figures are still significant. For example, the Arthritis Research Campaign website records that of 361 SLE patients treated at University College's Middlesex hospital lupus clinic from 1978, 50, ranging in age from 16 to 87-years old, had died by 2002. The mean age at death was 50, which is perhaps 30 years less than normal life expectancy. ARC also deserves to be congratulated for the work that it is doing. As it points out, while the prognosis is better, close monitoring is the order of the day.
We know that lupus is caused by the inter-reaction of environmental, genetic, hormonal and other factors, but the enormous complexity of the disease makes identifying its precise cause incredibly difficult. Nevertheless, newer emerging technologies give researchers cause for optimism. The structure and function of specific antibodies are being evaluated while the study of the inter-reactions between cell populations in the immune system is assisting our understanding of how lupus develops.
The good news is that some laboratory research translates fairly speedily into new therapies in the clinic. One example is the British use of B-cell depletion to treat severe cases of the disease. However, there is much to do to extend understanding of the critical involvement of cells and molecules, such as the lymphocytes and cytokines, which are the chemical messengers that enable cells to communicate.
There is even more to do to deal with the widespread lack of recognition of lupus by health professionals, the general public and Governments. Many physicians worldwide are unaware of its symptoms and health effects, causing people with the disease to suffer for several years before being correctly diagnosed and treated. There is an unmet need, in this country and worldwide, to educate and support individuals and families affected by lupus, and to increase awareness of the symptoms and health consequences.

439WH
We need continually to raise awareness of lupus, to collect better epidemiological data on its extent and impact, to research its complex causes and a possible cure, and to develop therapies to improve the quality of life for the thousands of sufferers in this country.
Lupus has been a Cinderella area of health care. Although I do not expect the Minister to produce the glass slipper that will transform its status, I hope that she recognises the scale of the problem and will react swiftly and appropriately to tackle the problems highlighted by the all-party group on lupus, led magnificently for seven years by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton.
10.12 am
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate. She is a patron of Lupus UK and has done a magnificent job in leading the all-party group and making MPs more aware of the disease. I feel intimidated having heard the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), because I am not knowledgeable about the disease and do not have their expertise. As politicians, we learn a great deal about people's concerns, troubles, successes and achievements, but it is impossible to become experts on every issue, although we do of course become aware of many matters. I do not know whether we are better weather vanes for public concerns than focus groups—that is an issue of empirical research.
As MPs, we are privileged to be taken into people's lives, and that is how I found out about lupus. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) mentioned Yvonne Norton. I first became aware of lupus because she lives in Coseley in my constituency. As my hon. Friend said, she is a wonderful woman who has done a great deal with the all-party group. In 1981, she founded the west midlands lupus group, the first regional lupus group, and she is still the chair of that group as well as being the vice-chair and trustee of Lupus UK. She is also the UK representative to the European Lupus Erythematosus Federation. Her husband, who has not been mentioned, is the treasurer of the west midlands lupus group and the ELEF.
I want to talk briefly about what the west midlands lupus group has done to raise the issue and to provide support. It has made a financial contribution of £400,000 to help to fund lupus research and patient care, in addition to funding the day-to-day running of the group. It also produces a newsletter and organises open meetings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, the group contributes to patient self-help. It helps and supports patients. It helps sufferers come to terms with having lupus; for example, it advises on the items and adaptations that may be needed to live as near a normal life as possible with the disease. It holds open meetings, which medical speakers and others attend, and it also holds social and fund-raising events.
Since 1997, the west midlands lupus group, as part of Lupus UK, has sponsored a Lupus UK specialist nurse based at the Queen Elizabeth and City hospitals in
440WH
Birmingham. On 1 September 2001, the Lupus UK research assistant began a three-year project based in that hospital. In 2002, funding began to part-sponsor a Wolverhampton university Lupus UK PhD student for three years. Previously, sponsorship had been provided for a research associate at that university, a specialised lupus technician at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, and a PhD student at Leicester university.
Providing self-help and funding is the first aspect of the work. The booklet produced by Lupus UK has been mentioned, but Yvonne Norton had earlier produced, with Lupus UK, "Lupus—a GP Guide to Diagnosis", which was sent free of charge to every GP practice in the country and distributed more widely. It is the only book that covers all aspects of lupus aimed specifically at GPs. As I understand it, it is now used extensively for both reference and diagnostic purposes.
I also want to refer to what happened at the Dudley guest hospital in my constituency. In October 2003, I had the privilege of being at the opening of the first UK lupus drop-in clinic with the mayor of Dudley, Rosemary Tompkinson. That idea has taken off and will, I hope, be folio Ned in other parts of the country. It was an initiative of Yvonne Norton and the west midlands lupus group, and it is a joint project with the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust. It is a monthly drop-in clinic. A nurse practitioner and representatives of the group are always in attendance. Talks are held there.
The first three-month evaluation of the success of the clinic is about to be published by Treharne from the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust and various colleagues from the University of Birmingham. The study demonstrates that the dedicated care that the clinic can provide is extremely useful in helping not only with the immediate symptoms but with associated disorders. The research work demonstrates that depression was the most common co-morbidity, followed by osteoarthritis and back pain. Co-morbidities are common and need to be dealt with. By providing that dedicated care through the clinic, they can be addressed more efficiently.
I hope that I have given a flavour of the work that is being done. Following the success of the Dudley lupus drop-in clinic, plans have been formulated to set up drop-in clinics in other areas covered by the west midlands lupus group. Other regional lupus groups are seeking advice on establishing similar drop-in clinics.
I began my remarks with the general, and shall finish with the general. Lupus, as my hon. Friends have explained, is under-recognised as a disease. Early recognition and diagnosis are essential, but that may be difficult because the symptoms often mimic common illnesses. It seems to me, having seen the work that Yvonne Norton does and the work of the all-party group, that there is a challenge to professionals. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest has taken a longstanding interest in the matter, and professionals are now much more open to and welcoming of patient involvement in medical diseases, as consumer involvement might be welcomed in other areas.
However, in this area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, self-management by patients is crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned the work of volunteers. The

441WH
work of professionals can benefit from patient involvement, not only in providing support groups or financial support for research, but in raising the consciousness of a disease among both professionals and practitioners, and among people such as ourselves.
10.22 am
Sarah Teather: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate. I know that in her role as chair of the all-party group she has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of this distressing condition.
I also welcome world lupus day. As the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) said, it may be instrumental in encouraging international co-operation and perhaps will result in the development of drug treatments. I pay tribute to Lupus UK for its work in supporting people with the condition and in funding research.
As has been said, lupus is a distressing condition, which may vary from very mild effects to severely disabling symptoms; in some cases it can be fatal. We have heard that prognosis has improved considerably, but there is still a long way to go. Lupus is far more common—six times more common—in people of black and ethnic minority origin than in white people. My constituency is diverse and lupus is much more common there than in many other parts of the UK. Consequently, general practitioners in my area are well attuned to picking up the condition and diagnosing it, but that is not the case in many other areas.
Our local hospital, Central Middlesex hospital, has around 400 lupus patients on its books, which is high for a hospital of its size. It has one specialist in the condition and one specialist nurse. However, I am told that it desperately needs another specialist and another specialist nurse to meet the need. In common with most specialists in the condition, the current specialist is a general rheumatologist, so he has many calls on his time.
Lupus needs intensive monitoring. It requires complex drug regimes that also require intensive monitoring because they have a very narrow therapeutic index. We heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) that if the condition not managed well, the problems can get worse, and the drain on the NHS can be enormous. It is therefore a false economy not to manage the condition well. As the hon. Member for Erewash said, specialist nurses play a vital role, as they do in many other complex and long-term conditions, because they give patients the opportunity to learn more about their condition and to manage it themselves.
Although the situation in Brent is better than in many other areas, there are some shocking cases in which people have fallen through the net Earlier this year, a gentleman came into my constituency office in exasperation. He had been referred to the lupus unit at St. Thomas's hospital, Westminster, and was originally given an appointment on 20 January 2003, which was put back once to 30 September 2003 and again to 28 September 2004. He was then told that he would probably not be able to see a specialist until 2005. Following my intervention, and with great help from the patient advice liaison service, he managed to get an earlier appointment, but it caused immense anxiety and stress.
442WH
The problem of the lack of specialists is difficult to quantify because general rheumatologists tend to treat the condition. When I asked a parliamentary question about the number of specialists available, I was told that the information was not held centrally. I also asked about the number of patients with lupus and the only information I was given came from Lupus UK, which was out of date in respect of about 10,000 patients.
There is a problem in assessing need, which is typical of a disorder that unfortunately attracts little attention. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said that it was a Cinderella disorder. It is a specialised condition in the NHS. Liberal Democrats have asked whether the present voluntary consortium arrangements are adequate in dealing with specialist commissioning. The Government's review of specialist services has not addressed that problem adequately.
Another matter that puts great pressure on lupus patients is prescription charges. Ongoing problems that need many complex drugs, perhaps over a lifetime, can put a great strain on patients who may already be under pressure financially if they are unable to work or if their income decreases because they can only work part time.
David Taylor: Lupus sufferers often have to take a cocktail of drugs, which can produce adverse effects. Can the hon. Lady suggest how the privately owned pharmaceutical industry can be encouraged to invest more in research? That might allow the number and range of drugs that are prescribed to be narrowed, with a consequent reduction in the adverse effects?
Sarah Teather: As the hon. Member for Erewash said, international co-operation is the key and I hope that world lupus day will encourage specialists to work together. Groups of pharmaceutical companies will need to co-operate, perhaps with incentives from the Government to do so.
Prescription charges can place great burdens on patients. Liberal Democrats are committed to a full review of prescription charges to find a fairer system, especially with a view to considering the effect on the chronically ill, who have a particular problem in that respect.
I hope that the national service framework for long-term conditions will come on line very soon. I know from my work with Macmillan Cancer Relief before I was elected to Parliament that many patient groups are desperate to have the national service framework and have great hopes that it will lead to better management of chronic conditions.
I have been brief to allow other hon. Members time to speak and the Minister to respond. I urge the Government to obtain better data on the number of patients with the condition and the number of specialists who treat it, so that specialist numbers can be better matched to patient need, and to ensure that GPs have adequate training in treating the condition. I repeat my hope that there will soon be an NSF for lupus.
10.29 am
Tim Loughton: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), not just on securing the debate but on her work

443WH
with the all-party group and on the awareness of the condition that that has encouraged. I count myself a member of the all-party group on lupus and it is a tribute to the hon. Lady that the debate is being held today. Three years ago, she secured a debate at a late hour at the end of the day, when there were fewer hon. Members present to witness it. I am glad that today many more hon. Members are participating in the debate, which is guaranteed to give the Hansard writers nightmares, as many diseases with technical spellings have been mentioned.
I echo the hon. Lady's thanks to the leading lights in Lupus UK; the determination and hard work of a few individuals has put the condition much higher up the agenda. The name of Yvonne Norton has been quoted by just about everybody, and I will be no exception. I want to praise the work of Lupus UK. It works not just to raise awareness of this little-known disease but to provide welfare facilities for members as well as books, fact sheets, videos and, as hon. Members have already mentioned, the bible to the disease, "Lupus—A GP Guide to Diagnosis", which I know that GPs in my constituency use often.
I also want to mention a personal interest: how good it is to see the progress of the Louise Coote clinic under Dr. Graham Hughes at St. Thomas's. Louise was a friend of mine, who died almost 10 years ago. She spent much of her adult life in and out of hospitals with most of the symptoms that have been mentioned today. She bore her illness with enormous courage until it eventually got the better of her. What has been satisfying is that her husband Tim and many friends have raised and continue to raise so much money to support the centre, which has the biggest register of lupus sufferers in the world. It is a centre of excellence that many people throughout the country can use, and it does some fantastic work.
We have had some interesting contributions. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Burton gave many of the facts and figures, which I will not repeat. She mentioned the recent world lupus day, which is something of a slimmed-down version of Lupus UK's lupus awareness month two years ago. That was perhaps somewhat greedy compared with the weeks and days that most other groups have. However, the campaign has gone worldwide, which is essential. We need to use the expertise and experience of drugs companies and of those races and ethnic groups throughout the world who have a greater propensity to have the disease, to try to accelerate a cure.
The hon. Lady mentioned many of the knock-on effects—not only the physical symptoms, but some of the mental health symptoms, including depression and memory problems. Those points are often neglected, because we tend to look just at the physical manifestations. We need to ensure that special mental health assistance is available for lupus sufferers as much as for people who suffer from less technical and complicated mental health problems.
Mrs. Dean: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that there are both physical and emotional reasons why people get depression when they develop lupus. Someone can obviously become depressed because they have a chronic disease, but there are also direct physical reasons for depression and other neurological manifestations. That is because lupus can inflame the brain just as it can any other part of the body. Both living with the disease and undergoing the physical changes cause depression and other mental health symptoms.
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is right, but the point is that, more than many other conditions, lupus is a technical disease that involves a range of professionals and different assessments, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned.
As ever, we heard an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who is a general physician with a wide range of interests, as he described himself. In his contribution, those interests extended to twitching and to classical and literary references. I side with him on taking up the cudgels for the much-maligned wolf, and the Latin to which he referred will have had much more to do with the naming of the disease than that one part of the animal kingdom.
Both hon. Gentlemen mentioned the improving survival rates, but it is depressing that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest was able to pluck out an article that he wrote 34 years ago, And yet not much progress has been made since then in understanding and getting to the heart of the disease. The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) described how Lupus UK has raised awareness among doctors, and I underline her point about how important patient self-management is. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire commented on the side effects of some of the toxic cocktails of drugs, which is another worrying aspect.
A multidisciplinary approach is required, involving many different professionals and assessments. There must be ways of simplifying the system, which currently often pushes lupus patients from pillar to post, seeing one consultant after another, filling out more and more forms and going through more and more tests. We need a more streamlined patient-centred approach to the disease than we have at present.
The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) referred to the pioneering work undertaken by the west midlands lupus group, especially the drop-in clinics. They bring great succour to sufferers from lupus and other diseases who would not otherwise know where to go for help. If their GP is not completely in tune with the disease, sufferers can feel lonely, as the hon. Member for Burton said when she opened the debate.
As we have heard, systemic lupus erythematosus can inflame different parts of the body and affect organs—a few parts or many—such as the heart, the brain and the kidneys. Skin and joints can also be affected. It is difficult to pin down. People suffer fatigue, flu-like illness and skin rashes. Some lupus patients have a clotting tendency, which can present itself as a thrombosis in a vein or artery. I agreed with the hon. Member for Burton when she said that we have underestimated the extent of problem. Lupus is rarely

445WH
recorded on a death certificate. Kidney failure or similar symptoms are attributed as the cause of death, not lupus. Many more people are dying from lupus than are officially recorded as such, which is another reason why we must give more attention to the disease. Will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to secure more accurate reporting of deaths that are caused by lupus, rather than it being one of the symptoms that have brought about death?
We have heard about the numbers of people affected by lupus, such as one in 750 women in the United Kingdom, in whom it is triggered especially between the ages of 15 and 50. A recent study undertaken in Birmingham showed that, in a population of 1.2 million, 242 adults were known to have lupus and 33 new cases of lupus had been diagnosed in one year. The prevalence was 28 per 100,000 people, which is about one person in 3,500. The incidence of new cases per year was 3.8 per 100,000 people, which is about one person in 26,300 people; 90 per cent. of lupus sufferers are female, and people of West Indian origin are particularly likely to develop the disease even when they are born and live in north America or the United Kingdom. Surprisingly, people of West African origin, from which group the West Indian population is descended, are at a low risk of developing lupus, but studies have suggested that up to one in 250 women in Jamaica develop lupus.
In Birmingham, one in 500 women of Afro-Caribbean background have lupus compared with about one in 1,000 women from India and Pakistan and about one in 2,500 white European Caucasians. What special measures are the Government taking to investigate the higher instance of lupus among black and ethnic groups? What extra support can be given to such groups, who are often more reluctant to come forward to medical practitioners anyway? What special measures can be taken in future?
Worldwide, there are 5 million lupus suffers. It is more prevalent than leukaemia, muscular dystrophy or multiple sclerosis. I repeat that people underestimate the extent of the disease. Will the Minister say what further work has been undertaken on the causes of lupus? It has been suggested that an hereditary tendency might exist. The hon. Member for Burton has said that in the past, but no single gene puts people at risk of developing lupus, unlike haemophilia and cystic fibrosis. Environmental factors include exposure to ultraviolet light, various infections, possibly chemicals in the environment, factors related to stress and female hormonal activity, for example the oestrogen-containing contraceptive pill or pregnancy. Can the Minister say what research is being undertaken?
We have heard about the lack of available drugs, although mild lupus can be treated with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Some years ago, mention was made of clinical trials taking place in the United States on a drug called aslera, which was the first drug to have been developed in 40 years. Will the Minister give us a progress report on that drug and say whether it has reached an advanced stage?
The training of doctors is important. I have mentioned the guide produced by Lupus UK. We have heard that doctors should he trained more about lupus.
446WH
We heard from the hon. Member for Burton that, as standard practice, dentists now hear more about diagnosing lupus. Can the Minister give a progress report on how many doctors, as standard practice, are now made aware of lupus? What is the progress on specialist lupus nurses, who can make such a big difference?
Finally, I want to echo the point about prescriptions. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire said, many complicated cocktails of drugs are involved, because lupus affects various parts of the body. Dressings may also be needed if there are skin lesions. That can put an enormous financial burden on sufferers of complex lupus symptoms. Has the Minister any words of comfort about special circumstances pertaining to lupus sufferers?
Lupus is a specialist illness, but an important one. More than many others, it involves a range of different disciplines and professionals. It is often forgotten in the bigger picture: we hear much about nurses and doctors, hospitals and waiting list numbers, and not enough about long-term chronic diseases such as lupus. I hope that the Minister will give words of encouragement that the Government understand the extent of the problem and will give more practical support for the many sufferers of lupus. Without the work of Lupus UK and individuals about whom we have heard, as well as the hon. Member for Burton who secured the debate, many would still be suffering, largely in silence, and without the greater understanding of the disease than we had 30 years ago—although we still have a long way to go.
10.42 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): May I start by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate? I know that she secured a similar debate in 2001 and has worked extremely hard to raise awareness of lupus, not least with her work as the chair of the all-party lupus group, and I am pleased to see so many hon. Members from both sides of the House supporting her. This has been a thoughtful debate, and all hon. Members have paid tribute to the hard work and dedication shown by the voluntary sector in helping people with lupus, especially Lupus UK. We are all aware of the contributions that individuals can make and are making.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) paid tribute to the work of Yvonne Norton. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke about seeing at first hand through a friend the work to raise funds and awareness done at St. Thomas's hospital.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton said, 10 May was world lupus day, and October is lupus awareness month. The programme of events around the country will build on the work of previous years to raise the profile of what has been highlighted today as a distressing condition. It is important to raise awareness among the medical profession and the public. Many hon. Members have referred to the problems with diagnosing lupus. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) gave an insightful account of GPs'

447WH
experience in diagnosing lupus and, as he said, it is one of those conditions that mimics other diseases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North raised the issue of GP awareness in particular. Many hon. Members have pointed to the fact that information has been circulated to GPs about diagnosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke about how Lupus UK has also raised awareness and how it is being raised through specialist centres; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North also spoke about the role of specialist nurses. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned the role of strategic health authorities in ensuring that there are such centres everywhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton talked about whether there would still be specialist nurses if funding from Lupus UK were to stop.
While, obviously, I hope that the funding of such nurses will continue, it is important to recognise that in shifting the balance of power we do not dictate from the centre exactly what should happen in each area. I think that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) highlighted that when she discussed the prevalence of the disease in her constituency. We can assist in raising awareness. We have tried to do that in the work that we have done with Lupus UK on NHS direct. We can indicate support and help to spread best practice. However, it is up to individual local health authorities to decide how they want to utilise those resources.
As many hon. Members have indicated, the number of specialist centres is increasing. I am sure that all hon. Members will be aware that, as a Government, we do not specify the content of the GP training curriculum. That is the job of the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice, which is the independent authority for putting together general practice training in the UK.
David Taylor: The Minister rightly spelt out the limits of the Government's involvement in GP training. Does she hope that the various bodies that are responsible for that will reflect on the Oklahoma research published only days ago, which showed that testing for auto-antibodies can help to predict the onset of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus four years before symptoms occur? Surely, that is a helpful test and GPs should be aware of it?
Ms Winterton: Yes. As my hon. Friend said, there are increasing developments in that area, which will assist in helping diagnosis. We expect GPs to learn and to get the training and skills needed to deal with all their patients, which, obviously, includes those with lupus.
I also wanted to mention the development of specialist GPs, which, in a sense, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest drew attention to; in his own way, he developed that specialism. As hon. Members will know, we are looking through the new contract to ensure that that specialist GP training is available.
Many hon. Members mentioned the importance of ensuring that patients with conditions such as lupus can manage their illnesses more effectively. I want to refer to three strands of that: the expert patients initiative; the
448WH
chronic disease management programme; and the national service framework for long-term conditions. Although, as many hon. Members have pointed out, lupus is not one of the headline conditions in those programmes, important lessons can be learned from them about managing chronic diseases.
In the chronic disease management programme, we are examining self-care—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned. The first steps are to audit existing work being carried out to support patients in managing their conditions and to look at how future work can be devised. Again, the involvement of patients, carers and representatives will be central to that work. As the chronic disease management board considers how to take its work forward, I will make it aware of the work that is done by Lupus UK. The board will focus on two approaches to managing chronic conditions: case management and self-care support.
On the expert patients programme, as hon. Members know, people with chronic illnesses have several common requirements, including dealing with acute attacks. The effective use of medicines and treatment is incredibly important, especially in this area, because, as has been said, patients often have to take a range of drugs. They have to manage pain, fatigue and depression—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has raised. We know that lupus can be managed by drug regimes, by careful monitoring of drugs and by having information available to manage the condition. Through the experts patients programme, we are considering a generic course that helps a person with any long-term illness to become more confident in dealing with their condition day to day. It has been said, in particular by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North, that if that can happen, it will reduce hospital admissions and vastly improve quality of life. By 2007, the expert patients programme will be in place nationwide.
The national service framework for long-term conditions is another aspect of our work to ensure that people manage lupus more effectively. To answer a question asked by several Members, that will be published towards the end of the year or early 2005.
Mrs. Dean: Is it likely that the national service framework will name some conditions? If it does, does the Minister agree that it is important that lupus should also be named? We already have the problem that the condition is little known. If multiple sclerosis were to be named in the NSF because it is a neurological condition, it would be equally important that lupus was mentioned because one of its manifestations is neurological.
Ms Winterton: The NSF will not cover non-neurological conditions, which is what lupus is considered to be at the moment. However, it will consider how to cover some of the common issues faced by people with long-term chronic conditions and disabilities. It will consider the generic issues of information for service users and carers, and community equipment. It will also help us to look at how we can assist families and carers in developing skills and expertise in understanding and managing conditions. We want that to be linked closely with the

449WH
expert patients programme and the chronic disease management programme.
The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) spoke about prescription charges. As is well known, entitlement to help with prescription charges is based on the principle that those who can afford to contribute should do so. However, a number of schemes are in place for people on low incomes, and special certificates are available for people who have to take a range of drugs. I must say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that, given his party's plans to reduce expenditure on the NHS, I do not think that the issue will be one that they consider.
Tim Loughton: Would the Minister like to withdraw that comment? She knows full well that we have plans to increase expenditure on the NHS. We will consider precisely those long-term chronic conditions that her Government have blatantly neglected in pursuit of artificial targets and because of the distortion of clinical priority.
Ms Winterton: There is a slight difference between what is said on record and what is clearly said off record by Conservative Members.
Mrs. Dean: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Winterton: Not just now, because I want to address the issue of research.
Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the work done by Arthritis Care and others to promote research, and I absolutely support that. The main agency through
450WH
which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, an independent body. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not dictate to research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing researchers and so on. However, it is important to stress that if Lupus UK has specific proposals for research, they should he submitted to the appropriate body. In 2002 the MRC spent some £5.5 million on arthritis and rheumatism research. There is an ability to ensure that research can be carried out.
Hon. Members raised the issue of new drugs and pharmaceutical company research. A new drug has been developed in the United States as a potential treatment for lupus. It is called aslera, and it is the first new drug for the treatment of lupus to be developed in some 40 years, as hon. Members said. We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to carry out an appraisal of that drug, and we expect it to report on in 2005.
If there are points that I have not addressed, I will be happy to write to hon. Members, but I should like briefly to mention data collection. It is difficult to collect data on individual conditions, because of problems associated with collecting, analysing and constantly updating them. I will bring the point about the classification of deaths to the attention of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
I hope that I have made it clear that the Government take the condition extremely seriously. The work being done to raise awareness will be important not only among the medical profession but to the public, and the general programme that we have set out will ensure that greater attention is given to this distressing condition.

Child Cyclists
11 am
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am pleased to have secured the debate. I requested it because my private Member's Bill, the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, received its Second Reading on 20 April, but, unfortunately, there was a technical problem—we did not have a quorum—so the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), did not get the opportunity to respond to my speech and those of other hon. Members. It would be inappropriate for this Minister to reply to a debate that has passed, especially as he was not the Minister in the Chamber at the time, but I intend to go over the Bill's salient points and give him the opportunity to reply to those. Children are always a vulnerable group, so I hope that the Government response will be fairly extensive.
The sad truth is that a disproportionate number of accidents involve children on cycles. Figures from the Transport Research Laboratory and the Department for Transport show starkly how vulnerable children on cycles are. The Transport Research Laboratory has found that child cyclists comprise only 6.6 per cent. of road cyclists, yet the Department for Transport's analysis of average road-cyclist deaths in a two-year period leads it to conclude that there are 133 deaths, 28 of whom, or 21 per cent., were children. Using that calculation, children are four times more likely to die in a cycle accident on the road than adults. Once a fortnight, a child dies in a cycling accident on our roads. Children are seriously injured and often disabled in our constituencies every day of the year. Each year we kill the equivalent of a primary class of children and severely injure the equivalent of a small secondary school.
I do not claim that introducing cycle helmets will necessarily reduce the number of accidents, but I am convinced that the measure will reduce the severity of the injuries involved. Many accidents involve serious head injuries. Scientific research, both at home and abroad, has proved the case for cycle helmets in protecting the head and brain against the worst effects of injury.
The report "Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness" was produced by the Department for Transport in November 2002. It is good and I recommend it to hon. Members. It states:
"There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations".

I said that although child cyclists comprise only 6.6 per cent. of the population, 21 per cent. of those who are killed are children. The report says that cycle helmets save lives, and that is the conclusion of the supporters of my Bill, who come from a wide range of professional organisations.
If my Bill were successful—it is still tabled for discussion, although I suspect that it will not become law—it would provide a legal framework that was practical and proportionate. It would make it an offence for children under the age of 16 to ride a cycle on the road, in a public park or in a recreation area unless they are wearing protective headgear. This is not new
452WH
ground. A similar Bill was put on the statute book in 1990. The Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990, which was introduced by Harry Greenway, the then hon. Member for Ealing, North, made it an offence for children to ride a horse on the public highway unless they were wearing protective headgear.
My Bill would not make every child cyclist or their parents into potential criminals, as some of my more excitable opponents claim. Provision for an offence is an important enforcement mechanism when there is persistent flouting of the law, but in reality I envisage that a friendly word of caution or verbal instruction to wear a helmet would be enough to ensure that people complied with the law. Recent statistics show that in 2002 there were only 92 prosecutions of people riding on the pavement and 134 of people riding without lights. Some might say that there should be more prosecutions, but in many cases the law can be enforced without taking people to court.
The Government have argued about compliancy rates, and I accept that the Department for Transport has been trying to do something about them by actively targeting young people. Last year it devoted £137,000 to an advertising campaign on the importance of wearing a helmet as part of t he safe cycling message. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are plans for another campaign this year or next year.
The Department is concerned about compliance and it wants the rate of helmet wearing to increase to a critical mass before it is made compulsory. I understand the Department's motivation for holding that view, but does the Minister think that the goal will ever be reached? Surely, it should be the other way round. Rather than waiting for the practice of wearing helmets to change and then introducing an enforcement measure, could not the Government act now and introduce enforcement measures, so ensuring that the practice changes? If they do not, the Minister will continue to fall into the trap set by the opponents of helmets, such as the Touring Cycle Club, which will do everything it can to avoid helmets being made mandatory. The CTC discourages people from wearing them because it realises that if the practice reaches a critical mass, the Government might legislate.
In 2002, when 18 per cent. of cyclists were wearing helmets, the Government said that they would monitor the wearing rate and review the option for compulsory wearing from time to time. In October 2003, they used the same words, although the rate had by then increased to 25 per cent. The Minister must tell us what rate the Government would find acceptable before deciding to legislate to make it compulsory.
The Government agree that helmets are effective. They also agree on the vulnerability of child cyclists and the importance of delivering a safer cycling environment. In fact, in a response to me, the Prime Minister said:
"The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority for hon. Members and the Government."—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1594.]

It is a pity therefore that we cannot agree on the most effective means of delivery.
On Second Reading of my Bill, I went into detail on its opponents, but I shall not do so today. However, I am concerned about the National Cycling Strategy, a

453WH
quango set up by the Government and given credence because it operates out of Marsham street. It sent letters to hon. Members from the Department for Transport headquarters which gave a distorted view of my Bill. which worries me. Does the Minister believe that quangos should be involved in the politics of a private Member's Bill, especially if they do not tell the truth? Is it appropriate that this particular quango should be housed in the offices of the Department for Transport?
The argument for my Bill is that attempts to encourage children to cycle should go hand in hand with measures to create a safer cycling environment. I agree with the press release put out by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, which said:
"by making cycling safer, more people will take to their bikes."
That is common sense and beneficial, but does not reflect the current situation.
If the Government are concerned that making cycle helmets for children mandatory would be unpopular, they should take note of the poll of 9,000 adults carried out by the My Voice polling organisation in April. Some 80 per cent. of the those polled wanted helmets to be mandatory for children, and 70 per cent. of children agreed. Experience in other countries has led not only to recognition of the effectiveness of helmets, but to action—they have made it law.
In many countries, putting on a helmet is as common as using a safety belt in a car. Accidents and injuries have declined dramatically in countries which helmets are mandatory, including Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Czech Republic, and parts of the United States and Canada. Since the Second Reading of my Bill, two European Union countries—Sweden and Finland—have introduced laws making it compulsory for children aged 15 and younger to wear helmets.
Another important area is child cycle training. Perhaps hon. Members can remember the old cycling proficiency test at school—it was the first examination I ever passed and I took pride in that. It also had the advantage of bringing policemen into schools, so children's first contact with the police was favourable. Throughout the '90s, the police decided that they were too busy and that cycle training was not their responsibility. Sometimes that responsibility was passed to the county council, which decided that it was not mandatory. Therefore, the number of children being trained properly declined. We would not have dreamt of letting a child out on the streets without having taken a test. It should not necessarily be compulsory, but this and previous Governments have not given the issue the priority it deserves.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is keen to encourage young people to cycle to school. Having seen the way some youngsters cycle, I think that they have never been made aware of the potential dangers. What provisions will there be to increase cycle training for children? I want more youngsters to go to school on bicycles. A report will be published tomorrow—although it is in the media today—on obesity and, in particular, child obesity. I want more youngsters to ride bicycles, because it is good for them, and to be taught what to do. I also want them to wear helmets so that we do not have the tragedies that we see at present.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on securing the debate and on all that he has said about the safety of child cyclists. I also convey to him apologies from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is out of the country on Government business; otherwise, he would have responded to the debate.
The Government take the safety of children on the roads very seriously. Our road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", published in 2000, emphasised our aim to improve our performance on child road safety. The general target is for us to reduce deaths and serious injuries on the roads by 40 per cent. by 2010 compared with the average for the period from 1994 to 1998, but the target for children is 50 per cent. The reduction in child casualties has been outstanding. Compared to the baseline, child pedal cycle deaths and serious injuries have fallen by 47 per cent. That reduction significantly outstrips the decline in child cycling levels over the same period—something that concerns my hon. Friend—and represents a significant trend towards the target. However, we are not complacent and are taking action on a range of fronts.
The data show that, although the number of casualties is falling for child cyclists of all ages, we still have a problem with the number of young adolescent boys in particular getting hurt while cycling. We know from regular monitoring that boys are the most reluctant to wear helmets. Set against the general, rising trend, the wearing rate for boys went down from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 12 per cent. in 2002. A large proportion of those who choose not to wear helmets are young adolescents.
In the broader sense, we are doing much to improve child cyclists' safety. There are measures designed to make drivers far more aware of vulnerable road users, such as child cyclists. The highway code includes a section on road users, including cyclists, which requires drivers to take extra care. The practical driving test has been lengthened, so that drivers experience more road types and have a greater opportunity to encounter vulnerable road users. The theory test question bank contains many questions about vulnerable road users, including cyclists. Hazard perception skills are important to safe driving, and we want new drivers to develop those skills quickly. The screen-based element of the theory test includes video clips to help to test hazard perception with moving images.
We have also produced publicity for drivers. Our drink drive advert shows a motorist taking care to avoid a young cyclist. The underlying message is to give cyclists space. We have published the "Drive Safe, Cycle Safe" leaflet, in alliance with the AA and the Cyclists Touring Club. It is designed to make motorists and cyclists aware of one another.
Of course, it is important that cyclists take responsibility for their safety, and cycle training is an important part of that, although awareness among drivers is equally part of the overall safety package. About one third of children aged between nine and

455WH
10 are trained each year at school. Research shows that trained children are significantly safer than untrained children, as my hon. Friend suggested, when knowledge and skills are tested two years after training. We strongly advise parents to encourage their children to have cycle training and not to let them out on the roads until they are competent to handle their cycles safely.
We have raised the standards of child cycle training. We assisted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents financially with its "Guidelines for the management and operation of Practical Cyclist Training Schemes". My Department and the Department of Health gave a £76,000 grant to the CTC to develop a cycle training scheme for adults and teenagers, which was launched in May 2003. Driver awareness is certainly important but, as my hon. Friend suggested, the training of cyclists is very important, too.
Mr. Martlew: I am conscious that the Minister said that one third of youngsters are trained. That means that two thirds are not. How will we get to those two thirds? In addition, the CTC campaigns against wearing cycle helmets. How can the Government be involved with that organisation when it works against one of their objectives?
Mr. McNulty: I shall return to the CTC in a moment. On my hon. Friend's first question, he is right: a significant number of children are still not trained, and the job to ensure that more and more are trained remains ongoing. These are not one-off initiatives aimed at simply sorting the task out and moving on. The job on driver awareness and cyclist training is ongoing.
On publicity for child cyclists, we have published "Arrive Alive", a highway code for young road users that encourages children to act sensibly when using roads, and it includes a section on cycling. It is given to every child taking cycle training and more than 500,000 copies are issued annually. We are working with private sector organisations on a cycle smart campaign, which promotes safer cycling among children. It consists of a comic and a "Be safe and be seen" sticker. We promote the wearing of cycle helmets. Some say that helmets do not work. To try to get an independent, objective view on which could all agree, we commissioned research to assess the effectiveness of helmets. It concluded that they have been found to be effective in reducing injury for cyclists of all ages, especially children. As ever, some question that research, but as children are more likely to have low-speed accidents just falling off their bikes, I do not believe that much research is required to conclude that they will be better off wearing a helmet.
The Government helped to launch the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust's "Guidelines for Setting up Community Based Bicycle Helmet Programmes" in May 2002. That was the result of three years' work, with £100,000 of joint funding from the Department of Health and the Department for Transport. We also funded the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust to produce similar guidelines for schools, which it issued in July 2003.
We believe that helmets can work, so last year we launched publicity aimed specifically at boys in the vulnerable age group—the young adolescents. Before
456WH
the launch, we tested different material with them to establish how they would receive it. The publicity that we ran was the material to which they were most receptive. It is called "Cycle Sense", and the campaign also covers issues such as technique, cycle maintenance and visibility. It consists of a poster, postcards and a website. We are also developing a TV filler film that we hope to launch later this year.
I agree with my hon. Friend; I, too, was very disappointed with the reaction of the CTC to that initiative. It mounted a campaign to undermine it and complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has since found in our favour. To an extent, I appreciate the CTC's concern to increase cycle levels, but that is an issue for the Government too, and we tailor publicity accordingly. If the reaction had been that young adolescents would he put off cycling, we would not have used the campaign. The CTC is a major cycling stakeholder and I hope that it will work with us more positively on safety in future, as it does on other cycling issues. Given the CTC's role as stakeholder, we could not simply refuse to work with it. However, I share my hon. Friend's concerns and acknowledge his complaints about its activities in the past.
I do not have the information to hand, but I will explore what my hon. Friend says about the National Cycling Strategy and its role in the run-up to 23 April and the promotion of his Bill. I will get back to him on that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on giving the issue of cycle helmet wearing such prominence through his Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, which, as he knows, was dealt with on 23 April and remains, not in pole position, but in the frame for further discussion on 18 June.
Our position on compulsion has been that we will—to quote yet again the words quoted by my hon. Friend—review the option from time to time. However, due to the current rates of helmet wearing among children, which are relatively low, we have a concern that compulsion would affect cycling levels and cause enforcement difficulties. That has been the Government's position. The Bill has caused us to reflect; we need to think about how compulsory helmet wearing might affect the wider initiatives to increase cycling and improve health.
The supporters of helmet wearing say that provided that helmets are introduced with care, compulsion need not affect cycling levels. As my hon. Friend will know, some of the international experiences are that, with a long lead-in of promoting awareness, education and other elements, compulsion has subsequently been introduced. Opponents point to evidence from overseas where compulsion has clearly affected cycle levels. As ever in this life, the reality is mixed and the overseas experience can be read either way. We worry, however, that with helmet wearing by youngsters so low at the moment, compulsion would put many of them off cycling. If that happened it would affect cycling levels. Increasing cycling has the positive benefit of improving health. It is key to our anti-obesity strategy, especially for children, and to the further development of sustainable transport.
Our success in this area does not begin to compare with how well we are doing in moving towards the road safety targets, but I agree with my hon. Friend's

457WH
intention: we must increase helmet wearing. We are continuing our campaigns to promote cycle helmets, ensuring that we do not do so in such a way that it presents cycling as dangerous or risky. The emphasis is on cyclists being sensible and other road-users taking care around them.
It is not simply about training, driver awareness and helmets, with or without compulsion. The whole package is designed to heighten cyclists' awareness and drivers' awareness of cyclists and the notion that cycling is good and should be encouraged, especially among young people. We want to promote cycling and the wearing of helmets. We will continue to reflect on the issue of compulsion and the level at which it should kick in. I hope that others, both inside and outside the Government, will do all they can to support us in promoting cycle helmets and improving the safety of child cyclists. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.
Mr. Martlew: The Minister said that when we reach a critical mass the Government will consider implementing compulsion. What does he think the critical mass will be? Is there not a difference between children and adults with regard to compulsion?
Mr. McNulty: As I said, it is not as simple as just reaching a cut-off point for children or adults. It is about all those aspects: driver awareness, cyclist training more generally, and the promotion of cycling, especially among young children. There will be more focus on young adolescents through education. Depending on the effectiveness of all those policy initiatives, we will see whether compulsion should kick in. We will reflect on all those issues, because of the wider campaign and the points raised by my hon. Friend, and will review the position from time to time.
If not all those elements are successful, we may need to steer in other directions. Increased cycle helmet wearing may go alongside all those policy initiatives. We may need to reflect at every stage. One conclusion may be that things are going so slowly that we should move to compulsion. It may be at a far lower figure than we expected. If all those elements are successful, compulsion should be at the tail end, rather like the experience in New South Wales.
I wish my hon. Friend well in his campaign to increase helmet wearing by young cyclists. I know that it will not stop on 18 June. I fear that, for batter or worse, the debate on compulsion will continue I suspect that that is right and proper. We agree absolutely with his fundamental position: wearing helmets makes cycling safer. We should all, CTC included, endeavour to increase cycling wearing by young cyclists in the context of promoting cycling generally. It is an outcome that we all want to see.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Illicit Trade in Antiquities
2 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this subject, and I want to start by setting out the terms of the debate. There are different types of debate in Westminster Hall; those in which we slam the Government for an alleged outrage, whether or not they have committed it, and those in which we plead for the Government to do something that they cannot or will not do. This is neither a slamming nor pleading debate, but a prodding one, in which I will seek to prod the Government to commit to doing what they know they should be doing and probably want to do anyway.
I slightly confused myself in coming up with the title. I was not sure whether it should be a debate on the illicit trade in antiquities or on the trade in illicit antiquities. Either way, we are talking about cultural objects that are a little or decidedly dodgy. What I really mean is the buying and selling or importing and exporting of cultural objects that have been removed from heritage sites and buildings illegally in Britain and elsewhere. The Minister may recognise that phrasing as one that we considered in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003.
The defining principle in this debate is that prevention is better than cure. Much of the damage done in heritage terms is done at the time of removal of objects rather than in what happens to them subsequently. From a heritage point of view, the agenda is about ensuring that removal never occurs in the first place, and my remarks will address that intention.
We want to remove the incentives for objects to be removed, tackle the trade and remove the market. If we kill the market, we take away some of the incentives from people who are engaged in the trade for financial advantage. That happens in the United Kingdom with people who are colloquially known as nighthawks— people, often with metal detectors, who go on to scheduled ancient monuments, typically at night, and remove objects that they then put into the dealing chain. Far more seriously, especially in scale of activity, are the people who operate in conflict zones.
Iraq obviously springs to mind as an example because of the Baghdad museum looting that was in the news. That country should be in the minds of everyone who is interested in heritage, because looting on a far greater scale is currently happening across the range of Iraq's unprotected archaeological sites. Material at those sites is being removed in such a way that the heritage value of those sites is utterly diminished. We have seen that occur in conflict zones such as south-east Asia—Cambodia in particular—and on an enormous scale in west Africa. Countries such as Sierra Leone are having their heritage systematically removed and put on to the world market.
My remarks will be aimed mainly at preventive measures, but I am also seeking a commitment by the Minister to enhanced enforcement of the measures that are already in place. I will set it out as a shopping list at the beginning of the debate so that she has time to consider it and, I hope, respond positively. I know that other hon. Members will flesh out elements of this list.
The list has been drawn up with support from experts in the field, and I want particularly to credit Roger Bland and Michael Lewis from the portable antiquities

459WH
scheme. They are now based at the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, having been at the British Museum, and they have done a huge amount on the subject. I want also to thank personally David Barwell from the National Council for Metal Detecting, who came here with a colleague to make an excellent presentation about the issues from the metal detectorists' point of view, which is an important perspective.
During the passage of my private Member's Bill last year, I also learned a lot from people within the dealing trade. For example, Anthony Browne, who represented the dealers on the illicit trade advisory panel, was of enormous use to me. I have also had many letters and e-mails about the subject, and it is one that attracts considerable public attention.
My list of items for the Minister falls into three parts; preventive measures, enforcement measures and policy development. I shall try to separate them out. My priorities for the preventive measures are: legislation, which is now mostly in place; the portable antiquities scheme in the UK context, which needs funding for its essential role in securing the UK's heritage; the development of a database to assist dealers in assessing whether they should be concerned about a particular object; and guidance to assist the public, especially non-experts, who are increasingly engaged in the field, for whom the advice is a little weak. I shall flesh those four issues out in some detail.
Unusually, I shall not call for additional legislation. We often come to this Chamber to ask for more legislation, but the Government have provided that through the UNESCO treaty accession, and the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, with which the Minister's civil servants assisted enormously last year. However, there is one specific gap in the export licensing regime, which was mentioned by the last Select Committee report, to which the Government have responded. It remains an important gap that we hope will be considered; there appears to be a conflict between agreements reached at EU level, and the ability of the UK's Department for Culture, Media and Sport to block the export of an object that should not be on the market. I hope that that gap in the legislation will be addressed, and that the Minister can offer a resolution to it.
The portable antiquities scheme has impressed all hon. Members with whom it has come into contact. The all-party parliamentary group on archaeology, in particular, has had much contact with the scheme, and has seen that it provides a tremendously valuable service in safeguarding the UK's heritage. It is important to the metal detectorists, who are carrying out, in most cases, a legal activity, so long as they are not on scheduled ancient monuments and have the landowner's permission. We want to offer metal detectorists a legal framework, and encourage them to work with finds liaison officers. That will create a virtuous circle whereby the metal detectorists become educated in how to perform their activity in an archaeological or heritage-friendly manner, and feel rewarded. Without the portable antiquities scheme we should be back to square one, and the incentive for metal detectorists to engage positively would be gone.
460WH
The resource prepared by the scheme, www.finds.org.uk, is a superb example of what can be done. One of the criticisms made of archaeology is that all kinds of materials are dug up, but that nobody can access the output from it;the public are interested in it but have no ability to access it. However, finds.org.uk is a wonderful example of how, with quite moderate resources, a huge amount of research material can be made available to the general public. It justifies the effort put into the scheme.
I am sure that the Minister will hear more, particularly from members of the all-party archaeology group, on the subject, as it is part of the Department's comprehensive spending review bid process. However, she should be aware that there is huge political support for the scheme to be funded for the long term. We are realistic about it being inappropriate to go back to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which funded the start-up costs and which had its arm twisted a little to keep the scheme going. The fund has made it clear that it will not fund the scheme in the long term, so I think that it is a core activity for DCMS.
The second new development in which we are interested is the database, which allows somebody who wishes to deal in portable antiquities to find out whether the object with which they are presented is one that they should consider. I understand that there has been some progress with that, hut it requires cross-departmental work, which is always challenging, particularly in this case with the Home Office. However, it remains concerning that more progress has not been made. I made commitments to dealers with whom I worked last year when taking through the legislation that I would continue to press the Government on the matter, because the dealers rightly said that they need progress. They co-operated effectively in introducing the legislation, but they have asked for the tools to allow them to comply with it. We have a duty to ensure that such tools are available.
I should like to see a database that deals not only with stolen objects but can give people general warnings, such as those issued by ICOM—the International Council of Museums' red list procedure—which can issue generic warnings saying that it is aware, for example, that looting of statues is taking place in Sierra Leone. That is important if we are to use the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, under which we must demonstrate that the dealers knew or believed that the objects were illicitly removed. In order for that knowledge or belief to be created, it is in our interest to spread the knowledge so that dealers have no reason not to be aware of specific problems. The database is important, so I hope that the Minister can indicate what progress has been made with it.
The final issue on the shopping list of preventive measures is that of guidance to assist the public. That emerged from fairly positive discussions that we had recently with eBay, the online auctioneers, which indicated a willingness to co-operate in trying to ensure that illicit material is not advertised on its site. We are trying to put together a tool kit to enable it to do so. It

461WH
also said that it would point people towards guidance that would assist them in establishing whether an object was illegal, but as we examined that matter further, we realised that there was no definitive and authoritative set of guidance available.
The production of such guidance would require work by Government lawyers and civil servants, but would be well worth doing, particularly because many people who deal in that kind of material on eBay are not dealers in the traditional sense. If we are to require legal compliance from those people, we must offer them an easy and straightforward link to such guidance. I suggest that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the obvious body to provide that guidance, so that people can find out easily what their responsibilities are with regard to export licences, the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, heritage legislation and the Treasure Act 1996. If people do not have that source of information, they can continue to plead ignorance. We should be proactive in offering them that kind of resource.
A single, definitive guide of that kind, accessible as a link on the internet to anyone who was offering material online, would also be a valuable resource for anyone who works in that area; for finds liaison officers, for example, who advise people, such as metal detectorists, on whether their material is saleable. It would be helpful for such information to be available and accessible.
The National Council for Metal Detecting has a strong view on enforcement measures. It knows that there are criminal elements—the kind of criminals who will engage in any activity that is perceived to be easy. The criminal approach is, "If I can make a fast buck, I'll do it, providing the risks of being caught and prosecuted are very low." The NCMD is clear that there should be prosecutions from time to time, to send a message out to the metal-detecting community that nighthawking is an activity that should not be engaged in.
In that context, the Crown Prosecution Service recently decided to drop the prosecution of a Mr. Robert Duquemin who was alleged to have removed a hoard of coins from a scheduled ancient monument in Wiltshire. That has caused an enormous amount of dismay because it sends out the signal that such activities are low risk. It should be made clear that, from a legal point of view, such activities are high risk and that prosecutions will take place. I hope that the Minister will examine that case, and will use her offices to press the prosecuting and law enforcement agencies to enforce heritage legislation. It would be helpful if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport sent out the message that such prosecutions are important.
There is particular concern that the heritage value of the items stolen is not properly considered when decisions about prosecutions are taken. The cash value of a hoard of Roman coins could be modest—£20 to £50—and would fall outwith the normal Crown Prosecution Service guidelines for prosecution. However, the heritage value could be far more significant, particularly if one considers the damage that might have been done to the archaeological site to recover those items, even if their intrinsic cash value is low.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We have spent an unconscionable number of hours on relevant legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I am dismayed that more has not been made of just a few prosecution cases "pour encourager les autres".
Mr. Allan: Absolutely. One of the models that we might examine—this was suggested to me by someone in an e-mail—is wildlife legislation. In that context, people occasionally have been prosecuted for offences such as the removal of birds' eggs. Although those prosecutions are only occasional, when they hit the headlines they have a significant impact on the collectors of birds' eggs. We need the equivalent prosecutions in the heritage field; we have not had sufficient cases "pour décourager les autres". I hope that the Minister will signal the importance of the prosecution side.
I understand that if one is in the police, Customs and Excise or other law enforcement agencies, one is constantly being set targets. In the midst of that, heritage can seem like a low priority item.
Mr. Robert Key: There is another dimension to this problem. The police are perfectly keen to catch people removing archaeological finds illegally, but when such cases get to the Crown Prosecution Service, which is all about prioritising, the priority of heritage is very low. When the police get the call, therefore, they do not bother because they say it is a waste of time because the CPS will not proceed.
Mr. Allan: That was a helpful intervention. In the Wiltshire case, it was initiatives by the local police force that got the thing going, but they have felt pushed back, because, after doing all that work—they took forensic samples to prove that the soil around the coins came from the scheduled ancient monument and not another site—the case was sent back by the CPS. My suspicion is that it such cases are given low priority because of the low cash value of the items involved. CPS guidance should be clarified so that if significant heritage value is involved and somebody has committed a huge heritage crime by destroying an archaeological site, that is taken into consideration, and not the fact that the coins are worth £20 or £50. The role of the CPS is critical.
During our discussions with eBay, which have been interesting in terms of clarifying how things can and should work, the arts and antiquities squad at Scotland Yard has been helpful. The squad is willing to act as a conduit. If it is told with reasonable certainty by a competent authority that material on eBay appears to be an illegal antiquity, the squad will ask eBay to be involved in what it calls a notice and takedown procedure. It gives eBay a notice, and eBay in return agrees to take down the material of which it is notified. I hope that we make more progress on that, as it would be a helpful development.
As soon as one engages with the specialist crime squads at Scotland Yard, one realises how short of staff they are. If this is to be an area of priority for the DCMS, encouragement, support and resources for the squads that must police the legislation that we introduce would be enormously helpful. We should take any opportunity to call for additional support. I recognise that that is not directly a DCMS responsibility, but that Department sets the climate within which decisions on resources are taken.

463WH
I now turn to policy development and monitoring the effectiveness of the measures that we are taking. I make a direct plea to appoint a successor body to the illicit trade advisory panel—ITAP. I have no doubt that the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 was possible only because of the existence of ITAP. The panel brought together all the interested parties and created a climate in which constructive discussion could take place about how best to introduce legislation. That enabled the legislation to be introduced and proceed smoothly through Parliament. Had ITAP not existed, I have no doubt that we would have ended up in one of those awful battles, whereby the trade lobby would have resisted the archaeologists and the issue would have been seen as highly contentious and divisive. In the end, people worked together constructively.
ITAP proved its worth in Parliament and in several other recommendations that it made to Government, some of which have been taken up. ITAP was set up on an ad hoc basis in response to a Select Committee report some years ago. I urge the Minister to set up a more formal body, which brings together archaeologists, museums, dealers, metal detectorists and officials to keep the agenda fresh. There will be great disappointment if ITAP is disbanded without a successor body in place.
The Government would derive huge value for money from such a body. It is not an expensive undertaking to set it up, as the people who take part do so willingly; they want to be engaged with it. It is not a costly business, but the value to the Government would be enormous and would pass any cost-benefit analysis.
My next request relates to the internal operation of Government. We need a bit of the much-fabled joined-up government that we have been promised for the past seven years or so. When we consider archaeological matters, we look to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as the lead agency. However, on the enforcement of the legal measures, which we are talking about today, we need to look to the Home Office and Customs and Excise. The local archaeologists work for local authorities that answer to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
A lot of our concerns about planning, listing and scheduling monuments are to do with the ODPM, rather than the DCMS. We highlighted that in the all-party archaeological group report and said that that kind of "joined-upness" was essential in archaeology, because even people who work in that field are saying, "Who is taking responsibility for this?" The fear is that nobody takes responsibility and this issue falls through the cracks between the Departments. This is a complex matter and an interdepartmental working group on a structure for archaeology that crosses all Departments would be a major advance.
I have set out an extensive, but not expensive, shopping list containing quite modest measures that, together, would do much to tackle the illicit trade in antiquities. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate positive support for those measures. I think that were she to do so, she would have significant support inside and outside the House.
2.21 pm
Alan Howarth: We should all be very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for securing this debate. I congratulate him on his speech, just as I congratulate him on the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, which he introduced and took through the House.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. Normally, I should not be speaking, because I have a rule that I do not interfere with my ministerial successors; they have enough problems without finding me under their feet. However, I am concerned about a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has called to our attention. I am particularly apprehensive that the Government may be about to divest themselves of an important resource in the illicit trade advisory panel.
The subject of our debate is important by any standard. It is important if criminal activity is persisting and if we are dealing with thieving, the desecration of sites and significant problems of money laundering through international organised crime, as I think we are in some aspects of the illicit trade in antiquities. It is even more important because we are contemplating the roots of our civilisation. We can, through good archaeological and museological practice, recognise, understand, conserve and honour the origins not only of our own civilisation in the west, but also of Islamic civilisation. The illicit trade dishonours and disgraces all who participate in it, whether they are in Baghdad or St. James's.
When I had the privilege to be Minister for the Arts, I became increasingly, and intensely, concerned that as a Government we were at that stage doing too little to tackle the illicit trade and that we lacked a coherent policy on archaeology, Let me record my admiration for officials in the cultural policy unit and the heritage department of the DCMS. It is always appropriate for Members of the House to press Ministers to raise their game and do better. but there have been occasions—although certainly not today—when hon. and right hon. Members have, if I may put it this way, slagged off Departments a little too broadly. I deplore that when it occurs.
If there is one individual who sharpened my awareness of the problem of the illicit trade in antiquities, it is Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. I think that everybody here today would pay tribute to his enormous authority and concern to ensure that we get public policy right.
When I was Minister, successive Governments had been falling around over the UNESCO convention for some 30 years. The re was some obfuscatory advice coming from the Lord Chancellor's Department, for example, which I did not believe had looked seriously at the issue. It was advising my Department that accession to the UNESCO convention would, in some not very clearly specified senses, be inconsistent with the proper principles of English law. I was tempted to ignore that advice but it was, in practical terms, impossible for me to do so.
I also recognised that there were some genuine difficulties with the UNESCO convention, such as the vagueness of its terminology and the possibility that, if we took it seriously and literally—it is our custom in this

465WH
country to take rather seriously and literally the international conventions and directives to which we subscribe—we might create a fairly oppressive, bureaucratic system.
There were doubts, for example, about what the meaning of the term "inventory" might be. It was with some relief that I was advised by Ms Lyndell Prott of UNESCO that, in the world of UNESCO, an inventory does not really mean an inventory, and that it would be okay; we would be able to handle that.
Equally, there would be a requirement to supervise archaeological explorations; one can imagine the practical considerations of that. There were obvious difficulties. There was also the requirement to ensure that the trade complied with all the stipulations of the convention, and that registers were kept. All that risked creating some impractical and rather oppressive situations.
My predecessor in office, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who I am glad to see here today, asked officials to consider whether, as a fallback position, it might be preferable to subscribe to UNIDROIT, and they had been carrying forward that work; but I came to the view that the whole process was going nowhere. We were also in considerable difficulty over export licensing, notwithstanding the extremely conscientious work of officials in the cultural property unit. However admirable their work might be, there was a problem, in that Customs and Excise did not regard the enforcement of export licences as high among its priorities.
I came to the view that we needed to form an expert panel that would advise the Government, enable us to achieve some definitions, map the extent of the problems that we needed to address, advise s about the nature and extent of them, make specific recommendations to us about policy, and—assuming that we were able to implement those policy recommendations—thereafter invigilate progress. I set up ITAP—the illicit trade advisory panel—which deals with illicit trade in cultural objects. Its terms of reference were
"to consider the nature and extent of the illicit international trade in art and antiquities, and the extent to which the UK is involved in this"
and
"to consider how most effectively, both through legislative and non legislative means, the UK can play its part in preventing and prohibiting this illicit trade, and to ad vise the Government accordingly."
That was appropriate at that stage and, I think, still expresses a current and continuing reed.
We were fortunate that some immensely distinguished individuals were willing to serve on the panel. I pay particular tribute to Professor Norman Palmer, a professor of law at University college, London, who chaired the committee, and the experts from museums, academia, the art and antiquities market and the specialist press, who became members of the panel. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggested, it was not particularly easy to persuade people with those diverse interests to work together, but they were willing to do so. I believe that they did so very successfully, and were enormously helpful to us all.
466WH
At the same time, I instigated the formation of an interdepartmental official group. It was necessary then, just as it is necessary that there should be such a group now. A wide range of Departments apart from the DCMS should take a serious and responsible interest in the field of archaeology: among them the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and also Customs and Excise. This issue, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, is a classic instance of both the importance and the difficulty of achieving well co-ordinated Government policy and practice.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was, if I may say so, incorrect historically when he said that the intention was to set up ITAP as an ad hoc body. I envisaged ITAP as being a permanent feature of the scene. It was on my initiative that we set it up. Indeed, the Select Committee was annoyed when it learned that we were setting it up because it found that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was doing its job and, in a way, we had shot its fox. All that was rather petty. We were working on a common agenda. The problems were obvious and important, and the recommendations of the Select Committee, which tied in closely with our thinking, were an important contribution to the evolution of policy during that period.
Neither the Select Committee nor the Department itself would have been able to muster the expertise that, fortunately, we had available to us on the panel. They could not have been a substitute for the panel. The panel was essential to us. It worked very quickly and reported with 16 recommendations in December 2000. I shall say a word or two about its principal recommendations, the first of which was that we should subscribe to the UNESCO convention. The panel's recommendation gave great power to my elbow and the Department was able to persuade the Government that that was the right action to take. It was an important step forward.
It was recommended that a criminal offence of dealing in illegally removed cultural objects should be created. It was an enormous disappointment to me that the Home Office, which never ceases to churn legislation through Parliament and had two or three Bills in the next Session, was unwilling to incorporate those rather modest provisions in one of its Bills. However, thank goodness, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam stepped into the breach and, with support from the Department and sufficient support from the Home Office, it has been possible for the offence to be put on the statute book.
There have been greater difficulties about export licences and export control. In its progress report in 2001, ITAP recorded what it thought it would be appropriate to do, including, importantly, that the export licensing unit should take account of any evidence of unlawful removal, including illicit excavation of an object from a third country in which the object was located before the country of its last location. That was endorsed by Baroness Blackstone, as the Minister. ITAP had recommended that there should be spot checks. We learned three and a half years later from the European Commission that there was a legal difficulty with mounting spot checks. It was

467WH
disappointing that it took so long for the European Commission to furnish us with that advice. It demonstrates that stamina is essential in such proceedings. We continue to need to mobilise our forces—intellectual, administrative and diplomatic—to achieve the results that we want.
There have been problems in establishing the databases that were recommended in the original ITAP report. Let us remember that, even if we are successful in establishing a database of tainted items, it will not cover those items that are in the ground and may yet be dug up, looted and put on the market improperly and illicitly.
Some of the work that ITAP and the Department envisaged in the year 2000 is complete, but some policy is unclear, and implementation has proved difficult.
The combination of the Treasure Act 1996 and the portable antiquities scheme provides an excellent model. It goes with the grain of human nature because it recognises the enthusiasm of amateur archaeologists and metal detectorists and their desire to be able to keep the objects that they find. Because it recognises and, to as great an extent as is proper, accommodates their energies and enthusiasms, it is workable, in contrast to the absolute and comprehensive prohibitions that other countries in Europe and elsewhere seek to impose. However, its success depends on the services of the finds liaison officers. Without them, I dread to think what will happen in our country. We will revert to a situation in which people wander around finding things and digging things up, and archaeological finds are not recorded. That would be a tragic setback. It would be popular with archaeologists and the wider public, who care very much about archaeology and this part of our heritage, if the Government were able to find the resources to ensure the continuation of the portable antiquities scheme.
We always knew that there would be a problem, because when we managed to persuade the Heritage Lottery Fund to finance the first phase of the scheme that we have had in recent years, we knew that in the end it would depend upon a more permanent source of governmental funding. I fear that we shall still be in difficulties if that is left to local authorities on their own, unless it is made a mandatory requirement, which seems improbable. I hope that the Department will be able to find resources for a scheme of grants to allow the portable antiquities scheme to be maintained.
Internationally, we now have the archaeological catastrophe in Mesopotamia. I congratulate the DCMS and the British Museum on the energy with which they responded to the crisis as it broke. The Institute of Field Archaeologists has recently advised us, however, of how dire the situation is. Only some one third of the objects looted from the national museum in Baghdad have been recovered. The institute asked whether we could provide funds for training to match the funds that are being provided by the Americans, the French and the Germans. It also asked us to provide further support for the British Museum and the British School for Antiquities in Iraq. It would be wonderful if the Department found the resources to do those things.
Against that background, I was therefore surprised when in February the Government announced that they expected ITAP to produce its final report towards the
468WH
end of the year and that the panel would be dismantled. I assumed that that was because the Department did not have the staff to enable it to service the panel. That is a real consideration; the Department is leanly staffed, and nobody would suggest that it is extravagantly resourced, so one has to recognise that choices need to be made. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us whether the problem is that the DCMS lacks the resources both to service a continuing policy review by ITAP and its monitoring role, and to support the administrative effort of implementing and enforcing existing policy and the interdepartmental coordination that we all want to see.
I know that this is an anxious spending review for the Department and that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to do the best that she can for museums, heritage and archaeology. I would note only that the money that it would cost to provide support for a better effort in Iraq, for the portable antiquities scheme and to sustain ITAP would be a fraction of the money that is being spent to support the coalition in Iraq. It would be so tiny as to be indiscernible in the national accounts, and yet it would make a significant contribution to the reestablishment of a peaceful and humane order in Iraq.
Policy is not complete and needs to evolve. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam drew attention to the eBay issue—the problem of trading on the internet. I should have thought that invigilation was part of implementation. It is desirable to keep ITAP. Is there a problem with the Nolan rules? ITAP would have its fifth birthday in May 2005. I do not think that the Nolan rules should be regarded as the law of the Medes and Persians. I also think that I recollect not only that it is in order to renew members of the body for a second term of office but that there is specific reference to highly specialised advisory functions, where the Government cannot just fish another member of the great and the good from the public appointments unit pool. I hope that there would not be an insuperable difficulty in ensuring that ITAP continues beyond the end of this year.
Its members are prodigiously distinguished. They work pro bono. They are not expensive to support, but without them both the DCMS and the Government's interdepartmental effort will be less able to achieve what they need to do. That expert and independent help is needed. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is always, in her ministerial dealings, courteous and positive. She will certainly be courteous and positive to the members of the panel and I hope that she will be able to tell us that she is willing to reconsider the decision that was announced in February.
2.40 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing the debate. It is an important opportunity to discuss the subject in hand.
I am sure that we are deeply grateful to the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) for recalling the wonderful things that he achieved as a Minister. I am bound to say that I was a founding Minister at the Department of National Heritage and that as I established the new Department and went from capital to capital negotiating with culture Ministers who

469WH
had had large Departments for a century or more, it did not feel like faffing around. However, he saw it as faffing around and we were all pleased to be put right and to be put in our places.
I will simply record my thanks to Mr. David Mellor, who was my Secretary of State for some time, to Lord Brooke, who was a most distinguished Secretary of State, and to that most civilised of permanent secretaries, Sir Hayden Phillips, who gave a new opportunity to archaeology in the establishing of the Department of National Heritage which is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
It would be a surprise if the Member of Parliament for Salisbury did not have something to say about this matter. More recently, the Salisbury hoard has been a subject of much debate. Anyone who has the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the constituency that includes Stonehenge, who celebrated their 10th birthday on top of a barrow on Cranborne Chase and who is guardian of the Pitt Rivers collection in the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum, will have something to say about it.
Mr. Allan: This may be a cheeky question to ask the hon. Gentleman. However, is he a long tunneller or a short tunneller?
Mr. Key: I would love to have been a long tunneller. We are talking about the controversy over a tunnel under Stonehenge, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the public inquiry, the long tunnel was the one thing that united everybody—from the druids to the Department. However, the Treasury said no, and that was it. We are now in the middle of a public inquiry about the short tunnel. That, at least, was a development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might point out the relevance of that to the subject of antiquities.
Mr. Key: The tunnel will go underneath one, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I will row return to the subject of the debate, and you are quite right to reprimand me.
This morning, I clicked on to the eBay website, typed in "artefacts" and discovered a number of items for sale. One listing read:
"Anglo-Saxon Bronze Artefacts measuring up to 37mm in length. Good luck with the bidding."
It cost £7.99. I discovered an "impressive medieval iron spur". The winning bid for it was £19.99 and its description was:
"Complete medieval iron spur as found And yet to be cleaned. It is complete with rowel and measures 150mm in length. Good luck with the bidding."
I then discovered the pages of thanks, and in relation to the medieval spur the buyer had e-mailed and written:
"Medieval Spur is superb—I wonder who originally wore it? Great eBayer thanks!"

That was just one of 239 pages of thanks that had been sent to one website that sells artefacts.
Therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for telling us what he has been talking to eBay about. That is an issue that we must address and
470WH
I hope that the Minister will tell us where the DCMS has reached in its discussions with eBay. It is making lots of money. I daresay that it is technically correct, but I believe that it has a moral responsibility and I hope that it will acknowledge that.
The illicit trade, including unreported treasure finds, is sometimes news. That was the case on the BBC's 6 o'clock news on 19 May. However, eBay is now the largest marketplace for antiquities in the UK. I believe that the DCMS must be more proactive on that matter.
I shall concentrate on the lack of co-ordination across Government in tackling archaeological problems such as that. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for local government, and some areas of local governments, notably county councils and unitary authorities, have responsibility for our heritage and for funding museums. I say in parenthesis that most of those local authorities, sadly, are cutting their budgets for museums; mine is, and I regret that very much.
The Department for Education and Skills clearly has a locus, as does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for agri-environment schemes. As I know well from its activities in Salisbury, on Salisbury plain in particular, the Ministry of Defence has a great deal to be proud of in its support for archaeology and for the maintenance of the archaeological environment.
Then there is the Department for Transport. When I transferred from being Minister at the Department of National Heritage to being Minister for Roads and Traffic, I was appalled at the desecration of many archaeological sites over many years.
I hope that there can be more co-ordination. The all-party parliamentary group on archaeology, in its excellent report that I am delighted to endorse, recommended that there should be far more joined-up government and that the DCMS should establish an interdepartmental committee on archaeology at ministerial level, which would include the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills and DEFRA.
The report suggested that the departmental representatives should meet and maintain a small, strong team to provide policy advice to the DCMS, at least one member of which should be an expert on archaeology seconded to the Department.
The DCMS should also ensure closer co-ordination on archaeology issues among its architecture and historic environment divisions, its museums, libraries and archives division and the cultural property unit. The Department should play an enabling role in bringing together representatives from the sponsor bodies.
Finally, we need a single, non-governmental organisation to lobby for archaeologists. The Council for British Archaeology, the Institute of Field Archaeologists and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, and possibly other organisations, should have a review under an independent chairman to ascertain how they could better lobby for archaeology in general.

471WH
As a lifelong advocate of archaeology, I regret to say that it is much neglected in this country. The state of archaeology is not too bad, but catalogued today have been some of the consequences of not having a tight enough grip upon that world. Resourcing is a major issue, of course; it always is. The quality of graduate entrants into archaeology is a problem too.
However, there is no doubt that planning policy guidance 16 has resulted in a phenomenal increase in funding for archaeological work, much to the advantage of the constituents of mine who work for Wessex Archaeology, the biggest and best of the contracting archaeologists, including those in the field of marine archaeology. Its headquarters are, needless to say, in Salisbury. The consequences of PPG16 have been tremendous, but there is a problem with the capacity of museums to take and store material, and that has to be addressed with resources.
Above all, the wider context of the debate should be seen in the role of archaeology in the life of our nation. There is a lack of knowledge of history, heritage and archaeology in the curriculum. The Minister knows all about that; I am glad that she is responding to the debate, because she may wish to comment. The lack of archaeology in the curriculum probably contributes to a low sense of identity, of pride of place and of social identity in our wider communities, and that is regrettable.
However, the more of these debates that we have, to raise the issue gradually up the agenda—we may be talking about small items for sale on the internet or the great issues of the archaeological damage done in Iraq and Mesopotamia—the better, because people will realise the importance of looking backwards if we are to understand how to move forwards.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind all right hon. and hon. Members that I am required to call the first of the three winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock, 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate.
2.50 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Minister for her optimistic answer to Question 2 on Monday on portable antiquities. I raise the question of reciprocity and incentives, a subject covered under item 12 of the brief given to us by the British Museum. I will not go into the brief in detail for the sake of time, but it is important because it raises the question of whether items that were taken, possibly as long as 150 years ago, should be repatriated. I am chairman of the court of the university of Edinburgh, and we are under intense pressure to return to Ethiopia religious artefacts of great importance that were taken by British forces in the 1860s. What does the Minister's Department think about the return of valuable objects?
There is a review of treasure trove in Scotland and it has been recommended that Scotland needs a team of finds liaison officers similar to those in England and Wales. Does the Minister agree that that would be helpful in ensuring the reporting of treasure in Scotland, and that the role could not be satisfactorily undertaken by museum development officers as the Scottish
472WH
Executive suggested? Does she also agree that that demonstrates what a great success the portable antiquities scheme has been in England and Wales? The Government should ensure its long-term funding, and that funding should be ring-fenced to ensure continued delivery of the project's aims.
2.52 pm
Hugh Bayley: York is an important place for history and archaeology. It is a centre for the application of science and technology to archaeology, as carried out at the environmental archaeology unit at York university and the conservation work of York Archaeological Trust.
The Council for British Archaeology is based in York. The council's portable antiquities working group met yesterday. It is the executive arm of the standing conference on portable antiquities, which includes some 30 archaeological organisations. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that there should be greater co-ordination of the voice of archaeology in Britain for lobbying purposes, but the council plays an important role as an umbrella body.
The council has asked me to raise two questions. The first relates to the replacement for the illicit trade advisory panel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) established when he was the Minister for the Arts. It has done important work; I pay tribute particularly to the contribution of Peter Addyman, the director of the York Archaeological Trust. It set out a detailed agenda that called for, among other things, the creation of a database for stolen cultural objects. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last November that the Home Office would provide start-up funding to establish such a database. A report was due to be published earlier this year setting out the plan for establishing a database. What progress has been made on that?
I realise that creating a full database would be costly; the estimate is about £15 million, but why cannot it be funded in the long term by the trade in cultural objects? The arts market in Britain has a turnover of some £4 to £4.5 billion a year, so one third of 1 per cent. of the turnover would pay for a database to be constructed and maintained in perpetuity. London is an important centre for the art market and it would add to its prestige and importance if it were seen to be taking a lead in supporting such a database.
The Council for British Archaeology asked me to ask the Minister about the interdepartmental body being established to oversee the enforcement of legislation. It is clear that interdepartmental co-operation is needed when one considers the respective roles of the Minister's Department and the Home Office in relation to the database. How will the interdepartmental body work and how will it obtain advice from the archaeologists—the experts in the field—on the work that it is doing? Now that the illicit trade advisory panel has been wound up, it is important that professional archaeologists have a continuing input in discussions with the Government about the implementation of their policies.
2.56 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing the debate and in helping him to prod the Minister and the Government on the issue. I am optimistic in that respect, as a debate in Westminster Hall last week prompted the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons to say that the debate had triggered the Government into taking action. I hope that a precedent has been established that will be followed today and that my hon. Friend will receive supportive answers to his probing questions.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the export licence regime and the need to tighten it up. The Government's reply to the Select Committee's report in paragraph 18 states:
"Since the meeting in early 2003, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been considering this issue in detail, undertaking research and consulting others in order to move the issue forward. In particular, the Department is exploring the position with the European Commission."
It would be helpful if the Minister updated the House on the progress of those explorations and said whether the point was being reached when there would be some concrete developments. Without an efficient export licence regime, a key barrier to the illicit trade, and a weapon in preventing it, is missing.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said about prevention is important; permanent damage is done to a heritage site if artefacts are removed without care and attention and traded round the world. Connections with the original heritage and the chance of our having the maximum understanding of where we come from and the cultures that went before us are lost for ever. If we can do more to tackle the illicit trade, we can do more to prevent the loss of our heritage and the despoiling of our history.
My hon. Friend praised the portable antiquities scheme. If it is to continue, we need to identify how it will be funded and I hope for positive news from the Minister on the subject. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked what was happening in Scotland, which is a matter for the Scottish Executive, but it will be interesting to know what contacts there are between the Minister's Department and the Scottish Executive to co-ordinate best practice, and about joined-up government within UK-reserved areas. When something that is seen to be successful is established here, what information is passed on to the Scottish Executive?
Mr. Dalyell: The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, which tries to curb dealing in tainted cultural objects, is not law in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Sir Robert Smith: I did indeed know that. He reminds me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam on all his hard work on that Bill. As the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), said, it was amazing that, given the conveyer belt of legislation coming out of the Home Office, it was only through a private Member's Bill that the legislation was introduced. I congratulate my hon. Friend on successfully seeing it on to the statute book.
474WH
The other challenge is the establishment of a database. Again, that seems to be drifting, but perhaps the Minister has good news for us. At the third bullet point of paragraph 5 of the Government's response, they made the point that the second phase in the database's development was due for completion in April, and that they would produce a detailed strategy for the development of a pilot project. Now we are into May. I hope that today's debate is a chance to hear what stage that database has reached.
The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) talked about the potential for funding that database through the private sector. The database will be dealing with several low-value artefacts, which are not necessarily part of the private sector mainstream, so for it to be successful it may require the public sector to take a lead role in its establishment. If we are to encourage organisations to behave responsibly—if we are to put public pressure on organisations such as eBay to recognise the important role that they can play—a public database that can be consulted seems an important part of making that pressure almost irresistible from the point of view of the trade.
Similarly, clear and effective guidance for the public will help people police themselves. There is a dangerous misunderstanding; any one individual may feel that they are not doing much wrong, although they may be aware at the back of their mind that what they are doing is not quite right. They do not realise that they are not the only individual involved. The sum activity of lots of individuals doing a little bit wrong can do so much collective damage over time. As I have said before, things can be irreplaceable once the damage is done, and good education and public information will help to get that message across.
As has been said, effective, high-profile prosecutions get into the media. For example, prosecutions involving birds' eggs have been effective, and most people now realise how important sensible behaviour is in that field. The dropping of prosecutions sends a dangerous signal if it is done just because of the value of an item. It is not the value alone, but the effect on heritage that is at stake. The message must be sent to the CPS that that is this House's concern.
Mr. Allan: In the run-up to this debate, I was told that all police forces have wildlife liaison officers to deal with specialist wildlife crime, but only a couple have a heritage liaison officer. There is clearly a disparity.
Sir Robert Smith: Yes, that sends out a clear signal. As the hon. Member for Salisbury said, if police are slogging away with finite resources and do not expect the CPS to take things forward, a signal is being sent there, too. In the Government's response, they reject the idea of targets for this crime by saying in the third bullet point of paragraph 8:
"We are looking to minimise the number of targets on forces to allow them more flexibility to focus on their own local problems and priorities."
If the Government genuinely want to minimise targets, the distortion will be less if this specific crime does not have targets. However, I worry that the police still have a lot of targets. Certainly, when I speak to police forces, I am told that their concern is how targets drive

475WH
priorities. Although the police try to cover all crimes, if something is being measured, they will try to meet that Government target. If the Government do minimise all targets, however, forces will be free to concentrate on the problems in their areas, and that may remove some concern.
I have looked at the briefing notes for this debate and have heard what has been said today. Much of what has happened appears to have been galvanised by the setting up of ITAP. There is concern that with its winding up, there is no longer an external input to keep the Government's mind focused on these issues. Some of the recommendations have been implemented while others are still very much in the pipeline. It is important to maintain the ability to bring outside voices into the Government.
Clearly, joined-up government and internal co-ordination is important, but the focus of an external voice making the concerns outside clear to the Government and maintaining that dialogue has certainly proved valuable in other sectors. My constituency experience of the oil and gas industry has made a huge difference to my understanding of the Department of Trade and Industry. It might be less so in respect of the Treasury, but I support bringing the industry and the Government together in a permanent way so that feedback can always be achieved. Again, I hope that the Government will reconsider their position.
I do not regard the hon. Member for Salisbury as a faffing-about sort of person. To be fair, he deserves to defend himself from that accusation. He, too, emphasised the importance of joined-up government and cited practical examples of how we need to develop, with the internet, new means of tackling illicit trade that is carried out without people realising it. We want to put more moral pressure on eBay so that it recognises that if it wants public acceptance, it has to work effectively and have the moral authority of playing its part in not promoting an illicit trade.
The understanding of our origins is something we can do only one time round, when artefacts are found. It is crucial that we tackle the illicit trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said in his opening remarks, it is a matter of prevention rather than cure. We need to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. We can play an important role. If this country can break the cycle of the trade and ensure that no illegal trade is passing through here, it will play a major part in removing the pressure that causes the crime in the first place. If the Government can stop the illicit trade, they will be taking a major step forward in protecting our heritage and that of other countries whose artefacts are traded through our nation.
3.7 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing this important debate on a subject about which I am passionate. All hon. Members who have spoken so far have alluded to Iraq, which, of course, is very much on our minds at present. Despite all the horrifying images of present-day Iraq, matters might improve eventually in that country. If and when life returns to
476WH
something like normality there, Iraq will need one thing, above all; tourism. People like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should go there.
I am not saying that there should be an organisation called "Simply Mesopotamia", but it would be wonderful if people were attracted by the cradle of civilisation, the ziggurats at Ur and the hanging gardens of Babylon, such as are left after the depredations of Saddam. In their present post-Saddam incarnation, fascinating they remain. That was why those of us who supported the war w ere so dismayed to see the looting of the museum in Baghdad at the moment of liberation.
I wrote a very angry piece denouncing the disappearance of the Warka vase, the squatting Arcadian king of 2500 BC and the golden bull's head harp of Ur. It later turned that some of our anger was a little overdone, because those objects were found not to have been stolen. A great many objects were finally recovered. I was in Baghdad a few days after its fall. I was standing in the grounds of the museum when people kept coming with great cardboard boxes full of cuneiform seals and returning them to the curators, who were overjoyed to recover them.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the all-party group heard evidence last week from the British School in Baghdad? Of the 40 most prized objects that were initially looted, only 20 have been returned.
Mr. Johnson: That is exactly the point that I was about to make. We have to take back some of the more wounding things that we said about the Pentagon and how it guarded the museum, and perhaps we have to withdraw some of the allegations, which we saw in some of the newspapers, about a conspiracy between the Pentagon and the American Council for Cultural Policy. That may have been exaggerated. However, many wonderful things were lost and there is still considerable looting. It is only right that the current policy of the people of Iraq should be retentionist in the extreme, to use the jargon. They should hang on to their patrimony.
Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the real disgraces is that there are ongoing police investigations, as I understand it, into dealers in the United Kingdom who are dealing in material taken from Iraq in contravention of all the sanctions and selling it to buyers in the United States? After all the publicity, that is disgraceful.
Mr. Johnson: That makes it all the more important that we should listen to everybody who has spoken so far and supported the work of ITAP, which insists that there should be a database of all these things.
We should consider the most terrible thing about the loss of antiquities of this kind; 1 do not just mean the vacant case in the museum, or the empty plinth, because people know what has been lost. If we analogise cultural assets with the human mind, people may not be able to remember the first 100 lines of "Lycidas", but they know what they cannot remember and there is a blank spot somewhere in their mental catalogue.
The most unsettling things are the "unknown unknowns", to use Donald Rumsfeld's immortal phrase in his brilliant summary of all the epistemological

477WH
possibilities in world. The terror of Alzheimer's is not only forgetting things, but not even knowing the things that have been forgotten or lost. That is why we need the records and the database of objects—tainted items as they are called—that may have been stolen. Only if we have that do we have the hope of restitution. It would be a good thing if the database included generic descriptions of things that might have come from Iraq, because the Iraqis do not even know that they have lost many of the things that are currently being traded.
I have to make a confession. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam spoke eloquently and said that we must all be careful to avoid falling into the trap. I have a slightly guilty conscience, because I have in my pocket a cultural artefact of potential cultural and historical importance, which I shall produce for the benefit of hon. Members. It is Tariq Aziz's cigar case, which I liberated from the house of the former Iraqi Foreign Minister a few days after the war. That object was at one time as close to the former Foreign M mister's bosom as Saddam Hussein himself. I do not believe that I was wrong. Had I not taken it, a hidden hand would have removed it. The important fact is that I faithfully and openly recorded the date and location of the discovery in a daily newspaper, together with it s exact provenance. If any democratic successor Government in Iraq—as I hope there will be—decides in the normal way to apply for the restitution of this cigar case I should be happy to give it to them. If they think that Tariq Aziz deserves to be reunited with it, that is fine.
I adduce that point trivially and frivolously to make a point, although I hope that it is not entirely trivial. The key element is transparency, and knowing where things come from and how they fit.
Sir Robert Smith: It is dangerous to say that looting is acceptable as long as it is transparent. People's behaviour in a war zone, especially that of legislators, should be a bit more cautious.
Mr. Johnson: I count myself as chastised by the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have preserved this artefact for the greater edification of others, and I am willing to restore it to its rightful owner if and when he is acquitted or convicted of his various crimes. That is why I approve so strongly of the portable antiquities scheme, not only in registering objects that have been discovered but in trying to invigilate the trade in them.
I salute the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in setting up the portable antiquities scheme, under which 150,000 objects, some of them very stunning, have been notified to the public since 1997. The rich earth of this country is constantly bringing forth new treasures. Like my hon. Friend, I spent this morning looking at some of the extraordinary things that are for sale on eBay. A Celtic silver coin was going for £4, and a half-groat from the time of Henry VIII was going for only £5.50. There are some amazing bargains. It would be wonderful if the origins of these things were clearer and we could he sure that we were not being invited to buy something that was stolen.
We must face the fact that there will be a great deal more excavation in this country in the coming years. There are plans to build many more houses in south-east England. Gravel pits are being imposed in south
478WH
Oxfordshire by regional government. During the digging up of the beautiful area around Dorchester and Sandford, who knows what things will be found? It would be very sad if that archaeological site were destroyed. It would be even sadder if the things that were discovered were lost, and disappeared into the great magnetic maw of eBay.
That is why it is vital that we keep track of them. We do not want to stop all the trade in such antiquities. Far from it; we want to encourage people to value these objects. The things on eBay are grossly under-priced and some are under-priced because they are dodgy. We should stop that. It would be great if the Minister did what she could to stop this cultural memory loss and the terrible sense not only that we have mislaid something and cannot remember where we put it, but that we are not quite sure what it is that we may have mislaid.
ITAP and the portable antiquities scheme provide important ways of stopping this haemorrhage without stopping the legitimate trade in art and antiquities. That is why I hope that the Minister will feel able to give them the support that is shared by everyone in this Chamber.
3.17 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing the debate. I find myself surrounded by experts, either by training or through a constituency interest. I think that this is the most expert group of MPs that has ever met to discuss an issue, and I have an awful feeling that Members know most of the answers that I am about to give. Nevertheless, I shall try to respond to the issues raised.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I did not have the chance to do so during Question Time because he chose to major on sport, but he might return to home base at the next Question Time. I hope that he enjoys his time speaking on behalf of his party. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman does not repeat too many tricks like the one he just produced. I thought that he was about to announce that he had purchased something from the eBay site, but perhaps one possible crime in an Adjournment debate is as far as we should take things. I must say that some of the excuses he gave for having the cigar case are ones that I have heard from many people who have objects that should not be in their possession. However, I have no doubt that somebody will read the record of what was said, and in the interests of access we all ought to get a look at the case.
I turn to the serious issues in this discussion. I want to address several matters in the ten or so minutes that I have. I was going to talk about the achievements that have come out of the ITAP report since it was published because there are many of them, but I will not; I would be giving a list of things that people knew about and I would not have the time to address the important issues that have been raised. However, I want to put on the record that I think that it was an exceptionally high quality report and I congratulate the former Ministers who are responsible for that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), without whose initiative we would not be discussing the report today, to the work of Professor

479WH
Palmer and his team, and to my officials in the DCMS who have moved forward rapidly, given the slow way government sometimes works.
I am proud of and pleased with the progress that has been made in signing the UNESCO convention and, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, in helping to guide the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 through Parliament. However, as hon. Members have said, a number of matters have not yet been fully implemented, and I think that the most appropriate thing to do is to give a progress report on them.
I will start with the portable antiquities scheme. I have been hugely impressed by that scheme and I am determined to ensure that it continues. I should point out for the record that the DCMS has invested £1.5 million to ensure that it survives. It is true that the Heritage Lottery Fund cannot continue to fund it, as that is not in its nature, even for small projects. I accept that if the scheme is to continue, the DCMS core budget must pick it up.
All that I can say is that as an advocate of this sector of the DCMS's responsibilities, I have done whatever I could to ensure that the scheme is included, in big letters, in the bid. When we know how much money we have been allocated from the Treasury, I will do all that I can to ensure that the scheme continues. I cannot say anything beyond those assurances. However, any change would not be for a lack of wonderment on my part at the scheme, those who run it or the museums.
I have had the opportunity to speak to some metal detectorists, whose hobby has become far more than that; it has changed their lives. We talk about the importance of such work because it helps us understand where we have come from as a nation and race and where we might be going. It had a great effect on those men and women, who have dug up from the earth things that have helped to inform the rest of civilisation about itself, and I am great advocate of that.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I dare not tread into the matters of the Scottish Parliament, but if Scottish Ministers were interested in talking about the portable antiquities scheme or anything like that, I would be more than delighted to respond.
Let us turn to the trickier issue of the stolen objects database. There is no doubt that work on it has been too slow. Having traced back what has happened, I believe that the Select Committee was right to criticise both Departments for the slow pace at which they have worked. Why that has happened is irrelevant—it has happened and the work has been slow—so I shall talk about where we are now.
I have had meetings with Home Office Ministers, and we have jointly funded the second phase of the work, which reported in April and May this year. Let me be honest; the consultants' report has not meant that we can immediately begin work on implementation. That has been the problem and is why this is a tricky area for debate. I cannot say in all honesty that, having received the report, we can now go at full speed ahead. We now have to return to some other issues, and given what the consultants have said, I have two important concerns to pick up on.
480WH
The first question is about who pays. We envisage that the database could and should be self-financing, which would mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, members of the trade paying for its use. Their willingness to do that is now less certain than before, and mention was made of the value of the goods on the database being part of the reason for that. The second question is about how helpful the database will be for enforcement through the criminal justice system.
Our plan now is to commission further work. Although the first report is completed, I cannot say that its recommendations will be acted on as soon as I had hoped even this time last week. I am more than happy to keep the all-party group and the House fully informed on that. Given how ashamed I was about previous slow progress, I will personally do what I can to ensure that progress is made as quickly as possible.
On public guidance, we have two guidance notes on the website, including information on the Treasure Act 1996. The UNESCO legislation database is also being prepared, although it is not an easy task. Some 26 pieces of legislation have already been identified, but there have been problems when nations have provided that information electronically. Six sets of information supplied by nations were not in a form that UNESCO could use. The legislation database is on its way, but more slowly than We thought.
There is better news on the export licensing regime. Hon. Members were right that the difficulties have been in the wording of the regulation to carry out spot checks on objects of non-EU origin. They were also right that we need an amendment, and we have submitted a paper to the Commission requesting an update of the legislation. That should be discussed at the next meeting of the advisory committee on cultural goods in November; I hope that that will be the way forward.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for City of York that the cross-Whitehall group met for the first time this week. Whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam wishes to claim that as an example of an Adjournment debate again doing great things I leave to him. However, the group is meeting now and will, I hope, go on meeting.
Everyone has mentioned ITAP. I am, coincidentally, meeting Professor Palmer tomorrow; that date was in my diary before this debate was. I have an open mind on this subject, and I have no wish to avoid doing what I can to implement the report. The reason why we suggested that the panel no longer meet was not because officials could not service it; we are a pretty lean Department, but not that lean. In fact, the reason was the one to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East—and perhaps others—referred. The panel has been in place for four years now, and a committee set up outside the Nolan regulations would not normally continue beyond that.
Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the work of the panel should continue? If it will not meet again, it is her responsibility to establish something that will take its work forward.
Estelle Morris: Absolutely, and that may well be what I decide tomorrow, if the establishment of such a body needs to happen and I am persuaded by the arguments that I have heard. If someone is looking over one's shoulder, it is much better if their sole reason for doing so is because they are passionate, and not because they have other interests. I am very happy for a body to be established; I can see no disadvantages to that. I was nervous about allowing a committee that was outside the Nolan regulations to continue, because the advice that I was getting from officials was that that was not quite the way to do things. It was not quite proper, and there could be criticisms.
I will meet Professor Palmer tomorrow; that might be a way forward. It may be appropriate to then write to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and copy the letter to Opposition spokesmen to let them know what I decide. If the case is made, there is no disadvantage to what hon. Members propose. I am happy to take on board all the representations that have been made. Quite honestly, the establishment of such a body would give power to the Department's elbow in terms of enforcing and enacting provisions. I would sooner finish my time at the Department having implemented the ITAP report than having failed to do so, and if there is anything that I can do to assist that, I will.
On the eBay point—I refer also to the Wiltshire case and the issue of implementation—the eBay website clearly needs attention. I thank the portable antiquities scheme and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for the conversations that they have had so far. I think that the takedown route is the right way forward. We are continuing to talk to the British Museum, eBay and others.
I do not think that this has been mentioned by anyone: we think that eBay should display information on export licensing and regulations on the website, so that the person who gets to the website genuinely not knowing that they might be about to engage in illegal activity will at least have that brought to their attention. We have been talking to eBay about that.
I take the point that has been made about working across Whitehall. I am not one for setting up groups just for the sake of it. There is a real danger in Government of setting up a cross-party group so that one can say that that has been done, even if it does not actually change anything. I would rather look to the heritage protection review paper, the response to which will be published in June, to see what is said.
We have had a gallop through most of the issues raised by hon. Members. If there is any point that hon. Members feel particularly strongly about to which I have not responded, I will happily do so in a letter, but I do not think that there is anything I have left out. I finish by thanking hon. Members for pushing the DCMS, so that we can take action on this important area of national activity. I know that they will continue to do so, and I promise to work closely with them.

Breastfeeding
3.29 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am pleased to have finally secured this debate. It seemed appropriate to raise issues relating to breastfeeding close to breastfeeding awareness week, which was, of course, earlier this month. The Minister will be aware that two relevant early-day motions were tabled that week, both attracting more than 70 signatures. One notes that the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe and also identifies some of the many health benefits from breastfeeding. The other highlights issues relating to baby food marketing. I want to make it clear at the outset that I consider it an important matter of personal choice for a mother how her infant is fed. However, the provision of facts, support and encouragement for breastfeeding, and regulation of the marketing of baby milk, all help to support an informed choice.
I acknowledge that the Government are supporting important initiatives, but there is always more to be done, given the advantages of breastfeeding and the disadvantages of not doing so. The health benefits of breastfeeding are well known and I shall quickly mention a few. The risk of gastroenteritis, respiratory, urinary and ear infections, eczema and childhood diabetes are all likely to be reduced. There is widespread concern in Parliament and across the country about childhood obesity. That has been brought to a head, I imagine, by this morning's coverage on the "Today" programme of the leaked report.
In response to a recent parliamentary question, I was told:
"In 2002, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy reviewed the benefits of breastfeeding in its Scientific Review of the Welfare Food Scheme and stated that breastfed babies are less likely to become overweight as children. Since then, a further review in 2003, by Dewey et al, found that most large studies show a protective effect of breastfeeding against overweight in children and adolescents." —[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 383–4W.]
I understand that further research is being carried out. I suggest that among all the other recommendations that are likely to emerge from the Health Committee's report when the final version is published and responded to by the Government, the starting point should be the baby's start in life or perhaps even the mother's diet. I am not an expert on that, but childhood obesity requires us to go right back to the beginning.
I visited a specialist children's dentist in my constituency last week and was surprised to learn of further benefits in relation to jaw development. There are also, of course, many health benefits for the mother, including reducing the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer and ovarian cancer, not to mention aiding weight loss after pregnancy.
Around two-thirds of women start to breastfeed their babies in the UK. However, the last five-yearly survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics showed that 21 per cent. of mothers who started breastfeeding had stopped in the first two weeks and 93 per cent. of them would have liked to have breastfed for longer. Just one in five babies are receiving breast milk by the time they are six months old, although the World Health

483WH
Organisation recommends that babies need nothing other than breast milk for the first six months of life. It contains everything that a baby needs. There are huge variations in breastfeeding rates according to social class, age and area, so it is important to tackle the inequalities.
Excellent work is taking place in many areas to support and encourage breastfeeding. I am particularly pleased that Poole primary care trust employs a breastfeeding co-ordinator and I congratulate Mandy Grant on her work. I recently attended the inaugural meetings of two new bosom buddies groups. One of my constituents, Julie Dyball, played an important role in the latest one to be set up in Upton. Through regular weekly meetings, it provides a social environment for mothers and toddlers as well as support from other mothers and breastfeeding counsellors. How does the Minister intend to ensure that good support is available across the country? Also, what support will he give to maternity units seeking baby friendly status? I am pleased that Poole hospital is likely to apply for that.
I have wondered about how I became quite so involved with breastfeeding because, until a year ago, I simply thought that I had been there and done that way over 30 years ago. I recall that my main motivation to breastfeed was based on economic grounds, an important factor for many mothers today, but perhaps not always recognised as there tends to be a lower rate of breastfeeding in areas of deprivation.
Once I started to talk to mothers in my constituency and members of the National Childbirth Trust, I became aware of how many dimensions, and obstacles and obstructions, there were to supporting breastfeeding today. On the support aspects, clearly it is important that there should be good training for all professional workers, including nurses and health visitors, who will be in contact with a new mother. I have been impressed by the work carried out by Bournemouth university on that issue. As a consequence of securing the debate, I received representations from the Royal College of Midwives the Minister will not be surprised by that. Although the Government plan to recruit more midwives, the latest statistics from the NHS and the Royal College of Midwives annual staffing survey reveal that we are not recruiting as many as we need. That shortage has an inevitable impact on how much support midwives can offer women on acquiring skills such as breastfeeding. That is an important point, despite the nature of the lobby. The training of breastfeeding counsellors who work on a voluntary basis is also important. Schemes such as bosom buddies could not exist without voluntary support.
During my trip to learn about breastfeeding in this day and age, I was shocked when I asked local GP surgeries and local primary care trusts about breastfeeding levels in my constituency. The statistics all seemed incredibly good. I have thought about that and it seems to me that we must not be complacent. There is a danger of focusing on the percentages of women who start breastfeeding. It is important to have comparable data, across different areas, monitoring the first six months and beyond.
484WH
Last autumn, I learned from Poole PCT that guidelines were awaited, and I discovered from the response to a parliamentary question that guidelines for PCTs on the collection of statistics on breastfeeding initiation were made available to national health service staff on 28 November 2003. Are those guidelines being followed by all PCTs? What further steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is good data on which to make further decisions?
On the cultural aspects, it seems that we have reached a strange position in society when some people become embarrassed at a mother discreetly feeding her baby in a public place. I was travelling on a crowded tube the other day, and a baby was crying. The mother addressed the situation quickly and efficiently. Result: happy baby and less stress for the other passengers, including me. Attitudes are slowly changing, but we have a long way to go. If a mother wishes to use a quiet and private place for feeding when she is out shopping, for example, the facilities are often poor, if there is any provision at all. Living in a tourist area, I am very aware that the facilities are lacking.
There can be no quick fix for societal attitudes, but leadership at a national and local level can clearly contribute over time. Support needs to come from society as well as from health professionals, family and friends. Greater understanding and positive attitudes are needed to encourage and support breastfeeding women and to enable them to carry on for as long as they would like. Ideally, breastfeeding should be a normal part of everyday life. I could not help but notice the contrast between the UK and Ghana during a visit I made to that country last year.
We have a strong call to make to the Government on the marketing of baby food. In 1981 the United Kingdom signed up to the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes, adopted by the World Health Assembly as a minimum requirement to protect infant and young-child feeding, and hence their health. The international code is a unique and indispensable tool to protect and promote breastfeeding, and to ensure that the marketing of breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats is appropriate.
It applies to all products marketed as partial or total replacements for breast milk, such as infant formulas, cereals, juices, vegetable mixes and baby teas promoted for children under six months. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern about low breastfeeding rates in the United Kingdom and called on the Government to implement the code fully. Clearly, all the excellent supportive work and increases in breastfeeding initiation are undermined by company promotion that violates the code but is permitted by UK law. The market for breast milk substitutes is worth more than $20 billion; it is very big business. Monitoring by the International Baby Food Action Network found a surprising amount of illegal promotion as well as code violation.
Last year—I asked rather a lot of questions on this issue last year—I asked the Secretary of State whether he would take steps to ensure that jars of baby food could be labelled to say that breastfeeding is encouraged

485WH
for six months rather than four. The answer was comprehensive. It stated:
"Current European Commission legislation provides that weaning foods may be labelled as suitable for infants from four months of age. This is due to be reviewed in the new year in light of the World Health Assembly (WHA) Re solution 54.2 on Infant and Child Nutrition to strengthen activities and develop new approaches to protect, promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months."—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 502W.]
Can the Minister give me an update on that?
Ms Julia Drown: I congratulate the hon. Lady on initiating this important debate. She explained the benefits of encouraging breastfeeding in this country and mentions World Health Organisation recommendations. It is estimated that 1 million babies may die across the world every year because of low breastfeeding rates. It is clear that a majority of people are in favour of breastfeeding and of doing more to encourage it, and we need to do more to approach the minority who are against it. Is it not crazy that breastfeeding is sometimes not allowed in workplaces or places that people visit even though it is safe to breastfeed in them? Of course, this place is one of those places.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and endorse her comments about the worldwide situation. We are talking about 1.5 million children a year and a child dying every 30 seconds. Those are horrifying figures. There is also a great discrepancy between countries. At a reception here just a week or two ago, we heard that Brazil has introduced a strong law, which is well implemented, and what a difference that will make. I appeal to the Minister for the UK to show leadership. We should have stronger laws and better implementation of them, which I am sure would provide a model for the rest of the world. I shall leave my comments on the workplace until the end, because that is perhaps the more controversial point.
It is now more than 20 years since the inception of the code. That leads us to ask what is happening. The early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) was very good and comprehensive. I shall not read it all out today, because it picks out the points that we have just covered, but it rightly says that something needs to be done.
Of course, international companies will find ways around the legislation and regulations that we have had for a long time because their profits are bound to be enormous. Just imagine the profits 11 at might be had by international companies promoting their wares in countries such as China, where 20 million babies are born each year. It is big money, which is why we need changes here.
What I found quite surprising in the work of IBFAN and, indeed, local reports is that the problem is not simply a matter of not having strong enough legislation; it is also the extent to which the code is violated. A local supermarket had a particular promotion—I cannot remember whether it involved a two-for-one offer or extra reward points—but fortunately local members of the National Childbirth Trust took swift action, reported the matter to trading standards officers and action was taken. The work of trading standards officers, who enforce the narrow UK law, is to be commended, but they need more law to work with.
486WH
Another problem is that, in hospital or soon afterwards, many mothers receive gift packs that contain samples of complementary foods, breast milk substitutes and follow-on milks, or vouchers. Leaflets for mothers are sometimes found in clinic waiting rooms. Companies often give branded gifts to health workers, ignoring the explicit ban on direct and indirect contact with pregnant women and mothers of infants and young children. Telephone care lines and websites compete with those of the NHS and mother support groups, which are in turn promoted to mothers in leaflets, parenting magazines, direct mail and on product labels. Companies use the same brand name for a range of products. Infant formula is labelled "for use from birth" and one or more follow-on formulas are labelled
"for use with older infants".
Follow-on formula did not exist when the code was adopted and has been described by the World Health Assembly as "not necessary". Companies can widely advertise follow-on formula in the UK. It serves to promote infant formula with the same brand name and clever packaging, which tends to idealise artificial feeding. There is also a problem with complementary foods, labelled
"for use before six months of age",
which we desperately need to address.
Returning to obesity, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) recently tabled parliamentary questions on the link between the high-sugar content of baby foods and obesity in children, and asked what information is available on baby foods and sugar. We must highlight the facts about fat, salt, sugar and other substances contained in complementary foods.
The Minister should respond positively to IBFAN's well rehearsed call for action. It suggests three strategies: a change in Government policy, which would include the prohibition of materials on infant and child care that are produced or sponsored by companies with an interest in infant feeding; new legislation implementing the code's provisions for feeding bottles and teats, including a ban on promotion; and revised legislation that would fully introduce all the revised EU directives.
On education, in the process of preparing questions I discovered that GCSE syllabuses on child care do not even cover the international code on the marketing of breast milk. That is appalling. Through my parliamentary questions, and having pursued the matter with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, I have received a commitment that the syllabuses will be amended when they are revised. That action will be implemented at the earliest opportunity. So that was a success, although it has opened up how much more must be done in education.
Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, because teaching about breast feeding versus bottle feeding should ideally involve bringing a professional into the classroom? There is a lot of scope in personal, social and health education for sensibly promoting breastfeeding, which means tackling the matter from the beginning. There is much more that can be done, but, incredibly, text books do not cover the 1981 code.

487WH
I have left the subject of the workplace until last, because I thought that that might bring some of my colleagues into the debate. There have been splendid initiatives on child care and on making it easier for mothers to return to work, but those sometimes introduce a third factor of having to give up breastfeeding. It is a tragedy when Government policies, in effect, work against each other. I am the last person in the world to want to introduce bureaucracy and put difficulties in the way of businesses, especially small businesses, but what surveys have been conducted on what would make it easier for mothers to continue to breastfeed when they return to work? I would not want to pronounce on the solutions to that, but surveys should be conducted.
We should think outside the box a little. Greater flexibility is probably needed, such as the ability to take a longer lunch hour. I would hope that larger companies provide suitable places for breastfeeding. If we are to have a holistic policy that is about the health of children, that policy must be examined from all angles and take into account the concerns of the Department of Trade and Industry, the DFES and the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will take a lead across the Departments on those important issues, to help us to succeed in bringing our breast-feeding levels at least up to those of other European countries.
3.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing the debate and on taking an interest in a subject that, as she said, she thought she had left behind many years ago. However, she shares that interest with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I am sure that this will not be the last time that we discuss the subject.
Breastfeeding provides the best possible start in life and has considerable benefits for mother and baby. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, those benefits continue long after breastfeeding has ceased. That is why, in line with the World Health Organisation code, the Government recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a baby's life, with continued breastfeeding along with complementary feeding after that.
The Government also recognise the positive impact on public health that will occur by increasing levels of breastfeeding. That will be particularly significant among mothers from disadvantaged groups. Indeed, two of the Government's priority areas for health improvement—cancer and coronary heart disease—could be positively affected by increasing breastfeeding levels. For example, mothers who breastfeed are less likely to develop pre-menopausal breast cancer and are more likely to lose the excess weight that they gained during pregnancy. Breastfed infants are five times less likely to be admitted to hospital with common infections, such as gastroenteritis or respiratory infections, during their first year of life. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that breastfed infants are less likely to become obese in later childhood.
488WH
As far as reducing health inequalities is concerned, mothers from low-income groups are the least likely to initiate and to continue breastfeeding. "Tackling Health Inequalities: a Programme for Action", launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July last year, sets out a framework with a strong focus on the prevention of health inequalities. It highlights the need to increase breastfeeding levels, especially among low-income groups.
The infant feeding survey in 2000 found that 71 per cent. of mothers initiate breastfeeding. However, there are striking differences in breastfeeding levels, related to levels of education, geographical location and age. For example, in the UK, 85 per cent. of mothers in higher occupations initiate breastfeeding compared with only 52 per cent. of mothers who have never worked. Some 78 per cent. of mothers aged 30 or over initiate breastfeeding compared to 46 per cent. of mothers aged less than 20.
That is why we have made a commitment in the NHS plan to increase support for breastfeeding and have set a target in the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06 to increase breastfeeding initiation by 2 per cent. per year, focusing in particular on women from disadvantaged groups. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be inspecting against an indicator to monitor progress towards meeting that breastfeeding initiation target.
In addition, a national service framework for children is being developed to set standards across the NHS, the social services for children and young people, and maternity services. Breastfeeding will be included in the development of that national service framework, which we hope to publish in July. The hon. Lady asked what the Government will do to ensure that there is consistent performance in increasing initiation rates. Those two elements—the indicator and inspections by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, and the national service framework for children—will be particularly relevant. Further work is also being undertaken by the Health Development Agency, which has appointed two collaborating centres in maternal and child nutrition Their work will include increasing the body of evidence on what encourages breastfeeding and moving that evidence into practice.
Last year, the three-year infant feeding initiative was successfully completed. It was supported with just under £3 million from the public health development fund. The overall aim was to consider ways to increase breastfeeding rates among disadvantaged groups. As part of the initiative, 79 best-practice projects were funded. The majority were local projects looking at best practice and practice development.
The Department of Health commissioned an evaluation of the 79 projects and the findings were published in a report in December last year. The report makes clear the important contribution the projects made to understanding how women from disadvantaged backgrounds can be supported and encouraged to breastfeed. The strategies and lessons learned from the 79 projects need to be shared and disseminated to those supporting and encouraging mothers to breastfeed to assist them in delivering the priority and planning framework target. For example, some of the key findings relating to antenatal education

489WH
and peer support programmes support other research findings, which means that midwives and health visitors have a key role to play in increasing breastfeeding rates.
I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Lady about the recruitment of midwives. That is exactly why the Government, working with the Royal College of Midwives, have developed a six-point action plan to improve the rate of recruitment. I note what she says about lobbying from the RCM, but I assure her and the RCM that we are making significant progress. I wish I could wave a magic wand and produce all the midwives that we need, but I cannot.
We have produced a practical, user-friendly resource pack for health professionals, based on the evaluation of the projects and current research evidence, and plans for its dissemination are in place. The resource pack has drawn on the experiences of all those involved in breastfeeding. Genuine local partnerships involving health professionals, the voluntary sector and mothers enable communities to identify and prioritise local need and ensure that effective interventions and resources are targeted on the areas with the greatest need. The commitment in the NHS plan to reform the welfare food scheme will also ensure that children in low-income families have access to a healthy diet and will help to bring equality to mothers who are breastfeeding.
We consulted on proposals for reform towards the end of 2002 and published our response to the consultation setting out our intentions to introduce a new scheme in February. The healthy start scheme provides vouchers for fresh fruit and vegetables as well as liquid and infant formula milk from the beginning of pregnancy, and an additional voucher from birth for the first year will be available to all mothers. Breastfeeding mothers have long felt that they lose out and the new scheme redresses the balance. It will also increase the choice available to all mothers in the scheme. Healthy start will free the NHS and child health clinics from the obligation to supply infant formula milk to mothers on the scheme, which will enable health professionals to concentrate on what they do best: providing high-quality care, advice and support to pregnant women and their families.
490WH
We are taking other steps to raise awareness of the issue: national breastfeeding awareness week, funded by the Government, is an annual public health campaign and is a main vehicle for raising awareness about the health benefits of breastfeeding. The hon. Lady referred to this year's campaign, which took place two weeks ago, in support of the priorities and planning framework target to encourage new mothers and mothers-to-be to "give it a go" Although the evaluations of this year's campaign have not yet been collated, the media coverage on breastfeeding was supportive and all the broadsheet press mentioned the campaign.
National breastfeeding awareness week is channelled through the NHS. Last year, health professionals distributed more than 1.25 million pieces of material produced by the Department of Health, professionals and voluntary organisations, who also helped to generate more than 550 regional press reports about breastfeeding during last year's campaign.
The Government are committed to the promotion and support of breastfeeding internationally, which brings me to the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed about the World Health Organisation's international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes. The World Health Assembly adopted the WHO code of marketing breast milk substitutes in 1981 prior to the development of what are now called follow-on infant formula milks. The WHO code, which the Government support, aims to protect and promote breastfeeding and establishes principles for ensuring the proper use of breast milk substitutes, including their marketing and distribution.
Rules on the composition, labelling and advertising of infant formula are harmonised throughout the EU by the EU directive on infant formula and follow-on infant formula. The principles of the WHO code relating to the labelling, advertising and provision of information about infant formula are incorporated—
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Paper Industry
4.15 pm
Jonathan Shaw: I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House an industry of which Britain should be proud. It makes a massive contribution to the manufacturing base, with a turnover of £3.5 billion. It directly employs some 30,000 people and indirectly employs another 250,000. My constituency has the largest concentration of paper and board manufacturing in the UK, employing about 1,000 people with 1.4 million tonnes of production. The paper industry is a good employer; it offers well-paid jobs with good industrial relations.
In Britain, we consume 12.6 million tonnes of paper and board every year. The UK market is the sixth largest in the world and the second largest in Europe. The shape of the economy can be benchmarked against the consumption of paper and board. If the economy is doing well, the newspapers get fatter; if the newspapers get thinner, there is uncertainty or a downturn in the economy. Advertising, rather than the quality of journalism, determines the weight of the satchels carried by newspaper boys and girls to our front doors every day.
The 80 mills in the UK account for 40 per cent. of domestic production. The majority of paper and board is now imported. Since I held a debate four years ago, the industry has faced many challenges. The then Minister went on to become Secretary of State, which shows that Ministers who take a close interest in the paper industry enjoy good fortune, so I am sure that the Minister is taking note. Four years ago, the strength of the pound was a primary concern for the industry, as it was for most exporting businesses. The situation improved last year. Performance in export markets is up and that is welcome. However, it has not returned to the level of 2000. Throughout the 1990s, production and consumption grew year after year, but that halted on 11 September 2001. One mill in my constituency, Aylesford Newsprint, felt the effect immediately. Despite a successful economy, there was a loss of confidence, advertising reduced and newspapers became thinner.
The purpose of the debate is to build on the paper industry's work on engaging with the Government. It must assist the Government to meet recycling levels and carbon emission levels by investing in high-quality combined heat and power plants. Those objectives are mutually beneficial not only in terms of the bottom line. The paper industry has the desire to fulfil its potential for the common good in a sustainable way.
Over the past four years, the industry has organised a new trade body—the Confederation of Paper Industries—which represents recovered paper as well as paper and tissue manufacturers and converters. The industry is developing a sustainable development programme to identify how it can improve its environmental performance. Its strategy covers the whole paper cycle, from raw material production to disposal. It also incorporates elements such as training, health and safety, staff turnover and sickness rates.
Over the past few years in particular, the industry has developed a constructive dialogue with Ministers and officials. The all-party group on paper-related
492WH
industries, which I chair, encourages industry representatives to speak to Members of Parliament so that we can understand the needs of the industry and what the industry can do for the British economy and environment.
The paper industry is the largest recycler of paper in the UK and is the largest exporter of recovered paper. Last year, 2.2 million tonnes of paper were exported, with the majority going to Asia. Progress has been made on the materials used. In 1991, wood pulp accounted for 43 per cent. of production, but that has now reduced to 24 per cent. There has been investment by the industry and support from the Government. Most recently, £17 million from the waste and resources action programme contributed to an increase of 30 per cent. in recycling at the UPM Kymmene mill at Shotton in north Wales.
The Government set targets for local authorities, which have made a significant impact in the collection of household waste for recycling—rightly so, because doorstep collection is popular; people want to be able to make their contribution to protecting our environment. In 2001–02, 87 of the 375 local authorities did not offer a kerbside collection. That number has now fallen to just three. A health warning to attach to that might be that not all kerbside collections are as good the next. Aylesford Newsprint, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), has produced an atlas— a league table—of those who are performing well and those who have much more to do.
As a consequence of that situation, the market for raw materials has stabilised, which is a crucial factor for the industry. It must have a guaranteed supply of material. Running an operation such as Aylesford Newsprint requires 500,000 tonnes a year. In the early days, when that mill was commissioned, the fluctuation of the cost of the raw material meant that considerable costs had to be built in and it penalised the company for many years. However, now there is continuity. That has not happened by accident, but by the industry working as partners with local authorities to help to develop longterm contracts at agreed prices. That is good for the industry, local authorities, the environment and Britain. That type of commercial environment can create the confidence that is needed for investment, which might increase the UK's ability to provide a greater proportion of the domestic market than it currently does. For once. our collection rate is at 54 per cent., although it is still one of the lowest in Europe.
Recycling has taken a big leap forward, and the industry and local authorities are to be congratulated on that. The next step is to examine how we collect that raw material and how we measure it. Tonnage-driven rates have caused unforeseen problems. Local authorities are driven by considerations of weight rather than of quality. Therefore, a reduction in quality inevitably happens. The quality of the raw material is vital for the paper industry to produce the quality product that consumers want. To illustrate the point, the number of councils that offer a dedicated paper and card collection dropped from 117 in 2001–02 to 55 in 2002–03.
Many materials are all lumped together, which causes significant problems. If recovered paper comes into contact with grease, food or glass, it is contaminated and cannot be used. If we are to take the next step in recycling, we must separate materials at the doorstep. It

493WH
makes no sense to separate them after collection, particularly when one of the key materials is redundant. The message from the industry is that we have made a good start— the industry played its part in that— but we need to move away from purely considering tonnage to considering quality. There is brass in muck, but there is more brass for everyone if the muck is of a better quality.
I hope that the Minister will note that and give it some attention, particularly when he is in discussion with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I know that he has met industry representatives and is aware of the significant investment of people, time and systems that has gone into implementing European legislation on pollution prevention control, which has cost the industry £4 million.
I am proud of the Government's environmental achievements. We have not done enough, by any means, and industry has to play its part. The industry appreciates that the Department of Trade and Industry has set up the regulatory impact assessment as a way of ensuring that UK industry is not unfairly affected on the European scene before environmental legislation is implemented. We are six years ahead of the game on pollution prevention control. Some of the industry complains about that, but I hope that it will mean that we will be in a more competitive position than our European competitors when they implement the PPC in the years to come.
Investment in good quality combined heat and power plants is a major plank of the Government's strategy to deliver on climate change. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are just 19 CHP plants in operation in UK paper mills. Sadly, at least five projects have been shelved. The reason for that, which he will understand, is that gas prices have doubled. They doubled in 2001, and the bill for the paper industry lone increased by £50 million. It remains high, which means that investment in CHP has riot reached the expected level.
A plant costs around £10 million. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited a CHP plant at a paper mill in Kent a few months ago and the problems were explained to them. The industry has proposed that if power companies were obliged to include CHP as a percentage of their output, in the same way that they are obliged to do for renewable energy, investment might be kick-started. Has the DTI given serious consideration to that proposal?
The industry is concerned that the Government think that the solution for reinvestment in CHP will be achieved by an increase in electricity prices. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that is not a serious solution and is not desirable? He will realise from the number of mills that I have mentioned that CHP mills are in the minority and the rest rely on electricity. With the cost at £10 million for a new plant, a huge hike in electricity prices would have a devastating effect on the paper industry, which already faces considerable challenges.
494WH
Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is not the Government's solution? Will he also confirm that he is keen to seek new ideas and solutions to unlock the desirable CHP investment that we all want, so that we reach our climate change and Kyoto targets? Furthermore, what consideration has he given to the increased gas prices arising from the EU emissions trading scheme? There is uncertainty in the industry about how CHP will be treated in the new regime. I should be grateful if he shed some light on that matter.
I understand that the European co-generation directive provides that member states should consider heat demand as well as electrical power demand in assessing their overall energy needs. That is welcomed by industries, including the paper industry, because it makes the importance of heat more central. However, there is concern that the UK has not fully embraced that approach and remains wedded to the sole consideration of electrical demand. Again, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend commented on that.
The industry is a good employer. The industrial relations that are enjoyed between the employer and the main union, the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, are constructive and in many ways exemplify modern partnerships in the workplace. Yet despite that positive working relationship, the industry had an accident rate that was twice the level experienced by the rest of manufacturing industry, and a fatal and major accident rate that was equal to, or in excess of, the construction industry. In 1998, the industry experienced two fatalities and had an accident rate of 23.4 per 1,000 employees. Everyone agreed that things had to change.
In 1998, the paper and board industry advisory committee set out its target to reduce accidents by 50 per cent. Four years ago in this Chamber, I strongly criticised the industry for its lack of progress. However, its safety record has improved considerably. The total injury rate is 16.6 per 1,000 employees. That is a major achievement, but everyone, including the unions and employers, agrees that more needs to be done. That does not just involve the unions and the employers; there has been a tripartite approach. The Health and Safety Executive has been effective in that partnership. However, there is concern among the unions and employers that the reduction in the number of HSE employees means that it will not be able to play such a constructive role in future. Perhaps my hon. Friend could comment on those concerns.
Britain should be proud of this industry, which makes a considerable contribution to UK plc and also the UK environment. It wants to continue the current constructive dialogue to find solutions that enable the industry to go forward in a highly competitive market. In addition, it should supply far more to the domestic market so that we no longer have to import so much.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate. He has given me the opportunity to praise this industry and to acknowledge his close interest in this sector over a number of years. Indeed, I am grateful for the advice that he has given me as a Minister in his capacity as chair

495WH
of the all-party group on paper-related industries. In fact, his is one of the best-informed contributions that I have had the pleasure of listening to as a Minister.
My hon. Friend has given the Chamber details of the contribution made to the economy and to employment by the UK paper industry. The sector, which includes pulp and paper products, employs 93,000 people in more than 2,400 companies and contributes a staggering £11 billion a year to our economy. It covers a wide range of key products from newsprint to packaging, fine papers to health care. Large companies like St. Regis, as well as smaller independents like Tullis Russell in Fife, compete with multinationals that also make a significant contribution to our economy.
Aylesford Newsprint, to which my hon. Friend referred, is a world-class facility. I am proud that the Department of Trade and Industry helped it with financial investment to ensure that it has built this fantastic capacity. It now produces 1 per cent. of the world's production of newsprint. Its newest machine, the PM14, has set five world records for newsprint production. About a third of the mill's production is exported to Europe, making a valuable contribution to our balance of trade. The company owns and operates 2,145 banks for recycling, which is a terrific contribution to the recycling aims that we all share. It has achieved Investors in People ISO 14001 and ISO 9002, which reinforces my hon. Friend's message about the respect it pays people and the fact that it sees its work force as its most valuable resource.
This year I have already had two meetings with the key sector representatives: the Confederation of Paper Industries came in with Chris Blackford of LINPAC, and Martin Gale of UPM-Kymmene, Don Coates of St. Regis and Peter Mansfield of Cheshire Recycling have all been to see me and given me high-quality briefings. We discussed the key issues affecting the industry, including recovery and recycling.
I join my hon. Friend in praising the 370 councils that now offer recycling facilities. They have worked with the Government to meet our targets, but I am alarmed at the trend towards mixing paper for recycling with metals, glass or other materials that contaminate the paper. I am pressing for this trend to be reversed. Co-mingling makes it much more difficult to recover quality paper products. Although the industry and I appreciate that the need for other vehicles to be involved in collection weighs heavily on resources and depletes our environment, I am sure that there are solutions that are cost-effective, good for the environment and good for the industry in question. I am also aware of the corrugated case and, like my hon. Friend and the industry, we want to see as much of that recovered as possible.
My hon. Friend highlighted the role of combined heat and power and emissions trading, and I was pleased also to discuss that in some detail with industry representatives. I recognise that the increase in gas prices and lowering of electricity prices in recent years has affected investment decisions in CHP. After I met industry representatives, officials from the DTI went to Aylesford Newsprint, in my hon. Friend's constituency, with colleagues from the Department for Environment,
496WH
Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury to learn more about the issues and, I hope, help come up with some of the solutions.
My hon. Friend rightly asked about the industry proposal for power companies to have an obligation to use CHP-generated power. A CHP obligation would be the surest way to ensure that the CHP 2010 target of 10 GW is met, but I am advised that it would be expensive relative to the carbon saved. We showed our commitment to CHP by publishing the UK CHP strategy four weeks ago on 26 April. It sets out a framework to support the growth of CHP capacity in the UK and to enable the CHP industry to meet the challenges ahead. I am keen to work with the industry to seek solutions and unlock CHP investment, and I am determined that the Government should help the paper industry to maximise its contribution to the UK economy.
My hon. Friend also mentioned industry concerns about the impact of the European Union emissions trading scheme, in particular on gas prices. As a form of low-carbon generation, CHP plants should benefit above other less efficient forms of energy generation. The impact of the scheme on CHP capacity is difficult to quantify, but modelling work has suggested that it would be in the range of 100 to 400 MW by 2010. Considerable uncertainty exists about the likely price of carbon, and the final impact on CHP will depend on decisions yet to be taken on the implementation of the EU's emissions trading scheme. We are grateful for the representations that my hon. Friend and the industry, both individually and collectively, have made to us, and they will help us reach a better-informed conclusion.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the EU co-generation directive. CHP is a highly fuel-efficient energy technology that puts to use the waste heat produced as a by-product in the electricity generation process. We have had that in the United Kingdom for a number of years, and the situation has not changed with the co-generation directive. The point that I want to emphasise is that it will not place the importance of heat more centrally than it is now.
We have heard about health and safety issues, which I know that the industry takes seriously. I am grateful for the positive steps that have been taken to set the challenging target to the industry of a 50 per cent. reduction in accidents. I understand that the industry has reduced the number of accidents by 29 per cent. in the past three years, and I pay tribute to everyone in it, including the unions and work forces, for their efforts in securing that improvement. I know that they will now redouble their efforts to reduce the accident rate further. All accidents are avoidable, and best practice is the way towards a zero accident rate. The industry and Department recognise that more work is needed, and I shall ensure that the Department works with the industry to monitor that and give every assistance possible.
I am delighted that the CPI is developing its sustainability strategy for the industry. It is consulting stakeholders for their views, including my Department and environmental groups. I am also glad and proud that the DTI part-funded an image study. It was published last year and found that the industry could work with us to highlight the positive achievements that it has made in sustainability and, in particular, managed

497WH
forests. I represent a constituency in Scotland and I know that that is of particular interest to a wide group of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend.
The CPI recognises that there is room for improvement. It is addressing the issues so that companies in the sector have the tools to improve sustainability across the board. As with all challenging companies at the forefront of technology, it has set itself an ambitious goal to make the United Kingdom paper industry the first truly sustainable sector. It is about to publish its strategy and I am confident that if any one sector can be in the lead and make such an achievement, it is that excellent sector. We are liaising with it to ensure that we can showcase what it achieves.
498WH
If there are points that I need to cover in more detail, I shall write to my hon. Friend. We have a close and warm dialogue on the sector and we both feel strongly about it. I have some good news for him and the Chamber. In spite of being a Minister who runs a high-tech office, has state of the art computers and electronic document management at the latest cutting edge level, my office is far from being a paperless office—something to which my staff will attest. The future of paper with a Minister like myself is very bright. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate and on his well-informed contribution to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is given to the Exmoor area to secure the highest possible payments in respect of EU funding for farmers. [161881]

  Alun Michael
  EU co-financed funds are available under the England Rural Development Programme across England, including the Exmoor area. Schemes under this programme help farmers and foresters to become more competitive, diverse, flexible and environmentally responsible as well as providing help to rural communities to adapt and develop. Exmoor is a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) and the Exmoor area was paid a total of £5.4 million under this scheme in 2003, a significant proportion of which was co-financed by the EU.

  Anton Dohrn and Rosemary Bank Seamounts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect the Anton Dohrn and Rosemary Bank Seamounts. [166924]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: Seamounts are not one of the habitats listed on Annex I to the Habitats Seamounts Directive for which Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) can be designated. However, seamounts can support habitats such as reefs, which are listed on Annex I. At present, there is little biological information about these two areas, and therefore there is insufficient information to be able to assess whether they meet the site selection criteria for SAC.

  Seamounts are one of the habitats on the initial list of threatened and/or declining habitats and species agreed by Ministers in June 2003 under OSPAR (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) Annex V. Work is progressing during 2004 to identify and agree among contracting parties to OSPAR appropriate management measures (which may include marine protected areas) for a selection of the habitats and species on this list.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will set a timetable for coming to a conclusion about the issue of TB in badgers; and if she will make a statement. [174207]
  1622W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The question of what to do about a wildlife reservoir of bovine tuberculosis is a complex one. The Government are determined to base its future TB policy on sound scientific evidence. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), due to be completed in 2006, should help decide whether culling badgers can form part of a cost-effective, sustainable and practical TB control policy.

  On 9 February, Defra launched a consultation on the key principles on which a new long-term strategy for tackling bovine TB will be developed. This consultation asks questions on a wide-range of issues, including how the Government can establish targets, balance costs, benefits and risks, work in partnership with all the key interest groups and how policy can be developed in the light of emerging scientific evidence. That will include evidence from the ongoing RBCT and elsewhere (including the Four Areas badger culling trial in the Republic of Ireland, when published).

  On 6 April, Defra announced the publication of a report from an independent scientific panel chaired by Professor Charles Godfray FRS. The report reviewed the progress of the RBCT and associated Defra research, as part of a wider review of Defra's science. The Government are giving careful consideration to the complex recommendations of the report, and the review's conclusions will inform Defra's wider review of TB strategy. Defra has extended the deadline for the public consultation on the TB Strategy review until 4 June, to allow sufficient time for this report to be assimilated and commented on.

  Barnet Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the decision of Barnet council to terminate its LA21 partnership scheme. [173929]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government want to see sustainable development become a mainstream issue for local authorities, their partners, and local communities. We believe that the most effective way to achieve this is to build upon the experience of partnership working and community engagement gained through Local Agenda 21 (LA21) and subsume LA21 strategies within statutory community strategies. These are required, by law, to promote sustainable development. Many councils have already done this, and we encourage others to follow suit. It is for authorities to decide whether to have additional plans or a dedicated partnership to support the delivery of sustainable outcomes, but we would expect them to ensure these are in place if LA21 is to end.

  Endangered Species
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to bring forward secondary legislation to implement section 307 (Enforcement of Legislation on endangered species) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [175236]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Securing these Criminal Justice Act provisions was a major step forward. New secondary legislation will give effect to the provisions to strengthen police powers and to provide for tougher penalties.
  1623W
  Last year's public consultation exercise identified a number of complex issues which we need to resolve within Government but we are aiming to circulate a draft of the legislation for consultation in the autumn.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Fallen Stock Company to be up and running; and if she will make a statement. [174205]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The National Fallen Stock Company has been up and running for some months now. It announced its proposals for a National Fallen Stock Scheme to start autumn this year on 13 May. Further details are available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/default.htm

  Farm Subsidies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what EU rules apply to Common Agricultural Policy funds held by member states which choose to(a) place a ceiling on payments to larger farm holdings and (b) taper support payments to farm holdings degressively according to size; and what constraints this places upon the member state in respect of the impact of the redistribution of funds otherwise withheld. [172485]

  Alun Michael
  There are no such EU rules.

  Greenhouse Gas
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure that the EU involves developing countries in future allocations of greenhouse gas emissions on an equitable per capita basis. [174043]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The UK has had initial discussions on future action with a number of developing countries, both at official and ministerial level. For any future climate regime to be effective, it must be as inclusive as possible, and must certainly cover the main developing countries. We are committed to ensuring that developing countries are included in the early stages of the discussions on future action, not only to ensure that the outcome is acceptable to the largest emitting developing countries and we achieve as near universal acceptance as possible, but also to ensure that equity concerns are addressed.

  We will continue to engage with developing countries at all levels, both through the formal channels that exist in the UNFCCC and through informal channels. We are currently considering how to build on this dialogue and stimulate further discussion.

  Health and Pesticide Exposure
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the report on the Survey of Health and Pesticide Exposure, being carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by her Department, is due to be published. [174664]
  1624W
  Alun Michael
  Last July the Organophosphate Information Network informed Defra of its concerns over the conduct of the clinical phase of the study. The Department took these concerns seriously and decided to commission an independent audit of this phase of the study. On the recommendation of the Association of British Neurologists, Professor Kerry Mills from King's College Hospital London, was asked to carry out the audit. Professor Mills' prior commitments and correspondence between the physicians involved, resulted in the audit being started on 19 April this year. This process may take six months to complete.

  During the past few days my Department has asked both the hon. Member for North Cornwall and Mrs. Elizabeth Sigmund, the Chair of the Organophosphate Information Network (OPIN), for their opinions on this matter. Following this consultation, I have decided that an interim report should be published pending the completion of the audit.

  Seasonal Fruit Pickers
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring takes place to ensure that seasonal fruit pickers are not paid below the minimum wage. [175442]

  Alun Michael
  Seasonal fruit pickers are entitled to be paid at least the appropriate Agricultural Minimum Wage set by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, for each hour they work. Payment of the Agricultural Minimum Wage is enforced by Defra officials of behalf of the Secretary of State. Enforcement activity is complaint led and workers can register a complaint about their pay by telephoning the Defra Agricultural Wages Team on 0845 0000 134.

  Pay rates in agriculture are surveyed on a sample basis through the Defra Earnings and Hours Survey. This survey is conducted on a quarterly basis and a summary of results is available on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk).

TRANSPORT

  Contingency Planning
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the mobile phones and walkie-talkie communications units issued to emergency personnel who would be called upon to deal with a terrorist incident on the London Underground have the capability to work underground. [175081]

  Mr. McNulty
  British Transport Police (BTP) are responsible for policing on London Underground and would be amongst the first to respond to a terrorist incident on the Underground network. BTP officers have two hand-held radios, one for below ground and one for above.

  Metropolitan Police radios work on two thirds of the London Underground network. In responding to a terrorist incident, or other emergency, on the Underground, the Metropolitan Police would work closely with BTP, and most of its responsibility would be at the surface. In the event that Metropolitan Police

  1625W
  officers were required to operate on the sections of the Underground network where their radios do not work, they would be able to communicate from below ground through BTP's radios. They would also receive communications support from London Underground staff.

  London Fire Brigade officers carry hand-held radios that work on the London Underground by means of fixed extension aerials in place in all deep level Underground stations. If required to work underground in environments where such fixed aerials are not installed, London Fire Brigade officers are able to deploy portable cable aerials enabling the radios to operate underground.

  All London Ambulance Service command vehicles carry portable cable aerials enabling London Ambulance Service radios to operate on the London Underground and other below ground environments.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to provide training for all public transport workers in case of a serious emergency. [174680]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is primarily a matter for each operator. London Underground, the rail and bus industries have already circulated advice to all front line staff. In addition, the Department requires London Underground to have contingency plans to deal with situations that could effect the security of its operations. These must be accessible at all times to staff at stations, so that they are fully aware of what to do in such situations, and be exercised regularly. We have made similar recommendations to all Train Operating Companies.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his assessment is of the ability of bus operators to maintain current service levels following the increase in the price of oil. [175438]

  Mr. McNulty
  Fuel costs represent only 6.5 per cent. of total local bus operating costs, after account is taken of support given by means of Bus Service Operators Grant, and it is not expected that recent changes in world oil prices will of themselves have a significant impact on service levels. We will however continue to monitor trends in overall bus industry costs.

  Crime (Public Transport)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many assaults and attacks where knives or firearms were used were committed on London Underground in each year since 1997. [175459]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have advised me that this information is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes involving firearms or knives were committed on(a) buses and (b) the railways in each year since 1997. [175462]
  1626W
  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have advised me that this information is not readily available for crimes committed on the railways and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. No data is held centrally regarding the number of crimes on buses since 1997 which have involved firearms or knives.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisors and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168677]

  Mr. McNulty
  (A) 17 permanent press officers, all members of the then Government Information Service (GIS), were employed by the former Department of Transport (central)'s Information Division in 1994–95. Further information for this financial year about numbers of other staff and salary costs of these and press officers is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  (B) Detailed information on the numbers and salary costs of permanent press officers, members of the then GIS, employed in departmental press offices, including the former Department of Transport (c) for the financial year 1996–97, was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on the Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubadm/770/77002.htm). Copies are in the Libraries of the House. Information for other staff is not available in a comparable format and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. (C-D) Information for each of the financial years 1997–98 and 2001–02, when transport policy formed part of the remit of the former Departments of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Transport, Local Government and the Regions (respectively), is not available in a comparable format.

  The Special Advisers' Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister. This can include communications activity. Details of the costs of Special Advisers are given on an annual basis.

  Disabled Parking
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2004,Official Report, column 513W, on disabled parking, what progress has been made on (a) taking forward the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's new recommendations, (b) revised guidance to local authorities, (c) research on the feasibility of a national database of Blue Badge holders and (d) consultation on secondary legislation for extending the scheme. [176032]

  Mr. McNulty
  Work is continuing across all the areas of work I outlined in my previous answer in March.
  1627W
  The revised guidance that will be drawn up to explain the changes I described will be produced in draft and will form part of the public consultation that will take place on the draft regulations to extend the scheme to children under two and those with temporary disabilities. That consultation is expected later this year.

  The work specification for the research on a national database is being finalised. We plan to go out to tender on that work over the summer.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list visits made by each Minister in the Department between December 2003 and April 2004, broken down by(a) date, (b) constituency visited and (c) cost. [171566]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministerial visits on official business within the United Kingdom for the period from 1 December 2003 to 30 April 2004 are given in tables 1 to 4. The visits were not made to specific constituencies and a number of visits would involve travelling to or through more than one constituency. Details of the cost of each visit could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Government publishes on an annual basis the total costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500. Information for 2003–04 is currently being collected and will be published as soon as it is ready.

  Table 1: Visits by Secretary of State

  Visit

  Date(s) of visit

  Opening of M6 toll road, West Midlands

  9 December 2003

  Launch of Queen Mary 2, Southampton

  8 January 2004

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link breakthrough, Kings Cross

  27 October 2004

  C2C/ Ford centre of excellence, Dagenham

  2 February 2004

  Opening of train facility, Waterloo

  23 February 2004

  Nottingham Express Tram

  8 March 2004

  Rail Seminar, Glasgow

  26 March 2004

  Regional visit to North East

  29 March 2004

  Greater Anglia Launch, Liverpool Street

  1 April 2004

  Rail Seminar, York

  23 April 2004

  Launch of Highways Agency Traffic Officers, Birmingham

  26 April 2004

  Rail Seminar, Cardiff

  28 April 2004

  Table 2: Visits by Kim Howells

  Visit

  Date(s) of visit

  Regional visit to North East

  2 and 3 December 2003

  EWS rail freight performance discussions visit, London

  17 December 2003

  Christmas rail blockade publicity visit, Clapham Junction

  23 December 2003

  Regional visit to North West

  21 and 22 April 2004

  Secure Station award presentation, Hereford

  26 January 2004

  First Great Western rail performance discussions visit, Reading

  4 February 2004

  Regional visit to South West

  11 February 2004

  Trevithick Celebrations—train naming, Cardiff

  18 February 2004

  Network Rail Scotland performance discussions visit, Edinburgh

  7 April 2004

  1628W

  Visit

  Date(s) of visit

  South West Trains—launching digital passenger information screens, Clapham Junction

  22 April 2004

  Rail Seminar, York

  23 April 2004

  London Underground power control room visit, central London

  27 April 2004

  Rail Seminar, Cardiff

  28 April 2004

  Table 3: Visits by David Jamieson

  Visit

  Date(s) of visit

  Visit to Coventry University

  4 December 2003

  AA Control Centre visit, Farnborough

  8 December 2003

  Launch of Queen Mary 2, Southampton

  8 January 2004

  Visit to Severn View "green refuelling" station, Bristol

  22 January 2004

  'Sustainable Communities' visit, Redruth

  2 February 2004

  Visit to Ford Plant, Southampton

  26 February 2004

  Regional visit, Yorkshire

  3 March 2004

  Visit to Highway Agency Office and Exeter Airport

  25 March 2004

  RoSPA Conference, Brighton

  29 March 2004

  DVLA Campaign, Plymouth

  6 March 2004

  A249 Kent "sod cutting" and "Greenergy" visit, Maidstone

  29 March 2004

  Table 4: Visits by Tony McNulty

  Visit

  Date(s) of visit

  Visit to Leaside Regeneration Ltd.— Bow Flyover redesign and infrastructure improvements

  4 December 2003

  Opening Torquay pedestrianisation scheme

  8 January 2004

  Visit to Thames Gateway—Stratford area in relation to transport and the Olympic bid

  7 January 2004

  Opening Harrogate bus station and a Bus Challenge project

  12 January 2004

  Launch of "MAVIS" Rig at Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information centre, Berks and visit to Air Accident Investigation Branch

  22 January 2004

  Havant—Government Liveability announcement

  2 February 2004

  Tour of Thames Gateway with South Essex partnership

  2 March 2004

  Speech to South East Regional Assembly, Woking and visit to Government Office for the South East, Guildford

  3 March 2004

  Launch of the Solent Travelcard, Portsmouth

  4 March 2004

  Launch of Urban Bus Challenge project, Corby

  15 March 2004

  Opening of Surrey's Network Management Information Centre, Leatherhead

  24 March 2004

  Visit to Corn Cab taxi company, Harrow

  29 March 2004

  Launch of a bus fleet, Hove

  2 March 2004

  Visit to Rural Bus Challenge scheme, Doncaster

  20 March 2004

  Opening of public transport interchange scheme, Newcastle

  21 March 2004

  Opening of British Transport Police mobile custody suite, Stratford, London

  22March 2004

  Visit to an urban regeneration company and viewing of Local Transport Plan funded projects, Cornwall

  28 April 2004

  1629W

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Parliamentary Questions to his Department in the last year took(a) two to four weeks and (b) over four weeks to answer. [174868]

  Mr. McNulty
  At 21 May 2004, the Department for Transport had answered 3,052 written questions tabled since 18 May 2003. This comprised 2,567 written ordinary questions (98.2 per cent. of which were answered within 10 sitting days) and 485 named day questions (98.8 per cent. of which were answered within 10 sitting days).

  Railways
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the performance of train operating companies to date in complying with their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 section 21(2)(d) to take reasonable steps to provide disabled persons with a reasonable alternative method of accessing their services where a physical feature makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of those services; [175684]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the performance of train operating companies to date on revising and implementing new Disabled People's Protection Policies in line with the Strategic Rail Authority's Code of Practice on Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers and Guidance on Disabled People's Protection Policies; [175685]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the performance of train operating companies to date on conducting access audits and making changes to physical features to prepare for the new duties on physical access coming into force under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on 1 October. [175686]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is the responsibility of each train operator to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. All operators have been required by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to review their Disabled People's Protection Policy (DPPP). As part of the review each train operator has undertaken access audits of the facilities it operates. Train operators have a commitment to meet the services, standards and guidance defined in the SRA's Code of Practice when refurbishing rolling stock, providing new or enhanced facilities at stations and for the provision of services at stations and on trains. All train operators either have a revised DPPP approved by the SRA or are seeking such approval. Twenty Train Operating Company Disabled People's Protection Policies have been approved to date. Each revised DPPP places an obligation on the operator to provide a 'reasonable alternative means' of making a journey accessible to disabled passengers where physical barriers preclude them from doing so.

  Road Traffic Accidents (A49)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries in road traffic accidents there were on the A49 between Shrewsbury and Ludlow in each of the last five years. [174983]
  1630W
  Mr. McNulty
  The following information is taken from figures provided by West Mercia Police and incorporates the A49 from Baileys Roundabout to the Herefordshire/Shropshire County boundary.

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1999

  1

  8

  72

  81

  2000

  3

  12

  56

  71

  2001

  2

  7

  59

  68

  2002

  7

  16

  47

  70

  2003

  1

  4

  70

  75

  Total

  14

  47

  304

  365

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1576W, on South Hampshire Rapid Transit Project, if he will ensure that a decision on the future of the project is made before the 23 July deadline for using compulsory purchase powers. [175436]

  Mr. McNulty
  A decision will be made in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Abu Ghraib
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Administration, and with whom, on the cases of abuse that have taken place against Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [173074]

  Mr. Straw
  I have regular discussions with senior members of the US Administration on a wide variety of issues concerning Iraq. It is not our practice to make public the detail of those discussions under exemption 1(b) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Commander of the United States forces in Iraq has had with(a) the current British representative or his predecessor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and (b) the Commander of British Forces in Iraq about the allegations made in respect of the abuse of detainees at (i) the Abu Ghraib prison and (ii) other prisons in Iraq; and what the outcome has been of communications on the matter. [173338]

  Mr. Straw
  By the time UK officials were aware of the specific allegations the US authorities had already begun detailed investigations. We have had a number of discussions with US military and civilian authorities about the need to improve detention procedures. The US authorities have been taking measures to improve those procedures. The US military established a high level military inquiry under General Antonio Taguba in late January.
  1631W

  Afghanistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Belgian counterpart concerning Belgium's decision to double its military commitment to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [175710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We warmly welcome the announcement by the Belgian Prime Minister on 20 May that Belgium will double the size of its troop contingent in Afghanistan to around 600. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had the opportunity to discuss this with the Belgian Foreign Minister in the short time since the announcement was made.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the number of EU troops stationed in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [175755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the Berlin Conference on Afghanistan in March and the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in Washington on 14 May. Military support in Afghanistan was discussed at both these meetings, which were attended by a number of EU Foreign Ministers. Most recently, on 20 May the Foreign Secretary discussed the need to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan with the Spanish Foreign Minister. EU member states provide around three-quarters of the troops in the International Security Assistance Force and this is likely to increase later this year. In addition, the UK and Germany lead Provincial Reconstruction Teams in northern Afghanistan, to which EU partners and other nations contribute personnel. EU Member States also contribute forces individually to combat missions in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom.

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent guidance he has produced for diplomatic posts on the issue of overseas bribery; and what plans he has to update that guidance. [171395]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued its latest guidance to diplomatic posts on bribery overseas on 5 April 2004. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office plans to update this guidance annually. The update may be brought forward should a change in circumstances warrant it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will place a copy of this guidance in the Library of the House. We will also place a copy of the new UK bribery and corruption law leaflet in the Library, as soon as it is republished.

  China
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which individual cases were included in the list provided by the EU to the Chinese Government during the EU and China Human Rights dialogue in Dublin on 26 to 27 February. [165265]
  1632W
  Mr. Rammell
  The EU considers the list to be confidential. I cannot, therefore, independently put the list into the public domain. There were, however, 76 names on the list.

  The individual cases raised with the Chinese in connection with last year's UK China Human Rights dialogue were: Wang Youcai; Li Wangyang; Jampel Changchub; Phuntsog Nyidron; Qin Yongmin; Zhang Shanguang; Gedhun Choekyi Nyima; Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche; Sonam Dondrub; Zhu Ruixiang; Lu Genjun; Xu Zerong; Jiang Shurang; Bishop James Su Zhimin; Shi Enxiang; Huang Qi; Yang Zili; Xu Wei; Zhang Honghai; Jin Haike; Li Jiaqing; Wang Yulan; Li Haihe; Luo Gang; He Ping; Jiang Weiping; Liu Jingsheng; Shan Chengfeng; Yan Peng; Mu Chuanheng; Zhu Baolian; Qi Yanchen; Yao Fuxin; Xiao Yunliang; Chadrel Rinpoche; Namdrol; Jiang Qisheng; Jelil Turdi; Rebiya Kadeer; Abitjan Obulkasim; Nurhahmat Yusup; Tohti Tunyaz; Jelil Turdi; Tursunjan Emet; Ablat Pasar; Iminjan; Abdushukur Abliz (Abdushukur Haji); Ahmed; Rahmatjan; Karim Sadiq; Yasim Kari; Abla Karim; Liu Weifang; Yeshe Gyatso; Liu Di; Yin Lirong; Ning Shuncheng; Zhou Yudan; Zhou Guicheng; Fan Xiaohong; Tang Ren'er; Choi Yonghun; Rev. Choi Bong-il; Kim Hee-tae; Nima Choedron; Champa Chung-lags; Li Dexian; Wang Zhiwen; Phuntsok Legmon; Jigme Yangchen.

  Coalition Provisional Authority
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in place for(a) information sharing and (b) joint decisions between Paul Bremer and his American staff at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the United Kingdom representation in the CPA. [173346]

  Mr. Straw
  Formally Ambassador Bremer, the Administrator, is responsible for all CPA decisions. There is close daily contact and regular consultation, however, between the American and British staff at the CPA and the Office of the United Kingdom Special Representative.

  Colombia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 872W, on Colombia, if he will list the projects (a) currently run by the Child Protection Alliance in the Gambia and (b) run by the Child Protection Alliance in the Gambia in the last three years; what funding was provided by his Department through the High Commission in Banjul in each case; and if he will make a statement. [175524]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since the Child Protection Alliance (CPA) was founded in 2001 it has undertaken the following projects, some of which are still continuing:

  Radio/Television programmes to discuss issues related to Child Protection.

  Printing and distributing a quarterly newsletter.

  National HIV/AIDS writing competition for children.

  An assessment of all member organisations.

  A monthly "Bantaba" (Talking/Meeting Point) for relevant organisations/children.

  1633W

  Printing and dissemination of the National Training Manual on Child Protection.

  Production of information materials on child protection issues.

  Sensitisation workshops on Child Sex Tourism and Commercial Exploitation of Children for stakeholders in the tourism industry.

  Training workshops for journalists on developing an ethical code of conduct for reporting issues involving children.

  Training workshop on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children for managers of hotels, guesthouses and tour operators.

  Training workshop on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children for front desk staff of hotels etc.

  Sensitisation workshop for hotel security guards on HIV/AIDS and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.

  Summer camp for children on Child Rights, HIV/AIDS and Life Skills.

  National Membership Workshop on Child Rights promotion and protection in The Gambia.

  Development of a Resource Centre for CPA member organisations and researchers.

  Sensitisation workshop for Health and Social Workers on HIV/AIDS and the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.

  Over the last three years the British High Commission in Banjul has provided a total of £3,465 to fund a capacity building project, information campaign on child protection issues, and an assessment of member organisations.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he expects the changes made to the draft Constitutional Treaty to give the Commission strategic control over oil supplies; how he interprets strategic control in this context; and what he estimates the effect will be on the British oil industry. [174948]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government was content with the amendments to the Energy Chapter (Article III. 157) put forward by the Italian Presidency in document CIG 60/04 ADD 1 (published on 9 December and placed in the Library of the House). These made it clear that the member states retained the right to choose how to exploit their natural resources and to ensure security of supply during emergencies. The Irish Presidency's latest package of amendments (in document CIG 76/04 published on 13 May and placed in the Library of the House) proposed the deletion of the Energy Chapter and removed energy from the list of shared competences in the draft Constitutional Treaty. The Government are also content with this approach which would reflect the position in the existing Treaties.

  Ferry Accident (West Africa)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the Government is providing to the search for the ferry stranded off the West African coast since 18 May carrying Liberian refugees from Nigeria and Ghana; and if he will make a statement. [175499]
  1634W
  Mr. Mullin
  None. The French navy rescued the stranded ship 'Dona Elvira', 250 kms off the Ivorian coast on 20 May. The ship contained over 300 returning Liberian refugees who are now in the care of the UN High Commission for Refugees.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States concerning the disapplication of the Geneva Convention in respect of the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. [173004]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular contact with his US counterpart on a wide range of issues, including Guantanamo Bay.

  The focus of the Government's discussions with the US authorities about Guantanamo Bay has been on how to resolve the position of the British nationals held there, as well as their welfare.

  The Government's position is that the British detainees should either be tried fairly in accordance with international law or they should be returned to the UK. Our hope, however, is that the issues we have raised will be reflected in the treatment of other countries' nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay too.

  We have made very clear to the US that the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to be treated humanely. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay on seven occasions to check on the welfare of the British detainees, most recently in March. We have raised any concerns we might have about their welfare with the US authorities.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who within the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority has responsibility to monitor and ensure that Geneva Convention requirements are met by coalition forces; how often such monitoring is conducted; and to whom the individual or individuals report their findings. [173451]

  Mr. Straw
  The Coalition Provisional Authority itself is not responsible for monitoring the application of the Geneva Conventions. Instead, it is coalition military commanders in theatre who are responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Geneva Conventions are met.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the oral and written concerns made by the International Committee of the Red Cross Coalition forces during 2003 were received by his Department; and what action was taken. [173201]

  Mr. Straw
  Throughout 2003, once it was clear that there was a possibility of UK troops becoming involved in Iraq, there were regular and co-operative discussions between Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Ministers and officials and the ICRC on Iraq.
  1635W
  During these meetings, the ICRC briefed on the general humanitarian situation in Iraq and reminded us of our international humanitarian law obligations concerning detainees. Our records do not indicate that any specific oral or written concerns about coalition forces were passed to the FCO in 2003. As is standard practice, they would have been passed in the first instance to the authorities directly responsible for the treatment of detainees. I have no reason to doubt that the UK military authorities responsible for detainees in Iraq took appropriate action in response to any ICRC concerns. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ingram) made clear in the House on 13 May, HMG co-operates fully with the ICRC. It is offered full access to the detention facilities that we operate and each concern that it brings to our attention is treated very seriously and investigated fully.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed that the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004 had been received by his Department; and when he asked to see it. [173220]

  Mr. Straw
  As I said in the House on 11 May, I was made aware of the ICRC report during the weekend of 8–9 May 2004.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority to investigate the allegations of brutality and illegality by Iraqi police, contained in the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004. [173221]

  Mr. Straw
  As part of its responsibilities the Coalition Provisional Authority created within the Iraqi Ministry of Interior an internal affairs department that is tasked with leading on all such investigations. A team of international police advisers supports and monitors the progress and work of this department.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004. [173222]

  Mr. Straw
  I have regular discussions with Secretary Powell during which a wide variety of issues concerning Iraq are discussed. It is not our practice to make public the detail of those discussions under exemption 1(b) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place, upon receipt of the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004, between British and US officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority. [173244]

  Mr. Straw
  British officials attended a meeting between Ambassador Bremer and the ICRC on 26 February at which the ICRC report was handed to Ambassador Bremer. Follow-up discussions with US officials confirmed the previous US announcement that the US military investigation had begun as soon as the allegations about mistreatment at Abu Ghraib were brought to light in January.
  1636W
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Sir Jeremy Greenstock's Office did not immediately forward to his Department the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February on receipt. [173264]

  Mr. Straw
  The ICRC report was formally presented to the Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator in Baghdad by a representative of the ICRC at a meeting on 26 February. UK officials attended. A report of the meeting was sent to London by telegram within 24 hours. A copy of the report had already been passed to Permanent Joint Headquarters. The Office of the UK Special Representative was assured that investigations had already been launched into allegations involving US forces. The office sought and received confirmation that allegations involving misconduct by UK forces were also already under investigation.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) instruction and (b) guidance his (i) officials and (ii) Ministers were following prior to the decision not to make the February International Committee of the Red Cross report available to him as soon as it became available to his Department. [173572]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: Ministers and officials follow standard procedures to ensure that the UK's obligations under international law are fully respected. As has been made clear, action was already in hand on the allegations concerning UK forces.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) written and (b) oral briefing was provided by officials in his Department to inform (i) him and (ii) his Ministers of the contents of the International Committee of the Red Cross report and actions taken (A) as a result of officials having read the report and (B) prior to the full report being made available to him. [173575]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: Officials in Baghdad took appropriate action as soon as the report was received in February to pass it back to Permanent Joint Head Quarters for confirmation that action on all those areas concerning UK forces was already in hand. Officials in Baghdad were also assured that investigations had already been launched into allegations involving US forces.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was made aware of the report (though not given a copy) at a meeting in Geneva on 18 March with Dr. Kellenberger, President of the ICRC. On his return to London, Mr. Rammell discussed the concerns raised by Dr. Kellenberger with officials, and was satisfied that action was in hand to deal with the allegations concerning UK troops. I became aware of the ICRC report on the weekend of 8–9 May.

  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, Minister of State at the FCO, was briefed in general terms on detainee issues on 27 April in advance of taking a question in the House of Lords on the Amnesty International report "Iraq: One Year On". The ICRC was not covered.
  1637W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which member of the Government was first informed of the International Committee of the Red Cross Report on the treatment by coalition forces of prisoners of war in Iraq and its contents; and when this was. [173424]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, was the first Minister to be made aware of the report which as he has already made clear was in February. My right hon. Friend had already been aware for some months of two substantive issues raised in respect of UK forces, and of the action taken.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his oral answers of 11 May 2004, on Iraq, when the International Committee of the Red Cross Report was received at the Foreign Office; and what action was taken. [173426]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: A copy of the ICRC report was obtained by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official during a visit to Baghdad on 19 March. It was not marked for Ministers' attention as MOD action was already in hand on the allegations concerning UK forces.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his letter placed in the Library on 11 May concerning the handling of the International Committee of the Red Cross report and the telegram sent to London by the office of the UK Special Representative for Iraq on 27 February, which office received the telegram; to which Department and to which Ministers and senior officials the telegram was subsequently distributed; and when the telegram was distributed. [173677]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: According to records in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Communications Centre the telegram referred to was received on 27 February 2004 in the FCO and other relevant Government Departments. Records indicate that it was distributed at official level to private offices. It was not marked for ministerial attention. Action was already in hand on the allegations concerning UK forces.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) his United States counterpart and (b) the United States Secretary of Defence in respect of the use by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq of private contractors to (i) conduct interviews and (ii) otherwise manage detainees. [174013]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) today (UIN 173074).

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether funds generated from oil assets in Iraq are ring-fenced for that country's domestic use; and if he will make a statement. [174018]

  Mr. Rammell
  United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1483 of 22 May 2003 decided that all proceeds from sale of Iraq's oil should go into the 1638W
  Development Fund for Iraq to meet the needs of the Iraqi people and the costs of economic reconstruction and civilian administration.

  UNSCR 1483 also decided that Iraq's oil wealth should be ring-fenced from external attachment and legal proceedings and calls upon member states to take all necessary steps to assure this protection.

  The only exception to this is that 5 per cent. of proceeds from oil should be deposited in the United Nations Compensation Fund for Kuwait established in accordance with UNSCR 687 of 1991 and subsequent relevant resolutions. As outlined in UNSCR 1483 this latter requirement will be binding on an internationally recognised sovereign government of Iraq unless that government and the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission decide otherwise.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 199W, on Iraq, how many Iraqis are being consulted through the process being led by UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi; and what the UK Government's policy is on his recommendations on (a) the structure and personnel of the Interim Government and (b) the best method of selecting delegates to the planned National Conference. [174103]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN Secretary General Adviser on Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi continues to consult a large number of Iraqis in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq in his efforts to help forge Iraqi consensus on the formation of the Interim Government. We warmly welcome Brahimi's initial proposals and look forward to Iraqi agreement on the way forward by the end of May.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from what source of funds the money for bounties for the capture of wanted individuals in Iraq comes; and if he will make a statement. [174189]

  Mr. Rammell
  Her Majesty's Government does not offer bounties for the capture of wanted individuals in Iraq.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) between what dates the September 2002 source upon which the Government based its claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa indicated that the attempted procurement took place; [175478]

  (2) whether the documentary evidence reported in June 2002, referred to in Paragraph 89 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Cm 5972, upon which the Government did not rely to back up its claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa, was found to be (a) forged and (b) the same as any of the documents described as forged by the International Atomic Energy Agency on 7 March 2003; [175493]

  (3) whether the Government have established the origin and history of the documents referred to as still under consideration in Paragraph 4 of the Further Supplementary Memorandum from the Foreign and

  1639W
  Commonwealth Office, Iraqi Attempts To Procure Uranium, of July 2003, Written Evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report, HC 813-II. [175494]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave on 6 May 2004,Official Report, column 1733W.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Intelligence and Security Committee(a) requested and (b) saw the intelligence (i) upon which the Government based its claim that Iraq sought to procure uranium from Africa and (ii) considered by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forged which was released to the Secret Intelligence Service by the third party in question and referred to in paragraph 92 of the ISC report, Cm 5972. [175479]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have nothing to add to the Intelligence and Security Committee's account of their inquiry into this matter, given in paragraphs 87–93 of their report (Cmnd 5972).

  International Cricket
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the International Cricket Council regarding the rules operated by the ICC in respect of cricket tour cancellations. [175486]

  Mr. Mullin
  There have been no such discussions.

  Israel
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report by Amnesty International, "Israel and the Occupied Territories—Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property", published on 18 May. [175287]

  Mr. Straw
  We share Amnesty International's concerns about deteriorating housing conditions in the Occupied Territories and the wider human rights and humanitarian consequences of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a press statement on 17 May I expressed my concern at the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah. These actions are contrary to Israel's commitments under the roadmap and are unacceptable. And on 19 May, I expressed my profound concern about the deaths of Palestinian civilians demonstrating against house demolitions. Copies of both my statements are available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. Demolitions are provocative, exacerbate tension and undermine ongoing efforts to bring about an end to violence and a return to negotiations. Israel must act within international law and refrain from using excessive force and taking actions which amount to collective punishment. The UK voted for UNSCR 1544 which condemned Israel's actions on 19 May 2004.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has 1640W
  held with the new Kenyan Government since the general election in Kenya in December 2002; and what issues were discussed. [175168]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Kenyan Foreign Minister, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka in February 2003. Issues discussed were the priorities for the new Kenyan government, Iraq, Zimbabwe and terrorism.

  On 29 April 2004, I met the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Kiraitu Murungi, to discuss Constitutional and other reforms, including anti-corruption, and Julie Ward. In June 2003 I met the then Vice-President, Michael Wamalawa, and in October 2003, Foreign Minister Musyoka and a delegation of Kenyan Ministers. In October 2003 I visited Kenya, meeting President Mwai Kibaki and members of his government.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met President Kibaki on 9 October 2003.

  Victor Bout
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the freezing of assets owned by Mr. Victor Bout; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the UK removing Mr. Bout's name from a list of individuals to be targeted by United Nations sanctions. [175566]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: The UK has consistently supported international efforts to end Victor Bout's illegal activities, and UK Ministers have publicly welcomed action taken against his sanctions-busting activities. Our commitment to dealing with arms traffickers/sanctions busters is second to none, and a matter of public record.

  I am unable to comment on specific nominations under discussion in the United Nations Security Council for the asset freeze imposed by UNSCR 1532. To do so would risk capital flight.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations the Department has carried out intro the activities of Victor Bout. [174769]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not have investigative authority/powers. We pass any information we receive concerning alleged breaches of arms embargoes and sanctions regimes to the appropriate investigative authorities.

  FCO Ministers have publicly stated our position on Victor Bout and his sanctions-busting activities. On 7 November 2000 my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State at the FCO said in the House that Victor Bout is "the chief sanctions buster, and is a merchant of death…" Official Report, column 156. On 2 May 2002, my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the FCO said in the House, "I hope that … increased international pressure on Bout will finally result in the end of his sanctions-busting activities and that he will be brought to justice. The UK has played a leading role in drawing international attention to Bout's illegal activities…" Official Report, column 929W.
  1641W

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions when the UK has been outvoted when Qualified Majority Voting in the European Council has applied in every year since 1992, stating in each case the issue concerned; and if he will make a statement. [175286]

  Mr. Straw
  The European Council does not take decisions by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), but agrees Presidency conclusions by consensus. The Council of Ministers does take decisions by QMV on legislation where the legal base so provides. Since January 2001, details of voting in the Council of Ministers have been published by the Council Secretariat in its monthly summaries of Council acts. These can be accessed on the Council's internet site at: http://ue.eu.int/cms3_applications/showPage.asp?id = 551 &lang =:en&mode=g.

  Sudan
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between the UK Government and the Government of Sudan regarding reports of ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region of Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [175905]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Clare Short) on 25 May 2004 (UIN 175841).

  Travel Costs
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [175645]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's answer on 16 July 2003 Official Report, column 328W. A figure for the financial year 2003–2004 will be published as soon as possible.

  In addition, since 1999 the Government has published an annual list of all visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. Details for the financial year 2003–2004 will be published as soon as possible. Copies of these lists can be found in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 385W, on Iraq, whether the employment of civilian contractors and interpreters in Abu Ghraib prison was (a) known to and (b) sanctioned by the Coalition Provisional Authority. [174329]

  The Prime Minister
  The employment of civilian contractors and interpreters in Abu Ghraib prison is a matter for the US authorities.
  1642W

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the travel costs incurred by his Office for each of the last 10 years; [175657]

  (2) how much his Office spent on ministerial travel by (a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and (d) helicopter, in each of the last 10 years. [175660]

  The Prime Minister
  For travel costs prior to 2002, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 13 November 2003,Official Report, columns 397–398W.

  For information for 2002–03, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on 16 July 2003, Official Report, columns 327–328W.

  Travel costs for 2003–04 are currently being collated and will be published in the normal way before the summer recess. Copies for previous years are available in the Library of the House.

  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in Chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, "Travel by Ministers".

  David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister how many journeys he made by helicopter in each of the last 10 years; and what the journey length was in each case. [175739]

  The Prime Minister
  On average, I have made around twenty trips by helicopter in each year since May 1997, all of varying length.

  I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, "Travel by Ministers".

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Culture
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the amount of public money spent by his Department since 1998 on the promotion of(a) Irish culture and language and (b) Ulster Scots culture and language. [174926]

  Angela Smith
  Under the arrangements for North South Bodies the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure is providing £1,277,000 to the Ulster Scots Agency and £3,224,000 to the Irish Language Agency. This does not include additional funding provided from the Department's mainstream programme to projects which may have an Irish or Ulster Scots cultural or language dimension.
  1643W

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [174927]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on measures to combat organised crime in Northern Ireland. [174935]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Organised Crime Task Force continues to set the strategic direction for a multi agency approach to tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland. The 4th annual Threat Assessment and Strategy which was published by the Task Force on 11 May describes in detail both the extent of the problem, the successes that the law enforcement agencies have had against organised criminals, and the objectives of the Task Force.

  I pay tribute to the PSNI, HM Customs and Excise and the Assets Recovery Agency for their on-going commitment and effectiveness.

  People Trafficking
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received since January 2002 concerning the trafficking of people in Northern Ireland. [174928]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has shown an interest in this matter. The UK Immigration Service continues to liaise closely with the PSNI and the authorities in the Republic of Ireland with a view to apprehending offenders and prosecuting those who facilitate the entry of immigration offenders.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with the Irish Government on the provisions of the Belfast agreement on the early release of prisoners. [174929]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not discussed the issue in recent weeks with the Irish Government.

  Racism
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle racism in Northern Ireland. [174930]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have frequently put on record their abhorrence of all forms of intolerance and racism.

  We have published draft legislation to give courts stronger sentencing powers for "hate crimes". Enforcement action by the PSNI will be the key to tackling racism alongside our Community Safety Strategy and measures being taken through education, housing, health and social policy.

  Peace Process
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [174931]
  1644W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay).

  Good Friday Agreement
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on changes in the Northern Ireland economy since the Good Friday Agreement. [174932]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Official statistics show that since 1998, when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, the Northern Ireland Economy has performed remarkably well. Employment is at record levels, increasing by 61,540 jobs since March 1998 and the current unemployment rate of 5.2 per cent. is 2.8 percentage points below the EU 15 average. Since 1998 growth in Gross Value Added of 19.1 per cent. makes Northern Ireland one of the fastest growing UK regions.

  While these headline figures are encouraging, manufacturing employment has declined and the levels of economic inactivity remains high relative to other UK regions.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland on restoring the Good Friday Agreement institutions. [174933]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Discussions with the parties took place on 27 April and 4 May as part of the Review of the Belfast Agreement. There is now a break in formal Review talks for the period of the European election campaign, although informal contacts continue with the parties. Formal Review activity will recommence after 10 June, and we hope to engage soon after in a period of intensive dialogue.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further action he intends to take against Sinn Féin in the light of the Independent Monitoring Commission's finding that Sinn Fein has responsibility for paramilitary violence. [174934]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  We have already taken steps to implement the IMC recommendation in respect of both Sinn Féin and the PUP by suspending their entitlement to block financial assistance for a period of 12 months. Clearly we will wish to see significant progress by the time of the next IMC report in October. If there is not, we shall need to consider what steps might then be appropriate.

  Average Earnings
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average earnings in Northern Ireland are; and if he will make a statement. [175639]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Average gross weekly earnings of all full-time adult employees in Northern Ireland was £404.50 at April 2003.
  1645W

  Beef
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of beef sold in Northern Ireland in 2003 was(a) locally produced and (b) imported from Great Britain. [175916]

  Mr. Pearson
  Trade in beef is governed by EU single market principles. Statistical information is therefore not available to distinguish beef sales in NI between locally produced and imported beef. Discussions with the industry, however, have indicated that the majority of such sales would be from locally produced animals, with only a small amount relating to GB imports or imports directly from Third countries.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) average waiting time and (b) longest time an individual has been waiting for a mammogram is at each of the Province's cancer units. [175167]

  Angela Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dentists commenced practice in the province in each year since 1990; how many were full-time in each case; and if he will make a statement. [175221]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not readily available for historic dental practitioner registrations prior to October 2002 when the dental list database was replaced. For the 2003 calendar year the figure was 58. There is no split available by full-time and part-time for dental practitioners. The figure includes new fully qualified dentists, dentists who have moved/returned to the province from Great Britain/Republic of Ireland and dentists who have returned to work after a career break. The figure excludes assistants who are employed directly by a dentist and work under the dentists' contract.

  During a year there are also 24 Vocational Dental Practitioners who serve a year working with an established dental practitioner prior to starting working under their own contract within Northern Ireland.

  Diabetes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the Crest recommendations on diabetes care(a) have been implemented and (b) will be implemented within the next 12 months. [175215]

  Angela Smith
  The Crest Taskforce report on the development of services for people with diabetes contains a wide range of recommendations covering the full spectrum of the condition, from screening for people with a higher risk of developing the disease to the prevention and treatment of diabetes. The report acknowledged that implementation of the framework would require a time frame of 5–10 years.
  1646W
  The Department has allocated an additional £1 million for the development of diabetes services in 2004–05. Priorities for Action requires Health and Social Services Boards to take forward the recommendations of the Taskforce, on a prioritised basis, within a framework to be agreed with the Department by the end of May 2004.

  Equal Opportunity Complaints
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many equal opportunity complaints have been lodged with industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland in the last five years; and how many of these were(a) rejected initially, (b) settled, (c) heard and upheld and (d) heard and rejected. [175903]

  Mr. Gardiner
  This information is not readily available and will take some time to collate. I will write to the hon. Lady with details as soon as possible. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Fibromyalgia
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to fund alternative treatment of fibromyalgia in the national health service in Northern Ireland. [175528]

  Angela Smith
  There are no specific plans to fund alternative medicine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in the HPSS. Alternative medicine and therapies may be provided within available HPSS resources if the clinician considers that these are the most appropriate treatments for an individual patient.

  Private Health Care
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of Agenda for Change on the private sector in health care in Northern Ireland. [175212]

  Angela Smith
  The new HPSS pay system, Agenda for Change, has been designed around jobs within the NHS across the UK, and when implemented it will only directly be applied to jobs that are within the range of NHS organisations. It is acknowledged however, that any amendment to the terms and conditions of employment of HPSS personnel could have implications for the terms and conditions of staff employed within the private or voluntary health sector.

  While the setting of pay rates and defining of terms and conditions for such employees is a matter for the individual independent employers concerned, my Department recognises the financial pressures facing independent sector nursing and residential homes and has made provision for above inflation increases in the regional tariffs over the past three years. This has meant for example an increase of almost 20 per cent. in the weekly fee paid by Trusts for a nursing home place for an elderly person since 2001–02.

  The Department has also commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake research into the specific costs of providing nursing, residential home and domiciliary care in Northern Ireland. The consultants

  1647W
  are expected to present their final report in June 2004, in time for the research to inform budget decisions from April 2005

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people on Northern Ireland waiting lists have had medical treatment in other parts of the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [175532]

  Angela Smith
  The following table shows the number of patients from Northern Ireland who have received medical treatment in other parts of the United Kingdom, in the years 1999–2000 to 2003–04, as part of waiting list initiatives.

  Number of patients transferred to UK for treatment

  1999–20001

  90

  2000–01

  145

  2001–02

  268

  2002–03

  269

  2003–04

  164

  1 Eastern Health and Social Services Board and Northern Health and Social Services Board were unable to provide figures for 1999–2000.

  Source:

  Health and Social Services Boards.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many trained nursing staff from outside the United Kingdom are working in Northern Ireland's hospitals. [175533]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) on 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 943W, Question Reference 173742.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the frequency of epidural use in deliveries in Northern Ireland and (b) changes in that frequency in the last 30 years. [175175]

  Angela Smith
  The information is as follows.

  (a) In 2003, the latest year for which figures on pain relief in deliveries are available, there were 5,632 births delivered in Northern Ireland using epidural as a form of pain relief.

  (b) In 1994, the earliest year for which data on pain relief in deliveries are available, there were 3,917 births delivered in Northern Ireland using epidural as a form of pain relief.

  Over this 10-year period, the proportion of births occurring to Northern Ireland residents in Northern Ireland where epidural was used as a method of pain relief increased from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 26 per cent. in 2003.

  The rise in uptake is driven by a number of factors including increased availability and mothers' choice. Mothers are given information antenatally on the forms of pain relief available. Information on epidural is one of the options discussed. Mothers can then make an informed choice as to the method of pain relief they desire during delivery.
  1648W

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on neighbourhood renewal; what the timescale is for each stage of the process; and when money will be released for each stage. [175233]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department for Social Development launched the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, "People and Place" in June 2003. The Strategy did not specify detailed implementation arrangements, indicating instead that an engagement process would be undertaken to agree implementation arrangements for Belfast, Derry/Londonderry and Regional Towns and Cities. This exercise is now complete and the findings from these consultation exercises will be published in the near future.

  In addition, interim funding arrangements have been put in place from 1 April 2004 to ensure the continuation of over 100 community projects, which are deemed important to the implementation of Neighbourhood Renewal.

  To support the Strategy a Ministerial Working Group on Neighbourhood Renewal was established to oversee the implementation of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. This group has met on two occasions.

  The Ministerial Group has approved the timetable for the establishment of the Neighbourhood Partnership Boards. The Department's aim is to have Neighbourhood Partnership Board, established in the selected areas, by July 2005, with the majority in operation well before this. Funding will be made available to these groups to enable them to develop their Neighbourhood Action Plans. It is the intention of the Department to have all Neighbourhood Action Plans approved by May 2006, again with the majority approved well in advance of this date.

  I am also pleased to say that, in March 2004, Department for Social Development launched a scheme under the Neighbourhood Renewal banner, to provide financial assistance to Post Offices in deprived urban areas, which are under the threat of closure.

  Recycling
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in Northern Ireland during the last three years to reach Government recycling targets. [175530]

  Angela Smith
  The Waste Management Strategy for Northern Ireland set targets for the recovery of household waste (25 per cent. by 2005–06) and a reduction in the landfilling of industrial and commercial waste (to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels by 2005).

  The household waste recovery rate has increased steadily since 1998–99 when it was 4.9 per cent. The following table shows year on year figures. The 2003 figures are still being collated and will be available in June 2004. These however are expected to show a further improvement. The 2002 survey of industrial and commercial waste arisings indicated a 36.8 per cent. reduction in landfilling of industrial and commercial waste since 1998.
  1649W

  percentage

  Household recovery rate (recycling and composting)

  1998–99

  4.9

  1999–2000

  6.6

  2001

  8.9

  2002

  9.8

  2003

  1—

  1 Not available until June 2004.

  Residential Homes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on changes in the cost of care at residential homes. [175211]

  Angela Smith
  Residential homes may charge individual residents different amounts based on the type and extent of care needed and the standard of facilities and accommodation provided. For those residents who are not self-funding, Health and Social Services Trusts will normally pay agreed regional tariffs for the appropriate standard placement for each class of resident. In recognition of the increased pressures faced by the independent care home sector, the Department has made significant additional resources available to provide for increases above inflation. Above inflation increases have been made in each year since 2001–02 and the additional money this year has enabled Health and Social Services Trusts to increase rates paid for an elderly residential home place from £230 in 2001–02 to £273 in 2004–05, an increase of around 16 per cent.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the costs of educating every child currently in a special school in Northern Ireland in a mainstream school. [175222]

  Mr. Gardiner
  I have not made an estimate of this kind. The forthcoming Special Educational Needs and Disability Order aims to strengthen the right of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools. Any costs arising from this will be dependent on the nature and extent of the exercise of this right over time, and will depend on the needs of the individual child. Educational provision will continue to be tailored to meet these needs, whether in mainstream schools, special units attached to mainstream schools, or special schools. I anticipate that special schools will continue to play a vital role in supporting pupils with significant and complex needs, in accordance with parental wishes and professional advice, and that they are likely to develop their role further in the future in the provision of specialist advice and support to mainstream schools.

  The Government's investment of significant capital funding in the schools estate will continue to improve disabled access. In particular, all new and recently built or refurbished schools will comply with the requirements for physical access contained in the draft Special Educational Needs and Disability Order.
  1650W

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has for youth development programmes to reduce teenage pregnancy rates; [175158]

  (2) if he will introduce a young people's development programme similar to that launched by the Departments of Health and Education and Skills. [175170]

  Angela Smith
  A multi-agency Implementation Group is overseeing and driving forward the 21 actions set out in the Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Strategy and Action Plan. One of the action points in the plan is the further development, particularly in areas of socio-economic deprivation and rural areas, of community based teenage personal development programmes that incorporate sexual health issues and risk taking behaviour. These programmes are being taken forward by Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts in partnership with the voluntary and community organisations and are tailored to the needs of our population.

  The young people's development programme in England is a three year pilot exercise which is the subject of on-going evaluation. The findings are unlikely to be available until April 2007. Officials here will be liaising with colleagues in the Department of Health to monitor developments.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many females aged between 11 and 19 years were fitted with contraceptive implants in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000, broken down by age. [175224]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Transmitter Masts
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has collated in relation to health risks associated with the provision of transmitter masts in residential areas. [175527]

  Angela Smith
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) published a report on the subject of mobile phone technology in May 2000. It concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there was no general risk to the health of people living near the base stations on the basis that exposures were expected to be small fractions of the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

  This position has been confirmed through the ongoing random audit of base stations being undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency (now part of the Office of Communications—Ofcom). In the course of this audit programme almost 20 surveys were conducted at sites here in Northern Ireland during 2001 and 2002, mainly at schools and two at hospitals. Measurement of emissions in every case showed these to be hundreds and sometimes thousands of times below the ICNIRP guidelines.
  1651W
  In January 2004 in a report made to the National Radiological Protection Board, the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR), having reviewed the evidence for health effects especially in work published since the IEGMP Report, concluded that
  "exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low, and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a threat to health."

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173360]

  Yvette Cooper
  All documents published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website, both current and archived, are in either HTML and/or PDF format, with the exception of some statistical data which are available in Excel spreadsheet format.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisors and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168673]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Information for periods prior to this date is not available.

  Extra Care Housing
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what definition of extra care housing his Department uses in collecting Supporting People mapping data. [175249]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not issued a specific definition of extra care housing for the purposes of Supporting People mapping data. The relevant guidance does, however, include a definition of very sheltered housing for older people as:"sheltered accommodation for physically or mentally frail older people, with on-site support and enhanced communal facilities, specialist design features and the capacity to offer a range of care and support services".

  Most extra care housing would, in practice, fall within this definition.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the findings of the public consultation in England on the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 dealing with high hedges will be published. [175550]

  Yvette Cooper
  The public consultation on implementing Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 runs until 30 June. The Office of the Deputy Prime 1652W
  Minister expects to report the results of the consultation and to bring the legislation into operation towards the end of 2004.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department(a) expects to spend in this financial year and (b) spend in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04 on writing off overhanging debt for local authorities that transfer their housing; and from which budget this sum is allocated. [176275]

  Keith Hill
  Payments to meet local authorities' overhanging debt are made where the value of the housing stock is less than a local authority's associated housing debt. It is estimated that if all the housing transfers programmed to transfer in 2004–05 secure a positive ballot and transfer this financial year then the 2004–05 provision for making Overhanging Debt payments of £616 million would be used in full. £548.2 million was paid in 2002–03 and £90.9 million in 2003–04. The payment reflects the liability the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would otherwise have to pay continuing subsidy on a local authority's housing attributable debt. It is not possible to use this resource for capital purposes.

  Information and Communication Technology
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his budget is for staff training in information and communication technology in this financial year. [173720]

  Yvette Cooper
  Basic information and communication technology (ICT) training is given to all staff of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Specific supplementary courses of training are available depending on the needs of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and those of individual members of staff.

  Each business unit is responsible for its training budget, and the information technology (IT) element is not identified separately.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his targets are for improving the information and communication technology (ICT) skills base of staff within(a) his Department and (b) its agencies; and what method he uses to certify the competence levels achieved by staff receiving training in ICT. [173721]

  Yvette Cooper
  To improve specialist skills and capability in information and communication technology (ICT), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is establishing an e-Implementers Group to promote and disseminate and develop best practice to staff working on ICT and e-Business projects. We will also start piloting the European Computer Driving Licence in June 2004. This is an internationally recognised qualification that enables people to demonstrate their computer skills.

  The improvement of ICT skills forms part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers Development and Training Strategy, providing the skills, knowledge and competencies needed for particular roles. This process is managed and monitored through the Performance Management process.
  1653W

  Local Authority Planning Enforcement Officers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether local authority planning enforcement officers have sufficient(a) manpower resources and (b) funding adequately to control developers to ensure that the residents of communities are not put at risk by the acts or omissions of developers. [175880]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made such an assessment. We have, however, received a number of responses to our consultation on the review of the Planning Enforcement system expressing the view that local authorities do not put sufficient resources into enforcement. We are making £350 million of additional funding available to local planning authorities through the planning delivery grant. The grant is not ring-fenced and local planning authorities may use it to make staff and financial resources available for planning enforcement.

  Rail Freight Sites
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed siting of rail freight interchanges and freight villages in St. Albans and Park Street village green belt areas. [175347]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have received no firm proposals concerning the siting of a rail freight interchange in St. Albans and Park Street village green belt areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that a developer is considering putting forward such a proposal, but it would be inappropriate to comment on the proposal at this stage as it may come before the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for determination. Should such a proposal be brought forward it would need to go through the usual planning procedures relating to green belt areas.

  Telecommunications Installations
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the Mobile Phone Operators Association to discuss the workings of their voluntary code in relation to the T-Mobile installation at Bardsey in the Elmet constituency. [174943]

  Yvette Cooper
  It would be inappropriate for any Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss an individual planning case in any circumstances because of the appellate function of the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Staff
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department and its agencies were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [175367]
  1654W
  Mr. Caborn
  There have been no secondments to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or its Agency from the private or academic sectors in the last three years.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have left employment in her Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175674]

  Mr. Caborn
  Records are not maintained by DCMS which enable the identification of the reason for leaving the Department to be broken down into anxiety, stress, depression and other mental health reasons.

  DCMS has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees and guidance is available for all staff on how to manage stress effectively.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Blackpool, North and Fleetwood in each year since 1997. [175888]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Blackpool, North and Fleetwood are shown in the table.

  Financial Year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  28,577

  2000–01

  354,326

  2001–02

  360,495

  2002–03

  489,523

  2003–04

  525

  The information is freely available from the Department's searchable Lottery award database at: www.lottery.culture.gsi.gov.uk which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributors.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-crime Initiatives (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  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 theft in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has been since 1997. [175884]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally. Blackpool 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

  Bribery/Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Crime Squad
  1655W
  has (a) been involved in investigations and (b) conducted investigations of its own into bribery of foreign public officials. [174030]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Crime Squad (NCS) has not yet been involved in investigations or conducted investigations of its own into bribery of foreign public officials.

  The National Crime Squad is one of the agencies that is party to the Memorandum of Understanding on overseas corruption. Under this agreement, the NCS may provide assistance where there is clear need for proactive policing techniques or where support is needed by local forces.

  Car Parking/Clamping
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether car park operators are to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority; and if he will make a statement. [174162]

  Ms Blears
  The Private Security Industry Act (SIA) 2001 sets out details of conduct prohibited without a licence. If the duties of a car park operator include as part of their routine duties any such activity, they will require the relevant SIA licence.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Security Industry Authority plans to set up a system(a) to license individual wheel clampers and (b) to license the land on which they may clamp; [174163]

  (2) whether the Security Industry Authority's licensing system for wheel clamping will be backed up by a mandatory code of practice relating to (a) size of fines, (b) warning signs, (c) uniforms and (d) methods of payment; [174165]

  (3) how many licences for wheel clampers on private land have been issued since 1 April 2003. [174179]

  Ms Blears
  Vehicle immobilisers will be licensed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) under the authority of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, from the end of 2004. There are no powers within the Act to license the land on which clamping operations take place. The SIA will shortly publish its competency requirements for licensing purposes. These are likely to include training in requirements as to such matters as the proper use of warning signs, uniforms and methods of payment. The SIA is currently examining what role, if any, a code of practice might play in licensing.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the towing away of vehicles will be brought into the licensing remit of the Security Industry Authority. [174164]

  Ms Blears
  In light of the Regulatory Impact Assessment undertaken last year, we have accepted the Security Industry Authority's recommendation that the towing away of vehicles should be a licensable activity and regulations to give effect to this will be introduced in due course.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the 1656W
  letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 5 April 2004, with regard to Iqbal Hussain; [172257]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 5 April 2004, with regard to Iqbal Hussain; [174147]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 5 April 2004, with regard to Iqbal Hussain. [175616]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 25 May 2004.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East's letter to his Department of 26 September 2003, relating to Mr. Ronald Douglas Hall, ref H1091318/4 and PO 731213; and for what reasons the letter was dealt with in the manner it has been. [173102]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 26 May. The delay in responding was partly due to the need to ensure that all avenues had been explored before providing a comprehensive response.

  Crime (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rates were of(a) recorded offences, (b) detected offences and (c) cases brought to justice for burglaries in North Yorkshire in (i) April 1997, (ii) April 2000 and (iii) April 2003. [173410]

  Ms Blears
  Monthly recorded crime is not published. The available information is for annual and calendar year data and is given in the table.

  North Yorkshire

  All burglary offences recorded

  Recorded burglaries detected by Police

  Burglary offences brought to justice

  1997

  11,359

  2,165

  1—

  2000–01

  11,658

  976

  615

  2002–032

  11,511

  1,211

  3683

  1 Not available.

  2 Figures for 2002–03 will have been affected by the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard on 1 April 2002.

  3 Provisional.

  Departmental Computers
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the disposal of computers formerly used by his Department. [175284]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: The majority of the computers used within the core Home Office are supplied as part of a managed service by Sirius (the Home Office's IT supplier) and as such are not assets owned by the Authority. Although Sirius are contractually obliged to ensure the erasure of any Home Office data held on their assets, the responsibility for the disposal of obsolete or surplus assets belonging to Sirius lies solely with them.
  1657W
  Those core Home Office assets not covered by the Sirius contract are managed by the Information Management Technology Unit (IMTU) and responsibility for dispersal of assets rests with their Out of Scope Team.

  To reduce budget costs, if possible the assets are redeployed elsewhere within the core Home Office. If not and as Government Accounting rules require Departments to ensure the best possible price is obtained when disposing of surplus IT equipment, a registered GCat supplier for the provision of ethical and environmentally friendly disposal services are asked to dispose of the assets on their behalf.

  While the Home Office pays for this service, should the assets be sold on the Home Office receives 75 per cent. of the sale price.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of Fujitsu in providing computer services for the Home Office. [175285]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Fujitsu is the main contractor supplying infrastructure and desktop services to the core Home Office including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and the Youth Justice Board as a result of being awarded the IT2000 Contract in 2000. IT 2000 is a 10 year Public Finance Intiative contract establishing a private public partnership between the Home Office (excluding agencies and parts of IND covered by the Siemens caseworking service).

  These services range from support for software including application management (e.g. POEMS) and standard toolsets (e.g. Adobe Acrobat) to hardware devices including desktop and remote access laptops.

  They also manage the supply of voice services to the core Home Office (excluding IND) via their subcontractor Global Crossing.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170802]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  It is Government policy that all procurement decisions are taken on the grounds of value for money.

  The percentage of crockery, cutlery and glassware, which is of British manufacture, procured by the Department in 2002–03 is as follows:

  Percentage

  Crockery

  65

  Cutlery

  25

  Glassware

  7.5

  Information on the percentage of crockery, cutlery and glassware procured prior to 2002 and its origin of manufacture is not available and could only be obtained by incurring disproportionate costs.
  1658W

  Early Retirement (Police)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the costs of early retirement of police officers for each force in England and Wales in 2003–04. [173568]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information is not centrally available in the form requested. The cost of early retirement on ill-health grounds is mitigated to an extent by the fact that the retired officer will normally be replaced, either directly or indirectly, by a recruit on a lower salary who can perform all the ordinary duties of a member of the force. A broad indicator of the cost to forces in any year is the aggregate of the cash lump sums they pay to officers retiring on ill health grounds. Based on the estimated number of ill-health retirements for 2003–04 published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy the Government Actuary's Department estimate that the total cost of ill-health pension lump sums in England and Wales is about £50 million.

  Gas Cartridge Weapons
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the advice he received on the feasibility of converting self-contained gas cartridge weapons to use conventional ammunition. [175482]

  Caroline Flint
  We do not think it right to do so, thus making more widely available details of the methods of conversion identified so far. The Forensic Science Service identified a number of different ways in which such revolvers and pistols were used with ammunition other than air cartridges. These varied considerably in their effectiveness and ease of conversion and with one exception were not specific to one particular model. Having discussed the problem with the manufacturers of the air cartridge system and an independent engineer it was concluded that the main problem was with the air cartridge system itself which could not be modified to remove the danger.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the(a) National Black Police Association and (b) Police Federation. [175049]

  Ms Blears
  I meet the National Black Police Association as necessary to discuss particular issues. I have regular bilaterals with the Chairman of the Police Federation.

  During the period March 2002 to March 2003 Lancashire Constabulary strength increased by 35 to 3,339. At the end of December 2003 Lancashire had record strength of 3,549—an increase of 210 officers.

  Police
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in the number of full-time police officers in Bootle since 1997. [175488]
  1659W
  Ms Blears
  Bootle is part of the Sefton Basic Command Unit (BCU). Information on strength at BCU level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Sefton BCU increased by 0.5 per cent. (from 431 to 433). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Norman Bettison QPM) and within the Sefton BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Manchester, Central has been since 1997. [174276]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Manchester, Central constituency is part of the North Manchester (A) Division. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Manchester Division increased by 2 per cent. (from 725 to 740). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd) and within the North Manchester Division deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects police radios to work while on the London Underground. [175058]

  Ms Blears
  The British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing the London Underground, already have radios that work in that environment. Contractual discussions are underway on the extension of Airwave, the new police radio system, to the London Underground. The estimated completion date is 2007.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has been since 1997. [175881]

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

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency is part of the Western (A) Division. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Western Division decreased 1.4 by per cent. (from 501 to 494). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Paul Stephenson QPM) and within the Western Division deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of suspension of police officers was in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the average cost of suspensions. [175472]

  Ms Blears
  Suspension of a senior police officer is a matter for his or her police authority and suspension of other ranks is a matter for the Chief Constable.1660W
  Information on lengths of suspension of police officers is not held centrally. I have made no estimate of the average cost of suspensions as to do so would require making a request for information from individual forces and therefore would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to Customs and Excise regarding the VAT status of Centrex. [168437]

  Ms Blears
  No representation has been made to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on behalf of Centrex in respect of their VAT by the Home Office arrangements. This is an internal matter, which has been satisfactorily resolved in discussion between Centrex and Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much in grant was paid to National Police Training and the Central Police Training and Development Authority in each year from 1997–98 to 2004–05. [168443]

  Ms Blears
  Centrex has only been in receipt of grant-in-aid from the Home Office since 2002–03, when it became an executive non-departmental public body. Before that time, as National Police Training, it was a unit of the Home Office.

  The grant-in-aid paid to Centrex (millions) is as follows:

  £million

  Capital

  Resource

  2002–03

  78.6

  14.9

  2003–04

  87.3

  18.7

  2004–05

  74.8

  18.7

  Small additional payments were made to fund additional work programmes.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what throughput of police recruits he expects at Stage 2 training during 2004–05; and what throughputs were achieved in each of the last three years. [168444]

  Ms Blears
  Total bids for Stage 2 places at Centrex for the year 2004–05 stands at 7,184, of which 242 are from non-Home Office forces. This figure excludes the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) whose probationers are trained in force and those forces currently running trials of the modernised delivery of Stage 2.

  During the year 2003–04 Centrex target to have delivered 8,701 Stage 2 places, of which 200 were taken by non-Home Office forces. Again this excludes the MPS and forces which ran Stage 2 trials.

  During the year 2002–03 a total of 7,977 Stage 2 places were delivered by Centrex, of which 148 were taken up by non-Home Office forces. This figure excludes the MPS.

  During the year 2001–02 a total of 7,578 Stage 2 places were delivered by Centrex, of which 149 were taken up by non-Home Office forces. Again this figure does not include the MPS.
  1661W

  Pre-charge Photographs
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he sets for the police on the publication of pre-charge photographs of alleged criminals taken at the time of arrest where the police has facilitated the presence of journalists at the scene of arrest. [175513]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not issue guidance on these matters. Arrangements for handling the media at police operations are for the senior officer in command, under protocols agreed by the Chief Officer. The general position is set out in advice to all Chief Officers issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers in October 2003. One key consideration is that the publication of any image taken at the time of arrest may interfere with an individual's right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) members, (b) reports produced by and (c) dates of meetings in 2003 of (i) the National Crime Reduction Task Force, (ii) the Insurance Cover Working Group, (iii) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, (iv) the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, (v) the Animal Procedures Committee, (vi) the Criminal Records Bureau Consultative Panel, (vii) the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales and (viii) the Technical Advisory Board. [174269]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: Advisory Non-Departmental Bodies (NDPBs) provide independent expert advice to ministers on particular topics. Also members of the Board are public appointees and the Board itself is supported by staff from their Sponsoring Department.

  (i) Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has the following list of members for 2003,

  Re-appointed Members:

  Sir Michael Rawlins

  Mr. Norman Bettison

  Reverend Martin Blakeborough

  Mr. Raj Boyjoonauth

  Ms Vivienne Evans

  Dr. Laurence Gruer

  Mr. Russell Hayton

  Mr. Peter Housden

  Mr. Roger Howard

  Mr. Alan Hunter

  Professor David Nutt

  Mrs Kay Roberts

  Mrs Patricia Roberts

  Dr. Roy Robertson

  Newly appointed members:

  Dr. Dima Abdulrahim

  Lord Victor Adebowale

  Dr. Margaret Birtwistle

  Dr. Cecilia Bottomley

  Ms Carmel Clancy

  Professor liana Crome

  Ms Robyn Doran

  1662W

  Mr. Robert Eschle

  Professor Hugh Edmondson

  Professor C Robin Ganellin FRS

  Mr. Paul Haves

  Mr. Andrew Hayman

  His Honor Judge Thomas Joseph

  Dr. John Marsden

  Mr. Peter Martin

  Mr. Richard Pates

  Mr. Trevor Pearce

  Mr. Arthur Preddy

  Dr. Mary Rowlands

  Dr. Polly Taylor

  Ms. Monique Tomlinson

  In June 2003, the Advisory Council published "Hidden Harm—Responding to the needs of children of problem drug users".

  The Advisory Council met twice in 2003, on 15 May 2003 and 6 November 2003.

  (ii) The Animal Procedures Committee had the following list of members in 2003:

  Rev Prof Michael Banner, Chairmen

  Prof Robin Dunbar

  Mr John Gregory

  Prof John Martin

  Prof Christopher Atterwill

  Prof Donald Broom

  Dr. Michael Festing

  Dr. Robert Hubrecht

  Dr. Tim Morris

  Dr. David Clark

  Dr. Maggy Jennings

  Dr Gill Langley

  Prof Grahame Bulfield

  Prof Stephen Clark

  Prof Alan Holland

  Prof Alan McNeilly

  Prof Genevra Richardson

  Graham Moore

  Newly appointed member:

  Prof Dawn Oliver (March 2003)

  Retired member:

  Robert McCracken (August 2003)

  In 2003, the Committee produced a report "A Review of Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research" and its 2002 Annual Report.

  The full Committee met five times in 2003, on 12 February 2003, 9 April 2003, 25 June 2003,8 October 2003 and 19 December 2003. In addition there were many meetings of sub-committees and working groups.

  (iii) Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) had the following list of members in 2003:

  Sir Duncan Nichol (Chair)

  Prof Donald Grubin

  Prof Michael Gossop

  Ms Sylvia Hikins

  Mr. David Kennard

  Prof Friedrich Lösel

  1663W

  Prof Mike Maguire

  Dr. Janice Marques

  Dr. Mary McMurran

  Dr. William Murphy

  Dr. Frank Proporino

  Dr. Barbara Rawlings

  Prof Peter Raynor

  Mr. Colin Roberts

  The CSAP produced an Annual Report for 2002-–2003.

  The full Panel met in 2003 from 24 March 2003 to 28 March 2003 and from 13 October 2003 to 17 October 2003. A sub-group called the Drugs Sub-Panel met from 13 May 2003 to 15 May 2003 and from 4 June 2003 to 6 June 2003. There were also one or two smaller meetings during the course of that year.

  (iv) Technical Advisory Board (TAB) consists of six representatives of the communications industry and six representatives of the intercepting agencies. The names of the intercepting agencies are not made public but the names of the Chair and the communications industry representatives for 2003 are as follows:

  Liam Strong (Chair)

  Derek Cobb

  Jim Cottrell

  Jessica Hendrie-Liano

  Tom Phillips

  Mike Short

  Robert Temple

  In 2003 the TAB had no meetings and did not produce any reports.

  (v) The Police Advisory Board for England and Wales has the following as members in 2003. Two representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales (ACPO) to include the Metropolitan Commissioner, one representative of the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association (CPOSA), two representatives of the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales (PSAEW), five representatives of the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) and members nominated by the Home Secretary. There is an Independent Chair, John Randall and a Deputy Chair, Mark Baker.

  An Annual Report was produced on the work of the Police Advisory Board by the Independent Chair. This was issued on 16 June 2003.

  The Police Advisory Board meets quarterly. In 2003 it met on 30 January 2003, 16April 2003, 28 October 2003 and 23 December 2003.

  Task Forces and Ad hoc Advisory groups are essentially Home Office working groups. They have a short-term focus and when their work comes to an end they are disbanded. These groups give expert advice to the Department on a specific issue.

  (vi) The National Crime Reduction Task Force has not met since 2000.

  (vii)The Insurance Cover Working Group (ICWG) is a
  1664W
  Home Office working group. In 2003, the following were members of the ICWG:

  Stephen Bourne (Chair and Co-ordinator)

  David Tyler

  Helen Rice

  Ian Egginton-Metters

  Tom Flood

  Celia Webber

  John Stratton

  Anne-Marie Piper

  Merran Buchanan

  Sophie Chapman

  Tim Humphreys

  Anne Armstrong

  Laura Baird

  Mark Pratt

  Jim Neilson

  Paul Lewis

  Hilary Dalton

  Paula Reynolds

  Tony Jeeves

  Martin Elliott

  Steve Wyler

  David Evans

  Brain Garcia

  John Parker

  John Barton

  Douglas Ellis

  Jim Lugton

  Bob Elam

  Neil Surman

  Anita Varey

  Michael Swann

  Charlotte Edward

  Janet Howe

  The following are listed as Observers:

  Lucy French

  David Bishop

  Rebecca Leete

  Nick Munn

  Vedi Sanjiv

  Elaine Warner

  Miles Burger

  David Sinclair

  Anthony Hammill

  Claire Crawley

  Ilyas Malick

  Alex Sienkiewicz

  In 2003 the ICWG produced the following reports, "Research into Insurance Cover for the Voluntary and Community Sector in England" in July 2003 and "Report for Ministers" in December 2003.

  The ICWG met three times in 2003, that is on 23 January 2003, 10 June 2003 and 8 October 2003.

  (viii) The Criminal Records Bureau Consultative Panel (CRBCP) is an Ad hoc Advisory group. The Panel is made up of Customer Groups, Regulatory Authorities,

  1665W
  Government Departments, CRB Stakeholders and CRB Senior Managers. In 2003, the following were members of the CRBCP:

  Vince Gaskell

  Anita Varey

  Mark Favager

  Barbara Hockey

  Rob McGreal

  Bob Wright

  Michelle Wise

  Steve Boocock

  Tim Humphreys

  Stephen Adams

  Neil Wallace

  Neil Bentley

  Jean Pugh

  Gordon Fleck

  James Walsh

  Rob Heiser

  Clare Smith

  Gareth Crossman

  Mervyn Barrett

  Peter Martin

  Sally Nunn

  Andy Forster

  Irish Davies

  Sean Risdale

  Ann Russell

  Euan Eddie

  Chris Atkinson

  Debbie Akinfe

  Sarah Veale

  Nicola Foulds

  Roy Haley

  The CRBCP does not produce reports. It was designed as a method for the Criminal Records Bureau to communicate and consult with its customer base and for the customer base to raise issues with the Bureau.

  The CRBCP meets quarterly. In 2003 the CRBCP met on 12 March 2003, 27 June 2003, 26 September 2003 and December meeting was held over until 14 January 2004.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) budget and (b) administration costs in 2003 were of (i) the National Crime Reduction Task Force, (ii) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, (iii) the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, (iv) the Animal Procedures Committee, (v) the Criminal Records Bureau Consultative Panel and (vi) the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. [174270]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: Advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) do not have a separate resource budget. Their secretariat and administration costs are borne directly by the Department.
  1666W
  (i) The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has no resource budget. The Home Office provides secretariat and administrative support. The ACMD had an expenditure/costs for the Financial Year 2003–04 of £137,793.27.

  (ii) The Animal Procedures Committee (APC) consists of 20 members including a Chairman. All Board members are public appointees. The Chairman received £10,000 in remuneration and £28,000 for members' expenses. £280,000 went on research. The total budget of £318,000. APC had an estimated administration cost for the Financial Year 2003–04 of £5,185.

  (iii) The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) had a budget for the Financial Year 2003–04 of £195,000 and an estimated administration cost of £60,112.

  (iv) The budget allocation for the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales (PABEW) is combined with that of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB). The PABEW and the PNB combined budget figure for the Financial Year 2003–04 was £54,633 and their combined figure for administration costs was £50,582.14.

  Task Forces and ad hoc advisory groups are essentially Home Office working groups. They do not have a separate budget or administration costs.

  (v) The Criminal Records Bureau Consultative Panel had an estimated budget and administration cost of £5,000.

  (vi) The National Crime Reduction Task Force is no longer operating and no meetings or activity occurred in the Financial Year 2003–04.

  Royal Society (Decontamination Report)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his response is to the recommendations made in the recent Royal Society report on the detection and decontamination of chemical and biological agents. [174617]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government have welcomed the Royal Society's report and has written to the President of the Royal Society setting out its response.

  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the Royal Society report, and undertake to send the hon. Member a copy.

  Security Industry Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) budget and (b) staffing levels of the Security Industry Authority are. [174177]

  Ms Blears
  The level of grant funding for the Security Industry Authority (SIA) for 2004–05, as published in the Treasury Main Supply Estimate (HC 466), is £25,700,000. This expenditure will be largely offset by licence fees. The maximum staffing level of the SIA is projected to be 122.
  1667W
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work the Security Industry Authority has carried out since 1 April 2003. [174178]

  Ms Blears
  During this period the Security Industry Authority (SIA) has undertaken a considerable programme of work preparing itself and the security industry for the introduction of regulation. This has included work on licensing, compliance and investigation, communications, strategic development, and corporate services. Full details of the work undertaken by the SIA will be published in their Corporate and Business plan in due course.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the average total cost was of employing each grade of Crown Prosecutor, including pension and holiday provision, and other benefits associated with such employment, in each financial year since 1 May 1997 for which figures are available. 167302]

  The Solicitor-General
  The average total cost of employing each grade of crown prosecutor in real terms, including pension and holiday provision, and other benefits associated with such employment, in each year since 1997, was as follows:

  £

  Chief Crown Prosecutor

  Band E

  Band D

  Band C

  1997–98

  94

  67

  58

  45

  1998–99

  95

  68

  58

  46

  1999–2000

  71

  70

  60

  48

  2000–01

  91

  73

  61

  49

  2001–02

  96

  77

  63

  52

  2002–03

  105

  77

  64

  52

  2003–04

  120

  77

  67

  51

  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements are made for each grade of Crown Prosecutor to qualify for high court advocacy rights; and how much time has been spent on average by each qualified Crown Prosecutor on higher courts advocacy during each financial year since 1 May 1997 for which figures are available. [167305]

  The Solicitor-General
  an opportunity each year to apply for a place on a Higher Court Advocacy programme which is run by the Crown Prosecution Service in partnership with the Nottingham Law School.

  The time spent on higher court advocacy by qualified crown prosecutors from 1999 to 2003 is shown in Table A. 1999–2000 was the first full year for which figures were collated.
  1668W

  Table A

  Number of sessions average hours per session

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Number of sessions

  2.718

  4,075

  7,186

  6,839

  Ave hours per session

  5.29

  4.84

  4.89

  5.15

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bedouins (Negev)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assistance his Department provides to the Bedouins in the Negev; [175204]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the Israeli Government about the situation of the Bedouins in the Negev. [175202]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Negev desert is part of Israel. DFID does not work in Israel because it is not a developing country. DFID's mandate for poverty reduction requires us to focus our efforts on development and humanitarian assistance in developing countries. DFID has had no discussions with the Israeli Government about the situation of Bedouins in the Negev.

  Belize/Guatemala
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the projects his Department has supported in Belize over the past 20 years that have been classed as successful. [175239]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I shall arrange for a copy of a document entitled "Department for International Development/Official Development Assistance in Belize" to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The list shows all DFID/ODA projects funded in Belize since 1986 (the year to which project records for Belize date back). Performance scoring of projects began in 1992; all listed projects since then have been classed as partially or wholly successful.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role the UK Government have played in resolving the border disputes between Belize and Guatemala. [175240]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK continues to support fully the Organisation of American States (OAS)-facilitated process between Belize and Guatemala as the best means to secure a permanent solution to their territorial dispute. I underlined this to both governments when I visited Belize and Guatemala from 14 to 17 January, and I have recently written to Vice-President Stein of Guatemala and Prime Minister Musa of Belize. We have also lobbied both countries to agree a long-term extension to the Confidence Building Measures Agreement, which is due to expire in June, at the next OAS meeting between Belize and Guatemala in Washington in June.

  We are also supporting the OAS-sponsored Confidence Building Measures in Belize and Guatemala through the FCO/DFID/MOD Global Conflict

  1669W
  Prevention Pool. £1.5 million has been allocated this financial year. Our projects are aimed at reducing tensions, encouraging co-operation between security agencies and addressing the underlying causes of conflict.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173366]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Material is produced and distributed using a range of industry standard formats: Hypertext Mark-Up Language (html), Portable Document Format (pdf) and Microsoft Word (doc) as recommended in the "Guidelines for UK Government Websites"—as appropriate to the publication. According to the e-Government agenda, DFID is developing an Electronic Documents and Records Management System which will include a policy on the archiving of electronic files.

  Darfur
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he has taken to secure access to Darfur for humanitarian relief; and if he will make a statement. [175839]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: I am gravely concerned about the situation in Darfur and the difficulties of ensuring humanitarian access to a displaced population of over 1 million.

  I will be tabling a written ministerial statement on Thursday 27 May 2004.

  Gambia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) monetary aid, (b) aid in kind and (c) logistical aid his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to the Child Protection Alliance in The Gambia in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [175477]

  Gareth Thomas
  DFID has not directly funded or been involved in the activities of the Child Protection Alliance in The Gambia. However through DFID's Small Grants Scheme, which is administered by the British High Commission in Banjul, we have provided £3,465 over the past three years to the Child Protection Alliance. This helped to support a capacity building project, an information campaign on child protection issues, and an assessment of member organisations.

  Gaza Strip
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the(a) nutritional needs of and (b) the supply of clean water to residents in the Gaza Strip. [175349]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A food security assessment conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Food Programme during 2003 found that 1670W
  approximately 41 per cent. of the population of the Gaza Strip are "food insecure", with a further 28 per cent. at risk of becoming so. Another nutritional assessment done in 2002 by Johns Hopkins and Al-Quds Universities looked at children six to 59 months, and found that in the Gaza Strip 13.3 per cent. bad acute malnutrition (wasting), and 17.5 per cent. had chronic malnutrition (stunting). The United Nations Relief and Works Agency provides emergency food aid to an estimated 128,000 families.

  Palestinians have very low water consumption. Per capita Palestinian water consumption in Gaza is 88 litres/day, compared with a World Health Organisation recommended basic minimum for developing countries of 100 litres/day. The United States Aid to International Development (USAID) is leading a major programme of activities to increase the quantities of water available for water supply in Gaza. This includes protection and management of the coastal aquifer, which is the only local source of freshwater in Gaza. USAID has also agreed to fund the construction of a desalination plant that will purify up to 20 million cubic metres of sea water each year, equivalent to nearly 40 per cent. of Gaza's current municipal consumption. A main water pipeline the length of Gaza will also be constructed to distribute high-quality water throughout the Gaza Strip.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds are being made available to send aid to Gaza Strip following recent Israeli action. [175350]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A UN-led needs assessment in Rafah is currently being finalised. DFID will look closely at this when judging if and how we should respond.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes he has made to international aid budgets since the decision to take military action in Iraq. [175205]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer the my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 493W and the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 3 December 2003, Official Report, column 50W.

  Funding for the reconstruction of Iraq did not affect planned DFID expenditure for other countries during 2003–04. During 2004–05 and 2005–06, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes, together with DFID contingency funding of £115 million and contributions from other Departments. In addition, in response to the increased amounts needed for Iraq, which is classified as a middle income country, DFID has adjusted forward plans to move a further estimated £50 million from other middle income country programmes to low income country programmes. This is needed to maintain our commitment to our Public Service Agreement target of raising the share of our bilateral programme going to low income countries to 90 per cent. by 2005–06.
  1671W
  Details of the middle income countries affected by these changes can be found in the written statement provided to Parliament by the Secretary of State for International Development on 6 November 2003, Official Report, column 42WS. The revised allocations for 2004–05 and 2005–06 are set out in the DFID Departmental Report 2004. DFID will also continue to provide substantial assistance to middle-income countries through multilateral institutions.

  These reallocations should be seen in the context of a development assistance budget that will increase by £900 million over the current Spending Review Period 2003–06.

  Israel
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to provide humanitarian aid to those affected by Israel's demolition policy. [174517]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A UN-led needs assessment in Rafah is currently being finalised. DFID will look closely at this in judging if and how we should respond.

  During the past 18 months DFID has provided a technical management team to oversee the reconstruction and repair of demolished and damaged housing in Jenin Refugee Camp. In addition DFID made a £5 million contribution in March to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's Emergency Appeal, which provides a range of emergency humanitarian support to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This includes emergency shelter, food and health services in Rafah.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much she estimates prices of(a) gas and (b) electricity for (i) domestic consumers and (ii) industry have changed as a result of Government policy on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide; and what her forecasts are for future price changes. [172528]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have put in place a range of measures for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

  For domestic customers, electricity prices have increased as a result of the introduction of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), the Renewables Obligation (RO) and the Energy Efficiency Commitments. The European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will also have an upward impact on domestic electricity prices. Gas prices have been affected by the Energy Efficiency Commitments.

  For business consumers, gas and electricity prices have been affected by the introduction of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) in 2001. Electricity prices have been affected by the NFFO and the Renewables Obligation. The introduction of the ETS in 2005 will also have an effect on electricity prices and the costs of using gas for business consumers.
  1672W
  Projecting future price increases is highly uncertain. Such impacts will depend on the operation of markets as well as policy measures. The estimates in the following tables are made on particular assumptions and can be indicative only.

  Estimated impacts to date and forecasts for the period to 2010 are shown in the following tables:

  Domestic gas prices

  Percentage

  Impact to date

  Impact 2004–10

  Energy Efficiency Commitments

  1

  1

  Total

  1

  1

  Industrial gas prices

  Percentage

  Impact to date

  Impact 2004–10

  CCL—with Climate Change Agreement (CCA)

  4

  0

  CCL—without CCA

  19

  0

  Emissions Trading

  0

  8

  Total (with CCA)

  4

  8

  Total (without CCA)

  19

  8

  Domestic electricity prices

  Percentage

  Impact to date

  Impact 2004–10

  NFFO/Renewables Obligation

  2

  3

  Energy Efficiency Commitments

  1

  2

  Emissions Trading

  0

  3

  Total

  3

  8

  Industrial electricity prices

  Percentage

  Impact to date

  Impact 2004–10

  NFFO/Renewables Obligation

  3

  7

  CCL—with Climate Change Agreement (CCA)

  3

  0

  CCL—without (CCA)

  15

  0

  Emissions Trading

  0

  6

  Total (with CCA)

  6

  13

  Total (without CCA)

  18

  13

  Notes:

  1. Impact of Emissions Trading Scheme is on gas costs as users of gas will need to hold emission allowances. Not all business users of gas are covered by the EU ETS and those that are will receive an initial free allocation of allowances that will largely cover their projected emissions.

  2. Estimates for renewables include the impact of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, which has already impacted on electricity prices.

  3. Average impact from Energy Efficiency Commitments. For those benefiting from energy efficiency measures, bills should fall. It is estimated that the average annual on-going financial gain for consumers benefiting from measures in the 2005–08 period, in lower energy bills or increased comfort, would be around £15 a year for the lifetime of the measures. The annual benefit from cavity wall insulation in a standard three bedroom house is likely to be £80 to £100.

  4. Impact of Climate Change Levy estimated for those with a Climate Change Agreement who receive an 80 per cent. reduction in the rate of levy and for those without a CCA who pay the full levy. Impact of emissions trading based on a price of €5 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

  1673W

  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claimants medically examined so far have also been diagnosed to be suffering with(a) pneumoconiosis, (b) asbestosis, (c) mesothelioma and (d) asthma, broken down by (i) age and (ii) coalfield area. [174768]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Nearly 184,000 medical assessments have been carried out with a resulting fit for purpose Medical Assessment Process (MAP) report. Of this number, over 64,000 MAP reports show a condition other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that is impacting on the claimant's respiratory function.

  Under the respiratory disease Claims Handling Agreement, ERISC are not required to record these separate co morbid conditions.

  Projects(R&D)

  Cleaner coal R&D programme (cash flow)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Total

  Pulverised fuel meters—split control

  —

  —

  65,155

  —

  —

  65,155

  Advanced materials, modelling and lifting technologies for gas turbine components

  188,410

  —

  211,854

  145,210

  163,540

  709,014

  Development of a combustor strategy to cover a wide range of calorific values

  —

  —

  219,365

  —

  94,140

  313,505

  Novel gas cleaning/heat recovery system

  —

  28,560

  24,762

  —

  47,900

  101,222

  Materials for gasifier heat exchangers

  —

  9,390

  25,275

  —

  15,290

  49,955

  Concurrent measurements of temperature and soot concentration of coal fired combustion flames

  31,910

  —

  38,091

  —

  70,001

  Coal mineral transformations—effects on boiler ash

  —

  99,300

  33,100

  —

  66,200

  198,600

  Advanced monitoring using imaging for combustion in power station boilers

  —

  —

  68,546

  —

  45,910

  114,456

  Advanced coal modelling

  —

  37,600

  —

  10,506

  —

  48,106

  Improved materials for advanced PF boilers and steam turbines

  —

  210,940

  536,103

  129,957

  310,970

  1,187,970

  Optimisation of furnace design for in-furnace NOx reduction

  —

  50,590

  76,195

  —

  —

  126,785

  Combustion of low volatile coals in wall fired plant

  —

  97,620

  —

  —

  —

  97,620

  Optimisation of furnace mixing to enhance combustion efficiency in advanced low NOx systems

  —

  97,500

  —

  —

  —

  97,500

  Improvement in combustion efficiency in utility boilers

  —

  —

  239,428

  —

  201,770

  441,198

  Advanced optimisation of coal fired power plant operations

  3,100

  7,347

  —

  —

  20,550

  30,997

  Techno-economic evaluation of cleaner coal fired plant operability

  —

  17,280

  —

  15,030

  17,690

  50,000

  Modelling of particulate and vapour deposition in gas turbines fired on coal derived gases

  —

  —

  19,926

  13,653

  56,710

  90,289

  Fabricated turbine rotors for advanced steam turbines

  —

  27,690

  102,364

  34,630

  —

  164,684

  Metallic filters for hot gas cleaning

  —

  —

  7,690

  —

  21,310

  29,000

  Advanced characterization property database for Chinese and Indian (and other Asian) coals

  —

  —

  34,722

  —

  64,670

  99,392

  Advanced near burner flame diagnostics for ignition and stability studies on full scale pulverised coal flames

  —

  —

  26,584

  —

  22,000

  48,584

  UK collaboration with Netherlands and Australian NOx reduction research using overfire air staging

  —

  —

  14,123

  —

  15,300

  29,423

  Improving the efficiency and environmental performance of small scale combustion plant for increased export opportunities

  —

  5,840

  23,247

  —

  20,910

  49,997

  Application of CFD modelling to mill classifier design

  —

  —

  139,300

  31,100

  —

  170,400

  Predictive methods and remedial measures for particle impact erosion and abrasion wear in cleaner coal energy conversion techs

  —

  —

  30,000

  70,000

  17,500

  117,500

  Once through the boiler with vertical tube furnace

  —

  81,710

  54,471

  45,395

  —

  181,576

  Advanced modelling and testing of thick section welded HCM2S

  —

  25,810

  —

  39,650

  39,830

  105,290

  "FOURCRACK" development of advanced coal fired plant steels to avoid premature failure by weld "Type IV" cracking

  —

  —

  13,000

  —

  122,500

  135,500

  Carbon burnout—coal fitness effects

  —

  —-

  56,400

  14,950

  27,530

  98,880

  Development of nitrogen stable isotope ratio measurements to apportion fuel and thermal NOx in coal conversion

  —

  —

  58,750

  51,250

  —

  110,000

  Enhanced Efficiency Steam Turbine Blading for Cleaner Coal Plant

  —

  —

  —

  19,848

  246,460

  266,308

  Advanced (700C) PF Power Plant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81,360

  81,360

  Virtual Plant Demonstration

  —

  —

  22,990

  —

  —

  22,990

  Real time Efficiency Measurements for Utility Boilers

  —

  —

  —

  81,632

  28,370

  110,002

  Demonstration of Co-firing Biomass at an Existing Coal Fired

  Power Station

  —

  —

  —

  140,000

  —

  140,000

  Demonstration of Co-firing Biomass at an Existing Coal Fired

  Power Station

  —

  —

  —

  —

  755,460

  755,460

  Assessment of Ash Refiring and Mineral Addition on Plant Performance and Ash Disposal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  154,000

  154,000

  1674W

  Clean Coal
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on Clean Coal projects in each year since 2000 broken down by project; and what the estimated spending for 2004 is. [175587]

  Mr. Timms
  Spend on clean coal (R&D) programmes since 2000 is indicated as follows:

  £000 (Accruals)

  2000–01

  1,889

  2001–02

  1,702

  2002–03

  1,979

  2003–04

  1,090

  2004–05 estimated

  1,168

  The following table shows the breakdown by project.
  1675W

  Projects (R&D)

  Cleaner coal R&D programme (cash flow)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Total

  On-line Fuel Tracking by Advanced Flame Monitoring

  —

  —

  13,500

  10,500

  75,000

  99,000

  Combustion of Low Volatile Coals in Wall Fired Plant—Phase 2

  —

  —

  —

  81,188

  78,240

  159,428

  Minimising Particulate Emissions through the Application of Neural Network Technology and Monitoring Systems

  —

  —

  —

  —

  118,000

  118,000

  Improved Methods for Coal and Waste Utilisation

  —

  —

  15,181

  —

  —

  15,181

  Former Cleaner Coal Programme

  Development of Coal-over-Coal Reburn

  62,680

  0

  0

  0

  0

  62,680

  The Fate of Trace Elements in PF Combustion Systems

  9,063

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9,063

  Improvement of Combustion Efficiency in Low-NOx Combustion Systems.

  0

  101

  0

  0

  0

  101

  Advanced Gas Turbine Compressor Project—Phase 3

  121,409

  0

  0

  0

  0

  121,409

  Model-based Plant Optimisation Utilising Trends from Operational Instrumentation

  14,833

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14,833

  Fabrication of Steels for Advanced Power Plant

  23,073

  24,942

  0

  9,450

  0

  57,465

  Gasifier Developments and the Air Blown Gasification Cycle

  3,068

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3,068

  Total projects (R&D)

  457,546

  822,220

  2,170,122

  943,948

  2,929,110

  7,322,946

  CC R&D Programme Accruals (£000)

  1655

  1677

  1979

  1081

  1168

  7560

  Former CC Programme Accruals (£000)

  234

  25

  0

  9

  0

  269

  Total Accruals R&D Projects

  1889

  1702

  1979

  1090

  1168

  7829

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights' budget will be spent on financial grants to supporting organisations; and what framework is in place to choose these organisations. [175152]

  Ms Hewitt
  Funding for the proposed Commission for Equality and Human Rights is still under discussion and is subject to the Government process for financial planning for the next three years.

  However, our White Paper, "Fairness for All" has given a commitment to maintain levels of grant funding for local equality work for the foreseeable future.

  The Commission will be subject to the same government accounting framework as other non-departmental public bodies, including those processes for making grants.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures will be taken to ensure effective liaison between existing advisers to small businesses and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. [175154]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will provide the opportunity to achieve the more joined-up approach to equality and human rights that business, and especially small business, has called for strongly.

  The White Paper, "Fairness for All", makes clear that it will be essential for the CEHR to respond to the specific needs of small businesses and liaise effectively with small business advisers. In developing these effective measures, the CEHR will consult and work closely with small business on all key areas of its work to recognise and address their specific needs.

  Evidence shows that small businesses' information needs are often different from those of large organisations, which centre on basic information on
  1676W
  compliance and legal obligations. Many small businesses prefer to seek this advice from their existing advisers.

  The CEHR's services will need to support these advisers and intermediaries and enable the provision of joined-up information that small business wants.

  The CEHR will respond to the preferred ways of working of small business. It will be expected to work with and through other existing bodies such as regional development agencies, the Small Business Service, business representative organisations and sector-based professional bodies.

  The Government will continue to express their strong commitment to ensuring liaison between existing small business advisers and the CEHR throughout the White Paper consultation period and beyond.

  We are especially grateful to Lorraine Gradwell of the Small Business Council for her work as a member of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights Task Force and her support for promoting the interests of small business.

  Convenience Market
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has had with independent and small retailers or their representatives to discuss the implications of consolidation in the convenience market. [175762]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the concerns of independent and small format retailers about consolidation in the convenience sector. However, the independent competition authorities are responsible under the Enterprise Act 2002 for decision-making in merger cases against an explicit competition test, and parties with concerns about the effects of mergers in this sector are encouraged to contact the Office of Fair Trading to put forward their views. Ministers have no role in this process, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not, therefore, met with those in the convenience sector to discuss any concerns.
  1677W

  Domestic Heating
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the annual cost of heating an average domestic property in Great Britain by(a) electricity, (b) solid fuel and (c) natural gas. [175856]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures on the cost of providing space and water heating in typical dwellings for Great Britain appear in "Salkent's Comparative Heating Costs" publication. The October 2003 edition of this shows costs as indicated in the table.

  Typical annual costs of space and water heating for a three bedroom semi-detached house

  Fuel type

  Annual cost (£)

  Electricity (Economy 7)

  625

  Solid fuel (Anthracite grains)

  566

  Gas (conventional boiler)

  463

  Liquefied Natural Gas
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reserve storage facilities for liquefied natural gas the Government have for use during emergency interruptions of gas supplies. [174714]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid Transco own and operate five LNG storage facilities. These are used, at the commercial judgment of NGT, to meet winter peaks in gas demand. The gas industry has emergency arrangements in place for managing a supply shortfall.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers have benefited from the national minimum wage in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. [175890]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.

  Oil and Gas Production
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the quarterly totals of(a) oil and (b) gas produced in the British sector of the North Sea were in the last 10 years. [175935]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on production of oil and gas from the UK and UK Continental Shelf over the last 10 years is set out as in the table. The Department publishes information on production on its website. Total quarterly production of oil from 1995 is at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/oil/3_10oilproduction-ettab13.xls and quarterly production of gas from 1996 at www.dti.gov.uk/energy_stats/gas/4_2gasproductionettabll.xls
  1678W

  UK production of oil and gas

  Quarter

  (a) Oil and Natural Gas Liquids (Million tonnes)

  (b) Gross gas (Gwh)

  1994

  1

  30,187

  255,201

  1994

  2

  30,825

  155,320

  1994

  3

  31,380

  118,951

  1994

  4

  34,150

  221,665

  1995

  1

  33,446

  274,685

  1995

  2

  29,596

  168,762

  1995

  3

  32,401

  125,591

  1995

  4

  34,451

  253,804

  1996

  1

  32,557

  318,349

  1996

  2

  31,260

  201,669

  1996

  3

  31,310

  159,895

  1996

  4

  34,523

  298,539

  1997

  1

  33,045

  314,124

  1997

  2

  29,320

  212,947

  1997

  3

  31,557

  176,785

  1997

  4

  34,045

  294,488

  1998

  1

  33,185

  308,503

  1998

  2

  31,735

  226,684

  1998

  3

  32,599

  188,236

  1998

  4

  34,974

  324,963

  1999

  1

  34,389

  342,857

  1999

  2

  33,061

  245,617

  1999

  3

  34,328

  215,756

  1999

  4

  35,321

  347,919

  2000

  1

  34,221

  376,669

  2000

  2

  30,803

  295,244

  2000

  3

  30,426

  242,910

  2000

  4

  30,587

  345,345

  2001

  1

  29,196

  362,755

  2001

  2

  28,339

  289,959

  2001

  3

  28,328

  248,206

  2001

  4

  30,814

  329,613

  2002

  1

  29,653

  333,547

  2002

  2

  29,531

  295,520

  2002

  3

  26,484

  235,677

  2002

  4

  30,276

  339,969

  2003

  1

  28,748

  350,858

  2003

  2

  25,849

  282,958

  2003

  3

  25,012

  244,189

  2003

  4

  26,478

  317,988

  Paid Leave
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood qualify for paid leave entitlement. [175887]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  All workers resident in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood qualify for paid annual leave entitlements; at least four weeks as set out in the Working Time Regulations. While all women are entitled to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave, only those who meet the eligibility criteria will be able to claim statutory maternity pay for that period.

  All employees in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood who are eligible will be entitled to take statutory paternity leave with pay and statutory adoption leave with pay.

  Post Office (Election Materials)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the ability of the Post Office to provide a satisfactory service for the delivery of election materials for the elections on 10 June. [175563]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail is fully aware of the importance of ensuring that it provides a reliable service during the pilot postal elections in June. This could affect just over 14 million people and DTI Ministers
  1679W
  have received assurances from Allan Leighton that Royal Mail will be giving the handling of the ballot papers the highest priority.

  The Department of Constitutional Affairs, which is overseeing the elections, has had several meeting with Royal Mail to discuss the development of national and detailed local plans for the all-postal pilot elections. It has ensured that there are robust plans in place for the delivery and return of electoral mail in June.

  The Department of Constitutional Affairs project team will monitor Royal Mail's performance in the run up and during the election period and are in regular contact with Royal Mail to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed by the(a) Commission for Racial Equality, (b) Equal Opportunities Commission and (c) Disability Rights Commission. [174705]

  Ms Hewitt
  The full-time equivalent staff complement for the commissions is:

  Number

  Commission for Racial Equality

  187

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  139

  Disability Rights Commission

  192

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current annual budget is of the(a) Commission for Racial Equality, (b) Equal Opportunities Commission and (c) Disability Rights Commission. [174702]

  Ms Hewitt
  The budgets for the commissions for 2004–05 are:

  Commission for Racial Equality—£20,085,000

  Equal Opportunities Commission—£8,255,000

  Disability Rights Commission—£15,497,000.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the regional development agencies have established a science council; and what the annual budget for 2004–05 is of each. [174696]

  Jacqui Smith
  Regional Science Councils—or equivalent bodies—have been established in the North West, the North East, the South East and London. All of the RDAs have agreed to have a council in place by the end of 2004. Although subject to local variations, the Science Councils are generally tasked with exerting influence through the strategic direction of SET funding within their region, rather than holding specific budgets.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the research and development spending per capita in each UK region in each of the last six years. [174695]
  1680W
  Jacqui Smith
  Spending on research and development is tracked regionally through a series of ONS surveys of private business, central Government and higher education establishments. Figures on research and development spending per capita in each UK region in each of the last six years is on the following table.

  £s spent on research and development per head of resident population1

  Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  North East

  118

  110

  112

  110

  115

  105

  North West

  218

  218

  224

  266

  267

  281

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  112

  109

  113

  126

  129

  134

  East Midlands

  225

  225

  239

  259

  287

  297

  West Midlands

  184

  188

  201

  208

  183

  177

  Eastern

  496

  540

  534

  573

  622

  659

  London

  245

  231

  233

  255

  277

  268

  South East

  425

  440

  463

  509

  516

  548

  South West

  229

  237

  282

  274

  272

  295

  England

  267

  273

  285

  309

  319

  331

  Wales

  85

  89

  100

  134

  120

  117

  Scotland

  160

  160

  184

  204

  213

  246

  Northern Ireland

  97

  87

  89

  105

  133

  141

  1Population as at mid-year 2002.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money(a) the Government, (b) the private sector and (c) higher education establishments has spent on research and development in each region of the UK in each of the last six years. [174699]

  Jacqui Smith
  Spending on research and development is tracked regionally through a series of ONS surveys of private business, central government and higher education establishments. Figures available for the last six years are provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

  Table 1: Estimated Government Office Region breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R&D performed within Government establishments 1997 to 2002

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  2,018

  2,079

  2,072

  2,134

  1,829

  1,750

  North East

  17

  3

  2

  2

  4

  6

  North West and Merseyside

  88

  58

  56

  57

  66

  67

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  55

  31

  46

  48

  50

  63

  East Midlands

  69

  51

  56

  56

  68

  65

  West Midlands

  185

  182

  191

  196

  65

  50

  Eastern

  250

  256

  247

  259

  277

  286

  London

  205

  203

  230

  258

  238

  234

  South East

  685

  700

  645

  635

  515

  459

  South West

  257

  330

  300

  307

  254

  225

  England

  1,811

  1,814

  1,771

  1,816

  1,537

  1,455

  Wales

  33

  51

  55

  65

  49

  42

  Scotland

  163

  201

  232

  238

  226

  238

  Northern Ireland

  12

  12

  14

  15

  16

  15

  Table 2: Estimated Government Office Region breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R&D in the business sector 1997 to 2002

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  9,556

  10,133

  11,302

  11,510

  12,336

  13,110

  North East

  162

  178

  164

  164

  119

  128

  North West and Merseyside

  1,157

  1,216

  1,476

  1,451

  1,512

  1,661

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  255

  287

  309

  304

  298

  357

  East Midlands

  708

  775

  838

  933

  951

  1,063

  West Midlands

  647

  708

  724

  576

  662

  695

  Eastern

  2,381

  2,367

  2,559

  2,758

  2,916

  2,741

  1681W

  Table 2: Estimated Government Office Region breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R&the business sector 1997 to 2002

  £ million

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  London

  667

  643

  735

  810

  738

  950

  South East

  2,335

  2,497

  2,916

  2,964

  3,317

  3,268

  South West

  758

  898

  887

  867

  1,025

  1,274

  England

  9,071

  9,569

  10,607

  10,827

  11,538

  12,138

  Wales

  113

  125

  203

  144

  136

  182

  Scotland

  291

  358

  393

  400

  512

  640

  Northern Ireland

  81

  81

  99

  139

  150

  149

  Table 3: Estimated Government Office Region breakdown of expenditure on Intramural R& performed within higher education institutes 1996 to 2001

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  United Kingdom

  2,792

  2,893

  3,040

  3,324

  3,648

  4,034

  North East

  95

  101

  105

  112

  123

  142

  North West and Merseyside

  227

  228

  238

  259

  289

  322

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  216

  229

  241

  269

  285

  317

  East Midlands

  146

  151

  159

  181

  205

  224

  West Midlands

  154

  156

  167

  179

  193

  207

  Eastern

  203

  214

  211

  253

  325

  366

  London

  700

  730

  775

  833

  899

  979

  South East

  416

  434

  460

  491

  518

  562

  South West

  124

  129

  138

  147

  160

  178

  England

  2,282

  2,374

  2,494

  2,723

  2,996

  3,296

  Wales

  105

  111

  113

  129

  139

  155

  Scotland

  348

  357

  375

  408

  442

  510

  Northern Ireland

  57

  52

  57

  64

  70

  73

  Note:

  2002 statistics are not yet available.

  Research and Development Grants
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on steps she has taken to encourage small businesses to take up research and development grants in the United Kingdom. [174065]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Following the review of its business support the Department introduced Grant for Research and Development in England in June 2003 to build upon the success of the popular Smart scheme. For each category of grant the maximum amount available was increased in the transition to the new product. In the year April 2003 to March 2004 over 900 individuals and small and medium sized businesses were offered grants to help with the costs of researching and developing new, technologically innovative products and processes. The popularity of the grants has increased in each of the last three.

  We have also made it easier for businesses to access all DTI business support. We have replaced the confusing array of schemes with a small suite of products, produced clear marketing brochures including one on succeeding through innovation, put in place the Business Support Directory to help customers identify the most appropriate forms of support and are building the Business Link brand to enhance its position as an easy to use gateway to useful information, analysis, advice and support.

  The Scottish Executive, Welsh Development Agency and Invest Northern Ireland are responsible for their own Smart and Spur schemes.
  1682W

  Aluminium
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the energy consumption is per unit of aluminium produced from(a) raw materials and (b) scrap. [174976]

  Jacqui Smith
  According to the Aluminium Federation, primary production in the UK uses about 14,500 kWh/tonne to electrolyse the alumina into molten primary aluminium. Recycling requires approximately 780 kWh/tonne, including all of the energy required to pre-process the low grade scraps prior to melting.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the price of scrap aluminium per tonne is; and what the average price was in 1997. [174978]

  Jacqui Smith
  "Metal Bulletin" quotes low and high prices, representing an evaluation of the market at the time that particular issue of "Metal Bulletin" goes to press. Monthly averages are not published. UK market prices are published for many different categories of aluminium scarp and ingot foundries. Data for three examples are shown below. Prices in 1997 generally exceeded the May 2004 level, except at the very start of the year.

  £ per tonne (low and high prices)

  Product

  8 January 1997

  30 December 1997

  19 May 2004

  Aluminium Scrap and Foundry Ingots:

  United Kingdom market

  Commercial cast

  595–605

  670–690

  635–670

  Group I Litho (baled)

  785–805

  875–895

  800–830

  Mixed alloy/Old Rolled cuttings

  575–595

  675–695

  595–615

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are taken to ensure that scrap aluminium exported from the UK is sent to Integrated Pollution Preventative and Control Directive Approved processing plants. [175427]

  Mr. Timms
  As a member of the European Community, the United Kingdom is not able to take unilateral action on trade matters. Decisions which impact on or affect the European Community's commercial policy are taken collectively by the European Commission and member states working closely together. There are no plans at present for the Commission to introduce proposals which would restrict the export of aluminium scrap to processing plants that meet certain standards of environmental performance. Any such measures would have to be compatible with WTO rules.

  Spending Review 2002 Targets
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made towards meeting the Spending Review 2002 targets(a) to increase the number of people considering going into business and (b) to improve the overall productivity of small firms. [174713]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in
  1683W
  England and Wales in the last quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before.

  Data from the Office for National Statistics' Annual Business Inquiry shows that during the period 1999 to 2001, the productivity (gross value added per employee) of small firms (those with fewer than 250 employees) has risen at a faster rate every year than the productivity of all firms in the UK. In 1999, SMEs were 93 per cent. as productive as large firms, and by 2001, they were 96 per cent. as productive. The latest figures show that SMEs' productivity increased by 5.9 per cent. (basic prices) between 2000 and 2001, while all firms' productivity increased by 4.5 per cent. (basic prices).

  Progress against the targets set in 2002 was published on 28 April 2004 in the 2004 DTI Departmental Report.

  Unfair Commercial Practice Directive
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress was made at the Competitiveness Council held on 17 to 18 May on the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive and the Irish Presidency's proposal to delete the Internal Market Clause. [R] [175821]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Competitiveness Council on 17 to 18 May reached political agreement to a common position on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive based on a compromise package from the Irish Presidency, the main element of which was the deletion of Article 4(1) and the "country of origin" principle. The Commission stressed that this was only acceptable in the light of the full harmonisation which the Directive would provide, and tabled a minutes statement to this effect. The United Kingdom, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Estonia also tabled a joint minutes statement expressing their regret at the deletion of Article 4(1) and noting that traders who comply with the laws in the member state where they are established should ordinarily be presumed not to be in breach of the laws in other member states.

  The Government welcome the Directive which will be a major enhancement of the UK's consumer protection regime by plugging gaps in the existing legal framework that unscrupulous traders exploit, and by setting standards against which new practices will automatically be judged. It will make an important contribution to achieving my Department's Public Service Agreement Target
  "to have a consumer protection regime that is among the best in the world by 2006".

  Victor Bout
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations her Department has carried out into the activities of Victor Bout. [175582]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs is responsible for investigating any suspected breaches of UN sanctions in the UK, or by UK persons overseas, involving exports or certain brokering activities.
  1684W
  It is not Customs policy to comment on the existence or nature of any such investigations, but Customs notes that recent media reports concerning Mr. Bout do not refer to any matters that would fall to be investigated by them.

  Wind Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the(a) energy and (b) carbon costs of wind farms including (i) the concrete content of foundations, (ii) losses in transmission and (iii) infrastructure such as access roads. [174802]

  Mr. Timms
  While there are some carbon emissions associated with the construction of wind farms and their associated infrastructure these are very small compared to the carbon emissions saved by the wind farm over its lifetime of operation. Wind Energy Fact Sheet 14, which can be found on the DTI website (www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/publications/pdfs/windfs14.pdf) provides further information on the life cycle emissions from wind farms relative to fossil fuel electricity generating technologies.

  In relation to transmission losses, these will affect all forms of electricity generation in a similar manner related to the distance transferred, type of power cable transferred through etc. Overall losses in the England and Wales transmission system are approximately 1.5 per cent. but no estimate has been made of what proportion of this energy loss is attributable to wind energy.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how the Government's energy policy takes account of the problems of grid security and stability caused by large-scale remote wind generation; [174803]

  (2) how the Government's energy policy of large-scale wind farm development, particularly in remote parts of the UK, will affect the risks of large-scale electricity blackouts in the UK. [174806]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 6 February 2004,Official Report, column 1098W.

  Large-scale blackouts are very rare events in the UK. For example, in England and Wales, the amount of energy not supplied by NGT due to transmission failures over the last 12 years is an extremely small proportion to total system throughput, averaging less than 0.0001 per cent. This compares very favourably with other transmission network operators.

  The Government are working closely with the electricity industry to ensure that all necessary reinforcements required by the integration of renewable generation will be completed expeditiously. In addition, the industry is working to ensure that wind and other renewable generation connection to the system in future will have the characteristics necessary to maintain the integrity of the electricity networks. The Government in conjunction with the electricity industry, are also exploring possible means of further mitigating the effects of intermittency and unpredictability, for example by the application of additional electricity

  1685W
  storage. DTI and Ofgem will continue to monitor electricity security issues through the Joint Electricity Security of Supply working group.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miles of new power lines will be needed in(a) Yorkshire and (b) other parts of England to accommodate the grid development identified by Ofgem as necessary to implement the Government's energy policy for wind farms. [174805]

  Mr. Timms
  The plan for remodelling the transmission grid to accommodate new renewable energy generation is currently being prepared by National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Electricity.

  (a) There are no planned upgrades of the transmission system required in Yorkshire.

  (b) For the rest of England there will be a need to upgrade transmission lines but the final plans have not been presented.

  Ofgem have now issued their second consultation on how to fund the costs of upgrades and the first of the transmission developments required to facilitate the delivery of our renewables targets, a new transmission line from Beauly to Denny in Scotland, is currently the subject of a pre-statutory consultation by Scottish and Southern. They hope to submit an application for section 37 consent this autumn.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the extent to which impartial advice and guidance about learning and work is available to adults over 19 in England. [175846]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Impartial advice about learning and work is available free of charge to all adults in England aged 20 and over through the learndirect telephone helpline and website, and through the local Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) Partnerships managed by the Learning and Skills Council. Advice involves helping individuals to access and interpret information taking into account their personal needs and circumstances. Guidance, which involves helping clients to explore their options in greater depth, is not universally available free of charge. However, universities and colleges have careers services offering impartial information, advice and guidance to their students, and there are many private career consultancy firms providing guidance commercially for those people who are able and willing to pay for it.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he plans to ensure that in all 47 learning and skills council local areas adults over 19 seeking a career change or a skills update will be able to access impartial advice and guidance informed by the changing labour markets. [175847]
  1686W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In December 2003, the Department for Education and Skills published The National Policy Framework and Action Plan for Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) for Adults. This set out a core range of information and advice services to be made available free of charge to all adults aged 20 and over. They include access for individuals to information and advice informed by labour market trends at national, regional and local levels. Individuals will access these services through an integrated IAG service linking the learndirect telephone helpline and website with the local Information, Advice and Guidance Partnerships. The integrated IAG service will be launched in August 2004.

  BACS
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress his Department has made to manage the changeover from the Bank Automated Clearing System to the new BACSTEL-IP system for electronic payments. [164316]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills recognise that we must upgrade to BACSTEL-IP well before the December 2005 deadline. We are in the process of upgrading our central finance system, with an expected "go live" date of 5 July 2004. The BACSTEL-IP upgrade was excluded from the scope of that project as we did not want to introduce unnecessary additional risk. It will, however, be taken forward with Barron McCann (our current BACS software provider) as a priority upgrade towards the end of this calendar year.

  Education Building Development Conference
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library the presentation made by Mr. Robert Osborne at the Conference for the Education Building Development Officer Group in 2003. [173137]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: Copies of the presentation made by Mr. Robert Osborne at the Conference for the Education Building Development Officer Group in 2003 have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Further Education
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time places there were for 16 to 19-year-olds in London further education colleges in each of the past five years. [175208]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of available places in Greater London further education colleges is not held centrally. Information on learners is held centrally however, though only for 16 and 17year-olds.

  The numbers of 16 and 17-year-old learners in further education colleges, living in London, from end 1997 to end 2001 (the latest available year) are given in Table 1. The numbers shown in the table are snapshot information as at the end of the calendar years.
  1687W

  Table 1

  Greater London

  End 1997

  End 1998

  End 1999

  End 2000

  End 2001

  Full-time education

  Sixth form colleges

  12,400

  12,500

  13,200

  13,300

  13,600

  Other further education colleges1

  41,200

  40,600

  40,100

  40,700

  41,800

  Part-time education

  Sixth form colleges

  200

  200

  200

  200

  300

  Other further education colleges

  8,000

  7,600

  7,900

  7,800

  7,500

  1 These figures include those participating in government supported work-based learning (WBL).

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in(a) Taunton and (b) Somerset he expects to stay on in education as a result of the introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance. [175621]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We estimate there will be about 2,800 extra 16-year-olds in the South West Region in further education this September who would not be participating without EMA. We are unable to provide forecasts of the number of EMA students down to constituency level.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of people in Ryedale that he expects to remain in full-time education as a result of the introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance. [175817]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We estimate there will be about 2,800 extra 16-year-olds in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region in further education this September who would not be participating without EMA. We are unable to provide forecasts of the number of EMA students down to constituency level.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will bring levels of funding for 16 to 19-year-old students at further education colleges in North Yorkshire up to the level of funding for such students at schools in the county. [175815]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have set out their investment plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 to support their Success for All strategy to reform further education and training. These plans enable the Learning and Skills Council to increase funding for further education significantly. For the academic year 2003/04, core funding rates per qualification increased by 3 per cent. for school sixth forms and 4.5 per cent. for further education colleges (setting aside the impact on rates of changes to targeted funds for pay and staff training and teachers' pension funding). Our expenditure plans to 2005–06 should see that trend continue.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will provide extra funding to further education colleges in North Yorkshire to support increases in student numbers resulting from the introduction of the Education Maintenance Allowance. [175816]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The LSC decides on allocations at individual college and regional level. Information about these allocations is not collected by the Department. This is a matter for the 1688W
  LSC. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide funding to further education colleges in North Yorkshire to help them to refurbish and rebuild college buildings. [175818]

  Alan Johnson
  All of the Department's post-16 learning and skills sector capital investment is allocated to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for rebuilding and refurbishing property in further education colleges at either the local or regional levels. It is for the LSC to determine for itself the right level of capital investment in further education colleges. Mr. Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  School Access Fund
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the School Access Fund was spent on improving(a) physical access to school buildings and (b) access to the curriculum in the most recent year for which figures are available. [175237]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: This information is not collected centrally. It is for local education authorities to decide which of the capital projects proposed by their schools should be supported in the light of local needs and circumstances detailed in their Accessibility Strategy.

  Local authorities' accessibility strategies and schools plans should cover all three strands of the planning duties they have under part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995: to improve the physical environment of the school; increase the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the school curriculum and improve the delivery of information to disabled pupils. Local authorities have a duty to make their strategies available for inspection to interested parties at reasonable times and maintained schools also have a duty to publish their accessibility plans in their governor's report to parents.

  When Ofsted inspects schools, they report on how well they include all pupils within the school and how well they carry out their statutory duties, including accessibility planning under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been issued to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools on the use of the School Access Fund. [175238]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Guidance has been issued to local education authorities to indicate the scope of the capital projects they should support to improve the accessibility of the mainstream schools for disabled pupils. Information on the Schools Access Initiative, including the guidance, is also available on our website www.teachetnet.gov.uk/accessibleschools.
  1689W
  It is for local education authorities to determine how they will allocate the funding made available to them in the light of local needs and circumstances detailed in their Accessibility Strategy and make that information available to the schools they ate responsible for.

  As part of the implementation of the SEN Strategy: Removing Barriers to Achievement, the Department is developing a self-review and development tool to help local authorities review their accessibility strategies in partnership with pupils, parents and schools and identify ways of further improving the quality of their planning and significantly increasing access to education for disabled pupils.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the most appropriate size of a secondary school to deliver an acceptable level of subject choice to pupils; and what guidance he has issued to local education authorities on this. [174565]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not prescribe an appropriate size of secondary school to deliver an acceptable level of subject choice to pupils, and we have not issued any guidance to local education authorities on this. What is important is that secondary schools provide a high quality, broad and balanced curriculum as set out in sections 78 to 96 of the Education Act 2002. Schools can collaborate with other schools and colleges to broaden the range of options available to their pupils.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answers of 1 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1549–50W, to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, if he will list (a) for each higher education institution and (b) in total (i) the number of students who were UK nationals, (ii) the number of non-EU students and (iii) the number of EU students from countries other than the United Kingdom; if he will list for each total the (A) aggregate fee-income and (B) average fee-income per student; and what the (1) aggregate fee-income foregone and (2) average fee-income per student foregone was (y) at cost to the institution and (z) at cost to the public purse through treating EU students from outside the UK in the same way as students from the UK. [171206]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: It is not possible to calculate what the change in income to higher education institutions would be if EU students ceased to be treated in the same way as UK students for fees and funding purposes. This is because the change in income will depend on the courses that these students are following and institutions' decisions about the fee levels for those courses. Fees for non-EU overseas students are not regulated and institutions determine the amount they charge depending, for example, on the costs of the course offered. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides funding for EU students but not for non-EU overseas students. The amount paid by HEFCE will also depend on the type of course the student is taking. Information for each HE institution showing student numbers and fee income received is published by the Higher
  1690W
  Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in "Students in Higher Education Institutions and Resources of Higher Education Institutions" respectively, copies of which are available from the House Library.

  Teachers
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have retired over the last four years. [174845]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been published in table 40 of the School Workforce in England volume, 2003 edition. A copy of this has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The volume can also be accessed from the following URL: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000443/index.shtml

  Test and Examination Costs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the initial total cost was, including production, printing, marking and moderation of(a) KS1 SATS, (b) KS2 SATS, (c) KS3 SATS, (d) GCSE, (e) AS, (f) A Level and (g) A2 for all schools for 2002–03. [175404]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: The breakdown of expenditure for the Key Stage 1,2 and 3 National Curriculum tests (commonly referred to as SATS) for all schools for 2002–03 are shown in the table.

  £million

  Area of work

  KS1

  KS2

  KS3

  Test development, pre-testing and level setting

  0.6

  1.35

  1.5

  Paper and printing

  0.5

  0.75

  1

  Test distribution

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  Marking

  —

  9.4

  9

  Data collection

  —

  0.9

  0.9

  Total

  1.6

  13

  13

  Notes:

  1. Key Stage 1 tests are marked and moderated locally and so the figures arc unavailable for that expenditure.

  2. Moderation at Key Stage 2 and 3 is involved in the marking costs—it is not possible to disaggregate the figure.

  3. The figure for marking at Key Stage 2 is higher than Key Stage 3 as there are approximately 5 per cent. more pupils.

  4. The figures relate to the test cycle and not a financial year.

  As part of the work to modernise the examinations systems, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November 2003, Official Report, column 25WS, we are seeking to improve our understanding of costs of the examinations system. Work to estimate the total costs incurred by the awarding bodies, rather than simply the fees they charge, shows that they spend a total of some £280 million a year on general examinations (principally GCSEs and GCEs) taken by students in schools and colleges in England.

DEFENCE

  Air-Sea Rescue Service
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the UK Air-Sea Rescue Service. [171736]
  1691W
  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom Search and Rescue services will continue to be provided by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Sea King helicopters (alongside the Maritime Coastguard Agency) until the Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft Search and Rescue enters service.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and performance of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. [173936]

  Mr. Ingram
  The role of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) is to provide economic and statistical information, analysis and advice to the Ministry of Defence and to provide Parliament, other Government Departments and the public with defence-related statistics and analytical information.

  DASA's main products and services are:
  defence National Statistics (available at www.dasa.mod.uk);
  statistics, analysis and interpretation on a wide range of defence activity for use within MOD (personnel, financial, logistics, commercial, health, and equipment);
  forecasting to support the Department's financial and personnel planning appraisal and evaluation policy, scrutiny and advice to support the Department's investment decisions;
  and consultancy services, advice and research including modelling, economic and statistical analyses, surveys and problem solving.

  More detail about DASA can be found on its website.

  In 2003–04 DASA met seven out of its eight key targets. In addition, DASA met the work-life balance standard (a key target carried over from 2002–03) and won the National Council for Work Experience award in the public sector category for the quality of the placements it offers to students. Further information on DASA's performance will be contained in DASA's Annual Report and Accounts which are due to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

  Defence Scientific and Technology Laboratory
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Defence Scientific and Technology Laboratory plans to increase its revenue from sources other than Government departments. [169389]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Scientific and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) currently has no plans for increasing the revenue it receives from sources outside the public sector, except in the area of IPR exploitation, where it generates revenue through the setting up of joint ventures and the licensing of IPR from defence technology. In this role, Dstl, as a Public Sector Research Establishment, complies with the recommendations of the Baker Report in that it takes opportunities to protect, license and otherwise exploit the IPR generated from public funds for the wider benefit of the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Executive Agencies
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the(a) operating cost statement, (b) statement of recognised gains and losses,
  1692W
  (c) balance sheet, (d) cash flow statement and (e) fixed assets register for financial year 1997–98 for the (i) Defence Dental Agency, (ii) Defence Estate Organisation, (iii) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (iv) Defence Vetting Agency and (v) RAF Logistic Support Services; [172119]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the (a) operating cost statement, (b) statement of recognised gains and losses, (c) balance sheet, (d) cash flow statement and (e) fixed assets register for (i) RAF Logistic Support Services for financial year 1999–2000 and (ii) the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for the period April to October 2000. [172120]

  Mr. Ingram
  No accounts were published in financial year 1997–98 by the Defence Estate Organisation, the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, the Defence Vetting Agency and RAF Logistic Support Services. No accounts were published in financial year 1999–2000 by RAF Logistic Support Services as the organisation ceased to be an agency on 31 March 2000. For that year, no accounts direction was given by HM Treasury and accordingly the agency did not produce a set of annual report and accounts. In respect of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency no accounts were produced for the period April to October 2000 or for the year 2000–01 as the organisation ceased to be an agency on 1 October 2000. An operating cost statement, statement of recognised gains and losses, balance sheet and cash flow statement are thus not available.

  For the Defence Dental Agency, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 19 November 2003, Official Report, column 961W.

  Fixed Asset Registers could be published only at disproportionate cost in view of the substantial volume of MOD assets.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) resource provision and (b) outturn for his Department's executive agencies was for financial years (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2001–02 and (iv) 2002–03. [172121]

  Mr. Ingram
  For financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) (reference: D/Min(AF)A1 4656/04C of 30 March 2004) copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This provides the "resource outturn" (net operating cost after interest in the Operating Cost Statement) for all agencies which are also Management Groupings or Top Level Budgets. Agency net operating costs may otherwise be found in the Operating Cost Statement of their Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Technical differences in the way in which agency and consolidated departmental accounts must be prepared may result in a variance between the net operating costs figure shown in agency accounts and that shown in the equivalent consolidated departmental breakdown.

  I will write to the hon. Member to provide the corresponding information for financial year 2002–03 and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  1693W
  I am unable to provide resource provision below Top Level Budget. The setting of budgets below this level is for internal management control purposes only as lower-level budgets may be redistributed over the financial year to take account of in-year cost pressures or programme changes.

  Interrogation Techniques
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) to outlaw the use of the five techniques of interrogation found to be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention. [174550]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1978 the Government's presentation to the European Court of Human Rights set out that the then Prime Minister had declared on 2 March 1972,Official Report, columns 743–44, that "the techniques…will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation" and that directives expressly prohibiting the use of the techniques for interrogation, whether singly or in combination, had been issued in April 1972. The Government also gave the Court an unqualified undertaking that the techniques of hooding, wall standing, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, and white noise would not in an any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.

  Given that the necessary directives had been issued in April 1972, no further steps were deemed necessary following the Court's judgment.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role was played by the(a) SAS and (b) SBS in restoring stability to Fallujah. [175048]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 663W, on Iraq, if he will give the cause of death entered on the death certificates of the 16 individuals whose deaths involved alleged ill treatment by members of UK armed forces. [175750]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: Of the 16 cases involving alleged ill treatment of Iraqi civilians by United Kingdom armed forces, 10 resulted in the death of a civilian. As the cases are still under investigation, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discovery of a shell filled with sarin nerve agent in Iraq by United States forces. [175200]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 15 May 2004, an improvised explosive device, discovered by United States forces, was found to be an artillery shell probably containing the nerve agent sarin. Two members of US forces suffered symptoms consistent with nerve agent poisoning and initial tests revealed the presence of sarin. Additional testing will now be performed outside Iraq.
  1694W
  It is not clear whether the maker of the device knew that it contained nerve agent or whether the shell was being used for its explosive properties.

  Marchwood Military Port
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on Marchwood Military Port of the decision to reject the proposed new container terminal at Dibden Bay. [175060]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Sea Mounting Centre, Marchwood Military Port (MMP) is unaffected by the decision to reject the proposed new container terminal at Dibden Bay. It will continue to undertake its essential role in the operational deployment of the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) as well as the regular and more routine movements of ammunition.

  The Ministry of Defence will continue to consult with Associated British Ports (ABP) and evaluate any future proposals for the development of the Dibden Bay site.

  Merlin Helicopters
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy Merlin helicopters have been involved in accidents which were(a) insufficient and (b) sufficient to put them out of service. [174865]

  Mr. Ingram
  Merlin helicopters have been involved in two accidents, both of which were sufficient to put the aircraft out of service. Merlin flights have been halted pending further investigations.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the lessons learned from the accident investigations and other inquiries into(a) operational failures, (b) accidents and (c) equipment malfunctions of the Royal Navy Merlin helicopter. [174866]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the Merlin accident at RNAS Culdrose on 30 March 2004, a Service Board of Inquiry and a technical investigation by the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Air Accident Investigation Centre have been commissioned. Neither has yet reported. The Military Air Accident Summary for the Merlin crash near the Kyle of Lochalsh on 29 October 2000 was placed in the Library of the House in June 2002.

  Non-human Primates
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 539W, on experiments on non-human primates, if he will list the primate type and number of primates used in each experiment; when each experiment was conducted; and what was done with the primates on the completion of each experiment. [175145]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2001, Dstl Porton Down used eight Rhesus Macques to help assess the effects and significance of human exposure to nerve agents.
  1695W
  Additionally, other studies that did not involve testing the effects of weapons have been conducted with non-human primates. The following table lists all of the studies undertaken at Dstl Porton Down which have involved the use of non-human primates. These studies

  Study

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Effects and significance of exposure to nerve agents

  8 Rhesus

  —

  —

  Gulf War vaccine interactions programme

  54 Marmosets

  4 Marmosets

  —

  Development of medical countermeasures

  —

  12 Rhesus

  7 Marmosets

  6 Marmosets

  Provision of blood/tissue samples for in-vitro studies.

  2 Rhesus

  10 Rhesus

  11 Rhesus

  4 Marmosets

  10 Marmosets

  5 Marmosets

  The majority of the animals were killed humanely at the completion of the studies using Schedule 1 procedures in accordance with the Home Office guidelines. The remainder of animals from which only small blood samples had been taken were returned to their respective breeding colonies. The numbers of procedures involving non-human primates are included in the Dstl annual return to the Home Office.

  Osama Bin Laden
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. [174519]

  MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received a number of reports concerning Osama bin Laden. It is the practice of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters. The Security and Intelligence Agencies are outside the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Paragraph 6, Part I). However we and our partners in the campaign against international terrorism will continue to use all means at our disposal to bring Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders to justice.

  Qinetiq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the balance of benefits and detriments arising from the sale of QinetiQ. [173858]

  Mr. Ingram
  In February 2003, the Ministry of Defence sold a minority equity interest in QinetiQ to the Carlyle Group as a first step towards preparing the company for a future flotation on the stock market. QinetiQ's Annual Report and Accounts, due to be published in the next few months, will set out the performance of the company in its first full year under these arrangements. The Ministry of Defence as both owner and principal customer of QinetiQ has benefited from the investment of private sector resource in the company which this public private partnership has enabled.

  Sarin Nerve Agent
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom retains quantities of sarin nerve agent for use in prophylactic research purposes. [175176]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of any toxic chemical except for permitted purposes. The United Kingdom, as a state 1696W
  form an integral part of the overall research programme to provide the UK and its armed forces with safe and effective protection in the event of chemical or biological weapons being used and are conducted under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  party to this Convention, is permitted to hold an aggregate of up to one tonne of Schedule 1 chemicals (those that pose the highest risk to the Convention) at any one time, for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes.

  As part of this holding, the UK does possess an amount of the chemical sarin, which is used for protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons, and for research purposes.

  Typhoon Programme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent to date by the United Kingdom on the Typhoon programme, including the Experimental Aircraft Programme; and what expenditure is planned in each of the next 10 years, in cash terms. [175342]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence spend on Typhoon up to 31 March 2004 is some £9 billion. This excludes expenditure on the Experimental Aircraft Programme (EAP), which was a precursor to the Eurofighter programme. These costs are not readily available and I will therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Funding is allocated for in-year expenditure only. Provision for future years' expenditure is made in the annually revised Equipment Plan. In the case of Typhoon, the allocation for equipment acquisition for 2004–05 is £783 million.

  UN Operations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received on the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the United States coalition forces began their attack on Falluja this month. [167610]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am aware of a number of organisations who have published their estimates of the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed since coalition operations began.

  There is no reliable means of accurately ascertaining numbers of civilian fatalities. It is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities have occurred, as Iraqi injured or dead are sometimes removed from the scene of incidents by their compatriots. The Coalition always

  1697W
  takes great care to minimise the risks to civilians. However, I cannot comment in detail as Fallujah is in the United States' area of operations.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans to the number of British Forces in Iraq following the handover of power on 30 June 2004. [169387]

  Mr. Hoon
  We always keep the size and composition of forces in Iraq under close review. Along with our coalition partners we continue to consider the levels and dispositions of forces that may be appropriate for the period following 30 June. If any decision is taken significantly to alter the British military contribution I will inform the House in the normal way at the earliest opportunity.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women Iraqi prisoners were being held by UK military forces in Iraq on 10 May. [174355]

  Mr. Ingram
  Data on the number of detainees held by UK forces in Iraq is reported to the Permanent Joint Headquarters three times a week. The Ministry of Defence does not have a figure for the number of detainees held on 10 May 2004. We do have a figure for 11 May 2004 when UK forces held 118 internees. All were male.

HEALTH

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase his Department's budget allocation to genetic research into the causes of Alzheimer's in the current financial year; [173265]

  (2) what percentage of his Department's budget has been allocated to genetic research into the causes of Alzheimer's in each year since 2000. [173268]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the United Kingdom and receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. Available figures since 2000 for MRC spend on research into the genetic causes of Alzheimer's disease are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Research into the genetic causes of Alzheimer's disease

  Total expenditure

  2002–03

  1.8

  430

  2001–02

  1.6

  418

  2000–01

  0.8

  370

  Source:

  Medical Research Council

  The MRC does not allocate funds to particular topics. Research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available and awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  Ashford Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the deadline is for concluding contractual 1698W
  negotiations with Capio for the creation of an independent sector treatment centre at Ashford hospital, Middlesex. [175546]

  Mr. Hutton
  An initial contract was agreed with Capio UK on 13 May for the group of independent sector treatment centres called "the spine chain". However, because of a number of technical issues it was agreed with national health service sponsors and the strategic health authority that, to avoid delay for the majority of the chain, West Surrey would not be included in that contract. It has been agreed that a further period of up to 120 days will be allowed to enable the contract discussions to reach conclusion. We are hopeful of agreement within that period, and that if reached quickly, it shall not have an impact on the opening date of the treatment centre at Ashford, which is still expected to open by April 2005.

  Bowel Cancer Screening
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reduce the waiting time from four to two weeks for bowel cancer screening for symptomatic patients, as recommended in the pilot report of the first bowel cancer screening programme. [173835]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The final report of the evaluation of first phase of the United Kingdom colorectal cancer screening pilot, published in May 2003, stated that, ideally, waiting times for symptomatic patients should be reduced to two to four weeks before commencement of screening. This, along with other recommendations of the report, is being taken into account as we develop a national screening programme for bowel cancer and improve symptomatic services as part of the national health service bowel cancer programme.

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop a breastfeeding strategy. [174623]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government do not currently have any plans to develop a breastfeeding strategy. We have a commitment in the NHS Plan to increase support for breastfeeding and we have set a target in the Priorities and Planning Framework (2003–06) to increase breastfeeding initiation rates by two percentage points, focusing particularly on women from disadvantaged groups. The Commission for Health Improvement has set an indicator, which will look at progress towards meeting the target.

  Bronzefield Prison
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected cost is to the North Surrey Primary Care Trust of providing health services to Bronzefield Prison, Ashford, Middlesex during 2004–05; and what additional funds are being made available. [175549]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  When Her Majesty's Prison Bronzefield opens in June 2004, primary health care will be provided by the contractors, UKDS.
  1699W
  Within the framework set out in the NHS Plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, decisions about funding for local health services are made by primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders.

  Clinical Trials
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the parameters used for clinical trials. [172793]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's policy is to foster scientific innovation and strengthen the evidence base for modern health care in partnership with universities, charities and industry. High quality clinical trials are an important means of testing pharmaceutical and other innovations. Through the new clinical research collaboration announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in March, the Government aim to increase opportunities for people to take part in clinical research. There is now a legal framework across the European Union to ensure that clinical trials with medicines are conducted to internationally agreed principles and standards of safety.

  The randomised controlled trial is one of a range of research techniques that generate benefits for patients and users of health and social care. As a research funder the Department takes independent expert advice on the design and methods that are most appropriate for a particular question. Accordingly, research supported by the Department has covered the full range of qualitative and quantitative, randomised and non-randomised research methodologies.

  The national health service research and development methodology programme promotes the identification, development and use of appropriate research methods so that health and social care can be built on the best possible evidence base. Publications from this programme have included reports on the following areas of particular relevance to the question:
  Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003).
  Can randomised trials rely on existing electronic data? A feasibility study to explore the value of routine data in health technology assessment (2003).
  Using routine data to complement and enhance the results of randomised controlled trials (2000).

  Number of dentists leaving and joining the GDS or PDS in England and Wales broken by month

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  January

  87

  142

  93

  144

  119

  141

  102

  131

  February

  87

  104

  91

  135

  103

  139

  98

  156

  March

  72

  68

  98

  100

  95

  99

  103

  118

  April

  151

  83

  109

  77

  114

  95

  134

  90

  May

  98

  71

  90

  77

  98

  95

  107

  93

  June

  98

  88

  89

  83

  78

  78

  121

  72

  July

  77

  110

  81

  124

  87

  111

  120

  136

  August

  151

  568

  188

  651

  193

  694

  191

  656

  September

  146

  157

  188

  191

  203

  177

  231

  189

  October

  105

  100

  97

  175

  125

  153

  146

  198

  November

  86

  98

  91

  106

  122

  128

  120

  108

  December

  78

  63

  78

  69

  88

  74

  106

  69

  Total

  1,236

  1,652

  1,293

  1,932

  1,425

  1,984

  1,579

  2,016

  1700W
  These documents are available from the health technology assessment programme website at www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk. Details of the methodology programme are available at www.publichealth.bham.ac.uk/nccrm/index.htm.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of dentists in England. [175220]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There were 23,229 national health service dentists in September 2003, an increase of 3,249 dentists since September 1996. This includes dentists working in the general dental service, personal dental service, community dental service, and the hospital and community dental service.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce free dental care for persons in receipt of incapacity benefit. [174994]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: We have no plans to do so. It is departmental policy to offer help with health costs based on a person's income, for example, to those receiving income support. As incapacity benefit is not income-based, it will not entitle a person to free dental care automatically, but recipients may be entitled to help by making a claim under the national health service low income scheme.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists ceased providing treatment for patients on the NHS in each year since 1997, broken down by month; and if he will make a statement. [173558]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of dentists leaving the general dental service (GDS) or personal dental service (PDS) is shown in the tables for England and Wales in each year since 1997, broken down by month. Leavers count dentists in their first month of absence. The number of entrants is also provided.

  The number of dentists in the national health service is increasing; in all years since 1997, there have been more dentists entering the NHS than leaving.

  Dentists can leave the NHS for a variety of reasons. These include retirements, short-term absence, leaving for other employment as well as dentists leaving the NHS dental services to practise wholly privately.
  1701W

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Entrants

  January

  132

  160

  134

  140

  141

  129

  117

  125

  February

  116

  153

  128

  100

  109

  101

  89

  102

  March

  95

  112

  104

  107

  106

  119

  110

  96

  April

  131

  134

  126

  127

  117

  79

  —

  —

  May

  92

  81

  93

  87

  114

  89

  —

  —

  June

  90

  87

  138

  82

  112

  150

  —

  —

  July

  102

  142

  114

  156

  225

  631

  —

  —

  August

  260

  722

  292

  618

  209

  200

  —

  —

  September

  216

  175

  215

  187

  125

  106

  —

  —

  October

  140

  135

  133

  129

  127

  107

  —

  —

  November

  119

  126

  114

  107

  94

  82

  —

  —

  December

  104

  63

  83

  61

  151

  156

  —

  —

  Total

  1,597

  2,090

  1,674

  1,901

  1,630

  1,949

  316

  323

  Notes:

  1. The figures will include a large number of dentists who have had very short breaks in contracts as leavers and entrants, perhaps many times over the period.

  2. These figures do not cover other NHS dental services, for example, community dental services and hospital dental services, for which information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to recruit dentists from abroad; and if he will make a statement. [174480]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are exploring several options for recruitment of dentists from abroad, including building on our established links with European Union countries and we also expect applications from dentists in the new EU accession states. We are developing a comprehensive dental workforce action plan and will be in a position to provide further information in due course.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce waiting times for drug rehabilitation treatment in Chorley; what the budget is for the drug action team in Chorley; how many people have been seen by the drug action team in each of the last three years; and what his latest estimate is of waiting times for drug rehabilitation treatment in Lancashire. [165394]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally as Chorley is only one of the constituent parts of the Lancashire drug action team (DAT). There were 2,874 people receiving drug treatment in Lancashire in 2000–01. This is the latest available data. Information on waiting times at DAT level is not currently available, but the National Treatment Agency's programme to reduce waiting times has successfully achieved falls in waiting times across the country. The latest average waiting time reported for residential rehabilitation is four weeks.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Bootle are receiving drug treatment. [175911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Bootle is part of Sefton drug action team (DAT). There were 396 people receiving drug treatment in Bootle in 2000–01. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by DAT for 2001–02 and 2002–03 has not yet been finalised and published.
  1702W

  Eye Tests (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of Blackpool, South aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [173071]

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

  The total number of sight tests paid for by Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority in the year 2002–03 for those aged 60 and over was 189,100.

  The total number of eligible for a free eye test for those aged 60 and over was 429,300. Sight tests cannot be equated to the number of patients.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics.

  Health Services
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for eye operations in Liverpool was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [166948]

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

  In-patients waiting time, waiting list and booked cases combined median waiting time in days for selected primary operations by selected trust in national health service hospitals in England 1997–98 and 2002–03—Eye Operations (C01–C86 OPCS 4R)

  Finished in-year admissions

  Mean

  Median

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  1997–98

  2,080

  38

  25

  2002–03

  2,824

  102

  68

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

  Hospital NHS Trust

  1997–98

  5,156

  106

  61

  2002–03

  4,555

  137

  81

  Notes:

  1. Time waited statistics from hospital episode statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count

  1703W
  those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  2. The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode. It is appropriate to use main operation when looking at admission details e.g. time waited, but the figures for "all operations count of episodes" give a more complete count of episodes with an operation.

  Patients Waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month-end

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18+ months

  March 1997

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  12,313

  5,778

  2,622

  1,920

  1,223

  616

  133

  21

  March 1997

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,801

  952

  728

  528

  510

  79

  4

  —

  March 1998

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  12,531

  5,813

  2,454

  1,676

  1,217

  885

  486

  —

  March 1998

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,260

  985

  908

  617

  666

  74

  10

  —

  March 1999

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  11,266

  5,654

  2,191

  1,614

  975

  622

  210

  —

  March 1999

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,742

  849

  753

  542

  472

  118

  8

  —

  March 2000

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  11,040

  5,026

  2,489

  1,703

  1,039

  533

  250

  —

  March 2000

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,639

  801

  687

  523

  370

  218

  40

  —

  March 2001

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  10,742

  5,056

  2,432

  1,451

  826

  606

  371

  —

  March 2001

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,634

  831

  603

  552

  373

  231

  44

  —

  March 2002

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  13,213

  6,028

  3,333

  2,136

  1,216

  500

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  10,822

  5,605

  2,832

  1,701

  684

  61

  0

  0

  February 2004

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS

  9,176

  6,487

  2,316

  373

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  DH form K H07 and Monthly Monitoring

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS patients waited for more than six months for operations within Nottinghamshire health authorities areas in each year since 1997; [173522]

  Health authorities (HAs) of treatment—North Nottinghamshire HA and Nottingham HA. Method of admission—elective (waiting list and hooked cases). Counts of finished in-year admission episodes with and operation by time waited grouping national health service hospitals, England 1998–99 to 2002–031

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  Nottingham HA

  0 to 6 months

  6 to 9 months

  more than 9 months

  0 to 6 months

  6 to 9 months

  more than 9 months

  1997–98

  21,356

  2,486

  2,089

  54,469

  3,713

  6,145

  1998–99

  22,470

  2,320

  2,507

  56,961

  3,573

  5,701

  1999–2000

  21,666

  1,871

  1,784

  54,750

  2,630

  4,614

  2000–01

  18,949

  1,899

  2,008

  43,361

  2,648

  5,202

  2001–02

  11,094

  1,159

  2,120

  42,490

  3,116

  4,308

  2002–031

  10,469

  1,298

  2,993

  42,060

  4,524

  5,022

  12002–03 figures based on 2001–02 Has.

  1704W
  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been in NHS waiting list times for the residents of(a) Manchester, Blackley and (b) the City of Manchester in the last seven years. [175011]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis but at national health service trust level. Data for the relevant NHS trusts is shown in the table.

  (2) how many NHS patients waited more than nine months for operations within Nottinghamshire health authority areas in each year since 1997. [173551]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1705W
  Notes:

  1. A finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data-year. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. All operations count of episodes—these figures represent a count of all finished consultant episodes—a procedure was mentioned in any of the 12 (four prior to 2002–03) operation fields in a HES record. A record is included only once in each count, even if an operation is mentioned in more than one operation field of the record.

  3. Time waited statistics from hospital episode statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period, whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  4. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  HES, Department of Health.

  Missed Appointments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients failed to attend(a) hospital appointments and (b) general practitioner appointments in Chorley in each year since 2000; and what the estimated cost of missed appointments was in each case in each year. [173854]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on the number of missed general practitioner appointments and the estimated cost of missed appointments are not collected by the Department.

  The number of consultant out-patient missed appointments for national health service organisations serving the Chorley constituency are shown in the table.

  Total attendances:

  NHS trust

  seen

  did not attend

  2000–01

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  102,526

  13,656

  2000–01

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  222,707

  25,698

  2001–02

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust1

  318,370

  38,709

  1 The Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust was merged with the Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust on I August 2002 to form the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset KH09.

  National Programme for IT
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what timescale his Department has set for the implementation of the national programme for IT in general practice. [160664]

  Mr. Hutton
  The concept of national health service national care records service and the national programme is to provide integrated clinical information systems across the whole care continuum. Support for delivery of care by general practitioners and other primary care practitioners is an integral part of the programme.

  There are some specific systems relevant to GP practices and the general medical services payments project. They cover payments for practices and primary care information management systems and are currently being tested for conformance to standards and operation with existing GP systems. Once the technical testing has been successfully completed, a programme to
  1706W
  roll out the new systems will begin from September 2004, with guidance, training and support being delivered alongside.

  As stated in our policy document, "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS", published in June 2002, the programme will be implemented in phases, with phase one—the national bookings service, the national prescriptions service, and the NHS care record service—to be implemented by the end of 2005. Phase two covers implementation by 2008, to include a richer NHS care record service, with core data and reference links to local electronic patient record systems for full record access.

  An additional third phase is planned for implementation between 2008 and 2010 to provide ambulance telemonitoring implemented in all emergency response vehicles, home telemonitoring in all homes requiring it, and a unified health record that includes all appropriate social care information.

  There will be full implementation of person-based electronic health records, as set out in "Information for Health", published in 1998. The national programme will be building on this to create substantial additional functionality in the period up to 2010.

  NHS Costs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest estimated annual costs incurred by the NHS as the result of(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco and (c) other drug use are. [172740]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The estimated annual cost of alcohol misuse to the national health service is around £1.6 billion in England.

  The latest figures available indicate that smoking costs the NHS up to £1.7 billion a year in England.

  Information on the total cost of drug misuse to the NHS is not available. However, in 2003–04, the Government's pooled budget totalled £243.6 million for the treatment of drug misusers. It is estimated that a further £200 million of mainstream funds was spent on the treatment of drug misuse.

  Patient Involvement Activity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1997 the amount of money spent on(a) community health councils, (b) the

  1707W
  Commission for Public Patient Involvement, (c) patients forums, (d) the Independent Complaint and Advocacy services and (e) other patient involvement activity. [172701]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table. The data relating to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) and patients' forums is shown as a single amount because there is no separate budget for patients' forums and the CPPIH is responsible for allocating funds to them. It is not possible to quantify how much is being spent on other patient involvement activities as these are primarily undertaken by and funded by the national health service locally.

  £million

  Community Health Councils

  CPPIH and patients' forums

  Independent Complaints Advocacy Services

  1997–98

  22.561

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  22.561

  n/a

  n/a

  1999–2000

  23

  n/a

  n/a

  2000–01

  23

  n/a

  n/a

  2001–02

  23

  n/a

  n/a

  2002–03

  23

  3.27

  n/a

  2003–04

  15

  30.192

  4.4

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation intends to republish its Green Book; and whether it will be made available online. [175333]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work on the new edition of the "Green Book" is being actively undertaken at present and as each chapter is completed and agreed by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation it will be put on the web. These chapters are water-marked 'Draft', as they will be subject to sub-editorial changes when they are published as a complete volume.

  The current work involves a complete re-drafting of all of the contents. When all of the chapters and the final editing is completed, the book will be issued in hard copy form. We are aiming to publish the new edition by the end of the year.

  The draft chapters now available can be found on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/greenbook.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on the Patient Information Advisory Group in the last financial year for which figures are available; how many times a year this group is scheduled to meet; and when it last met. [175264]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The patient information advisory group spent £150,000 in 2003–04. The group is scheduled to meet four times a year, but has flexibility to meet more frequently if required. The group last met on 28 April 2004.

  Sativex
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Sativex will be licensed; and what restrictions will be placed on its prescription. [172788]
  1708W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will grant a licence for Sativex only when satisfactory data have been provided to demonstrate that the product is efficacious, safe and of adequate quality for its intended use.

  In accordance with the Government's undertaking given in 1998 to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 would be amended to permit Sativex to be prescribed by doctors, if it is successful in gaining a marketing authorisation from the MHRA.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended that if Sativex is authorised, it should be placed in Schedule 4 Part I of these regulations. It would also attract prescription-only-medicine status, but the scheduling would impose no additional restriction upon prescribing. If authorised, manufacturers and wholesalers would be required to be licensed to produce and supply the product, and would have to comply with the regulatory requirements on record keeping and destruction.

TREASURY

  Gun Trafficking
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of priority given to gun trafficking by HM Customs. [175542]

  John Healey
  In the Government's response to the All Party Parliamentary Group's report, "Combating the Threat of Gun Violence", published in March, we said that HM Customs and Excise's prioritisation would be addressed as part of a joint action plan. Customs deploy their resources on the basis of risk assessment driven by intelligence, which maximises their impact in enforcing a range of prohibitions and restrictions, including those relating to firearms. They respond to all specific intelligence on firearms. Strategic threat assessments produced by NCIS and Customs will inform future action. Meanwhile Customs are working with NCIS and other partners in the ACPO Strategic Criminal Use of Firearms Group to improve intelligence gathering and assessment and to contribute to activity under the joint action plan.

  Stroke Deaths
  Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many deaths occurred in the last year due to stroke in(a) Rugby and Kenilworth and (b) England; [174962]

  (2) how many deaths occurred in the last year due to peripheral vascular disease in (a) Rugby and Kenilworth and (b) England. [174964]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1709W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Andy King, dated 26 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning the number of deaths due to peripheral vascular disease and stroke in the last year in (a) Rugby and Kenilworth and (b) England. I am replying in his absence. (174964, 174962)

  The latest year for which figures are available is 2002. Figures in the attached table are provided for the local authorities of Rugby and Warwick. The parliamentary constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth contains the whole of Rugby local authority and part of Warwick local authority. To protect against the release of potentially disclosive information, figures have not been provided for the constituency as its electoral ward boundaries are not coterminous with the local authority boundaries.

  Cause of death has been defined using the International Classification of Diseases. Within this there is a clearly agreed definition of stroke deaths but not of peripheral vascular disease. Following medical advice, the numbers provided in the table below are for all deaths from diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries, excluding thoracic aortic aneurysms.

  Deaths from diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries, and from stroke1: England, and Rugby and Warwick local authorities2, 2002–03

  Number of deaths

  Area

  Diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries

  Stroke

  England

  11,806

  55,239

  Rugby

  19

  88

  Warwick

  41

  152

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10).

  2 Usual residents of these areas.

  3 Deaths in the calendar year 2002.

  The codes used were as follows:
  ICD–10 170–178—Diseases of arteries, arterioles and capillaries:
  170—Atherosclerosis
  171—Aortic aneurysm and dissection, excluding:
  171.1—Thoracic aortic aneurysm, ruptured
  171.2— Thoracic aortic aneurysm, without mention of rupture
  172—Other aneurysm
  I73—Other peripheral vascular diseases
  174—Arterial embolism and thrombosis
  177—Other disorders of arteries and arterioles
  178—Diseases of capillaries
  ICD–10160–169—Cerebrovascular disease (Stroke).

  Airport Tax
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much airport tax was raised by passengers using Northern Ireland's three main airports in the latest financial year for which figures are available. [175855]

  John Healey
  The information is not available in the format requested. Revenue figures for air passenger duty are collected for the UK as a whole and are not broken down by devolved country or region. Air passenger duty revenue figures can be found in table 2.1 D of "Financial Statistics", published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue has taken to identify economic sectors with a high incidence of 1710W
  trading with developing countries in which there would be an increased risk of companies seeking tax relief on illegal payments. [175939]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK does not allow tax relief for bribes. These payments are most likely to be distinguished in the profit and loss account as fees, commissions and entertaining, and therefore, would come to light through local initiatives looking at companies with large fees and commission entries plus evidence of business with countries where bribery can occur.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether overseas bribery is one of the risk factors taken into account when the Inland Revenue considers which tax returns to examine in detail. [175940]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For obvious reasons, the Inland Revenue does not publicise its risk assessment criteria.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue has taken to ensure that(a) UK companies do not claim bribes paid overseas as tax deductible and (b) its staff are trained to detect bribes paid overseas in UK company tax returns. [175941]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK does not allow tax relief for bribes. Claims to bribes would be detected as part of our normal risk assessment programme. The legislation covering non-deductibility of illegal payments is at section 577A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Training on detection of bribes paid overseas by UK companies is included in the Inland Revenue's basic training for new tax inspectors and in the programme of technical updates for existing inspectors. In addition, extensive guidance is available in the "Business Income Manual", together with instructions for submitting suspect cases to Revenue Policy, Business Tax for advice.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many instances of overseas bribery the Inland Revenue has detected since February 2002; and what action it has taken. [175942]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Section 577A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 disallows the deduction of any payment, the making of which would constitute the commission of a criminal offence in the UK. If the payment is made outside the UK, it is also disallowed if the same payment made in the UK would have been a criminal offence.

  Where a claim for such expenditure is discovered, the amount would be added back in the tax computation and the additional tax would be recovered together with interest and penalties where due.

  The Inland Revenue, as with many classes of expenditure, does not keep central records of expenditure disallowed under this provision.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects a reply to be made to the letter to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, dated 6 April 2004, from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, regarding import tax and antiques. [176135]

  John Healey
  I replied to the hon. Member on 14 May 2004.
  1711W

  E-Government
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many management consultants have been employed on the Inland Revenue e-Government programme; from what dates they were employed; and what the cost to the Inland Revenue of the consultants has been to date. [174028]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Consultants have been employed for varying periods since the formal establishment of the Inland Revenue 'e' services programme in April 2001 to bring in specialist skills in 'e' as well as for the strategic development and management of its programme. There are now 39 consultants employed on either a part-time or full-time basis.

  The estimated cost of consultants to date is £3.5million.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Budget Statement of 17 March 2004, if he will make a statement regarding the 2005–06 payment to headteachers of secondary schools and its relationship to planned increases in Schools Standard Grant and Devolved Formula. [174628]

  Ruth Kelly
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that in 2005–06, heads would receive direct payments that sum to £55,000 for a typical primary and £180,000 for a typical secondary school. These totals are the combination of the School Standards Grant and Devolved Formula Capital. The Chancellor also announced that, in the UK, we will be spending on education an additional £8.5 billion in 2007–08 compared to 2005–06.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of pensioners aged over 80 years pay income tax. [175230]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Around 32 per cent. of pensioners aged over 80 years pay income tax. This estimate is based upon the 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes and ONS 2001 and 2002 mid year population estimates.

  Museums
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the VAT Refund Scheme to include private museums that hold national designated collections, for the purpose of recovering VAT on expenditure incurred in National Lottery-funded projects. [174972]

  John Healey
  Like any other business, private museums can recover VAT incurred on buying goods and services providing those purchases relate to their taxable business activities. This would be the case where a museum is providing museum entry where admission charges are taxable at the standard rate of VAT.

  Under the normal VAT rules provided for in the European Sixth VAT Directive, VAT incurred on goods and services relating to non-business activities, such as providing free entry to museums, cannot be recovered. This is also the case where VAT is incurred on exempt business activities, such as providing museum entry where no VAT is applied to admission charges under the VAT exemption for cultural bodies. The source of such an organisation's funding cannot be used to determine its VAT position.
  1712W
  However, since September 2001, the Government have provided a refund scheme that allows the main national museums and galleries which do not charge for admission to recover VAT they incur on related purchases. This scheme removes the obstacle VAT was creating to the delivery of our 1997 manifesto commitment that there should be free access to the main national museums and galleries.

  That commitment has been an outstanding success. In this year's Budget, the Chancellor announced that, building on that success and on the recommendation of the Goodison Review, we are considering in the context of the forthcoming Spending Review extending the free access commitment for the main national museums and galleries, and the VAT refund scheme that has helped to deliver it, to university museums.

  For bodies in receipt of National Lottery funding, irrecoverable VAT can be included as eligible project expenditure for lottery support. By funding this cost, the Heritage Lottery Fund's grant assessment process ensures that lottery-funded projects are not disadvantaged if they incur VAT on their expenditure. Any VAT recovered under a refund scheme should, therefore, be excluded from any grant awarded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  Payroll Adjustments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) upward and (b) downward payroll adjustments an employer may have to make as a result of the policies of his Department. [175178]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All employers have to run a payroll to ensure their employees receive the right amount of wages or salary. It might require upwards or downwards adjustment to reflect changes to an employee's Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax codes, National Insurance Contributions or working tax credit.

  Portable Appliance Testing
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often his Department and its associated public bodies undergo portable appliance testing; and what the cost of testing is. [175979]

  Ruth Kelly
  Portable appliance testing is carried out in my Departments and agencies on the basis of regular programmes in accordance with guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive. For HM Treasury, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, the Valuation Office and the Office for National Statistics, the costs of testing fall within the building management charges and are not separately available. For the other Departments, the total combined approximate annual cost is £20,000.

  Science and Innovation Committee
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the membership of the cross-departmental committee on the 10-year investment framework on science and innovation is; on what dates it has met; if he will publish the minutes of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [173554]

  John Healey
  The development of a 10-year investment framework for science and innovation is overseen by a Ministerial Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary to the
  1713W
  Treasury and attended by Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science and Innovation, and Alan Johnson, Minister for Higher Education. The Director General of the Research Councils, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and senior officials also attend. This group met on 10 March, and is meeting again on 20 May. An official-level group supports the ministerial group and has met on three occasions so far. Representatives at both official and ministerial level on both groups are also members of other committees with overlapping policy interests.

  Minutes of the ministerial meeting constitute internal discussion and advice and are therefore not published: Exemption 2 of the Open Government Code applies. However, the conclusions of these meetings will be reflected

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Private

  Academic

  Private

  Academic

  Private

  Academic

  HM Treasury

  1

  1

  5

  0

  8

  0

  Inland Revenue

  11

  0

  8

  0

  3

  1

  Customs and Excise

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Valuation Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Debt Management Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  National Savings and Investments

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Office of National Statistics

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Government Actuaries Department

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Office of Government Commerce

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  Office of Government Commerce Buying Solutions

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1The ONS do not distinguish its inward secondees by private and academic sectors and cannot provide this information

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days' sick leave were taken by employees of(a) Customs and Excise and (b) the Inland Revenue in each year since 2000; and what the estimated cost was in each year. [165423]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 20 April 2004]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The number of sickness absence days taken by employees of Customs and Excise since 2000 are:

  Calendar year

  Average working days sickness absence per staff year

  2000

  9.0

  2001

  8.7

  2002

  9.0

  (b) The number of sickness absence days taken by employees of the Inland Revenue since 2000 are:

  Calendar year

  Average working days sickness absence per staff

  2000

  10.9

  2001

  9.5

  2002

  10.5

  Reliable information on the cost of sickness absence is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Statistical information for 2003 has not yet been published. Sickness absence targets for Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are
  1714W
  in the Government's science and innovation investment framework document, which will be published alongside the Spending Review this summer.

  Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [174818]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following table provides the number of people identified through central records that have been seconded into the Chancellor's Department and agencies from the private and academic sectors during each of the last three financial years.

  reported in the relevant Departmental and Annual Reports. Both Departments are currently reviewing their sickness absence management policies.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised in(a) business rates, (b) corporation tax and (c) taxation from (i) the renewable sector, (ii) the creative arts sector, (iii) the financial sector and (iv) research companies in each of the last five years. [174872]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information on business rates and total taxation for the four sectors specified in the question is not available.

  Corporation Tax figures for the financial sector are available at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax (Table 11.7). Figures for earlier years are published in "Inland Revenue Statistics 2000". The figures include companies classified as banking, finance and insurance.

  It is not possible to separately identify the creative arts sector for Corporation Tax purposes. However, figures for 'recreational services', which include certain creative arts companies, are given in the following table.

  Recreational services

  Corporation tax payable (£million)

  1997–98

  360

  1998–99

  375

  1999–2000

  354

  2000–01

  314

  2001–02

  317

  1715W
  It is not possible to separately identify companies in the renewable sector nor research companies from central Corporation Tax records.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conceptions there were for women aged between 11 and 19 years since 2000 in the Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon Strategic Health Authority, broken down by age. [176120]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Drew, dated 26 May 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on conceptions. (176120)

  The information you requested on conceptions was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP. which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adult Disadvantages
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will re-calculate the figures on adult disadvantages set out in the answer of 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 911W, to include retirement on 31 December 2003. [174026]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not currently available. We expect the information to be available in June and when it is, I will arrange for it to be placed in the Library.

  Benefits (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood have gained work through the New Deal programmes. [175889]

  Jane Kennedy
  490 lone parents in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998. Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal Programmes are not available.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [175893]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Blackpool, North and Walton constituency who received a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.
  1716W

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  23,075

  2000–01

  25,235

  2001–02

  25,440

  2002–03

  25,565

  2003–04

  25,610

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–2004 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures.

  We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments).

  However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Careers Guidance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he will ensure that adults in(a) temporary work and (b) work where their skills are under-utilised will be able to access expert advice and guidance in order to improve their employability. [175849]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  All adults aged 20 and over, including those in temporary work and work where their skills are under utilised, have access to impartial information and advice about learning and work, quality assured to the matrix Standard. In August 2004, the Learning and Skills Council will launch an integrated Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) service giving easy access to a consistent range of national and local information and advice services aimed at helping individuals to improve their employability.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will take steps to cease the practice in his Department of sending correspondence without a clearly identifiable signature of the sender;[167189]

  (2) what his Department's policy is on the signing of documents, including correspondence, in the name of a person by a third party who does not make his or her position clear. [167190]

  Jane Kennedy
  Current procedure on correspondence in the Department or Work and Pensions is that our staff are required to use either their full name or their title and surname (with initial if preferred). All details given should be legible.

  In some circumstances, so as not to compromise safety, managers may decide that it is appropriate for staff to sign off their letters with the name of their manager and section, or office manager and section. Managers may also approve the use of an office name where they deem it fitting. Such measures are subject to a suitable system being in place to enable the author of the letter to be identified where needed.

  We are currently working to improve the general quality of our correspondence in DWP. Much of this correspondence is computer generated, rather than

  1717W
  produced and signed by an individual. The key issue in both cases is that the customer is provided with a contact for further inquiries.

  I have asked officials to look at current practice in the Department and to bring guidance to the attention of all staff who write to customers.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 21 April with regard to Mr. G. Forde. [175615]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 18 May.

  Health and Safety
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has received the report of the Health and Safety Commission on the effectiveness of the current strategy to promote directors' responsibility for health and safety, the success of the voluntary approach and the need for further legislation; and if he will make a statement. [174143]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ministers received the Health and Safety Commission's report in January on the effectiveness of the current strategy to promote directors' responsibility for health and safety, the success of the voluntary approach and the need for further legislation. Ministers accepted the Commission's view that the current voluntary approach is working, that further legislation is not needed at the moment but that this would be kept under review.

  Identity Theft
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to reduce identity theft in areas within the remit of his Department and its agencies. [173053]

  Mr. Pond
  Our overall aim is to always establish the correct identity of a person prior to providing a benefit or service. We are committed to ensuring that National Insurance Numbers are issued, used and controlled correctly and we will continue to develop and implement strategies that enable us to achieve this.

  We have established a secure system for the allocation of National Insurance Numbers to adults, conducting rigorous checks to ensure that adult National Insurance Numbers are only issued to those who had undergone an evidence of identity interview.

  We closely monitor 15 million inactive accounts for deceased persons and any attempt to activate one of these accounts will be investigated.

  We are also working with the Home Office ID card project to ensure that full and appropriate use is made of ID cards, when available, in accessing DWP systems.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the expenditure on national insurance rebates for those contracted out of SERPS or the second state pension in each year from 1996–97 to 2005–06. [175108]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  1718W

  Tax year

  Estimated rebate cost (£ billion)

  1996–97

  6.9

  1997–98

  7.6

  1998–99

  7.8

  1999–2000

  8.3

  2000–01

  9.1

  2001–02

  9.5

  2002–03

  11.1

  2003–04

  11.5

  2004–05

  11.9

  2005–06

  11.9

  Note:

  Figures are for Great Britain and are in cash terms except for 2005–06 which is in 2004–05 prices. They are consistent with the long-term Public Expenditure Survey undertaken in February 2004.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of(a) pensioner households and (b) individual pensioners eligible for pension credit (i) this year and (ii) in each of the next 10 years. [175109]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of the numbers of people eligible for pension credit, based on data from the Family Resources Survey for 2002–03, will be available early in June. The information will be placed in the Library.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what total Government financial support to the poorest 10 per cent. of pensioners was in each of the last 30 years, expressed at today's prices. [175014]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested as information on spending on pensioners by decile directly is not recorded.

  However latest Households Below Average Income (HBAI) figures show that we have made good progress in tackling pensioner poverty. Two thirds fewer pensioners—1.8 million older people—were in absolute low income in 2002–03 compared with 1996–97.

  Our strategy is to seek to maintain and support the major contribution made by the private pension sector in enabling pensioners to share in increased economic well being, and to target state resources on improving the position of the poorest relative to rising national prosperity. Since the introduction of pension credit the poorest third of pensioner households will be £1,750 a year (£33 per week) better off in 2004–05, compared with the 1997 system.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the poorest third of pensioners received in each year since 1998; and what that sum would have been in each year had the State Pension been linked to earnings. [175131]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  1719W
  In 1997–98, pensioners in the lowest third of the pensioner income distribution received an average of £102.12 per week in state benefits. In 2002–03 they received an average of £134.38.

  Including private income, these pensioners received £104.81 in 1997–98, £139.73 in 2002–03.

  If the basic State Pension had been linked to earnings since April 1998, on top of policies introduced since 1997 (including pension credit), these pensioners would have received an extra £2.10 a week overall on average in 2003–04. If the earnings link had been in place instead of the policies that were in fact introduced they would have lost on average £22.90.

  All figures are in cash terms.

  Seasonal Fruit Pickers
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring takes place to ensure the health and safety of seasonal fruit pickers. [175443]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: Seasonal fruit pickers may be exposed to a range of hazards at fruit and vegetable production and packing sites including: transport; machinery; manual handling; noise; slips, trips and falls; and dermatitis. These hazards are common to full and part time workers, including casual or seasonal workers. Health and safety law applies equally to all employees.

  Inspectors from HSE's Field Operations Directorate monitor health and safety in agriculture in line with HSE's Agriculture Sector Strategic Programme. Informed by local knowledge and intelligence this is discharged in practice by a range of inspection activities including planned, targeted preventive (proactive) inspection, health and safety blitzes, projects targeted at specific sectors or topics, and the investigation of reported accidents and complaints.

  Spelthorne Borough Council
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much administration grant was paid to Spelthorne borough council in 2003–04 to cover the 1720W
  cost of operating the council tax benefit scheme; and what proportion of the council's costs this grant covered. [175547]

  Mr. Pond
  Spelthorne borough council was paid £144,762 specifically for council tax benefit administration costs in 2003–04. However, this does not include the extra funding for administering this scheme that has arisen due to the increase caseloads following the introduction of the new tax credit and pension credit schemes. The grant is not ring-fenced, but is a targeted grant and represents just one part of Spelthorne's total housing and council tax benefits administration subsidy funding.

  The total housing and council tax benefits administration grant paid to Spelthorne borough council for 2003–04 was £509,893; it is for the local authority to decide how much it apportions between the administration of the two benefits.

  Spelthorne borough council report that the estimated cost of administering council tax benefit for 2003–04 was £307,000; however, final figures are in the process of being collected.

  In addition to the administration grant, a further £56,566 has been paid through the Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme. This covers the first three quarters of 2003–04. The final quarter is yet to be finalised; a further payment will be made accordingly.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the additional £100 being paid to over 70s in Northern Ireland will be included in the winter fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement. [175193]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The intention is that the one-off 70 + payment to eligible households will be included with the 2004–05 winter fuel payment which is paid automatically to the vast majority of those entitled to it. People in Northern Ireland who do not get a winter fuel payment will need to claim the one-off payment from the Department for Social Development before 31 March 2005.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers (Gerry Sutcliffe)
  The Government have placed in the Libraries of the House the latest tables showing the estimated number of workers who have benefited directly from the National Minimum Wage between its introduction and the next uprating in October 2004. Members of Parliament wishing to know the number of beneficiaries in each area of the UK over this period are advised to consult this information. The information can also be found on the Department of Trade and Industry's website at www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar. The information will be updated every six months to take account of future increases to minimum wage rates and the release of new data from the Office for National Statistics

  I am also attaching below a regional breakdown of the number of people who are expected to receive a pay rise as a direct result of the forthcoming increase in minimum wage rates in October 2004.

  Number of jobs that stand to benefit from the forthcoming October 2004 NMW up-rating by region

  North East

  110,000–120,000

  North West

  210,000–240,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  180,000–210,000

  East Midlands

  150,000–180,000

  West Midlands

  150,000–190,000

  Eastern

  130,000–160,000

  London

  80,000–100,000

  South East

  150,000–170,000

  South West

  140,000–170,000

  Wales

  90,000–110,000

  Scotland

  160,000–190,000

  Northern Ireland

  40,000–50,000

  UK

  1,600,000–1,900,000

  Source: DTI estimates based on ONS's Spring 2003 central estimates of low pay, Labour Force Survey and New Earnings Survey

  Note: These data are based on 10p pay bands from the ONS central estimates and take account of earnings and prices inflation between the period Spring 2003 and October 2004; uprating from £3.80 to £4.10 for 18–21 year olds and from £4.50 to £4.85 for those 22 and over.

  The DTI and the ONS do not possess any information on the number of workers who have benefited from the National Minimum Wage by constituency.

  Company Law
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Patricia Hewitt)
  I am today publishing a consultation document "Company Law: Flexibility and Accessibility", containing proposals designed to help 78WS
  ensure that company law remains up-to-date in future, and to make it clearer and more easily-accessible in particular for smaller firms

  The proposals are for the introduction of new types of legislative power enabling company law in future to be amended by a special form of secondary legislation, making it easier to keep the legislation updated over time. The powers would also be used to rewrite relevant parts of the law to make it simpler to understand for all its users, particularly smaller firms and their advisers.

  The use of the powers would be governed by stringent requirements for public consultation and for Parliamentary scrutiny, and by criteria which would ensure that the needs of smaller users were at the heart of any reform proposals. Over time, I would look forward to being able to bring all the key operational provisions relating to smaller private companies together, clearly and logically, in one place.

  The powers would be introduced as part of the major new Companies Bill which we are preparing for introduction as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill will implement the work of the independent Company Law Review, which provided an authoritative assessment of the guiding principles for future reform, and my proposals proceed very much in that spirit.

  The consultation period will close on 24 September 2004 to allow full time for consideration of these important proposals, and I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rivers Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Ian Pearson)
  The Rivers Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland. It acts on behalf of the Department as the statutory drainage and flood defence authority for Northern Ireland

  I have set the following key targets for the Agency for the 2004–05 business year:

  Urban flood defences

  To construct or refurbish 612 metres of urban flood defences.

  Drainage infrastructure

  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 91 hectares of development land.

  To replace/refurbish 653 metres of dangerous culverts.

  Maintenance watercourses

  To complete identified maintenance works on 1235 of the 1585 designated open watercourses included in the Notice of Annual Maintenance as part of a six-year scheduled maintenance programme.

  Replies to written enquiries

  To issue substantive replies to 80 per cent. of written enquiries within 15 working days of receipt.

  Schedule 6 applications

  To respond to 98 per cent. of Schedule 6 applications within three months.

DEFENCE

  Pay and Personnel Agency Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Key Targets that I have set the Chief Executive of the Pay & Personnel Agency for 2004–05 are as follows:

  Customer Service and Satisfaction
  Key Target 1. Achieve 99.0 per cent. average timeliness and 96.8 per cent. average accuracy for salary payments, expenses payments and pension awards.
  Key Target 2. Achieve 90 per cent. average responsiveness against key service standards.
  Key Target 3. Improve customer satisfaction index score from 72.6 per cent. in 2002–03 to 75 per cent.
  Key Target 4. Achieve Charter Mark accreditation by December 2004.

  Processes
  Key Target 5. Achieve Main Gate approval for the future pay system by September 2004.

  Efficiency
  Key Target 6. Achieve unit costs of no more than: salary payments £10.60; expenses payments £4.50; pension awards £125.00.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Queen's Counsel
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  My right hon. and Noble Friend the Secretary of State (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  "I have been considering the outcome of the consultation on the future of Queen's Counsel in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. In July 2003 I published a consultation paper on the future of Queen's Counsel. 376 responses were received. I published a summary of these responses on 26 January 2004.

  While the consultation did not produce a consensus as to whether the title of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist, it is clear to me that as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State I should no longer play a part in assessing and selecting candidates to be appointed as QCs. None of the consultees could demonstrate that such involvement in the selection process is fundamental to the Silk mark's value; nor does it add value for consumers of legal services. I will, therefore, not continue that role.

  Yet respondents from within the legal services market were equally clear about the value of maintaining a kitemark for advocacy services—both to recognise excellence, and to provide useful information for consumers. For this reason, the Government have invited the Bar Council and the Law Society, and their counterparts in Northern Ireland, to develop and implement new schemes for accrediting leading advocates, which will replace the existing arrangements. The professions are far better placed to fulfil this function than the Secretary of State for Constitutional
  80WS
  Affairs. I do have a responsibility, however, for ensuring that the resultant scheme is fair and in the interests of the public and the consumers of legal services.

  My intention is to work with the professions to ensure that the replacement schemes meet as many as possible of the objections that have been raised over the Silk appointments process. Kitemarking must be designed to serve the interests of consumers by identifying genuine excellence. It must provide fairness for members of the professions. I would also want it to encourage diversity within the professions, with a continually widening range of backgrounds and experience represented amongst those the professions recognise as leaders in advocacy. I have every confidence that the professions can deliver this aim. To achieve these goals, there must be rigorous selection against clearly defined objective criteria. There must also be provision for the kitemark to be removed where the holder has failed to meet the high standards required. The professional bodies have agreed to work together to achieve a single scheme for both branches of the profession, and are already collaborating with each other and my Department in working out the details of a joint approach to reform. I will set out these plans in a further statement.

  The professions will be responsible for selection and will send a list of suitable candidates to the DCA. I will retain responsibility for recommending as a minister to Her Majesty that she appoint those on the list to the rank of Queen's Counsel. I will of course need to satisfy myself that the interim scheme meets the goals I have set for it, and consider whether the professions' recommendations are consistent with its terms and whether I should depart from them in exceptional circumstances.

  The new arrangements should be ready to receive the first applications towards the end of this year. They will ensure, as the great majority of those who responded to the consultation asked, that there continue to be effective arrangements for recognising advocacy of outstanding quality in the higher courts. At the same time, those arrangements will have particular regard to the need for a competitive market.

  The consultation process also demonstrated the need for a wider review not just of kitemarking, but of the information available to consumers in relation to the whole spectrum of legal services. That review will seek to establish what shortfalls there are in the information available, and what solutions can be implemented to serve better the interests of the consumer. An important part of this process will be establishing what types of accreditation scheme might be beneficial, and how they should be set up and administered. The evaluation will not be restricted to advocacy alone, but will cover all fields of legal practice in which there is a need for better consumer information. It will be based on the principles that we are already establishing for the advocacy scheme—fairness, diversity, and a stronger focus on consumer interests. In particular, it will take full account of the wider context of competition law and the free market. While we carry out this longer-term market study, we will be careful to keep the work consistent with the review of the regulation of legal services that Sir David Clementi is conducting. If the conclusion of the market study is that new ways are required to meet consumers' information needs, one of the essential questions will be who will best be able to meet these

  81WS
  needs. That will have to be decided in the light of the presentation of Sir David's conclusions that are due at the end of this year. Because of this linkage, and if any legislation is needed to implement the results of the market study, the Government expect that any scheme would be implemented at the same time as the conclusions on the wider review.

  The reformed kitemark for higher court advocacy is an interim measure. We have adopted it to provide continuity and to maintain the advantages that the consultation process has identified, in the international market for example. It will be reviewed when the results of the long-term market study are available, to confirm first whether legal services customers need it, and—if they do—that it is still compatible with the principles that will be established in the study.
  82WS
  The interim scheme will retain the title of QC. The use of the QC title will be reviewed along with the other details of the scheme once the market study is complete. But I stress that although the title will not be changed in the interim scheme, the substance of the award will be different, since it will be based on improved criteria and selection processes.

  The interim solution does not aim to remove the title of QC from existing holders. We are looking for ways to improve the current system, and at the wider picture. It makes sense to consider what, if anything, to do about the current titleholders only when that process is complete.

  This decision affects only the jurisdictions for which I have responsibility: England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. It does not affect the position in Scotland, or the Crown Dependencies, or any of the Overseas Territories or Commonwealth countries where the rank of Queen's Counsel is in use."

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Kosovo: People Trafficking
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to end the trafficking of women and young girls for the purposes of prostitution and the abuse of children for sexual purposes among KFOR and UNMIK personnel in Kosovo.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we shall seek to end this trafficking. Trafficking of people is an abhorrent crime, wherever and by whomsoever it occurs. In Kosovo we are working with our partners in NATO and the United Nations to establish robust preventive policies. Regulations prohibiting trafficking have been in force since 2001. We must be clear that KFOR troops, UNMIK personnel and others accused of trafficking will face justice. I welcome recent successful prosecutions of perpetrators of this crime.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister her powerful reply. However, is it correct that the provisions that were made and the regulations that were passed in January 2001 on behalf of UNMIK did make some provision for the support and protection of young women and girls who had been exploited by traffickers? My understanding is that very little action has been taken on that front. Will the Minister also give us further details of prosecutions under the regulations, because my understanding is that until two months ago there had been no prosecutions at all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been two successful prosecutions of UNMIK police officers carried out by UNMIK police internal affairs in 2002 and 2003. I am afraid that we do not have figures relating to failed prosecutions. However, the noble Baroness may be interested to know that there have been investigations into more than 80 international peacekeepers since 1999. To date, at least 58 UNMIK police have been dismissed, 10 of whom were dismissed in connection with allegations of trafficking.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what avenues there are for civil redress as opposed to prosecution against UN-employed perpetrators?
1322
More broadly, will the Government resist American pressure to renew Resolution 1422, which preserves immunity from prosecution for war crimes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we regard trafficking as a crime and, as such, it should be dealt with as a crime. Of course, UNMIK police and the trafficking and prostitution investigation unit look into allegations that are made. As I have already indicated to your Lordships, I do not have figures for how often those investigations are not successful.
On the position of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1422, it is important to remember that the Security Council resolution does not provide impunity for persons acting in an official capacity. The text makes it clear that the obligation remains on the national jurisdictions of the state sending UN peacekeepers to prosecute any international crimes committed by those peacekeepers. We understand—although We do not share—the United States' concerns about the International Criminal Court. We are convinced that the Rome Statute does provide safeguards to avoid politically motivated prosecutions, which is the root of the United States' anxiety. However, it must be remembered that, although there is the UNSCR, that does not provide for impunity of any national.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the situation with regard to trafficking is almost as bad in Bosnia as in Kosovo? Can women still be bought and sold in the Arizona market in Brcko, in northern Bosnia? Will the Government use their uttermost endeavours to ensure that the traffickers are brought to justice in both countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the NATO response to the trafficking of women and children throughout the Balkans is that we have a great deal of work under way. We try to draw on the best practice of international bodies such as the United Nations, the OSCE and NGOs to develop appropriate policies for operations, training, education and awareness. We are aware that this problem is not limited to Kosovo, but I hope that my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was sufficiently robust to assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do whatever we can to stamp out this scourge.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, does the Minister understand that this is not just a question of the trafficking of women and young girls, but the trafficking of young boys, which is sometimes forgotten in this situation? Vital Voices and NGOs are doing vital work to warn people about trafficking and bring this matter to the fore.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do understand that. I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, framed her Question to cover women and young girls, but she went on to talk about the prostitution and abuse of children for sexual purposes, which I took to mean children of both

1323
genders. Of course, the means, practices and policies that we are introducing cover the abuse of all children; girls and boys.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a problem with trafficking not just to Kosovo but through Kosovo and Bosnia? What powers does UNMIK have in Kosovo to deal with the trafficking of women and children through, rather than to, that country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as far as I am aware, UNMIK has the same powers if the crimes occur through the territory as it does if they occur in the territory. The powers would be the same as if the crimes occurred within the territory itself, so they would be covered by the prohibition that has been in force since 2001.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, could I return to the Minister's Answer, in two respects? First, the prosecution of two people in the police force between 2001 and now seems a fairly small response to what appears to be a fairly widespread level of abuse and prostitution. Secondly, could I ask her again about the issue of support and protection? She will know very well, as many Members of the House do, that women, girls and boys who are exploited for prostitution and sexual purposes desperately need protection to get out of that trafficking, as they may be subject to a great deal of punishment from those involved. Are there are systems of protection available to young people and women trying to get out of that terrible trade?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, United Kingdom Armed Forces are bound by codes of conduct that set out a standard of behaviour, which I hope provides for the protection of those young people. Our Armed Forces are made fully aware of the codes prior to being deployed on operations and receive regular training on diversity and gender awareness. There is also a "no walking out" policy for KFOR personnel in Kosovo.
It is important to remember that this is not just a question of prosecutions that I was able to detail for the noble Baroness. That was why I made such a point of saying that there had been 80 investigations of international personnel since 1991. They do not all result in prosecutions. Sometimes, those people are sent hack to their home countries and are prosecuted there. The noble Baroness should not for a moment think that those two prosecutions are the sum total of prosecutions, because a number of individuals would have been sent back to their home countries.
It is only fair that I add that no United Kingdom personnel in Kosovo have been implicated in offences relating to human trafficking and no investigations are outstanding. In all fairness, I should like to get that point on the record.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned our British Armed Forces, can she
1324
confirm that no British military personnel and no one connected with British military personnel is in any way implicated with this disgusting trade?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to expand on the answer that I have just given. It is a fact that no UK personnel in Kosovo have been implicated in offences relating to human trafficking. There are no investigations outstanding. One individual was returned to the United Kingdom from Kosovo in 1999. That was, I understand, after visiting a brothel. That person was disciplined subsequent to a court martial. Three further individuals who visited an out-of-bounds bar in 2000 were disciplined for drunken behaviour.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister consider that enough is done to encourage the sustaining of relationships between KFOR and UNMIK personnel and family members in their home countries? Does she consider that there is sufficient rotation of personnel to foster those relationships?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what happens to personnel when they are separated from their home base and their families for any length of time is always a difficult question. Far greater attention is paid to this issue now than was the case a few years ago, and in general governments recognise their responsibilities to try to ensure that individuals serving overseas in whatever capacity are able to keep in touch with their families. I shall try to be more specific in a letter to the noble Earl. However, I hope that he will be encouraged to learn that in the Armed Forces, for example, arrangements are made to enable telephone calls home on a regular basis and the exchange of e-mails with those loved ones at home, to ensure that those family connections are reinforced.

Tax Avoidance
2.48 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is agreement among the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia as to the definition of "abusive tax avoidance", against which those Governments are launching a joint initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, one of the clearest definitions of tax avoidance was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in the Tax Law Review Committee in 1997. He defined it as,
"action taken to reduce or defer tax liabilities in a way that Parliament plainly did not intend or could not possibly have intended had the matter been put to it".

1325
While the expression "abusive tax avoidance" is one used by the United States, Australia and Canada, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the UK tax code. The joint initiative recently announced by the Government is to build on rules obliging promoters of avoidance schemes to disclose them to their revenue authorities, with emphasis on those that have an international dimension.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. I had not picked up on the fact that, although the United States, Canada and Australia use that term, Her Majesty's Government do not. Would he confirm that there is an important line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion? Talk about abusive tax avoidance seems to blur the line, unless one intends to make abusive tax avoidance illegal.
Will the Minister confirm, too, that this marks another step in the internationalisation of anti-tax avoidance policies? We have had the Financial Action Task Force on offshore financial centres and other such areas. Her Majesty's Government are in some ways following the United States in international actions on harmonisation of tax policy of one form or another, while resisting, as a matter of sovereignty, the closer co-operation among tax authorities within the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right to make the distinction between tax avoidance, which is legal, and tax evasion, which is illegal. As to whether we are following the United States, that is a rather different question. This is a four-country initiative and, for the next two years, it happens to he located in Washington DC. This Government are very firmly in favour of it, as can be seen from Clauses 290 to 302 of the Finance Bill currently before the House of Commons. I hope that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is important that we should stop the far too prevalent abuse—I shall not use the word "abusive", but I nearly did—when very highly paid lawyers and accountants find ways to deprive the Revenue of moneys that Parliament would wish to go to the Revenue and to us.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sub-committee of this House dealing with the Finance Bill is examining this very question and spending quite a lot of time on it? Tax avoidance schemes that are deliberately designed to use loopholes that they find and establish are a problem. Will my noble friend accept that there is a case for trying to co-ordinate with other countries some of the activities that we are undertaking in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of the work of your Lordships' committee and I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, said about the need to co-ordinate activities, starting with those that have an international dimension. Clearly, one of the most obvious ways of avoiding tax is to hide
1326
behind a different tax jurisdiction. It is in the common interests of the four countries that I have named to act together to try to diminish that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, would the Minister like to tell the House whether any conversations have taken place with the Government of Switzerland, who have a rather different view of tax evasion and tax avoidance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not going to express a view about Swiss law on tax evasion and tax avoidance any more than yesterday I was prepared to be an expert on Belgian law. Certainly, there have been discussions with the Government of Switzerland, particularly on the issue of disclosure as an alternative to a withholding tax. I understand that those discussions are going rather well.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in those EU countries where the dividing line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become blurred, one of the effects has been to make tax evasion more socially acceptable? Will he say what the Government will do to avoid falling into that trap?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can agree with that assertion. In effect, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is saying that some European countries do not have adequate tax laws. It is not my position to confirm or deny that. Certainly, as far as we are concerned, the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion is perfectly clear.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister explain why these four countries are a white Anglo-Saxon group? Would it not have been more appropriate to do this on a G7 basis or with the same group of countries that are involved in the Financial Action Task Force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may well be the case in the future. We have just started with four countries that happen to have a common interest, and that is particularly so between the United States and this country where very substantial resources devoted to tax avoidance use the international dimension. If this works, and I hope it does—I hope the whole House hopes that it does—there is no reason why it should not be extended beyond the four countries that have started it.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would the Minister agree that if there were fewer taxes to avoid, there would be less tax evasion? It would save the Government having people rushing round, trying to find out what is being avoided.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I would not agree. The public services in this country, which are rightly provided for by tax revenue, need to be preserved

1327
and enhanced. If the price to be paid for that is clever people trying to avoid taxes, then it is our duty to try to overcome that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as this discussion has developed, I am getting more and more concerned about the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Would the Minister confirm that citizens should not be liable for any more tax than legally required and that they are entitled to order their affairs so that their tax liability is minimised. If they resort to illegal means to order their affairs, then, of course, that makes them liable. Can we be quite clear on this issue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, we are clear. As I have said more than once this afternoon, there is a firm dividing line between evasion and avoidance. The thrust of the work being carried out by the four countries, and the thrust of the clauses in the Finance Bill, is not to make illegal that which is legal but to encourage and, indeed, oblige promoters of avoidance schemes to disclose them to their revenue authorities. In other words, it is to strengthen the hand of the Revenue in anticipating schemes that affect it in a way—to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, again—
"that Parliament plainly did not intend or could not possibly have intended had the matter been put to it".
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was something in what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said and that the lower tax rates are, the less incentive there is for evasion or avoidance? In that context, I welcome the very interesting Written Answer he gave me yesterday on tax rates in all EU countries, which showed that the top tax rate in the UK compares extremely favourably with many other EU countries. I congratulate the Government for maintaining the 40 per cent rate introduced by my noble friend Lord Lawson in 1988 and remind the House that if the 98 per cent tax rate, which was in force when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was elected, were still in force, even adjusting for inflation, it would cut in, from his own Answer, at £86,000 a year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not always read in detail the Answers that I give to Written Questions, but on this occasion I did, with considerable fascination. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was very interesting. It was a bit difficult to interpret as the thresholds operate against different levels of top tax rates. It took me some time to understand it, but it does not lead me to support the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. There are people who will try to avoid taxes for perfectly legal reasons and who will try to circumvent the wishes of Parliament at whatever level of taxation Parliament sets.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us the difference between evasion and avoidance. Does the Inland Revenue see any difference between them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it prosecutes evasion when it finds it and it seeks to circumvent—if I may use the word in both directions—avoidance when it finds it.

MoD: Communications Department
3 P.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I remind the House of my peripheral interest.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the rationale for the recent reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence's communications department.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the MoD is a unified department and operates on a tri-service basis. The changes are intended to bring the communications organisation into line with the rest of the headquarters structure, and ensure that our military and civilian manpower is best utilised. The changes will also improve the department's ability to communicate effectively with the media.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the priority to meet the needs of the Armed Forces or to meet the needs of the Government?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Armed Forces.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the noble Baroness make a distinction between a radio communication mast of the Ministry of Defence and a wind turbine? The Ministry of Defence has a blanket objection to the erection of all wind turbines on the basis that they interfere with low-flying aircraft, yet its radio communication masts, which are very similar in many ways, present, I should have thought, the same problem. Can the noble Baroness make a distinction?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to table a Question on that subject but today I am answering a Question about the reorganisation of the MoD's communications organisation.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to my noble friend, the good reputation of our Armed Forces is partly due to their informal contacts with the media. Does the noble Baroness agree that a free press in a free society is vital? If she does, surely plans to ring-fence service personnel from the media to protect the Government are quite wrong.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The reorganisation of the communications department will not stop the media being able to talk to military personnel at any level; that will continue. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Astor: we fully recognise that the media have an appetite for briefings with and by military officers. We further recognise the benefits for defence of that continuing. Military briefings will continue in

1329
operational theatre and the media will continue to be granted access to senior and junior members of the Armed Forces.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the rationale was financial rather than, as has been alleged in the press quite recently, due to political annoyance with the MoD's communications department's briefing of the press?
Baroness Crawley: Absolutely not, my Lords. The changes will improve the department's ability to communicate effectively with the media as well as, as I said in my original Answer, bringing into line the communications part of the MoD with the other joint working sections of the MoD. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, said of the changes:
"I am satisfied that the MoD's media operation, in common with the rest of the MoD, reflects the pattern".
The pattern is that nowadays most military operations are organised on a joint—that is, tri-service—basis. The revised arrangements should meet the needs of defence and represent a professional and coherent military view.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will the reorganisation prevent unauthorised members of staff having unauthorised communications with the media, which has led to so much trouble over the past 12 months?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. In future all media inquiries will be channelled through the department's press office, which will, of course, have a strengthened military representation within it as a result of the changes. There will be a one-stop shop, if you like, for media inquiries.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will local newspapers make inquiries of district and brigade local headquarters?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I understand it, the same access will still be available, but certainly initially it will be through the press department. There will not be, as it were, an inability for local newspapers to find out whatever they want to find out—the channel will just be different.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Wright of Richmond set down for today shall be limited to four hours and that in the name of the Lord Joffe to two hours.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
3.5 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond Lord Wright of Richmond rose to call attention to the current priorities in Her Majesty's Government's conduct of foreign and commonwealth affairs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would first like to thank the long and distinguished list of noble Lords who have decided to take part in this debate. I particularly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, has decided to take this opportunity to make his maiden speech. I know how much we are all looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
I have deliberately worded the Motion to enable your Lordships to cover a wide spectrum of international affairs this afternoon, and to give you the opportunity to state where you think the Government's international priorities should lie. Perhaps I may, not for the first time, express my regret at the decision, for the last few years, to bracket foreign affairs with defence and overseas development in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope very much that business managers will reconsider this in the future. Closely linked though all these issues are, bracketing them together in one debate has simply not given ample scope for a full discussion of foreign affairs—a subject in which this House has a unique repository of expertise, shortly to be reinforced by the very welcome introduction of my friend and colleague, Sir John Kerr.
It is perhaps worth emphasising the inevitable gap between setting priorities and sticking to them. We have only to recall the exceptionally high priority that President Bush promised to give to his relations with Mexico within weeks of his inauguration, before the events of September 11 changed the Administration's priorities so dramatically. International affairs, unlike domestic affairs, are never under the sole control of any one government—even a superpower like the United States. Foreign policy problems tend to leap out of the dark and to threaten the priority given to even the most carefully considered and long-term strategies.
Nor can any government conduct their foreign policy without taking into account the interests and priorities of other governments including, of course, their friends, partners and allies, and their commitments to those many international organisations, including the United Nations and NATO, of which the United Kingdom is a member. In that connection I might remind your Lordships that we shall next year be holding the presidencies of both the Group of Eight and, for the last six months, the European Union.
There is also an increasing temptation for governments to allow the media to set their priorities for them, with the risk that important, but forgotten, issues tend to be given insufficient, if any, priority. Without claiming any great prescience, I remind your Lordships that in a speech which I made in this House almost exactly nine years ago, I warned of two so-called "forgotten areas of the world" that had no

1331
prominence at the time, but which later turned out to cause a great deal of trouble and attention; namely, Afghanistan and Liberia.
Some of your Lordships may wish to use the opportunity of this debate to draw attention to some other areas of the world which are today in danger of being forgotten. Indeed, I wonder whether the priority that the Government are inevitably giving to current troubles in Iraq may not be in danger of putting both Afghanistan and the Balkans back on to the "forgotten" list.
Setting priorities also carries with it the inescapable need to give some issues a lower priority, which governments may later come to regret. We have only to note recent complaints by Christian Aid that security needs in Iraq, and for counter-terrorism, are diverting much needed and promised aid from the poorer countries.
I am not arguing that priority setting is pointless. As I know from my former role as accounting officer of the Diplomatic Service, it is an inevitable part of preparing the departmental case for the public expenditure round. One of the difficult challenges for the Foreign Office accounting officer is to ensure that the requirements for the BBC World Service and the British Council are carefully balanced with the requirements of the Diplomatic Service.
The world has never been more dangerous than it is today. It is as important as it has ever been that the network of diplomatic posts worldwide should be properly resourced, both to fulfil their essential role in public diplomacy, in which they must work closely with the British Council, and to ensure their security. As we resource our Armed Forces and our development programmes, we also need to think carefully about the priority that we attach to getting our diplomacy right. One of the disastrous mistakes of United States policy towards Iraq was to leave all the planning, such as it was, in the hands of the Pentagon and to exclude the diplomats and those who had first-hand experience of Iraq. This is a time for more diplomacy, not less.
As for priorities, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, as I am sure the Minister will, to the excellent booklet produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in December last year, entitled UK International Priorities. Although that document is subtitled:
"A Strategy for the FCO",
I am told that it was drawn up only after full consultation with other government departments, in an attempt to establish consensus on where the whole Government's international priorities should lie. Not surprisingly, the FCO's paper concludes that our relationship with the United States will continue to be our most important individual relationship and a vital asset, and that the relationship between Europe and the United States will be of paramount importance for the United Kingdom's—and the world's—future security and prosperity.
I hope that we shall hear from noble Lords this afternoon some views on our relations with the United States and with the European Union. On the latter, we have recently had good debates in the House, both on the constitutional treaty and on the European Court of Justice. The Government may argue that we do not have to allocate priority between the transatlantic alliance and Europe, as we can claim to be a bridge between the two. Sadly, the history of our involvement in Iraq over the past year has shown that the Government, in my view unwisely, have put an excessive priority on at least appearing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies, with some damage to our stated goal of remaining at the centre of the European Union.
I have already quoted one previous intervention of mine. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I also quote from a passage in my speech in a debate on foreign affairs which I similarly had the privilege of introducing in this House more than six years ago. It has a certain resonance in present circumstances. Having rejected the French description of our relationship with the United States as that of an Anglo-Saxon Trojan horse within the walls of Europe, I continued that,
"it is important, if our relationship with the United States is to add substance and value to our membership of the European Union and vice versa, that we do not give the impression—as I fear has too often been the case in the past—that we are prepared to give uncritical support to all American policies. Nor is that the way in which we can hope to influence the United States Administration or Congress".—[Official Report, 28/1/98; col. 235.]
I do not think that I can better that warning, particularly in the light of our current policies in the Middle East. It may have come as a surprise to your Lordships that I have not concentrated, in my introductory speech, on Iraq or the wider Middle East—partly because I wished deliberately to broaden the agenda for the debate, and partly because we quite recently had the benefit of the excellent debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. All I wish to say today on that vital area of the world is that I believe that the United States has made a fundamental and dangerous error in failing to put the highest priority on pushing forward the peace process in the Middle East, in spite of personal assurances by President Bush in Belfast that he would do so.
It was, in my view, a disastrous error to have given higher priority to Iraq—which, as we all now know, had nothing to do with the events of September 11—than to the problem which lies at the hub of much of the instability in the Middle East, and of Arab and Muslim mistrust of the West. It is not, of course, just a question of adopting an even-handed negotiating approach vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestinians, although that has sadly been lacking in United States policies. We also need to find ways of encouraging both Palestinians and Israelis, who have a shared and genuine interest in peace, to renounce violence and to find a way forward in negotiation.
I hope that the debate may provide an opportunity for noble Lords to make some practical suggestions. Most of all, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Her Majesty's Government continue to put the highest priority towards ending the unacceptable violence and killing of innocent civilians by both sides; and towards

1333
achieving a comprehensive and just settlement for the future security of Israel, and for the creation of a genuinely viable Palestinian state, in close co-operation with our European partners and other members of the quartet.
A solution to the Palestinian problem is not only vital in itself, as a means of alleviating the suffering, deprivation and insecurity which it is causing for all concerned. Our own policies towards the Arab-Israel dispute will affect, for better or worse, the extent of mistrust and bitterness towards the West which the unresolved horrors of Palestine and Iraq are likely to leave in Arab and Muslim minds for many years to come. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to address the House for the first time, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his initiative and congratulate him on securing the debate. He and I know each other well. We had the pleasure of being together on the British Council board for a few years when he was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office. We also had the memorable distinction of participating in the only vote in that board's history, and finding ourselves on the losing side when it chose to go to Manchester instead of Glasgow for its new headquarters.
I am also delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is winding up the debate, not only because she is one of the most eloquent and effective members of the Government, but because I had the advantage of having her for a very brief period as my deputy at the Ministry of Defence. That was before I was moved out of Parliament, out of the Cabinet and out of the country and given a new name. It is known in the United States as the witness protection scheme, but it was to NATO that I went, which precluded me for obvious reasons from speaking in this House since then. I thank noble Lords for the warmth of their welcome and the depth of their understanding about why I was not here for so long.
The four years in which I held the position of Secretary-General were remarkable, dramatic and in many ways unpredictable—events, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, has said, out of the dark. I went in there in the aftermath of Kosovo, four years after the intervention in Bosnia. We had a potential bloodbath in southern Serbia in early 2001 and then a near civil war in Macedonia later in that year; and, of course, on September 11 the whole world was turned upside down.
In February of last year we had a crisis in the alliance over giving help to Turkey under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. I was responsible at the time for the decision taken for NATO to go into Afghanistan and the decision in principle, unanimously taken last year, to support Poland as it took responsibility for a multinational division in Iraq.
NATO is a very different organisation from the one I went to in October 1999. There are seven new members of the alliance, three of them part of the Soviet Union only 15 years ago; new relationships on paper and in
1334
practice with the European Union; a new equality-based council with the Russian Federation; new capabilities for the new world that we live in—a new command structure and a new Supreme Allied Command transformation to bind together the armed forces of America and Europe; a new NATO response force designed for the challenges of the future; a new commitment to getting the right capabilities for tomorrow's challenges and not for yesterday's enemies; and new roles in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, NATO is an international organisation that went through a transition, faced the challenges and made the changes, both internally and externally. I believe that it has faced the challenges of terrorism proliferation and of failed states and that it is better equipped than ever before.
A T-shirt was presented to me in Colorado Springs last September at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers. It was in exchange for a bottle of fine 17 year-old Islay malt whisky—so that killed the stereotype of the mean Scotsman for ever. But the T-shirt was a very important memento. On the back was the emblem of the ministerial meeting and on the front was the slogan, "This ain't your daddy's NATO". I was very proud of that T-shirt. I have not yet found the circumstances to wear it, but the legend is important and NATO is there.
NATO is one of the most important organisations that we have been involved in and are members of now. It is a huge bargain for the money that we spend, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a commitment on behalf of the Government that. at long last, the United Kingdom Government will stop putting a block on enlarging the NATO budget, which they, like the French and German Governments, have conspired over the years to keep at record lows. I believe that NATO is the one multinational organisation in the world where the United States Government want to spend more money, but are prevented doing so by certain governments—and the British Government could take a lead.
I have one reservation about many of the things that we did during my time at NATO—my worry and my concern as a passionate Atlanticist and a passionate European integrationist over the lamentable record of the European powers in sharing the security burden with the United States of America. Unless the European countries spend more money on defence—and spend it more wisely—then it will be impotence and not influence that results from the transatlantic relationships. We need more deployable troops; we need more big planes; we need more precision weapons; and we do not need the heavy metal armies that were useful, if they were useful at all, against the Soviet Union in a bygone day.
Perhaps I may say a word in conclusion—I am told that I must limit my speech to six minutes. I know that someone was once quoted as saying, "If you can't say what you need to say in 20 minutes, go away and write a book". To crystallise one's views in six minutes is difficult, but not, I hope, impossible.
I do not think that, in this brief time, it is either appropriate or necessary to revisit the arguments regarding, "Why Iraq? Why now?". I supported the

1335
invasion then and I support the principle of it now. An evil man in the region and in the world has been disposed of. The world is a better place, although it will be tough to get through. But the issue of "the now" is more urgent than the argument about "what if?". I think that there are too many stakeholders in failure, and yet there are so many people in Iraq who are stakeholders in success. In the next four weeks, as the leaders of the world meet next week in Normandy, the following week at Sea Island in Georgia, then at the European Union summit, and then in Istanbul at the NATO summit, I hope they will focus on how best we can safely find a way to hand over authority to the Iraqis themselves—because, be assured, if we do not sort Iraq then Iraq will come and sort us. That is the lesson of history and I hope that we learn it.
Those who have doubts about whether that is possible might care to go to Sarajevo and talk to another Member of this House who is on leave of absence at the moment—to Paddy Ashdown, who I visited on a number of occasions and who is doing a brilliant and successful job there. It is not yet nine years since the massacre at Srebrenica, but we have gone from the killing fields of Srebrenica to the Eurovision Song Contest for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not many people would have made that prediction in 1995, when we intervened there.
So, let us be optimistic. Let us try to look at the long game and take the tough decisions now. World leaders will be on the spot and we must all wish them well.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, by a strange coincidence I have the privilege of following an outstanding maiden speech, exactly as I did on 14 September 2002, when I followed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. So my pleasure in welcoming the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, is amplified by the fact that he has set a marvellous sequel to the pattern set by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown.
I have known the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for long time and he was one of my opposite numbers during my time at the Foreign Office. In particular, I remember the occasion when he had to respond to my rather startling and disturbing announcement about the shooting of three IRA men in Gibraltar. That was a very confused occasion. I was not able to give him the Statement until five minutes before I made it—and it was quite different from what it had been an hour before. He might have responded in any number of opportunistic ways, but he responded with robust, candid support, which I have always valued.
I remember also, perhaps particularly as a Welshman, his joint handling, as shadow Scottish Secretary, with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, of the tragedies of Dunblane. Their joint management of that terrible episode did great credit to our political system on both sides, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, played a very large part in that. So nothing has surprised us about his subsequent record,
1336
his distinguished service as Secretary of State for Defence and, of course, in NATO, during the four years that we have been missing him in this House.
The noble Lord closed by making exactly the right points, based on that experience, and I underline his encouragement to our European partners to begin playing a much more serious role in fortifying ourselves effectively to play the part that we ought to. His advice on that and many other issues will be enormously welcome and I congratulate him most warmly on behalf of the entire House.
It is also a pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, because we, too, have had a significant partnership over many years. He opened this debate with the authority and clarity that we have come to expect of him and I underline absolutely one of his most important points—the need for us to have, as a nation playing a proper part in the world, a Diplomatic Service that is properly resourced and whose advice and wisdom is properly respected. Both are equally important.
I depart from the noble Lord's pattern of priorities, because it is some time since I have spoken on the topic of foreign affairs in this House for reasons with which I need not trouble noble Lords. I want to say something in particular about the consequences of what has been happening in relation to Iraq over recent years. I shall focus much more critically than I would have wished on the performance of the United States, as well as on the entire pattern of our own reactions to what was happening—my reaction and the world's reaction. We failed to judge correctly the anger with which the United States, and its leaders, was likely to react to an event of hugely provocative and humiliating significance in its history.
I look back on my own advice, and perhaps I may follow the noble Lord's example of quoting from one of my own speeches. On 14 September 2001, I said clearly that robust action in self-defence was justified, but only if three conditions were fulfilled and that,
"it is essential to be sure, or as sure as one can be, that the evidence of guilt is equally robust";
it is essential,
"to sustain the unflagging long-term unity of international support that will be essential to success";
and it is essential to give,
"a renewed commitment to tackle even-handedly both sides of the Middle East conflict, which fuels and exacerbates the hostility towards the United States".—[Official Report, 14/9/01; col. 26.]
Each of those points, if they were important then, can be seen to be even more important now.
Perhaps we made the mistake of believing that we were dealing with the United States after the self-restraint it had showed on so many occasions during the years of the Cold War. We supported it, quite rightly, in the actions it took against Afghanistan; but with much less wisdom and enthusiasm over what happened in Iraq.
Most tragically of all, the ultimate aim became regime change—but not so much regime change as regime destruction with little, if any, consideration of what was to replace it, save for much rhetorical commitment to

1337
democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out how successful that has been in the Balkans, thanks to great good fortune and wisdom there. In many other countries around the world, one has seen how hard it is to construct anything resembling a democratic system of government.
One can look at the history of Iraq and the description of it given by King Faisal I after he had been in office for some 10 or 12 years. He said:
"There are still no Iraqi people … they are devoid of any patriotic ideas, connected by no common tie, prone to anarchy, perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever … the immensity of efforts required to tackle these troubles can only be imagined".
The history of tyranny which followed in the later years shows how huge was the task to which so little consideration was given. The truth is that so far it has done nothing to enhance the stability of the region. On the contrary. It has done nothing to prevent the spread of terrorism and the task has been made infinitely more difficult by the repeated rhetorical emphasis of the conduct of a "war on terror", which confuses rather than simplifies the task facing us.
We come to the exit from the situation of great complexity in which we now find ourselves. I have only one observation to make on that in the limited time available. As regards what happens now and in the weeks and months ahead, as my right honourable friend Michael Howard pointed out, and was justified in doing so, this country is entitled—indeed, it is under a duty—to insist on the advice which it gives being harkened to and, above all, to a much more positive response to our advice in tackling the difficulties of establishing some form of tolerable self-governance in Iraq.
That advice was summed up a week or two ago in an article in the Financial Times by Professor Anthony Lake, President Clinton's national security adviser for four years. This comes from someone of authority in that country:
"Real internationalisation of the political authorities and the security forces is desperately needed now. That means more than asking the United Nations and NATO to help. It means actually transferring real power and authority to a UN-authorised international mission and a NATO-led security force".
That that should be the objective is surely now clear beyond doubt. That it will be extremely difficult to achieve is, tragically, equally clear. We may well be carrying a burden more direct than we would wish for longer than we would wish. All the more reason for our advice to be clearly given and for it to be listened to with respect, as it ought to be.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the great wealth of your Lordships' House is to be found in the extraordinary breadth and depth of experience which is brought to debates by its Members. It was never better exemplified than by my three predecessors today: the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, to whom we owe the conduct of the debate; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon; and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I speak not only for myself but also for my colleagues on these Benches when I say that it is a delight
1338
to hear him in this Chamber and to be able to look forward to many more illuminating contributions out of his experience and understanding of wider world affairs and the place of our country in them.
The terms of the debate were set out not only in the wording of the Motion but also in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. He said that this was an opportunity to pull back from the immediacy of some of the particular and serious problems before us and to take a wide-angle lens to our conduct of foreign affairs and foreign policy. Surely the purpose of a foreign policy is summed up in three simple notions. First, it is to defend the welfare of the citizens of our country from external threats and from any internal threats consequent on them. Secondly, it is to facilitate citizens and our private, public and national institutions in promoting their legitimate interests—economic, social, cultural or otherwise. Thirdly, it is to maintain and benefit the good name of the country. That assists all of us, our citizens and our public institutions, in achieving all those things.
There can be little doubt that these are appropriate and reasonable aims. The eight strategic policy priorities set down by the Foreign Office sum them up and are perhaps a little wider. But the problem is whether any particular policy delivers what it sets out to do. Looking back over the past four years, it seems that the citizens of this country are not now more secure whether at home— even within the confines of the Palace of Westminster, as we were recently reminded—or travelling abroad.
In conducting our affairs—economic, social, cultural, educational or otherwise—we are not better off than we were four years ago. Many parts of the world are more antagonistic towards us, our country and our citizens. Sadly, I fear that the good name of our country is not held in such high esteem as it was some years ago. Therefore, it is not a question of whether the aims of policy priorities are good, but whether they deliver what they set out to deliver.
This is lamentable. I use the word cautiously but with emphasis because the deterioration in our world is serious and could well get worse. Many of the great strengths of this country have been set to one side. The history of moving from an imperial past to a commonwealth of nations is remarkable. We often forget how remarkable, virtually singular, the achievement is. Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in foreign policy over the past century is that a once imperial power was able to have such extraordinarily good, positive and onward-looking relations with former colonies.
The development of the European Union, to which we have, perhaps in a slightly hiccupping fashion, made a contribution, is hugely important. From a parochial point of view, even in the past few years the contribution to peace around the world, particularly in Northern Ireland, has been a success, even if it has not completely delivered. It is a positive thing. The situation is better than it was.
The standing of our judicial, journalistic and other institutions around the world was high but now it is not so high. Why is that? It seems to me that it is because we have forgotten some of the lessons. The first is that foreign policy is not a short-term issue; it is a long-term matter that

1339
requires sticking with one's approach through the ups and downs. There is a great tendency to overreact to immediate events and not to understand that the content of immediate events is far less important than the process of one's approach to dealing with the long-term issues.
Whether it was the development of the Commonwealth, the building of the European Union or peace processes in places such as South Africa and Northern Ireland, or the development of our constitution and our courts and the whole ethos of our community, none came about by short-term reaction; they came about by long-term, slow, thoughtful and consistent building, characterised by integrity and respect.
It seems to me that if we are to see success in the avowed aims that we set down in terms of policy priorities, we must be prepared to adhere to, and stick with, an approach to foreign policy characterised by consistency in the long term, respect in all our dealings and an integrity that shines through. I say in passing that we should not jump to the whim of a current administration, even when it is that of a long-term friendly country. Let us not be mistaken: many of our American colleagues do not feel that the current administration is following American interests. Precision and measurability of policy priorities is very fashionable, but it is far less important than wisdom in implementing the priorities.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that this is a four-hour time-limited debate. That is beyond the control of me or anyone else. Clearly, if everyone runs beyond the limit of six minutes per speaker, there will be very little time left for the later speakers. That is not a criticism of anyone; it is a statement of arithmetic.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I join everyone in this House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on a remarkable maiden Speech. The combination of wit and wisdom, candour and expertise in six minutes meant that its impact was brilliantly focused. If he is able to give some of us on these Benches a few tips in creating sermons, we should be very glad to hear from him. I look forward very much to learning a great deal from the noble Lord in the years ahead and, again, I thank him most warmly.
In the 1970s, I worked as religious education adviser in the diocese of Hereford, which meant that I was invited to schools to talk to sixth-formers. I was invited to a school in Telford, where the title of my talk, which was given to me by the school, was "This Man believes in God", the implication being that youngsters had better take a careful look at this particular specimen because I was doomed to die. I was a kind of theological and anthropological dodo.
Noble Lords will be aware that, far from dying out, religious belief seems to have become an increasingly dominant element in our world. No strategy concerning priorities in foreign policy can be described as adequate if it fails to take seriously religious elements within both situations where there is conflict and those where peace is being created.
1340
As noble Lords will know, there are two distinct elements within interfaith activity. The first is dialogue between the faiths themselves. I take this opportunity to thank particular heroes in that field in this country. I think, for example, of Brian Pearce of the Inter Faith Network and Sister Margaret Shepherd and her colleagues at the Council of Christians and Jews. I now declare an interest: I am the national chairman of that council. It is a huge privilege because I am acutely aware of the unsung work that goes on in combating racism and increasing interfaith understanding on a daily basis.
CCJ and similar organisations in this country are entirely dependent for their work upon voluntary, charitable giving. But if interfaith dialogue is a major contributor to social cohesion in this country, which it is, is it not possible for more government help to be given in supporting our work?
Secondly, just as there is a need for dialogue between the faiths, so there is also a need for dialogue between the faiths and government. The instruments of that kind of dialogue at a national and regional level are at an early and unformed stage. But those mechanisms, too, will need significant government resource if they are to be effective.
Noble Lords will know that Article 51 of the draft European Union Constitution speaks of,
"open, transparent and regular dialogue",
between EU institutions and the faiths. Whatever one thinks about that constitution—whether one is for or against it—the fact that Article 51 exists in draft form is evidence of the seriousness with which all European countries are taking religion in the 21st century.
As a nation, we have a huge amount to be proud of in the way in which interfaith understanding has been created over many decades—in schools, hospitals and the voluntary sector—and, in truth, as a nation we have much good practice to share with European partners.
I say all that about inter-religious and interfaith dialogue in this important debate about foreign policy because of the role that religions play in shaping our world. The religions that are talking to each other in the United Kingdom are the very same religions that are found elsewhere in the world. The religions that need to have dialogue with the Government in this country are the same religions which spread across the globe. Creating understanding in the United Kingdom is not separate from foreign policy; it should be seen as an integral and necessary part of it. If we can create understanding here, we may be able to model in this country ways of interacting between faiths and between faiths and government which can be developed elsewhere.
At a practical level, it would be very good—perhaps this already happens—if officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could increase their dialogue with other parts of the government machinery, especially with the Home Office, in order to create a coherent, intelligent and well researched map of interfaith activity. Such a map would show not only what is going on in the United Kingdom, of which there is a great deal, but what is

1341
going on in Europe. Such a mapping exercise could then provide the foundation for a far more proactive stance, encouraging good interfaith relationships across Europe and the world and good faith/government dialogue in the United Kingdom, Europe and, again, across the world.
The creation of understanding is the key to a peaceful world. It is my belief that religions must be a part of that process—a process which tries to create a world free of conflict. Of course, I recognise that it is a huge task, but if we who express our faith, whatever that may be, can play a significant role in that process and be resourced to do so, I believe that the benefits could be absolutely enormous.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, for proposing and brilliantly opening this extremely important and timely debate on foreign policy priorities. Before I make my own contribution, I want to say how much I enjoyed the witty and wise speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and how much I look forward to his contributions in the years to come.
The foreign policy of any country, especially a great country such as ours, cannot be ad hoc or based on newspaper headlines or on tactical considerations and short-term expedience; it must be based on certain fundamental principles. I want to take the opportunity to suggest four basic principles which I believe must regulate the foreign policy of a country like ours.
First, we must aim to create a just and peaceful world; a world that is stable and where injustices do not fester and make people so desperate that they are tempted to resort to terrorism in order to redress those injustices, and where human beings are able to lead decent lives. I regard that as one of the most important and central principles of our foreign policy.
We have often expressed right sentiments on such acute conflicts as Israel and Palestine, but I am afraid that we have not been able to do very much, either because we got distracted by all kinds of short-term considerations or because we decided, for reasons I do not always understand, to rely a little too heavily on the United States and abdicated our responsibility for that part of the world.
We have rightly taken some important initiatives in tackling economic injustices and poverty, especially in Africa. I welcome the new commission on Africa, though I regret that it has taken us several years to set it up. I very much hope that it will not end up simply making recommendations that might never be implemented.
I also very warmly welcome the initiative that our Government have taken in pushing debt relief high up the agenda of international institutions, including several bilateral debt cancellations and increased developmental aid. However, my enthusiastic response to that is tempered by the fact that we have not done very much in democratising international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. Nor have we done much to render them transparent and accountable.
1342
That is so partly because we have not made economic justice our top priority and partly because we have not tried to mobilise progressive forces in our own society and elsewhere in the world. We need to link up with the many organisations that are actively struggling for economic justice, and make sure that we utilise their energies in creating a better and just world.
My second principle is that we need to foster respect for international law and international institutions in a climate of global civility. That is not achieved by rhetoric and sermons, but by ourselves setting a good example. Much violence in the world arises because human rights are ignored. Obviously, we need to foster a climate in which human rights are respected, hut we need to be careful about what that involves. Often that is presented as an attempt to export democracy. I cannot imagine anything more absurd and flawed than that. Democracy is not just a matter of constitution, it is a matter of institutions and culture. Those things take decades to develop. Rather, we should be thinking in terms of creating a regime of human rights and the rule of law and allowing them to exercise and generate their own momentum.
In that context we have again begun to talk of humanitarian intervention. That is a commendable principle, but one that is always in danger of getting out of control if we ignore its grounds and limits. At all costs we should ensure that humanitarian intervention does not become a cloak for pursuing dubious national interests, or even a means of reshaping the world in our own image. In that connection I want to refer to some excellent work done in British universities by international relations experts, especially in Aberystwyth—where recently I was privileged to be elected as an honorary professor.
The third principle has to do with what I shall call restoring a modernised version of the principle of balance of power; not the 19th century version, but a version that is appropriate to the 21st century. No single country should be allowed to dominate the world. That is neither in that country's interest nor in the interest of the world. We should aim to create multiple centres of power. Here I may sound like a French academic, but that is not the intention. The intention is that while having multiple centres which regulate each other, we should avoid the French mistake of thinking that each one should take a confrontational attitude to others.
One of our goals should be a polycentric world in which these different centres work together to create a better and sensible world. We are ideally equipped to do that by virtue of our membership of' the Commonwealth, of Europe, with our Atlantic connections and by virtue of the large empire which left us with a large number of friends and close connections in Africa and the Muslim world. I can think of no other country that is better equipped to be a bridge between different centres.
Finally, I want to turn to the important question of good relations with the United States. Obviously, we have close ties with the United States and we must build on them. But we need to be careful how we define the special relations, how we pursue them and what price we are expected to pay for them.

1343
The United States is a vibrant democracy and speaks in many different voices. The voice that we currently hear is only one of them. If we identify too closely with that voice—namely the neo-conservative—alone, we are in grave danger of alienating many progressive voices in the United States. We should make it clear to the United States that we respect its great values and traditions and that it can count on our fullest support as long as it lives up to those values. But, should it ever fail to live up to those values, it can equally expect criticism—friendly, obviously, but nevertheless firm criticism from us. That is not anti-Americanism but the opposite; it is a way of urging that country to live up to its own great ideals and becoming its conscience.
We constantly talk about being a bridge between the United States and Europe or having special relations. If we are not careful such metaphors can easily make us prisoners of an antiquated and rather foolish way of thinking. A great country cannot simply expect to hang on to the coat-tail of another; it has its own view of the world and should be pushing for that. Rather than be a bridge between this and that centre of power, ideally we should be thinking in terms of using our own initiative and bringing these various centres together.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, having spoken to your Lordships' House on the European Union, on the United Nations and on the Middle East in recent weeks, I am avoiding those well worn pastures and wish to speak on two countries, Cyprus and Iran, both of which I think should have a place in our priorities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for having made this possible and enabling me to participate in a debate adorned by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.
When speaking about Cyprus I must clearly declare the fact that I was the Government's special representative for seven years, from 1996 until 2003. Nothing that I say on the subject now in any way represents the views of the Government, whose representative on this matter I ceased to be a year ago.
The outcomes of the two referendums held in Cyprus on 24 April were sharply contrasted. In the north the Turkish Cypriots endorsed the UN Secretary-General's plan by 64.9 per cent; and in the south the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan by more than 75 per cent. In the north Mehmet Ali Talat, newly installed as prime minister after the parliamentary elections of last December and backed by the AK party government in Ankara, turned the page definitively on the rejectionist policies of Denktash and persuaded his people to accept the loss of territory, the displacement of many thousands of Turkish Cypriots and the rapid reduction in Turkish troop presence for which the plan provided.
In the south the administration of Tassos Papadopoulos, backed by Christofias, the leader of the communist party, took up the rejectionist baton which had been dropped by Denktash; and in so doing they ensured that the 9 per cent of territory on offer was not returned to the administration; that the tens of
1344
thousands of Greek Cypriots who would have returned to their property would not be able to do so; that Turkey's troop presence would not be reduced; and that there would be no cap on the number of Turkish mainland citizens who could come to the north and get Turkish Cypriot citizenship. One could truly say that the Greek Cypriots voted with their hearts while the Turkish Cypriots voted with their heads.
That outcome, and the consequent stymieing of the Annan plan, was both a triumph and a tragedy for the UN, and for the international community which had backed its efforts so determinedly. To have brought more than 30 years of negotiations with two parties, which no one would describe as easy going, to the point where what was generally considered outside Cyprus as a fair and equitable set of compromise solutions was on the table was a major achievement in itself. To have overcome the doubts and opposition of the Turkish Cypriots and of Turkey, maintained for decades by Denktash, who had dominated the policy of both the north of Cyprus and Turkey, was little short of the miraculous.
Was the rejection by the Greek Cypriots in any way justified? I do not believe so. No one who has read Papadopoulos's appeal for a "no" vote, which was a root and branch assault on the fundamental aspects of the Annan plan, not just a criticism of its latest iteration, can seriously believe that he had been negotiating in good faith for a settlement up to that moment. Nor did his behaviour at the last round of negotiations in Switzerland, when he refused to prioritise his list of desired changes and declined the smallest symbolic gestures of reconciliation to his Turkish Cypriot compatriots or to the Turkish Government, support that view. Driven by zero-sum calculations that compromises acceptable to Turks and Turkish Cypriots must by definition be detrimental to the interests of Greek Cypriots, he led his people into a strategic error that equalled those of 1963 when they hijacked the post-independence constitution and of 1974 when Archbishop Makarios was overthrown by force.
What should happen now? It will be most interesting to hear the views of the Minister on that. In my view, it is important that the Greek Cypriots be left in no doubt of the real anger and disappointment throughout the international community at their decision. No one disputes their democratic right to take that decision; but people have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The Greek Cypriots have chosen to reject the views of the UN and of their new partners in the European Union. They can expect no support for their case and should get none. In March 2003, when Denktash torpedoed the negotiations, the Secretary-General and the whole international community made it clear that, until there was a change of policy, there was nothing more to talk about. That surely needs to be the same message now even if the destination is different.
The Turkish Cypriots can reasonably ask that they should not be the victims of this setback; and yet it is they who are left in limbo outside the European Union. The immediate decision to pledge 260 million euros and the provision for trade across the green line

1345
will help the Turkish Cypriots, but what is now needed, surely, is to remove all discrimination against people who are, after all, citizens of the European Union and to prepare the Turkish Cypriots and their legislation and administrative practices for eventual European membership. What would not make sense would be to pursue Denktash's will of the wisp of recognition as an independent sovereign state. Every step by all parties now needs to be towards the Annan plan, which remains the only viable basis for a settlement, and not away from it.
When Iran was discussed in this House last November, I suggested that we, and even more so our closest ally, the United States, needed to develop a more sophisticated and better articulated policy towards that country. So far the United States, while it seems to have moved a little away from the "axis of evil" caricature, regards Iran as little more than a potentially awkward neighbour to two countries—Iraq and Afghanistan—of greater security policy importance to it; and as the possessor of a highly suspect nuclear programme. But it is a country with 70 million inhabitants, exporting millions of barrels of oil a day, with its own security concerns; a country moreover which is most certainly not part of the Arab Middle East, to be somehow lumped in with that group. It surely needs to be addressed directly and on its Own merits. It is hard to see how that can be done successfully without any contact or dialogue between it and the United States. If the Americans can talk to the North Koreans why on earth can they not talk to the Iranians?
I have no illusions that the dialogue that we or the Americans may have with the Iranians will be straightforward or trouble free. We will have to talk about Middle East policy, about the nuclear programme, human rights and the treatment of women. But unless we can situate those difficult points within a wider framework that takes account of Iran's own security concerns, we will get nowhere. To do that should not be impossible. Iran has an important interest in the stability of its eastern and western neighbours; it is a key security player in a sub-region—the Gulf—of great importance to us and the Europeans. I would hope that, in the contacts we have with Washington at every level, we will be registering some of those points.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, if we had injury time to be used in these time-limited debates, I would use it several times over to express my appreciation for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to wish him a happy time in the Chamber and to tell him that I remember with great affection with what tenacity he opposed the Single European Act in his days in the House of Commons.
If I were in the House of Commons today, I would have voted against the invasion of Iraq. I say that so that the House may know from where I come. I would have done so primarily because I believed that, having invaded Iraq, we would find it immensely difficult, if not intractable, to extricate ourselves at some convenient and propitious moment. Well. I would be happy for the vanity of that judgment to be pricked. If the draft
1346
Security Council resolution is intended to start a process that will establish an effective Iraqi authority that will gainsay my fears, I will be only too happy. But at present, I travel with a great deal of anxiety.
I take at once the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, that we must understand that the United States' whole psyche was shattered by the Twin Towers episode. It destroyed a sense of security and confidence that it has not yet repossessed and has led to some quite extraordinary behaviour on the part of the American Government which will prove damaging for the West and the Alliance.
I shall make only three points. The first concerns the conduct of war. The great emphasis on technology, on aerial bombardment, added to the behaviour of the American infantry on the ground, is the conduct of war in such a fashion as to exclude totally the idea of winning hearts and minds.
Secondly, there is the desire to build a society and constitution based on substantially Western concepts of human rights, law-making, law enforcement and legislature—the whole gamut—which are difficult enough for Western societies, let alone to be imposed on countries that have little in their traditions that pay regard to the origins that we have. I say that in no sense as making a value judgment; it is just a practical judgment. At times, President Bush sounds as though he is a born again Woodrow Wilson. That is one more difficulty to add to the plenty that we already have.
My third point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, to whom we are indebted for this debate, concerns the conduct of American policy on the Palestinian and Israeli dispute. The television screens, week in and week out, bring home to us the violence and near hopelessness of that dispute. I shall not here try to adjudicate blame, which would be a most fruitless task to entertain. But there is no doubt that what has happened across the Middle East, especially in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, is poisoning relations with the wider Arab world. We will not defeat Al'Qaeda by Western techniques, attitudes and weaponry. There is more to it than that. There is a battle for ideas in which, to take the point made by the right reverend Prelate, there is also an engagement of spiritual issues.
When we consider that, it is a long haul. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded us that, so often, the great issues in public policy are for the long haul. When I think of the recent few months, I think of Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Rafah and Guantanamo. They are all without doubt dragon's teeth that are being sown that will have a rich harvest of well armed hoplites, making the future infinitely more difficult than would have been the case if we had constructed the response to Al'Qaeda rather differently than has been determined by the Americans.
I have no desire to enter into partisan political judgments on the matter but I will say this: I can feel friendlier towards old Labour than to the current Administration. Given how Harold Wilson dealt with Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnamese dispute, it seems that you could be good friends with America and still be a realist.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his maiden speech. I have known and admired the noble Lord for many years for his contribution to national politics and the arts, and to inter-allied bridge-building and international co-operation, while displaying the self-ironising yet authoritative manner that he showed today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright, would certainly agree with me that clarity of vision and a sense of proportion must be prerequisites to this groundbreaking debate, which he has so helpfully initiated.
We are all agreed that the resumption of negotiations in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very urgent; that a two-stage solution is inescapable; and that the bloodshed must stop. But I submit that it is an illusion to think that this conflict is the cornerstone of the battle against extremism and terror. It must be tackled pari passu with serious efforts to bring about reform and a radically changed mindset on both sides.
On the Arab side, polemics about the Israel-Palestinian feud have served for far too long as an alibi for masterly inactivity in the domains of social, economic and political reform. The recent Arab League meeting in Tunis came up with no constructive solution. There is talk again of a renewed Saudi initiative. But how can we take that seriously, when Crown Prince Abdullah ascribed responsibility for the recent devastating terror acts in his kingdom to Zionist culprits? How seriously can we take Chairman Arafat's willingness to resume talks, when on 15 May he cursed the existence of the state of Israel and praised the martyrs of the intifada without condemning the terrorists? Were those just rhetorical flourishes destined for home consumption? In the glasshouse world of instant global communication there is no difference between internal and external pronouncements.
It has been often suggested, perhaps with a side-glance at our own experiences in Northern Ireland, that talks can go on amid waves of terror, and that there must be no, or only minimal, retaliation. But the comparison is not valid. Not even the most ferocious member of the IRA would aspire to a solution beyond a united Catholic Ireland. Hamas and Hezbollah go for the jugular: the total extinction of the Jewish state and massacres throughout the Jewish world community. You cannot tell the mother who has lost four children through a suicide operation or young clerics who are assembling the limbs and innards of people murdered deliberately and purposefully—and not collaterally—that talks must go on regardless of continual attacks.
On at least two occasions recently, I spent an evening with Israeli leaders, once with Premier Sharon and once with a prominent member of the left-wing Peace Now movement. Both meetings took place on the eve of a planned encounter with the Palestinian sides with the purpose of arranging an armistice. Yet on both occasions an aide rushed in during the meal and reported a major suicide attack. The intended meetings with the Palestinians were cancelled, and the public was crying out for strong action.
1348
I sincerely hope that Prime Minister Sharon will carry his cabinet next Sunday and succeed in pursuing his plan for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I hope that he will do that without meaningful changes. I hope that he will also overcome resistance in his own party, and that petty party politics and career ambitions will not stand in the way. This plan deserves our support. The American President endorses it. Europeans and indeed some weighty Arab voices accept it, albeit with certain reservations. But it is a definite way of hoisting the road map from stony ground on to the conference table. Anyone who reads the Bush/Sharon correspondence very carefully and without bias will see that there is great scope for flexibility. Yes, it has a touch of the constructive ambiguity that so often in the history of diplomacy has allowed agreement to be reached with sacrifices on both sides.
Do not misread or underrate Sharon's wish for renewed negotiations and willingness for major concessions. When General de Gaulle, on his return to power, first visited Algeria, he cheered the supporters of l'Algérie.française. But the same de Gaulle chided them a few years later for still clinging to "l'Algérie du papa". General Sharon believed at one time in Greater Israel and masterminded the building of many settlements on the West Bank. But I am convinced that today what might have been desirable to him is no longer possible, and that this determined and stubborn warrior could well be the main agent of change in a direction that would ultimately lead to peace. Even if it were not given to him by fate to reach the last stretch of the road, he wants to tread it. I submit that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
In the remaining half minute, I wish to talk about a land where I have just been: the Ukraine. I remind noble Lords that that country will have vital elections on 31 October and an opportunity of electing a more democratic, decent and humane government. We should not, over our concern with the admission of Turkey to the European Union—which I consider to be vital in a geopolitical long-range context—forget the fate of a people of 50 million, drenched in European history and longing to be part of the European family of nations. If we could succeed in deepening our relations with Russia economically, culturally and through a military partnership with NATO, it should not be unrealistic to speak up for, and ultimately to achieve, the adhesion of a much tried and severely tested people.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the situation in Iraq is of grave concern, in the short term and, even more so, the long term. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, has given us the opportunity today to carry out careful scrutiny of this problem and to speak about it with candour.
The conduct of foreign affairs by this nation is based on two foundations. The first is to recognise and apply our national qualities: a sense of fairness and justice, a profound obligation to our armed services, and a commitment to help countries that need it to improve and, if necessary, re-establish themselves as a country. We value those qualities and are valued for them. The

1349
second foundation is the pursuit of our national interest, but in a way that serves our national reputation.
Applying that analysis to the aftermath of the war in Iraq, three matters arise. The first is fairness and justice. The events at Abu Ghraib prison and the shocking images that we have seen should be the subject of the following by this country: first, to condemn it; secondly, to do so forcefully; thirdly, to call, from either the United States or this country, if criminal investigation shows it to be appropriate, for prosecution with efficiency and expedition. Why? All to show that our sense of fairness and justice is applicable to war. Can we rightly say that we have spoken out forcefully on this question so far?
The second matter is safeguarding our soldiers. I have no military knowledge, but as a parliamentarian I am entitled to ask what is the plan, and where do we go next? As a parliamentarian I would strongly question any further expansion of troop numbers in Iraq or any significant alteration of our military role there unless the following conditions were satisfied. First, that such proposals had been fully discussed with, and agreed to by, as necessary, the general staff of our Armed Forces. Secondly, if there is to be such action, there should be an adequate supply of manpower and equipment. Thirdly, what is to be done must be indispensable, militarily as well as politically, and not capable of being done by anyone else. Lastly, there must be a properly thought out set of exit strategies. Our Armed Forces deserve nothing less. Have we achieved this sense of obligation in present circumstances?
The third matter is promoting our national interest and protecting our national reputation. Yesterday, Richard Perle, no less, frankly conceded that an army of liberation had become an army of occupation. That is the reality, which even he has accepted. The way forward, in our national interest and for our national reputation, is to help Iraq to rebuild itself governmentally, institutionally, and economically, all within a system based on the rule of law. That would be consistent with the quality that I previously described by which we seek to help other countries.
Each of these three—fairness, protecting our soldiers, and standing up for our national reputation—are interdependent. Damage to one can produce damage to all. I cannot see any feature of the needs of the coalition between this country and the United States that would prevent this country following these three objectives plainly and publicly. Indeed, if there were any restraint on it, that would call into question the nature of the coalition. I do not wish to criticise the United States of America. Her Majesty The Queen, on the visit of President Bush last November, said that we are strong allies and we usually agree; sometimes we disagree, and once in a while we fall out. That is the result of mature friendship.
We should speak frankly, certainly in this House, when we need to. History will judge what is going on in Iraq by what Britain did to stand up for the values that I have described. I am sure that the Prime Minister and
1350
my noble friend the Minister are determined to achieve those values and will give us reassurance. That is what the nation expects.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his excellent speech opening our debate today asked what are, or should be, our priorities. In my view, they should be to continue to remain alert against, and to deal with, the underlying causes of terrorism, and that means to deal with the Middle East situation, which is at the heart of terrorism. In the long term, the removal of Saddam will be seen to have helped against terrorism. Here and now, however, we are naturally much more concerned with what has been going wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not for a moment discount what has been achieved, sometimes against seemingly insuperable odds. There is no doubt that valuable progress has been made and much good has been done, but so much more would have been possible had the preparation been better and attitudes different.
In Afghanistan, the warlords are again in the ascendant. They are benefiting from billions of dollars from poppies and from smuggling—and with that money comes power. With power comes ruthlessness and brutality; and it is the poorer people who suffer and for whom the hope of a more peaceful existence is once again destroyed. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Biffen about appearing to be advocates of Western-style democracy. We should be wary of trying to foist our own pattern or system of government on those countries. I know that idea is fully accepted by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw who, in his admirable speech at the Foreign Policy Centre in March spoke of promoting,
"good governance, human rights, tolerance and the rule of law".
The precise system of government, and the ways in which people participate in it, should be for the people to decide. That must be the case for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but for that to happen the conditions must first make it possible. That means that we must understand their history and be sensitive to their traditions and customs.
Caution rather than arrogance should be the guide, yet America seems to be following too closely the example of Israel. In fact, America is much too closely identified with Israel for its own good. Excessive, almost panicky use of force is no way to win hearts and minds or inspire confidence among the people who you claim to help. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to the repulsive obscenity—my words, not his—of Abu Ghraib. That has savagely and sadly changed the landscape. It has been devastating for the coalition; it has been a tragedy for Iraq; it has been massively frustrating for British forces; and it must have caused the Prime Minister to wring his hands in despair.
What, in these circumstances, should be the objectives of British policy? It must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, indicated, first and foremost to restore calm and bring back the powers of diplomacy; to take account of the aspirations of the people of the region, who want food, water, housing,

1351
education, security, and the rule of law. That applies equally in Iran. I was interested in the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It is true that today in Iran there operates the tyranny of fundamentalism, which is stifling potential, especially that of the younger generation of men and women. They need to hear our voice; they need to hear more than Al-Jazeera; more even than CNN. They need to hear the voice of the BBC World Service, which does so much good. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will indicate that the Government are determined to expand and develop that medium of communication.
Of course we should stand firm in Iraq and see the process through, but who will decide? There are confused signals coming from America, from the British Government and from inside Iraq. If we are not to walk away now, who will decide when we should do so? On the wider front, clearly we must keep our forces strong, with the capacity for a quick and flexible response wherever a threat arises. That means remaining an active member of NATO, and it means avoiding being locked in to a bureaucratic European system. We should remain strong and steadfast, but not an uncritical friend of America, so that our role can continue to be a civilising influence in the world, where tolerance, individual freedom, and the rule of law can prevail.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, despite the limit on speeches today, I will spend a few precious seconds in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his admirable maiden speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, on initiating this debate on a Cross-Bench day. I have him to thank for sending me to numerous countries during the time of my Speakership, and I always remember his injunction to me that if all went well he would be very grateful, while if it all went badly he would utterly repudiate me. Looking back, I realise now that I was merely a visiting card for his ambassadors.
I hope it is not necessary to spend time in reminding your Lordships that, like the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, I spent five formative years of my life in the Indian army. My regiment, the 19th Lancers, had a squadron of Sikhs, a squadron of Hindus and a Muslim squadron. I should like to be the first today to echo the congratulations of the whole House to the Indian people on their continued tradition of democracy and democratic elections. After the trauma of partition in 1947, who would have thought that a nation of 1 billion people, three distinct geographical regions and many different religions—Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim and others—could conduct a general election with such efficiency and success, and achieve this with an electoral system of voting which has caught the attention and interest of the whole world?
In his address to the nation after the general election last week, the outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Bihari Vajpayee said this:
"Dear Countrymen, Elections to the 14th Lok Sabha are over. The voters have given their verdict. I accept the verdict … India is the world's largest democracy. It is always with the will of the
1352
people that governments have been formed—and changed. This power of democracy is a matter of pride for our country, something which we must always cherish, preserve and further strengthen".
I know we all agree that the Indian people have justifiable pride in the recent election in their country.
At partition in 1947, my regiment became part of the Pakistan army, and I have paid regular visits to it. Last year, I took my wife and she was charmed to be referred to regularly as "Bharbi". For those of your Lordships who do not speak Urdu, that is "brother's wife—your husband is our brother, so you are our sister-in-law". I join your Lordships in welcoming Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth family. Pakistan's geographic location means that it is a most important country in the present fight against terrorism and for global security and stability. I warmly welcome the Indian Government's promise to continue the peace process with Pakistan. It is important that this is not disrupted, delayed or derailed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press both Governments—India and Pakistan—to keep this process on track.
We should also use our influence on our American allies to ensure that Pakistan is supported to the full in Afghanistan and in its efforts to eliminate terrorism in its own tribal areas. Pakistan's role in combating terrorism cannot be over-estimated.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said that it might be appropriate to mention other countries in this debate, other than Iraq and others with perhaps greater importance. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is in London this week, and I hope that some of your Lordships will come to meet him in Portcullis House this Friday and hear his speech. I declare an interest as patron of the All-Party Group on Tibet. I have visited his Holiness in Dharamsala, northern India, and in the process I have come to know him well. In our country, we seek to encourage the settlement of dispute by "parley rather than by the sword". His Holiness has told me that he is tending to lose credibility among the young Tibetan refugees, who feel that his support for this process is getting them nowhere, and that the world will not take notice until they are allowed to go back into Tibet and shoot up the Chinese. If ethical foreign policy means anything, it must mean active support for leaders who seek solutions to difficult problems by way of discussion and by peaceful means.
His Holiness is meeting the Foreign Secretary on Friday. Unhappily, the Prime Minister is not able to see him on this occasion. I hope that one of the results of his visit will be the appointment of a special commissioner on Tibetan issues, as exists in the United States of America and the European Union, to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the problems and greater freedom for Tibetans in their own country. His Holiness seeks not independence but a greater degree of self-government and, above all, the end of the human rights violations to which the Tibetans are subjected in their own country. He deserves our full and active support.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He has said one of the things that I wanted to say about the success of democracy in India. He also mentioned the welcome readmission of Pakistan into the Commonwealth.
In such a debate and with so little time, one has two choices. Either one can concentrate on one aspect or one can spread oneself thinly. I shall start with a theoretical point: one can be idealistic in such a debate, as my noble friend Lord Parekh was, or one can be a realist, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was in his excellent maiden speech. I intend to be realistic because I am pessimistic about the world being a good place in which to live either now or in the near future.
I have already spoken on the Middle East, and I have said that I do not think that the Middle East problem is soluble. Until the two countries themselves decide that enough is enough and come to terms, no outside power will help. Indeed, every outside power hinders moves to a settlement in the Middle East. I point to the example of India and Pakistan. The agreement of that dispute, which is, perhaps, not as virulent as that in the Middle East, will be brought about by the two countries themselves. India and Pakistan always said—India definitely said—that they did not want to internationalise the dispute over Kashmir. They saw it as a dispute between India and Pakistan that would he solved as such. Although we can make the right noises, it is good that the great powers have kept out of advising and pressurising the two countries too much. That is why I believe that the agreement between India and Pakistan will, when it comes, be more deeply embedded than would an agreement arrived at through imposition by some sort of international troika or whatever.
I supported the war in Iraq, and I need not apologise for doing so. However, as many noble Lords have done, I would dissociate us from the appalling things that have happened in Abu Ghraib. It is important to say that what has happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo is not a part of British policy in the Middle East or anywhere else. We do not endorse such things, and we do not do such things. What is more, it is clear that, in America—I have just been there—there is not as much shock about it as one might have expected. Someone said to me, "This happens in our prisons all the time. What are people surprised about?". It does not happen in our prisons, and I hope that nobody will bring us photographs showing that such cruelty happens in our prisons. If it happens in American prisons, we must distance ourselves.
We are America's friends. We are its friends in the Iraq operation, and we believe that it was a good thing to eliminate Saddam Hussein, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen said. However, we do not believe that it is necessary, subsequent to a human rights-based intervention, to violate human rights in Iraq. We must be careful to create that distance. When America refused to be part of the International Criminal Court,
1354
people wondered why. Now, it is absolutely clear why Americans will not be part of the International Criminal Court. I do not blame them. If their culture domestically is as much in violation of human rights as it happens to be—this is not news; there have been human rights studies done about that—it is quite clear that they cannot be part of the International Criminal Court.
Given how powerful America is and how capable it is of doing good—I believe that it is capable of doing a lot of good—we have to draw a line somewhere in our friendship. I do not criticise the Prime Minister for being a very enthusiastic partner of America, but we have to draw the line somewhere, as my noble friend Lord Brennan said. We have to fall out sometimes, and this is a time to fall out.
Many noble Lords have said that countries cannot be made democratic "like that" and that they become democratic on their own. That is a very strange doctrine in the light of history. Take, for example, Japan, Germany or Austria. Japan's reconstruction after the Second World War as a democracy is an example where it could easily have been said, "Oriental cultures cannot absorb democracy": or who would have expected that India would be a democracy? That is partly because of what happened in the independence movement and the influence of Gandhi, but also partly because the local roots of democracy were sown in India in a series of reforms from the beginning of the 20th century.
Democracy can be exported. We should export it. The best thing that we can already export is patience.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate, it would indeed have been nice to put the past completely behind us and concentrate on that most difficult of all occupations, thinking deeply about the future. But we cannot ignore what sadly is still happening in Iraq. Not only must our exit strategy for the moment be our highest priority; unless we come to terms about what happened there, why it happened and draw sound conclusions, it is unlikely that we will tackle successfully the many problems, including terrorism, still emanating from that disturbed part of the world.
In Iraq, having been given many different reasons and justifications for what we did and why we are there, which have since proved erroneous or counterproductive, we are being repeatedly told that the endeavour on which we are now embarked is to bring democracy to Iraq. One can but wonder what legal—or, now, even moral—mandate the coalition really has to do that, rather than to leave it to the Iraqis.
Entering a country in support of a past UN resolution to seek out and destroy any weapons of mass destruction might have been one thing, but to remain in occupation in order to impose an alien political system and culture—when, if the Iraqis are united over anything, it is a rejection of the current occupation—is quite another.
Of course, having brought Iraq to a state of manifest disorder, whatever our motives, it is not unreasonable to feel that the coalition ought to see the occupation through to a more benign conclusion. Certainly,

1355
handing over political power early would restore some legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is to be hoped that that would make it much easier to involve the United Nations in some way.
The trouble is that that also raises a dilemma. If the security situation is by then no better, it is doubtful whether such a government would survive; while, if the coalition forces remain to try to improve things, even under a UN label, they will almost certainly exacerbate the situation and make a coherent exit strategy more difficult.
While coalition forces remain, they must work very closely with and at the behest of the Iraqi Government, who should indeed have the overall responsibility for security. Once we have decided to withdraw totally—in my opinion, in view of all that has been happening, that should be sooner rather than later—we would at least have the opportunity to start tackling the future problems in the Middle East in a different and, I submit, more sensible way. That would be more relevant to the terrorist threat and more sensitive to the views of the people and governments in the area.
There may be some egg on faces—some of it deserved—and some destabilisation for the Iraqis themselves to sort out, which would perhaps concentrate on local aspirations and use a more federal administration for law and order. But I would prefer to heed the Suez precedent of quick withdrawal and soonest mended rather than reinforce with extra troops something which may not even be achievable. When General Braddock lay mortally wounded, ambushed in the forests of North America in the 1750s, he engagingly said, "Next time we will do it better".
We really should know by now that, unlike naked aggression, terrorism cannot be defeated by massive military means, but by concentrating more on the twin pillars of competent protection and positive diplomacy. By protection, I mean building up our home and overseas intelligence, which would greatly reduce the risk to us and to others, and then, based on that intelligence, rooting out those planning and perpetrating criminal acts. In keeping up our guard, sensibly improving our physical protection and, of course, maintaining our morale, we could always be confident that, having done what we can to prevent those things happening, our many-sided society can handle and take in its stride, within the rule of law, whatever abominations may be thrown at us, as we have done in the past, and not be provoked into high profile but unproductive responses.
The diplomatic pillar means listening, building commercial and cultural bridges, infusing rather than imposing values and ideas, helping friends help themselves and using only highly selective military force in co-operation with host nations or in the context of a UN mandate. If there are genuine key issues on which the mainspring motivation of terrorism thrives, diplomacy should help to address these as a matter of urgency.
If there really is such a thing as a war against terrorism, we will certainly win it. We will do so by subtlety, by diplomacy and by using our brains and selective use of force, but certainly not by brute force.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for introducing the debate and, in particular, for generously contributing eight minutes of his time, which we on short rations eagerly need.
Today, the world is faced with three large intractable problems; that is, world terrorism, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall address the question of why the Israelis and Palestinians are making no attempt whatever to solve their problems by negotiation. Is it because they both have right on their side?
The Palestinians are in the right because, first, they have lived in the old land of Palestine for more than 1,000 years. Secondly, in 1948, the United Nations voted to partition their country without even consultation. It gave a substantial part of it to Jews who were living there to form the state of Israel. Thirdly, after the 1967 war, Israel began the occupation of the West Bank and has remained there for more than 36 years, which is six times longer than the British occupation of Germany after the Second World War.
Fourthly, Israel has established permanent settlements in what will be the state of Palestine with 220,000 Israelis living there. Surprisingly, 70 per cent of them are there primarily for economic reasons, including the provision of excellent housing. The remaining 30 per cent, which is just 70,000 out of a total Israeli population of 6 million, are there for ideological reasons. Israel, in its attempt to protect the settlements and provide security, has divided the country into small segments by the use of road blocks and the construction of many new roads reserved for the use of Israeli settlers. Normal social and economic life is no longer possible for the Palestinians.
The Israelis also have right on their side. First, Jews settled in the present land of Palestine and Israel 3,200 years ago. Secondly, following the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews died—representing one third of the world's population of Jews at that time—in 1948 the United Nations voted to partition Palestine for the Jewish people to create the state of Israel. The very next day Egypt, Jordan and Syria, by force of arms, attempted to crush the newly formed state. They did so again in 1967 and in 1973. Those attacks forced Israel to begin the occupation of the West Bank.
Today, there is a plan known as the road map to peace, which was devised by the United States, Europe, Russia and the United Nations. It reads very well on paper and in my opinion Israel is capable of carrying out all of its terms. However, it will not do so unless the Palestinians do the same. On the Palestinian side, it fails at the first hurdle, for the Palestinians are obliged to curb the suicide bombing attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aksa. If we can accept that Arafat wants to end the bombings, he does not have the means to do so and if he tries the result might end in civil war.
What do the populations of both countries think? Around 70 per cent of the people of Israel want a peace agreement. At a recent parliamentary Middle East

1357
meeting, I asked Mr Bazouti, a well known authority on Palestinian problems, whether there was an equivalent to the Israeli Peace Now! movement. He replied that the overwhelming majority of people, albeit silently, favoured peace with Israel. So clearly the majority of both peoples want peace but cannot force their governments to negotiate.
If there is one bright light on the horizon, it is the Geneva accord. This is a private initiative between senior Israeli and Palestinian politicians that attempts to create a peace agreement acceptable to both sides. The Israeli delegation was led by Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli Minister, and the Palestinian delegation by Yasser Abd Rabbo, a former Palestinian Minister. The Geneva accord was signed on 1 December 2003.
Comparing the two plans, we find that the objective of the road map is to allow the resumption of negotiations, while the objective of the Geneva accord is to resolve the outstanding final status issues. The British Government commended the Geneva accord for its conclusions, which offered clear solutions to the disputed issues. However, they preferred the road map to peace which, at the time, appeared to be a workable solution. However, many now agree that the road map to peace has failed primarily because the Palestinians are unable to meet their obligations.
Where do we go from here? I believe that the most realistic possibility for peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the Geneva accord. I now propose a three-stage structure: stage one should be for this plan to be studied by the three countries most able and willing to support the Palestinians—Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the United States and some European countries which are able and willing to support Israel should also study the plan. The second stage should be to present the agreed accord to Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat, but also to leaders of the other political parties in Israel as well as to the leaders of the other factions in Palestine. The third and final stage should be for a referendum to be agreed between Sharon and Arafat, and to be held in Israel and Palestine on the understanding that, if the accord is approved by a majority of those voting in each country, it would be adopted.
I hope that these ideas are worthy of the further consideration of noble Lords.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I propose to speak about terrorism, which is generally supposed to be the most serious challenge facing both foreign and domestic policy making. There are two versions of terrorist activity. The first is the local form, such as the IRA, ETA in the Basque region, Corsican terrorists in France and others. It is also, I think, permissible to regard Hamas as an organisation with basically local aims. Contemptibly brutal though these organisations have been, they have aimed at local targets rather than widespread international ones.
Now we are faced with what seems to be a larger and more ambitious terrorist movement, Al'Qaeda, which seems to want to shock the West into surrender in a
1358
variety of ways and on a wider scale, although with one major local aim, which is to drive the United States out of Saudi Arabia. The essence of Al'Qaeda seems to be that it is an austere, fundamentalist movement of Muslims possessed—I use the word of Dostoevsky—by certain ideas. It is sometimes suggested that this movement, like other terrorist movements, can be dealt with by addressing the breeding ground that lies behind it, one of poverty and misery. However, I do not think that that is relevant here. Al'Qaeda, along with most other terrorist movements, does not have economic roots. I believe that Marx would have agreed with that statement, were he still living. Those involved with Al'Qaeda are men determined to create a different world from our own. Discussion about the rule of law as we define it has absolutely no relevance to their machinations.
It is perhaps comforting to be reminded that there have been other such movements in the past. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I do not refer to two armies of the Middle Ages, both Muslim, which derived from the preaching of an austere Moroccan hermit—the Almoravids and the Almohades—although they certainly did have something in common with Al'Qaeda, and within Islam I think I am right in saying that the past has much less perspective than it has with ourselves.
Rather, I shall refer to the anarchist terrorist movement which was the cause of many tragedies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anarchists were also austere and moved by the dream of an ideal world—one without governments and without capitalism which would be created when, as they put it, the last king was strangled in the guts of the last priest. Exactly like Al'Qaeda, anarchists believed in what they called the "propaganda of the deed". Surely if they murdered an archbishop in particularly striking circumstances or blew up a train, the bourgeoisie would quiver into surrender.
In some ways the anarchists were more successful than Al'Qaeda has been up to now. They assassinated a President of the United States, they murdered an Austro-Hungarian empress and they killed three Prime Ministers and one archbishop of Spain, among many other people. Known as "internationals" in the first instance, they were particularly busy in Spain where they blew up trains, caused havoc at a royal wedding in 1905, bombed an opera house and set off many other explosions.
However, in the end the anarchists became completely convinced of their own inefficacy because despite their cold brutalities, they could not bring the ideal world they had planned a whit closer.
Perhaps through skilful propaganda and the use of ideas, that realisation can be contrived in the long run—artificially, no doubt—with the leaders and followers of Al'Qaeda. Alternatively, and perhaps this is a frivolous suggestion, they might be ruined by the soft life, which did contribute to lessening the drive of their distant predecessors, the Almoravids.
Finally, turning to how to carry on the campaign against terrorism, which is essential and which, in this country, seems to be being accomplished with great

1359
skill, it is necessary to do whatever we need to do in a spirit of honour and within the framework of a love of the law which, in every detail, should distinguish us from our opponents.
In 1916. Trotsky, who I suggest was just as dangerous a man to western civilisation as bin Laden seems to be today, was imprisoned in Spain as an illegal immigrant. He refused to take his hat off. He asked to see the rule which insisted that hats should be removed in prison. There was no such rule and so he was allowed to keep his hat on. That suggests the spirit with which prisoners, however appallingly brutal they are, should be treated by civilised captors.
5 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, there are few in your Lordships' Chamber whose experience in the diplomatic affairs of this country can compare with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I am currently chairing a Select Committee investigation for your Lordships' House and I have been privileged that the noble Lord has sat in on the committee; his advice and guidance have been invaluable.
I wish to speak about the subject of global threats. I shall address two global threats and, I hope, draw a conclusion.
The first global threat is and has been that of Iraq. I have supported the war in Iraq for one overriding reason. It is true that Saddam Hussein was a barbarous dictator—a mini-Hitler terrorising his people and attacking his neighbours. It is true that I and others fully believed that Iraq had been developing weapons of mass destruction. And it is also true that Saddam Hussein had been constantly flouting a mandatory United Nations resolution. However, my support was based on none of those issues; my personal reason was more basic than that.
Nations go to war to protect their economic interests. Our national interest is the stability of the Persian Gulf. Well over half of the world's proven reserves of oil are located in or around that strip of waterway. Oil is our lifeblood. The prospect of any rogue nation or any terrorist group being able to hold a knife to our jugular is to me simply unacceptable. That is the reason that I supported the war.
War is a gruesome and bloody business. Our magnificent troops risk their lives every day. This is not the time to go wobbly. I, for one, support the Prime Minister in his determination to bring law and order and democracy to that much blighted nation.
There is another global threat which even a recent report commissioned by the Pentagon has described as greater than that of international terrorism, and that is global warming. In January this year, with two other noble Lords, I was fortunate enough to visit the British Antarctic Survey Base at Rothera. We flew even further south, to 72 degrees latitude, where we saw a beautiful but frightening sight—a waterfall cascading down the rocks to form a stream, which from the air we clearly saw had become a rudimentary river. We were
1360
witnessing in those southern climes the firsthand effects of global warming. The Antarctic is melting, the Arctic is melting, and it is a massive threat to us all.
The Pentagon report entitled Imagining the Unthinkable paints a gloomy assessment of the greenhouse effect and what it calls "abrupt climate change". Melting ice produces fresh cold water, which is less dense than salt water and is flooding the northern Atlantic. By 2010 it could slow down or shut off the Gulf Stream. The climates of eastern North America and western Europe could turn sharply colder. The interiors of our continents could soon have a climate similar to that in Siberia. Then it will not be oil that will be the scarce resource; it will be water and food. And if we know anything about human nature, when given a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.
The Kyoto Protocol was watered down to meet the requirements of the United States, but the Bush Administration is now refusing to ratify it. Indeed, the Administration is even refusing to accept that global warming exists, let alone that it is almost certainly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide gases.
The twin global threats of the war in Iraq and climate change have one common thread—oil. We go to war to protect our oil supplies; we then burn the oil and this then causes our planet to warm. A warmer planet threatens all our futures.
There is a fight to be fought and no one is better placed to fight it than our Prime Minister. The United States needs our support in Iraq and, quite rightly, we are giving it in the most demonstrable way. But there must be a quid pro quo. We need to persuade the US Government of just how important global warming is to mankind's future. The American nation emits 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide yet has only 6 per cent of the world's population. The time has surely come for the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to offer the world the leadership it so desperately needs.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for initiating the debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss many issues of profound significance. I will focus on the catastrophe in Darfur as it must surely feature as one of Her Majesty's Government's priorities today.
The International Crisis Group's report just three days ago entitled Sudan: Now or Never claims:
"There is just enough time to save hundreds of thousands of lives directly threatened by [the Sudanese] government-supported militias and looming starvation, but only if the world acts very urgently".
Therefore, although the Darfur crisis was raised in your Lordships' House last Thursday, it merits further consideration and will, I hope, elicit a more substantive response from the Minister today.
The ICG report calls for,
"immediate, focused action, especially from the UN Security Council, to stop the killing and widespread atrocities, prevent mass starvation, reverse ethnic cleansing".

1361
But this is only one in a growing number of reports documenting the scale of this tragedy. The May 2004 Human Rights Watch report entitled Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan claims:
"The Government and its Janjaweed allies have killed thousands of Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa—often in cold blood, raped women and destroyed villages, foodstocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population. They have driven more than 1 million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, hostage to Janjaweed abuses which may turn them into extermination camps. More than 110,000 have fled to neighbouring Chad".
Human Rights Watch condemns as "too little, too late" and "shameful" the response of the international community. It regrets that, although there have been strong statements from the European Union, there has been little public condemnation from key individual governments, such as the United Kingdom.
No one can claim ignorance of the horrors of Darfur. Last Friday's edition of the Scotsman described in chilling detail the situation justifying the allegation of genocide. The front page headline reads:
"Mass murder, rape and a million refugees on the move, but the international community turns a blind eye to a people's suffering".
Mukesh Kapila, the outgoing UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Sudan, describes Darfur as,
"the worst humanitarian crisis in the world",
adding:
"This is more than just a conflict. It is an organised attempt [by Khartoum] to do away with a group of people".
Kofi Annan. addressing the UNHCR on the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, made specific mention of Darfur, arguing that the international community cannot stand idle. while John Prendergast of the ICG refers to Sudan and Darfur as "Rwanda in slow motion".
Those who are primarily guilty of such slaughter and suffering are the National Islamic Front regime in Khartoum and the Janjaweed militias on horseback it supports. United Nations teams which visited Darfur discovered,
"disturbing patterns of massive human rights violations",
many of which may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, perpetrated by the Sudanese government and their proxy militia.
The regime in Khartoum puts the blame on so-called rebels, but this is ultimate hypocrisy. No one except the Government has the capacity for aerial attacks, and numerous reports testify to attacks on innocent civilians by helicopter gunships and bombardment with 500 kilogramme bombs dropped from government Antonovs.
Last Thursday, the Minister answering, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, spoke with passion and indignation, but the content of her message was woefully inadequate. Surely Her Majesty's Government can no longer talk with credibility about lobbying and remonstrating with the National Islamic Front regime. How long can Her Majesty's Government talk peace when there is no peace, ignoring the fact that the Government of Sudan continue to kill while they talk peace? And the Government of Sudan's sincerity of
1362
commitment to the peace talks is further disproved by recent military offensives against civilians in Upper Nile, with 75,000 people now driven from their homes in that part of Sudan.
Immediate steps must be taken. Will the Minister give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will promote effective measures to require the Government of Sudan to open all Sudan to independent international humanitarian aid and human rights personnel, and to ensure that refugees are allowed to return to their homes with adequate security guarantees, thus reversing the ethnic cleansing? We also need to promote a UN Security Council resolution condemning the violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan, especially the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the obstruction of humanitarian aid. We need to impose an arms embargo with enforcement mechanisms, and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
In conclusion, this debate gives the Minister the opportunity to put the record straight before we in the United Kingdom become even more culpable of standing by and allowing genocide in Sudan to proceed unchecked. If we do not respond effectively now, we shall condone another Rwanda and stand condemned by history as guilty of failing to prevent the suffering and deaths of even more thousands of innocent people doomed to die in the next few months. It must be the hope of those people whose lives we could save that the Minister will not disappoint them today.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond already knows that I intend to spend my few minutes on a subject much nearer home—namely, the treatment of international affairs in Parliament and, more specifically, in this House.
Since I came to this House in 1995, there has been a marked increase in public interest in international affairs and especially development. One reason for that has been the growth of the articulate aid lobby and the active participation of tens of thousands campaigning on issues such as trade, justice, aid and debt relief. Simultaneously there has been a surge of interest in overseas travel and the gap year, with a corresponding growth in understanding of world affairs. With the arrival of global citizenship education, schools have organised more exchanges and study visits in line with the revised curriculum. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans rightly mentioned the role of religion.
The Government have responded positively by gradually restoring the aid budget and continuing their support for the excellent BBC World Service and British Council. Since September 11, of course, the picture has changed again, and there has been increasing public concern about our conduct of foreign affairs in relation to anti-terrorism and, more recently, Iraq. Some confusion has also arisen between our own development policy and our Government's apparent conversion to President Bush's apparent evangelism in the Middle East. On occasion, it seems that development has again become subservient to foreign policy.

1363
Without entering that important subject further, I shall say only that alongside that public awareness has been a pressing need for greater parliamentary scrutiny of international affairs in both Houses. My contention is that proper scrutiny in this House has been quite inadequate. We are apparently guided by a convention that House of Commons Select Committees, especially those on foreign affairs and international development, already cover the waterfront. At the same time we are reminded that two of our own EU sub-committees already handle significant areas of foreign affairs, albeit through the prism of the EU.
A number of Peers whom I have consulted, who have considerable experience of international affairs and have either held office or served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, believe that those arguments are no longer good enough. We have carefully examined the list of subjects covered by the Foreign Affairs Committee and International Development Committee in the past three years, and found that it is surprisingly limited. Terrorism and Iraq, for example, are well covered, but security in Afghanistan was not until this month, nor was most of the Middle East. China has not been examined for four years. India, most of Asia, Latin America and even Africa—except for Zimbabwe—have been ignored. Nepal has been left out, despite our close past association and the present crisis there. There are many such examples.
A committee pattern established more than 20 years ago for the Commons cannot any longer be held to be suited to this House. It is time that we considered it again. Besides that, we now have an impressive galaxy of talent in this House. New appointments in the past few years have included former Foreign Secretaries as well as diplomats and academics. We have all benefited from the speech today of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and we look forward in due course to hearing from Ted Rowlands.
It is no good the Government saying that we have ample opportunity to speak in debates such as this, to ask parliamentary questions or question Ministers. Such reserves of talent could just as well be channelled into productive committee work and obtaining the proper evidence to back up recommendations. My suggestion is that after the next election we should establish our own Select Committee to consider specific aspects of foreign affairs that are not being covered elsewhere. That committee would not duplicate the Commons committees but would consider the neglected areas and the longer term subjects, reporting on subjects such as conflict resolution in Africa, the Commonwealth, United Nations reform, island states and intervention in failed states and in emergencies.
With regard to the EU committees, highly respected as they are—and for very good reasons—it is arguable that the Lords has become a bit Eurocentric. It is not enough to view the whole world through a European window, especially when we know how much damage the EU is still doing to the trade of developing countries. However important the new European treaty is, especially to our political parties, which seem to be able to make capital out of it, this country has a wider perspective.
1364
Finally, the Minister may think that this is a subject for this House and not for the Government—which is of course, strictly speaking, correct. However, it is also a subject that concerns the Government and on which the Government have a view, because of the additional scrutiny of departmental work. It could well be that this Government do not want to be questioned by another committee. On the other hand, I put it to the Minister that Members of this House are well informed on international affairs—perhaps, dare I say, better informed than those in another place. I suggest that civil servants and Ministers might appreciate more constructively critical reports from this House in future. Above all, I believe that the public deserves a better service from Parliament in international affairs.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the repercussions of today's situation are as vital to global interests as any since the Second World War. We in Parliament must ensure that those tasked with safeguarding those interests are given the tools; and that those tools include transparent and strategically apt policies.
Regrettably, our centuries of experience do not always deliver as warm a relationship with some strategic partners as we might wish or, misguidedly believe we have; unrealistic priorities, tight budgets and excessive administration are taking their toll. And it must be remembered that while the Foreign Office leads, delivery is a cross-departmental endeavour, including that of intelligence agencies. This last, tasked with watching Afghanistan and Iraq, were an obvious economic casualty in the early days, and that situation must not be repeated. An immediate solution to relieve this would be to wind up the overseas divisions of UK Trade and Investment, which bring nothing of substance to the table. Instead, crucial economic intelligence and improved modus operandi could be advanced from the private sector.
Returning to the theme of global interests, today's global discontent is not generally about Islam/Christian ideological differences but rather is rooted in glaring East/West, North/South wealth distribution inequality compounded by double standards, corruption, poverty, ignorance and endemic hopelessness. An unjust world has been created that is unacceptable to increasing sections of global citizenry. And just as we have now learnt to our cost that marginalising regional issues is not an option, so we can no longer fail to deal directly with the underlying causes, finding solutions sensitive to religious and ethnic variances. No longer can global harmony be sacrificed at the altar of insularity in the name of national interest.
Dismantling insular policies would bring immediate benefit to all the troubled and troubling corners of our fragile world; from Iraq to Iran, from Palestine to Israel and, as relevant, from Nigeria to Colombia. Until we do, three issues of specific enormity—drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration—will continue to thrive. Yet it is sometimes myopic criticism by armchair veterans who should know better, but do not, that delay solutions in volatile situations; in effect

1365
giving succour to lost causes against the advice and wisdom of professionals, including those of British Government representatives.
Let us consider, my Lords, the significant current Early Day Motion signed by 207 British Members of Parliament calling for the curbing of British military assistance to Colombia. I question whether the action of those MPs is derived solely and properly from the conscientious consideration of all the facts and the disregard of political patronage. Why do they have no reported interest in the bigger picture and appear satisfied with inadequate briefing before adjudicating on a complex situation?
The background of the umbrella non-governmental organisation behind this EDM would repay closer scrutiny than hitherto appears to have been the case. Indeed, I call on the Government urgently to review the funding arrangements of this, and, indeed, other similar exploitative and manipulative NGOs, thereby curbing the misinformation so readily available today.
A much-needed but fragile peace clings on within Colombia, giving law-abiding Colombians respite from a 40-year murderous civil war, with its persistent acts of kidnapping and terrorism, including indiscriminate bombings and atrocities that have extinguished more than 100,000 lives.
Do not he lulled into thinking that the issues are too far removed from UK interests. We are directly impacted through the production and distribution on to the streets of London each year of an estimated 40 tons of cocaine, which not only funds the debilitating internal war, but also fuels the global network of terrorist organizations. Were any of those MPs to suffer children who have taken, or worse, are hooked on, drugs, they would reconsider their position in short order.
Accuracy is all, so permit me to set the record straight. A little-known fact of this civil war is that there are now 2 million displaced people, giving Colombia the third largest global displacement profile. Yet through this reign of terror, democratic ideals have been safeguarded by successive administrations.
Undeniable advances are recognized by the United Nations covering general human rights by the military, which now has an unrivalled popularity rating. Another misconception being promoted within the House of Commons includes the essential role of campesino soldiers, for example, who assist in delivering local security. MPs suggest that they form part of a local militia. The reality is that they are paid for by the state, carry out essential tasks and are commanded by full-time military commanders.
Other self-defeating inaccuracies contained in the EDM fail to reflect the dramatic security improvement in the first full year of President Uribe's administration. Through misinformation, this plays exactly into the hands of those who are attempting to disrupt the rule of law.
In conclusion, British military assistance to Colombia—in reality it is the Americans who supply the bulk with the United Kingdom targeting social development—is
1366
certainly necessary, appreciated and insufficient. Ill-informed opinion masquerading as fact simply prolongs the grief.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wright for initiating this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his eagerly awaited contribution.
I wish to address one issue only: Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy on the promotion and protection of human rights. If anyone had doubted that human rights are not an abstract minority interest of liberal-minded but unrealistic people with bleeding hearts—the preserve of what is sometimes called, with a resonance not intended to signify approval, "the human rights lobby"—the past few weeks could not have made it clearer. Human rights abuses are real. They happen to real men, women and children all the time, and not just in places like Uzbekistan—where we have reason to be grateful to the Government that the British representative there speaks out and is allowed to continue to do so. Human rights abuses can happen anywhere and can be perpetrated by the citizens of anywhere.
I am thinking in particular of the horrible pictures we have seen from Iraq, showing prisoners being ill-treated in Abu Ghraib prison. We have no pictures of Guantanamo Bay, but we have stories. Some of these pictures undoubtedly meet the definition of torture as set out in the 1984 convention against torture:
"Any act which by severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession".
Those pictures will indeed become, in the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, earlier in the debate, "dragons' teeth" and prime elements in the battle of ideas. Those pictures are, of course, standard pictures of torture and human rights abuses the world over for those who have the misfortune to have to look at them over time. The commission of such acts is not always so newsworthy. Nor do such acts always have such serious consequences for the reputation of the states whose citizens have carried them out as did those committed in the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
In this context, I welcome most warmly the inclusion of human rights in the sixth FCO strategic priority, which is:
"Sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights",
with the specific aim of,
"promoting the universal implementation of international human rights and humanitarian standards".
The point about these standards is that they are universal. They are not western, northern or southern; they are not Christian, Islamic or Jewish; they are agreed by the United Nations and therefore by all states.
In my view, this inclusion of human rights in the FCO's priorities is not cosmetic, nor is it a sop to those who still think that foreign policy should have an

1367
ethical dimension, when the realists have already moved on. Supporting human rights is not idealistic. It is a prime ingredient in the construction of a safer world. So I welcome the support for human rights work that is part of FCO policy; I congratulate the Minister on the publication of the FCO annual human rights report; and I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the report where he says:
"A concern for the victims of human rights abuses lies at the heart of the Government's foreign policy".
Those subject to the death penalty in the United States are often such victims, and the Government have made many representations on behalf of death row prisoners in that country. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was quite right to say in this debate that treatment similar to that in Abu Ghraib occurs in the prisons of many of the individual states of the United States. Perhaps the Government will wish to take up those abuses with the United States Government.
The annual human rights report does not just comment on other countries' failures to respect human rights; it mainly describes the practical and dedicated work undertaken by this Government to promote and protect human rights. The initiative taken by the then Foreign Secretary in February 1998 to set up the Human Rights Project Fund has had many practical outcomes. The fund has supported projects combating torture in Russia and discrimination against Roma children in Bulgaria, promoting religious freedom in Egypt, training senior police in China, supporting the human rights commission in Rwanda, and many more. It has achieved huge coverage with very small expenditure and has made a difference to the lives of many people.
Will the Minister tell us the trend in FCO Human Rights Project Fund spending? I hope that she will be able to tell the House that there are plans for it to increase substantially. In particular, can she tell us what the UK is doing to combat torture around the world?
5.28 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, two Sundays ago, on that important day, 8 May, invited by the mayor of a small hill village, I stood before the war memorial and the church listening to splendid music in the presence of the heads of the pompiers, the police and the gendarmerie and of a British vicar. Unknown to me beforehand, it was Armistice Day. One of the youngest people in the village and one of the oldest came and laid a wreath. After the prayers, the national anthem came through the loudspeakers, then the anthem of the United States, then that of Canada, and then that of France. As I looked out over the Mediterranean, I realised that that was where the Moorish invasions had come from and it was from there, on 15 August 1945, that 1,000 ships or more had come for the liberation of France. I had forgotten that Armistice Day was on 8 May 1945.
1368
I wondered why the French, British and American flags were all red, white and blue. I have no idea. Why did the French give the United States the Statue of Liberty—liberté, égalité et fraternité? Why was it that on the White House lawn on 16 April President Bush turned to Tony Blair and said. "We stood together during the past century when liberty was assaulted"? I thought, hang about, did we really stand together? What actually happened? Of course, the United States came into the First World War in March 1917, but I think only because three of its ships were sunk by submarines with extensive loss of life. Of course, it came into the Second World War in December 1941, but I think that was only because of Pearl Harbour when it declared war on the Japanese, and subsequently Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
I wondered about 11 September. Was it also a knee-jerk reaction that led to the war in Iraq, or was there something deeper and more sinister? I remembered—I once thought that he was in your Lordships' House—that the American Chief of Justice, Earl Warren, said that in civilised life law floats in a sea of ethics. That takes me immediately to ethical foreign policy. The founder of ethical foreign policy—the chief ethicist, if that is the word—resigned because foreign policy was no longer moral or ethical. I wondered what our foreign policy was.
In the world in which I work, I find that more and more the same question is being asked—obviously, it is about Iraq. But the following question is being asked more now; namely, what have the British been doing? I tell people, "Don't worry about Iraq. It is the duty or the responsibility of everyone in the United Kingdom to support the Prime Minister because he has the right to go to war". People say, "What about that wonderful man, Lord Robertson? He is in NATO; can't he do something about it? Why isn't he involved?" The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, should know, and would understand, the respect in which he has been held throughout the world during the past few years. I thank him for his excellent speech today.
On the other hand there is the growth of anti-American feeling. I have spoken about this before and I have already declared my American relative and military relationships in the United States. I wonder why the United States has not understood that it is becoming the enemy of the world. Many people—Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt—warned that those who do evil must be very careful. Was the war in Iraq evil? In my view it was simply a punitive mission, possibly the greatest punitive mission that has ever taken place. However, I am not quite sure what the motives and reasons behind it were, and where the future lies.
As I listen to your Lordships, I find that again and again we are in danger of repeating ourselves. We have to look forward and ask what are the priorities of the United Kingdom. Inevitably, self-interests are involved. Regrettably, the ultimate weapon of diplomacy is war, and war is a matter of life and death.
In the wars of the past century we lost the British Empire, as it was then, comprising 7.2 million people. The United States lost 300,000 people in each of the

1369
world wars and another 100,000 in Vietnam. I wonder how many lives have been lost in recent events and how many more will be lost. War, unfortunately, is a matter of life and death. We go to war in general to save life and to restore peace, but where there is war in any one country there may well be a threat everywhere else in the world, as we were reminded by Mr Roosevelt at the start of the 1939 war. Diplomacy should be about peace. Let us hope that we may find a peaceful way forward.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on tabling this Motion for debate today. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on his excellent maiden speech. I have no doubt that we shall hear more from him.
I shall confine my remarks to Iraq. As one disaster follows another and a new outrage against the Iraqi people is revealed almost daily, I become more than ever convinced that the illegal invasion of Iraq should never have been embarked upon. I also become exasperated when I hear history being rewritten by the Prime Minister and President Bush.
Support for the invasion of Iraq was secured in Britain on the basis that Iraq possessed large quantities of weapons of mass destruction ready for use against British targets within 45 minutes. Let us get that on record as often as we possibly can. Since no such weapons have been found, Mr Blair has shifted his ground and is attempting now to con people into believing that the war was to liberate Iraqis from a vicious dictatorial regime—a regime, incidentally, that we supported when it suited us.
President Bush has convinced the Americans that the Iraq adventure was part of the war on terror; but there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war—Saddam Hussein had cleared them out. But now, according to the United States' and British Governments, Iraq is full of terrorists fighting coalition troops. Indeed, official spokesmen insist that those involved in the fighting and suicide bombings are not freedom fighters against the coalition but foreign terrorists. So, by their own admission, Britain and the United States have created in Iraq a hotbed of terrorism in a country that before the invasion was a terrorist-free zone.
There certainly has been terror—terror wreaked on Iraq over the past 14 months by coalition forces. According to independent reports, between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqis, many of them women and children, have been killed and many more injured. Large-scale damage has been caused to property, including religious buildings, while services that were previously working are still defunct due to the coalition assault on Iraq and the failure to have a post-war plan of reconstruction. Some 8,000 Iraqi men are still held in prison without trial or charge.
We now know that the United States with unbelievable insensitivity used the very same infamous Abu Ghraib torture prison used by Saddam against his political opponents to inflict torture and humiliation on Iraqi people. To their credit, many Americans, probably a majority, were horrified and sickened by
1370
what was being done in their name by United States occupation forces. But not, apparently, Mr Rumsfeld. He had the gall to visit the prison not to protest at the horrors perpetrated by some of his forces on Iraqis, but to tell those forces that "they were doing a grand job". That was a monstrous and offensive thing to do. No wonder he felt comfortable shaking hands with Saddam during the period of the Iraq/Iran war when poison gas was being used against the Iranians and the Kurds.
I want now to return to the matter of Iraqi casualties because I am concerned and, indeed, disappointed at the attitude of our Government to the suffering of Iraqi civilians at the hands of coalition forces. We know exactly how many American and British troops have been killed since the war began. Indeed, the last figure I saw was 777 Americans and 67 Britons. We all feel sorry for them and their relatives and friends. However, when we ask for the number of Iraqis who have been killed, we are told that there are no official figures available. Apparently, little effort has been made to find out. We have to rely on independent organisations such as Iraq Body Count and the Red Cross to collect the figures. The latest figures from Iraq Body Count are 11,005 killed, although that did not include 800 killed in Najaf, 235 in Baghdad and 20 in the Basra region. The British Government can give us no official figures, because they have not bothered to count the dead Iraqis. People, especially in the Middle East, can be forgiven for believing that the British and American Governments consider Arab lives far less important than those of westerners. That smacks of blatant and disgusting racism of the worst kind.
The great pity is that the horrors inflicted on Iraq, and the deaths of United States and British soldiers, could have been avoided. The best thing that could happen is for the whole matter to be handed quickly over to the United Nations, with British and coalition troops withdrawn as soon as possible.
5.41 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond for introducing this very topical debate, at a time when foreign policy stands at the top of the political agenda. I should like to focus my remarks on Africa, a continent that our Prime Minister recently described as,
"a scar on the conscience of the world".
For much of the past century, Africa has been a place of paradoxes—of hope and despair, of good news and bad—news and so it remains. However, Her Majesty's Government deserve credit for their proactive approach to Africa. In addition to our support for NePAD, the G8 Africa Action Plan and the Africa Partners Forum, I fully support the recently launched Commission for Africa. I also welcome the increase in British aid to Africa, which is reported will reach in excess of £1 billion next year. That is almost three times what we were giving in aid three years ago.
Our Government's initiatives have, in part, also resulted in many of the success stories in Africa, such as Kenya, Mozambique and Sierra Leone among the

1371
many others. On the AIDS awareness campaign, although the pandemic in many areas of Africa goes from bad to worse, it is encouraging that through our efforts the spread of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Uganda, has to a large degree been halted.
However, a lot of the positive progress is undermined by events bringing despair in countries such as Zimbabwe. The recently broadcast interview with Robert Mugabe on Sky News a few days ago, where he insulted our Prime Minister and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, typified his contempt for the voice of reason and showed how detached he was from reality. However, slow progress is being made to resolve the disastrous situation in Zimbabwe, and high-level discussions are still in progress.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Robert Mugabe pays more attention to the words of President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Chissano of Mozambique than to the words of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, whom he considers his junior. I spoke to President Mbeki last year, and he gave me assurances—eyeball to eyeball—that there would be change this year. I should be corrected; it will certainly not happen in that time.
What measures are Her Majesty's Government taking to seek the support of Presidents Obasanjo and Chissano to expedite the timetable to achieve a government of national unity with the powers to rescue Zimbabwe from disaster? Britain's recent policy of assisting negotiations discreetly from the sidelines has been criticised as ineffective, yet it is working. I understand from several senior members of ZANUPF that they would be in favour of Her Majesty's Government taking a more proactive role in brokering high-level negotiations between the MDC and ZANUPF, to talk about their differences and explore what can be achieved. Even in the midst of despair. there is some hope.
President Mbeki's vision of an African renaissance is attractive, and his leadership role within NePAD is praised, but his central theme—that there should be African solutions to African problems—has been spoiled by his own ineffective approach to the tyranny raging across his northern border. Inside South Africa, a sound economy keeps the country on an even keel and, with the free distribution of anti-retroviral drugs, at long last there are signs that the government are slowly addressing the devastating spread of HIV/ AIDS. Her Majesty's Government continue to play a highly constructive role within South Africa at many levels, which is to be welcomed.
We have also played a pivotal role in restoring peace and stability in Sierra Leone. However, peace and stability in Sierra Leone largely depend on similar conditions being maintained in Liberia, to which my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond referred in his "forgotten" list. Outside agencies should consistently bear that in mind.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the situation in Equatorial Guinea, a small west African nation that has become one of Africa's largest oil producers, but is ruled by a brutal dictator. Human
1372
rights organisations have been expressing grave concerns about the levels of abuse in Equatorial Guinea for some time. The recent news that President Obiang Nguema is preparing to supply oil to Zimbabwe should set alarm bells ringing around the world.
I cannot remember a time when so many bold initiatives and programmes were being launched in Africa, yet the situation in Zimbabwe is a handbrake on so much of that progress. I strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to focus their greatest efforts, both in private and public, on resolving the problem, to the benefit of every country in Africa.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Serbia is important to Europe but may easily be forgotten. I shall try to sketch a two-way deal that would be excellent for all. Serbia should be persuaded to bring war criminals to justice, to help prevent trafficking in persons, drugs and weapons, and to co-operate in destroying and controlling small arms. It would assist in implementing the Dayton agreement, especially in Republika Srpska. It would help to determine the future of the Serb minority in Kosovo, and might grant a long lease of most of Kosovo to an Albanian authority.
In return, Serbia would gain substantially, by guarantees of reasonable access to its historic sites in Kosovo; by receiving aid and assistance, particularly for policing and civil and criminal justice. It should be compensated for damage from wartime bombing. Above all, it should receive major inward investment, with the ultimate prospect of NATO and EU membership. Such a deal would lead Serbia towards democratic prosperity, to the benefit of the West and the next-door neighbours. It is worth devoting much diplomatic effort to gain such a prize.
What has bedevilled international relations and generated terrorism, and threatens to antagonise Islam and the West, is the future of Israel, Palestine and their Arab neighbours. There can be no more urgent priority. We have to recognise that the Palestinian economy is destroyed. Two thirds of the people live in poverty and half depend on food aid. Israel also suffers, with its tourism almost gone and young people leaving for better prospects elsewhere.
One cannot doubt that the current Sharon plan for Gaza is not for withdrawal but for disengagement. It would leave two blocks of settlements, one in the north and another in the south. All fences would stay in place, with a one kilometre wide military strip around the perimeter. A million Palestinians would be left in an open-air prison, disconnected from the West Bank.
Similarly, Palestinians fear that the completed wall and fence will split the West Bank into separate pieces, cut off from the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Israeli settlements, by contrast, would be linked by secure roads to the rest of their country. The Palestinian areas, like Qalqilya at present, would become enclosed ghettoes. This is a plan for military containment, not for peace.

1373
Israel needs our help to end the occupation—at a stroke that would revive the Palestinian economy and allow elections to take place, which all the Palestinians I have talked to, including some elected members of their Parliament and distinguished medical professionals, want to see happening. They want to revive their democracy. Such elections could produce a valid partner for negotiating a two-state solution.
For too long, the richer nations have paid to maintain millions of refugees and have also prevented total destitution among Palestinians. The developed world should now invest in military observers, and if necessary in military forces, to end 37 years of occupation. Israel has a reasonable fear of terrorists and cannot disengage by itself. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government to devote their whole diplomatic strength to create a situation from which peace can emerge.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a debate on strategic priorities for foreign policy that has demonstrated how difficult it is to set such priorities. I was extremely glad to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I have suggested to him since then that he should form an all-party group for the study of Islay and that I am willing at any time to make a visit to that island for a detailed study of it and its major products.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his opening speech, suggested that we should separate discussion of the external role of the Foreign Office from that of defence and international development. I have to say that, on listening to the debate, I strongly disagree with him. What we need in Britain is the careful co-ordination of all instruments of foreign policy and it is evident from what has been said that international development as an instrument of foreign policy, defence, diplomacy, nation-building and state reconstruction are all part of the way in which Britain has to relate to the rest of the world. I am glad that in this country the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence work very well and closely together—unlike in some other states of which we are painfully aware at the moment—and both work well with the Department for International Development, both here and abroad.
We have a global commitment, but we have to recognise, we do recognise and the excellent paper produced last December by the Foreign Office recognises, that Britain cannot meet the challenges without close co-operation with others. For example, I notice that we have 153 posts in member states of the United Nations. There are now 192 members of the UN. We, like the French, have now accepted that we cannot manage to maintain representation in every state around the world. There are virtues, for example, in the proposal currently under discussion among Foreign Ministers for a European Union external action service in which we and our fellow members would share posts in some of the smaller countries that might blow up to become problems in four or five years' time, but might not.
1374
There is an excellent statement in the paper, which talks about Britain's,
"need to combine our economic, diplomatic and military weight more effectively"
with our EU partners. I echo that and do not see that as a threat to British sovereignty. I see that as entirely appropriate in furthering British national interests.
The key elements to British foreign policy are, first, western co-operation with the United States and. our European partners. I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that it is unhealthy to have one state dominating the global economy and the world political system. Secondly, we need to have a more balanced relationship, which again means a stronger European Union and a partnership between Europe and the United States. The paper rightly talks about having a "partnership" rather than Britain pursuing a dependent relationship between us alone and the United States. I am deeply unhappy about the image of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the United States. Bridges are what people walk over, whereas we need a dialogue with the US. The third element is our commitment to multilateral institutions and international law, through which medium-range powers like ourselves can operate effectively.
Regarding European policy, I regret that this Government have been inconsistent, without a clear strategy and without a clear overall concept. Far too often we look over our shoulders at the Murdoch press. A stronger European common foreign policy is in Britain's interest. Britain has led in promoting a European security and defence policy — a hard battle, but one in which we have as many allies among other EU governments as back-sliders.
We have not pushed as hard as we might for a more effective European development policy which would involve substantial further reform of the Commission and its ability to implement such a policy. Above all, there has been a public diplomacy failure to explain British objectives, either at home or abroad. It pains me when I see British Ministers slipping hack again into the language of "us versus them" in the negotiations on the Constitutional Treaty, when we are now committed to a referendum which, I assume, Her Majesty's Government hopes to persuade the British public should be passed and as regards which we wish to persuade our friends across the Channel that we are attempting to achieve the same objectives as them.
We should operate our policy towards the United States as a candid friend not as a loyal subordinate, as a number of noble Lords have said. I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, about that. There is after all, at the moment, a substantial divergence between British and American assumptions— that is, the assumptions of the current administration and the currently dominant party in Congress about global threats and challenges. In Washington the preoccupation is with hard military power, "shock and awe", quick-in and quick-out "state destruction", as the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, remarked, instead of state reconstruction and nation-building—the sort of things that the British Army does so well.

1375
The Foreign Office strategy paper talks a good deal about the new threats that we face on climate change, population explosion and global inequality. Sustainable development is one of the eight strategic priorities mentioned. That is not acceptable in the current discourse in Washington, where climate change is still not entirely on the political agenda. The paper underestimates migration as a major issue for us and others in international politics. It notes that the current estimate is that between 130,000 and 150,000 people enter the United Kingdom each year and stay—adding roughly a million people to our population every six to seven years. That will be a major issue, including how we cope with the countries from which those people are being pushed towards the rich world.
The dangers of "the West versus the rest", of slipping into a situation in which the rich world sees the poor world as antagonistic, where there is a clash of civilisations or one in which Islam is seen as—I quote Charles Krauthammer—"the existential enemy", is one that we have the deepest interest in opposing.
I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the importance of understanding among faiths in this country and outside. Foreign and domestic policy go together. During the past three week-ends, I have spoken to about 1,000 British Muslims and I am conscious of the importance of linking these issues together.
The mood within the American Right had a degree of rage against the outside world. It sees the hosts of Median prowling and prowling around, the forces of evil surrounding them. Happily, we do not share that sense of good versus evil. Therefore, there is a deep need for Her Majesty's Government and for America's other allies to engage within the American debate to explain why we see the world differently from the current conventional discourse. Our Prime Minister will he in the United States in two weeks' time to attend the G8 summit and I hope that he will take the opportunity to state in public some of our reservations about current American policy. He should not lose that opportunity.
On the importance of international law and institutions, we have seen a US Administration which has tried to escape from the constraints of international law and which has tried, deliberately on occasions, to weaken the influence of international institutions. Thankfully, people in Washington now recognise how much it was a mistake to downgrade the Geneva Conventions; to assume that the US need not accept the constraints which the rest of us accept. But there is a real problem that the United Nations could be overloaded by having the problem of Iraq dumped upon it. The UN is most valuable as an international institution, but it is not that strong and we must be careful not to overload it.
We have heard a certain amount about NATO, an important institution to us but also in real danger from the backlash of what has happened during the past three years. Some in Washington have wanted to use NATO as a toolkit in support of US global objectives without listening to their allies and some European
1376
governments, particularly in Afghanistan, have failed to take their obligations, once agreed in principle, seriously.
On the Middle East, clearly operating through the EU and the UN, through the quartet, must be the way forward. Catching the American global Middle East initiative and transforming it into a broader dialogue about economic, political and social reform in the Arab world are all actions we must take together with our European allies. In Afghanistan, we must sustain engagement and persuade our allies to do that.
In Africa, we must note that the current US Administration does not feel engaged there, but that European interests are directly engaged. Further state collapse in Africa would immediately bring waves of refugees to Britain and other parts of Europe and therefore it is correct for Britain, with its European partners, to be as actively engaged as possible. I welcomed Operation Artemis, the first EU military operation in the eastern Congo last year. I welcome the Prime Minister's commission for Africa. We need to sustain a commitment under difficult circumstances when we are often blocked by corrupt and weak regimes. We have limited resources for our foreign policy and as we pursue it we therefore do best to work with others as well as we can.
I strongly agree with everything said by my noble friend Lord Alderdice about the risks to our reputation over what has been happening in Iraq. Reputation comes from long-term engagement and from explaining our principles and strategy to our domestic public and those abroad; it comes from commitment, consistency, coherence and, as we hope the Prime Minister will explain on his next visit to the United States, occasionally criticism.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I begin by declaring some interests: as a parent of a son serving in the Army in Basra; as a financial adviser to the Kuwait Investment Office; and as a Conservative Friend of Israel. I hope that those labels do not disqualify me from offering some reasonable, balanced views on the dangerous issues that have been debated so fully today.
I, too, warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for promoting the debate and introducing it with such enormous wisdom and elegance. Of course, we expect that from him, given his record and his past. I also thoroughly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, former Secretary-General of NATO. I am sorry that under our rules his speech was so truncated because I could have stood a lot more from him. And I hope that we get a lot more in due course because he spoke much wisdom.
I want to begin with some brief, general observations about the conduct of foreign policy before turning to the specifics. First, in pursuit of our priority objectives—safeguarding our national security and interests, however broadly we interpret them— some of us have argued for two decades that we should think more in terms of soft power. Translated, that means meeting today's threats,

1377
hostile stances and sources of destructive tension not just by hard military strength and force—what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, called heavy metal armies—but by the powerful projection of our cause, case and desire for friendship through the persuasive instruments of diplomacy, information, well-honed development policies, cultural activities, skilful activity within international organisations and the ample use of semi-official and non-governmental linkages, as well as the private sector.
That is what the authors of the Foreign Office document, UK International Priorities, really meant when they talked about a "new agenda" in foreign policy and wider participants in international relations. They did not use the term "soft power", but that is what was behind some of the writing in the document. It would be difficult to think of a more obvious situation calling for the maximum deployment of soft power than the current efforts to defeat global terrorism and change hearts, minds and attitudes, and even styles of governance, throughout the whole Middle East region.
"Soft power" means that yesterday's Cinderella organisations such as the BBC World Service or the British Council—to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, referred—or educational, medical and environmental development programmes become not the after-thoughts and leftovers but the front edge of the campaign to secure friends and win hearts and minds. And so do organisations such as the Commonwealth, which has not had much of a mention in the debate. Many of us feel that far from it being an organisation of the past, it is a superb but underfunded global network of the future.
That is why the events of recent weeks—the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse stories to which several noble Lords referred—are so utterly disastrous. They are the equivalent in modern terms of a major military defeat. It is why carrier fleets, strike fighters, high-tech missiles and the classic instrument of hard power are only half our defences and protection and can deliver only half our foreign policy. There is the other pillar, which is becoming more significant. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, with great wisdom, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, rightly emphasised that point.
Speaking of soft power leads me to my second general point, which is that, in these conditions, no country can go it alone—not mighty but very vulnerable America; not some cobbled-up European superpower designed as a counter-weight of some form; no nation; and no armed force. The fact is that, thanks to technology, we now live in a totally networked structure in which all the old ways of looking at the world in terms of permanent blocks, hegemonies and hyper-powers are becoming utterly meaningless.
I think that that, above all, is why even those of us who are the United States' strongest admirers—I am one of them—find the Washington evangelical rhetoric about America being the greatest power on earth and the world's only superpower, bristling with missions and visions and soon, so worrying, unconvincing, ephemeral and, frankly, counter-productive, as some of your Lordships have rightly said.
1378
At such a time as this, people may talk, understandably, about distancing ourselves from America. But what we really need—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made this point—is to be more closely involved than ever with the American debate in order to drive home the new reality about the network nature and fluidity of the international order. We need to drive home the imperative need for the Americans to work closely and co-operatively with their many potential allies and willing friends and to use their own "soft power", if you like, rather than rely on the doctrines of overwhelming force and the big stick alone. That would not work.
In that context—this is my third general observation—we seem to be faced too often in these debates with two polar ideas. Either we are told that Middle East states must all succumb to the imposed Washington, Jeffersonian or Westminster democratic model my—noble friends Lord Biffen and Lord Eden rightly questioned that simplicity—or the opposite: that the Islamic theocracies are "inevitable", that they cannot be stopped and that Islam and democracy are somehow incompatible and we may as well face that fact. Both those polar views are equally silly and equally dangerous.
I often wonder whether any of the many experts now telling us that the coalition should hand over power to the Iraqi ayatollahs have any idea what that would do to the stability of the entire Middle East. The wise and gradualist reformers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Bahrain, who—if anyone looks at what they are trying to do—are all seeking to pluralise their governance, would all have the rug pulled from under them if Iraq turned into an extreme Islamic state. The outcome would not be stability and it certainly would not be representative democracy; it would be the rise of street revolution and of new intolerant cliques—anti-Western, anti-freedom, anti-women, anti-peace and anti-almost any form of civilised human advance.
In the immediate situation in Iraq. the key question, which has been touched on in this debate, is of course how sovereignty is to be handed over and whether the latest UN resolution, which we understand has now been tabled, does the trick. My own view is that, in fairness, it is certainly more than cosmetic, as some critics are all too ready to call it. But obviously the success of the resolution and the next stage of policy depend on some crucial problems and questions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to touch on some of them.
The first is: can Mr Brahimi really perform magic and, in the next few days, come up with the right names which will command confidence in Iraq? Will the new Iraqi Government have the veto on all or any coalition or so-called "multilateral force" operations, as the Prime Minister seems to want? Having said that, nowadays it is extremely hard to find out what government policy is—it changes so fast—other than receiving it second-hand through journalists. And what will be the status of our troops?
Is the British contribution to be strengthened? Half the newspapers say that it is and others say that it is not official yet. I gather that plans are already under way

1379
to move British contingents northwards from Basra so that the whole southern half of Iraq becomes a British military zone. When will we be told about that rather than have to pick up the occasional rumour? More broadly, can the coalition slip out of its occupying power jacket and don the garb of a more pro-Iraqi aid to the civil power? Will there be a national Security Council-type mechanism in the Iraqi government in Baghdad to allow that?
The answers to those questions are not in the draft resolution, which is silent on most of those matters. On the other hand, those who say that the whole operation should be not only UN-approved, as I hope it will be, but under full UN control are, I believe, deluding themselves. The UN does not have the capacity, the will, the track record or, at present, the reputation—certainly in Iraq—to do what the Iraqis must do for themselves. I believe it was Dag HammarskjÕld who, long ago, said that the UN is set up not to take mankind to paradise but to save it from hell. I think that that is the kind of fairly modest level of aim which we should entertain in thinking about the UN.
We now urgently need from the Government a firm and clear view based on a robust, open and frank debate about the way ahead in Iraq, as well as in the wider Middle East and on the dubious Sharon plan, which I do not have time to comment on, and on where we think coalition policy could be improved by both soft and hard-power deployments judiciously mixed together.
I have no criticism of the Prime Minister for making Britain's views on all this clear, whether or not they differ from those in Washington. Indeed, I believe that he should have done so earlier. I see nothing wrong with that; nothing inconsistent with our fervent wish to see this whole project succeed; and nothing wrong with the Opposition wanting this debating process out in the open, as the Liberal Democrats do as well. I hope that the Prime Minister will set out that strategic picture when he speaks at the UN and the G8. I hope that he will base it, coming from a parliamentary democracy as he does, on ideas and viewpoints that have been properly tested here in parliamentary debate and discussion. I totally agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that our committee system in both Houses, and certainly in this House, could do a lot better in that respect.
We have to get the priorities right in our democracy. We cannot afford to spread our resources and energies over everything in a kind of vague haze of good intentions and good will. We cannot make everything a priority as, reading the Foreign Office paper, I sometimes feel some Foreign Office planners want to do. Now, as never before, we must identify in a hardheaded way, and well ahead of time, the real threats to us and to our people from tomorrow's world and identify from which direction they are coming, whether far or near. We will not be forgiven for failing to do that.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for introducing this debate and for doing it with his customary authority and command of the subject. His was a lucid and powerful overview of the overall foreign policy priorities from the position of a former diplomat, former ambassador, Permanent Secretary and, significantly, accounting officer.
Our debate has been graced by many distinguished contributions, but none more so than from my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. The whole House owes my noble friend a debt of gratitude for his outstanding service as NATO's Secretary-General. It was a privilege to serve with him as a defence Minister; it was also a great deal of fun, as your Lordships will have been able to deduce from my noble friend's contribution. And it was a privilege to represent the United Kingdom at the last NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting, which he chaired last December. I said to him then that he would be greeted in your Lordships' House with enthusiasm and affection. I am very glad to see that, deservingly, that has been the case.
I have a huge task in answering this wide-ranging debate. I start with thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his kind words about the FCO White Paper, published last December, which set out the United Kingdom's international priorities and how we intend to achieve them. It may be helpful to touch upon those in order to put my subsequent remarks about specific areas and policies into context.
The strategy analyses changes in foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and publicly sets out for the first time our underlying assumptions about how the world will develop over the next decade. As domestic and foreign policy become increasingly intertwined, it has been important that our international priorities were not agreed with just one department but right the way across government as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, noted.
The White Paper identified nine priorities: a world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction—in regional terms the strategy puts the Middle East at the top of those priorities; protection of the United Kingdom from illegal immigration, drug trafficking and other international crime; an international system based on the rule of law, which is better able to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts; an effective EU in a secure neighbourhood; promotion of the United Kingdom's economic interests in an open and expanding global economy; sustainable development underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights; security of United Kingdom and global energy supplies; security and good governance of our overseas territories; and delivering high quality public services.
That is a very ambitious global agenda. The priorities are closely interconnected. Security is vitally important but it cannot be isolated from sustainable development or from robust international systems. If we are to fight terrorism and proliferation effectively,

1381
we need to promote democracy, good governance and human rights. To reduce poverty in Africa we must end the bitter cycles of conflict there.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is right; foreign policy does, indeed, take time. Results do not come overnight and consistency is vital. That is why we have drawn up a Foreign Office strategy. Underlying our approach is a strong commitment to a multilateral system. I agreed strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said. No one country, not even the superpower United States, can tackle this agenda alone. We look for collective international approaches underpinned by strong alliances, and the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, put his finger on the central issue: do our policies and priorities really deliver what we want? They cannot be pursued in isolation and the strategy sets out our approach to the key relationships we need to achieve in order to progress these issues. Our most significant partnerships with other countries will be within the European Union and with the United States. There is no choice for us between the EU and the United States.
In that respect I have a very honest disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Transatlantic partnership, not just between the United Kingdom and the United States but between the EU as a whole and the United States, is indeed essential if we are to make any progress on the issues that we really care about. In that context, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the United Kingdom is not so much a bridge between two camps as a catalyst for partnership to which a majority on both sides of the Atlantic remain deeply committed and which is vital for our future security and prosperity. We also need to develop our relationships with other key partners bilaterally through the EU and in particular with Russia, China, Japan and India.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, spoke eloquently about our role in Iraq, and I thank him warmly for what he said. I believe, of course, that much of what he said is right. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, also devoted much of his address to Iraq, as did the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, together with my noble friends Lord Brennan, Lord Desai, Lord Mitchell and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Some noble Lords have been trenchant and uncompromising in their reiteration of outright disagreement in principle to military intervention in Iraq. Others have expressed disquiet over particular aspects of conduct there. We continue to share the objective of a free, stable, unified Iraq and we remain committed to finishing the job that we have begun. Perhaps I may say, clearly, that I utterly reject the appalling accusations that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan for saying what he did early in our debate about human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. Such abuses are abhorrent. They are an affront to us all.
1382
They disgust every decent human being. I would go further and say that we went to Iraq to get rid of this sort of abuse, not to perpetuate it. The United States agrees, as I heard Colin Powell, the United States Secretary of State set out in Jordan clearly, frankly and unequivocally just 10 days ago.
Rather than reflect on the recent past, perhaps I may look over what will happen in the next few months, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked The handover to a sovereign Iraqi Government will take place on 30 June and we expect the announcement of the interim government to be made by Lakhdar Brahimi on or shortly before 31 May. The interim government will have self-imposed limitations of power reflecting the views of prominent Iraqis, not reflecting the views of limitations imposed from outside Iraq but from within Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani. Those will be there so that an unelected government should not have powers to take fundamental decisions with long-term impact, particularly on constitutional issues before there is an elected government.
Elections for the transitional national assembly will be held by the end of January 2005. The UN is due to announce the establishment of an electoral commission by the end of May. It estimates that it will then take eight months to prepare for the elections. I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to know that already 11 ministries have been transferred to the Iraqi authority.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, asked about the UNSCR. The text has been distributed to the Security Council and coalition partners and the initial response has been generally positive. We are still aiming for an agreed text by the end of the first week of June. The key goals of the Security Council resolution are to mark clearly a new phase in the political transition, reconfirm the mandate of' the multinational force and to specify the future role of the United Nations.
Security is a constant source of difficulty and anxiety, as I have seen from my own visits to Iraq. US and UK forces operate in very different areas with different challenges. Tactics in each area reflect the situation on the ground. We want to avoid violence and confrontation wherever possible but remain ready to use appropriate force as a last resort.
The post-30 June security arrangements are crucial, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, argued. The Iraqi Government will be fully sovereign. Therefore, the multinational force will remain only at the invitation of that Iraqi Government. But the key is handing over to the Iraqis themselves. More than 131,000 Iraqis are currently providing security and there are now 78,000 Iraqi police working on the ground.
I turn to the other big issue addressed by many noble Lords—the Middle East peace process. The noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Biffen. Lord Weidenfeld, Lord Eden of Winton, Lord Jacobs and Lord Hylton, all concentrated on these points. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that we

1383
continue to attach the highest priority to this issue. All Ministers do and, as the Minister with particular responsibility, I do. But we do not do so to the exclusion of all else, and we do not do so as an excuse for lack of progress on other issues in the region.
The announcement that Israel intends to withdraw the Israeli defence forces from Gaza and dismantle all Israeli settlements there as well as four in the West Bank will be a significant step towards the goal set out in the road map and in Security Council Resolution 1397, the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.
But as the Minister responsible for the Middle East let me make two points clear. First, any withdrawal must be without prejudice to the final status issues negotiated between the parties; that is, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. Secondly, the road map remains the best—indeed currently the only—way forward to the two-state solution; that is, Israel living in peace and security with its neighbours and Palestine stabilised as a viable and contiguous state.
I thought that the quartet statement of 4 May made this position abundantly clear and went further. It came forward with some practical suggestions for how this could be achieved; suggestions about security, financial help for the Palestinian Authority administered by a trust fund through the World Bank and, vitally, work about monitoring developments on the ground.
We support both sides taking actions in line with the road map, unilaterally or otherwise, provided it is done within the context of a road map. We are calling for Israel to co-ordinate its withdrawal from Gaza with the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority also needs to react positively to the initiative by taking the steps needed to improve security and its capacity to take responsibility for law and order.
I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said on this issue. Above all, it poisons so much else in the region. I have travelled widely in the past few weeks. I have been to four international conferences with colleagues in the Arab world in the past 12 days. Let there be no doubt that as far as they are concerned—I would say this is true of them all— this issue above any other, even that of Iraq with all the recent hurt that it has suffered, has to be tackled with determination, courage and understanding.
I thought the communiqué from Tunis was very helpful. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that I thought it addressed terrorism and organised crime and rejected what it called -the spirit of hate" in all its forms. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, to read the Arab League Tunis summit communiqué.
In respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, I agree that the Geneva accord is a bright light, but so is the Tunis summit statement, not least because it raises the whole question of Arab modernisation— of democracy, economic reform, development in a civil society, tackling poverty, human rights and the rights of women. It put them firmly on the Arab League agenda.
1384
So I hope that the G8 will pick up these initiatives at the Sea Island summit and react in a spirit of partnership, acknowledging, as all people of common sense must, that reform comes from within a country—it cannot be imposed from outside—and that the countries in the region are in many ways as different as we Europeans are from each other.
I turn to the points made about NATO by my noble friend Lord Robertson and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. As your Lordships are aware, NATO heads of government and states will meet in Istanbul at the end of June. The agenda will focus on three main issues—operation, capabilities and partnership. We want to use the summit to encourage the additional military assets required by ISAF's expanding operations in Afghanistan. A decision to terminate the SFOR operation in Bosnia is also likely. That will pave the way for a UK-led EU stabilisation force to take over.
Progress on the Prague capability commitment set out by my noble friend Lord Robertson in 2002, will also be reviewed. The recent accession of the seven new allies provides an opportune time to modernise NATO's partnership programmes. The Mediterranean dialogue should be made more substantive with more focus on practical co-operation. Discussion will also take place on establishing a series of relationships with countries in the wider Middle East—if that is what they want. NATO is also planning to hold meetings with Ukraine and Russia.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the geographically specific issues which were raised. I think that Iraq and the Middle East peace process are rather different in this respect, so I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on Iran. In contrast with our friends the United States of America, we believe that the best approach to Iran is our policy of critical engagement. Iran is too important and complex to ignore. We are better able to promote reform through frequent dialogue. We share key interests in regional stability and drugs, but of course we are very aware of the difficulties in dealing with Iran.
We have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, its human rights record and its support for terrorism and for groups that oppose with violence the Middle East peace process. The EU has stressed that relations cannot develop without concrete Iranian action to address human rights concerns. The UK and most EU partners co-sponsored a Canadian-run resolution on human rights in Iran at UNGA last year.
We welcome Iran's progress so far in disclosing its past deceit about its nuclear programme. But Iran still has a great deal to do to satisfy the international community. We want to work more closely with Iran to defeat terrorism. We also want deeper EU commercial relationships with Iran.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, that we are trying to reach out to the Iranian media. I hope that he will be pleased to know I actually spent an hour with the Iranian media this week doing exactly that.
My noble friend Lord Desai concentrated his remarks on India and Pakistan, as did the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, with whom I agree very warmly indeed. Over the weekend the new Indian Government

1385
was sworn in. That was the climax to what was a thrilling exercise in vibrant democracy by the world's largest electorate.
The relationship between India and the UK is very good. Co-operation with India is essential to achieving at least six of our eight strategic priorities. We have shared interests in tackling key global challenges— terrorism, environmental degradation, climate change, drugs, international crime, illegal migration and people trafficking, regional conflicts and impediments to trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, also touched on the issues in relation to Pakistan. Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent public statements made by the new Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the external Minister Natwar Singh for confirming their commitment to strengthening, widening and deepening India's bilateral relations and continuing the peace process with Pakistan.
The Pakistani Government have also reaffirmed publicly their continued commitment to improving relations with India and the peace process. We hope that the Indian and Pakistani Governments will continue to build confidence through their peaceful engagement. As a friend of both countries, we, and indeed our key international allies, stand ready to assist and support India and Pakistan as they move forward.
My noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke—some movingly—about Africa. A more prosperous, stable and peaceful Africa would benefit not only Africans, but the entire world community. Terrorism, illegal immigration, instability and, above all, poverty in Africa have implications outside that continent.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for his encouragement of our role in trying to bring together the parties in Zimbabwe. I agree that there is a vital role for Zimbabwe's neighbours to support that process.
Currently we are spending a great deal more in Africa than in the past. The amount has risen rapidly over the past 10 years. By 2005–06, the United Kingdom will have increased its annual bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa to £1 billion. Africa will be a priority for the United Kingdom in the run up to our G8 and EU presidencies and beyond.
As part of our commitment to the G8 Africa Action Plan, we have focused on key action areas, such as peace, security, governance, trade, education and HIV/AIDS. Again, the spread of retroviral drugs is very much to be welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said.
Conflict remains a huge barrier to Africa's development. We support conflict prevention, management and resolution initiatives in Africa and are actively engaged in the peace processes in Somalia, Sudan, DRC and Uganda.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke with her customary passion about Darfur. I can tell her that a UN presidential statement was issued yesterday,
1386
following intensive work by the United Kingdom with our international partners. It expressed grave concern at the situation in Darfur and called for the parties to protect civilians and facilitate access to humanitarian organisations.
The Sudanese have announced that they will issue visas to humanitarian agencies within 48 hours. I shall keep the matter under review. I am happy to talk further to the noble Baroness on the issue. I agree with her that this is a terrible and vicious problem and that we ought to engage with the area more.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about Cyprus. We respect the outcome of both referendums and the Cypriots' right to decide. I shall try to be as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked. We regret that an opportunity was missed for a settlement. The Secretary-General's plan is the result of many years of work and we believe that it is a fair and balanced compromise that offers a real prospect to Cyprus to move forward as a united island within the European Union.
We look forward to the Secretary-General's report on the talks about the future of his Good Offices mission. I want to be clear on this: we see no prospect for an early resumption of talks. Now is a time for thought. It is an opportunity for the Greek Cypriots to reflect on whether their choice was the right one for them, for Cyprus and for the European Union.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we have a duty to those Turkish Cypriots who voted in favour of a settlement and EU membership. I think that I spelt that out fairly clearly the other day when I spoke in your Lordships' House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke about Colombia. I fully agree with him that UK military aid is not fuelling the conflict. Our aid is helping to dispose of bombs, build democratic accountability for the Armed Forces and develop better rules for engagement. Stopping the aid would hurt the people we are trying to help.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the subject of Serbia. In Kosovo in particular, as the noble Lord said, there is much to be done, as the March violence exposed. Minorities, particularly the Kosovo Serb minority, need to feel safe and to have access to institutions and services. The Kosovo Government need to be given support, but they also need to show that they really are capable of exercising more responsibility, most importantly on the economy.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised interfaith dialogue. In particular, we have supported the Alexandria process under the guidance of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. We have supported work on the Israel/Palestinian interfaith dialogue, and we are supporting work on interfaith dialogue in Iraq. We were doing that as recently as last weekend in a seminar. We also support the work in Africa of Coventry cathedral.
Our support has been not only in terms of participation but also in terms of hard cash. At home we have an outreach programme trying to bring together the faith communities across a whole range of discussion on foreign policy issues. As an example of

1387
that commitment, we held the first ever multi-faith week in the FCO from 7 to 11 October last year. I would be happy to discuss that further with any right reverend Prelate on the Bishops' Benches or other noble Lords who feel that it would be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked about funding for human rights. The FCO will continue to support grassroots human rights, good governance and democracy projects. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, since 1998 the Human Rights Project Fund has funded more than 700 projects in more than 90 countries, worth £30 million. With the creation last year of the new Global Opportunities Fund, which ran in parallel with the Human Rights Project Fund. the FCO supported more than 150 new human rights, good governance and democracy projects, which were worth over £11 million.
International action against torture is a priority for the Government. We launched an initiative to tackle torture throughout the world in 1998. We are lobbying for the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I shall write to the noble Baroness to fill in more of the substance on that point.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, directed our attention to counter-terrorism. That is a priority for the Government. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in September 2001, set the standard for states and made them accountable for their performance. All states have now reported to the counter-terrorism committee at least once; this country has reported four times. In March the Security Council decided to strengthen the committee further, and last week the Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed the first executive director to lead a strengthened expert team. We wish him well; he will enjoy our full support.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke with real conviction about establishing a foreign policy committee in your Lordships' House. Sadly, on this occasion, I do not agree that that is a real priority. That is certainly not because I am not happy to answer noble Lords' questions or indeed noble Lords' debates in this House, which I always enjoy. But he was right when he said that it was a matter for the House itself. It is very much in noble Lords' hands if they wish to take the matter forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his acknowledgement of the importance of the British Council and the BBC World Service. I would not wish them to go unmentioned, as they are very important aids to us in taking forward our priorities, as he rightly acknowledged.
The noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Alderdice, Lord Selsdon. Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, all concentrated quite a lot on transatlantic relations. Of course the context of our transatlantic relationships has changed fundamentally over the past 15 years. The common threat from the Soviet Union that unified Americans and Europeans
1388
has disappeared. That is a very good thing, as we all know. The European continent is firmly on the path to freedom and prosperity.
However, the end of that overwhelming threat means that we must find new ways of co-operating. The major task for Europe and America is now to build a common approach to the challenges and threats of the 21st century. To some, the disagreements over Iraq have demonstrated that Europe and America view those threats very differently. Iraq exposed divisions not only between Europe and the United States but also within Europe. But both Europeans and the United States have made clear that we want to move beyond those differences. On the fundamentals, including the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, we agreed fundamentally. As the European Security Strategy, published in December last year, demonstrates, Europe and the US agree that the major threats we face come from WMD, terrorism and failing states. We also agree that we must tackle a broader agenda, including climate change, poverty and disease, in order to build a global consensus based on security and justice.
Noble Lords have debated a huge agenda today. The FCO's network of 233 posts is a vital asset in advancing this global agenda. It is a delivery mechanism for the whole of government, not just the FCO. Over half the staff who work in it are engaged in providing information services, consular and commercial support and visas. We consider that public service role an absolute priority in its own right.
To excel in all those areas is a very tall order for an organisation that employs fewer people than Harrods and costs less than 0.25 per cent of GDP. To achieve our aims, the FCO will need to become more flexible, better able to make use of diverse talent and work even more closely with other government departments in this country and with multilateral organisations overseas.
I have worked in and around Whitehall for almost 28 years, in a variety of different government departments and representing senior civil servants as a whole. I commend to noble Lords the diplomatic corps, whose expertise and commitment are the rock upon which our foreign policy is built. Under the leadership of Sir Michael Jay, the Foreign Office has become more open and responsive and has reached out more, not only overseas, but to communities in this country, too. It has a clear path set ahead now, through its strategic objectives, and the men and women who work for it should be a real source of pride to all of us.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, this has been an important and wide-ranging debate. I am extremely grateful to the many noble Lords who have taken part. I thank and congratulate, in particular, the noble Lord. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his excellent maiden speech. I also thank the Minister for the characteristically comprehensive, courteous and skilful way in which she has summed up the debate.
I take fully the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on my proposal that foreign affairs might be somehow separated from defence or

1389
international development in the Queen's Speech debates. Perhaps that is not a sensible way to proceed. But I am very grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on what the Minister referred to as our global agenda.
I suggest tentatively that the House authorities, business managers and the Government might view positively the idea that we should have such wide-ranging debates more often than, say, six months, which is about the strike rate at the moment. Although I retired from the Diplomatic Service 13 years ago, I think that I am still allowed to be grateful to the Minister for her remarks on it. Our role in international affairs is too important not to be given a wider airing from time to time.
I hope also that the House authorities and the Government will look sympathetically on the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this House should be given more opportunity in its committee system to review and scrutinise international affairs more widely than the present restriction to scrutinising European affairs—I do not suppose that one could call European affairs limited.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Joffe for the extent to which my debate may have transgressed the time allotted to his important Cross-Bench debate on charitable donations, which noble Lords are about to enjoy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Charitable Giving
6.47 p.m.
Lord Joffe Lord Joffe rose to call attention to the 25 per cent fall since 1992 in charitable giving as a percentage of gross domestic product; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a widespread illusion that the British give generously to charity. Sadly, however, the statistics tell a very different story.
It must be said that, for a number of complex reasons, the statistics for voluntary giving are far from satisfactory. However, they are reliable enough to reflect trends, as outlined in a telling speech last year by Stephen Ainger, the chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation. Those trends sparked off today's debate, in respect of which I declare an interest as the chair of the Giving Campaign.
The trend period upon which I will focus runs from 1992 to 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available. During that period, personal incomes have risen in real terms on average by more than 25 per cent; personal wealth has more than doubled; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has introduced a range of very attractive tax benefits with the objective of stimulating giving; the charitable sector has become much more professional in fundraising; and the very wealthy have prospered as never before. With all those positives, one would have expected the level of individual giving as a percentage
1390
of GDP to have increased dramatically. Instead it has fallen from 1.2 per cent in 1992 to 0.9 per cent in 2002, a fall of 25 per cent.
In seeking to explore the reasons why the level of giving has not risen in line with the growth of incomes, it emerges that the poor who give to charity give on average three times as much as a proportion of their income as the better off, the top 20 per cent of whom give on average only 0.7 per cent. So, we find that the poor, who cannot really afford it, are considerably more generous than the well-off, who can. This is even more astonishing when regard is paid to the statistics that show that the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population own close to one quarter of the total marketable wealth, while the poorest half of the population own between them only 5 per cent. It follows from those statistics that if the level of giving is to increase significantly, that increase must largely come from the well-off substantially increasing the level of their giving. Unless the very wealthy set an example, it is unlikely that this increase will happen.
The definitive guide to the richest 1,000 people in Britain today is the Sunday Times 2004 Rich List. The qualification level to make the list is wealth of £40 million or more. In this year's list, it is recorded that Britain's super-rich have never had it so good, with their wealth in excess of £200 billion having almost doubled in the past four years. The Rich List also contains the Sunday Times Giving Index, which ranks the 30 most generous philanthropists in the Rich List based on the amount that they give expressed as a percentage of their wealth. The top seven in that index were generous, each having given more than 5 per cent of their wealth in recent donations, headed by the splendid example of Tom Hunter, the Scottish industrialist, who committed £100 million, which was one fifth of his wealth, to charity.
However, of the 10 richest billionaires in Britain, with wealth ranging downwards from £7.5 billion to £2.2 billion, only two, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and Hans Rausing, figure in the Giving Index. The other eight, including such well known billionaires as Sir Richard Branson, Philip Green and Bernie Ecclestone, either have not qualified or have failed to provide information as to their giving. If it emerges that in fact they were very generous, that would be good news. It is important to recognise that those who have provided information as to their giving in the Rich List have done so not in order to flaunt their wealth, but rather in the hope that they are setting an example for others to follow. It would be encouraging if next year the others in the Rich List followed this example.
It is instructive to compare what the wealthy in the USA give in relation to their counterparts over here. In December last year, Business Week published a list of the 50 most generous philanthropists in the USA. Bill Gates headed the list, having given away 23 billion US dollars over five years, which is about half his present wealth, while Gordon Moore, cofounder of Intel, at number two donated 7 billion US dollars, which is more than his current wealth. In the top 50 in the USA, 30 had given away more than 10 per cent of their

1391
current wealth. With such generosity among the very wealthy in the USA, it is easy to understand why over the period 1992 to 2002, charitable giving has increased by 15 per cent as a percentage of GDP, in contrast to our own 25 per cent fall, although I should add that it is not in all respects a valid, like-by-like comparison.
The reason for the disparity in giving compared to the USA is a difference in culture. In the USA, it is generally accepted by the well-off that they have a responsibility to give at least part of their wealth to the society that made it possible for them to accumulate such wealth. As a result, in the USA giving is celebrated. Those who give earn and deserve respect from their society for their generosity. In the UK, unfortunately giving is not a defining characteristic of the well-off. It is argued that in the UK many of the well-off prefer to avoid publicity and give anonymously, and that as a result their giving is not taken into account in the statistics. This is true in some cases, but it is often the excuse of those of the well-off who do not give generously, or at all, but prefer not to admit it.
The question arises as to whether we should be seeking to influence the well-off to increase their giving to charity. After all, giving is a personal matter, and there is no way that we can compel individuals to give more than they wish to. Whether we decide to try to influence them depends on the kind of society that we would like to have in this country. Is it to be one where the wealthy and the well-off focus solely upon their own gratification, and accumulate yachts, homes, personal jets, fleets of motorcars and other playthings, and show little regard for those less fortunate than themselves? Or do we want a caring society, in keeping with British tolerance and sense of fairness, where everyone contributes as generously as they can to make it a better society for all? It is the latter for which we should be aiming, and the initial objective for which we should aim is to double the level of giving to charities over the next 10 years. As to the range of initiatives that should be taken to achieve this, a new book to be published next month, Why the Rich Give written by Theresa Lloyd of Philanthropy UK, a project of the Association of Charitable Foundations, is essential reading.
I do not believe that the majority of the well-off are mean and uncaring. They do give, but unfortunately their giving is reactive rather than planned. If they see pictures on TV of starving children, or if they are asked to give, they often respond—sometimes generously. However, they seldom plan their giving by relating the amount that they give to their income and wealth. If they did this periodically I do not doubt that they would spontaneously wish to increase the level of their giving. I recall Michael Brophy, a previous chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, making a point at meetings of asking the people there to put up their hands if they gave more than 1 per cent of their incomes to charity. It was astonishing how few put up their hands, but how many subsequently said that having thought about it, they had immediately increased the amount that they intended to give.
1392
The natural starting point in changing our approach to giving by the well-off is to establish benchmarks. Many people just have no idea of how much it would be reasonable for them to give. I suggest an initial benchmark for our society as a whole of an average of 1.5 per cent of income or wealth. Within that general benchmark, the starting figure for the well-off—whom I define as having incomes in excess of £100,000 a year—would be 2 per cent, going upwards depending on the wealth and income of the individual concerned and going down to virtually nothing for those who struggle to survive on annual incomes of £10,000 or less.
Surprisingly, there is considerable opposition to benchmarks, mostly, I suspect, by those who do not give generously, or at all. The rationale for this opposition is difficult to follow. While no one has a right to determine how much somebody else should give, it is not unreasonable, in a society where we are all dependent on one another, to suggest guidelines as to what may be reasonable. It is not as if benchmarks on giving are something new. Most faiths lay down specific guidelines. Christian faiths often follow 10 per cent, with 5 per cent to go to the Church and 5 per cent to other good causes. For Islam. the starting point is 2.5 per cent, with charity beyond this encouraged. For Hindus, it is according to ability and position and up to 50 per cent, while for Sikhs 10 per cent is specified in the Code of Conduct, and the amount for Jews is also 10 per cent. I am not suggesting that we should leap to these levels at this stage.
However, having established benchmarks we should, as in the USA, celebrate the giving of those whose giving matches these benchmarks, or even more those who exceed them. Naturally, the key players—whose job it is to influence both the well-off and the not so well-off to give to charity—are the charities themselves. They must face up to the challenge of proving to donors that they are making a real and positive difference to society; that they are efficient and effective; and that they appreciate and value the support of those who contribute to their work. Having accepted this responsibility, charities must tailor the level of their "ask" to the income and wealth of the donor, and not be frightened to ask for generous donations from those who can afford them. Increasingly, charities should take potentially generous donors out to show them their work so that such donors gain an understanding of what it is like to live in poverty, or to be without shelter or food, or dying of AIDS. When the wealthy have seen such suffering and realised that they can make a difference, I believe they will want to give generously.
The corporate sector and the Civil Service also have an important role to play in individual giving through encouraging payroll giving. This is an extremely tax-effective way for employees to give. In the USA, 32 per cent of employees are enrolled for payroll giving. The corresponding figure in the UK is only a tiny 2 per cent.
The Government have done a great deal to encourage individual giving through the generous tax incentives introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by their wide-ranging support of the

1393
voluntary sector. While there is a limit to what government can do, a change in the legislation relating to new trust structures based on the American experience—enabling donors to get immediate tax relief on gifts, but to draw income as well for a prescribed period—would attract very substantial endowments.
The media too have increasingly made a positive contribution in profiling generous donors—and, in the case of the Sunday Times, in creating a giving index—and will. it is to be hoped, focus more on the positive aspects of the charitable sector in future. If the charitable sector, the business sector, government and the media work in partnership to spread the message of the importance of planned giving—with an emphasis on relating the level of giving to wealth and income—I believe that over a period of 10 years it should be possible to meet the target of doubling the level of voluntary giving in real terms. Although individual giving in the period 1992–2002 has fallen so dramatically as a proportion of GDP, the potential is there greatly to increase this level. Already in the past three years, despite the crash of the stock market, the level of giving has begun to rise.
We would be well on our way to achieving this target, if the 1,000 members of the rich list with wealth in excess of £200 billion were, on average, to increase their giving from 0.7 per cent to 1.7 per cent—which they can so easily afford. This alone would raise the current level of giving by £2 billion to £9.3 billion, and would set an example to the other 230,000 millionaires in the UK and to the mass affluent.
As a society we must do better. One hopes that the better-off, rather than the poor, will lead the way. I beg to move for Papers.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like every other noble Lord who will speak in this debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The issues he highlights are of great concern to all those of us who work in or fund the charitable sector, and he is to be congratulated on enabling us to air those concerns. It is certainly the case that we have not been successful in promoting individual philanthropy as the United States has been—either just to encourage giving, or to encourage the establishment of new foundations. It is interesting to speculate, as he has done, about the reasons for this, and I commend his recommendations to your Lordships.
However, I am more optimistic about the current situation than the noble Lord. In the few minutes available to me I will draw attention to some of the reasons why I take a more positive view of the prospects for giving. As this is my last day as chair of the New Opportunities Fund—the largest of the lottery's good causes distributors—I will start with the lottery. Let us be clear—people do not play the lottery to give money to charity. They play because they think they may win. However, what the 28 pence in the pound that goes to good causes represents to them is a consolation for not winning. It is difficult to overemphasise what that consolation has done for
1394
individuals and communities in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years. That £15 billion has a made a huge difference to every community in our country.
On my last day, your Lordships may perhaps forgive me for emphasising the particular contribution of the New Opportunities Fund. Before we were set up, lottery good causes relied largely on groups and individuals coming forward with ideas for project funding. We set out to do something different. We wanted to target the needs of disadvantaged communities, work more strategically and invest funding in specific initiatives on health, education and the environment, priority areas for government where lottery funding could add real value. I am very proud of what we have achieved. The results of our £2 billion are truly transformational: 500,000 new childcare places; 350,000 Healthy Living Centres; and £750 million invested in school and community sports facilities. I could go on. A huge impact has been made, and I know that the successor body to the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund—the Big Lottery Fund—will continue to encourage innovation and transform communities. No causal link has ever been shown between people playing the lottery and giving less to charity. Even if it had been, what the lottery has achieved in 10 years would surely be some compensation.
I turn to trusts and foundations. We may be worried about what we do not have in terms of individual giving, but we should celebrate the huge resource that existing trusts and foundations provide for the voluntary and community sector. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, led one such foundation, to which I had every reason to be grateful, when I headed a carers' charity. When I speak in other countries—the United States, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand—about the campaigns that I have run to get carers on the political and social agenda and describe how those campaigns, even those for new Acts of Parliament, have been funded by charitable trusts, my audiences are consumed with envy that we can be supported in that way in this country. It is true that some trusts and foundations are not as open and accountable as they should be or as willing to embrace new methods of working or encouraging different ways of supporting the work of charities, but many set an excellent example, and many others will follow.
As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reminded us, we must also accept that many charities are reluctant to accept change as readily as they ought to. They are too set on constantly complaining about how much more money they need and the circumstances in which they should get it. That is not always helpful. Many charities, though, constantly seek and find new ways of getting individuals, companies, trusts and statutory funders involved in their work. They are realistic about what they seek and honest about what they can offer in return. Above all, they recognise that giving of any kind is a two-way street. We must understand and meet the needs of our donors, as the noble Lord reminded us, as well as expecting them to meet ours.
I shall mention one other area that fills me with optimism. I have the honour to be the president of Volunteering England, a charity that is willing to

1395
embrace change, however painful—mergers are often painful, as I have reason to know—in order to make itself more responsive to constituents and stakeholders. In the view of Volunteering England, willingness to make charitable contributions is alive, well and living here, not only in terms of money but—even more important—in terms of time. A huge amount of time is donated to communities every week. Recent surveys suggest that between 39 per cent and 48 per cent of the adult population volunteer their time through an organisation. If we widen the definition to something more like a good neighbour-type scheme, the figures can nearly be doubled. That means that communities benefit from 88 million hours of volunteer time each week. If we were to equate that with money, it would mean that the country benefited to the tune of between £16 billion and £40 billion a year.
We should recognise that the Government have done much to support and further volunteering and voluntary action. We have every reason to be grateful for that. There is, of course, more work to be done. We know that there are barriers to people's participation as volunteers and that they need to be addressed. However, there are things that we can do, and one of them is to keep volunteering on the policy agenda and in the public eye. That is why, when we talk about giving money, we should also take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous generosity and resource that is volunteer time.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is as ever a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who made a characteristic speech on a subject on which she is much better informed than I am, and on a day of personal moment. It is only sad that so little of the £750 million for school sports facilities has so far been spent.
The whole of your Lordships' House is in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for securing this debate. That is not so much because of the coincidence of the draft charities Bill pre-legislative scrutiny—this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is concerned with inputs whereas the draft Bill obviously goes wider—but because it is the sort of Motion that your Lordships' House handles well, which reflects on a serious issue being looked at with the perspective of a decade's passage. His Motion is an exception to C S Lewis's observation that if you hear someone going round doing good to others, you can always tell the others by their hunted look.
I should declare an interest as the founder of two tiny trusts under the Charities Aid Foundation umbrella.
We are paying a small price for the other excellent mega debate put forward by another Cross-Bencher, so my remarks will be confined to three brief points. First, this is a subject where we are comparatively bereft of statistics. I am sure that noble Lords will be familiar with the chart which shows charitable giving at just under £5 billion in 1992, rising to £7.3 billion in
1396
2002. Firm figures for 2003 are not yet available. Those are not, however, the figures on which the 25 per cent decline over the decade referred to in the Motion is calculated. To those bare figures, which represent specific donations, have been added in the calculation both legacies and taxback returns, which have also individually benefited charities. On those cumulative figures, both of course constructed on the same lines in 1992 and 2002, the 25 per cent calculation was made. The taxback return has played a disproportionate role since the Chancellor's revision of gift aid in 2000, which I welcome.
Secondly, there are incidental factors that may have played a particular part in the decline identified by the noble Lord. Lord Joffe. The base year of 1992 saw the country still in recession, which provided a lower denominator for the GDP. The approach of the lottery in the decade's early years alarmed the NCVO for its potential effect on charitable giving, a subject addressed by the noble Baroness in her speech.
We visited that subject in detail with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Second Reading of another recent Bill. I shall not weary your Lordships by returning to that now. But it is worth remarking that the purchase of a lottery ticket, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, involves a donation to good causes, albeit not one that is susceptible to gift aid treatment. If the audited ticket sales of the National Lottery are added up from its inception in November 1994 to the end of March 2003, to run with the year 2002, and then apply a 28 per cent multiplier— I appreciate that 28 per cent applies to the main lottery draw and not to other sales; but 28 per cent is a rough and ready proxy—an average annual donation of £0.45 billion is produced.
Of course, I acknowledge that not all good causes will have been charities, but those considerations are also against the background of a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which found that,
"neither the number of people giving to charity nor the level of donations has changed significantly following the Lottery's introduction".
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has identified a series of qualitative as against quantitative factors, which might be described as cultural: I shall not rehearse them again. However, I shall make one point about the decline in traditionalist giving, as for instance exemplified by falling congregations in churches, and the rise of modernisation, which is exemplified in the fact that it is the strong brands in the large charities which are at a relative advantage in attracting growing donations. The latter is a function of more professional fundraising, but that has a genuine read across to the world of traditionalist giving. In that context, I wonder how many of the 43 dioceses of the Church of England have dedicated officers who encourage legacies from their diocesan population. I suspect that the one where I largely worship does not.
Thirdly, I recall a leading article in the Economist in the aftermath of my noble friend Lord Lawson reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent in 1988, when I was at the Treasury. The article, in approaching the final decade of the 20th century—the decade that is the subject of this debate—drew its readers' attention to the first

1397
Edwardian decade of the century when the bourgeoisie had flowered and blossomed in cultural generosity. I am genuinely admiring of this Government's streamlining of tax effectiveness in giving, which built on the previous government's own pioneering efforts.
But as we look forward in this decade, I hope that a government of one colour or another can look with favour on the recommendation of Sir Nicholas Goodison in the report Mr Boateng, the Chief Secretary, commissioned from him. It concerned the extension of acceptance in lieu where the donation of cultural objects of pre-eminent quality could be set against ordinary income as well as against inheritance tax, as they now can be. Cultural objects are not just works of art but can embrace books and archives as well.
That can already be done in the United States. But perhaps even more importantly and relevantly, it can already be done here for gifts of shares. Common sense suggests that as both shares and cultural objects are subject to inheritance tax where acceptance in lieu applies, common treatment of gifts in life could sensibly be harmonised. not least in the interests of the admirable Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for this debate. I congratulate him on his chairmanship of the Giving Campaign, which is just coming to a close after a tremendous effort to raise awareness and donations. I regret to say that although the list of speakers says that I have 10 minutes, I have six like all other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Shutt has the extra four minutes. I shall give my brief overview in the form of necessary generalisations.
If one was brought up on the notion of faith, hope and charity, today one would have to talk about scepticism, angst and greed. The acronym of that is "SAG", which is happening to donations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for looking this full in the eye. There is far too much triumphalism in the voluntary sector. Perhaps I may dare to say to as distinguished and experienced a speaker as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that I think that there was a touch of that in what she said about volunteering.
I, too, am a patron of the organisation to which she referred. Although the statistics on volunteering do not have an exactly common base, in 1997 the National Survey of Volunteering showed, for example, that 48 per cent of the adult population took part in formal voluntary activity. The Home Office Citizenship Survey in 2001 showed that figure dropping to 39 per cent. The proportion undertaking informal voluntary activity fell from 74 per cent in 1997 to 67 per cent in 2001. I emphasise that there is no precise commonality of base. But, none the less, that is not a jolly tale on any reckoning.
We need to be honest with ourselves about what is happening. I would say that there is heart failure in the question of giving. It is stunning that the poorest 10 per cent of income earners are giving more than three times more of their income than the top 10 per cent.
1398
One has to ask why. I shall spend a minute or two addressing that issue because unless we have some understanding of the reasons we will not get far.
The first thing that strikes me is that we work in a world where both parents work. The role of women who used to stay at home, bring up families and look after the home has changed. That has had an impact. Pressure at work has had a huge impact on giving and the attitude towards giving. The pressure under which many people work now, the hours that they work, the commuting that they have to undertake separates them from a community existence where they cannot see that they need to make a contribution in order for that community to thrive. There is a disconnectedness about so much of that lifestyle, particularly of the richer section of the population. I suppose that the City of London is the great exemplar of the decommunalised existence that so many people now lead.
With that, one must face the fact that the values of our day are excessively materialist and consumerist. The idealism, belief, philosophy or faith, call it what you will, that most of us grew up with and are aware of is no longer as evident. If one looks at the media, of whatever kind, one sees reflections of that.
Let us look at the values of business, in particular big business. In the City life is nasty, brutish and short; it is short-termist to the last degree. The value of stocks and shares is driven exclusively by what they can deliver to the so-called bottom line. The shareholding community and the share-broking profession have little or no regard for anything other than the accretion of profit. So, too, the view held of salaries is quite shocking. If anything reported last week in the Sunday Telegraph about the pay-off made to the boss of Shell, who so disgraced that great company, is true, that is but the latest example.
That whole world is unsustainable. It has become demoralised, in the literal sense of the word. Until we do something about the prevailing culture and restore to it a measure of the sense of value and purpose which, without being too nostalgic, did exist to a greater degree in the past, I do not think that much can he done to increase giving by the rich. Ultimately, charity is about caritas, the word for love, and it is about feeling and heart; it is not about tax breaks or mechanistic considerations. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, indicated, tax breaks have themselves become extraordinarily generous over the past decade or so. They should have a countervailing effect that would be likely to increase the level of giving.
I believe that we cannot look to the Government to bail us out of this situation. In some ways, the Government have become too involved in the charity sector. The independence, diversity and voluntary nature of this sector is a priceless jewel which must be preserved against any tendencies working in the opposite direction. Some of those tendencies may crop up in the charities Bill.
Above all, we have to try to restore balance to the lives of many people in this country. They would give more if they experienced community existence. That would

1399
point them in the direction of need and put them in juxtaposition with it. Without that, the giving proposition is too theoretical and intellectual.
I end by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for raising this subject for debate.
7.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for drawing attention to the fall in charitable giving in real money terms in this country, despite an upturn in giving in pure money terms. I am conscious, as a Bishop in the Church of England, that I speak from a privileged position. The Church of England has been a beneficiary of the generosity of women and men for countless generations down the centuries, and continues to know great and, indeed, sacrificial generosity from those of today's generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said that he would like some more statistics. I am prepared to give him one or two to help him along. The Charities Aid Foundation shows that the average monthly donation to charity in 2002 was £12.93, while the Church's data show that the average monthly planned giving to the Church in the previous year, 2001, was £30.46. That statistic is mirrored in CAF's finding that average giving to charity by the population as a whole is 0.9 per cent of income, while average giving to the Church is around 2.8 per cent of income.
The Church of England, like many others, uses gift aid well. Information suggests that 13 per cent of the total tax refunded by the Inland Revenue to charities comes to the Church of England.
The Church is, however, an agent rather than merely a beneficiary or recipient of charitable giving. It is an agent of mission, ministry and education, one that looks to serve local communities in their quest for hope, mercy and justice in society; and it is an agent in having a special concern always for the poor and the marginalised. Furthermore the Church holds in guardian trusteeship for the whole nation a wealth of heritage buildings in the shape of the cathedrals and parish churches of the land. It has a built heritage that I am glad to say is increasingly visited and valued while playing a vital role in the life, education and enjoyment of whole communities.
The Churches, along with other faith communities, shoulder considerable social responsibilities within the many communities that comprise our nation. The local church, funded by the charitable contributions of local people, uses money to counsel those who are bereaved and sick, to visit the sick and those in trouble, and to work with schools. In the Southwell diocese we sponsor an activity in our cathedral twice a year in conjunction with local schools. It is called "Time Travelling". Some 8,500 children visit Southwell Minster over two weeks each year as a part of their national curriculum key stages one and two studies. Since 1995, some 85,000 children have taken part in this exciting project, one that is funded by charitable moneys.
1400
Similarly, over the past two years the Church in my own diocese has funded two new secondary schools post-Dearing in partnership with Nottingham City Council for one school and Nottingham County Council for the other. The Church also uses money to run youth projects, holiday clubs, after school clubs, mums and toddlers groups, social clubs and luncheon clubs for the elderly. We provide premises, often at low or no cost, for local groups such as the scouts and guides, social groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and so forth.
In isolated rural communities the local church is often the only focus for community activities. In one parish in my diocese, St Bartholomew's, Kneesall, in the absence of a village hall or any kind of public facility, the church—a heritage building—after much difficulty has been reordered so that the whole of the chancel is available as a space for the use of the community to carry out all its activities.
The case is similar in our urban areas. In my diocese charitable giving has helped to establish a multi-racial centre at St Stephen's, Hyson Green, with particular emphasis on work with asylum seekers. The Vine Community Centre houses lots of projects which are both cross-cultural and cross-generational. One such is a young families' project, PALS, which provides a breakfast club, daily pre-school and lunch club from Monday to Friday for local children aged from as young as two years and upwards while supporting their parents and carers through a drop-in café with family worker support. Many of the children come from Muslim backgrounds whose parents specifically choose a faith context for their children's care.
Right in the heart of Nottingham city there is an ecumenical venture, the Malt Cross Project. It serves young people who are part of the amazing nightlife culture of the city today. It is a very vibrant nightlife, but also one where there is drink and drug abuse. Activities like these are mirrored throughout the country. The Church strives to keep contact with local people.
The question is: what do we look to the Government to provide? May I suggest that good government encourages and promotes the flourishing of the good and all that makes for cohesion and social harmony. Good government at the national level models good practice and ethical behaviour, responding generously to public need in times of crisis both at home and abroad. Good government should be in dedicated pursuit of achieving our national commitment to the United Nations overseas aid target of 0.7 per cent, which we still do not reach. Good government pursues efficiency, enterprise and prudence in the workings of every department of state and tries to build capacity in communities through partnership. We in the Church of England are profoundly grateful for the partnership that we have enjoyed to date.
Continual creativity, imagination and vision are required on the part of government, working with charities, if we are to harness the generosity of spirit that has long been a feature of the people of these islands. I believe that unless government energetically

1401
strives to create and regulate well the whole world of charity, we run the danger of losing the enormous amount of pro hono publico work that characterises many parts of our society.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of UNICEF. It is very much in that context that I should like to address the House.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for drawing the attention of the House to what is, on the face of it, a grotesque anomaly. It is all the more grotesque because even the most casual observer of what is going on in the world cannot fail to be struck by the vast and ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. You also would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to understand the clear relationship between poverty, desperation and social unrest, leading in many cases to what we now describe as terrorism. It is my belief that, in every sense, poverty is the breeding ground, the constant recruiting sergeant, of terrorism.
There are those who prefer to hide behind the old adage that the poor will always be with us. To them I say that the new, corrosive element in the mix is the growth of visible inequality. It is the constant "in your face" reminder to the poor that another world exists in parallel to theirs—a world of apparent endless plenty—conveyed through the television set that flickers somewhere in even the poorest village. It is that constant reminder that makes today's poverty very different from that which existed 100 years ago.
We have created a situation in which the very poorest are all too familiar with the world that they are missing out on while, at the same time, no similar message is grabbing the attention—let alone stirring the sympathy of—the world's wealthiest people; certainly the UK's wealthiest people.
At UNICEF we try very hard to attract the attention of this important and influential group. By far the best way of doing this is by getting individuals of high wealth to give up a week, or sometimes less, of their lives to look at how the other half—or, should I say, the other 95 per cent—live. Those few that do so never forget the experience. It stays with them for life and, as often as not, affects their attitude to giving dramatically. I have also observed that they tend to feel a great deal better about themselves.
Having spent most of my life as a storyteller, using film as my chosen medium let me end by telling the House of what I learnt during a recent visit to Nigeria regarding the dreadful issue of child trafficking. An all too common scenario would probably go something like this. A village that had been afflicted by AIDS would be visited by a trafficker, who would seek out the children of, say, a family of five or six children where both parents were dead. Ideally, he would pose as a relative, pick a 10 year-old boy and a 16 year-old girl and convince the rest of the children that he will take them off and get them an education, and that they will return to good jobs. It is not at all uncommon in Africa for relatives of the extended family to take such responsibility.
1402
But, far from getting the type of job the family had in mind, the children are trafficked north. En route, the boy is probably dropped off in one of the Gulf states, or even in Europe, to be a slave—a 10 year-old working 15 or 16 hours a day for food and lodging. If he is lucky he may escape after a few years.
But the girl is a much more valuable commodity. She is brought, normally, through Morocco to Spain, across Spain into Europe—the destinations of choice most recently have been Greece, Turkey and Italy—where she will be effectively sold into prostitution. But not the kind of organised prostitution you see in the movies; she will be dumped at eight o'clock at night on an autostrada to be picked up by any passing lorry driver. It is to be hoped that she will make her way back the following morning to whatever house she is being forced to live in, only to return to the autostrada the following night.
She will have been told that she owes the traffickers 45,000 US dollars—I do not know why it is always 45,000 dollars; the figure just kept coming up—and that that needs to he repaid because it represents the enormous cost of her illegal papers. So she will work for a year—maybe two—to repay the money. The day she has repaid it, she will not be allowed to go free; she will be "shopped" to the police because the traffickers do not want her as it were "freelancing" in their territory. So she will be sent back to Nigeria, probably to remain in prostitution, and certainly she will not he welcome in her own village.
The story that I have described is commonplace. UNICEF estimates that more than 1 million children a year are being trafficked into slavery, prostitution or some other form of exploitation—some 100,000 from West Africa alone. As I see it, only an almost complete failure of imagination can explain the reaction to this story being anything other than an urgent and angry desire to do something—to do anything—that might eradicate that particular blight on humanity.
Unless and until we, the comparatively wealthy, are made as aware of the distortions that exist in society, as are the dispossessed aware of our world of comfort and plenty, then the present decline in charitable giving is likely to continue. The lamentable situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is unlikely to be reversed until we become far more imaginative. I believe the real issue here is an increasing poverty of imagination on the part of the wealthy, who fail to comprehend the true nature of the world in which they live.
7.36 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. His debate today enables a timely discussion of the current threats and challenges to, as well as the future direction of, United Kingdom charities.
I should like to comment on three aspects and the connection between them. First, as a number of noble Lords have observed, there are the ways in which the Government can further help charities themselves; secondly, there is the increasing scope for partnership

1403
between charities and the Government if the latter should set out to work alongside them; and, thirdly, within the wider European Union, there is the new challenge to the role of charities and their partnerships, which is to enhance delivery and well-being at national and local levels.
On government remedies to assist both large and small United Kingdom charities, not least is sound advice offered by the Institute of Philanthropy. Small charities are, of course, beset by two difficulties: under-capitalisation in the first place and borrowing restrictions thereafter. Clearly under-capitalisation would be less of a handicap if such charities could draw from a national fund for approved projects. Equally, with appropriate safeguards, the present Charity Commission's borrowing restrictions could now be relaxed.
Does the Minister support the notion of that expedient as well as the establishment of a government capitalisation fund, also contributed to, perhaps, by the private sector?
As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, emphasised, evidence may indicate that future growth in overall figures relies upon large charities and affluent individual donors. If we matched the United States levels where individual giving amounts to 1.75 per cent of GDP, we would produce £17 billion, about two-and-a-half times what we give to charity now. Does the Minister therefore concur that we should seek to adopt similar incentives to those deployed in the United States in order to narrow the gap between its performance and ours?
My second theme is that of charities and government working more closely together. Within all our communities we are only too familiar with the problem of young people and those of them who, as a result of drugs, difficulties at home and with school leaving, require to be deterred, guided and inspired into constructive purpose and away from crime.
Certainly there are a great many charitable initiatives which set out to address this area. To their credit, the Government are trying to devise necessary solutions. However, to achieve proper results we should see many more informal yet focused partnerships between government and independent charities. Does the Minister agree? If so, what such joint ventures are the Government planning in order to reduce recidivism and to prevent young people turning to crime in the first place?
My third point is that, within the wider Europe, a useful impact can be made by charities and their partnerships. No doubt the stronger the central bureaucracy, the more likely it is that funds will be prescribed and allocated for spending in an inflexible way. By contrast, improved practice and benefit will often more assuredly derive from flexible initiatives and partnerships at local levels. That is exactly where the relevance of charity partnership lies.
During the civil war and its aftermath in the former Yugoslavia, we witnessed the achievements of non-governmental organisations in Europe. I declare an
1404
interest in my own small charity which works there and seeks to promote education exchanges with the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that charity partnerships of different kinds, including those with national institutions and governments, should be encouraged within Europe? What steps are the Minister and his colleagues now prepared to take to promote this objective?
In summary, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, stressed, much can now be done to increase significantly the UK level of charitable giving. Charities must retain their independence, yet governments should work alongside them much more. On that resolve depends enhanced well-being here and elsewhere.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Moser: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for initiating this debate. The subject is extraordinarily important and also very difficult. I declare various interests on both sides of the philanthropic divide—in asking for money for many charities and in giving it away in the foundation with which I am involved. It is clear that life has got much harder for everyone. There are more charities around and things are getting much more competitive. The economy has been up and down and, in various ways, this world has become more tricky.
I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Brooke, for mentioning statistics. I had feared that I would be the only one. The statistics in this field are disgraceful. One can piece them together from the various bodies involved, such as the Charities Aid Foundation and the Institute of Philanthropy, which probably does the best analytical and research work on this subject. NCVO and other bodies such as the CSO, or ONS as it is now called, are all active. As I said, the Institute of Philanthropy is quite energetic and rather skilful in its work and deserves every support.
However, it is extraordinarily difficult to piece together not only the totals but the components of the philanthropic world in this country. Given its importance to charities and, indeed, society, that is something that should be improved. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the problem and come up with some brilliant ideas on how, by bringing all these different bodies together, the picture can be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, was very skilful in telling us about the situation regarding individuals, about whom other Members of your Lordships' House also spoke. I was glad to hear the references to the enormous strength of our foundations and trusts, something about which we can really be proud. There are some good signs, although perhaps not so much in relation to individuals. For example, in the arts world—as we know from Arts and Business, another excellent organisation—in the past year, giving has increased by some 8 per cent both from individuals and from the corporate sector. There are other pieces of this jigsaw where, if one digs very hard, one can find a reason for enthusiasm and optimism.
I will use my remaining few minutes to talk about something that has not yet been mentioned in detail. I think that the greatest possibility lies in the corporate

1405
sector. I am aware that that does not directly fall under the term "philanthropy", as it is more partnership and support of various kinds. However, at the moment, 3 per cent of all charity income comes from the corporate sector. That is not a high figure. There is room for serious advance in this field. We should accept that giving by the corporate sector is not necessarily stimulated by the highest charitable thinking; it may be more a matter of competitiveness, corporate image or marketing. I find nothing wrong with that. I am happy as long as firms give to charities and get involved. There is real room for major advance in the corporate sector.
Noble Lords will remember the I per cent club which was founded many years ago. Marks & Spencer and other companies were active in it. It was a simple idea. Each company gave I per cent of its net profits. It lost its energy and appeal over the years, so it fizzled out. Now, under Business and Community— another worthy organisation— the so-called PerCent Club is alive again. It is working very hard to recruit members. I am not sure about the latest figures, but something of the order of 60 to 80 companies are involved, out of countless thousands.
Again, one is handicapped by statistics. I have looked to the Institute of Philanthropy for the best guidance. However, it looks as though only a small number of the very big companies are involved in very serious giving—perhaps 500 top companies give an average of just under I per cent per annum. One does not know how many smaller companies are active, because the information is part of net profits and does not have to be disclosed. There is a real challenge here and there are routes towards achieving it.
Noble Lords will immediately wonder about shareholder concerns— about which I am of course conscious. Some shareholders would cut up rough if their distributed profits were reduced. On the other hand, some companies—I will not begin to mention names—are very active in giving and get away with it happily. The answer surely is that it must become a matter of serious corporate pride. It already is for a number of companies. It is often written about as something about which a company should be proud— about getting involved in the local community and so forth.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke about a change of thinking among wealthy individuals. I look for a change of thinking in the corporate world, so that giving becomes a matter of pride and of improving the corporate image, attracting graduates and appealing to employers and the local community. That is the direction in which I hope we will go. I hope that the government spokesman will comment on such possibilities.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, not only on moving this Motion, but on his chairmanship of the Giving Campaign. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I also congratulate my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his use of the tax system to create the generous environment for charitable giving. Certainly, people are encouraged to give if they feel that they are
1406
getting one over on the tax man. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Phillips, said, there must be a culture of giving in the first place.
Tax incentives and the culture of giving need each other. I learnt that some seven years ago when I was trying to raise some money for a medical charity dealing with research in heredity and genetics. The research was being carried out at St Thomas' Hospital, just across the river. Through my membership of your Lordships' House, I was on nodding acquaintance with many hereditary Peers, so I organised a lunch, a presentation and an appeal here at your Lordships' House. The result was disappointing— very disappointing. The explanation was that the money was not theirs to give away; they were holding it in trust for future generations, as their fathers had done. That was the culture.
Elsewhere in society, however, the culture is different. I have the honour to be president of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which is an independent think-tank. Our task is to inform and influence policy, opinion and decision making on social and cultural issues affecting Jewish life. Central to this is the pattern of charitable giving among the community.
Major surveys have been carried out in the past few years, and the results confirm many points made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. Yes, 80 per cent of charitable donations come from 20 per cent of the donors. Yes, the more religious one is, the greater the proportion of one's wealth one gives away to charity. Interestingly, that applied to all causes: orthodox Jews are more generous to secular charities than non-orthodox. Perhaps that is an echo of the old tithing obligation.
The research also discovered that young people today are less generous than older people. Perhaps that is in general because they are more secular and believe that the state should provide more support; or perhaps it is because we have the wealthiest generation ever of over-50s, and they can give more. We found the same pattern repeated in volunteering: the older and the more religious do more of it.
The research seemed to show that giving is also linked to involvement and governance. There is no doubt that the increasing regulation, bureaucracy and legal responsibilities all act as disincentives to involvement. When people do want to become involved, they often set up their own small charitable institutions, in which they know what is going on and feel that they are less at risk from legal or social matters. Our research identified an amazing 5,000 charitable organisations in Britain within a Jewish community of some 350,000 people.
We learned that family tradition plays an important part in a culture of giving. In some families there is a strong sense of obligation. Once that chain is broken, it is difficult to rebuild. That is why starting people early and educating them in the importance of charitable giving needs to be emphasised. Jewish schools and other organisations incorporate and emphasise that in their citizenship curriculum.

1407
To encourage a culture of giving, we are not urging everyone to become more religious, but we urge the community to build on what it has already achieved, with special attention to the young, to encourage people to do their own thing and to let many flowers blossom. And yes, we should target the top 20 per cent and the over-50s.
I finish by dealing with the point that is often made that the decline in interest rates and the decline in the stock market partly explains the 25 per cent reduction in giving. That may be correct arithmetically, but the logic of the trustees is faulty. Professionals advise that trustees should give away the income but preserve the capital. Why? Here I must declare an interest as a trustee of a modest charitable foundation. When we were advised to reduce donations to preserve the capital, we thought about it carefully and decided to reject that advice. We felt that our duty was not to preserve a fund but to support charitable causes. In fact, we decided that we would double our donations and liquidate the fund over 10 years, confident that in that time others would come and take our place. We felt that was the right decision.
The Government are right to encourage a culture of giving, but they should also encourage benchmarking, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for the duration of the fund as well as the amount of money given out. That will maintain the level of charitable giving which is such a civilising part of our society.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest as someone who has worked in the charitable sector and who remains a trustee or honorary officer of a number of charities. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, presents us with a living challenge; his life has been about not only putting money where his voice has been tonight but putting his life where his voice has been tonight.
During my last year as director of Oxfam, I recall visiting Mexico and talking with a very courageous bishop who had been working with the Indians of Chiapas in a very fraught and difficult situation. We had a very intense and searching conversation, and two things from it will live with me forever. At one point he challenged me and said, "In Oxfam, you use the language of equality, but how equal are the people with whom you work in Mexico or how far are they the indispensable objects for your institutional needs?".
The second thing that the bishop said to me was that the real meaning of charity was solidarity; it is identifying with those whom one seeks to help, not just impersonally giving them money. That relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, about the poor being more generous than the rich. The poor are closer to the problems, realities, dangers and hazards than the insulated rich, who are busy insulating themselves from those dangers and hazards. There is a lesson there. If I have one quarrel with my old friend it is that I hope that he is not suggesting that yet again leadership should be yielded to the rich in this area. It
1408
seems to me challenging and qualitatively significant that in our society it is the poor who are leading, and we do not want to discourage their commitment.
We live at an interesting time. Increasingly, there is talk of charities and voluntary organisations being used as mainstream providers of social services. However, we need to beware of pitfalls in that direction. It could too easily lead to a subcontracting culture, with an adverse impact on priorities—whose priorities would voluntary organisations be following? On advocacy, would self-censorship begin to creep in for fear of upsetting funding? How will it affect public perception? Will the public begin to see the charities as government agencies?
I believe, after a lifetime of work in this area, that the words that we should always associate with charity include words such as "challenge", "excitement", "pioneering", "innovation", "imagination", "originality", "creativity'', "commitment" and "belief'. Yes, additionality is vital, but the quality of that additionality is absolutely indispensable. When we think of our forebears in this place, we can see that Wilberforce did not make his contribution to the elimination of slavery because he wanted a career in the voluntary sector. He made his contribution to the elimination of slavery because of a passionate commitment to eliminating slavery. That is the key to successful charity and, I would argue, to successful fundraising. At the heart of it there has to be the passionate conviction of those involved.
There are dangers in all the new management-speak and the new impersonal mass fund-raising techniques, which frankly fool very few when they are dressed up as personal by the new IT systems available. The concept of a donor base is hazardous terminology. Fundraising is not primarily about money; sustained and successful fundraising is about relating to individuals and winning their commitment and trust. Identification, involvement and stakeholding matter. They matter for the long-term success of the charity, but they are also a matter for the character of British society. They breed understanding, enlightenment and compassion.
If I may just take one other example, I recall a quite difficult time in the life of Oxfam. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will forgive my reminding him that he was my long-suffering chair and I was the director. We got into a controversial phase in our history. People questioned whether we were becoming too political because of our involvement in Kampuchea, the West Bank and South Africa. I recall that during that period of controversy the donating of our long-term covenanted donors increased. They felt that Oxfam was an organisation with which they were proud to be associated because it was prepared to stand up and be counted and was following through the logic of its commitment and its analysis.
This is tremendously important as we approach the whole issue of fundraising. It is not just about how we get volunteers to work for us, or get people to give us money, it is about how we allow people to identify with causes in which they can believe.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for initiating this debate and for the very important work he has been doing for the Giving Campaign. I declare my interest as chief executive of the charity, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and as a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill.
I should like to cover briefly two aspects of giving to charity. The first concerns young people aged 16 to 24, who may not have much cash to contribute but for whom a habit of giving can be hugely important in later life. Two years ago, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation undertook work with the Charities Aid Foundation to assist the work of the Giving Campaign to discover why there had been a decline over the past 20 years in younger people's participation in giving money to good causes.
The first finding from this research by Catherine Walker and Andrew Fisher is that young people have a well-developed sense of what charity is and what charities do and they have a greater trust in charities than in government or business. But they define charity and giving more broadly than in the formal sense. Many are engaged in altruistic, socially responsible activity— "active citizenship"— that may not be counted under the formal banner of "charity". For example, they are involved in recycling their books through Oxfam, helping older people in the community, giving goods to charity shops, giving to beggars, buying Fair Trade goods and campaigning about social issues. Most surveys underestimate this wider contribution made by younger people.
In relation specifically to giving to charity, the most popular form for younger people is through the sponsorship of others or involvement in company events, which may be sponsored by Comic Relief, Children in Need and so on, as well as events organised at their colleges, such as rag week. Much of this fund-raising is not measured by the current surveys or, if it is, it is not specifically attributed to young people but is attributed to their employers or other adults organising the events.
The research highlights the willingness of young people to do more but also highlights a feeling that charities tend to ignore the younger donor. It is natural for charities to target the better off but today's younger people are the potential big donors of tomorrow. Young people are often willing and able to do more than simply put money in a tin, yet few know how to get engaged in the work of charities around them.
The message from the research is clear. Charities need to realise that if they concentrate their efforts on those people with higher incomes, not only may they be missing out on a huge untapped resource of enthusiastic young people, often with passionate convictions, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but they may also be burning their bridges when it comes to recruiting those young people as the major donors of tomorrow. Surely more charities ought to follow the example of the best in devoting time and effort to the
1410
16 to 24 year-old age group, by targeting advertising; sending out packs; working in colleges; offering opportunities to volunteer; and encouraging even very small donations which will inculcate a habit of giving to charity that will benefit that sector later.
My second point relates to the many people who receive fees for serving on the hoards of governmental bodies of different kinds. These include people on health trusts, on new urban regeneration agencies and on national and regional quangos. Although remuneration is paid to this new army of active citizens, few of them are in it for the money and for some of them the fees are something of an embarrassment. In governance terms, many people may prefer to be working in a purely altruistic way as their contribution to society. In some cases the individuals concerned are in full-time employment and, thanks to a public-spirited employer, they are doing their quango job in their working time. From these varied circumstances, there are many individuals who would be more than content for their payment from public funds to go not to them personally, but to charity.
Having been down this route myself, I have discovered the problems in persuading the governmental paymaster to make payments directly to a charity account. There are complexities in an individual receiving a payment and then making a donation. Even when using the gift aid arrangements, one has to account for receipts and handle repayments of higher rate tax. All this imposes bureaucracy and barriers to giving. My suggestion is that, preferably in partnership with the Charities Aid Foundation, which provides its excellent charity chequebook facilities, the give-as-you-earn arrangements should be offered to every individual receiving fees for quango work. If just 10 per cent of those serving on quango boards opted to make their work wholly or partly a voluntary commitment, then millions of pounds of additional revenue would go to good causes. A simple form— which the Charities Aid Foundation tells me it would be more than happy to provide—from the appropriate governmental paymaster to all concerned would do the trick. I commend the idea to the Minister that this approach be offered and promoted to all those paid for their public service on quango boards. I suggest that this would help a little to influence the culture of giving and to meet the admirable targets for giving advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for instituting this debate. We thank him for all that he has done in charitable endeavour throughout his life. I should like to declare an interest as a giver, an asker and a holder-in-trust— that also is important. My interests are listed in the register. Two of the trusts set up by Joseph Rowntree are among them, and also the Community Foundation of Calderdale, which I started in 1991.
We have had some splendid contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, did his best with statistics. Several noble Lords have mentioned problems with the statistics. We have to be a little cautious about them. I was struck by the point that the noble

1411
Lord, Lord Joffe, made about the poor. I remember attending a gala in aid of the Community Foundation of Calderdale. I spent the whole afternoon there. I realised that the people attending the gala lived in poverty. We ran a tombola stall or some other form of modest gambling and I remember thinking how awful it was that the people who were buying the tickets had financial difficulties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminded us of the impact that the lottery has had. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, spoke of the Charities Bill. I hope that that Bill will be of assistance in this area. In the course of scrutinising the Charities Bill, perhaps something can be done, particularly as regards bureaucracy. I am hopeful that that will be the case.
I am grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury and for his reference to materialism and the need to return to a more loving approach to others. No one has done more than him to encourage and point in the right direction those who want to be generous.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell made clear that certainly in his diocese the Church of England is concerned with rather more than saving souls. It is good that the Church is usefully involved in those wonderful subsidiary activities.
The noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Judd, made useful contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the international dimension and pointed out that charity clearly does not end at home.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to the charitable sector and the Government working in partnership. I have some reservations about that. We must be careful in that regard. The noble Earl may be right in the context of certain circumstances. As I say, I was involved in setting up what is now the Community Foundation of Calderdale. When it was formed, it was known as the Calderdale Community Foundation. Its name was changed subsequently as people became increasingly fearful that it would be regarded as a subsidiary of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. That illustrates the fear on the part of the bodies that we are discussing that charities will be viewed as providing services that ought to be provided by municipal authorities or government.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, referred to the corporate sector. During the nine years that I chaired the community foundation I spent a great deal of time telling people, "You have done well in life, but you `can't take it with you'. How about being generous to the community in which you live?" That takes a bit of doing, but I have done it on several occasions. Some of those people responded very generously. However, I did not manage to obtain corporate contributions. The people whom I approached were corporate people but they gave in a personal capacity, not through their companies. I wish noble Lords the best of luck in pursuing corporate donations. I hope that that culture will change.
1412
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to people over 50 and donations from people who are perhaps better off. That was juxtaposed with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who mentioned 16 to 24 year-olds. We must target both age groups. We need to target those who may become high earners as well as those who are already wealthy. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made the novel point that fees paid for public service could be donated to charity. I tell the noble Lord that I know of at least one councillor who has managed to persuade his local authority to donate his councillor's allowances to a charity. That can be done if the person concerned has sufficient resources to enable him to forgo his or her allowances.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to time. This matter concerns time, talents and money. I served for nine years in the community foundation, setting it up and chairing it. When I ceased working for the foundation I noted that I had more than 600 diary entries over nine years in connection with my work for the foundation. Then there are all the telephone calls on top of that. Many people put in hour after hour of toil—they have to. We must not forget that.
Charitable giving has many forms. It might be 10p in a tin, or £100 million as the start of a new charitable foundation for someone who is very rich indeed. I want to talk about incentives for giving. I accept the point about love, but the British people appreciate nothing more than an incentive. It seems a long time ago that the only incentive for charitable giving was a seven-year deed of covenant. Now we have gift aid, give-as-you-earn and so on. Those were rather restricted when they started, but have been opened up. However, we are still an incentive short.
We also have an incentive for someone leaving money in their will, in that there is no inheritance tax, but we are missing an incentive to bring forward the gift in the will into the lifetime. Therefore, the Minister might put to the Chancellor a way of bringing it forward so that there can be lifetime giving with a tax incentive. I suggest what I call a "lifetime gift inheritance tax exemption certificate". If someone makes a gift in their lifetime and it is properly certified, that sum should be available as a deduction from the inheritance tax bill on their death. Then they could be generous in their lifetime, while being able as testators to raise the level before inheritance tax was payable.
Among the plethora of ideas, that could be looked at to bring forward giving of capital sums. All the amounts about which we have talked have basically been tax breaks on income, and I am talking about a tax break on capital. I hope that that suggestion was worth putting forward in this very important debate.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to take part in the debate. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for bringing the topic forward today. I also pay tribute to him for his work in charities, not least most recently as chairman of the Giving Campaign.

1413
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for his forensic analysis of the 25 per cent mentioned in the Motion. I had tried and failed to replicate the calculations, but decided to gloss over that rather than admit to it. Now I feel able to admit to not being able to match the calculations.
On these Benches, we are fully committed to a thriving voluntary sector. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell gave us a really good insight into what can be achieved through voluntary means. We believe that it is a badge of a healthy society to have a good voluntary sector through which people can demonstrate their responsibilities towards their communities. At the moment, there are some barriers to effective working in the voluntary sector, and we believe that the time is overdue for a reform of charity law. We welcome the fact that a draft charities Bill is imminent, even though we do not necessarily welcome all its promised content.
The charitable sector could, however, be transformed without legislation if the Government were so minded. One of the biggest problems for charities is the bureaucracy that they encounter. Charities, like businesses, have significant costs imposed by rules and regulations. We have suggested "bureaucracy busters" who could curb the overzealous application and interpretation of regulations for charities, and would have powers to require fast communication and decision-making across government departments.
I start this evening with the Government's interaction with charities, because the public sector is not only a source of burdens but a major source of the income of charities. Indeed, in 2004 the NCVO estimated that 37 per cent of voluntary sector income came from the public sector, which is a little higher than the 36.6 per cent from the general public. The Charities Aid Foundation's latest analysis of charity trends showed public sector funding as the area of big growth in charitable income among the largest charities.
I am aware that some in the voluntary sector see that as potentially impairing their independence, which is why non-government income is so important to them. The Government's purse, coupled with compacts and codes, can be seen as resulting in subtle government control over campaigning and lobbying work—and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to that. Even if there is no overt attempt at control by government, there is the strong possibility that the end result would he the same. As my right honourable friend in another place, Mr Michael Howard, has said on this subject,
"being smothered by an elephant is no less painful if there is no deliberate malice involved".
We are absolutely clear that we will avoid the elephant trap of smothering the independence of charities. In particular, we see charities being able to gain presumptive rights to public funding as well as the control of public assets, so gaining the opportunity to improve delivery of publicly-funded local services without undue reliance on the provider of funds. That would be a more healthy relationship.
Turning to individual giving, there has been an increase in real terms but it has not matched the increase in GDP. as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe,
1414
reminded us. I am not myself sure how much this matters, provided that the voluntary sector continues to grow. In the 10 years from 1991 the total income of charities grew by 78 per cent compared with GDP growth of around 70 per cent. Overall, the charity sector grew at a faster rate than GDP. Clearly the increase in public sector funding was a major cause of that.
If one looks at giving, relative to GDP over a shorter time span than the 11 years referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, there is a nearer approximation between GDP growth and the growth in charitable giving, because the early to middle part of the 11 years included the introduction of the National Lottery, which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has pointed out, confused the picture.
It has for a long time been possible to give money to charities tax-efficiently and the Government's gift aid schemes and other innovations have made that easier. But even so, in 2001–02 tax-efficient giving amounted to less than 30 per cent of the total and so there must be more that could be done to promote tax-efficient schemes. In that context, it is a source of regret that the Treasury sees it as its mission to track down and destroy schemes that they say abuse gift aid, such as the entrance fee arrangements. Similarly, the ruthlessness of the Treasury in applying VAT to London marathon runners beggars belief. The Government are creating confusion—giving with the one hand and taking back with the other. Our tax incentives, while welcome, are not as sophisticated or extensive as those in America. My noble friend Lord Dundee referred to those and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, pleaded for a new and more sophisticated approach to tax-efficient giving.
People in Britain contribute less than 1 per cent of their income and the charity sector looks enviously at the US where the average is nearly 2 per cent. But there are important differences between the UK and the US— the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred to the cultural differences between the two. One of the important differences is the relative tax burden. In the US the marginal rate is less than 30 per cent and in this country it is 40 per cent. Here, the overall tax burden is set to increase further under the Government's budgetary plans and we believe that further tax rises are inevitable if the British people give the Government a third term. Rising taxes are not a healthy platform for increased giving.
There are other factors at work in our economy which inhibit the scope for increased giving. In particular, we have the,
"continuing rapid rate of increase in consumer indebtedness",
to use the most recent measured words of the Monetary Policy Committee. Personal debt is now over £1 billion for the first time. It is not entirely clear what that borrowing is used for, but I will wager that it is not being used to support higher charitable giving.
The proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is that the rich should give more. Other noble Lords spoke to that theme, too. He drew attention to the fact that the poorest 10 per cent

1415
contribute proportionately more of their income than the richest 20 per cent. That may well be true, but it is also true that the charity sector is already dependent on the relatively small percentage of the pulation—around 5 per cent—who give about 60 per cent of the total. So there are some practical issues on how to lessen that dependence by attracting more high-level donors into that club.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, talked about increasing corporate giving, which is a relatively small source of total charitable giving. That may not be the magic solution; not all shareholders want the companies in which they have invested to make those decisions on their behalf. They would rather have the income to devote in that way themselves. It is not therefore easy to see that as necessarily the right way forward. My personal observation is that if we had fewer charity muggers—if charities sent fewer cheap pens through the mail and if more of them accurately addressed their requests through their mail-merge procedures—charities might do rather better.
One can make anything of statistics and this topic is something of a minefield, as my noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, said. I discovered the different definitions, timetables and problems when preparing for the debate. But the Economist of 8 May 2004 reported that the really rich are giving more. Based on the analysis of the Sunday Times rich list, to which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred, giving in 2003 at £299 million was said to be 75 per cent more than the previous year. That has probably not yet surfaced in the charity statistics and so I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, ever so gently, that perhaps the problem is not as bad as it has been portrayed.
8.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on introducing this important subject in your Lordships' House. I confess that I find it difficult to know what kind of speech to make in response. I would like to make a speech about social justice and charity, about the role of charitable giving as compared with collective effort through taxation policy and other social policies in well-being. Clearly, there is a role for both of them and, clearly, the boundaries between individual and corporate charity on the one hand and our collective responsibilities which we fulfil as citizens are difficult to define.
I still have in the back of my mind the image of alms houses in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries with the names of mill owners on the front who thought they were securing their place in heaven, having been paying starvation wages to their workers all their lives. That colours my views, but then noble Lords would expect that.
I also have a duty to defend the Government's record in encouraging charitable giving. I did not think that I would have to, but the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, can be guaranteed to bring party politics into any debate, so I shall have to.
1416
I have been impressed by the variety of experience, concerns and passions expressed in the debate and I am grateful that I have been able to listen to it. I was unable to go to the closing party for the Giving Campaign last week, but I know of the tributes that were paid to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for his chairmanship. The campaign has been a unique and highly successful partnership between government and the voluntary sector in promoting tax-effective giving. That success has been in no small measure due to the noble Lord. The Giving Nation project, which brings the issue of charities and charitable giving to schoolchildren in a very positive way, is an example of that. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about building on young people's understanding of the nature of charity is enormously important.
I must also refer to the wording of the Motion, which talks of a 25 per cent fall since 1992 in charitable giving as a percentage of gross domestic product. I understand that that comes from surveys sponsored by the Charities Aid Foundation. I appreciate the difficulty of obtaining correct figures, but the ones on which I am most reliant, for reasons that I shall explain, are those produced by the NCVO and NOP surveys, which have been carried out over something like a 10-year period. I am reliant on them because it was my wife who set them up as the then vice-chairman of NCVO.
Those surveys show that since this Government have been responsible, in absolute terms, giving by individuals has risen from £4.5 billion a year in 1997 to £7.3 billion in 2002. That is an increase of 62 per cent at a time when there has been a 29 per cent increase in GDP, and therefore one reaches a different conclusion. I appreciate that those figures relate to individual giving; they do not include legacies or tax-back devices.
Incidentally, I did not really appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, talking about the tax system in relation to charities as being mechanistic. Anything that we do must be precisely defined, but I do not think it is any the worse for that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, obviously I did not express myself very well. I was not referring to the tax system as being mechanistic. "Managerialist" would have been a better word—I was talking about managerialist ideas of increasing giving. I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that. However, I have to say, even if I say it only to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that no government have done more to encourage charitable giving and support for a strong and independent voluntary and community sector than this Government. Whether the calculations indicate a decline or a rise in charitable giving, that must be the case and I shall have to demonstrate that fact.
Of course, the 10-year period chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, starts from a low period in terms of gross domestic product. It is also true that during that period, so far as one can tell, there was an effect on charitable giving because of the lottery, which worked

1417
in two directions. There may have been a reduction in some kinds of charitable giving because of the lottery, but there was also a huge increase in charitable receipts from the lottery. If one weighs those two together, one comes to a rather different conclusion. If one takes into account that in 2002–03 the Community Fund distributed £350 million to charity projects, one realises the change in the outcome, if perhaps not so much in the motivation, of those concerned.
Therefore, I do not think that the situation is as bleak as is implied by the figures in the Motion. However, I believe it is incumbent on all of us, including government, to give what encouragement we can in different ways to charities. I suggest that there are a number of ways in which things have improved.
We have removed the £250 minimum donation for Gift Aid and simplified the procedures which mean that there has been an increase in gross donations from individuals, including deeds of covenant, from £1.8 billion in 2000–01 to £2.3 billion in 2002–03. We have removed the £1,200 annual ceiling on donations using payroll giving and introduced a three year 10 percent supplement on donations. That has resulted in an increase in giving from £37 million in 1999–2000 to £86 million in 2002–03. That is very low. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, gave the figures for payroll giving: 2 per cent in this country and 32 per cent in the United States. It is still very low, but the incentives are there. There is tax relief for gifts of shares, securities and real property to charity.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the Goodison report. It is quite early to say but we have already started in this year's budget to extend VAT refunds to other forms of museums and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others can expect more responses to the Goodison report in the months and years to come.
The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shutt, suggested that payroll giving should be offered to those who do quango work. It can be offered by any employer. There is no bar on that. Anyone who receives salaries or wages— quango payments are in the form of salaries or wages— through the pay-as-you-earn system, can have payroll giving schemes applied to them.
Before I leave the individual tax side of Government's activity, I should refer to the leaflet which appears in all of our tax documents this year, Giving your repayment to charity—gift aided, which is a worth while innovation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, and others referred to corporate giving. Certainly, business involvement in voluntary and community activity works best when it is led by business. That is the approach by the corporate challenge. Businesses involved in the challenge are considering how best to increase awareness and spread best practice as part of the 2005 UK Year of the Volunteer. There have been more than 60 corporate challenge champions, who have come forward from a wide range of businesses to form a working group on this subject.
1418
Of very great importance here is Government direct financial support for the voluntary sector. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Shutt, in particular that there is a danger of distortion. If charities are really dependent on Government for their income, they may seek to maximise that government income by distorting their purposes rather than doing what they would otherwise have done.
Nevertheless, there has been a very substantial increase in direct financial support which has been widely welcomed. As long as we are aware of the dangers, it is important to celebrate that.
In the 2002 spending review, the Government allocated £188 million to the Active Communities Directorate in the Home Office, around £80 million of that directly in building the capacity and infrastructure of the sector to deliver even better services. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a number of valid points on that. He asked about a capital fund for approved projects. There is exactly that in the £125 million Futurebuilders investment fund to invest in better ways of delivering services by voluntary and community organisations. That was launched earlier this month by the Home Secretary.
We are also—this is a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—investing millions of pounds in the voluntary and charitable sector. There has been a growth in the value of public services delivered by the sector, from £3.2 billion in 1991–92 to £7.5 billion in 2001–02.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley—and I do not want to congratulate her on leaving office, but to thank her for the service she has given to the New Opportunities Fund—made the point that obviously the National Lottery has had a positive effect on charity funding. Since 1997, a total of over £2.5 billion has gone into the Community Fund. In 2002–03 the fund distributed more than £350 million to charity projects.
There are other possibilities, such as further tax relief. A number of noble Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Shutt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made reference to what appears to work well in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt— and I wrote it down—described it as a "lifetime gift inheritance tax exemption certificate". Bozhe moy, that is a wonderful phrase! I know what the noble Lord means, but surely when people in the United States dedicate capital to a charitable purpose, they still take out the income for themselves. They are still allowed to do that. I doubt whether it makes a great deal of difference whether they announce it in their lifetime or whether they leave it in a legacy.
I am not certain that there are as many differences now as there were between the United States and this country in the kinds of tax relief available either for corporate giving or for individual giving. I think the differences in outcome are much more cultural than legislative. They reflect the fact—and I am not ashamed of this—that we have traditionally thought it more appropriate for some of the things which are

1419
done on a charitable basis in the United States to be done as a matter of civic duty through the taxation system in this country. If that allows the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to gloat about tax and spend, so be it; it is a price we have to pay.
In conclusion, because I have less time available to me than appears on the Order Paper, I want first to express my appreciation to the speakers who lifted our horizons from this country alone to the world. Among those were the moving speeches of my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Judd; and other noble Lords' speeches were of great significance. At the same time, although it is true that we have not reached our target—which has always been our target—of 0.7 per cent of GDP in aid expenditure, it has increased from 0.2 per cent to 0.4 per cent over the lifetime of this Government. That doubling is a significant increase and deserves recognition.
I end by commending a speech by Stephen Ainger, the Chief Executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his opening remarks. He, too, wanted us to have targets. He suggested that we should have a 1.5 per cent target of GDP for individual giving. I very much support that kind of target. He suggested that although there are these very significant tax breaks for charitable giving, it was a disgrace that charities made so little use of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that only about 35 per cent of charitable giving makes use of what is available. The noble Lord wanted the charities movement and society to celebrate the achievements made by, for and with charities in recent years. I join in that celebration. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for making that possible.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I constantly admire the quality of its debates and the experience and wisdom of so many noble Lords, as has been so well illustrated by this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken tonight. No one could fail to be moved by the appalling story about which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for drawing attention to the importance of giving time, which is in every way as important as the giving of money.
I am pleased that a great deal of attention has been given to statistics. It is clear that a great deal more needs to be done to improve statistics. In that regard, I should like to pay tribute to Cathie Pharoh, the director of research of the Charities Aid Foundation and Carl Wilding, the director of research at the NCVO, as they struggle to find their way through the haze that clouds those statistics.
Whatever the statistics, I am clear that there is vast potential for the wealthy and well-off to give a great deal more to charities than they do at the moment. I thank the
1420
Minister for his usual thoughtful and detailed response to all the points that have been made. I assure him, as I did earlier, that I do not criticise the Government for not doing sufficient; they have given magnificent support and I was pleased that the Minister was given a campaign leaflet that arrived with his tax form, for which we are indebted to the Government for their continuing support of the Giving Campaign.
In conclusion, although I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, I do not share his pessimism about the future. I am optimistic that the culture of giving in this country can be changed, especially if the leaders of charities demonstrate the passion and determination that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has demonstrated throughout his career in the charity sector, part of which I was privileged to share. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2004
8.46 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998. That subsection enables the Secretary of State to make such amendments as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect of a protocol in relation to the United Kingdom. The order is made to amend Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 to reflect the ratification by the United Kingdom of Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The order will repeal the existing Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the European Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Part 3 containing Article I of Protocol 13. The ratification process requires the Minister with the main policy interest to lay an Explanatory Memorandum before Parliament for 21 sitting days prior to ratification, under the Ponsonby rule.
On 2 April 2003, an Explanatory Memorandum for Protocol 13, signed by the then Lord Chancellor, was laid in accordance with the Ponsonby rule. The 21 sitting days expired on 19 May 2003 without a call for a debate.
Neither Protocol 13 nor the amendment makes any practical difference to UK law on the use of the death penalty. As we all know, Parliament abolished the death penalty for murder in 1969. In 1998, Parliament made clear its view in a free vote that it did not want the death penalty for any offences, including military offences. The position reached on military offences was reflected in the Armed Services Act 2001.
Protocol 13 supersedes Protocol 6, which abolished the death penalty for most purposes. But Protocol 6 permitted states to make provision for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war, or

1421
under imminent threat of war. Protocol 13 abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances. In international ECHR law, the provision for use of the death penalty in the UK during times of war and when under the imminent threat of war is abolished for all those who accept Protocol 13. Forty-two member states of the Council of Europe have signed the protocol, and 23 have ratified it. The United Kingdom ratified it on 10 October 2003.
The amendment under discussion today simply formalises the position in terms of the Human Rights Act. It deletes the out-of-date Protocol 6 and all references to it, and replaces it with the new Protocol 13.
As I said, the order means no practical change within the UK. It is somewhat of a belt-and-braces measure. It is the third layer of legislation under which we intend that the death penalty should lie buried. The first and most important layer, of course, was provided by Parliament's abolition of the death penalty. The second is provided by the international obligations that the UK has undertaken: first by ratifying Protocol 6 to the ECHR, and then by ratifying Protocol 13 to the ECHR. The third layer is this incorporation of our international obligations into the Human Rights Act.
Although the order makes no practical difference in the UK, it gives further evidence of the UK's unswerving commitment to the campaign for worldwide abolition oft he death penalty—a campaign in which the UK is in the vanguard. From time to time we are asked whether, in today's world, we should not review our commitment to human rights, and to the ECHR. We are told that times have changed, that new circumstances and new problems need new remedies.
I would remind those who may ask that type of question that the ECHR was forged in the determination that the crimes committed by the totalitarian dictatorships in Europe during the Second World War should never be repeated. Of course the world has moved on since then, and in Europe, at least, it has moved on mostly—-I emphasise, mostly—for the better. But that very improvement is due in no small measure to the determination of the peoples and leaders of Europe to build a better world, a determination embodied and encapsulated in the ECHR and now in the Human Rights Act.
To return to the order, the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. There are no circumstances in which the state should be able to remove it. The United Kingdom's rejection and abhorrence of the death penalty are now firmly established in our culture. It is surely significant that even the most brutal crimes no longer arouse a clamour for its reintroduction. That is an indicator of how attitudes have changed since Parliament first abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965. I am pleased today to be part of that process of social improvement by helping to consign the death penalty to history. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the draft Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, the purpose of which is to enable indoor arenas to apply for a licence to sell alcohol. It amends the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to include an indoor arena in the categories of premises which may apply for a licence.
That will enable an indoor arena to sell alcohol to people employed at, or attending, events, provided that food and non-alcoholic drinks are also available. Young people under the age of 18 will not be permitted to purchase or consume alcohol, but they will be allowed to purchase food and soft drinks from kiosks that also sell alcohol.
Opening hours for the sale of alcohol will be the same as for other licensed premises, with late opening to 1 a.m. available on certain occasions. A court will, however, have the power to attach any conditions that it considers appropriate to a licence. The majority of responses to the consultation supported the licensing of indoor arenas, and this change in the law will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank thy noble Baroness for presenting that order so clearly. I had a few words with officials, being concerned about a bit of the detail of the order, particularly descriptions of an arena and various other small items. I assure noble Lords that they satisfied me completely that this is a wise and sensible order. I support the order.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I will be brief this evening, as the order is broadly welcomed by the Ulster Unionist Party. It is a sign of improving times that we are today debating licensing arrangements for entertainment facilities such as the Odyssey Arena in Belfast, when it was not so long ago that venturing into the city for a night out was an impossibility. The Odyssey, along with the many other bars, concert halls and restaurants that have sprung up not only in Belfast, but throughout Northern Ireland, is a symbol of our emerging confidence; of how far we have come along the road to peace and indeed, how far we wish to continue travelling on that road.
That aside, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. the order removes the current barrier to venues such as the Odyssey Arena applying for a liquor licence under the present Licensing Order. It does not make sense to me—and it undoubtedly proves not only time consuming, but a huge administrative burden to both

1423
the Odyssey Arena and the courts—for the Odyssey to have to apply for occasional licences each and every time it hosts an event.
We all wish to see the Odyssey, and other venues like it in Northern Ireland, continue to attract international sporting competitions, music concerts, plays, musicals and speakers. They are great for our image and excellent for our economy. The ability to buy alcohol is part and parcel of the whole entertainment experience. When does the Minister expect the legislation to come into force? What other arrangements have to be put in place to justify the delay?
One aspect of the order that concerns me is the new clause relating to young people, which inserts new Article 52A into the 1996 order. While this was added following extensive consultation, and I defer to the judgment of those closer to the practicalities of the legislation, it strikes me as a somewhat precarious addition. While young people can currently buy goods other than alcohol from kiosks that sell alcohol at public transport premises, that is an entirely different situation to attending a pop concert or an ice hockey match. At an entertainment event the temptation to buy alcohol may be greater, and such a provision is therefore much more open to abuse than it is at a bus or railway station. Not only will young people have the inclination to produce a false identity card, but staff manning the kiosks will not have the time to check that each customer is over 18. We must remember that at a concert or the theatre, staff will be inundated with customers during the 15-or 20-minute interval. That is not enough time to police the legal requirements adequately.
Has the Minister had any feedback on this provision? How does she propose that this will be better policed? What are the Government doing to encourage both a greater uptake of accurate ID cards which bear the PASS logo and impress upon retailers the need to ask for such a card?
Recent speculation in the press has suggested that Northern Ireland will soon benefit from its own regional stadium. Indeed, if media reports are to be believed, we will soon have a stadium not unlike the Reebok stadium in Bolton. A regional stadium, where every sport can be enjoyed by everyone, is to be widely welcomed. I am glad that the Government are finally looking seriously at making this provision and seeking ways in which to make such a stadium more sustainable. I am pleased that appropriate licensing arrangements will be in place in time for the stadium's opening.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope I am able to answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. He paid me the courtesy of indicating the areas in which he might raise concerns. In answer to his question about timing, the introduction of the draft order by means of the commencement provision is required mainly for administrative reasons—namely, the making of subordinate legislation by the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Court Service. That is also the answer to the process that will be taken up.
1424
Providing food and soft drinks are already available, an indoor arena will not require a children's certificate to enable young people under the age of 18 to be at a kiosk selling alcohol. I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of accurate ID cards. As all noble Lords know, the issue of compulsory ID cards is a matter that is no doubt to be resolved in a wider context before Parliament.
It is important that young people under the age of 18 are not able to purchase alcohol. The courts will be given the power to attach any conditions considered appropriate to an indoor arena licence. They will have the discretion to react to any concern about the sale of alcohol from kiosks at certain events, such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred, particularly those aimed at young people. The courts will carefully monitor the concerns that the noble Lord has raised. None of us wishes to see the facility being spoilt which is— and was recognised by those responding to the consultation as being—a wise and sensible one. I am quite sure all concerned with this will continue to monitor the situation carefully, not least the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order was made at Privy Council on 6 May and introduces provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001. I hope it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and say a few words about the specific provisions.
The order makes legislative changes to address an incompatibility between the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislative changes place the burden of proof on the relevant health and social services trust to show a person held under the provisions of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 should continue to be detained. The 1986 order placed the burden of proof on the patient to show that they should be discharged. The order is designed to protect the human rights of patients and mirrors that already enacted with respect to the same incompatibility with the Mental Health Act 1983.
Specifically in order to remove the incompatibility with the convention right, Article 3 of the order amends Article 77 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to provide that a mental health review tribunal shall direct the discharge of a patient if it is not satisfied that the criteria justifying detention in hospital for treatment continue to exist. Article 4 of the order also makes a similar amendment to Article 78 of the 1986 order.

1425
Due to the urgent need to remedy the incompatibility with the European convention, it has not been possible to carry out a consultation exercise. However, I hope that all noble Lords will agree that it is extremely important that we rectify that situation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, again, I thank the noble Baroness for presenting the order clearly and concisely, as is her wont. In principle, I support the order for the chief reason that, once again, it brings parts of Northern Ireland legislation in line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I have just one observation to which I do not expect the noble Baroness to respond. I do not think that the quality of mental health care in Northern Ireland is anywhere near the standard in the rest of the UK. It has some way to go. Other than that, I support the order.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in general terms, I am supportive of this development, but I have one or two comments. First, in respect of one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mental health legislation in Northern Ireland—the Mental Health Act 1961—was different from the Mental Health Act 1959 for the rest of the United Kingdom, which was considerably to the advantage of psychiatry and patients.
One of the differences was that people were not able to become compulsorily admitted on the basis of personality disorder in Northern Ireland, but they were in the rest of the United Kingdom. It took the rest of the United Kingdom some considerable time to catch up with the rather more advanced psychiatric thinking that perhaps was the case in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, while I understand entirely the political principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the importance of harmonisation of legislation throughout the United Kingdom, there have been occasions when the legislation in Northern Ireland has been more appropriate, certainly, to our circumstances and, I would submit, in some circumstances even in advance of the thinking in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As regards the legislation before us, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating the purposes and the reasons for some alacrity. However, one needs to be a little careful about changes made with haste. One particular area concerns me a little; namely, that there are frequently occasions when patients are compulsorily detained because they are suffering from mental illnesses and they are a danger to themselves or others. That is of course perfectly appropriate. But in the course of their treatment, they may move from being a danger physically to themselves and others, through a period where they may cause other difficulties, and thence to a position where, it is to be hoped, they are well and able to be discharged from hospital.
1426
An example of that is patients who are suffering from a manic depressive psychosis. They might be admitted to hospital because they are a danger to themselves—from suicide—or a danger to others because their state of mind is disturbed, to the point where they might become violent if attempts were made to restrain them. That is not common, but it is frequent enough to be a problem. So the patient is admitted to hospital at the request of a family member— perhaps a partner or spouse— with a form signed by a general practitioner.
As a patient is treated and he or she improves, the sort of problem that may still occur—perhaps in the case of a patient with a manic disorder— is that they are prone to spending large amounts of money without proper and rational thought. That can be devastating for a family, but it is not uncommon. There may be other ways in which the patient may not be a physical danger to himself or others, hut, nevertheless, may have a substantial problem. Yet, it may be very difficult for them to be kept in hospital under the legislation.
I do not suggest that we should not pass this order. However, I wonder whether consideration has been given by way of guidance to the Mental Health Review Tribunal that, in making its consideration of such difficult questions, it should formally take account and seek the views of family members who may have to bear the burden of someone in a quite still disturbed state of mind being discharged, but unable to be held because he is no longer a physical danger to himself or others.
I do not think this is necessarily something that requires a change in the legislation, but it is a difficult problem. Very often such problems cannot he dealt with by legislation. But if there was at least a guideline requirement that not merely the medical attendants and other therapists and the patient and his representatives should be able to make their views known, but formal attempts were made to ensure that those others with responsibilities and who sometimes have to bear the burden—carers, families, partners and children—would also have the right to make their representations, then when the tribunal made its considerations, those matters would also be given due care and attention.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, my colleagues and I in the Ulster Unionist Party warmly welcome the introduction of this order to the Northern Ireland statute book. The legislation comes not a moment too soon and, in fact, highlights how unsatisfactory the Northern Ireland legislative procedure is at present, as this order comes years after legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom was amended to ensure that it complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Our mental health review tribunals have been in the most unsatisfactory position as the discrepancies in the present legislation have been challenged in Northern Ireland's courts. Had they been successful, the mental health review tribunal could have been suspended, which would have benefited no one.

1427
The institutionalisation of people suffering from mental health disorders and mental illness is an extremely delicate issue. This order must not be just an exercise in legislative window dressing to ensure that the United Kingdom is in step with European legal provisions. The impact of this amendment must be truly for the benefit of the patients themselves and therefore must ensure that the individual's quality of life is improved through cultural changes in the mental healthcare sector.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is wholly desirable that the "burden of proof" should fall on mental health tribunals as opposed to patients being reviewed by them. But the question I want to raise in the House this evening concerns exactly what this will mean in practice. What impact will this order have on the decision-making process, and to what extent will it improve or protect the human rights of the patient when it comes into effect? Is it the operational system or the legislation that is flawed as it stands, with the onus on the patient to prove that the criteria justifying his or her detention in hospital no longer exist and that he or she should be released? Ultimately, the mental health review tribunal will decide whether or not the patient has proved his case for release, so what will the difference be if the same tribunal has to prove that the conditions for a patient's detention still exist? One could be forgiven for thinking that this sounds vaguely reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.
I firmly believe that institutionalised environments should be the last resort as they often lead to increased dependency and loss of individual resilience among those receiving such care. The debate will be familiar to noble Lords. While this order is a welcome development, it must be followed by a review in practice to ensure that the legislative provisions are not being introduced to prevent legal challenges to the decisions reached by the mental health review tribunal, but rather to hone the decision-making process dealing with release cases so as to ensure that a culture of maximising patients' quality of care and protecting their human rights is nurtured and built upon.
The mental health review tribunal undoubtedly does a sterling job in the most trying of circumstances, but case reviews must be properly regulated and scrutinised by the Government to ensure that the best possible care for the patients in question is available at all times.
A related example springs to mind when ruling over this issue. Recently a young voter in Northern Ireland suffering from Down's syndrome was struck off the electoral roll. In Northern Ireland, questions can be raised over the decision-making process which determines whether one is fit to be included on the electoral register. Since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, an individual form is now required to be signed by the elector, or where that person cannot sign, an attester can do so on their behalf with a reason provided as to why that person has signed on their behalf. If the reason is that the elector suffers from mental illness or some form of mentally incapacitating disease, the registration officer makes further inquiries
1428
by writing to the person who attested the registration form. If the response is that the person can make his or her own mind up regarding the conscious decision-making process involved in voting, then his or her name is added to the register. This response can be in person, by telephone, by letter or through contact made by the elector, a family member, friend or carer.
This appears to me to be open to manipulation or mistake. During the 2003 annual canvass, the carers of 848 people indicated that they were incapable of taking an individual conscious decision and they were therefore not included on the electoral register. Does the House think that a telephone call or letter is a satisfactory assurance that someone suffering from mental illness should be added to the electoral register, or that the word of a carer should ensure that they are not included on it?
These are questions to which the Government should pay attention, and quickly. I hope that this amendment order will help to highlight the debate and safeguard the well-being of patients in the mental healthcare sector, and not simply the status of the mental health review tribunals themselves.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, received most of the answers to his comments from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who is better equipped than I by far to respond to the points raised by the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that it is important that we tackle the whole range of issues.
I am a little concerned about commenting on an individual case when I do not have the details. However, if the noble Lord would like to write to me in confidence about the case that he mentioned, I am quite sure I shall be able to give him a detailed response. I know that noble Lords would not want to become involved in discussing an individual case in public.
As to the noble Lord's point about the detail of procedure in different cases in regard to the mental capacity or stage of illness of an individual, even though he again did me the courtesy of giving me forewarning of his question, I am afraid that this is such a complex and sensitive area that I should like to write to him and send copies to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is extremely valuable.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about patients moving at different stages in an illness from being dangerous to being a potential nuisance or difficulty to the people they are living with, obviously there are gradations in the process. I was a local councillor for nearly 27 years and often had to deal with problems between neighbours where a person's behaviour was bizarre to the point of disturbing other people's lives quite strongly.
Again, I should like to write to the noble Lord on the subject of seeking the views of members of the family, particularly as we are dealing with an issue of human rights. There is an area of confidentiality between the

1429
doctor concerned and the patient and I should not like to go into that area without investigating it further. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, recognises that point.
As to the query about why we are doing this now, the department sought legal advice as to the need to change the Northern Ireland order when the English remedial order came into effect in 2001. The advice at that time was that no change was required. The interpretation currently being applied to the 1986 order indicates that an incompatibility exists that the department has moved to redress. As a result of that incompatibility, it was important that we tackled the matter urgently. The 1986 order is subordinate legislation. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, recognised, there is a risk that the incompatible articles could be struck down, which would suspend the operation of the mental health review tribunal and remove the appeal mechanism by virtue of the powers of the provision. It is therefore urgent that we deal with this matter.
I can assure the noble Lord that we are looking at some of the other issues that he raised through the regional review of mental health and learning disability, which has a number of sub-groups. One of those is the legal issues sub-group, and part of the remit of that group is to examine existing legislation in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights. All the issues will be carefully considered. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will, if he feels that it is appropriate, make his views known during that review procedure.
1430
I understand that the burden of proof is one that, in practice, the mental health review tribunals have tried to operate, in terms of looking at the patient's interests and rights. However, it is important that the legislation is absolutely accurate for the reason that I have given. There is also a social justice working group, which includes human rights in relation to mental health orders.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—I am quite nervous about answering him on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, recognises—many of the most vulnerable people suffering from mental health problems will be received into guardianship or cared for by their nearest relative. At the tribunal hearings, the nearest relative, for example, has the opportunity to have representation. However, I repeat my caution and the need to ensure that the rights of the individual patient are fully recognised. Guidance currently exists within the 1986 order to ensure that the persons detained have assistance in the management of their property and affairs. All related issues of that nature would be considered by the working group.
I have tried to answer the points that noble Lords raised. I hope that I have satisfied them. I will look carefully at the points and will write to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and send copies to other noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and a privilege amendment: it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past nine o'clock.

  Ulster Scots Academy
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 6 April (WA 219) concerning consultants employed by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, how much has been paid to consultants to date for advice on the proposed Ulster Scots Academy.[HL2465]

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  I refer the noble Lord to the final paragraph of the Answer given on 6 April (WA 219).

  Organised Crime Task Force
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What resources are available in Northern Ireland in terms of (a) personnel, and (b) funding to the Organised Crime Task Force and to the Asset Recovery Agency; and whether they intend to increase such resources.[HL2673]

  Baroness Amos
  The Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) is a coalition of law enforcement and other government agencies, including the Assets Recovery Agency, which is chaired by the Northern Ireland Office Security Minister. Each partner agency of the OCTF, allocates necessary resources, as appropriate, from within general organisational funding to meet agreed OCTF priorities.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 23 April (WA 63) concerning the budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency, what topics cannot be disclosed under Part 2, paragraph 2 (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and [HL2701]

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 23 April (WA 63) concerning the budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency, on what grounds it would be inappropriate to disclose information about the consultation process for the setting of the budget.[HL2702]

  Baroness Amos
  Paragraph 2 of Part II, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information provides that information about internal discussion and advice is exempt from disclosure if to do so would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Information on the budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency was withheld for that reason.
  WA 134
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure removed the funding from the Ulster-Scots Agency budget for 2004, when a proportion of it was specifically aimed at resolving the annual dispute at Drumcree. [HL2746]

  Baroness Amos
  The Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure did not remove money from the Ulster-Scots Agency's budget for 2004.

  North/South Implementation Bodies: Pension Arrangements for Staff
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why there has been a delay in the creation of a pension arrangement for staff of cross-border implementation bodies; what assurances have been offered to staff; and what legal basis such assurances have.[HL2735]

  Baroness Amos
  The process of establishing a pension scheme for the North/South bodies has been lengthy due to the number of complex legal and other issues surrounding the unique status of this cross-border scheme, which have had to be actioned and resolved in consultation with a number of stakeholders in both the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.

  All staff have been assured that, where they are eligible to join the scheme, membership will be made retrospective to when they joined the relevant body. Benefits which may become due prior to the scheme coming into effect will be calculated and paid on the basis of the draft scheme rules at the time the rights accrue.

  The Government are satisfied that the assurances provide the staff of the North/South implementation bodies with sufficient safeguards pending the implementation of the North/South pension scheme.

  Northern Ireland: Gas Industry
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What assessment has been made of Centrica's demand that gas prices be increased by up to 20 per cent in Northern Ireland. [HL2800]

  Baroness Amos
  The cost to Phoenix Natural Gas of its wholesale gas purchases for the Northern Ireland market is a contractual matter between the company and its supplier. Centrica has not demanded that retail gas prices in Northern Ireland be increased. Phoenix Natural Gas proposed a 20 per cent gas price increase for domestic and small industrial and commercial customers with effect from 1 April 2004, but this was suspended following a meeting with Barry Gardiner on 8 April 2004. Phoenix is continuing negotiations with Centrica about the wholesale gas price.
  WA 135
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What importance they place on maintaining a viable natural gas industry in Northern Ireland. [HL2801]

  Baroness Amos
  Her Majesty's Government remain committed to promoting the development and maintenance of an efficient, economic and co-ordinated gas industry in Northern Ireland. Financial support has been provided to assist the development of a new gas network infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Gas licensees receive no additional financial support from government and their ability to fund their ongoing activities is monitored by the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation.

  Northern Ireland Prison Service: Corporate Plan and Annual Report
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the cost of producing the Northern Ireland Prison Service's corporate plan and business plan on CD-ROM; and how this compares with the cost of printing and distributing a similar number of paper copies. [HL2832]

  Baroness Amos
  For several years the Northern Ireland Prison Service has produced its corporate and business plan and annual report and accounts in an e-card format, reducing the number of hard copies to be printed.

  This year we printed 300 hard copies of the 2004–07 corporate plan at £8.50 per copy. This compares with a unit cost of £4.50 for producing 600 copies of the same report in an e-card format1.

  The majority of our distribution list for this publication now receive the report in an e-card format.

  1These figures are based upon quotation—final invoice not yet received.

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 10 May (WA 2), what are the tourist priorities identified by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for attention over the next three years; and on what basis they were selected.[HL2849]

  Baroness Amos
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's (NITB) strategic framework for action will drive the tourism agenda for the next three years and will provide a focus and impetus to the growth and delivery of tourism to all areas of Northern Ireland.

  In line with NITB's corporate plan, the framework's target is to increase visitor tourism revenue by 6 per cent every year, visitor numbers by 7 per cent every year and to increase Northern Ireland's share of visitors to the island of Ireland.
  WA 136
  The priorities identified are the outcome of a comprehensive review of tourism which started in 2000 and have been agreed following a sustained period of consultation with industry colleagues, strategic partners and a range of stakeholders.

  These priorities are consistent with the strategic marketing plan for the island of Ireland and focus on those aspects of the Northern Ireland visitor experience that have the greatest capacity for international "stand out". A steering group made up of key industry partners oversaw the preparation of the framework.

  Belfast City Centre
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 10 May (WA 126) concerning Belfast City Centre, when the business case referred to was supplied to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. [HL2850]

  Baroness Amos
  The business case was supplied to the department on 22 April 2004.

  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 12 May (WA 35–37), concerning the Special European Union Programmes Body, how much funding each successful applicant in tables 1 and 2 received.[HL 2852]

  Baroness Amos
  The information requested is provided in the tables below. Table 1 details the amounts allocated to projects under Measure 4.1, and table 2 details the allocations under Measure 5.2 of the Peace II Programme:

  Table 1

  Organisation

  Project Title

  Total Award (£)

  Donegal County Council

  Donegal Tourism Research Programme

  39,296

  Donegal County

  Forest Link

  231,690

  Development Board North West Food

  North West Food

  105,592

  Consortium

  Network

  FAS

  The Messines Peace Networks

  105,662

  Table 2

  Co-operation and Working Together

  CAWT: Promoting Healthy Minds for a Healthy Future

  251,681

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  Reinstatement of the Weir at Cullaville South Armagh

  49,930

  Co-operation and Working Together

  CAWT: Acknowledging the Past and Building on Peace

  650,817

  WA 137

  Table 1

  Organisation

  Project Title

  Total Award (£)

  Cavan County Council

  Breifne Mountain Region

  1,166,315

  Dungannon Borough

  South Tyrone-

  275,528

  Council

  Donegal Exploring Diversity Together

  Blackwater

  Blackwater

  152,810

  Reconciliation

  Reconciliation

  Partnership

  Partnership

  FAS

  North-West Cross-border Public Sector Co-operation on Teleservicing and Customer Relationship Manage

  394,220

  Derry City Council

  Promoting equal opportunities—a bridge to peace and reconciliation

  240,717

  Co Monaghan VEC (on behalf of North South Education Forum)

  Diversity of Learning Needs— Education for All

  208,230

  Confederation of European

  NI/RoI Councillor Co-operation

  174,500

  Councillors (NI/RoI)

  County Sligo VEC and Western

  Building Towards Sustained Youth

  208,451

  Education & Library Board, N Ireland

  Sport

  Marine & Water

  Integrated Pilot

  541,694

  Leisure Programme,

  Project in Beach

  Donegal County

  Management—

  Council

  Rural Activity Beaches

  ERNACT EEIG

  Crossborder ePublic Services— Phase 1

  170,944

  Irish Central Border

  Rural roads

  2,580,282

  Area Network

  infrastructure and tourism project

  Probation Board for

  Crime Reduction in

  387,227

  Northern Ireland

  Ireland through Positive Impact on Communities

  DRD Road Service

  A509

  550,000

  Headquarters

  Improvements

  DRD—Roads

  A1/N1 Newry to

  180,000

  Service Headquarters

  Dundalk Link Road—Engineering Services Phase II

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Scoping Study for the Railway Corridor area

  30,000

  Western Education and Library Board

  Cross Border Mobile Library Project

  327,959

  North South Ministerial Council

  Shared Electronic Workspace for the North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat

  42,254

  The information provided above is based on the most recent download from the central database dated 18 March 2004, and includes only those applications registered at that date. The central database is live and dynamic and depends on various funding bodies to provide and update the information. The total award
  WA 138
  shown is in pounds sterling using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.42 euros.

  Northern Ireland: Education
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How the distinctive character of individual schools will be preserved if the Costello report into education is implemented in Northern Ireland.[HL2958]

  Baroness Amos
  All schools in Northern Ireland have their own individual and distinctive ethos and character. The new post-primary arrangements will seek to build on these and will create greater flexibility so that schools can develop or enhance their own distinctive character.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What will be the cost of the implementation of the Costello report into education in Northern Ireland.[HL2960]

  Baroness Amos
  The shape of future post-primary arrangements will emerge from discussions involving schools and managing authorities at local level. It is not therefore possible to provide an overall assessment of cost at this point. Additional resources will be required and these will be matters which Ministers will consider as part of this year's spending review.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In the event that the Costello report into education is implemented, how parents will be able to exercise a choice if, when schools are oversubscribed, the final decision for the placement of a child at secondary school could depend on a postcode or random computer selection. [HL3007]

  Baroness Amos
  Currently, over-subscribed schools use admissions criteria to determine who will be admitted. Many schools already use distance or random selection as their final criterion. No decisions have yet been taken on the admissions criteria to be used under the new arrangements and the aim is to have proposals available for consultation by the end of this year.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In the event that the Costello report into education is implemented and a system of multi-institutions is established, how schools will be able to exercise responsibility for the welfare and safety of pupils while they are travelling to, or receiving lessons at, other locations.[HL3008]

  Baroness Amos
  Many schools and further education colleges have experience of these issues from the key stage 4 flexibility arrangements. Pupil safety and welfare are of prime importance and will be examined further as part of the pilots on school/further education collaboration in the coming school year.

  Sudan (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the Sudan (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004 does not prohibit the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of restricted goods. [HL2561]

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The Sudan (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004 was made to implement the Overseas Territories Common Position 2004/31/CFSP adopted by the European Union. The common position, inter alia, provides that it shall be prohibited to grant, sell, supply or transfer technical assistance, brokering services and other services related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, directly or indirectly to any person, entity or body in, or for use in, Sudan. Implementation of this obligation was inadvertently omitted from the order. The Government will be amending the order as soon as possible.

  Cyprus: Direct flights to UK
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Given that the Turkish Cypriots have voted to accept the Annan plan, whether they will permit without delay direct flights between northern Cyprus and United Kingdom airports. [HL2825]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Government believe steps should be taken as quickly as possible to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. On 26 April 2004, the General Affairs and External Relations Council invited the European Commission to "bring foward comprehensive proposals, with particular emphasis on the economic integration of the island [of Cyprus] and on improving contact between the two communities and with the EU". We look forward to seeing these proposals. We are considering these issues too and see significant benefits in direct links between the northern part of Cyprus and other parts of the EU if this can be done in a safe and effective way, respecting the legitimate concerns and interests of all involved.

  Cyprus: Students
  Lord Rogan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, given that the Turkish Cypriots have voted to accept the Annan plan, they will extend to
  WA 140
  Turkish Cypriot students access to education in the United Kingdom on the same basis and at the same cost as that extended to Greek Cypriot students.[HL2842]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  All Cypriots are EU citizens. The whole island joined the EU on 1 May. However, the acquis was suspended in the north of the island.

  Any Cypriot with a Republic of Cyprus passport has the same right to education in the United Kingdom on the same basis and at the same cost as that extended to Greek Cypriot students.

  Iraq: Police Training
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they are taking to train the Iraqi police in the United Kingdom zone in crowd control and the minimum use of force, especially as regards firearms.[HL2830]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:

  Crowd Control

  Extensive training and equipping is taking place to ensure the Iraqi Police Service (IPS) is able to deal effectively with public disorder in the region under UK area of responsibility. Specifically:

  4,519 Iraqi police have attended the transitional integration programme (TIP) which includes civil defence training.

  60 specially selected IPS trainers have been trained by a senior Police Service of Northern Ireland officer in public order tactics. Tactics taught include containment, dispersal, tactics against firearms, blast bombs and petrol bombs.

  The course also taught peaceful crowd control.

  300 members of the Basra tactical support unit have now been trained by the Iraqi trainers, validated by the UK police officers.

  Baton guns are on order to provide a non-lethal method of crowd control. These tactics will be taught to enable the IPS to avoid indiscriminate use of firearms as a method of crowd control.

  1,000 sets of riot control clothing and equipment will shortly be issued to the IPS.

  Minimum use of Force

  The norm of minimum use of force has run through all training being delivered in the region. Specifically:

  Prior to January 2004 UK military provided training in arrest and search techniques based on minimum force.

  Since then 4,519 Iraqi police have attended the transitional integration programme course—the use of force is covered during the course as well as other human rights training.

  WA 141
  Firearms

  Extensive firearms training, and weapons handling has been taught by the UK military and police. Specifically:

  Prior to January 2004 military training was provided for firearms and weapons handling.

  Since January 2004 4,519 Iraqi police have attended the transitional integration programme which incorporates 40 hours of firearms training carried out by the UK civilian police. More recently the Czech military have continued to provide firearms training independent of TIP.

  Coalition forces have also coached, mentored and more recently shadowed IPS at public disorder incidents, firearms incidents and arrests to continue to ensure minimum use of force is a norm of IPS operations.

  On the basic recruit course in Jordan and Baghdad delivered over an eight-week period, the training incorporates the following:

  40 hours' hands-on firearms training including live fire and classroom work.

  Eight hours' civil disorder training.

  40 hours' use of force training.

  In addition, training for the national Civil Intervention Force is about to start in Baghdad and Egypt.

  Specific needs regarding public order training are currently being assessed in order to tailor a five-week UK-based training package due to start in summer 2004. This will build on the basic training delivered to date.

  Iran: Human Rights
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will include in their critical dialogue with Iran the cases of Mr Ahmad Batebi, a student serving a 15-year sentence in Evin Prison, and of Mr Arzhang Davoudi, imprisoned following a brief meeting with Mr Batebi.[HL2879]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We have serious concerns about human rights violations in Iran and individual human rights cases form an important part of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue. We continue to monitor the cases of these two men very closely.

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are making representations to the Government of Iran following the execution of two members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, Mr Jahil Zeivai on 4 December 2003 and Mr Ramin Sharifi on 6 December 2003, the latter allegedly without trial.[HL2909]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We have serious concerns about the use of the death penalty in Iran, and the treatment of members of Iran's ethnic minorities, including the Kurds. The EU has raised WA 142
  these concerns with the Iranian authorities through the EU/Iran Human Rights Dialogue. We have not made representations about the cases of Mr Zeivai and Mr Sharifi, for which we do not have independent corroboration.

  Sudan: Darfur
  Lord Alton of Liverpool
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What weight they attach to the identification by the United Nations of Darfur as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis"; and whether they will set out their policy in relation to human rights violations by the Janjaweed militia in this province of Sudan. [HL2858]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Government are fully seized of the seriousness of the situation and the Department for International Development has committed over £16.5 million in response to the crisis.

  Our priority has been to stop the fighting, so we are urging the parties to ensure their full compliance with the 8 April ceasefire agreement. For the Sudanese Government, this includes neutralising the Janjaweed. My right honourable friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and my honourable friend the Minister for Africa (Chris Mullin), made clear to the Sudanese Foreign Minister when he visited London on 11 May that the Sudanese Government needed to act now to rein in the Janjaweed. Quick deployment of the African Union-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism is also key, as we expect it to have a positive impact on the security situation and in particular the protection of civilians. Should the Sudanese Government fail to take these steps, we will need to consider with all partners what further pressure can be brought to bear. We, and our EU partners, have made clear that all alleged attacks should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

  Olympic Games 2004
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Olympic Advisory Group on security planning believes the Greek Government is doing everything possible to ensure a safe and secure Olympic Games in Athens.[HL2902]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Since its inception in 2000 the Olympic Advisory Group (OAG) has been advising and offering training to the Greek Government in connection with its security preparations for the Olympic Games. The UK is a member of the OAG; the others are the US, Australia, Germany, France, Spain and Israel.

  The UK is satisfied that the Greeks are working hard towards the goal of ensuring that the Games will

  WA 143
  take place in a safe and secure environment. Greece is spending over £500 million on security alone.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How United Kingdom experts were involved in training some 2,000 Greek officials involved with the Olympic Games over the past three years. [HL2903]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  UK officials have been giving security-related training to Greek officials to help Greece with its preparations for the Olympic Games. Much of this has been co-ordinated through the Olympic Advisory Group (OAG). Some of the training was specifically requested by the Greek authorities and some was proposed by UK officials and the officials of other OAG countries.

  It is difficult to provide exact numbers but collectively the OAG has delivered and been involved in over 100 training courses, workshops, seminars and other events.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are confident that adequate security measures will be in place to ensure full protection to the Prime Minister and visiting dignitaries in Piraeus harbour during the Athens Olympic Games.[HL2904]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We do not discuss the details of security arrangements for visits overseas by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and other dignitaries. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1(a) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information whose disclosure would harm national security.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they consider NATO's offer of maritime and AWACS reconnaissance, the work of the Athens Organising Committee, the priority afforded to security by the Greek Government, and the contribution made by the United Kingdom-led seven-nation Olympic Advisory Group, are adequate to ensure protection to athletes, visiting dignitaries and residents of Athens in the run-up to, and for the duration of, the Olympic Games. [HL2905]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Greek authorities and their international partners, including those in the Olympic Advisory Group and NATO, are all working hard to help to ensure that the Games take place in a safe and secure environment. However, for reasons I am sure you will understand, we do not comment in detail on security matters. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1(a) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information, which covers information whose disclosure would harm national security.

  Iraq: British Embassy Site
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have for the future of the old embassy compound in Baghdad following the completion of the new embassy; and whether they will consider its use for housing cultural organisations, such as the British Council and the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, which have been maintained in Iraq by European nations, including the United Kingdom.[HL2914]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  It is too soon to say if the old embassy site could be made available to the British Council or other organisations. The security situation remains too insecure to reoccupy. We shall keep the future of this site under review.

  Religious Discrimination
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to introduce legislation to forbid religious discrimination beyond the employment field, so as to match the protection given by the Race Relations Act.[HL2620]

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  While the Government's mind is not closed to such a possibility, we have no current plans to do so. The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in relation to freedom of religion already provide some protection for religious communities. The coming into force of the Article 13 regulations in December has provided new protection against religious discrimination in employment and training.

  For the future, the Government are progressing the equalities agenda by working towards the creation of a single equalities body in 2006. Faith equality will be included within the body's remit and the White Paper Fairness for all: A new Commission for Equality and Human Rights published on 12 May sets out how the Government intend to support the new equality strands including religion and belief. Representatives from the new strands will be fully involved in the preparatory work for the new body and the establishment of the CEHR will, for the first time, provide institutional support for the new discrimination regulations on religion and belief in employment. In the run-up to the establishment of the new commission and in the first years of its operation, particular attention will be paid to the new strands.

  Loudhailers: Use in Public
  Lord Monson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether human rights legislation prevents government and local authorities banning or restricting the use of loudhailers in public: what is

  WA 145
  the nature and scope of such restrictions as may be permitted by the legislation.[HL2840]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  There is legislation in place to restrict the use of loudhailers in public. Section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 governs the use of loudhailers in the streets, and prohibits their use between 9.00 pm and 8.00 am.

  There is also a City of Westminster by-law, which makes it an offence to cause or permit to be made any loud or continuous noise by operating an amplifier or similar instrument, after being warned to desist by a constable.

  The Government believe that this legislation is compliant with the right to freedom of expression and assembly under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute and the rights of others not to be subjected to noisy protests must be taken into account. The legislation finds an appropriate balance between these conflicting rights.

  Firearms
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  With reference to the table on page 30 of their consultation paper Controls on Firearms, published in May 2004, how many of the recorded crimes in each year and each category were committed with registered handguns, rifles or shotguns.[HL2885]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Details of the legal status of firearms used in recorded crimes are not generally available, but it is thought that most, if not all, will be illegally held.

  A23: Fatal Accident
  Lord Berkeley
  to ask Her Majesty's Government:

  Following the accident on the A23 on 16 May in which eight people were killed:

  (a) how many people were arrested;

  (b) whether the scene was declared a "scene of crime" by the police;

  (c) how many days the road was closed to traffic;

  (d) whether they will set up a public inquiry into the cause of the accident and make recommendations;

  (e) whether an immediate speed limit of 50 miles per hour was imposed, enforced by speed cameras, on this and other roads of similar design and traffic intensity, pending the report from the public inquiry;

  (f) whether the police will investigate whether the infrastructure manager may be guilty of corporate manslaughter;

  (g) whether they will treat the road safety issues arising from the accident in a similar manner to a railway accident.[HL2972]

  WA 146
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Following inquiries to the Highways Agency and Sussex Police, I understand that the position is as follows:

  (a) There were no arrests following the incident.

  (b) Sussex Police did declare the site a "scene of crime". This is the practice with all incidents involving a road death, and subsequent investigations are carried out in accordance with the guidelines set out in the road death investigation manual prepared by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  (c) The road was closed for 15 hours and 15 minutes.

  (d) It is too early to say if there will be a public inquiry. The police will however prepare a comprehensive report for the coroner of West Sussex.

  (e) No immediate speed limit of 50 mph was imposed. At present the Highways Agency does not intend to reduce the speed limit to 50 mph, enforced by safety cameras, on this and other roads of similar design and traffic intensity.

  (f) The police investigation will include the actions and responsibilities of all individuals and organisations.

  (g) The Highways Agency has already commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to investigate this incident.

  Iraq: Depleted Uranium
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Following recent reports concerning the radiation contamination from depleted uranium shells of United States troops serving in Iraq, what checks for radiation contamination are being undertaken by British service personnel; and what is their estimate of the number of British and Iraqi service personnel and civilians who may be similarly contaminated. [HL2444]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  The Ministry of Defence policy is to offer biological monitoring to all military personnel and MoD civilians on operations where depleted uranium was used. These personnel are offered a test for total uranium in the urine followed by a test for uranium isotopes in the urine if the test for total uranium gives anomalous results. The isotope test determines whether the uranium is depleted. The isotope test is offered straight away if personnel are known to have been exposed to DU or there is a high probability that they have been exposed. So far just under 300 personnel have taken up this offer and have been tested. Of those, only a small number have been found to be excreting DU in their urine. These are personnel who were involved in blue-on-blue incidents and have shrapnel injuries.
  WA 147
  There is currently no way of reliably estimating the number of Iraqi civilians or service personnel who have been exposed to DU.

  MoD and Environmental Tectonics Corporatio
  Lord Tebbit
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 4 May (WA 97) concerning the settlement between Environmental Tectonics Corporation and the Ministry of Defence on the Royal Air Force Centrifuge, how much has been received by the Ministry of Defence in compensation.[HL2761]

  Lord Bach
  Under the terms of the mediated settlement on the Royal Air Force Centrifuge, the Ministry of Defence has received no compensation from Environmental Tectonics Corporation.

  Defence Industries Council
  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What mechanisms exist to communicate the deliberations of the Defence Industries Council to the rest of the defence industry, including small and medium-sized enterprises.[HL2994]

  Lord Bach
  The Defence Industries Council (DIC) is an industry body whose purpose is to represent the interests of the UK defence industry. The DIC is supported by four trade associations—the Society of British Aerospace Companies, Intellect, the Defence Manufacturers Association and the Society of Maritime Industries. The method of communication with its members is a matter for the DIC. The DIC meets formally with the Government at the National Defence Industries Council, which normally meets twice a year.

  Road Surfaces
  Lord Patten
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  By what date they expect (a) all of Britain's motorways, and (b) all of the dual carriageway sections of Britain's non-motorway standard trunk roads, to have been surfaced or resurfaced with noise-deadening materials.[HL2648]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  As indicated in the Government's 10-year transport plan, quieter surfaces should be installed on over 60 per cent (2,500 miles) of the English strategic road network (motorways and trunk roads), including all concrete stretches by April 2011, subject to the availability of funds. Carriageways are being resurfaced with quieter materials as maintenance becomes due to keep them in a safe and serviceable (available for use) condition. However, where concrete carriageways will not require WA 148
  maintenance by April 2011, their resurfacing is being prioritised to address those locations where the most homes are affected by traffic noise first. In addition, quieter surfaces will be used in all new major junction improvements, bypasses and road widenings. On the basis of current maintenance expectations for the strategic road network, nearly all dual carriageway sections should be resurfaced by around 2015.

  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they antipicate that work on the East London Line extension will be completed before the 2012 Olympic Games; and, if so, what is the proposed timetable; and[HL3001]

  Whether Crossrail can now be expedited to be ready for a 2012 Olympic Games in London. [HL3006]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  The 2012 Olympic bid does not and never has assumed Crossrail. A robust transport solution for the Olympics can be delivered without Crossrail.

  On Crossrail, my right honourable friend is currently considering Adrian Montague's findings, which will be published in due course.

  The Strategic Rail Authority has puts its procurement proposals for the East London Line project to the department. The proposals raise a range of important issues that will need to be considered carefully in the context of the spending review later this year. No timetable has been set for the completion of works.

  Fire Investigation Officers: Powers
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in pursuance of their powers to investigate the causes of fires, authorised officers as defined in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill will collect data on the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream of persons injured in fires; and how the procedures for doing so are to be defined. [HL2999]

  The Minister of State, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  The Fire and Rescue Services Bill would give no power to fire investigation officers to take samples of body fluids from any person.

  Gunpowder Plot: 400th Anniversary
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot.[HL2737]
  WA 149
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  The Government have no plans to celebrate this anniversary. However, officials within Parliament are planning an exhibition to mark the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot which will be held in Westminster Hall between July and December 2005. The purpose of the exhibition will be to provide a serious and dispassionate introduction to the plot in a location central to the actual scene of the historical events. It will seek to engage the interest of the public in parliamentary history and with the work of Parliament. Some of the national museums and galleries will also be participating in this initiative, and mounting displays of their own material in connection with the quater-centenary.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department: Power Projects
  Lord Dixon-Smith
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many electricity power stations fuelled by coal have been constructed since 1990 or are under construction by British construction firms in overseas countries using funding guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system; and[HL2928]

  How many electricity power stations fuelled by oil have been constructed since 1990 or are under construction by British construction firms in overseas countries using funding guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system; and[HL2929]

  How many electricity power stations fuelled by natural gas have been constructed since 1990 or are under construction by British construction firms in overseas countries using funding guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system; and [HL2930]

  What is the annual or estimated annual emission in tonnes of carbon dioxide by coal-fired power stations constructed since 1990 or under construction whose funding was guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system; and [HL2931]

  What is the annual or estimated annual emission in tonnes of carbon dioxide by oil-fired power stations constructed since 1990 or under construction whose funding was guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system; and [HL2932]

  What is the annual or estimated annual emission in tonnes of carbon dioxide by gas-fired power stations constructed since 1990 or under construction whose funding was guaranteed by the export credit guarantee system. [HL2933]
  WA 150
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  ECGD only has readily available information for those power projects for which guarantees have been issued since 1997. It would not be possible to obtain the details of projects from 1990 to 1996 except at disproportionate cost.

  The table below shows the number of fossil fuel power stations supported by ECGD since 1997 and their approximate annual carbon dioxide emissions upon completion.

  Fuel Type

  Number of Power Stations

  ECGD Estimated Capacity (MW)

  CO2 (Tonnes per year)

  Coal

  11

  11,260

  40.6 million

  Oil

  8

  1,020

  2.2 million

  Gas

  9

  4,707

  7.6 million

  Total

  28

  16,987

  50.4 million

  It has been assumed the plants operate for 60 per cent of the time (5,256 hours per year). CO2 emissions are calculated using the following conversion factors—Coal: 0.687 tonnes of CO2 per MW per hour, Oil 0.417, Gas: 0.309. These are taken from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol website (www.ghgprotocol.org) and are the 1999 average values for power plants in "Economies in Transition". These are the markets where ECGD most commonly provides guarantees.

  It should be noted that for most large power projects ECGD is only one of several finance providers. Scaling the carbon dioxide emissions by the proportion of finance guaranteed by ECGD would give a figure of less than 20 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide that is directly attributable to ECGD's participation.

  Medical Research Council: Collaboration with Agrochemical Companies
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which agrochemical companies, if any, are currently collaborating with the Medical Research Council (MRC) in any of its activities under the MRC Technology Strategic Plan to work with industry. [HL2971]

  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  The MRC currently has one formal collaborative arrangement with an agrochemical company. This is between DuPont Crop Protection and a team at the MRC Functional Genetics Unit in Oxford. The purpose of this collaboration is to use the nematode worm (C.elegans) as a model system for identifying and validating the target genes of new insecticide lead compounds.

  DrugScope
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 11 May (WA 32) whether DrugScope had received any funding other than government grants; and if so, what were the sources of such funding. [HL2915]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  We do not have information on any non-government sources of funding which DrugScope may have received.

  Yorkshire Air Ambulance
  Earl Peel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What were the total costs of operating the North Yorkshire air ambulance service in the past four years; and what proportion of that cost can be attributed to the attendance at accidents caused by speeding motorcyclists. [HL2936]

  Lord Warner
  The Yorkshire Air Ambulance is an independent charity and the information requested is not collected centrally.

  House of Lords: Review of Working Practices
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  The House will wish to know how it is proposed to review the package of changes to working practices agreed by the House in July 2002, on the basis of the Procedure Committee's fifth report of 2001–02. Unless the House takes further decisions, the changes will expire at the end of this Session. Following discussion through the usual channels and at the Procedure Committee, I intend that the review should begin with another Leader's Group, composed as follows:

  B Amos (Chair)

  L Brooke of Alverthorpe

  L Cope of Berkeley

  L Craig of Radley

  L Grocott

  L Roper

  L Strathclyde

  L Waddington

  L Williams of Crosby

  L Williamson of Horton

  The group's remit will be to review the procedural changes agreed by the House in July 2002 and to make recommendations to the Procedure Committee for their retention, modification or reversal, with any associated changes. The review will include September sitting, but not the terms of reference of the Statutory Instruments Merits Committee (because these are to be reviewed separately after the first year), nor matters relating to the Speakership of the House.

  The proposed timetable is:

  Group report by 16 September

  Procedure Committee consider and report by end October

  Debate in November

  Any changes to take effect at start of next Session

  Rivers Agency: Key Performance Targets 2004–05
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following ministerial Statement.

  Rivers Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland. It acts on behalf of the Department as the statutory drainage and flood defence authority for Northern Ireland.
  WS 54
  I have set the following key targets for the agency for the 2004–05 business year:

  Urban Flood Defences:

  To construct or refurbish 612 metres of urban flood defences.

  Drainage Infrastructure:

  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 91 hectares of development land. To replace/refurbish 653 metres of dangerous culverts.

  Maintenance Watercourses:

  To complete identified maintenance works on 1,235 of the 1,585 designated open watercourses included in the notice of annual maintenance as part of a six-year scheduled maintenance programme.

  Replies to written inquiries:

  To issue substantive replies to 80 per cent of written enquiries within 15 working days of receipt.

  Schedule 6 applications:

  To respond to 98 per cent of Schedule 6 applications within three months.

  Queen's Counsel
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I have been considering the outcome of the consultation on the future of Queen's Counsel in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. In July 2003 I published a consultation paper on the future of Queen's Counsel; 376 responses were received. I published a summary of these responses on 26 January 2004.

  Whilst the consultation did not produce a consensus as to whether the title of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist, it is clear to me that as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State I should no longer play a part in assessing and selecting candidates to be appointed as QCs. None of the consultees could demonstrate that such involvement in the selection process is fundamental to the Silk mark's value; nor does it add value for consumers of legal services. I will, therefore, not continue that role.

  Yet respondents from within the legal services market were equally clear about the value of maintaining a kitemark for advocacy services—both to recognise excellence and to provide useful information for consumers. For this reason, the Government have invited the Bar Council and the Law Society, and their counterparts In Northern Ireland, to develop and implement new schemes for accrediting leading advocates, which will replace the existing arrangements. The professions are far better placed to fulfil this function than the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I do have a responsibility, however, for ensuring that the resultant scheme is fair and in the interests of the public and the consumers of legal services.
  WS 55
  My intention is to work with the professions to ensure that the replacement schemes meet as many as possible of the objections that have been raised over the Silk appointments process. Kitemarking must be designed to serve the interests of consumers by identifying genuine excellence. It must provide fairness for members of the professions. I would also want it to encourage diversity within the professions, with a continually widening range of backgrounds and experience represented amongst those the professions recognise as leaders in advocacy. I have every confidence that the professions can deliver this aim. To achieve these goals, there must be rigorous selection against clearly defined objective criteria. There must also be provision for the kitemark to be removed where the holder has failed to meet the high standards required. The professional bodies have agreed to work together to achieve a single scheme for both branches of the profession and are already collaborating with each other and my department in working out the details of a joint approach to reform. I will set out these plans in a further Statement.

  The professions will be responsible for selection and will send a list of suitable candidates to the DCA. I will retain responsibility for recommending as a Minister to Her Majesty that she appoint those on the list to the rank of Queen's Counsel. I will of course need to satisfy myself that the interim scheme meets the goals I have set for it, and consider whether the professions' recommendations are consistent with its terms and whether I should depart from them in exceptional circumstances.

  The new arrangements should be ready to receive the first applications towards the end of this year. They will ensure, as the great majority of those who responded to the consultation asked, that there will continue to be effective arrangements for recognising advocacy of outstanding quality in the higher courts. At the same time, those arrangements will have particular regard to the need for a competitive market.

  The consultation process also demonstrated the need for a wider review not just of kitemarking but of the information available to consumers in relation to the whole spectrum of legal services. That review will seek to establish what shortfalls there are in the information available, and what solutions can be implemented to serve better the interests of the consumer. An important part of this process will be establishing what types of accreditation scheme might be beneficial and how they should be set up and administered. The evaluation will not be restricted to advocacy alone, but will cover all fields of legal practice in which there is a need for better consumer information. It will be based on the principles that we are already establishing for the advocacy scheme—fairness, diversity, and a stronger focus on consumer interests. In particular, it will take full account of the wider context of competition law and the free market. While we carry out this longer-term market study, we will be careful to keep the work consistent with the review of the regulation of legal services that Sir David Clementi is conducting. If the conclusion of the market study is that new ways are required to meet consumers' information needs, one of the essential
  WS 56
  questions will be who will best be able to meet these needs. That will have to be decided in the light of the presentation of Sir David's conclusions which are due at the end of this year. Because of this linkage, and if any legislation is needed to implement the results of the market study, the Government expect that any scheme would be implemented at the same time as the conclusions on the wider review.

  The reformed kitemark for higher court advocacy is an interim measure. We have adopted it to provide continuity and to maintain the advantages that the consultation process has identified—in the international market, for example. It will be reviewed when the results of the long-term market study are available, to confirm first whether legal services customers need it, and—if they do—that it is still compatible with the principles that will be established in the study.

  The interim scheme will retain the title of QC. The use of the QC title will be reviewed along with the other details of the scheme once the market study is complete. But I stress that although the title will not be changed in the interim scheme, the substance of the award will be different since it will be based on improved criteria and selection processes.

  The interim solution does not aim to remove the title of QC from existing holders. We are looking for ways to improve the current system and at the wider picture. It makes sense to consider what, if anything, to do about the current titleholders only when that process is complete.

  This decision affects only the jurisdictions for which I have responsibility: England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. It does not affect the position in Scotland, or the Crown Dependencies, or any of the overseas territories or Commonwealth countries where the rank of Queen's Counsel is in use.

  National Minimum Wage
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers, Gerry Sutcliffe, has made the following Statement.

  The Government have placed in the Libraries of the House the latest tables showing the estimated number of workers who have benefited directly from the national minimum wage between its introduction and the next uprating in October 2004. Members of Parliament wishing to know the number of beneficiaries in each area of the UK over this period are advised to consult this information. The information can also be found on the Department of Trade and Industry's website at www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar. The information will be updated

  WS 57
  every six months to take account of future increases to minimum wage rates and the release of new data from the Office for National Statistics.

  I am also attaching below a regional breakdown of the number of people who are expected to receive a pay rise as a direct result of the forthcoming increase in minimum wage rates in October 2004.

  Number of jobs that stand to benefit from the forthcoming October 2004 NM W uprating by region

  North East

  110,000–120,000

  North West

  210,000–240,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  180,000–210,000

  East Midlands

  150,000–180.000

  West Midlands

  150,000–190,000

  Eastern

  130,000–160,000

  London

  80,000–100,000

  South East

  150,000–170,000

  South West

  140,000–170,000

  Wales

  90,000–110,000

  Scotland

  160,000–190,000

  Northern Ireland

  40,000–50,000

  UK

  1,600,000–1,900,000

  Source:

  DTI estimates based on ONS's spring 2003 central estimates of low pay, Labour Force Survey and New Earnings Survey.

  Note:

  These data are based on 10p pay bands from the ONS central estimates and take account of earnings and prices inflation between the period Spring 2003 and October 2004; uprating from £3.80 to £4.10 for 18–21 year olds and from £4.50 to £4.85 for those 22 and over.

  The DTI and the ONS do not possess any information on the number of workers who have benefited from the national minimum wage by constituency.

  Company Law: Flexibility and Accessibility
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, has made the following Statement.

  I am today publishing a consultation document, Company Law: Flexibility and Accessibility, containing proposals designed to help ensure that company law remains up to date in future, and to make it clearer and more easily accessible in particular for smaller firms.

  The proposals are for the introduction of new types of legislative power enabling company law in future to be amended by a special form of secondary legislation, making it easier to keep the legislation updated over time. The powers would also be used to rewrite relevant parts of the law to make it simpler to understand for all its users, particularly smaller firms and their advisers.

  The use of the powers would be governed by stringent requirements for public consultation and for parliamentary scrutiny, and by criteria which would ensure that the needs of smaller users were at the heart of any reform proposals. Over time, I would look forward to being able to bring all the key operational provisions relating to smaller private companies together, clearly and logically, in one place.

  The powers would he introduced as part of the major new Companies Bill which we are preparing for introduction as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill will implement the work of the independent company law review, which provided an authoritative assessment of the guiding principles for future reform, and my proposals proceed very much in that spirit.

  The consultation period will close on 24 September 2004 to allow full time for consideration of these important proposals, and I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries or both Houses.