Sitting of 19 June 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Loughton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the Government's priorities are with regard to animal welfare. [2890]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): We have already acted to update the rules on welfare in transit in line with European Union requirements. We have also commissioned an urgent review of the procedures for checking animals and clearing them as fit before export. We are planning action on a further range of animal welfare issues which we shall announce in due course, including the conclusions of the report of Professor Krebs on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.
    Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for the generality of his response. He will be aware that my constituency contains the important port of Shoreham, which made the headlines for all the wrong reasons during the veal calf export saga. What assurances can he give my many constituents who were involved in the demonstrations that this Government will continue the good work of the last Government, who banned veal crates in this country and secured European agreement on transport times; that he will try to shorten transport times even further; and that the restrictions imposed on the continent will be enforced?
    Dr. Cunningham: We are putting increasing emphasis on the need to export meat rather than live animals. There is no question of veal crates returning to use in this country. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the European Union, the order that I announced about two weeks ago had been lying on the table in the Ministry for several months, presumably because the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his colleagues, when they were in government, did not have the nerve to bring it to the House in case it caused a row among their Euro-sceptics. We have implemented that order very quickly.
    Mr. Hogg: I welcome the Minister and his team to the Front Bench.
    440
    On matters of animal welfare, I have observed that the Minister has asked the Forestry Commission for advice about fox hunting. May I ask his reasons? Do I detect a willingness on his part to use ministerial power to prohibit fox hunting? Surely, if that is to be done at all, it should be done only through a statute passed by the House. What we are seeing is an unscrupulous use of ministerial power that is an abuse of the Executive.
    Dr. Cunningham: Permit me a wry smile, Madam Speaker, at that preposterous nonsense. If I had not made inquiries about what was happening on Forestry Commission land in respect of all hunting—not just fox hunting—I would presumably have been criticised. Whether the Forestry Commission licenses or does not license hunting on its land is a matter for it, and for it alone.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the largest payment made to a single landowner under the set-aside regime for the latest year for which figures are available. [2891]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The precise answer to my hon. Friend's question about the set-aside land is £230,082, which formed part of a larger payment—in 1996, under the arable area payments scheme—of £2,007,993.
    Mr. Prentice: Does not that answer simply illustrate how grotesque and indefensible the set-aside scheme is? Farmers—grain barons—can receive thousands of pounds for not growing crops, while hill farmers, for example, struggle to eke out a living. Is there not a compelling case for getting rid of set-aside and production subsidies, and putting the money where it is needed—into environmental schemes and rural communities, and rebuilding our countryside?
    Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be pressing next week for precisely that. I repeat that the amount paid for set-aside, for not using land, was some 10 per cent. of the total payment to the landowners concerned.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister agree that there are many large estates and that much of this money supports employment which might not otherwise be retained? May we have an assurance right at the beginning of the Government's term of office that in the common agricultural policy reform negotiations the Government will have nothing whatever to do with arguments about modulation and that there will be no discrimination against British farmers because of the size of those farms?
    Mr. Rooker: We are not in favour of modulation, but no one can convince me that spending more than £1.1 billion on the arable area system is a job creation scheme. I reject that. Only £138 million of that amount is in respect of land that is set aside and not used.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Todd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what goals he has for the reform of the common agricultural policy; what strategy he will follow to achieve those goals; and if he will make a statement. [2892]
    Dr. John Cunningham: I will take every opportunity with my European colleagues to press for the redirection of the CAP away from high prices and production controls towards a market-oriented policy which will benefit consumers and the environment and enable our farmers to compete effectively in world markets.
    Mr. Todd: First, I welcome the members of the Front-Bench team to their places. I suspect that that welcome is shared by many Opposition Members. Do my right hon. Friend's objectives for reform encompass the goal of achieving a free market in agricultural products throughout the world? That goal would be greatly favoured by many south Derbyshire farmers and other progressive farmers in this country.
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, we want the realities of the global market to bear down on the common agricultural policy, and we want British farmers to take advantage of expanding world markets. Many aspects of the current common agricultural policy prevent them from doing that.
    Mr. Wigley: I also welcome the Minister to his job. Does he agree that many farmers, not only in the beef sector but in the sheep sector are considerably worried about their prospects over the next couple of years? The CAP reforms could have a direct material effect on their well-being. Does he further agree that it is important to ensure that farmers are able to continue to be custodians of the countryside and that any settlement must ensure the maintenance of the ability of small and medium-sized farms to remain in business and not lead to amalgamation, which would drive them out of business?
    Dr. Cunningham: Last year, farmers producing lambs did very well. It is too early to say what the circumstances will be this year, but we have taken action to maintain confidence in United Kingdom lamb and we shall continue to do that. It is a premium product and we want farmers to be well rewarded for producing it. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as a consequence of mismanagement by the previous Administration in respect of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, the beef sector is in serious circumstances. As I have said before, we have inherited grave difficulties, and I am almost daily in contact or in discussion with people in Europe and with my officials to see what we can do to try to get the ban lifted.
    Mr. Stevenson: I also welcome my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Government Front Bench. Does my right hon. Friend accept that farming is an important element of prosperity in rural communities? Does he also accept that, despite the enormous sums that have been devoted to the common agricultural policy, particularly over the past 25 years, rural communities have had real problems and job losses as a result? Is not the time long overdue
    442
    for a study into how we can integrate support for agriculture to provide for the well-being and benefit of rural communities?
    Dr. Cunningham: I have represented a large rural constituency for 27 years, so I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have effective policies for rural communities and economies as well as for farmers. Of course, agriculture is the backbone of many rural economies and we must ensure that it remains a vibrant and efficient sector of industry. I would like the CAP to be transformed from a policy of simply supporting and controlling production to one that is more market oriented, and I would like us to use some of the resources from the CAP to invest in rural economies for the long term.
    Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the immediate concern of many farmers is not CAP reform, but the lifting of the export ban on beef and beef products. Before the general election, he fairly said that that matter was an urgent priority. Today, he talks about daily discussions. I think that everyone would be interested to know what his realistic assessment is of the time scale that will be necessary for him to make progress on the lifting of the beef ban and what the conditions are for the beef ban being lifted.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right. This is an urgent matter, but I am not going to get into the boastful claims of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends, who, as everyone recalls, came here and told us that the beef ban would be lifted by last November. That was an absolutely bogus claim. What is more, as they had not even begun to activate the selective cull until February and March this year—that is on the record—it is clear that there was no hope of the beef ban ever being lifted. I am not going to make predictions about dates for the lifting of the ban. It would be foolish to do so. The previous Administration made an idle boast and I am not going to make the same mistake.

    Meat Products (Labelling)
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require mechanically recovered meat material to be separately and specifically labelled in food products. [2894]
    Mr. Rooker: United Kingdom regulators already believe that existing food labelling rules require that mechanically recovered meat products should be labelled separately. If there is any doubt about that, there has already been one successful prosecution, so the matter has been upheld by the British courts. Recently, we have succeeded in getting the rest of Europe to go along with us, so we are in the lead on this.
    Mr. Cousins: I cheerfully welcome my hon. Friend to his new position.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that consumers wish to know what they eat, and that they do not know in every case that the meat that they eat has been produced by firing high-pressure water jets at animal carcases, to produce what the Government Food Standards Committee once described as
    "a highly coloured slurry or emulsion"?

    443
    This must be made absolutely clear and it must not be left entirely to local authorities such as Shropshire and Somerset to carry out the necessary enforcement action.
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why the regulations and the guidance to them are not only being reviewed, but will be reinforced, certainly by the end of this year.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Minister tell us how a consumer knows that a product does not come from meat, particularly beef, being produced in other countries, which import into this country material that could contain traces of BSE, defeating the things that we are already doing to ensure that BSE is kept out of the food chain?
    Mr. Rooker: We cannot do that at the moment because the previous Government did not take any action to end the problem. This Government are taking action. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if action is not agreed by the European Union by 22 July, the regulations and orders will be brought to the House forthwith.
    Mr. Pickthall: While my hon. Friend is considering the labelling of food products, will he consider the labelling of products that contain genetically modified ingredients and ensure that the consumer is given the choice as to whether to consume such ingredients?
    Mr. Rooker: It has already been done and negotiators in Brussels have received new instructions from the Government and this Department. If a food product may contain genetically modified material, the label will have to say so because producers refuse to separate the crop ingredients.

    Organic Farming
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the organic farming sector. [2895]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We want to encourage an expansion of organic production and are considering the best ways of achieving that.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his encouragement. Is he aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, only 0.1 per cent. of land in England is farmed organically, which compares unfavourably with other European countries—for example, in Austria, the figure is 8 per cent.—and that the previous Government's investment to promote organic farming was lamentable in the extreme?
    Will the Minister increase the amount of money allocated by the Government to improve and encourage organic farming? Will he ensure that home demand is met by this country, because currently it is being met by imports, which is disadvantageous for consumers and farmers?
    Mr. Morley: The actual figure for production is 0.3 per cent. Nevertheless, it is very low compared with the European average. The Government want to
    444
    encourage organic production and we recognise that there is a market for organic products. However, the market in, for example, milk is currently being filled by imports because this country cannot meet the necessary production level. The Agriculture Select Committee has produced an excellent report and made a number of recommendations relating to the organic sector, to which this Government will be responding shortly.
    Mr. Flynn: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Although the increase in organic farming is welcome, does it not still mean that the other type of farming—which could be correctly labelled chemical farming—is responsible for the majority of our farm products? When looking at the cost of products from organic farms, why do we not take into account the cost of products from chemical farms—which should be measured not just immediately in the marketplace, but over hundreds, if not thousands of years in the enormous damage that pesticides and other chemicals do to our environment?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. With intensive agriculture, the cost of inputs is important for both the long-term environmental consequences and the cost of production that farmers have to bear. The organic sector has an important role and we are encouraging a reduced use of inputs such as integrated crop management.
    Mr. Boswell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. Given the efforts of his hon. Friends, over a long time and through a characteristic drip feed, to belittle the real efforts made by Conservative Ministers to support organic farming, including expenditure of more than £1 million a year and the launch last year of the organic conversion information service, will the Minister tell the House how much extra funding his Department will make available for organic farming, where the money will be found and when?
    Mr. Morley: The current year's budget for organic conversion is more than £800,000. There is also £1 million available for research and development in the organic sector. The amount available for conversion will increase in the next financial year—that is already in the Department's budget. It is an important matter.
    It is fair to point out that the take-up of funds under the Conservative Government was lower than the amount available because of the level of conversion grants. It is an issue that we are considering in our response to the Select Committee report.

    Poultry
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the regulations governing the production of New York dressed poultry. [2896]
    Mr. Rooker: We have received a number of representations about the end of the three-year phase-out of the derogation from the regulations. The prohibition on the sale of uneviscerated poultry from licensed premises will stand. I have checked on the name—in Birmingham we call it, "Not yet dressed poultry."
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the ban on the sale of New York dressed poultry from

    445
    licensed plants is anomalous, will diminish consumer choice and represents another blow to independent butchers struggling to compete with superstores? Will he reconsider his response and allow an extension of the previous derogation for a further three years?
    Mr. Rooker: There is absolutely no chance of a further derogation. If the hon. Gentleman reads column 219 of yesterday's Hansard, he will see that I am looking at the regulations on unlicensed premises. It is a health hazard and we need to check it out.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Paterson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by the Government to have the beef ban lifted as quickly as possible. [2897]
    Dr. John Cunningham: The Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the President of the European Commission and Commissioners Fischler and Bonino on how to have the export ban lifted as quickly as possible. They have been constructive and helpful. We are also considering, in consultation with the Commission, what other options the Florence agreement has to offer for resuming exports.
    Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister understand that the position is now desperate? Yesterday, prices in Oswestry and Market Drayton hit a 16-year low, bumping around the 90p mark. He cannot keep hiding behind the actions of the previous Government—[Interruption.] Can I ask on behalf of my constituents that the Minister takes responsibility and gives us a clear date by which that iniquitous ban will be lifted?
    Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman does not learn quickly that that type of nonsense is of no help to his constituents, he probably will not be an hon. Member after the next general election. Does he really expect that, in seven weeks, the Government could have undone the untold damage inflicted by previous Conservative Ministers on the British beef industry? If he believes that, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. We have attempted quickly to re-establish sensible working relationships with the Commission and the European Parliament, and we are pressing ahead as quickly as possible on the issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent beef farmers, and I do not need any lessons from him about the damage that has been inflicted on them because of 18 years of Conservative government.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister could be forgiven—although this is only his second outing at the Dispatch Box; yesterday he dealt with the quota hopping issue, and today he dealt with the question from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)—for thinking that he has already heard it all about his departmental administration. Given the on-going and inherited crisis in the beef industry, however, may I press him on one constructive point, which has found favour within the National Farmers Union—the position of calves born after 1 August 1996 and that are a minimum of six months old? Is there some mechanism for
    446
    proceeding in at least that sector, so that we can establish some practical and political momentum and find a way in which to achieve an eventual overall lifting of the ban?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his much more rational contribution to a serious problem. He and the NFU are correct on that point, about which I have had discussions with Sir David Naish. I have had discussions on the same point with Commissioner Fischler—with whom, only today, I once again discussed the issues on the telephone. We are pressing ahead with talks about a born-after scheme, as we are pressing ahead with the selective cull—which the previous Administration neglected to do. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is expediting a cattle traceability scheme. All those actions must be taken to satisfy European Union legislation before there is any hope of having the ban lifted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his principal point, and we are working on it.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, during the past 18 months, I was much criticised for not securing a timetable. Will he confirm that he has had many discussions with the Commissioners and with his fellow Ministers in Europe? Will he also confirm that he himself has achieved no timetable, no bankable assurances and—if he is absolutely honest with the House—no progress of any kind?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can confirm that—literally from the Government's first days—I have had a whole series of meetings. Moreover, I have not sought a timetable, because too many problems have been left outstanding by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—including his failure to fulfil effectively the terms and conditions of the Florence agreement, which the former Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary signed up to; his failure properly to implement the selective cull; and his failure to develop an effective cattle traceability scheme. All those problems are a result of his stewardship. They were unresolved when we took office, and it is absurd to think that we could immediately go to Brussels and demand a date for lifting the ban.

    Beef Sector
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to deal with the current problems in the beef sector. [2898]
    Dr. John Cunningham: I am continuing in my efforts to remove the ban on UK beef exports. I will also be seeking fundamental reform of the beef regime in forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.
    Mr. Beith: While I welcome all the work that the Minister is doing to deal with the serious situation in the beef industry, can he tell us when we can be sure that no beef can be imported into this country which fails to meet the exacting standards expected of British farmers, when we can expect to have developed a tracing scheme that could benefit herds in grass-fed areas like Northumberland, and when we can hope for some

    447
    compensation for British farmers similar to that obtained by European farmers from European funds for fluctuations in the green pound?
    Dr. Cunningham: I have announced action on beef imports. I very much hope that people who are importing beef into this country—it is projected to total 160,000 tonnes this year—are acting responsibly on their own account. I would much prefer a European Union-wide scheme for the removal of specified risk materials from all beef, but I have made it clear, and do so again today, that 1 am giving the European Union Agriculture Council until its July meeting to introduce that action on an EU-wide basis. If it does not do so, I shall act unilaterally—reluctantly, but unilaterally—by laying orders in the House to ensure that all beef and bovine products imported into Britain are subject to the same rigorous controls on health grounds that British beef is. I cannot be clearer than that. That action was open to the previous Administration but, for reasons that I do not understand, they declined to take it.
    In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is working to accelerate progress on the cattle traceability scheme which I hope we shall have in place early in 1998. It is essential that we have a recognised and accepted scheme if there is to be any hope of the ban being lifted. Great progress has been made in Northern Ireland, but much less progress has been made in the rest of the UK.
    Finally, I am aware of and have had discussions with Sir David Naish about the claims for compensation, and I am considering the matter.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his team. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the plight of beef farmers, given that the market for over-30-months old beef is now half what it was at the time of the announcement on 20 March. It is a pity that no Labour Back Benchers are asking him questions about the matter on behalf of their constituents. Given that the beef market is so dire, will he deny the rumour circulating today that he is thinking about reducing the OTMS payments?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am not confirming or denying any rumours in the press; what is more, I have not seen them myself.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we were trying to wrestle with the problem created by the Tory Government and when about £3 billion was lost—money that could have been spent on hospitals, schools and so on—he heard some of us reminding the Government at that time that while there was compensation of a kind for farmers, some people were left out completely? Casualties included people in the meat production trade and lorry drivers who were sacked on the spot and did not get a penny-piece. When my right hon. Friend is devising schemes, not mentioning Florence or November in any judgment he makes, will he bear in mind the casualties who should be looked after?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, but the reality is that the mishandling of the BSE crisis in this country has been a scandal that has cost the taxpayer approaching £2 billion—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—two billion pounds, and the costs continue to rise. The previous
    448
    Administration made no proper public expenditure provision for those costs in the medium term and developed no policy for the disposal of the thousands of tonnes of dead animals around the country that may have had BSE. We have inherited a series of desperately difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend has mentioned two or three other problems that were also neglected by the previous Government.
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that many of us accept that the Minister is genuinely doing all that he can to get the ban lifted. Does he recognise that the only power that we have left is the power of persuasion? Many of us are not satisfied that our colleagues in Europe are as keen to get the ban lifted as we are. Is the Minister satisfied that they are as keen as he is?
    Dr. Cunningham: We are bound by the European legislation that came about as a consequence of the BSE crisis. We cannot wish that legislation away. We have to meet its requirements, which were agreed by the previous Administration. We have to work within the terms of the legislation and the Florence agreement, negotiated by the previous Government. I am doing everything I can to meet those conditions as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we are thinking of ways to try to alleviate the problems that beef producers are facing, such as the action that I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

    CAP (Fruit and Vegetables)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the expenditure on the destruction of fruit and vegetables through common agriculture policies in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the average amount in the previous five years. [2899]
    Mr. Morley: In 1996, total expenditure on intervention across the European Union was £145 million. The average for the previous five years was £265 million. The cost of those fruits and vegetables subsequently destroyed, as opposed to those put to other end uses, cannot be separately identified.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is it not sickening that hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on destroying food to keep prices artificially high, thereby undermining the living standards of the poor? Will the new Labour Government commit themselves today to scrapping that sickening protection racket, which is a hundred thousand miles from what I had always understood socialism to stand for?
    Mr. Morley: Such levels of destruction and the costs are clearly scandalous. There is no other word for it. Fruit and vegetable regime reforms have reduced the payments by 40 per cent. and the amounts of produce destroyed. Intervention is a part of the common agricultural policy. We shall be pressing for reforms of such elements of the CAP.

    Live Animal Transport
    Mr. Hope: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the conditions in which live animals are transported. [2900]
    Mr. Morley: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just explained to the

    449
    hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), as a first step we have implemented the new EU rules which ought to have been implemented by 31 December 1996. We are actively considering other measures to ensure that the highest welfare standards are applied.
    Mr. Hope: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he ensure that the arrangements for the transport of animals in Europe are up to the high standards that apply in Britain? Will he also ensure that any operators that breach the laws on animal transportation are dealt with forcefully—by the withdrawal of their operator's licence if necessary?
    Mr. Morley: One of the advantages of the implementation of the orders on the welfare of animals in transport is that they introduce, for the first time, compulsory licensing for hauliers moving animals. That will mean that animal exporters found to be in breach of regulations will face having their licences removed. The Government will not have the slightest hesitation in doing that.
    Mr. Fabricant: With regard to the export of live animals, and indeed dead animals, have not the hon. Gentleman's officials been telling farmers in the west country since the Amsterdam summit that the beef ban is likely to last for at least two years—yes or no?
    Mr. Morley: First, the Government draw a distinction in policy between the export of live animals and that of dead animals. We want to promote the export of meat and we want a strong meat trade. We believe that that should be given priority rather than the export of live animals that are slaughtered abroad and, on occasion, passed off as meat from the country in question. We of course want the restoration of beef exports as part of the strong meat trade. My right hon. Friend the Minister has explained the progress in, and the priority given to, that matter.

    Agri-monetary Revaluation
    Mr. David Heath: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to apply to the European Commission for a full implementation of the compensation package available in respect of agri-monetary revaluation. [2901]
    Mr. Rooker: Paying the aid would have significant implications for United Kingdom public expenditure. We are considering carefully the case made by interested parties for payment, but we have until 31 January next year to decide on the matter.
    Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the extent of the difficulties that beef producers, and the dairy sector in the west country particularly, are facing as a result of the previous Government's actions over many years? Does he realise that those problems are being exacerbated by imports and that assistance is required, not some time next year, but now? If the Government do not take the opportunity of using the EU 50 per cent. resources that are available to them, producers will wonder why.
    Mr. Rooker: I understand, and we share entirely, the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We cannot
    450
    take an early decision on the matter; we have time. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the value of CAP amounts is 9.4 per cent. higher than in January 1992, even taking into account the most recent revaluation of 5 June. The current protection, following the effects of the January and March revaluations of the freeze rates that were used to calculate sterling payments this year, will be worth £400 million over the next two years.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Lansley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. [2902]
    Dr. John Cunningham: The need for CAP reform is widely recognised and is a major priority for the Government. A redirection of the CAP away from high prices and production controls is essential if EU agriculture is to remain competitive and dynamic in the face of the liberalisation of world trade and the effects of EU enlargement.
    Mr. Lansley: In response to an earlier question, the Minister of State said that he was not in favour of modulation. Will the Minister go further and say that he will reject any proposal for CAP reform that incorporated modulation?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can go further still and say that I will reject any proposals that come up under the CAP that would disadvantage British farmers.
    On modulation, to which I am totally opposed, I would not want a scheme to be introduced that discriminated unfairly against the UK generally and our efficient large farmers in particular.
    Mr. Pike: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has quite rightly identified the problems of enlargement in relation to the CAP, but what discussions are the Government having with those nations that might join the EU at some future date, such as Poland and Romania, whose agricultural economies would have a grave effect on the CAP's future?
    Dr. Cunningham: That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Those matters are being discussed not only by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the context of the intergovernmental conference and the wider debate about EU enlargement, which we support.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given that not much progress seems to have been made on the issue of EU enlargement at the Amsterdam summit, and that reform of the CAP has to a great extent hinged on that issue, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House, especially those of us who represent agricultural communities, how negotiations and discussions will take place? Enlargement is linked with the development of structural and regional funds, particularly for less-favoured areas. The issue is important to all of us who represent rural constituencies. I would like to hear Government Front Benchers send the message today that negotiations and discussions will take place in a positive fashion.
    Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Lady is asking for an assurance that we will adopt a positive approach to discussions and negotiations on EU enlargement, I can give her that without hesitation. Not to be able at the same time to seek fundamental reforms of the CAP would be damaging for us and, in the long term, the EU's structure would become unstable because an enlarged union would not be able to finance the current CAP.

    Farmers (Less-favoured Areas)
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the long-term prospects of farmers in less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement. [2903]
    Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the problems of farming in the less-favoured areas as his constituency includes less-favoured areas. The concerns of hill farmers will be fully taken into account in the development of policy affecting rural areas.
    Mr. Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench. In this afternoon's debate on the CAP, will he urgently address the issue of reform? Will he consider the ways in which the CAP is wasteful and unfair and how to redirect any resources saved as a result of reforms towards hill farmers and farmers in less-favoured areas such as those in my constituency?
    Mr. Morley: I am aware that my hon. Friend represents some less-favoured areas. This is an important matter. Farmers in marginal areas should be supported. They will have expected to receive £650 million last year in subsidies for LFAs, which is equivalent to about £26,000 for each full-time LFA English cattle and sheep farmer. We intend to support those communities and we will ensure that their interests are protected in any reform of the CAP.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Attorney-General what measures he plans to introduce to reduce the time taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to bring cases to court. [2920]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The Narey report put forward a number of proposals for reducing delay in the courts. The public consultation ended on 31 May and the Government are now looking closely at the proposals in light of the responses that they have received.
    Mr. Bruce: I welcome the Attorney-General to his post. He faces a difficult situation in ensuring that the bottlenecks that have been identified in the CPS are sorted out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be surprised to know that his colleagues in the Home Office told me, when I stressed to them that resources should go from the Home Office to his Department to get the
    452
    CPS moving, that they believe that the CPS has sufficient resources and that all that is needed is good management. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree?
    The Attorney-General: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have to disappoint him, because there are no additional resources. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have set up an independent review, whose terms of reference have been made known to the House. That may deal with some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his question.
    Dr. Iddon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please assure the House that the CPS will inform victims or relatives of victims when serious charges are downgraded, and give reasons for such downgrading?
    The Attorney-General: The first part of my hon. Friend's suggestion, which I regard as particularly important, is under active consideration. As for the assertion that there has been undue downgrading, that will be considered, among other matters, by the independent review. I welcome my hon. Friend's observations.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment, and the Solicitor-General, in another place, on his. In that context, however, I note that, even with 418 Members, new Labour cannot find two Law Officers in this House.
    In seeking to reduce the time that cases take to come to court—which the Opposition support—the Labour party has pledged to halve the time for persistent young offenders. What is the average current time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to halve?
    On the proposal that the CPS, rather than the police, informs victims of prosecuting decisions—extra work, of course—who will do that work, and has the Attorney-General been promised the necessary resources by the Home Secretary or the Chancellor?
    The Attorney-General: First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. In all the time that he held the office that I now have the honour to hold, he was unfailing in his courtesy and in the assistance that he gave me over the years, for which I thank him.
    As regards the absence of another Law Officer, I am confident that the other place will be exceedingly well served by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—[Interruption.] I hear the comment from below the Gangway that one of ours is better than two of theirs. It would be very immodest of me to subscribe to that view, and I do not do so.
    Much concern has been expressed about young offenders. I have expressed concern, as have my colleagues who take part in Home Affairs debates. The problem at the moment is that young offender cases may be referred to multi-agency panels or juvenile liaison bureaux before a decision on charging is made. That undoubtedly takes a lot of time. We want to shorten the time considerably to ensure that those against whom allegations of offending are made are brought to court speedily. The Government have set up a ministerial group on the fast-tracking of youth offenders. We will consider exceedingly urgently what can be done.

    Mr. Asil Nadir
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what are his proposals in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Asil Nadir in the United Kingdom. [2921]
    The Attorney-General: The central criminal court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Asil Nadir, and Interpol has been informed. The Serious Fraud Office intends to proceed against him on charges of theft when he returns, or is returned, to the jurisdiction.
    Mr. Winnick: I do not suppose that Nadir mistook Turkey for Torquay.
    I, too, welcome the Attorney-General to his position. What are the realistic chances that Asil Nadir will be brought to justice in this country? Will the Attorney-General promise today that he will try to persuade whoever is elected leader of the Tory party that all the stolen money that Nadir gave to the Tory party should be given to the appropriate authorities dealing with the liquidation? Would that not demonstrate that the Tory party is committed to the rule of law in practice?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that Turkey is not Torquay and that Mr. Nadir did not mistake the two places.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that the Turkish authorities were requested by Interpol to arrest Nadir if he was found in Turkey. However, since Nadir is able to claim Turkish nationality and the Turkish constitution forbids the extradition of its nationals, the authorities there declined to arrest him. Therefore, I cannot, I fear, add to my hon. Friend's substantive point by giving him any realistic prospect as to when Nadir will be returned to the jurisdiction. Let me make it known—as my predecessor did—that, if Nadir does come here, he has nothing to fear from the English courts as regards a fair trial, which he will get at any time.
    As for the use of any money given to any party, I have no responsibility for that whatever, and I am glad to say that.
    Mr. Streeter: I also welcome the Attorney-General to his Front-Bench position. Does he recall that, when he and his colleagues were on the Opposition Benches, they used to maintain week after week that it was a very simple matter to get Asil Nadir returned to this country, and that the only reason why the Government did not achieve it was the alleged connection with party funding? Now that he and his colleagues are in government, why can he not be more decisive in solving a problem that he thought was so simple when he was in opposition? Has the legal position changed, or has the Labour party stumbled on the truth?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is drawing on his imagination if he thinks for one moment that I ever suggested that this was a simple matter. As a lawyer, he must know the law and the extradition procedure. We do not recognise northern Cyprus, and therefore no extradition arrangement is in force. I have just told the House the present position on Turkey, and I have nothing to add. The legal position has not changed, as, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Did the Attorney-General see "The Cook Report" television programme on Asil Nadir,
    454
    in which, contrary to one's expectations, the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies of the state, not Asil Nadir, were exposed for their deception and dishonesty? Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the agencies involved acted correctly?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not have the advantage of seeing that television programme—like many of us in this place, I did not have the time. However, I have received a full report on the programme which, I am told, did not present an accurate or balanced picture of the investigation into Polly Peck International plc. I can add nothing to that. It would be wrong for me or the SFO to comment on that case any further, because the matter is obviously sub judice.

    Accountability
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to improve the accountability of his Department to Parliament. [2922]
    The Attorney-General: I am accountable to Parliament for the work of each of my four Departments; namely, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and my own secretariat. The Treasury Solicitor's Department is preparing an annual report and accounts. The Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Government Property Lawyers agency will shortly submit to me their statutory annual reports.
    Mr. Flynn: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend, and fellow countryman, to his new responsibility. Will his accountability, and that of his Department, extend to the publication of local reports? Will he assure me that, where appropriate, those reports will be published in his mother tongue of Welsh?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically kind remarks. Currently, there are seven CPS branches in Wales, each of which published a bilingual report for the year ended 31 December 1996. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have the report for the West Glamorgan branch. We propose to continue the system of local reports, and they will be in two languages—something that will give pleasure to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Given that we are to have 42 chief Crown prosecutors when there are currently 13, can we expect the CPS to publish prosecution figures on each police force area comparable to the Home Office statistics on recorded crime?
    The Attorney-General: The details of what will be in each report will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, of whose interest I am aware, that the reports to be published in substance will not be less than what is done now. It is very important that the public in each locality should know what is happening, and that is why we have taken the speedy decision to ensure that there is appointed a Crown prosecutor comparable to, and covering an

    455
    equivalent-sized area to, a chief constable. The public will know who is the chief constable and who is the Crown prosecutor. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office. [2924]
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office continues to deter the incidence of serious and complex fraud through effective investigation and prosecution. I will, however, be looking at the scope for further improvements as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome that answer. The Serious Fraud Office has had some fine successes, but also some
    456
    expensive failures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to beef up that organisation, with more accountants and more high-finance anti-fraud experts? Will he also consider putting a cap on legal aid, so that the taxpayer does not have to pay such huge funds to accused fraudsters?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I keep in close touch with the SFO. In the period for which figures are available, it had a conviction rate for defendants of 64 per cent. In the last year, nearly 86 per cent. of defendants were convicted.
    From my professional experience, I know that many of the cases that the SFO has to tackle are difficult, many are complex and many need substantial investigation beforehand. They are not simple cases. I will, however, do my utmost, with the director of the SFO, to ensure that it continues to have what I regard as a satisfactory record, certainly in recent years.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Proceedings on the Plant Varieties Bill.
Motion on the Solicitor General's Salary Order.
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [1st allotted day]—Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the future of the London Underground, followed by a debate on charging for NHS services. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE—Until about 7 pm, motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on sport for all on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 30 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Motion on the Satellite Television Service Regulations.
I hope that, on the following Tuesday, there will be a debate on the review of international development policies, on a motion for the Adjournment. Of course, we have already announced that Wednesday 2 July will be Budget day.
Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and provisionally for the week after.
When does the right hon. Lady expect the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to be set up, since hon. Members share her concerns about allegations against colleagues? Will she also tell us whether she expects next week to be in a position to make progress with the establishment of the other Select Committees?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the House will have an early opportunity for a debate on the intergovernmental conference at Amsterdam, as soon it has had an opportunity to study the implications of what was negotiated? Will she tell us the likely timetable of the necessary legislation resulting from the IGC?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), held a press conference this morning at which he announced the Government's intentions concerning controls on the use of fireworks? The issue is of concern to many people, and we would have expected a statement on it in the House; it should more properly have been made here than to the press.
Following today's publication of the National Audit Office's report, commissioned by the Chancellor, on the forecasts for public finances, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will make a statement to the House next week? If she cannot, and as there is no
458
indication that there will be time for a debate on that important matter next week, will she confirm that a debate will take place in the early part of the following week, and certainly before the Budget? Can she advise the House whether the previous Administration's policy documents were made available to the National Audit Office?
In view of the considerable speculation about the millennium exhibition project, and reports that, as long ago as mid-January, the Prime Minister gave Mr. Robert Ayling of British Airways an assurance that it would go ahead, might we expect a statement next week on the Government's intentions in that respect?
Mrs. Taylor: The first question was on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges; the Government are ready with names for that Committee, and discussions are going ahead through the usual channels. I hope that we shall have all the names we need to table the motion to establish that Committee next week, and that other Select Committees will soon follow.
On the intergovernmental conference and the request for a debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that legislation may be required, and that, if it is, the timetable for any debate will follow what is required in that respect. We do not at this stage see the need for any other debate; I presume that the Opposition also do not, as they could have had that in their time next Wednesday.
On the statement on fireworks by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection, I should have thought that all hon. Members would have welcomed his attempt to improve firework safety. I do not think that it was necessary to make a statement to the House on the tightening and extending of existing regulations.
I see no reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should have to make a statement on the National Audit Office report, although many of the findings may be relevant to our Budget debate. As far as I am aware, the National Audit Office had access to all the documents that it required. If the shadow Leader of the House has any information to the contrary, we shall of course consider it.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Greenwich this afternoon, and he wants it to be possible for the millennium project to go ahead. In principle, we want the project to go ahead, but we are all well aware of the shambles that we inherited from the previous Government and of the fact that proper plans were not laid, so we have set out five tests that will have to be met. We believe that the plans should be rescued if at all possible.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I welcome tomorrow's debate on the Child Support Agency as a means for the House to have a full discussion before new legislation is drafted, perhaps in another Session of this Parliament. Could that tactic be followed with other items, such as the methodology that determines standard spending assessments? There is great interest in that in Derbyshire, as we have been seriously hit by the methods that were used in the past. If we have a full debate, it might influence what happens with next year's local government finance settlement.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has cleverly tried to marry questions on two subjects. It is right that we should

459
debate the Child Support Agency on a motion for the Adjournment, because hon. Members are concerned about its workings, as they have been since it started. Methodology and how to learn from the problems that arose are being discussed by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. At some stage, we hope to look at scrutiny of legislation, and its effectiveness once legislation has been passed. I hope that we can learn from tomorrow's debate, and find what mechanisms should be applied in future.
Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Leader of the House for providing details of business next week. When does she expect copies of the details of the outcomes of the Amsterdam treaty to appear in the Library?
Will it be possible to find time for an urgent debate on education finance, particularly in respect of schools? In considering that request, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the enormous benefit of such a debate to the Government? There exists a considerable conundrum in the minds of many people. On the one hand, the Government have said that their first priority is education, education, education, but on the other the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have confirmed that the departmental spending targets of the previous Administration are to be adhered to and that there is to be no virement between one budget head and another.
The implication is that the increase in money available will be 1.2 per cent., when the money needed is more than 4 per cent., which means that, under the right hon. Lady's Administration, there will be real cuts in schools. Does she accept that such a debate will help to resolve the conundrum?
Mrs. Taylor: On the Amsterdam documents, I will try to make sure that there is no unnecessary delay, but obviously such documents are not always instantly available. I shall try to ensure that they are placed in the Library at the earliest possible time. On education finance, the Government have made it clear that, over time, we hope to move spending away from welfare towards education. On keeping to existing limits for the moment, the limits may be the same but the Government's priorities are different, as was shown by the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a brief debate on privatised transport next week? That could give us an opportunity to find out why Motorail has been replaced with a service whereby people travel on sleepers while their cars travel by road. One hopes that they reach the same destination at the same time, but it would be nice to know.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that there is concern about a range of such issues. If there were sufficient time, we should be happy to provide it for such a debate, but I am afraid that it will not be possible next week.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Lady accept that it is not necessarily the content of the statement of the Minister responsible for consumer affairs that is causing concern, but the fact that he made it outside the House? Will she give an undertaking that
460
all statements that involve significant change, as this one appears to, are made first, as a matter of courtesy, to this House?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sympathetic to the need for important statements to be made on the Floor, but if every change to regulations, on fireworks or anything else, was made by a statement on the Floor, little business would be done.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the appropriate Minister makes a statement about the scandal of homes built by the Coal Board and sold off to fly-by-night landlords and property speculators, who are using their power to create dereliction in mining communities? They are using the law courts to stop houses being demolished by local authorities in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and, I am sure, in many other coalfield areas.
It is high time that we had a Government statement saying what powers will be given to local authorities to ensure that landlords such as Dennis Rye in my constituency, who are creating havoc, are prevented from carrying on their dirty work.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of all the details of the cases to which my hon. Friend refers, but he is obviously extremely worried, and says that there is a real problem there. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. John Townend: As the British fishing industry was sold down the river at Amsterdam, where the Government failed to do away with quota hopping, will the Leader of the House find time at an early date for a debate on the fishing industry?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement about fishing yesterday; as he said, the difficulties he faced were basically the situation that he inherited from the previous Government. If anyone sold people down the river, it was the previous Government.
Mr. Joe Ashton: On the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), do the Government intend to bring another housing Bill before the House to restore the powers of compulsory purchase, not at a market rate but for what houses are worth, which is nil in the areas to which my hon. Friend refers?
That would allow us to get proper control over private landlords, who have made a fortune out of the houses to which my hon. Friend refers, especially in Warsop Vale in my constituency. Many of the houses are derelict, because they have been vandalised and smashed up. The landlords will not do anything about them. The council cannot do anything about them. There is no money to do anything. Some places look like Beirut after the war, yet no one has any power or cash to restore a decent standard of living to those mining villages.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend clearly states that there is a serious problem, as did my hon Friend the Member

461
for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). As I told my hon. Friend, I was not aware of all the details, and I shall ensure that Ministers are made aware of them.
Mr. Christopher Gill: When the Prime Minister reported to the House yesterday on the outcome of the Amsterdam intergovernmental conference, he stated that certain concessions had been achieved for our fishermen, especially in relation to quota hoppers. As existing fishermen's licences state that 50 per cent. of the catch must be landed in British ports, it appears that one of the "concessions" to which he referred was not a concession but a repetition of existing practice. So that we can be absolutely sure whether the concessions are apparent or real, may we have a debate on the common fisheries policy at an early date?
Mrs. Taylor: I see no need for such a debate. The statement yesterday was clear. The problems that we inherited were significant. We now have a definitive statement from the President of the Commission on the action that we can now take to ensure that foreigner vessels maintain economic links with the United Kingdom. That is better than the previous Government ever got near to achieving.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: In Amsterdam, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was lent a bicycle, and we all saw how valuable bicycles were there. Would my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House perhaps care to consider and ask her Cabinet colleagues to consider that it might be time that we limited the nature and quality of the traffic that is allowed to use roads in our major cities, so that bicycling can become much more popular and much more effectively used as a means of transport?
Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We can all see a role in certain circumstances for bicycles, but there are limitations. There is not time for a debate on cycling next week.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Lady has tabled a motion today for another meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee. Has she had any conversations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as to whether a similar meeting might be called of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to allow us to ask questions specific to our constituencies, and to debate the recently published review by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on fair employment practice?
Mrs. Taylor: I have had some discussions with my right hon. Friend, and she has had discussions with people in Northern Ireland. There have been a number of occasions recently on which Northern Ireland issues could be raised. In the business that I have announced today for next week and the following Monday, there are further opportunities.
Mr. John Cryer: May I urge the Leader of the House to consider having two debates—first, on the creation of a Grand Committee for London, for which there is much support in this place and outside, and
462
secondly, a debate of at least two days on Europe and the Amsterdam summit, for which there is also much support on both sides of the House? If the timetable is tight, perhaps we could have the debate towards the end of July, or even in the first week of August.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot hold out a great deal of hope on either count. In respect of a Grand Committee for London, legislation directly affecting London will be introduced later in this Parliament, when there will be plenty of opportunity to debate some of the issues about which my hon. Friend may be concerned. We shall consider what debates it will be possible to hold at the end of July, and whether we can fulfil my hon. Friend's request for a two-day debate on Europe, but I fear that the timetable may be crowded.
Mr. Tim Collins: Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the House has said that there is to be no Government time next week for debating the outcome of the intergovernmental conference? Does she not recognise that that is a clear breach of the precedent set by the previous Government? When the previous Prime Minister returned from Maastricht, we had a full debate in the House within days of the conclusion of the Maastricht treaty. Is it not extraordinary that the Government are so ashamed of the Prime Minister's deal that the Leader of the House will not even agree to a two-day debate on Europe within the next month?
Mrs. Taylor: We had a full statement from the Prime Minister yesterday; we had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on quota selling, which is a more appropriate description than quota hopping. The hon. Gentleman is plainly wrong: there has not always been a debate following conferences in Europe.
Mr. George Stevenson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 94?
[That this House condemns the continued occupation of Tibet and the persistent and continuing human rights abuses perpetrated against the Tibetan people by the Chinese authorities; and calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to enter into negotiations with the Tibetan Government-in-exile without pre-conditions to respect and preserve the cultural identity of the Tibetan people, to permit Tibetans to freely practise and express their religious beliefs, to immediately end the use of torture, beatings and arbitrary detentions and to release the eight year old boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, recognised by the Dalai Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest spiritual leader.]
The early-day motion expresses concern at the continued repression and effective policy of destruction of the culture of the people of Tibet by the Chinese authorities. Allied to this is the effective kidnapping by the Chinese authorities of the 11th Panchen Lama. Given the undoubted and long-standing concerns on both sides of the House for human rights, will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate next week on that important issue?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, and I can understand why he wants time for a debate. We share the concern about human rights abuses in Tibet expressed in that motion, and we believe that a lasting

463
solution to the problem in Tibet can be achieved only through negotiations between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan people. I understand why my hon. Friend would like a debate, but I do not think that there will be time for one next week.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While I recognise the problems faced by the Leader of the House in establishing Select Committees until events have been decided upstairs later this afternoon, may I ask her to consider urgently re-establishing the Select Committee on European Legislation, which has the authority to scrutinise all documents that come through this place, be they specifically on the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy or events that may occur as a result of the Amsterdam summit? That is an urgent matter that must be addressed by the House so that we can undertake that scrutiny.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady is right to say that that is an important issue, and it is one on which we want to move as quickly as possible. She is also right to say that events later this afternoon may have a bearing on it. We have been able to provide for scrutiny of some of the documents linked to the debate that we had before the Amsterdam summit. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should move on the issue as quickly as we can.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May I thank the shadow Leader of the House for responding to the point of order last week and reducing the number of questions that he asked—from the totally unreasonable number of 21 a fortnight ago to 16 last week, to a modest and reasonable seven today?
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the subject discussed in the pensioners parliament in Blackpool yesterday, which is the subject of early-day motion 1?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that 'all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]
The motion draws attention to the need to ensure that pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity. We could then draw attention to the fact that, if the promise made by the previous Government in 1979 had been kept, the current basic pension would be not £62 a week, but £87 a week. Can we debate how the present Government, when they have been in power for 18 years, will be able to tell the House that they have honoured that promise?
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, a number of people share his concern about the difficulties faced by many pensioners, especially some who are on extremely low incomes and do not even claim all that they are entitled to. The National Pensioners Convention has an excellent record of championing the interests of all our older citizens. My hon. Friend will know that the
464
Government are conducting a review of key areas of insecurity for elderly people, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will make announcements in due course.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Just over half an hour ago, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that he had not sought a timetable for the lifting of the beef ban, nor indeed was he seeking one. May we have an urgent debate on the problems facing the beef industry?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was present, and heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. He also knows of the difficulties created by the last Government, and knows why my right hon. Friend thought it would be foolhardy to adopt the simplistic approach that some Opposition Members seem to be adopting.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on how to improve the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service, and in particular how to improve co-ordination between the activities of the police and those of the CPS, without undermining the independence of the CPS, in order to make inroads into the appalling statistic that only one crime in 50 results in a conviction?
Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that Home Office questions will be tabled on Monday. He may be able to make some progress then. Although I sympathise with his concern about the problem that he has raised—many of us have dealt with constituency cases in which it has arisen—I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of a debate about it next week.
Mr. Robert Walter: Local education authorities have been asked by circular to submit their proposals for the organisation of nursery education in their areas by 1 July. Given that those proposals would come into effect on 1 September, may I ask when we are likely to be able to debate the Government's proposals for nursery education?
Mrs. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the deadlines to which he refers are for the interim plans. There is a fallback scheme for authorities that will not be able to have the plans in place by September. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask more about this subject, he will be able to do so next Thursday at Education and Employment questions.
Mr. Mark Todd: May I warmly welcome the proposed debate on international development, which will provide a genuine opportunity for us to debate international development issues? It will have a huge impact on the understanding of international development issues in this country, and it could also have a huge impact on the lives and conditions of millions of people around the globe.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased that we are to have that debate. It is part of the extensive consultative process that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is

465
conducting, which will lead to the production of a White Paper on the subject in the autumn. My right hon. Friend feels that it would be extremely helpful to her if she could take hon. Members' views into account.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the opportunity for us to debate London Underground on an Opposition motion next Wednesday, which I hope will reveal what an incredible increase in investment has taken place since the 1970s. I also welcome the Government's decision to issue a consultation paper shortly, before establishing a Greater London authority or an elected mayor, if that is the will of Londoners.
Will the right hon. Lady confer with the appropriate Ministers to ensure that the Government's position on the management of London Underground is made plain at the beginning of Wednesday's debate? Will she ask, for example, whether they intend the new Greater London authority or the elected mayor to oversee London Transport and London Underground, and whether they have it in mind to privatise London Underground?
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister who opens that debate will make a statement about his position. The hon. Gentleman's point could be made on Wednesday.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In respect of Wednesday's debate on London Underground, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Minister with responsibility for transport in London the hope that she will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and join me and others in accusing Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), of supporting and acquiescing in a situation in which the Association of Train Operating Companies intends to clobber 430,000 travellers in London and the south-east of England who use network cards?
Those travellers will have to endure a massive hike in the price of those cards, thus substantially disadvantaging them and diminishing London Underground revenue. It is a scandal, and on Wednesday we will have an opportunity to accuse the guilty men and women who have brought this about.
Mrs. Taylor: I can confirm that the Government are pleased to have a debate on London Underground. My hon. Friend knows the problems that have built up over the past decade or so, and the debate will provide an opportunity to explain our inheritance on taking office.
Mr. David Lidington: Will the right hon. Lady request the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement next week announcing a decision on the issue of the age of transfer between schools in Buckinghamshire? She will know that this matter has been raised before by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and will understand that schools that are due to admit extra classes need time to prepare and to have classrooms built. A decision is urgently needed, and I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would report that to her right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will know that his hon. Friend has raised this with me on a couple of
466
occasions. I have inquired about it. The proposals are far more complex than was previously suggested, and the Department is not fully in a position to respond to them. However, the local education authority recently wrote to the Department stating that it needs a decision by the end of July. I think that that might be possible.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: A statement by the Prime Minister in the absence of Amsterdam treaty texts is no substitute for proper scrutiny and cross-examination on that issue. Would the right hon. Lady clarify an earlier remark? Does she agree that no self-respecting Leader of the House could contemplate remaining in a Government who handed over the powers of the House on the royal prerogative, and that therefore a Bill must go through both Houses and receive Royal Assent before the Amsterdam treaty is ratified? Will she make that absolutely clear?
Mrs. Taylor: I spoke about legislation on the matter in reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who speaks for the Liberal Democrat party. The Prime Minister made a very full statement, and there was a great deal of cross-examination on it.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In view of some answers by the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends about the previous Government, could she make a statement next week about when we might expect a timetable for the moment at which the Government will, for the first time, begin to take responsibility for their own actions?
Mrs. Taylor: We are certainly not taking responsibility for the actions and problems of the previous Government.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would the right hon. Lady consider a debate next week or at an early date on the public policy implications of the dumping of food and meat products? Those meat products are not contaminated, but have apparently been on sale. That would give the House an opportunity to examine the concerns of my constituents, who found dumped on one site food which seems in every sense to be fit for public consumption. Perhaps the hon. Lady could find time for a debate on that, because it would be of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.]
Mrs. Taylor: There will be a debate on agriculture this very afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has heard the hon. Gentleman, is right to point out to me that the hon. Gentleman is complaining about the policy that was adopted by his own Government some time ago.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It has been widely reported that the Israeli Government are thinking of making it a criminal offence for anyone even to own a New Testament. Given the fact that that would be a scandalous violation of human rights, would it be possible to have a statement on whether that is the case, and, if it is, what the Government propose to do to bring influence to bear on the Israeli Government?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot answer for the Israeli Government, and I do not think that there would be much useful purpose in having such a debate in the House.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) notice of this matter. Last week, I was surprised to open my local paper in Eastbourne to discover that the hon. Gentleman, with my defeated Liberal Democrat opponent at the recent election, had presented a petition, signed by my constituents, about my local hospital to the Department of Health.
I am sure that you would agree, Madam Speaker, that, at the very least, that is a gross departure from the normal courtesies of the House, and may even breach parliamentary protocol. However, given the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, you may wish simply to clarify the position for all our benefit, and perhaps point out to him, as a new Member, the way in which we do things in the House.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to clarify the position, and to inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is not a point of order or a matter for me.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you look into the question whether the powers of the House are going to be transferred by royal prerogative to European Community institutions, rather than the Amsterdam treaty being ratified with the authority of a parliamentary Act of Parliament, because whether that would be legal and whether it would be your duty to intervene in the process would be very serious questions to raise?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a matter for the Leader of the House and for the usual channels, but I assure him and the House that I shall not fail in my duty in that respect, and that I will consider the matter to satisfy my own interest, curiosity and conscience.
Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. By her answer regarding fireworks and this morning's government by press conference, the Leader of the House implied that firework safety is trivial. There cannot be one hon. Member whose constituents think that.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. I can see the anger and frustration that is now rising in the House, and I am going to move on to the next business.

Common Agricultural Policy
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 9550/96, relating to a support system for producers of arable crops, 9876/96, relating to ewe and suckler cow premium schemes, 5617/97, relating to the Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/97, and 6112/97, relating to agri-monetary adjustment.]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.7 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6627/97, relating to agricultural prices for 1997–98; welcomes the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which reflects the interests of United Kingdom consumers, taxpayers and food and farming industries; and welcomes the Government's longer term aim of securing reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy which reduce food prices, save money and provide more targeted support for the rural economy and enhance the rural environment.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the common agricultural policy so early in this Parliament. It demonstrates the importance that this country, the Government and the House attach to agriculture. It also provides a chance for the House to scrutinise and to debate the European Commission's CAP price proposals for 1997–98. Those may be decided at next week's Agriculture Council meeting in Luxembourg.
The debate is primarily about agriculture policy, but first I should like to say a word about the wider aspects of agriculture and the new approach that we are taking at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Our farming and food industries are essential and dynamic sectors of our economy. I am delighted to have the opportunity to work with them and with farmers in my Copeland constituency. The safety and quality of food are vital issues that reach into every home. The Ministry has key tasks to perform on food safety, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, animal welfare, biodiversity and many others. Those are all important issues to which the Government attach a high priority.
We have, of course, inherited some difficult problems from the previous Administration. Some, if not all, of them are directly due to the decisions of previous Ministers and their approach to agriculture matters at both domestic and European level. Those problems will not be solved quickly or easily. However, it is clear that, through a constructive approach at European level, we have already made more progress in seven weeks than the previous Government did in as many years. Those deep-seated problems were never going to be solved by the previous Administration's approach. Their splits and divisions on Europe, as alive this afternoon as before the general election, made it impossible for Britain to play a full and constructive role. British consumers and farmers alike have suffered because of the Tory failures in Europe.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Does he accept that no one would seriously criticise him for not having come back from Amsterdam with a firm timetable for the lifting of the beef ban? However, to stand at the Dispatch Box, as he did earlier,

469
and say that he has not even sought to reach an agreement on a timetable will suggest to the farming community that, apart from brave words, he simply does not care.
Dr. Cunningham:I rather regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. First, I was not at Amsterdam, so he was wrong about that. Secondly, I am actively seeking an agreement. He was also wrong to suggest that it would be sensible to seek a date, especially this early in a new Administration and with the manifest failures of the Conservative Government so fresh in our minds. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten what I said barely an hour ago, his Government promised to have the beef ban lifted by last November. They had not made enough progress to get it lifted by the time the British people rightly drove them out of office, for that and many other failures.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way for the moment.
By forgoing constructive partnerships throughout Europe, the Conservative Government made a difficult situation worse. I have begun to build coalitions and to make progress on issues close to the hearts of many British people. To give just one example, our initiative during the intergovernmental conference on animal welfare recognises animals as "sentient beings", and from now on that will be a feature of all European Union common agricultural policy legislation. It will ensure that European legislation takes account of this Government's desire to see the highest possible standards of animal welfare. We have also made some progress on fishing, as I reported to the House yesterday, and we are working urgently on the beef ban.
As well as a fresh approach in Europe, I have already announced my intention to reorganise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a new mission statement, new name and new direction. I shall create an open, forward-looking Department, responsive to the needs of consumers and trusted to safeguard the health and well-being of the people and their environment. We are already making fundamental changes in the consumer interest, working towards the creation of an independent food standards agency. This is a Department that will look to the future, not the past.
I come now to the common agricultural policy price proposals. I shall say more about food safety in a moment. First, I want to speak about the CAP and the 1997–98 price proposals that are the main subject of today's motion.
The price support and aid rates set by the Agriculture Council each year under the CAP are a major determinant of farming activity in this country. This year's price proposals involve little change from the current position. Most price and aid levels are maintained. The main changes concern largely technical reductions in monthly increments in the cereals, rice and sugar sectors.
The Commission has reiterated its proposal from last year to reduce arable aids by an average of 7 per cent. It has argued that that is necessary to ensure that the
470
budgetary limits are respected, especially in 1997. However, the position for this year has now eased considerably. I am disappointed that the Commission did not propose more radical changes in CAP support in this prices package. The CAP still absorbs some £30 billion of European taxpayers' money a year.
Next week, I shall be arguing in Luxembourg for the Council to adopt all the savings that the Commission has proposed. I particularly hope that the Council will take careful note of the over-compensation of arable farmers that has been highlighted by my Ministry and by the Commission, in Brussels. The over-compensation for the price cuts agreed in 1992 strengthens our case for reducing the arable aid rates. Even if the Council is not ready to adopt the cuts at that meeting, the issue of over-compensation will be important when we reform the cereals regime later this year. I am determined that the issue should remain on the agenda.
In recent years, the Commission has recognised the desirability of giving farmers an early indication of the set-aside rate that they will receive in the coming season, enabling them to plan their plantings in good time. I shall be pressing for that action at next week's Council. The set-aside rate should be as low as possible, and preferably no higher than this year's rate of 5 per cent. I also intend to urge the Commission to change the rules, so that set-aside can make a more effective environmental contribution.
Reform of the common agricultural policy is a major plank of the Government's European policy. The current common agricultural policy is highly unsatisfactory, because it costs a great deal, artificially raises food costs for consumers and burdens our farmers with bureaucracy and production controls. The policy is also highly susceptible to fraud. The CAP must be made more relevant to all our citizens—to consumers, farmers and taxpayers alike.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise for missing the start of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but activities elsewhere detained me. May I ask him—I have given him notice of the question—about the situation facing one of my constituents, who will be penalised to the tune of £35,000 for a simple administrative error that will not cost the Exchequer anything? When the Minister talks to the Commission about CAP reform, will he suggest the possibility of being a bit more flexible when genuine errors occur in EU schemes?
Dr. Cunningham: It is news to me that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that intervention, although he may have called the Ministry in my absence. He is referring to the case of Mr. G. J. Phillips and his Farm Partnership. That matter was dealt with in another place, on 12 June 1997, in a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Donoughue. I have nothing to add to that reply.
As I said, the CAP must be made more relevant and responsive to all our citizens. The previous Administration sat back and allowed the status quo to continue for many years, and no one should have any illusions about their failure or—because of the position of isolation in Europe that we have inherited—about the difficulties of securing CAP reform. Reform will be a long and tortuous process. The new Government, however,

471
are at least prepared to embark on reform, whereas the previous one did not even get the issues to the starting line.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No; not at the moment.
I intend to work hard with my European partners to identify reforms to reduce the overall cost of the CAP. Reform will also enable the United Kingdom's efficient farming industry to exploit its national advantages in European and world markets. A move to a more market-oriented policy will be widely welcomed in the UK and will enable European farmers to compete more effectively in increasingly open world markets.
Crucially, reform will also assist entry into the EU of the central European countries that have applied for membership.
Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry, but I cannot give way at the moment. I must press on as this is a very short debate.
A first step towards achieving those goals will be the European Commission's Agenda 2000 papers, to be published next month. They will prepare the ground for the next enlargement of the European Union. A key element will be the Commission's analysis of the future of the CAP. The papers will examine the three most expensive CAP regimes—cereals, beef and dairy—as well as rural development policy. I want more and better targeted schemes to help the rural economy and the rural environment.
In the face of anticipated international trading pressures and EU enlargement, reform is inevitable. I am pressing the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, to follow up Agenda 2000 as quickly as possible with concrete proposals to the Council. I will also use my presidency of the Agriculture Council, which begins next January, to give those proposals a powerful impetus. It is important for the Council to put the reforms in place early so that all our farmers have ample time to prepare.
I should like briefly to mention two wider agricultural issues, which will be central to my Department's work in the coming months. They are the implementation of the James report on food standards and the problems of BSE.
I have already made clear my commitment to protect the interests of consumers and to introduce greater openness and transparency into the business of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government are building fundamentally new arrangements for handling food safety and standards. We are already making progress in taking forward our plans for the food standards agency based on the proposals put forward by Professor James, to whom I express the Government's thanks. I have made changes within MAFF to prepare for the creation of that new agency and established a new food standards and safety group to bring together many of its functions. The first phase of public consultation on Professor James's report on possible structures and the remit for the agency ends tomorrow. The Government's intention is to issue a White Paper in the autumn with a view to publishing a draft Bill as soon as possible thereafter.
472
There is little doubt that some of the events of recent years have massively reduced consumer confidence in the safety and standards of our food. There is no room for complacency by anyone, whether on farms, in food processing and preparation activities or, for that matter, in the Ministry itself. We shall insist on and enforce the highest standards in abattoirs and food processing. Industry and consumers alike called for an independent food standards agency, but the previous Government failed to respond, despite all the evidence. This work is being given the highest priority by my colleagues and myself, and we shall give every opportunity to the House and the people to discuss our proposals openly, to criticise and to propose changes where it is thought appropriate.
I should also like to give the House a brief update on the BSE situation following my statement last week on the question of removing the ban on British beef exports. Officials have held talks with the Commission about the criticisms that the Scientific Veterinary Committee has made of the proposals for a certified herds scheme, proposals made by the previous Administration, which we have sustained and supported. The Commission has offered some constructive advice and will clearly do what it can to help us make progress.
Our task is to consider urgently how best to respond to the scientific criticisms. Our aim is to table further proposals in Brussels, which I hope will stand a good chance of winning support, both from the scientific experts and from the Governments of the European Union. We are determined to sustain pressure for an early lifting of the export ban. That is in the interests of all beef producers across the United Kingdom, and I assure the House that it is and will remain at the top of our agenda.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the serious problem that he is trying to face up to, as the previous Government did, would be easier to resolve if he and other Ministers in Europe were willing to look at the chronic problem of the blatant over-production of beef in Europe—it is increasing almost every week—and the reducing consumer market?
Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is over-production, not just of beef, but of cereals and dairy products. The need for reform of the CAP in all those areas is staring us in the face. The economic realities of life will bear down on us sooner or later because of the requirements of the World Trade Organisation, the necessary changes for the enlargement of the European Union and simply because, if we continue as at present, we shall price ourselves out of the opportunity to get high-value European Union products into growing world markets. I agree that a fundamental restructuring of the production of beef, cereals and milk is essential to the success and economic well-being of our farmers.
Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister agree that a major structural reform of the CAP is an essential prerequisite of the enlargement of the European Union? Does he also agree that more progress on enlargement at the Amsterdam summit, where very little was achieved, would have served as a motor for the reforms that he is suggesting?
Dr. Cunningham: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for reform. I have said it many times

473
today. We are strong supporters of the enlargement of the European Union. We shall not do anything to hinder it. If the hon. Gentleman is disappointed about the lack of progress on enlargement at Amsterdam, he should direct his attention elsewhere in Europe to find the cause. He will not find it in the proposals or the attitudes of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and this Administration.
On 2 June, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recommended that unless the Community introduced EU-wide measures on specified risk materials, we should take unilateral action against beef imports. It specifically recommended extending the UK's controls on sheep and goat materials to include those proposed by the Commission in 1996—the removal of the spleen from sheep and goats older than six months and of the spinal cord from sheep and goats older than one year. It also recommended that, in the absence of Community measures, we should apply our existing controls on specified bovine materials to imports.
I reconfirm to the House that that is our intention. I should much prefer the European Union to endorse the proposals that Commissioner Fischler, to his credit, has retabled. The proposals have the support of Mr. Van Aartsen, the current President of the Agriculture Council, whom I met for discussions on those issues again yesterday. I believe that they also have the support of the appropriate Committees in the European Parliament. It is for our European colleagues to take that wide-ranging advice and act on it. I hope that they will, but if they do not, I shall table the four orders that we have already drafted—they are in my office now—to ensure that beef and bovine products imported from countries where BSE exists are subject to the same rigorous health safeguards as British-produced beef.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I back the right hon. Gentleman on that, but I have one qualification. He confined the proposed prohibition to countries in which BSE exists. Beef can travel within the European Union single market. The absence of confirmed cases in one country does not mean that beef or beef products from that country come from cattle free of BSE.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that important point. The orders that I intend to lay would make it an offence to import beef into this country from a country where BSE existed, but where the beef had not been subject to the same rigorous controls on the removal of specified risk materials. It will therefore be the responsibility of importers to ensure that the beef that they import is identified by country of origin and has been so treated. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an important question, I shall double-check with my officials to ensure that that is so.
As I said on 5 June, we are determined to ensure that any beef imported into the UK meets the very high standards that we have set our industry, and which, to their credit, our producers are ensuring are enforced. I should stress that measures proposed in respect of sheep are purely precautionary. There is no evidence at all that BSE occurs in the national flock, but, again, we are operating on the advice of SEAC on the safety-first principle.
474
The Government are also committed to action to ensure that BSE is eradicated completely. The number of new cases of BSE has fallen to about 100 a week compared with 1,000 a week at its height in 1993. The level is now at its lowest for eight years. As the House knows, there are independent forecasts that, taking into account maternal transmission, the disease in the UK will be close to extinction by 2001. However, those are forecasts and no more than that. We shall certainly do everything that we can in government to ensure that that becomes a reality—then, if not sooner.
There has been some speculation in the farming press that we might be considering relaxing the ban on the feeding of meat and bonemeal to pigs and poultry. Such action is out of the question. We have no intention of revoking the measures that were rightly introduced by the previous Administration, and we shall uphold them firmly and effectively.
I refer to the amendment tabled by the Opposition, which Madam Speaker has selected. [Interruption.]
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to do so.
Mr. Dawson: My right hon. Friend has made some serious commitments on dealing with the monstrously difficult and dangerous issue of BSE contamination. We must all be impressed by his determination to deal with the aspects that he has discussed.
One element that my right hon. Friend did not cover—I thought that he was going to touch on it, but he turned to the amendment—is what we shall do with material that is mainly in a rendered state and predominantly from animals culled under the over-30-months scheme, which is being stored in its hundreds of thousands of tonnes around the country. I should very much appreciate a word from my right hon. Friend on that. I am sure that he will agree that it is absolutely vital to deal with such material safely and effectively and to dispose of it once and for all in ways that do not threaten people's health and well-being, especially for those who live in areas surrounding animal rendering plants.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That was a good intervention, but perhaps the next one could be brief.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has found his brief.
Dr. Cunningham: I have now found the amendment, which I had temporarily misplaced. I do not need any briefing on the amendment. It does not merit briefing.
First, I happily respond to the important point raised by my hon. Friend. I can assure him that all processes, including novel ones, will need to satisfy statutory environmental requirements. The Intervention Board will let contracts only with companies that obtain the necessary statutory consents, which aim to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health

475
or harming the environment. As I have implied, that is a matter for the Intervention Board rather than for me as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I assure the House that there is no intention of moving from those stringent requirements.
The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition need detain the House only briefly. It is a piece of remarkable effrontery. To suggest that, after seven weeks in office, the Government should be criticised for not making sufficient progress in the lifting of the export ban, which is the result of the Conservative Government's ineptitude, can be described only as vacuous effrontery. [Interruption.] As I said, I do not need any briefing to deal with this piece of nonsense.
The amendment also suggests that we have not made enough progress on speeding up the selective cull. The previous Administration said that they would implement the selective cull. They delayed implementing it until March this year. That is the record. I well recall from recent exchanges Conservative Members expressing the view that they did not wish to be reminded of their Government's record. I can understand that. But one thing is sure: having had so many opportunities in office to deal with these things and having failed, Conservative Members should be the last people to table such amendments and to complain about the circumstances faced by our beef farmers, because the situation is all their responsibility.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will recall that last week, during his statement on UK beef exports, he referred to two telephone conversations that he had had with the two European Commissioners, as a result of which he felt hopeful. What precisely led him to be hopeful last week, which could inform today's debate?
Dr. Cunningham: Both Commissioners immediately agreed that their officials and MAFF officials should sit down to secure answers to the questions raised by the Scientific Veterinary Committee. It is important to draw the distinction that that was not a Commission decision but a committee of experts decision, which is a report to the Commission. The Commission says that it wants to help us to find answers to the questions raised by the Scientific Veterinary Committee. That is a helpful response. It might have said that it was not interested in answers to those questions because the scheme will now fail as a result of the report. But it did not say that, and that is what gave me some cause for hope. I do not want to exaggerate it, but, as I have said, we have been talking ever since and my officials have had talks in Brussels on that subject this week. We shall continue to work with the Commission in the hope that the certified herds scheme—the proposal, I emphasise, of the previous Administration—can be accepted and implemented in the United Kingdom. If we can achieve it, that will be a small but significant first step in the raising of the ban.
In conclusion, everyone involved in the agriculture and food industries must understand that high standards of food production, the health and confidence of consumers and the success of British agriculture are all inextricably linked. The Government are dedicated to ensuring the success of British agriculture and the highest quality and standards for our consumers and the environment. I am confident that the industry has the robustness,
476
determination and skills to face the challenges positively and to come through them stronger and better able to compete. I commend the motion to the House.
4.39 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, to leave out from "1997–98" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"but notes that the Government has made no progress in lifting the export ban on United Kingdom beef and beef products; and urges that greater effort be made to speed up the selective cull now to meet the concerns raised by the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee over the implementation of the proposed Export Certified Herd Scheme and to consider alternative schemes which offer a real prospect of EU agreement to commence the lifting of the ban as soon as possible."
This is but a three-hour debate, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will wish me to be brief; I shall seek to oblige.
We have just heard the first substantive speech on agriculture that the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made from the Front Bench. It coincides with my last.
Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman looks happy about it.
Mr. Hogg: I always look happy.
The right hon. Gentleman will find his period in office interesting. He will also find it frustrating: because of the nature of the common agricultural policy, most of the decisions for which he has nominal responsibility in this country are shaped and determined by the European Council.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be the last Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I say that because I am aware that there are within the Labour party a number of policies which, if adopted, would spell the end of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that would be a serious blow to the British farming industry. Therefore, for personal reasons—and for wider ones—I wish him well in his responsibilities.
The price proposals that are set out in the documents before the House are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, unremarkable. They are much as to be expected, in the context of the decisions that have been taken and the rather tight budgetary circumstances that exist. I have few comments to make on the price proposals.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the set-aside rates for the planting season 1997–98: that it is important to obtain from the Council a clear sign of the proposed rate as soon as possible, because farmers need certainty. I have no difficulty with a rate of 5 per cent. or thereabouts.
When the right hon. Gentleman considers the price proposals, I hope that he will keep it in mind that 1997 is likely to be a difficult financial year for British farming. There are many reasons for that, but the revaluations will have a serious impact on profitability. Two points are worth making. First, as the House will recall, as a result of the decisions that I took when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, most of the direct support payments will retain, for a time, their pre-revaluation value—that is important—but there is a possibility, I put it no higher than that, of making a compensation payment in respect of loss of income.

477
I made it plain, during the election and before, that I would press the European Union to establish a fund, although at that stage I was not able to give a commitment to make a payment from that fund. That is the right position to take. Indeed, it is the position that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in answer to questions.
Dr. John Cunningham indicated assent.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, so there is no point in hon. Members on the Government Benches laughing.
What will happen is that the National Farmers Union will make a claim at the back end of this year. The case for compensation, because of the extent and the number of revaluations, is now greater than it was at the beginning of the year, and therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to what is said to him.
The right hon. Gentleman has outlined in brief form the case for reform of the common agricultural policy, and I wholly agree with what he said. To us in this country, the case for common agricultural policy reform appears overwhelming. The policy itself is indeed old-fashioned. It has created an economy that is tightly regulated, tightly controlled, featherbedded and extremely protectionist. It is expensive, yet it has not delivered higher living standards to many who make a living from fanning, or to many—perhaps even more important—who live in rural areas. It has had a profoundly prejudicial effect both on the environment and on food prices. It is also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said earlier, deeply wasteful.
Moreover—this is a point that the right hon. Gentleman will focus on when he has been in the Agriculture Council for some time—the mechanisms for policy making are profoundly unsatisfactory. They are deeply intrusive into the way in which farmers and the food industry carry out their business. In truth, most of the those who sit around the Council table, and most of the people who advise those who do so, have but a very slight knowledge of the practical consequences of the policies on which they are asked to vote. The case for change is, for a variety of reasons, overwhelming.
The right hon. Gentleman said in broad terms that he is seeking a market-driven economy in which farmers produce what the market wants and at a price that the market is prepared to pay. I share his view. I make a further point. We should incorporate an agricultural policy into an overarching policy for the rural areas. Agriculture and agricultural policy is a critical element in any policy for rural areas. It is not to be underrated. [Interruption.] I shall explain why I did not do it in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] But it is not the only policy. Other policies need to be taken into account—for example, relating to the environment, social questions, infrastructure, diversification and so on.
During my time, and that of my predecessors in the Ministry, we incorporated a number of policies into the framework, for example objective 5b. What is lacking is the overarching approach, which I deem to be extremely important. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to produce a policy for the countryside, he will have my support and
478
that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will be subject to provisos, of course. The overall cost must not exceed the cost of the existing budget. There needs to be a high degree of subsidiarity. It is important that we should not accept regulations that are unlikely to be as tightly enforced in Europe as in the United Kingdom. It is important, too, that we emphasise the principle that all payments that are made should have their purpose clearly stated; should be capable of being properly monitored; should be justified against precise criteria; and in the end should be funded by the taxpayer, not the consumer.
On all those policies, the right hon. Gentleman will have the support of most of the House, but he will find that he lacks allies in Europe. That is why progress has been so difficult and slow. The case for fundamental change in the common agricultural policy is not a popular cause among the Agriculture Ministers in Europe. On the general issue, he will find support from Commissioner Fischler. I recognise that fact and commend Commissioner Fischler for his attitude.
In general terms, the right hon. Gentleman will probably find support from the Swedes, sometimes from the Dutch, sometimes from the Danes. On specific matters, he will be able to forge alliances, for example with the Italians on milk quotas, but—this is the important point always to keep in mind—there is no general support within the Agriculture Council for root-and-branch reform. There will be reform—there has been reform—but it is always pushed by events rather than by a rational discussion of what should be. Some events are already in place and there will be more: the existing budgetary constraints, the commitments that we have taken under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the likely commitments that we will take under the World Trade Organisation talks that are soon to start and, of course, enlargement. However, the process of reform will be gradual, frustratingly slow and always driven by events, rather than by rational decision making.
The Minister will find that there is a deeply held view within the Council that matters agricultural should be exclusively matters for the Agriculture Council itself.
Dr. John Cunningham: Nonsense.
Mr. Hogg: I am glad to hear the Minister say that. It is a terrible error.
Dr. Cunningham: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is making a good speech, for his kind remarks about me taking this office. I suspect that many of the problems that he faced in Europe were not of his own making, but were the creation of the former Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary. He had to live with the consequences of what they said and did. I was not describing his comments as nonsense—I was agreeing with him. It is nonsense to leave huge expenditures to the Agriculture Council, and they should be on the agenda of ECOFIN and other ministerial Councils.
Mr. Hogg: I had so interpreted the Minister. When he talks to colleagues in the Council on enlargement, he will find that many Agriculture Ministers would prefer to retain the CAP as is, even if that were to prevent enlargement from taking place. I hope that he will come to the conclusion that it is important to involve Chancellors, Presidents, Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers—and those yet greater than Agriculture Ministers—in the issue.

479
There are four specific points that I would like to make on the documents. First is the question of modulation. The Minister has made the point that I wanted him to make—that policies of modulation would be very much contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom and must be resolutely resisted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) achieved a great victory on that matter in 1992.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is important that somebody makes the point that opposition to modulation is not universal within the United Kingdom. In the Farmers Union of Wales—and, I think, among many members of the National Farmers Union in Wales—there is strong support for the principle of modulation. I ask all parties not to close their eyes to this issue, and at least to be open to examining the feasibility of allowing modulation on a varying basis between different countries and regions. It is very important not to close the door on that.
Mr. Hogg: I was aware that there were those who disagreed with me on that point. I considered the argument when I was the Minister, and the real danger is one of principle. Once one accepts the principle of modulation in one sector, it is difficult so to confine it. That is one of the reasons why I came firmly to the conclusion that it would be wrong to support policies of modulation.
There are three other brief points I wish to make. The Minister must consider milk quotas this year, and I hope that he will robustly resist any proposals to cut unilaterally the United Kingdom's allocation. I hope also that he will press as robustly as he can for inter-state transferability.
On potatoes—not a matter that the right hon. Gentleman will have focused on directly yet—there is a powerful case for a lightweight regime, and I stress the lightness of the weight. If the choice were between a heavyweight regime and no regime, 1 would prefer no regime, but a lightweight regime is desirable.
Finally, I wish to make a comment on beef in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. Beef is in over-production, and exceeds consumption by a substantial amount, and that can be addressed partly by policies to encourage consumption. Those should be primarily financed by the industry, but it may be that the EU and Governments have a role to play. However, we must encourage a reduction in production. That will be hard, and certainly must include a reduction in support prices—for example, intervention prices—and policies designed to encourage extensification.
I shall refer briefly to BSE—a subject with which I have a certain grim familiarity. I sympathise with the Minister in his predicament, in that despite all his meetings, telephone calls and consultations, he has no timetable and no bankable assurances and has made no progress. That said, provided he continues to follow the policies that I put in place—which he has been following almost in their totality—he will have my support.
The Minister is right to press ahead with the certified herds scheme. My bet is that the Commission and the Council will propose some form of Northern Irish solution, and I will not criticise him if he takes that offer. He should treat it as but the first step and urgently seek comparable treatment for other parts of the United
480
Kingdom. He is right also to press the case urgently for the exemption of cattle born after 1 August last year, and beef products from those cattle. There is a point on maternal transmission, but suitable safeguards can be incorporated in such a scheme, which I believe is intellectually wholly justified.
The Minister has talked about an EU-wide offal ban or regime and he is following on from our proposals and policies. In December last year, the Commission proposed an EU-wide offal regime. We supported it, but the Council did not. We pressed the Commissioner to come forward with further proposals, and I am glad that he is doing so. I hope, and I am confident, that the Minister will support him.
If such proposals are not passed by the Council, the right hon. Gentleman will be right—I would have done exactly the same—to impose a national ban on imports from those EU countries that do not have an appropriate offal control regime comparable with our own and where there is a reasonable risk that BSE is present either in the national herd or in the beef products being manufactured. That is four square within the policies that we adopted.
The Minister spoke briefly about his view of the Department, and I do not dissent very much from what he said. I always regarded my paramount duty, and that of the Department, as being to the consumer. The overwhelming duties, obligations, interests and concerns of MAFF are the quality of food and food safety. MAFF is not in the pockets of the producer, although it is perfectly true that the interests of the producer and of the manufacturer are important to MAFF. If one must make a choice between them, the consumer comes first. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and I proposed the chief food safety adviser and the Food Safety Council. The Minister has preferred an agency. So be it—one can achieve results in various ways.
I shall make two points about the proposed agency, although we shall consider the detailed proposals when they are produced. First, Ministers must remain accountable for the implementation of policy. Nothing else will be acceptable. Secondly, if the Minister wants the public to be reassured—they need reassurance, although I think much of the uncertainty is unjustified—it is important that the agency or the body giving the assurance is independent, authoritative and remote from the process of implementation. If the body that is monitoring and commenting on food safety is also the body implementing food policy, I fancy that there will be no great reassurance.
I spent a lot of time—although less than I would have liked because of BSE—visiting factories, processors and, of course, farms. I came away enormously impressed with the high quality and safety of British food. I am not for a moment trying to deny that there are improvements that could be made here and there. I know perfectly well that the standards in some abattoirs are not what we would wish—we have been driving them up, but there are further improvements to make. However, to pretend that British food is not of the highest standard is a caricature. Frankly, much of the criticism that I have read and heard, denigrating the quality and safety of British food, is arrant nonsense. We have a right to be proud of the British food industry and I hope that the Minister will take every opportunity to say so.

481
Finally, I must say a brief word about the relations that I hope the ministerial team will have with the farming community, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others. As I said, MAFF's principal duties are to the consumer. If one has to choose, that is where the main obligation lies. None the less, it is important to maintain a close relationship with the farming community, whose interests are important. That community plays a central part in the rural economy and has a lot to teach us in this place. The practical implications of policy are not always immediately apparent to officials or—dare I say it—Ministers. Early discussion and consultation, therefore, are enormously valid.
In that context—I hope the Minister will forgive me for making a less gracious remark—I strongly deprecate the right hon. Gentleman's decision to do away with the regional panels. I found them valuable. They were a good source of advice and information and information gathering will be impoverished by their destruction.
The farming community is worried and troubled. It feels unsafe in Labour's hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] No, the community feels unsafe in Labour's hands for a variety of reasons. First, it sees the Labour party as an urban party. Secondly, it sees the party as being vulnerable to pressure from single-interest groups and I am bound to say that I think the community is right. There are already signs that the countryside will be prejudiced by a Labour Government because of their policy on fox hunting, for example, the policy towards badgers and the position that some hon. Members have on occasion taken on the export of live animals, as well as what has frequently been said on the right to roam.
The farming community is right to be troubled. I do not believe that the future of the countryside and the farming community is safe in Labour hands.
Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is ruining a perfectly good and credible speech with all this nonsense at the end about farmers and rural communities not feeling safe with Labour. The Conservative party has no representatives in Scotland, which is quite rural, or in Wales, which is pretty rural. I and my colleagues who have represented rural areas for many years have the largest majorities that we have ever had—that is certainly true in my case in 27 years in the House—so he is talking absolute nonsense. Of course, farmers have concerns, some of which are legitimate and some of which are not necessarily as they think, but I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that their concerns are principally a consequence of the failures of the previous Administration. That is what has caused farmers so much trouble—not the advent of a Labour Government, who are well in touch with rural communities and need no lessons from him about how to represent them as we have been doing it effectively for a very long time.
Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman deceives himself. Had the Parliamentary Secretary been able to meet his commitment to attend the Lincolnshire county show yesterday—as I did—where his absence was much noted, he would have heard many of the anxieties that I have expressed today.
482
I do not intend to end primarily on a discordant note, however. So, if the Minister promotes the interests of the British farming community and of British agriculture, he will receive support from us of a sort that we never received from Labour when we were in government. He needs to remember, however, that the workings of his Ministry are dominated by Europe and that the European agricultural policy is largely driven by national self-interest. It is true that parsnips are not buttered by good words. There is no substitute for a vigorous assertion of the British national interest. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well if he does that and, if needs must, he must be ready to stand alone in the Council.
5.4 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: There could be no more dramatic demonstration of the changes made seven weeks ago than the fact that the Conservative agriculture spokesman in this debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), had only four Conservative Back Benchers sitting behind him. Strikingly, we have also seen only two of the Europhobe guerrillas from the Opposition in the Chamber—the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who are both beloved by Labour Members. It is strange for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remark that Labour is seen as an urban party. He should look at the map after the recent general election.
Agriculture in the United Kingdom has many forces tugging at it, not least climate change, which even the common agricultural policy does not seek to control at this stage. Two of the chief tugging forces are the manipulative power of the CAP and the controlling force exercised by the buying power of the giant supermarket and fast-food chains. The latter have the power to control the margins of primary agricultural and horticultural producers and are extending that power as their smaller competitors are increasingly pushed out of business. Although that is not directly germane to the debate, it demonstrates a pressure on our agriculture industry that will increasingly be felt alongside any changes in the CAP that reduce the prices of agricultural produce.
At the same time, as has been said, European enlargement will present a further challenge as, of course, does the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The CAP cannot continue as it is in the context of enlargement. MAFF estimates the cost of its continuance at £15 billion ecu a year for Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Hungary alone; so, revisions to the CAP have to have enlargement very much in mind. The two will be inextricably intertwined.
The CAP was conceived, sensibly—as was British agricultural policy in 1947—to avoid food shortages and the collapse of parts of the industry, but it has metamorphosed over the years to preside over an era of surplus. Farming throughout Europe is now efficient in varying degrees, intensive in varying degrees and stable, with periodic disasters, of course, such as BSE. The EU is effectively self-sufficient in food and certainly in basic foodstuffs, but the CAP has not changed radically, as it should have done, to deal with the removal of its initial purpose. Instead, there has been an increasingly complex system of subsidies and quotas, which seek to second-guess the market and to control the ever increasing efficiency and productivity of our farmers. The

483
consequences for the taxpayer in the European Union and for the hugely inflated bureaucratic burden placed on farmers have been unacceptable.
The European Union seems to have lost sight of the fact that interventionism and protectionism—both key features of the CAP—are not part of article 39 of the treaty of Rome. The whole tangled system has arisen as a result of ad hoc responses, seeking to hold together vastly different agricultural traditions and communities in the European Union. I do not see how we can sustain much longer a system that seeks to embrace tobacco farmers in Crete, hill sheep farmers in Cumbria and everything in between. It does not make sense.
We have ended up with expensive absurdities in the United Kingdom, such as the dairy regime and set-aside. The dairy quota in the UK has resulted in our not being allowed to produce enough milk to meet our domestic requirements, while other countries are permitted to produce enough to allow them substantial exports.
Britain, because of its geography and its farmers' efficiency, is probably the country best placed to supply all the milk that it needs itself and to export, but the quota system prevents that. Furthermore, the value attached to milk quota makes it almost impossible for new entrants who do not inherit to get into dairy farming at all.
It is hard for any man or woman in the street to understand why a country such as ours, with a huge adverse imbalance of trade in food, pays farmers to set aside good growing land and pays bureaucrats to administer the system. EU agricultural exports can compete on the world market only through a labyrinth of subsidies, all open to fraud, while home markets are protected against imports.
Clearly, the CAP must be reformed drastically, and the quicker the better, but I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that the difficulties in getting agreement in the EU on the extent and nature of reform are immense.
One basis for the way forward lies in the impulse behind the Cork declaration and in the underlying strategy behind the Labour party's policy document, "A Working Countryside", which the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), played a large part in putting together. I know, from what he and my right hon. Friend the Minister have said, that they are thinking of changing the title and mission statement of their Ministry, to reflect a more realistic emphasis on rural policy and food policy as a whole, rather than on simply the manipulation of production.
The National Farmers Union also addressed that question in "Real Choices", which I consider a seminal document, published about three years ago. At the centre of what we must campaign for should be the reduction and, in most cases, ending of subsidy payments, and an end to centralised supply control.
Agriculture will never be an entirely free market, for the simple reason that no state can entirely relinquish its grip on the environmental consequences of farming or risk its overall food supply in difficult times, but the CAP must be made to end those controls that most distort the market in agricultural produce, and allow farmers to compete openly for their home market and for the European and world markets, which are the biggest of the challenges.
484
The phasing out of subsidies and quotas would also mean phasing out intervention buying, surpluses and crop destruction or give-away—the symbol for most people of the CAP' s malfunctioning. Most British farmers would be well placed to compete in a freer market. The huge budget reductions that should accrue from such a process should, at least in part, go back to rural areas for conservation work, environmental enhancement and economic regeneration of the rural areas—which are now largely represented by Labour Members. The two processes would have to be integrated over a reasonable period, so that farm incomes are not slashed before the new support systems are in place.
Britain has fairly wide experience, although not lavishly funded, of agri-environmental schemes, on which the Select Committee on Agriculture reported earlier this year. I noted in Question Time earlier today that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, announced that the Government would respond to that in the near future; I look forward to that.
I hope that the Government will consider the report's recommendations—which were perhaps not as fiercely expressed as I would have liked, but are along the right lines—and consider them as possible pilots for the thrust of a reformed CAP. In particular, I hope that they will consider the recommendation to integrate the schemes into a single, national framework, which would make the monitoring and administration of the system more efficient. I believe that the Welsh Office has already considered the consequences of a Wales-wide scheme, and that might be an efficient way in which to begin—although I leave it to Welsh Members to comment further.
The Select Committee also recommended that farmers should be encouraged to draw up farm conservation plans. That could be happening now, and we need not wait too long for it. I hope, too, that the Government will consider training schemes for farmers and farm workers in environmental management, and ways of assisting new entrants go into farming and horticulture.
Decoupling subsidy from production and freeing up the market must be accompanied by encouragement for farmers to reduce intensification, in turn reducing the use of agrochemicals and grazing intensity in less-favoured areas. There should be incentives for farmers to plant trees in nitrate-sensitive areas, for example. There is a host of suggestions in the report that add up to a way forward for a new CAP.
It will become clear that addressing socio-economic difficulties in less-favoured areas, alongside reduction in support for production, must be undertaken on a regional basis. Most measures will have to be region specific, and could well be in the form of regional development programmes, as suggested in the previous Government's document "European Agriculture: the Case for Radical Reform", which I believe was published last year. That might well fit with the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for regional development agencies.
We should put much more effort into organic farming. The United Kingdom falls way behind some of our EU partners, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said in Question Time. Organic growers need help with rapid transportation and distribution if organic produce is to seize a proportion of the market. Vegetables, for example,

485
soon lose their attractiveness alongside mass-produced, rapidly distributed vegetables on supermarket shelves, if they begin to dry out and—[Interruption.]
Mr. Mike Hall: There has been a disturbance in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is the new leader of the Tory party.
Mr. Pickthall: Well, that is good news—for us.
In the changes that are necessary—not the one of which we have just heard—to reduce the growth of intensive agriculture, there are powerful demands for diversification. It would be preferable for the change of direction to come about through the activities represented by agri-environmental schemes rather than through the growth of the theme-park variety of diversification. Increasing numbers of large housing developments on former agricultural land, golf courses, driving ranges and motor bike scrambling tracks will not lead to environmental improvement or significant rural economic regeneration. Last year's Countryside Commission document on the future role of agri-environment schemes was right when it said:
"while we work for broader CAP reform, we could use agri-environment and other experimental approaches to test out and refine environmental farming systems which could be adopted more widely in the event of such reform."
The farming community in Britain in recent years has shown itself remarkably hostile to the CAP, even those farmers who benefit substantially from subsidies. Hill farmers in the north of England tell me that they could not survive without the brown envelopes, as they put it, but equally they are deeply bothered about having to rely on subsidies for up to 75 per cent. of their income. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary earlier gave an average figure of £26,000 per sheep farm. That is an extraordinary figure. There is something very odd about hill farmers being paid to run sheep as glorified lawn mowers, keeping the fells trimmed to please the eyes of day trippers.
The NFU's document "Real Choices" and the general attitude of British farmers convince me that there has never been a better time for a British Government to work with people in agriculture to present a powerful case in Europe for reform. Add to that the fact that we now have a Government who are prepared to try to build, rather than ruin, alliances in Europe to achieve sensible, radical reform, and I hope, and anticipate, that the early years of the new century will see a more rational, less expensive and more environmentally friendly agriculture system that takes advantage of world markets on a more equal footing.
Ministers have a huge responsibility, and a huge opportunity, in that endeavour. I believe that they carry the good will of a large majority of the British people, including farmers. They will confront conflicting sectional interests in the industry, and the huge regional and national self-interest of the countries of the European Union, but the logic of what they are about is relentless and inescapable. The CAP is out of date, costly and wasteful. There is a broad consensus on that across the House and, I think, throughout the country. My right hon. Friend's start is welcome. I wish Ministers well in seeing it through to a satisfactory conclusion.
5.22 pm
Mrs. Caroline A. Spelman: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I thank the House in advance for listening, given the foreshortened length of the debate. The House will appreciate that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Iain Mills, with a note of sadness. He was much respected in Meriden as a good constituency Member. He worked hard for those in need, especially in Chelmsley Wood in the north of the constituency, where he helped to secure a local Benefits Agency office. The sad circumstances of Iain's death must be a challenge to us all not to let a colleague down and to try harder to help colleagues facing problems or ill health. The House will want to reassure his widow that Iain's tragedy will strengthen our resolve to care for each other in the years ahead.
I wanted to speak in the debate on agriculture because of the acute pressures on the countryside in my constituency, especially the Meriden gap, a narrow corridor of green belt only six miles wide at its narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham. As a newcomer to the area, selected only 11 weeks before the general election, I was struck by the fragile character of this rural area. Meriden, as the name implies, lies at the very centre of England and boasts excellent communications. With Birmingham international airport, the west coast main line and the midlands motorway network passing through, one can reach London, Bristol, Manchester, Paris or Amsterdam in an hour and a half—except on a bad day, in which case one would be jolly lucky to get to Wolverhampton in that time.
Meriden has conceded some of its best countryside to the prestigious national exhibition centre, a beneficiary of those good communications. That illustrates the willingness of my constituents to move with the times and be well connected, to welcome the facilities of modern business and transportation. However, that comes at a price. One can still find idyllic green country lanes in the villages of Barston, Berkswell and Hampton in Arden, but rising over the brow of the hill one is soon reminded of the proximity of the cities by the sound of traffic and the glow of lights.
What happens to the Meriden countryside will depend on the future shape of the common agricultural policy. The beef crisis has placed an exceptional strain on small family farms devoted to dairy and beef farming. Uncertainty has probably been the greatest strain. As we have heard that the incidence of BSE has fallen from 1,000 cases a week to 100 and that there is a prospect of eradicating the disease by 2001, a timetable for lifting the ban must now be possible. Meriden's small farms are small by British standards, but they are far from small in European terms. It is the Meriden-sized farms that may fall through the gap between very small farms, which are supported to prevent the desertification of the countryside as in rural Greece or Portugal, and the large farms typical of the Beauce in the Paris basin, which could probably survive with no support at all. I hope that the Minister agrees that any move towards modulation would be counter-productive to efforts to reform the CAP into a more market-oriented policy. It would disadvantage British farmers and could result in Meriden's farms going under concrete for ever.
Meriden's farmers will also struggle to compete if the support system for the CAP is not overhauled before the enlargement of the European Union. Anyone who has

487
visited the vast collectivised farms of eastern Europe will realise the competitive advantage that they would enjoy, with their economies of scale and low wage costs. Unless the CAP is reformed into its separate economic and social aspects, it will collapse under the strain of supporting huge east European farms with unrealistic subsidies. I urge the new Government to fight hard to prevent British farmers from being disadvantaged by CAP reform and to watch out for the national aids that are often used by European countries to offset the impact of reform but distort agricultural markets.
Only a small percentage of my constituents are farmers, but the land that they tend, and the environment that it offers, is what attracts many more people to quit the city and raise their families in a relatively healthy, safe and harmonious environment. Those who choose to live in the leafy suburbs of Knowle and Dorridge have weighed up the benefits of dwelling poised between town and country. All too often, I am shown new developments where once stood bluebell woods and open fields. Residents are right to protest at the loss of the rural amenity for which they originally moved to the area. This is where the values of middle England are nurtured: honesty, fairness and mutual respect. To undermine this fragile framework, in which young people are brought up and the elderly retire with security and pleasure, would be a step backwards from the rural legacy that made England a green and pleasant land.
5.29 pm
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on a nice speech. I also take the opportunity to congratulate my near neighbour, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who has something to be congratulated on this evening. I am sure that he would have been here this evening to hear what I have to say about the rural constituency of Scarborough and Whitby had circumstances been different. As the new Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby, I am grateful for the opportunity to make this maiden speech on a subject which I know is of key importance to the fine people who live and work on the land in the glorious and popular part of North Yorkshire which I am proud to represent.
Scarborough and Whitby constituency is blessed by a dramatic coast of magnificent cliffs, with miles and miles of beautiful beaches stretching from just north of Filey, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for 45 miles to Staithes, which is also known as the Yorkshire Polperro. The classic British family seaside holiday was invented in my constituency. I am glad to say that most hon. Members and their families have experienced and valued the hospitality and welcome of the people whom I come to the House to serve. I am not making an early application for the job of director of tourism by making that statement.
As well as the temptations of the shoreline, I commend the spectacular countryside of North Yorkshire national park, which is maintained in trust for an appreciative nation by some of the most hard-working farm workers one will find anywhere in the country. It will be far from a surprise to hon. Members if I urge those who have not had the pleasure of visiting my constituency to go for a stroll along Baxtergate in Whitby, or Aberdeen walk in Scarborough, or to take a touring holiday in the beautiful Esk valley, or to go to Robin Hood's bay. The choices
488
are countless, and the attractions are something to be seen. They are real British gems. So I ask all hon. Members to appreciate the qualities of my constituency, if not of this speech.
Hon. Members who visit my constituents will be assured of a welcome every time, and their friends and families will be welcome time and again—the more times the merrier. After the hospitality industry and the growing light industrial sectors in Eastfield, Scarborough and Whitby, agriculture and fisheries are by far the main basis for economic activity in my beautiful part of the world.
My constituency is the 50th largest in England by area, but it is sparsely populated and we do not have the effective communications of which the hon. Member for Meriden spoke. We have about one third of the density of population of the rest of England. That is important to remember.
I have the honour to be the first Labour Member of Parliament to represent my part of the world. The constituency was previously known simply as Scarborough. This part of Yorkshire has time and again returned Conservative Members. I have looked back in the history books and found that there was a great political landslide in the early part of this century which saw the return of a Liberal Member for the borough of Scarborough.
As my hon. Friends probably know, I am a civil engineer. It was my job before I came here to prevent landslides. This is the first time that my professional colleagues have congratulated me on causing one. The famous Holbeck Hall hotel ended up in the sea. The local press suggested—
Mr. Pickthall: My hon. Friend failed to prevent that landslide.
Mr. Quinn: It was not my job. I was a railway civil engineer. I had to stand in front of the site of the Holbeck Hall disaster on the day after my election and point at the landslide. It was an awful pun, but I thank Scarborough Evening News for its contribution to this maiden speech.
The boundary changes of 1983 saw the restoration of Whitby and the Moors to the former parliamentary seat of the same name. Until 1974, Whitby was included in Cleveland, a seat which was later abolished as a result of the creation of the county of Cleveland. Yorkshire ceded a little bit of Yorkshire to the county of Cleveland. I regret that the previous Government redefined the boundaries of Cleveland. As a consequence of the 1995 boundary review, recommendations were made to change the name again to Scarborough and Whitby. I commend not only the local people from Whitby who insisted on the change of name but the many members of my constituency party who felt that it was important that Whitby was recognised in the name of the seat, and who made representations to that effect.
One speaks to many people on arriving in Parliament, and many people have spoken to me about the previous Member for the seat that I have the pleasure to serve. John Sykes is fondly remembered as a kind and caring Member of Parliament who was held in high regard for his abilities as a pianist, and for his sociability. He is also well known and respected in the constituency for his great work with charities. Although John and I could rarely find a common

489
point in terms of political analysis, and rarely did we agree in any debate, John was always courteous to me, my family and friends.
I had a great surprise last Christmas when I received both a birthday card and a Christmas card from John and his family. They were different in tone and content from all the previous letters that I had received from him, and it was good to receive such a thoughtful card just before Christmas day, my birthday. I had to check with John that the card was from him. It was, and that is the sort of chap he is.
Following my success on 1 May, I was delighted to receive many letters of congratulation and support from many local people in my constituency. I should like to acknowledge now and put on record the high regard in which John Sykes's predecessor, Sir Michael Shaw, was held in the constituency. He was a remarkable Member of Parliament, who served our community for more than 26 years. People involved in politics in Scarborough and Whitby regarded him as a hard-working and commendable Member of Parliament. It would have been remiss of me not to place on record the high regard in which he is held in my part of North Yorkshire.
Sir Michael established a welcome tradition for me to take up on my entry into Parliament. I believe that it was he who set up the tradition of entertaining the Scarborough civic party in the House before its visit to Buckingham palace garden party. I am pleased to say that John Sykes maintained the tradition and that I shall have great pleasure in entertaining the civic party in the House when it comes down to London in July.
The past few weeks have been a tremendous historical chapter in the glorious history of the constituency that I serve. We had the Synod of Whitby in 665 at the famous abbey of Whitby. Caedmon, the first English poet, lived in Whitby until 680. The ancient rivalries between the Saxons and the Vikings, who set up the fishing community in Scarborough in the 10th century, are remembered in stories told time and again in local pubs and clubs in Scarborough and Whitby. It is a great tradition of history. Scarborough spa was established in the 17th century, which made Scarborough the first English seaside resort. That is something that we regard with great pride in my part of the world.
Scarborough and Whitby have contributed greatly to our nation's history and without a doubt are regarded highly internationally. Possibly the most notable episode in our history is that of Captain Cook. His connection with the people of Whitby is regarded with great fondness. Only recently the replica of the Endeavour returned to Whitby. We had 10 wonderful days in Whitby when more than 1.2 million people visited the small Yorkshire town. They came in their droves and felt the welcome and warmth of the people of Whitby and of my constituency.
It was remarkable that that happened in May 1997. It was pure magic for all those days in the streets of Whitby.
The constituency and the community are now focused entirely on the project of rebuilding Captain Cook's Resolution, the largest ship to sail to Australia in the 18th century. That Resolution project will mark the start of the third millennium for my constituency. I hope that it will give jobs and skills to my constituents, as well as their providing the best fish and chips in Britain, the
490
legend of Dracula and the famous Whitby welcome. I know that most of my constituents are keen to see the Endeavour return from her trip around Britain. I hope that she will return this autumn to be refitted in the port. The crew will then receive the hospitality of the port, before Endeavour commences her dangerous voyage over the Atlantic to Boston.
Hon. Members may think that that is more than enough to happen to a small place such as Whitby and a constituency such as Scarborough and Whitby, but there was more. In May, the Whitby Town footballers from the Northern league, who have become local legends, won the Football Association vase at Wembley; they have also become the champions of the Northern league. It was quite a month for Whitby and for the "Seasiders"—and, of course, I make no reference to the general election result in any of this.
The House will doubtless appreciate why I believe that there is a great sense of hope and optimism among my constituents. When I walk down streets such as Flowergate in Whitby and Huntriss row in Scarborough, which happen to be where the Conservative association clubs are located, I see people walking round with what local journalists call "coat-hanger smiles". They are happier than they have been in a long time—doubtless owing to the return of the Endeavour and Whitby's great victory in football.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's announcement yesterday on quota hoppers has been regarded with true Whitby and Yorkshire grit as a good start. In reality, that is the best we are going to get at the moment. But I commend to my right hon. Friend the idea of consultation on the fishing industry and its future, particularly in the ports that I represent—that would be very welcome. Those in the fishing industry want my right hon. Friend and his Front-Bench colleagues to listen to their problems. They feel that they have been forgotten, which is why it is important that we make a new start under this new Government.
I was advised that, when I made my maiden speech, I should try not to be controversial, and I hope that what I am about to say will not be regarded as such. I had an opportunity to reflect on my predecessor's maiden speech, in which he unfortunately described the fishing community in Scarborough and Whitby as
"my floating voters, but not in the democratic sense."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 89.]
That was a fundamental error on his part: any voter should be listened to, and it is the responsibility of every Member of the House to speak up as effectively as possible on behalf of all his constituents.
I am receiving puzzled looks from Opposition Members, who seem to be wondering when I will address the substantive point of the debate. I am here to contribute to the debate on the common agricultural policy, which is an important issue for my constituents and for farming interests in my constituency. They know that I do not come from a background of working the land. However, members of the local branch of the National Farmers Union know me, and know that I have a long and fruitful record of helping some of them, particularly when in my previous occupation. I was previously a railway civil engineer, an occupation which found me occasionally working with farmers.

491
I was regularly in contact with many landowners whose crops or stock had been damaged or killed owing to the alleged failure of railway fencing to keep out "railway rabbits" and badgers from the best crops of wheat, beet or other vegetables due for market. [Interruption.] I am receiving some acknowledgement from Opposition Members, who presumably recognise the truth of what I am saying.
The fences are there to keep the stock off the operational railway, not to keep the pests off the land. It has always amazed me that "railway rabbits", so called by the victims of the trespass, cannot be persuaded to wear the appropriate safety clothing. If they were railway rabbits, they would be wearing high-visibility orange vests.
Throughout my political career, I have attempted to use my perspective as an engineer. At Question Time, there was an exchange between my hon. Friends. Civil engineers rarely become Members of Parliament; the record shows that there are more lawyers than engineers in Parliament. But I bring with me my professional and personal code, which has always demanded that I solve problems, not cause them. I hope that my colleagues in the Whips Office agree that that sentiment merits consideration from all hon. Members.
In my constituency, as in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), many hill farmers struggle in dangerous and hostile environments to earn what, in many urban areas, would not be regarded as a fair living wage. There is strong evidence that the solitude of farmers and the continuing BSE crisis, which is affecting North Yorkshire's beef and dairy herds, is bringing many other pressures to rural communities and families.
Those increased pressures have led to greater levels of personal stress and greater social problems within individual families. I am sorry to say that there is evidence of more mental health problems among the farming community, which have, sadly, led to an increased suicide rate in that community. In my role as a Member of Parliament, I shall do as much as I can to mitigate the pressures on the rural and farming communities.
I accept that I am a beginner in terms of agriculture, which is not really my subject, but I am here to learn and to participate in the debate. My preparations for this maiden speech will serve me in good stead in my role as representative of the rural community in my constituency. I am confident that, with the help of farmers, farmers' families and other agricultural workers in my constituency, I shall form a deeper appreciation of the key problems affecting such an important economic activity in my constituency.
My right hon. Friend should give serious consideration to opening up the debate on the CAP as he did with fishing quotas. There is demand in the rural communities that I represent for my right hon. Friend to think carefully before accelerating towards enlargement of the Community or the CAP. There are doubtless significant agricultural problems in countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania. Before we start to expand the CAP in that direction, we must set about some benchmarking—an engineering term—for British agriculture.
Engineers have traditionally been concerned about not throwing out the baby with the bath water. My constituents—in their roles as arable, dairy, beef, pig,
492
poultry and hill farmers—and I are hopeful that, before the debate moves too far towards the east, we should look carefully at an open and fair audit of our national production. We must consider such an audit before we can achieve the much-needed reform of the CAP.
The CAP needs to be more efficient, to save money and to tackle the fraud that is so obvious in many of our partner countries. We need to bring about a real improvement to support our rural economy, and to protect and enhance our environment. For the benefit of my constituents, we must deal with those matters so that we can get on with making important social, educational and transport infrastructure improvements. We need to focus resources on key areas to help pensioners and others in my constituency, who are queueing up with high expectations of our Government.
I commend the proposals for a food standards agency, which will go a long way towards protecting elderly pensioners in particular from the risk of terrible illnesses such as E. coli. The proposals are in the best interests of my constituents, and of both producers and consumers throughout the country.
I support the motion on which we shall be voting, and I thank hon. Members for listening to my speech.
5.50 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is always a pleasant task to follow and congratulate a maiden speaker. On this occasion, I find myself following and congratulating two successive maiden speakers. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke with particular sensitivity about her late predecessor. I was never close to Iain either geographically or politically, but on one occasion we pursued a mutual constituency interest together and I can pay tribute to the good humour and friendliness, as well as the characteristic tenacity, with which he pursued it. We were all saddened by the circumstances that attended the end of his life, but the sensitivity of the hon. Lady's speech will find a warm echo here during the current Parliament, and I wish her well.
Then there was the landslide expert, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn). We all remember that hotel falling into the sea with particular affection—although I appreciate that it must have been a hot potato locally, and very distressing for those who were directly affected. I recall the celebrated—or, rather, unforgettable—occasion when the pound fell out of the exchange rate mechanism and the House was recalled for an emergency debate. Those of us who were present on that occasion were privileged to hear a legendary performance by the late John Smith, in which he built up a crescendo of attack against the beleaguered Government of the time, pointing out that not only had we fallen out of the ERM but the Grand National no longer started and hotels had begun falling into the sea.
We shall watch and pursue that constituency issue with great interest in the period ahead—and what an interesting period it will be, in the light of events in the past 50 minutes or so outside the Chamber in the parliamentary Conservative party. It is a reflection of the difficulty that the Conservatives are in with their countryside policy generally that they felt the need to distract attention from the debate by laying on such a memorable show to coincide with the farewell

493
performance of the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I assume that he still holds his shadow Cabinet post, unless he is the first to have been sacked.
Mr. Paul Tyler: He has been culled.
Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend may be right. Given the extraordinary result that has just taken place in the parliamentary Tory party, its members—having experienced a non-selective cull on 1 May—may well be heading politically for a policy approach of set-aside for themselves. We shall be more than willing to assist them in that direction.
Four fifths of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was interesting and constructive. He made some telling observations based on his experience. Like the former Prime Minister, who has just ceased to be leader of the Conservative party, former Conservative Cabinet Ministers always sound much better in defeat than they ever did when they were on top. Let me say one thing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by way of generosity, as the Liberal Democrats do not feel sufficiently generous to subscribe to the nonsense that has been tabled in the name of the Conservative party.
The Conservatives have had a bad night and a bad experience—I refer to 1 May, not to what has just happened. We should note not just the numbers but the complexion of the current parliamentary Conservative party, whose members have been beaten back to their rural shire strongholds—although many of those are hanging by pretty shoogly nails. Perhaps, despite the disastrous result—given the kind of seats that the Conservatives managed to cling on to—the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was doing a little more right than he was given credit for, certainly by his own party, in the run-up to the general election.
This first agriculture debate in the new Parliament is significant. I need only look around me to see that the Liberal Democrats who are present more than outgun the Conservatives in terms of numbers. If the Conservatives carry on as they have been doing, they will not recover credibility in regard to such matters as agriculture, fisheries and rural policy generally. I am thinking not only of the amendment that they have tabled today, but of the response from the Dispatch Box following the statement on quota hopping yesterday. As someone put it rather brilliantly during Agriculture questions this afternoon, they keep wanting to shield themselves behind the self-evident shortcomings of their own Administration, who were in office only six or seven weeks ago.
There is an equally interesting facet of the current Parliament. We should consider not just the number of Liberal Democrats who have been returned, but the geography and demography of the seats represented by many of my 46 colleagues. We are now in a prime position to provide constructive, responsible, effective and credible opposition, in the best sense of the word—proper parliamentary and political opposition—to MAFF, perhaps finding it easier than the Conservatives will. That will be a major concern for my colleagues and me in the weeks and months ahead.
494
I congratulate—it would be churlish to do otherwise—not just the new ministerial team on their appointments, but the new Minister on the more constructive approach that he immediately initiated with Europe. That is clearly in all our interests. The Minister is operating within a Government who will not be a riven as their predecessor on matters European generally. He was also right to make it an early priority to talk to Mr. Fischler, establishing a rapport with his opposite numbers in the other Agriculture Ministries, talking to the incumbent Presidents and preparing, even at this stage, for the UK presidency which will happen in the first half of next year. All that is welcome.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in the discussions about the immediate pressing BSE crisis, which has affected the whole beef sector. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—whom I succeed as agriculture spokesman, although I am glad that we shall continue to benefit from the broad range of experience and credibility that he brought to the task-has already led a group of colleagues to meet the Parliamentary Secretary for some initial discussions, from the perspective of the south-west of England in particular. We were encouraged by some of the initial exchanges that we had today about the progress that could be achieved, which the Minister thinks is worth exploring. He confirmed that to me in an oral answer this afternoon, which he had been discussing with Sir David Naish of the NFU and others. We shall want to follow that up as a group, and to remain in close touch with the Government. There is no doubt that the position that they have inherited remains desperate from the point of the beef sector generally.
The beef sector has been visited by devastation, the like of which has not been seen for many years, and further constructive and sustained action must be taken to try to get the beef ban lifted. Although beef consumption has risen to above last year's level in the first quarter of this year, there is still understandable desperation in the beef sector. It is clear that that will go on through the summer and into the autumn, not least because suckler cows and calves will be coming to market.
The Government are correct in responding to the crisis that they have inherited by making sure that imports of beef meet the standards that are applied in this country. Anyone who has had dealings with the agricultural community in any part of the country will know that that unfairness added insult to huge injury. In advance of the 22 July meeting of the Agriculture Council, the House should send a constructive signal to Brussels that we shall give a fair wind to orders or instruments that may need to be tabled if there is not an adequate response from fellow EU member states.
Equally important is the need for a computerised central cattle database, which should be introduced as quickly as is feasible. Perhaps in his reply to the debate the Minister will outline the Department's thinking on the time scale that may be involved in that. Those of us who recently fought agricultural or rural seats have been honest with our farming representatives in saying that securing the overall lifting of the beef ban will not be easy nor was it ever likely to happen early or in one fell swoop.
People in agriculture must understand that they have voices and supporters in the House across the political spectrum. They should know that we shall do all that we can not just at Whitehall and UK levels but in Brussels

495
where we hope to lobby the Commission. We shall also work with our colleagues in the European Parliament to maintain the greatest possible momentum to ensure that the logjam is broken. I hope that that happens sooner rather than later. We must not create false expectations or set artificial deadlines of the kind that were set early last year. I shall never forget listening to the Prime Minister when he returned from the summit saying that the ban would be lifted by November. In the Chamber, we heard the unmistakeable sound of the clock striking 13. Farmers have had more than enough of that kind of approach and a change is needed.
Other hon. Members, including one of my hon. Friends, wish to take part in the debate and make their maiden speeches, so I shall not overstay my welcome. However, I should like to comment on the broader issue of CAP reform, which underpins the papers for the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right when he said in an intervention on the Minister that Amsterdam was a bit of a disappointment in the context of the important political objective of EU enlargement. As that enlargement must be accompanied by inevitable reform of the CAP, let us hope that the lack of progress on the policy imperative of enlargement does not lead to sluggishness in discussions on reform of the CAP. Enlargement and reform must be in step, and slow discussions would be a great setback for our agricultural interests.
I tend to agree with the Minister that the CAP must move closer to the marketplace. That is a sane policy, not least because of our international trade obligations and the markets in which we seek to sell. That means a move away from supply control and the present system of subsidy payments. As the Cork declaration made clear some time ago, the Commission recognises that CAP reform is at the top of the European agenda and that it must take into account the wider concerns of environmental sustainability and rural diversification.
If we head towards more and more conglomerates at the expense of the family farm, we shall be on a policy line that is completely counter-productive to the broader policies that we want to achieve for the sustainability of the rural economy and the role of the family farm in underpinning that. That applies particularly to areas such as Wales. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) nods. Following the Cork declaration, it is important to try to move Europe in the direction of sustainable agriculture that will be able to compete in world markets while at the same time sustaining the environment and rural economies.
There will be opportunities later this year to look at the British presidency in the first half of next year. Some measures ought to be pursued and at this early stage the Minister has outlined one or two of them. I hope that we shall be extremely proactive in using the lucky coincidence of our presidency next year to ensure that those matters are on the agenda and in making sure that it is relevant to our agriculture. CAP reform is the most obvious issue, but there will also be opportunities to debate fishing.
The co-operation that has developed in this country between agriculture and environmentalists of one type or another is a good way forward for Europe. When I entered the House in 1983, environmental and agricultural interests were at each other's throats: the dialogue was conducted from two trenches. Nowadays groups such as the Crofters Commission in my part of the country, the National Farmers Union and the Royal Society for the
496
Protection of Birds have formed joint working parties and published joint documents. That is a great step in terms of general thinking and approach, and anything that the Government can do to foster that productive atmosphere among our European neighbours as well will be good for getting coherent and sensible reform of agricultural policy as a whole. I hope that they will use their presidency to proceed in that way.
The Minister spoke about incomes, which fell significantly last year. As the Minister said, it seems that this year will be bad. Green pound revaluations have obviously extracted their price from all sectors of farming, which have suffered significantly. Of course, the Government could pay about £706 million as a result of the changes over the next three years or so, and half of that amount would come from the European Union. I accept that it is early days, but so far Britain has not made a claim on those sums. No doubt No. 11 Downing street will have much to say about the issue in the context of the Government's overall spending review. However, given the scale of the difficulties, if half that sum is available, the Department should move to claim it if that is felt appropriate.
My second point on incomes relates not just to farmers but to farm workers. The Government intend to set up a low pay commission. I hope that in the course of examining issues such as a minimum wage the Government will take on board the concerns of farm workers, not least because there are still agricultural wages boards. It would be ironic if, when the Government are moving in this direction, they did not at least take account of the evidence and arguments from the wages boards that remained untouched throughout the Thatcherite era. I hope that the Government will not lose sight of that when they consider incomes relative to farming as a whole.
I hope that, on a UK basis—and I do mean by that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as the different parts of England—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consult all the component parts on these extremely complex issues. I hope also—I return to what I said at the outset about myself and my hon. Friends—that, as we see a displacement in our population, with more people moving out of urban Britain and into rural Britain, and with many difficulties in terms of attitudes perhaps being transplanted from one part of Britain to another, which do not always sit very easily or diplomatically with some of the more instinctive attitudes of rural Britain, my hon. Friends and I can constructively give effective voice to the attitudes of rural areas, and ensure that they are not just drowned out by the Labour party, which may be more rurally oriented, but which, inevitably, when one considers its complete membership in the House of Commons, is urban-dominated.
Those voices and communities need to be heard. I think that our friends to the right, the Conservative Members, particularly after tonight's decision, may not be giving effective voice to anything much for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats have a positive role to play in this Parliament in the next few years.
6.10 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: I say to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who made an interesting speech, that I have not a single farm in my constituency. It is

497
completely urban. Many of my constituents say to me, "Given the make-up of your constituency, why are you interested in agricultural affairs?" My answer is simple: "I have a funny lot of constituents: they like to eat and they like to drink milk and other agricultural products." The present iniquitous system, which has been with us for far too long, means that my constituents pay through the nose, week in, week out, through taxes, subsidies and food prices, to support that system. The time is long overdue for a radical and fundamental reform of the system. I hope that that has given some consolation to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to direct my remarks mainly to CAP reform. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the shadow spokesman, was remarkable. As I listened to his positive speech, I could not help but think, as I am sure other hon. Members did: why, in all the time that there was a Conservative Government, were hardly any of the things that he referred to enacted? Although I felt that his speech had more than a touch of the lecture about it, it was a positive lecture and, in that sense, it is welcome.
It worried me when I heard the shadow spokesman say that one of the first things that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will find when they attend the Agriculture Council is that none of the other Council members knows anything about agriculture. That is dangerous, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will not need reminding that the last thing that they should do is to go into that Council meeting with the attitude that no one else knows what they are talking about. I fear that that Freudian slip—if it was a Freudian slip—reflects starkly the reasons why we have such a crisis in agriculture today. For 18 years, Conservative Members have gone into those meetings as if they were the only ones who knew what they were talking about and everyone else did not. The shadow spokesman's remark clearly illustrates why we have the problems that we face today.
Nevertheless, the prospects for the CAP reforms that we want are probably better now than they have been for two decades. There were good prospects for fundamental reform in 1984, but the Government failed. There were similar prospects in 1988, but the Government failed. There were similar prospects in 1992 and, although the Government came back and trumpeted the 1992 reforms as fundamental, we all know that they were nothing of the sort.
In a speech to the House on the 1992 MacSharry reforms, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said a couple of interesting things. One was that the taxpayer and the consumer would save £8 billion in three years as a result of the reforms. It is interesting to note that, since he made that statement, the CAP budget has increased by more than 30 per cent.—so much for the taxpayer and the consumer benefiting from the reforms. We should never again make promises that we know cannot be achieved.
In the same speech in 1992, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that, although there were no changes in the milk regime or in the quota, under the package, there was no reason why all milk quotas should not disappear in three years. It is now 1997 and the prospects
498
for quotas disappearing are probably as remote today as they ever were, so there are important lessons for us and for Ministers to learn in terms of agriculture reform.
I said earlier that the prospects for fundamental CAP reform are probably better now than they have been for some time. I hope that I am not accused of wishful thinking. Some of the factors that will inevitably lead to that reform have already been mentioned, but they are worth repeating. Enlargement is one. Everyone I talk to is in favour of it. Even most EU member states are in favour of it, but how can there be enlargement without fundamental CAP reform? It is simply impossible.
The notion that countries that want to be EU members and whose prices are probably well below those attainable within the CAP will not want to have the full benefits of the policy, with the horrendous budgetary consequences, is nonsense. The World Trade Organisation has also been mentioned. Pressures there will inevitably mean that reform will take place.
I am under some pressure from the Whips to end my speech, but I want to make just two more quick points. First, public opinion will not tolerate any more prevarication on fundamental CAP reform. The CAP may have gone down the political agenda somewhat over the past few years and been overtaken by economic and monetary union, but I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will change that.
Secondly, we now have a clear and positive agenda for change. Among other things, that agenda includes the notion that, if we are to make changes in the CAP that are relevant to the communities that depend on agriculture for their well-being, we have to insist, if we can, that subsidiarity is part of CAP reform.
I am delighted to welcome and to support the motion. At long last, we have a Government who not only have the agenda and the policies, but are determined positively, with the co-operation and support of the other EU member states, to make fundamental CAP reform a reality.
6.19 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I preface my remarks by declaring an interest in the meat and livestock industry.
I congratulate the two new Members who made their maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) will long be remembered for his reference to landslides. It is the sort of thing that tends to be remembered. Indeed, he made an engaging speech—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), a fellow west midlander. She spoke well of her constituency and, as the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, she spoke sensitively about her predecessor. I well remember speaking in the Meriden constituency a few years ago and the thrill that I felt to be in the centre of England on St. George's day.
I congratulate the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on joining the agriculture Front-Bench team. I appreciate that it must be difficult for someone who represents an urban area to learn, at the speed necessary, about the intricacies and complications of agriculture and its ancillary industries. However, I was impressed to note that he has already taken the bull by the horns—to use an agricultural metaphor—and applied a typical west midlands commonsense approach to the problems facing him.

499
I thank the Minister of State for receiving a deputation yesterday from the meat industry, representing wholesalers, abattoir owners, retailers, catering butchers and all other sections of the industry. We put our case to him and I thank him for the courtesy with which we were received and for the patience and understanding with which he listened to what we had to say. I very much hope that the spirit of co-operation and willingness to help will be a feature of the new Government.
Obviously and inevitably, there will be differences of opinion between the Opposition and the Government from time to time, but I hope that those criticisms will be constructive and helpful. At the end of the day, many of us realise that we cannot help our industry if we engage in the sort of adversarial exchanges across the Floor which, in the past, have been so very damaging to the meat and livestock and the agriculture industries.
If Members of Parliament insist on standing up in the Chamber and saying that beef is not safe—or that apples or whatever are not safe—that has an enormously damaging effect, out of all proportion to the words used. It is a well-known saying that if one wants to keep a secret, one speaks about it in the House. However, that does not always apply, because often the matters that we would rather did not get out have a tendency to do just that. Too often, hon. Members have made irresponsible remarks about British food, which have hit the headlines and caused untold damage to both consumer confidence and the industry.
There is a great willingness to co-operate, as far as is possible, in the interests of the industry and also—I want to emphasise this point—in the interests of the consumer. Without a satisfied consumer who is confident when buying a British agricultural product, there will be no prosperity in British agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the Government would insist on the highest standards, and I am sure that we all applaud that commitment. However, in this modern age, so many of the pressures to improve standards and quality come not from legislation, but as a consequence of commercial pressures, applied to all sectors of the industry, to ratchet up standards. For example, in the relationship between a supplier and a major retailer, it is the retailer that drives up standards—not any legislation.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is all very well for the United Kingdom to drive up standards, but it would be disgraceful if meat were imported from third-world countries, which do not have the same standards, merely because it was cheaper?
Mr. Gill: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a matter of great concern. I do not share the Government's optimism that they can solve the problem simply by checking the documentation, because we would then run into the whole area of fraud, as so much of the imported product is not what it is purported to be. Apparently, there is no effective way of policing that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point.
Parliament tends to be reactive. A problem arises and the Government, of whatever political persuasion, react and try to accommodate public opinion. However, trade, industry and commerce operate differently. Instead of being reactive, they are proactive. I stress again that so
500
much of the improvement in standards in food and the output of the agriculture industry has been because of the commercial pressures applied on the industry, rather than because of legislation.
In future, there must be a presumption in favour of education, both within the industry and of the people who eat the industry's products. There will be a much better overall result if, instead of legislating for every eventuality, we take a more sensible approach and realise that a huge education job needs to be done, involving every one of us. If we have to legislate, we must be careful to ensure that the rules that we try to enforce are both practicable and achievable.
The Minister said that the need to reform the CAP is staring us in the face. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would disagree. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) drew attention to the frustrations that the new Government will face. We all support their enthusiasm to get matters right and we admire their aspirations and their determination to get results—but they should not be under any illusions about the difficulty of achieving the targets they set themselves in the forum of the European Community. It is much more difficult to get changes to legislation in the forum of Europe than it is in the forum of this Parliament. We wish them well, but they should not approach the matter wearing rose-tinted spectacles. Very soon, they will realise that the practical difficulties faced by the Conservative Government are the same practical difficulties that they will face.
On the issue of the beef ban, I welcome the Government's commitment to table four orders relating to the import of beef and beef products. The Opposition will be anxious to hold the Government to their commitment if they do not get the undertakings that they expect from the EU on 22 July. The lifting of the export ban is vital.
I want to mention another ban that seriously affects British beef and beef products, that is, the ban imposed by local authorities throughout the country on the use of British beef and beef products in school meals and other catering services. I very much hope that Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with their counterparts in the Department of Health, will bring every possible pressure to bear on local authorities, to persuade them that British beef and British beef products are perfectly safe and should be restored to school menus.
There has been some talk of over-production, but over-production can so easily be explained. Production is stimulated by subsidy to a greater or lesser extent. There will be, for example, a given number of sheep on a given number of farms and hillsides—probably more sheep than those hillsides and farms can sustain—because of the attractions of subsidies. I do not have sufficient time to give other examples of how subsidies stimulate production. Nevertheless, we are able to stimulate consumption only by price, because consumption is very sensitive to price. We should be attempting to reduce the cost of production, so that products are consumed rather than stored or disposed of in other ways. Consumption is the key to many agricultural problems—not least of which are the problems in the beef sector. If we can stimulate demand, we shall go a long way towards solving those problems.

501
Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was in favour of supporting organic farming. By the same token, I argue that the Government should be doing whatever they can to stimulate demand. In the longer run, such a strategy will be cheaper than supporting production that must be put into cold store or elsewhere. Such a strategy will be more beneficial for the industry and for the British public and consumers.
6.31 pm
Mr. David Lepper: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me—as another hon. Member representing a largely urban constituency—to make my maiden speech in today's debate. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), however, I have one farm in my constituency. I know that the issues of the quality of the food that we eat and of the countryside are of great interest to my constituents.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate—the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn). I take issue with my hon. Friend, however, because my constituency of Brighton, Pavilion—not his constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, as he claimed—invented the English seaside holiday.
I have the honour of being the first Labour Member for Brighton, Pavilion. It is also appropriate that I am a Labour-Co-operative Member. I remind the House that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is the largest commercial farmer in the United Kingdom. It was in West street, in Brighton, 170 years ago, that Dr. William King and others set up both a retail shop and a school that were based on co-operative principles. Brighton, with Rochdale, can justly claim its place as being the birthplace of the UK Co-operative movement. Today, Rochdale and Brighton both have Labour Members, and our country has a Government who hold firmly to the co-operative ideal that we achieve more by working together than we do by working alone.
Sir Derek Spencer was my immediate predecessor in the House. He was a Yorkshireman by birth, and his ability as a lawyer was recognised almost immediately after his election to the House, in 1992, by his elevation to the post of Solicitor-General—an office that he held and performed ably throughout the life of the previous Parliament. That job is vital, but, unless there is a major controversy, it does not attract the limelight. Sir Derek's period in office was free of controversy, which reflects the conscientious way in which he filled the post.
Before Sir Derek, the seat was held for 20 years by Sir Julian Amery. Some hon. Members may remember Sir Julian's distinguished career as a Minister, particularly in housing and in the Foreign Office. He was an ebullient personality who entered politics with an already distinguished record of war service, much of which was spent behind enemy lines in central Europe. Despite political differences, those of us who knew him remember an enthralling and witty raconteur, whose modest recounting of his wartime experiences nevertheless made one aware of a man of real courage.
Many hon. Members will know my constituency as a place where they go for conferences. I should say that, if any of my hon. Friends have not yet secured
502
accommodation for September, perhaps they would like to speak to me after my speech. The conference centre, the Royal Pavilion, the busy seafront, the shopping areas of Western road, the Lanes and North laine will be known to many hon. Members. I should like, however, to draw the attention of hon. Members to aspects of my constituency that are sometimes overlooked. We have two universities, for example, which produce 6,000 graduates a year—a factor that helps to place us at the forefront of the new and expanding multimedia industries. We are also attracting more high-tech industry to the town.
My constituency is a place that many people plan to visit—just as I did 30 years ago—but in which they decide to stay. The town centre of my constituency, however, is also a place in which one in three residents are out of work. In my constituency, 2,000 youngsters under 25 are jobless and wage rates are below the regional and national averages. Early in the 1990s, it also reached a record in repossessions. Those problems are the legacy of the previous Government, and I am glad that the new Government are dedicated to tackling them.
When people live on such low incomes and in such conditions of poverty, it is important that they should have the best possible information about the quality of the food that they eat, because such a huge proportion of their small income must go on ensuring that they have enough to eat. I therefore welcome the Government's proposals for a food standards agency, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mentioned in his speech today. I believe that such an agency will have an essential role to play in making us all better informed about what is in our food. I am also glad to hear that he is already making preparations in his Department to ensure that Professor Philip James's recommendations will be implemented.
Some 70 years ago, my predecessor as mayor of Brighton, Sir Herbert Carden, had the foresight to persuade the town to buy up much of the surrounding countryside—including many of the farms, although they are outside the borough of Brighton. We therefore have a special concern in ensuring that our downland surrounding our urban area is protected. Protection issues involve not only management of the south downs—an issue on which I shall be lobbying the Minister with responsibility for environmental protection—but ensuring reform of the subsidy processes in the common agricultural policy that emphasise intensive farming methods at the expense of more environmentally friendly farming, which helps to conserve both our countryside and our natural heritage.
As a co-operator, I know that, for many years, issues of food safety and of enviro-agrifarming have been crucial in our campaign. I welcome the fact that they are now reflected in the proposals for reform of the CAP, and those proposals have my whole-hearted endorsement.
6.39 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on his maiden speech and on taking us through the virtues of his constituency. My researcher was educated at one of the universities in his constituency—she was clearly well educated in Brighton because she made sure that I was returned to the House with an increased majority at the last election.

503
I understand that there is a time constraint, but before I comment on the reform of the common agricultural policy, I want to say one or two words about the beef industry in particular. Obviously, the new ministerial team will be aware that beef prices have been very low in Wales this year, lower even than at the height of the BSE crisis. The first problem is the high level of beef imports. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm that, if necessary, he will introduce orders to ensure that beef imports are subject to the same standards as British beef.
Secondly, the Minister is well aware that the revaluations of the green pound have had a substantial impact on farmers' incomes. There are opportunities for us, through the European Union, to access funds that would assist farmers in their current difficulty. Of course, I realise that there would have to be matched funding from the Treasury but, given the plight of Welsh beef farmers at the moment, I urge the Government to consider that option.
We must seek substantial reform of the CAP but not at the expense of the viability of the small and medium family farm in Wales. We should be building on the MacSharry proposals and ensuring that family farms are protected even though we are changing the way in which we support the farming industry and the money to support it may be found in a different way.
We have no problems with the word "modulation". I understand that the Conservative party has problems with it and that the Minister does not wish to see modulation as part of the negotiations on reform. In Wales, we consider that modulation can be the way forward, especially in certain sectors—for example, in the milk industry in west Wales and in the beef and sheep industries in our upland areas. It is important to consider the matter carefully.
As we shift from aid to production to aid to the environment, it is vital that we examine carefully the extension of the agri-environmental payments. Professor Gareth Wyn Jones of University college of north Wales in Bangor has produced a paper that could be taken up quickly by the Welsh Office. It involves an integrated all-Wales scheme building on the success of Tir Cymen and environmentally sensitive areas. For the relatively modest cost of £23 million, we could have an integrated scheme in Wales.
Finally, any reform of the CAP must include an integrated rural programme. It is important to consider the future of farming in the context not only of agricultural incomes but of the rural way of life and rural developments. I urge the Government to consider using CAP reform as a way of integrating a rural policy. It is vital for the interest of the agricultural industry in Wales that we move forward in that context.
6.43 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I shall endeavour to keep it brief, because I am aware that other hon. Members have sacrificed their contributions to enable me to speak now. It has been a long journey getting to the point at which I can make my maiden speech—a frustrating journey at times, but an eventful one. I take great pride in now being able to address right hon. and hon. Members.
I should first say something about my predecessor in the constituency of South Thanet, Jonathan Aitken. Many hon. Members will be reading in the newspapers about
504
Some of his recent adventures. Far be it for me to comment on those matters, but Jonathan was a diligent constituency Member of Parliament for 23 years. He was well known for the amount of casework that he got through and for the quality of his work. Throughout the general election, he was never anything but courteous and respectful to me, and I have to say that he took his defeat on the chin on 1 May. I have read that, this week, a television broadcast is to be shown in which he was filmed, before the election, predicting his own defeat. I can say only that, had he told me that, it might have saved me a few grey hairs.
I must congratulate other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. One claimed that his constituency was the birthplace of the family holiday. I should say in passing that my constituency, especially Broadstairs and Ramsgate, does a very good family holiday indeed. I am claiming not that my constituency was the birthplace of the family holiday but that it was the birthplace of the English. The peoples and traditions that ultimately became what we now call English began in east Kent, and South Thanet was at their heart. It is at the heart not only of what we call English but of European events over two millenniums.
It was to my constituency that the Romans came; they built their castle at Richborough and provisioned their invasion of Britain from there. It was also to my constituency, 1,400 years ago, that St. Augustine came, and we have been celebrating the anniversary of that event over the past few weeks. He was pretty reluctant to come in the first place. He was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to convert the English, but tried turning back at one point. We have often found that to be the problem in South Thanet—people are a little reluctant to visit us, but when they arrive, they receive a great welcome. That was true of St. Augustine.
St. Augustine made one bad mistake, however, from our point of view. Once he met Ethelbert on the banks of Pegwell bay, he insisted on going inland to Canterbury to form his base. Had he only stayed where he was, we would now have an Archbishop of Cliffsend and, more important, we might have a Ramsgate cathedral that would bring millions of people to our town.
We have been at the centre of many other European events over the years. The Vikings invaded our coastline. They might have left Canterbury cathedral alone but not Minster abbey—it was sacked by them but later rebuilt. If at the end of the day we do not have Canterbury cathedral, we have Pugin's own church in Ramsgate. Many hon. Members probably believe, incorrectly, that this palace was Pugin's masterpiece. It was not—his masterpiece was the church in Ramsgate, and I encourage all hon. Members to come and see it.
Given that time is short, I shall wind up my eulogy on my constituency by saying that it is not a place of prosperity, which brings me to the nub of my contribution to the debate. Part of my constituency stands in Thanet, and Thanet has the second highest unemployment in England. There are places in my constituency where male unemployment reaches 60 per cent. Our problems were recognised by the European Community which came to our aid with its objective 2 funding. That funding ultimately led to our Government giving us assisted area status.

505
Reform of the common agricultural policy is vital because objective 2 funding runs out in 2000. Money to help expand Europe will have to come from somewhere—either from the structural and regional development funds, on which my constituency depends, or from a reformed common agricultural policy.
I welcome the Government's initiative to reform the common agricultural policy. In passing, I would also like to encourage them to speak to EU Commissioners about compensation for farmers in Kent whose fruit crops were damaged by frost in May. In the short term, compensation would do a great deal for local farmers. In the long term, reforming the common agricultural policy, creating a sustainable agricultural industry in Britain and throughout Europe and ensuring sustainable rural development in my constituency are vital to the future of both the rural and the urban parts of my constituency.
I shall conclude my comments now, once again expressing my gratitude to those who have shortened their contributions to allow me to get in. I encourage all hon. Members to come to South Thanet as soon as possible to enjoy our variety of family holiday and to see deprivation at first hand and some of the good things that the European Union is doing in the United Kingdom.
6.50 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on his maiden speech. He spoke warmly of his predecessor. I am sure that he will wish to emulate in many ways—perhaps not all—his predecessor's success and hard work. He said that some crops in his constituency had been damaged by frost. Farmers in my area, which is probably the largest berry-producing constituency in the country, were similarly concerned by the frost damage earlier this year to berry canes and the consequences that that will have for the harvest.
When considering reform of the common agricultural policy, it is essential not to lose sight of why it was established. We must ensure that a favourable regime exists for continued agricultural activity as the principal mechanism of land use and management in our rural areas. However, there is a greater need to target funds more effectively, such as by taking labour and employment into account when allocating subsidies.
I should like to highlight two concerns about the beef and sheep markets, which are vital in Scotland and other rural areas. The Minister described the Opposition amendment as effrontery. That is the word that I was going to use, so I shall call it bare-faced cheek. I am no adherent of the Government's views, but the Conservatives have nothing to tell us about how to handle a beef ban. I urge the Government, as I have done before, to move as swiftly as possible to have the beef ban lifted. Beef farmers in my constituency reckoned that the market was recoverable if the damage was limited to one year, but if it extends—as seems likely—to two years, the problems will become greater.
I urge the Government to persuade our European partners not to become fixated on a drive simply to cut production without taking due account of opportunities to promote quality produce. The Scottish suckler beef
506
industry produces the finest beef in the world. Why should quality produce be eliminated in a move to equalise production?
The sheep industry in Scotland is predominantly in the hill and upland areas and is inextricably linked to the fortunes of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. It is essential that the Government closely monitor developments in HLCAs as a key component of sustainable rural life in Scotland.
The motion sets out the Government's determination to negotiate a deal
"which reflects the interests of United Kingdom consumers, taxpayers and food and farming industries".
None of us could disagree with that aim, but the Government's success in delivering it will rest on the nature of the deal that is secured. I hope that, when the deal is reached, the Scottish farming community will be able to give a more positive response than the Scottish fishing industry has given to the result of the Amsterdam summit. The Government will be judged on that in their proposals to reform the CAP.
6.54 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: This has been an interesting debate. We have heard excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and from the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). They all made model maiden speeches which were extremely fluent. In the best traditions of the House, they paid generous and fair compliments to their predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden referred to the tragic circumstances in which we lost a good friend and colleague. The generous comments that Labour Members made about the previous Members whom they defeated at the election do them credit and do credit to the House.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby in particular made too much reference to landslides. As the first Member to speak from this Dispatch Box since the election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as the new leader of the Conservative party, I must tell Labour Members that they mislead themselves with talk of landslides. The Labour party may have done well at winning seats at the election, but it did not do so well in its share of the popular vote. Only a 6 per cent. swing is required to unseat Labour at the next election, and I assure Labour Members that we Conservatives will be working very hard to ensure that they are unseated.
We shall start from the rural base, which we strongly represent. We shall do well in the countryside partly because country people are already concerned that this urban Government are seeking to impose urban values on the countryside. Anyone who doubts that fact need only see the number of people who will come from all corners of Great Britain to Hyde park on 10 July, concerned about a private Member's Bill, given tacit support by the Government, which threatens what they see as rural values. They are also concerned about other issues such as the right to roam. Labour Members would do

507
themselves a service by talking less about landslides and giving a little more consideration to how to govern the whole nation.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We have full confidence that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will win as many seats in the United Kingdom as leader of the Conservative party as he did in Wales at the last election.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Can we now return to the matter in hand, which is the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Baldry: I have no doubt that at the next election we shall do well in Wales, taking seats back as we shall in every other part of the United Kingdom. The Government ain't seen nothing yet. Of course we have some way to go, but with all the talk from Labour Members of landslides and the feeling that they have the right to be on those Benches for ever, they would do well to show some humility, because the British people do not like the arrogance that they have demonstrated.
Neither we nor the farming community expected the Minister to secure a lifting of the beef ban in seven weeks, but we are concerned that as yet no apparent process seems to have been agreed with the Commission on further steps towards the lifting of the beef ban. That is a genuine and legitimate concern.
Dr. John Cunningham: When the previous Government agreed to the imposition of the Florence terms, they got no agreement that if those terms were met the ban would be lifted at any time or on any date. That is why we are stuck where we are.
Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is simply and clearly not a fair assessment.
Dr. Cunningham: It is true.
Mr. Baldry: No, it is not a fair assessment at all. The right hon. Gentleman is discovering what we experienced over the certified herds scheme, for example. When we thought that we had secured an agreement with Community colleagues, committees such as the Scientific Veterinary Committee sought to intervene and find new terms. That is the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman is finding. Before the election, the Labour party talked about the lifting of the beef ban as an urgent priority. We are entitled at least to some clear enunciation of the process by which it intends the ban to be lifted.
We are glad of the progress that the Government have made and of their determination on beef imports, but in fairness it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) who invited SEAC to give the Government advice—which it did—that has enabled matters on imports to be brought forward. We shall be judging—as will the farming community—what the Government seek to do on beef imports and getting the beef export ban raised. Unless they succeed sooner rather than later, not only the Opposition but the whole country will be saying that they can no longer hide behind the excuse of being in government for only seven weeks.
7.1 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Time is extremely short and there is no way I can attempt to do justice to all the speeches in the debate.
In response to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), we are actively working on the cattle database issue. I freely admit that there was a six-week delay due to the election. Although I do not think that that delay should have occurred, I do not apportion blame for it. A competition for the work was freely entered into before the election, but the consultants who won it were never appointed. Although they could have been appointed, I do not blame the previous Government for that not being so, and I certainly do not blame the civil service. The time was lost due to the election.
We are working very quickly on the issue and our intention is that the database will be up and running well in advance of the European Union requirement. I hesitate to say that that will be at the end of this year or early next year because that would tie me to that, but we are working on such a scale and decisions are due to be made soon on the direction in which we shall go.
I turn to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is off to other pastures following this debate. He was very unfair to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that my hon. Friend could not go to the Lincolnshire show because there was a statement on fishing yesterday. My hon. Friend deals with fishing matters for the Government and was briefing every hon. Member with an interest in fishing—including the successor to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former constituency.
Far be it from me to say that the countryside has turned against the Labour Government. Although I am the worst person in the country to claim so—others must claim it for me—I think that I was very well received by a wide range of country, agriculture and food interests at the Cheshire show on Tuesday. I remind the Tory party that no fewer than 47 new Labour Members on the Benches behind me represent wholly or mainly rural constituencies, so we take no lectures whatever in that respect.
My main function is to pay tribute to the maiden speeches in this debate. I certainly pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament. I pay tribute to the way in which she spoke of lain Mills—with whom I served in the House over many years—and of our region. I say "our region" because only sometimes can I speak for myself instead of for the Government at the Dispatch Box. I am a west midlands hon. Member, and proud to be so. The hon. Lady spoke up for the west midlands—indeed, the centre of the country—in a way that was a great tribute to herself and her constituents. I was particularly gratified by her good words for the national exhibition centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) paid tribute at some length to John Sykes and Sir Michael Shaw and certainly put on the line the benefits of his constituency. I have visited both parts of his constituency as a tourist, especially Esk valley.

509
As a fellow engineer, I agree with his comment about the lack of engineers in the House, which has far too many lawyers.
We all felt for my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who made his maiden speech. He is certainly a co-operator, and that is fine. Government Front Benchers will certainly be looking for his co-operation as the months go by. He made great claims about the efforts of Brighton, Pavilion as a tourist centre. There is a good exhibition centre there—there is a bigger one in the west midlands. We are all looking forward to cut prices in Brighton later this year.
In his maiden speech my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), paid fine tribute to Jonathan Aitken, who—I believe—entered the House on exactly the same day as me in February 1974.
I must mention the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who was once one of the Whipless eight and who called for adult politics, which I reinforce. We need an adult arrangement when we are discussing agriculture and food policy. There should be no knee-jerk reactions to every minor headline. If we are adult, we can protect the agriculture and food industry and the thousands of people who work in it, and give our constituents, all of whom are consumers, a better service than in the past when politics was somewhat juvenile in the hothouse of this Chamber. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is my pair is irrelevant to my remarks.
The Government are committed to working with the food industry. I say the food industry and not the agriculture industry because everyone involved in agriculture is part of the food production industry—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [12 June].
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 357.

Division No 37]

[7.7 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Arbuthnot, James

Collins, Tim

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gran, James

Baldry, Tony

Curry, Rt Hon David

Bercow, John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Blunt, Crispin

Day, Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brady, Graham

Evans, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Faber, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fallon, Michael

Burns, Simon

Flight, Howard

Butterfill, John

Forth, Eric

Cash, William

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Fox, Dr Liam

Clappison, James

Fraser, Christopher

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Gale, Roger

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Garnier, Edward

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gibb, Nick

Gill, Christopher

510

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Nicholls, Patrick

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Norman, Archie

Gray, James

Page, Richard

Green, Damian

Paice, James

Greenway, John

Paterson, Owen

Grieve, Dominic

Pickles, Eric

Hague, Rt Hon William

Prior, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hammond, Philip

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hawkins, Nick

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hayes, John

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Heald, Oliver

Ruffley, David

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

St Aubyn, Nick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Sayeed, Jonathan

Horam, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hunter, Andrew

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Streeter, Gary

Key, Robert

Swayne, Desmond

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Syms, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Leigh, Edward

Townend, John

Letwin, Oliver

Tredinnick, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Trend, Michael

Lidington, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Viggers, Peter

Loughton, Tim

Walter, Robert

Luff, Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Wells, Bowen

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wilkinson, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Willetts, David

Madel, Sir David

Wilshire, David

Major, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Malins, Humfrey

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Maples, John

Woodward, Shaun

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Yeo, Tim

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

May, Mrs Theresa

Tellers for the Ayes:

Merchant, Piers

Mr. Richard Ottaway and

Moss, Malcolm

Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Noes

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

Brake, Thomas

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Brand, Dr Peter

Ashton, Joe

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Atkins, Ms Charlotte

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Austin, John

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Baker, Norman

Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Buck, Ms Karen

Barnes, Harry

Burden, Richard

Bayley, Hugh

Burgon, Colin

Beard, Nigel

Burnett, John

Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

Burstow, Paul

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Butler, Christine

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Byers, Stephen

Bennett, Andrew F

Cable, Dr Vincent

Benton, Joe

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bermingham, Gerald

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Best, Harold

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Betts, Clive

Canavan, Dennis

Blackman, Mrs Liz

Cann, Jamie

Blizzard, Robert

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

511

Caplin, Ivor

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Casale, Roger

Gerrard, Neil

Caton, Martin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Cawsey, Ian

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Chaytor, David

Goggins, Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clapham, Michael

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gorrie, Donald

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Graham, Thomas

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Grant, Bernie

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Grocott, Bruce

Coffey, Ms Ann

Grogan, John

Cohen, Harry

Gunnell, John

Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Colman, Anthony (Putney)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

Cooper, Ms Yvette

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Corbett, Robin

Harvey, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Corston, Ms Jean

Healey, John

Cotter, Brian

Heath, David (Somerton)

Cousins, Jim

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cox, Tom

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cranston, Ross

Hesford, Stephen

Crausby, David

Hill, Keith

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer. John (Hornchurch)

Hoey, Kate

Cummings, John

Home Robertson, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

Hope, Philip

Dafis, Cynog

Hopkins, Kelvin

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Darvill, Keith

Howells, Dr Kim

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dawson, Hilton

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dean, Ms Janet

Hurst, Alan

Denham, John

Hutton, John

Dismore, Andrew

Iddon, Brian

Dobbin, Jim

Illsley, Eric

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Ingram, Adam

Donohoe, Brian H

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Dowd, Jim

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Drew, David

Jamieson, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Johnson, Alan (Hull M)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Efford, Clive

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Ellman, Ms Louise

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Etherington, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Fearn, Ronnie

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Fisher, Mark

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

Keeble, Ms Sally

Flint, Ms Caroline

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Flynn, Paul

Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

Follett, Ms Barbara

Keetch, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Khabra, Piara S

Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

Kidney, David

Fyfe, Maria

Kilfoyle, Peter

Galbraith, Sam

King, Andy (Rugby)

Gapes, Mike

King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

Gardiner, Barry

Kingham, Tessa

George, Andrew (St Ives)

512

Kirkwood, Archy

Purchase, Ken

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Quin, Ms Joyce

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Quinn. Lawrie

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Radice, Giles

Laxton, Bob

Rammell, Bill

Lepper, David

Rapson, Syd

Leslie, Christopher

Raynsford, Nick

Levitt, Tom

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Rendel, David

Linton, Martin

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Livsey, Richard

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Roy, Frank

Lock, David

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Love, Andy

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McAllion, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Salter, Martin

McCabe, Stephen

Sanders, Adrian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Savidge, Malcolm

Macdonald, Calum

Sawford, Phil

McDonnell, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McFall, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mclsaac, Ms Shona

Shipley, Ms Debra

McKenna, Ms Rosemary

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Singh, Marsha

Maclennan, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe &Lunesdale)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

McWilliam, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mallaber, Ms Judy

Southworth, Ms Helen

Mandelson, Peter

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stevenson, George

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stott, Roger

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Maxton, John

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Merron, Ms Gillian

Stringer, Graham

Milburn, Alan

Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

Miller, Andrew

Stunell, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moran, Ms Margaret

Swinney, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morley, Elliot

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mountford, Ms Kali

Timms, Stephen

Mudie, George

Todd, Mark

Mullin, Chris

Trickett, Jon

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Truswell, Paul

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Norris, Dan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

O'Hara, Edward

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Opik, Lembit

Tyler, Paul

Organ, Mrs Diana

Vaz, Keith

Osborne, Mrs Sandra

Vis, Dr Rudi

Palmer, Dr Nick

Wallace, James

Pearson, Ian

Ward, Ms Claire

Pendry, Tom

Watts, David

Perham, Ms Linda

Webb, Steven

Pickthall, Colin

White, Brian

Pike, Peter L

Whitehead, Alan

Plaskitt, James

Wicks, Malcolm

Pollard, Kerry

Wigley, Dafydd

Pond, Chris

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Pound, Stephen

Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prosser, Gwyn

513

Wills, Michael

Wray, James

Winnick, David

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

Wise, Audrey

Wyatt, Derek

Wood, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Woolas, Phil

Mr. David Clelland and

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6627/97, relating to agricultural prices for 1997–98; welcomes the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome which reflects the interests of United Kingdom consumers, taxpayers and food and farming industries; and welcomes the Government's longer term aim of securing reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy which reduce food prices, save money and provide more targeted support for the rural economy and enhance the rural environment.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 8th July at half-past Ten o'clock, to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.

Transport (Waveney)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
7.21 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am extremely grateful that my topic has been selected for debate this evening. It means a great deal to the people of Waveney, which is, of course, Britain's easternmost constituency.
I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on her appointment.
One of the key elements of transport policy has come to be the concept of sustainability. Transport must comply with the requirements of a sustainable environment, yet it must, of course, also sustain an economy. As Labour's business manifesto rightly pledged, we must ensure that we provide the modern transport infrastructure that business needs, which allows business to be competitive. The transport links to Lowestoft and Waveney simply do not provide that at the moment.
If one were to draw a map of Britain based not on conventional linear distance but on travel time, my constituency and north-east East Anglia would lie at the end of a very long peninsula indeed.
Let us look at the roads. Most visitors to our district arrive late. I remember the President of the Board of Trade telephoning from a point on the Al2 between Colchester and Ipswich, having looked at the map distance, and saying, "We'll be there in half an hour." Unfortunately, the Al2 beyond Ipswich peters out into a single carriageway with slow bends, un-bypassed villages, and tractors.
The A47, linking us to the midlands, is much the same. Business men who turn off the Al and see the road sign "Norwich 120 miles"—Lowestoft is not mentioned, of course—and then soon become stuck behind two lorries following a tractor, with little chance to overtake, admit to having a sinking feeling. Some never come back. I believe that my hon. Friend will find that our area is further from the continuous dualled road network than any other part of England.
I shall now deal with rail transport. There are lines from Lowestoft to Ipswich—with another station in my constituency, at Beccles—and from Lowestoft to Norwich. However, the journey to Ipswich takes longer and is more expensive than by car. Therefore, apart from a few services at peak times, most trains are fairly empty, which is a great shame.
Railtrack has told me that it would be prepared to invest in a passing loop at Beccles, which would permit a more frequent service, but only if the train operator, Anglia Railways, will guarantee more income to provide Railtrack's rate of return. That seems to pass all the risk on to the operator and may explain why the Secretary of State has had to complain about Railtrack's level of investment. Even with a passing loop, the journey time would not be quicker. Massive investment in segregating the many crossings—of roads, lanes and farm tracks—would be necessary to allow safety speed limits to be raised.
The economic consequences of the failure to modernise transport links in line with much of the rest of the country have been severe for people in my constituency.

515
While we have lost many traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, canning factories, a coach works, and shoe making—it was announced today that the last vestiges of the shoemaking industry in Lowestoft will disappear, with the loss of 48 jobs—we have been unable to attract new firms and new inward investment.
New companies invariably prefer to locate close to a modern road network. Just compare the employment statistics within the same region, for Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich on the A14 corridor, with the figures for Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. They tell a significant story. Unemployment is double the regional average in Lowestoft, and has been for many years. People in my constituency are fed up with being told that they are in the unemployment black spot of East Anglia.
The link between good road communications and economic success is well illustrated all over the world. I note the study by Cardiff business school on the impact of the A55 improvements in north Wales. It concluded:
"There is no doubt that the impact of the A55 improvements have been both substantial and significant to the economy of North Wales."
A manufacturer from the Isle of Anglesey said:
"Completion of the A55 improvements has eliminated for good the peripheral status of North Wales."
I note that even BT, with all its new technology and new forms of communication, recently chose Brentwood as the location for a new base, because it is well served by modern roads.
In every local survey of business in Waveney, poor transport links are seen as the biggest obstacle to economic success. I do not seek new roads, just a modernisation of existing trunk roads. Improvements to the A47 and A12 were cut out of the programme by the previous Government. People felt betrayed and neglected by that. Those schemes need to be reinstated.
I do not support unbridled road building. My response to widening the M25 and other such schemes is that if six lanes or four are not enough, one should diversify to a more balanced transport system, but let us have a level playing field, so that all parts of our country have a chance to share in economic prosperity and to cast off peripherality.
People in Waveney were delighted that in Labour's manifesto there was a clear commitment, which we have seen honoured today, to conduct
"an overall strategic review of the roads programme against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact".
We are pleased to note that the first criterion mentioned was accessibility.
There is certainly great potential in Lowestoft and Waveney for industrial and tourism development. There is plenty of cheap land. The labour force is hard-working and loyal, with low costs. It is a pleasant environment with room to breathe. Lowestoft is Britain's eastern cardinal point, with, officially, England's best beach, and an entrance to the Broads national park. Most important, it is Britain's easternmost port, pointing straight at Europe. Lowestoft is not the end of the line; it is on the way to Europe.
The keystone of the new Government's thinking on transport will be an integrated transport policy. I welcome that. Lowestoft has the ideal opportunity for an integrated transport policy. We have a combination of sea—with the
516
new European emphasis on short sea shipping—road and rail. The railway tracks in Lowestoft run right up to the port, parallel to the quayside. There are plenty of sidings. There is already an expanding container shipping company trading with Scandinavia, but it currently uses lorries to carry goods between Lowestoft and the north-west and the midlands.
Here lies the opportunity for a rail freight terminal, but it will require investment from Railtrack and Associated British Ports, and new momentum from a rail freight operator. There is the opportunity in the next three years of matched European objective 5b funding. I should like the Government's regional office to take a more proactive role in that area, and I hope that the new regional development agency will have that brief.
I mentioned the potential for an integrated policy in Lowestoft, with intermodal links between sea, rail and road. However, one major problem lies in the way, and the people of Waveney would say—in reference to the title of the debate—that it is the biggest transport problem of all. It is known locally as "the bridge". The Al2 passes through the entire length of Lowestoft, including the town centre. The town is cut in two by a river—although it is not really a river, but a long, deep inlet, which forms the inner harbour.
The Al2 crosses the waterway by means of a bascule bridge—a lift—up bridge—which has to be opened every time a ship uses the port on which our prosperity depends. The bridge is the only crossing point in town, as the next one is at Oulton Broad, almost two and a half miles inland. The traffic flow across the bridge is the second highest in Suffolk. When the bridge opens, the town is brought to a standstill, literally. The congestion thus formed takes a long time to clear, and in summer, when we attract tourists, there is frequent gridlock.
That situation is, I believe, unique and has to be seen to be believed. My hon. Friend the Minister recently witnessed the spectacle and saw a Chinese junk passing through. I hope that that is indelibly etched on her memory. She should visit Lowestoft in summer, when the situation is at its worst. Anyone who has not seen it may imagine London with half its bridges missing and the other half lifting up frequently. Frequently—and twice on bank holidays in recent years—the bridge breaks down. Not even a pedestrian, let alone the emergency services, can cross. The town is snapped in two.
Clearly, that presents an economic problem and affects the commercial activity of the town. It seems to make our drive for increased tourism self-defeating, and has distorted the development of the town. Many decades ago, one bridge was enough, but Lowestoft has grown. Like blown glass in an egg timer, the two sides of the town have expanded, but the constriction in the middle remains, becoming relatively worse.
That situation also presents an environmental problem. The air quality tests carried out in the enclosed Victorian streets that form the southern approach to the bridge show alarming results. The whole area, known as Kirkley, has been degraded by the effect of continuous congestion. All the quality of life indicators for the area—unemployment, poverty, health and crime—are so poor that the area qualified for single regeneration budget funding last year. As was recognised in the bid, the area cannot be successfully regenerated without removing the trunk road traffic.

517
Fortunately, there is a solution and it has been known for years—a new, second river crossing and a south Lowestoft relief road. That was consulted upon, a preferred route established and much of it designed only a few years ago. A start date in the mid-1990s was envisaged. However, it was relegated and then deleted from the trunk roads programme. Traditional ways of evaluating road schemes never addressed the full range of economic and environmental benefits that that would bring to the town. Those benefits are mainly local, but I fear that without the new crossing, Lowestoft will find it difficult to develop successfully in the next century.
The corridor has been protected for many years; it is protected by the county and district councils. No demolition is required and no environmental damage would be caused. This is the dominant issue in Lowestoft. The solution that I have described would permit traffic calming and cycleway development on the existing dangerous road. It would raise the quality of life in the town and bring us into the 21st century.
As I have shown, there is the potential to regenerate Lowestoft and develop the port by integrating sea, rail and road modes. However, as things stand, the more port activity there is, the more the bridge is lifted and the more dysfunctional the town becomes. An integrated transport policy could make a difference economically, but there must be investment in a second river crossing to stop each mode getting in each other's way.
Apart from Lowestoft, the constituency of Waveney consists of parts of rural north Suffolk, including the large village of Kessingland—the only place in my constituency bypassed by a dual carriageway. In fact, there are only about three miles of dualled road in my constituency. The historic small market towns of Beccles and Bungay are the other main settlements in Waveney. The main transport issue in those towns is heavy lorries passing through ancient narrow streets.
In Beccles last year, the deputy mayor's wife was nearly killed by a lorry. She was walking on the pavement, while the lorry kept to the road, but as everything is so narrow, she was knocked under the lorry by a wing mirror. Bungay, with equally narrow streets, has a particular problem. It is directly on the only viable route from Bernard Matthews's turkey farms to the processing factory at Holton to the south. The townspeople, surrounding villages and the company all want a satisfactory solution to the problem.
The Bernard Matthews situation deserves particular attention. The company is a massive and vital contributor to the East Anglian economy, with thousands of jobs involved. The company has a great loyalty to East Anglia, but the poor quality of local roads makes the operation of the business more difficult. The company is expanding, and several foreign Governments would love Matthews to locate in their countries. We should take note.
My speech may seem like a long shopping list of transport improvements and, in a sense, it is. But nobody expects the new Government to quickly wave a magic wand. People are only too aware of the financial constraints and strictures, but they do expect a start. For too long, East Anglia—with the exception of the A14—has been overlooked for transport investment, and the far
518
corner of the region, where my constituency lies, has been overlooked most of all. Our transport system is anything but modern.
I end as I began, by stating what we all recognise. We must ensure that we provide a modern transport infrastructure, to enable our businesses to compete successfully in Europe and the world, and to bring the employment that will create a society of which we can be proud. The people of Waveney do not want to be left out.
7.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for his congratulations, and I return the compliment by congratulating him not only on securing the debate, but on being returned to this House for what I have no doubt will be a long parliamentary career. He touched on many of the central issues affecting his constituency—its location, and the serious effects that this has on the economy, and its transport infrastructure.
I am aware of concerns from the coastal areas to the north and east of East Anglia that their remote location and lack of high-quality links to the national road network are adversely affecting their economies and development prospects. In Lowestoft—the main town in my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney's constituency—these concerns are coupled with worries over the effect of heavy traffic flows and congestion on main roads in the town. The concentration of movements on Mutford lock bridge and the bascule bridge, which are the only connections between the two halves of the town, is a significant problem. My hon. Friend gave some detail of the difficulties.
One of the first priorities of the new Government is the creation of effective regional development agencies across the country. Their task will be to co-ordinate regional economic development, help attract inward investment, and support business. Last week, we published a discussion paper on RDAs, seeking comments on their objectives, role and functions. It is our intention to introduce effective RDAs by April 1999 in all regions, taking account of local views on how they will operate.
Transport planning, transport operation and the provision of transport infrastructure are just some of the activities in which RDAs might become involved. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the views expressed during the consultation process. The issues described by my hon. Friend are exactly those in which we would expect RDAs to take an interest. I have little doubt that he will represent his views and his constituents' concerns to the review.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport earlier today announced our proposals for carrying out our manifesto commitment for a strategic review of the national road programme. Again, we intend to consult widely on that review, the objective of which will be to determine the role that trunk roads should play in a sustainable transport system and to establish a forward investment programme for the trunk road network in England. It will have a wider focus than previous trunk road reviews, and will contribute to our thinking on an integrated transport strategy, the necessity for which—for supporting the economy and enabling it to develop—my hon. Friend explained in some detail.

519
Consultation will be launched in July, inviting responses by the end of October. We hope to announce the conclusions of the review next spring.
Both those exercises demonstrate the importance we attach to regional economic development and the close involvement of local authorities, businesses and the community in the development of their areas. The new organisations and programmes we will put in place will ensure more effective economic development strategies. By consultation and creation of regional bodies, decisions will be taken at the appropriate level.
My hon. Friend referred to some roads in particular. The A11, A12 and A47 trunk roads connect the Waveney area to the rest of the country. In recent years, £250 million has been invested in improvements to the A11 and A47, but we are aware of the importance attached to the completion of dualling the A11 from the M11 to Norwich. Three schemes now remain, including the Roudham Heath-Attleborough improvement, which has cleared all its statutory hurdles.
The previous Government made substantial reductions in the proposals for the development of both the A12 and A47. Those reductions included the withdrawal of both the strategic route dualling and local environmental bypass schemes. Again, my hon. Friend touched on both actions. The Waveney and Great Yarmouth areas are particularly concerned about the completion of dualling the A47 from Norwich to Great Yarmouth, which would complete a dual carriageway connection to the national road network via the A11.
The opportunity is now there for local interests to influence the trunk road programme in the review that we have announced. No doubt strong representations will be made, and they will be considered carefully, along with the other points that my hon. Friend so tellingly made.
The A48 from the A1 to Great Yarmouth is one of the first six roads in the country for the Highways Agency's route strategy approach. A comprehensive strategy for effective management and improvement of the whole route will be produced.
Waveney has been significantly affected by the removal of the A12 Wrentham bypass and the Kessingland-Pleasurewood schemes. The latter would have produced a completely new A12 route through Lowestoft, and included a third harbour crossing between the Mutford and bascule bridges. With the North sea on the east and Oulton broad on the west, it is not possible to take a conventional bypass around Lowestoft.
In recent years, my Department has given strong financial support to both Norfolk and Suffolk county council improvements to the A143-A146 primary route, which links the A14 at Bury St. Edmunds with Waveney and Great Yarmouth. Those improvements have been a series of bypasses of local communities, most recently Rickinghall-Botesdale, Scole-Stuston and Brockdish-Needham. The much improved road serves communities along the northern boundary of Waveney, such as Bungay and Beccles, as well as Lowestoft.
My hon. Friend described the considerable local problems of congestion within the main town of Lowestoft, and their effect on the efficiency of local businesses. Traffic movements are concentrated on the two bridges, and there are particular problems when the A12 bascule bridge is lifted to allow shipping to pass between the inner and outer harbours.
520
As my hon. Friend said, I have witnessed the operation. May I reassure him that it is, indeed, indelibly printed on my memory? The bridge is of critical importance to the local road network. Recent inspections have shown that it is in generally good condition, and it does, of course, receive regular maintenance, as well as replacement and refurbishment of major components.
The A12 Kessingland-Pleasurewood improvement through Lowestoft was withdrawn, because it was a very expensive urban scheme, with the third harbour crossing a particularly expensive element. The scheme would have catered mainly for local traffic. Consideration was given to taking the scheme forward as a design, build, finance and operate project, but shadow tolling would still place a considerable burden on the Department's budget. Faced with tight limits on expenditure, a third harbour crossing for Lowestoft could not be regarded as a high priority for investment in national terms.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of rail to his constituents and constituency. We want to ensure that greater use is made of the railway, with more passengers and freight travelling by train. The railway system must be run in the public interest, with higher levels of investment and the effective enforcement of train operators' service commitments. The Government will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that the public interest always comes first.
Anglia Railways, which provides train services from Lowestoft to Norwich and Ipswich, is turning in a good performance against its passenger charter targets for both punctuality and reliability. Its £200,000 "bikes on trains" project, part funded by my Department, has led the field in developing facilities for the carriage of cycles on trains. Its local trains will now carry four bicycles each, and it has earned the first ever cycle mark. It is also involved in a £1.6 million capital challenge project with other operators, Railtrack and local authorities to provide real-time passenger information at stations throughout the area.
We are also keen—as is my hon. Friend—to see more freight being carried by rail, and I know that some businesses in Lowestoft are considering rail freight. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is taking a very positive attitude to seeking new business, and Railtrack has recently appointed freight officers in each of its zones. Grant is available for rail freight facilities, and we welcome worthwhile schemes.
We are working towards our White Paper on an integrated transport strategy. I have been impressed by the Lowestoft partnerships set up in Waveney to take forward an integrated approach to economic development and sustainable transport. Again, that was a theme highlighted by my hon. Friend tonight. Suffolk county council and Waveney district council, together with their community and business partners, have produced successful bids for transport package, capital challenge, single regeneration budget and European funding.
The main thrust of transport policy in Waveney is very much in accordance with Government policies. Investment is proposed to assist economic regeneration; encourage visitors and tourists; manage demand and promote alternative modes of transport; improve public transport services and facilities; provide safe links for pedestrians, the mobility-impaired and cyclists; enable physical improvement and improve social conditions; and reduce pollution.

521
The Lowestoft transport package was accepted in December 1996, with an initial allocation of £150,000 for 1997–98. Subject to satisfactory progress, further funding should be made available in future years. In the recent capital challenge round, £2.9 million has been allocated for completion of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which has also attracted substantial private sector investment and starts construction later this year. That scheme improves access to the A12 and A47 to the north for industrial traffic, and provides substantial environmental benefits to the town centre and adjacent residential areas.
I am happy to report that a high level of cycling has been maintained in Lowestoft, with investment by local authorities, the private sector and developers. Capital challenge funding has provided an additional £250,000 towards strategic cycle routes in Lowestoft, north of Lake Lothing. Those are considerable investments of local transport funds.
As well as those transport investments, single regeneration budget and European objective 5b programmes are approved for regeneration of the Kirkley area and business support and expansion.
The local approach of combining economic development and sustainable transport is, as I have said, very much in accordance with the Government's policies. The councils are forging ever more effective partnerships with local businesses, the community and transport interests. The support of the chamber of commerce and industry and the Lowestoft 2000 economic regeneration partnership for recent bids has been significant. Quality partnerships are proposed with the local bus operators.
The Highways Agency and the Government office for eastern region have agreed to join the steering group of the Lowestoft partnership's south Lowestoft study
522
of traffic problems and environmental and regeneration issues. The Highways Agency is responsible for the A12 through Waveney, and will work closely with the local authorities. The study will consider among other things the pros and cons of a south Lowestoft relief road on the line of the previous trunk road scheme.
Proposals for major road schemes followed by withdrawal create particular problems for development and regeneration in urban areas. The desirability of major urban road construction, such as the previously proposed A12 Kessingland-Pleasurewood improvement, has to be questioned, as we cannot cater for ever increasing use of the car in our towns. I was pleased by my hon. Friend's underlining of the concerns for the environment in his area.
That questioning must be accepted, and appropriate transport and development plans have to be produced. Waveney seems to be well on the way to doing that. Any proposals for major road construction would need to be well justified and supported.
I look forward to future package bids and to assessments of how effectively the investment in Waveney is delivering sustainable results. The Highways Agency and the Government office for eastern region will continue their involvement, in particular considering the way in which the management of the A12 trunk road fits into the general Lowestoft transport strategy.
On a national scale, in considering both the regional development agencies and the review of the trunk road programme, we will, of course, take careful note of any representations from Waveney and similarly placed authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk. I look forward to many conversations with my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Clearance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the arrangements for hearing appeals from those who need to have access to protectively marked Government assets and have been refused security clearance or have had that clearance withdrawn. [4979]

  The Prime Minister
  An independent Security Vetting Appeals Panel, chaired by Sir Anthony May, will be established on 1 July to hear appeals against refusal or withdrawal of clearance at Security Check (SC) or Developed Vetting (DV) levels and to advise the head of the organisation concerned. The Panel will be available to all those, other than recruits, in the public and private

  Persons detained in purpose-built immigration detention centres and their current capacity

  Heathrow Queen's Building

  Harmondsworth

  Manchester Airport

  Campsfield House

  Tinsley House

  Gatwick Meadvale2

  Stanstead1

  Number of persons detained on:

  31 May 1996

  13

  91

  12

  196

  39

  36

  7

  30 June 1996

  14

  91

  7

  198

  92

  43

  7

  31 July 1996

  13

  85

  8

  193

  100

  41

  7

  31 August 1996

  15

  91

  10

  195

  120

  42

  —

  30 September 1996

  14

  88

  16

  197

  144

  44

  —

  31 October 1996

  13

  87

  13

  195

  136

  45

  —

  30 November 1996

  14

  89

  13

  189

  139

  45

  —

  31 December 1996

  15

  90

  4

  194

  132

  44

  —

  31 January 1997

  15

  90

  11

  195

  134

  42

  —

  28 February 1997

  14

  85

  6

  195

  139

  39

  —

  31 March 1997

  14

  88

  12

  195

  142

  44

  —

  30 April 1997

  15

  88

  7

  197

  145

  32

  —

  31 May 1997

  15

  91

  5

  195

  144

  —

  —

  Current detention capacity

  15

  93

  16

  198

  150

  —

  —

  1Closed on 7 August 1996.

  2Closed on 19 May 1997.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers currently in detention have alleged that they are under 18 years of age; and where they are being held. [3940]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The available information on detained asylum seekers shows that none is recorded as being under the age of 18.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently detained in(a) prisons and (b) detention centres solely under the powers of the Immigration Act 1971. [3938]
  246
  sectors and in the Armed Forces who are subject to security vetting at these levels, have exhausted existing appeals mechanisms within their own organisations and remain dissatisfied with the result. Separate arrangements are available to staff of the security and intelligence agencies. The establishment of the Panel therefore brings to an end the role of the Three Advisers who, since 1948, have been available to consider cases where security clearance was refused or withdrawn on the grounds of subversion.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Detention Centres
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were detained in purpose-built immigration detention centres in each month in the last year; [3985]

  (2) how many places in purpose-built immigration detention centres are currently occupied; [3983]

  (3) what is the total current capacity of purpose-built immigration detention centres. [3984]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. O'Brien
  As at 31 May 1997, the most recent date for which information is available, 279 persons in Prison Service establishments and 374 persons in detention centres, who had sought asylum at some stage, were recorded as being solely detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently being detained in Category B Her Majesty's prisons without being charged with a criminal offence. [3986]

  Mr. O'Brien
  As at 31 May 1997, a total of 279 persons, who had sought asylum at some stage, were recorded as detained solely under Immigration Act powers in Her Majesty's prisons. Of these, 204 were held in establishments capable of holding Category B prisoners.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward primary legislation to make failure to stop after a road accident involving personal injury an arrestable offence. [4001]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's intention is to legislate as soon as practicable, when a suitable opportunity arises in the legislative programme.

  Illegal Entrants
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently being detained in Her Majesty's Prisons under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1986, having entered the United Kingdom with false documents; how many of those have entered the United Kingdom as transit passengers on their way to a third country; and how many have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. [3982]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Alcopops
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he plans to introduce governing the production and sale of alcopops drinks. [3952]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are very concerned about the promotion and sale of certain alcoholic drinks to children, and I am holding urgent talks with the drinks industry. I am also chairing a Ministerial Group to examine options for Government action. We shall not hesitate to act if the industry response is unsatisfactory.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Prison Service budget is allocated to educational activities for prisoners in the current financial year; and what were the equivalent figures for(a) 1982, (b) 1987 and (c) 1992. [4176]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  There is no central education budget: decisions on the size of education budgets are taken by individual prison governors. The table below shows the proportion of the Prison Service's current expenditure spent on contracted-in education, library services and educational materials at directly run prisons for the years 1982–83,1987–88,1992–93 and (provisionally) 1996–97. The figures for 1996–97 may not be on precisely the same basis as those for earlier years due to changes in accounting arrangements.

  1982–83: 2.14 per cent.

  1987–88: 2.54 per cent.

  1992–93: 2.74 per cent.

  1996–97: 2.48 per cent.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the enforcement of the law in respect of absentee landlords of public houses. [4079]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am not aware of any particular problems in this area of the law. If the hon. Member has specific concerns, I should be happy to look into them.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a national database of(a) pub licensees and (b) persons who are barred from becoming pub licensees. [4077]

  Mr. Howarth
  I see no need to do so. Liquor licence applicants have to make a statutory declaration that they are not ineligible, and the licensing courts and police make appropriate enquiries about every applicant.

  Psychologists (Prisons)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the complement of psychologists at(a) Camphill, (b) Albany and (c) Parkhurst prisons; how many vacancies there are for these posts; how long the posts concerned have been vacant; and what plans he has to change the complements. [4081]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Details of the complements of psychologists at Camp Hill, Albany and Parkhurst prisons and any vacancies are shown in the attached table.

  There are no plans to change the complements at Albany and Camp Hill. It is planned to change the Parkhurst complement on 1 July by removing the psychologist post and adding another psychological assistant. The other posts will remain unchanged.

  Psychologist complements at Isle of Wight prisons

  Complement

  Vacancies (effective from)

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  (+1 Senior Psychologist)

  Albany

  1 Principal Psychologist

  —

  1 Senior Psychologist

  —

  1 Psychologist

  1 Psychologist

  3 Psychological Assistants

  (1 May 1997)

  1 Psychological

  Assistant

  (1 May 1997)

  Parkhurst

  1 Principal Psychologist

  —

  1 Higher Psychologist

  —

  1 Psychologist

  —

  ½ Psychological Assistant

  —

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of outlawing hare coursing. [4021]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to allowing a free vote on whether there should be a ban on hunting with hounds. A Private Member's Bill to ban hunting with dogs is now before the House.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to fund CCTV in 1997–98; [4277]

  (2) when new bids for CCTV will be considered. [4279]

  Mr. Michael
  Round three of the closed circuit television (CCTV) Challenge Competition provided £15 million for CCTV in the current financial year (1997–98). This money has already been allocated. A decision on 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the number of salaries of his Department's special advisers falling within the range of(a) £24,349–£29,999, (b) £30,000–34,999,
  (c) £35,000–£39,999, (d) £40,000–£44,999, (e) £45,000£49,999, (f) £50,000–£54,999, (g) £55,000–£59,999, (h)£60,000—£64,999, (i) £65,000—69,999 and (j) £70,000—£73,484. [4555]

  Mr. Straw
  Consistent with the practice of previous administrations and to protect the privacy of individuals, only aggregate information on the salaries of special advisers will be published.

  Once all salaries have been agreed, the number of advisers paid in each of the appropriate £10,000 bands will be published.

  Prison Service (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached about future private sector involvement in the Prison Service. [5060]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government have expressed reservations about the principle of contracting out the management of prisons. It is generally accepted that responsibility for the incarceration of offenders must remain with the state. The issue is whether that responsibility should, as a matter of principle, be discharged through direct management in the public sector or whether it can properly and effectively be discharged under a regulatory framework. This was addressed in the recent report on prison management by the Home Affairs Select Committee; and the Government now wish to give further and careful consideration to the arguments deployed in that report before settling their overall approach to this issue.

  Existing management contracts will be honoured, as I have already made clear. But we are considering ways in which the current regulatory framework might be strengthened. At present, all disciplinary hearings in contractually managed prisons are conducted by a state official—the Controller, a Prison Service governor, who also monitors the performance of the contractor on behalf of the responsible Prison Service Area Manager. This is an important principle from which we will not depart; and we are currently reviewing the scope for extending the Controller's powers in respect of prisoners' requests and complaints, sentence calculation, scrutiny of security classifications and frequency of security audits.
  250
  On the letting of new contracts and the renewal of existing contracts, our immediate approach is necessarily determined by current expenditure plans, to which we are committed, and by operational requirements.

  We have inherited a prison population rising sharply, (well above projections) with expenditure provision for new prisons limited to establishments to be designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector. Even with the new prison ship, Her Majesty's Prison Weare, there is huge pressure on capacity. We have therefore decided to proceed with existing procurement plans to provide additional new places on this basis by 1999–2000. This is an urgent operational requirement to overcome projected shortfalls in accommodation and to avoid dangerous levels of overcrowding and the use of police cells. We will shortly be launching competitions to provide an 800 place Category B local prison at Agecroft, Salford, and a 400 place Young Offender Institution at Pucklechurch, near Bristol.

  I have also authorised the renewal of the contract for the operation of Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst with the private sector operator, United Kingdom Detention Services. The existing contract expires on 25 May 1998; and we are required to give the operator one year's notice of a decision to renew the contract. The prison has been performing well against the current contract requirements and in comparison with comparable prisons in the public sector; and I am satisfied that the terms that have been negotiated for renewal of the contract offer value for money. The establishment could not be returned to public sector control without incurring additional expenditure, which would require offsetting savings elsewhere; and in the light of the current budgetary pressures on the Prison Service and pending our consideration of the Select Committee report, I am persuaded that no other course of action could be justified in current circumstances. However, in order to ensure that future options are kept as open as possible while our overall policy is under review, I have decided to renew the contract for 3 years only, the minimum practical—and contractually permissible—period.

  Moreover, before further decisions are made on prison procurement beyond the extra places within existing plans or on the renewal of any other existing contracts, I have asked the Prison Service to:

  (a) explore all possible methods of using private finance on terms which offer value for money including design, build and maintain new prisons with the public sector providing custodial services; and

  (b) seek to demonstrate that the public sector Prison Service has the capacity to match the performance of the private sector in comparable prisons, and that realistic plans can be developed to establish a case for returning contractually managed prisons to the public sector on value for money grounds when consideration is given to the issue on the expiry of contracts. I have asked senior Prison Service managers to engage in consultations with the Prison Service unions to this end.

  251
  Proposals for private sector area involvement in other areas of the Prison Service, which do not raise the same issues of principle, will be treated on their merits. I have authorised the extension of the contract with Group 4 to operate the court escort and custody service in Area 7. This is essentially a specialist service, distinguishable from the management of prisons; and I am satisfied both with the quality of the service being provided and with the terms negotiated for extension of the contract.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cricket Test Matches
  Ms Gisela Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on the televising of cricket test matches on terrestrial television channels. [3980]

  Mr. Fisher
  Test matches involving England are among the events listed under the Broadcasting Act 1996. Rights for live television coverage of these events must be made available to broadcasters offering a generally available free to air service: currently the BBC and Channels 3 and 4. The provisions do not apply retrospectively, and consequently only contracts agreed after the Act came into force are affected. I announced in the House on 19 May that the Government was initiating a review of this list of events and the work is under way in my Department. The review will include a consultation with all interested parties.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4200]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  No full-time or part-time member of staff in the Department of National Heritage is paid less than £4 an hour.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Deaths
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of(a) people and (b) children under five dying each day in the developing world from (i) inadequate sanitation, (ii) lack of clean water, (iii) starvation and (iv) war. [3806]

  Clare Short
  DFID makes no such global estimates. However, I have approached the United Nations, who collect some of this data on a country by country basis, and will write to my hon. Friend when I have their response.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the precise criteria which the Low Pay Commission will apply in making their recommendation on the optimum level of statutory minimum pay. [4053]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The independent Low Pay Commission will recommend to Government the level at which the National Minimum Wage might be introduced having undertaken a wide-ranging consultation with employers, including small businesses, employees, the general public and other interested parties and taking into account relevant economic circumstances prevailing at the time.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. [3956]

  Mrs. Roche
  As we made clear in our manifesto, we are committed to relieving the regulatory burdens on small businesses. To achieve this, we plan to work in partnership with small firms to ensure that new regulations are simple and fair. We also want to ensure that regulations are enforced fairly. As part of this process we will maintain close links with small firms and their representative bodies to identify their key concerns. We will also reconstitute the Deregulation Task Force to increase its focus on small firms by increasing small business representation.

  Newsagents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met representatives from the Multiple Newsagents Association; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [4175]

  Mr. Nigel Giffiths
  Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor I have yet met the Multiple Newsagents Association since arriving at the Department.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the legal action against some of the former directors of Astra Holdings commenced under the previous administration. [2923]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No information has been drawn to my attention which suggests that I should review the disqualification proceedings instituted against some of the former directors of Astra Holdings plc. A trial has now been fixed and it must be for the Court to determine the issues.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set for fuel consumption by
  253
  the Government Car Service; if meeting such targets will involve the use of diesel vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [4056]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For 1997–98, the Government Car and Despatch Agency has been set the target of achieving an annual average of 25.5 miles per gallon for the Government Car Service and Inter Despatch Service fleets. Responsibility for meeting this target has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Agency, and I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member about Agency's use of diesel fuelled vehicles.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 17 June 1997:
  I have been asked by Mr Peter Kilfoyle MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (who has ministerial responsibility for the Government Car Service (GCS)), to provide a response to that part of your Parliamentary Question on fuel consumption targets for the GCS that relates to the use of diesel engined vehicles. I am the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency with operational responsibility for the GCS.
  The Agency fleet comprises 179 cars operated by the Government Car Service, all of which are petrol driven, and 63 diesel powered vans operated by the Interdespatch Service (IDS). The overall Agency fuel consumption target of 25.5 mpg includes both types of vehicle.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Goverment's trade promotion policy towards Burma. [4898]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We will not provide any financial support to companies for trade missions to Burma or for trade promotion activities within Burma until there is progress towards democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma. Officials in the UK and at the British Embassy in Rangoon will continue to provide British companies with routine advice about doing business in Burma. Wherever possible such advice will make clear the present realities in Burma, including the political and human rights situation and the state of the economy. It will also draw to businessmen's attention statements by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other pro-democracy leaders discouraging trade and investment in Burma. We shall encourage our EU partners to take similar action.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on international efforts to restore democracy in Sierra Leone; [4159]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implications of his Department's mission statement for relations with Sierra Leone following the recent coup d'état; [4158]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the actions of the Nigerian military in Sierra Leone; [4229]
  254
  (4)how Her Majesty's Government are assisting efforts to find a negotiated and peaceful settlement to the crisis in Sierra Leone; [4154]

  (5) if he will make a statement on his recent discussions on Sierra Leone with the United Nations Secretary General; [4155]

  (6) if he will make a statement about Nigeria's military intervention in Sierra Leone; [4156]

  (7) what assessment his Department has made of the regional implications of the crisis in Sierra Leone. [4157]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 12 June, Official Report, column 545. We deplore this coup and shall continue to work for the restoration of the legitimate government in Sierra Leone without further bloodshed. Those who led the coup have no support from their own people or from the international community. International stability and respect for human rights are core parts of the FCO mission statement. They have an evident relevance to the situation in Sierra Leone.

  Several West African states, including Ghana, Nigeria and Guinea, are working together to find a peaceful settlement to the current crisis in Sierra Leone. We strongly support their efforts, which are likely to include an early high-level regional meeting to identify a way forward. I discussed the situation in Sierra Leone with the Ghanaian Deputy Foreign Minister on 18 June. I am also in touch with the Sierra Leone High Commissioner in London. We are active within both the UN and the Commonwealth about their respective roles in the search for a negotiated settlement in Sierra Leone. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Annan, United Nations Secretary General, on 4 June. They discussed Sierra Leone and expressed the strong hope that a negotiated settlement would be found. With partners in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) we will consider Sierra Leone at the next CMAG meeting on 10—11 July. I discussed the prospects for this meeting with the Commonwealth Secretary on 19 June. CMAG will report to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October.

  Nigeria has long maintained a military presence of around 1,000 troops in Sierra Leone under bilateral and multilateral agreements. Twenty-four Nigerians died defending President Kabbah. Extra deployments after the coup followed appeals to regional states by President Kabbah and by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to assist in restoring constitutional order. We encourage Nigeria now to play a constructive role in the regional efforts to secure a negotiated settlement.

  We are concerned that the coup in Sierra Leone should not have a destabilising influence elsewhere in the region. In particular we are watching events in neighbouring Liberia where democratic elections are due on 19 July. The universal condemnation of the coup by African states offers some reassurance that the region itself is determined not to allow the instability in Sierra Leone to spread.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Early Years Development Plans
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances he will be willing to approve interim local authority early years development plans which specify that there should be only one point of entry for four-year-olds each year at the beginning of the Autumn Term. [3564]

  Mr. Byers
  Interim early years development plans will be approved only if they demonstrate how a good quality early education place can be secured for each eligible four-year-old for the three terms before compulsory school age.

  Engineering (Students)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to encourage more young people to study engineering. [3567]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Curriculum makes the study of science, mathematics and technology compulsory for all pupils between the ages of 5 and 16, and this provides a suitable grounding for young people to move on to the study of engineering.

  More specifically, the Government is working in partnership with the industry itself to promote career prospects in engineering. We are currently involved with a wide range of engineering bodies, institutions, and major UK companies in the Year of Engineering Success campaign. This is intended to demonstrate the vital role played by engineering in the economy and in daily life and to encourage young people to consider engineering as a career.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for a university for industry. [3566]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government will establish the University for Industry which will open up new opportunities for adults to improve their skills and realise their potential. By harnessing new technology the University for Industry will help improve the quality and accessibility of learning opportunities and will aim in particular to be of help to small businesses. It will enable greater participation in, and demand for, learning and modernise its supply. It will bring learning to the workplace, the home and the community.

  We are taking urgent steps to bring together a range of interests from across and outside Government to agree the way ahead on the University for Industry's development. An announcement is expected soon.

  Welfare to Work
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take into account when framing the welfare to work proposals the position of people who are not in their preferred employment but do not qualify as being unemployed for six months because they take on a series of temporary agency jobs. [3950]
  256
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are currently considering the detailed design of our New Deal programmes for young people out of work for six months or more. Our key priority is to help people who have experienced a continuous period out of work. We will however take other disadvantaged groups into account in designing the initiative, as far as resources and practicalities allow.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will create a standard unit of resource for all 16 to 19-year-old students financed from the public purse irrespective of whether they attend local education authority or grant-maintained schools, sixth form colleges or further education colleges. [4163]

  Dr. Howells
  I currently have no plans to create such a unit of resource. In March this year the Department published a report comparing the costs of education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds. I will be looking further at these findings and consulting with our partners in the education service before making any proposals about future funding mechanisms for 16 to 19 education.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will readjust the cash base-line for further education to take account of the increased number of students in the further education sector. [4162]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to her of 10 June,Official Report, column 369.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will introduce measures to stop the loss of teaching staff in post-16 further education. [4202]

  Dr. Howells
  From incorporation on 1 April 1993, further education colleges assumed responsibility for their own finance and organisation, including the appointment, dismissal, redundancy and conditions of service generally of their staff. Decisions on recruitment and retention are, therefore, for individual colleges to make.

  Schools Capital Spending (Kent)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with Kent county council following the council's decision to freeze capital spending on schools. [4136]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. We understand that Kent County Council has placed a temporary moratorium on all capital expenditure. We are concerned at this development and will be asking Kent County Council for a full explanation for its decision.

  Admission and Transfer Ages
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the applications received in each of the last five years from local education authorities or from grant-maintained schools for changes in the ages of admission or transfer, indicating in each case the changes proposed; and if he will make a statement. [4164]
  257
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The applications received in each of the last five years from local education authorities and grant-maintained schools for changes in the ages of admissions or transfer are listed below. All proposals will be considered on their individual merits.

  Local education authorities

  Proposal

  1992

  Surrey

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Avon

  to change the age range of some primary schools

  1993

  Doncaster

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Hampshire

  to move from a middle-school to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Wakefield

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Kent

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11 in the Longfield area

  1994

  Leeds

  to change the age range of some primary schools

  Doncaster

  to move form a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Berkshire

  to change the age of transfer between primary and middle schools and reduce the age of admission to secondary schools in the Slough area

  Warwickshire

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  Devon

  to change the age range of some primary schools

  Kent

  to change the age range of some primary schools

  1995

  Birmingham

  to move from a middle-school system to a system of primary and secondary schools with transfer at age 11

  1996

  Buckinghamshire

  to change the age of transfer between primary, middle and secondary schools to change the age range of Loughton County Combined School from 5–12 to 8–12

  1997

  Berkshire

  to change the age-range of middle schools in the Slough area

  Grant maintained schools

  LEA area

  School

  Nature of change

  1992

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  12–19 to 11–19

  Drayton Manor High School

  12–19 to 11–19

  Greenford High School

  12–19 to 11–19

  Northholt High School

  12–19 to 11–19

  Wood End Middle School

  8–12 to 7–12

  Hampshire

  Hardley School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Portsmouth Boys' School

  12–16 to 11–16

  258

  Grant maintained schools

  LEA area

  School

  Nature of change

  Kent

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  13–18 to 11–18

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall School

  9–13 to 11–16

  Surrey

  Collingwood School

  12–18 to 11–18

  De Stafford School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Glyn School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Guildford County School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Roseberry School

  12–18 to 11–18

  The Beacon Secondary School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green Secendary School

  12–16 to 11–16

  1993

  Hampshire

  Abbotswood Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  Calmore Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  Front Lawn Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  Purbrook Park School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Testwood School

  Surrey

  Yattendon Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  Warwickshire

  Avon Valley School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Queen Elizabeth School

  12–18 to 11–18

  1994

  Berkshire

  Herschel GM Grammar School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Langley GM Grammar School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Slough GM Grammar School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Buckinghamshire

  Beaconsfield High School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Hampshire

  Lyndhurst Middle Primary School

  8–12 to 7–11

  Surrey

  Heathside GM Secondary School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Warwickshire

  Hartshill School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Myton School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Rugby High School

  12–18 to 11–18

  1995

  Berkshire

  Cippenham GM Middle School

  8–12 to 7–12

  The Westgate School

  12–16 to 11–16

  Lincolnshire

  King Edward VI School

  14–18 to 11–18

  Merton

  Ursuline Convent School

  13–18 to 11–18

  Warwickshire

  Middlemarch Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  1996

  Buckinghamshire

  Brushwood Middle School

  8–12 to 7–11

  The Cottesloe School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Chalfonts Community College

  12–18 to 11–18

  Great Marlow School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Waddesdon CE School

  12–18 to 11–18

  Royal Grammar School

  12–18 to 11–18

  1997

  Buckinghamshire

  Beechview Middle School

  8–12 to 5–11

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than£3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour.[4188]

  Dr. Howells
  At April 1997, of the people employed by DfEE (including DfEE staff in Government Offices) and the Employment Service:Full-time staff
  1,003 earned less than £ an hour; including 788 who earned less than £3.50 an hour.
  No full-time staff earned less than £ an hour
  Part-time staf
  131 earned less than £4 an hour; including 40 who earned less than £3.50 an hour
  No part-time staff earned less than £3 an hour

  Assisted Places
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils benefit from an assisted place in the South-West Surrey constituency. [4278]

  Mr. Byers
  In the current academic year 1996–97, 93 children hold assisted places in three participating schools in the South-West Surrey constituency.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for each year of operation of school-centred initial teacher training courses, what has been the average cost per annum for a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education student(a) at an initial teacher training institution and (b) on a SCITT course; [4481]

  (2) how many school-centred initial teacher training courses have sought validation for the award of the Post-Graduate Certificate in Education for students on such courses; what proportion failed on (a) an initial validation visit and (b) a subsequent validation visit; and if he will make a statement; [4482]

  (3) if he will list for each year of operation of school-centred initial teacher training courses (i) the total number of students in teacher training, (ii) the total number of students training on SCITT courses and (iii) the number of SCITT course trainees as a percentage of total trainees; and what estimate he has made of the number of students entering SCITT courses in the 1998–99 academic year; [4484]

  (4) if he will list for each year of operation of school-centred initial teacher training courses the number of schools involved; what is his estimate of the number of schools likely to be involved in the 1998–99 academic year; and if he will make a statement. [4485]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for the Teacher Training Agency. I will ask the Chairman of the Agency, Geoffrey Parker, to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school-centred initial teacher training courses have been inspected by the Office for Standards in Education; what proportion have been judged unsatisfactory; and if he will make a statement.[4483]

  Ms Morris
  This is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked the Chief Inspector to write to the hon. Member.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department currently offers to universities, colleges of higher education and further education corporations to ensure that they take into full account the environmental impact of new building projects. [4513]

  Dr. Howells
  Universities and colleges of further and higher education are autonomous, private sector bodies, responsible for the maintenance and development of their own estates. The Department does not issue any guidance 260
  to them about the environmental impact of new buildings. Of course, all buildings work must conform to the relevant planning and environmental health legislation.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department currently offers to local education authorities to ensure that they take into full account the environmental impact of new building projects. [4514]

  Mr. Byers
  The Schools Environmental Assessment Methodology (SEAM) was published in 1996. It is intended to help designers of new schools—and major building projects at existing schools—to minimise the environmental impact of their designs and the materials they specify, and create school buildings which are in harmony with their surroundings.

  SEAM also enables schools to monitor their own energy use and provides opportunities for pupils to learn about the environment.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what date staff employed on current section 11 funded projects will need to be given notice of redundancy; what estimate he has made of the length of time needed by schools and local education authorities to prepare bids for new projects funded under section 11 or similar provisions; whom he has consulted on future arrangements for section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement. [4486]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are well aware of the need to reach conclusions about future arrangements for section 11 funding in good time for any necessary arrangements to be made.

  If questions of redundancy arise, they will depend on arrangements between the individuals concerned and their employers.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 369, on the number of special advisers in his Department, if an additional special adviser has not been appointed. [4238]

  Mr. Blunkett
  No additional advisers have been appointed since my previous reply. However, I am in the process of seeking approval from the Prime Minister to appoint an additional part-time adviser to share a full-time post with Sophie Linden, my existing part-time adviser.

  This will bring my complement of special advisers to 1 full-time and 2 part-time advisers occupying 2 full time posts.

DEFENCE

  Training
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of joint training exercises that British Special Forces have undertaken with(a)

  261
  Australian, (b) Malaysian, (c) New Zealand and (d) other Association of South-East Asian Nations special forces.[2779]

  Dr. Reid
  For reasons which are widely understood, it has been my Department's normal practice not to comment on the activities of the UK Special Forces. This practice will continue but will be kept under review in the light of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the countries and military, security, paramilitary, police or special forces units which have received training in the United Kingdom MOD close quarter battle and internal security training facilities. [2777]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the practice in the past not to release details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information is confidential between governments and disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. This practice is now being reviewed against the background of the government's commitment to openness. I will write to my hon. Friend once the review is complete.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the training provided by Britain's SAS to Indonesian military, police, paramilitary and special forces. [2778]

  Dr. Reid
  For reasons which are widely understood, it has been the Department's normal practice not to comment on the activities of the UK Special Forces. This practice will continue but will be kept under review in the light of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries and specific military, paramilitary, security, police or special forces units have received training at MOD facilities through formal or informal arrangements with private companies. [2781]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the practice in the past not to release details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information is confidential between governments and disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. This practice is now being reviewed against the background of the government's commitment to openness. I will write to my hon. Friend once the review is complete.

  US-UK Classification Guide
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government received from the United States Government a copy of the document "A Joint Classification Guide for Exchange and Safeguards of Material between the United States and United Kingdom, CG-UK-1", completed in May 1996, and forwarded for approval for release by the Office of Declassification of the United States Department of Energy. [2679]

  Dr. Reid
  A copy of the document referred to, the reference of which is CG—UK—1, was received by British Defence Staff in Washington in draft form on 20 June, 1996. Approval for release was not requested.

  MOD Police (Colchester Garrison)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restore the number of Ministry of Defence police constables operating within the Colchester Garrison to that obtaining on 1 January 1997. [3522]

  Dr. Reid
  Having examined the position, I am content that the complement of 21 Ministry of Defence police constables at the Colchester Garrison is satisfactory to meet the MOD police responsibilities there.

  Defence Exhibition, Farnborough
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies exhibiting at the Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition in Farnborough in September 1997. [3592]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following companies have registered to participate as exhibitors at the third Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition:

  AB Connectors Ltd.

  Aeroflex Hose and Engineering Ltd.

  Aireshelta

  Alvis Industries Ltd.

  Applied Visuals Ltd.

  Archer Communications Systems Ltd.

  Armourshield Ltd.

  Avimo Ltd.

  Avon Technical Products

  B.C.B. International Ltd.

  Babcock Facilities Management Ltd.

  Basys Marine Ltd.

  Beechwood Equipment

  Blair Catton Defence Products

  Bolle UK Ltd.

  British Aerospace

  British Naval Equipment Association

  BTR Group

  Burmarc Ltd.

  CAE Invertron (CAE Electronics plc)

  Case United Kingdom Ltd.

  Chemring Group plc

  CMN Support Services Ltd.

  CMT Dynamics

  Cogent Defence Systems Colebrand Ltd.

  Combined Services Publications Ltd.

  Cummins Engine Company Ltd.

  David Brown Defence Equipment Ltd.

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  DESO—British Army Export Support Teams

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  Digital

  DSD Ltd.

  Dunlop-Beaufort Ltd.

  EKA Ltd.

  European Data Systems

  Ferranti Technologies Ltd.

  Firearms Training Systems UK Ltd.

  GEC plc

  GKN Westland/GKN Defence

  Graseby

  Greys Defence Systems Ltd.

  Holt Lloyd Export Ltd.

  Horstman Defence Systems Ltd

  Howeden Airdynamics Group

  Hunting Engineering Ltd.

  Ian Allan Regalia Ltd.

  Icore International Ltd.

  Imagebase Technology Ltd.

  Information Security Systems Ltd.

  Instro Precision Ltd.

  Interspiro Ltd.

  263

  ITT Defence Ltd.

  Iveco Ford Truck Ltd.

  J & S Franklin Ltd.

  Jane's Information Group

  John Crane Marine International

  Kelvin Hughes Ltd.

  Kidde Graviner

  Kudos 2000 Ltd.

  Land Rover

  Leyland Trucks Ltd.

  Light Alloy Ltd.

  Litton Data Systems

  Lockheed Martin

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Lynwood

  Macro Engineering Co Ltd.

  Mannesmann Rexroth Ltd.

  Marshall Specialist Vehicles

  Meggitt plc

  Ministry of Defence—Defence Public Relations

  ML Aviation Ltd.

  National Employers Liaison Committee

  National Engineering and Assessment Group

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  Nickleby and Co (Scotland) Ltd

  P W Allen and Co Ltd.

  Pandect Precision Components Ltd.

  Park Air Electronics Ltd.

  Partek Cargotec Ltd.

  PDQ Emergency Homes

  Peak Trailers Ltd.

  Pearson Engineering Ltd.

  Penman Specialist Vehicles

  Photon Security Services Ltd.

  Pilatus Britten-Norman

  Pilkington Optronics

  Premier Product Support Services

  Protex Fasteners Ltd.

  Racal Electronics Plc

  Radamec Defence Systems

  Radio Systems Ltd.

  Raytheon Computer Products Europe Ltd.

  Raytheon Cossor

  RBR Armour Ltd.

  Redifon MEL Ltd.

  Rescue and Medical Services

  Richmond Electronics and Engineering International Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce plc

  RTK Marine

  S and D Security (Equipment) Ltd.

  Scottish Trade International

  Seymour Systems Ltd.

  Shorts Missile Systems Ltd.

  Siemens Plessey Systems

  Silicon Graphics Computer Systems

  Simrad Optronics Ltd.

  Spanset Ltd.

  Stella Meta

  Stonebridge Facilities Ltd.

  Stop-Choc Ltd.

  Television Installation Services (Mansfield) Ltd.

  The Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  The Friends of the Royal Engineer Museum

  Thomson-Thorn Missile Electronics

  Toye Kenning and Spencer

  TRL Technology Ltd.

  UCC International Ltd.

  Ultra Electronics Ltd.

  Universal Vehicles Group

  Varity Perkins

  Vickers Defence Systems

  Vosper Thornycroft

  W L Gore and Associates (UK) Ltd.

  W Vinten Ltd.

  Westair Ltd.

  W S Atkins

  Trident
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to reduce the yield of Trident warheads in the light of the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use of nuclear weapons. [3951]

  Dr. Reid
  Pending the achievement of the Government's goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion does not require a change in the United Kingdom's nuclear policy.

  Departmental Wages
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4190]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is shown in the table below for MoD civilian staff. The number of staff shown as earning less than a given figure includes those also shown in any lower pay category.

  Number of civilian stuff

  Number of staff earning less than £X per hour

  Full-time

  Part-time

  £4.00

  4,432

  685

  £3.50

  3,050

  416

  £3.00

  246

  1

  It is not possible to provide meaningful comparable figures for Service personnel in the form sought by the right hon. Member. Members of the Armed Forces are not paid by the hour. Nor do the long hours worked by many Service personnel equate to the average civilian working week; a factor which the Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes into account when making its annual recommendations to the Prime Minister.

  MOD Homes (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the number and proportion of Ministry of Defence homes currently vacant in Colchester; how many homes the Ministry of Defence has sold in the past year, and to whom. [4034]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 1,361 properties pon the Colchester family quarters estate of which 138 (10.1 per cent.) are currently vacant. Of the 138 properties, 75 have been allocated to incoming families; nine have been set aside for major refurbishment and 36 have been identified for possible short-term leasing. The future of the remaining 18 remains under review.

  Within the past year, nine family quarters have been sold on the open market by the Defence Estates Organisation. I am withholding information on the companies and individuals involved in this sale for reasons of commercial confidentiality under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  A further 46 houses were sold freehold to Annington Homes Ltd. as part of the asset sale in November 1996.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the review being undertaken of the terms of disposal of the Ministry of Defence married quarters estates to the Nomura Investment Bank. [4043]

  Mr. Spellar
  The sale was completed on 5 November 1996. The Government is monitoring carefully the operation of the new arrangements.

  Accommodation Units (Uxbridge)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accommodation units are currently empty on the RAF Uxbridge site. [4045]

  Mr. Spellar
  Of the 609 families quarters at RAF Uxbridge, 79 are currently vacant. Of these vacant quarters, 17 are allocated to incoming families and 44 are currently undergoing major works. The remaining 18 empty quarters fall within a total of 24 properties which are under review for possible release to Annington Homes.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons no announcement was made in April that faulty plastic baton rounds that had been in use for three years were being withdrawn. [4542]

  Dr. Reid
  My hon. Friend will be aware that these events relate to a previous Administration. I am advised by officials that issues concerning the performance of plastic baton rounds were under consideration between the departments concerned and no decision had then been reached on the form or timing of a public announcement.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the highest muzzle velocity of the plastic baton rounds recently found to exceed the upper limit in the equipment specification; and what is that upper limit; [4541]

  (2) how often stocks of plastic baton rounds in operational use before April 1997 were tested to ensure that muzzle velocities were in line with the equipment specification;. [4538]

  (3) what tests were carried out by his Department on the faulty batch of plastic baton rounds supplied in 1994 and recently withdrawn from service;. [4543]

  (4) what action is being taken against the manufacturers of the plastic baton rounds issued from early 1994 which have been found to have a muzzle velocity in excess of the upper limit in the equipment specification;. [4540]

  (5) how many plastic baton rounds were withdrawn from operational use in April; how they are to be disposed of; who manufactured them; and what is the estimated cost of each round. [4544]

  Dr. Reid
  The highest muzzle velocity of plastic baton rounds recently tested was 76 metres per second; the upper limit specified in the contract is 70 m/s.

  All batches of rounds were tested by the Contractor at the time of manufacture to enable the Department to accept them against the proof specification.
  266
  In addition to initial Contractor proofing, the following tests were carried out. In 1995 trials were carried out on a number of rounds manufactured in 1994 as a part of the ongoing baton round development programme. Assessment of these initial tests in early 1996 indicated that some of the rounds were going marginally faster than the specified velocity, but the tests were not considered conclusive. Reproofing trials of the 1994 rounds started in April 1997 and the results have yet to be established. Further tests were carried out in 1996 on rounds manufactured in 1996 which indicated that those rounds did not exceed the maximum specified velocity.

  The issue of possible action against the manufacturer will be considered when all of the facts have been established.

  Approximately 45,000 rounds were withdrawn from service in April 1997; they will be disposed of either by reworking or incineration. I am withholding information about the name of the manufacturer under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The cost of each round is approximately £6.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the rules for the use of plastic baton rounds by members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland; on how many occasions they have been used by members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland since the batch with and excessive muzzle velocity was supplied in 1994; and if he will list the dates on which and the places where they were used;. [4546]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of plastic baton rounds used by the armed forces in Northern Ireland since the batch with an excessive muzzle velocity was supplied in 1994. [4545]

  Dr. Reid
  The use of force in Northern Ireland is governed by the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 which provides that "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large". Plastic baton rounds are used by the armed forces in situations of violent disorder where life or property is at risk and their use is judged to be minimum and reasonable force in the circumstances. They must be fired at selected persons and not indiscriminately and should be aimed so they strike the lower part of the body. Soldiers are fully trained in their use.

  As at 17 June 1997, a total of 1,424 plastic baton rounds had been used by the armed forces in Northern Ireland since the batch with an excessive muzzle velocity was supplied in May 1994, not all of which were from that batch.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with a schedule of the dates and places where these baton rounds have been used, once this has been prepared.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the number of salaries of his Department's special advisers falling within the range of(a) £24,349–£29,999, (b)£30,000–£34,999,(c)£35,000–£39,999,(d)£40,000–£44,999, (e) £45,000–£49,999,

  267
  (f) £50,000–£54,999, (g) £55,000–£59,999, (h) 60,000–£64,999, (i) £65,000–£69,999 and (j) £70,000–£73,484. [4557]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Consistent with the practice of previous administrations, and to protect the privacy of individuals, only aggregate information on the salaries of Special Advisers will be published.

  Once all salaries have been agreed, the number of advisers paid in each of the appropriate £10,000 bands will be published.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance his Department currently applies in ensuring that full account is taken of the environmental impact of its new building projects in Britain. [4516]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department carries out an environmental assessment on all new buildings likely to generate environmental effects. The environmental assessment is included in the formal consultations with the local planning authority as part of the planning process.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the scope of the proposed Strategic Defence Review; by whom it will be undertaken; and when the results are expected. [3632]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have today written to all right hon. and hon. Members setting out the scope of the Strategic Defence Review and how we propose it will be undertaken. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. I expect the Review to be completed around the turn of the year.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has reached on the future of the market testing programme within his Department . [4978]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government support market testing as one of several means at their disposal to secure better value for money in the provision of public services. There is, however, no dogmatic preference for private over public provision or vice versa, or for market testing where it is not appropriate. On this basis we have reviewed the Department's market testing programme and have set out our conclusions in a policy statement on getting the best value from defence resources. This is being widely distributed within the Department, to the Trade Unions and other staff representatives and to industry associations. I am placing a copy of the statement in the Library of the House.

  The statement emphasises the imperative for continuous improvements in efficiency; pays tribute to the huge contribution made by the Department's Service and Civil Service personnel working together; welcomes private sector involvement where this is cost-effective; and enjoins managers throughout the Department to pursue best value from defence resources in a manner which is rigorous, undoctrinaire, open minded and scrupulously fair.
  268
  Future projects will be judged against the policy statement at their key stages. We expect to announce the outcome in relation to several ongoing projects shortly.

  Meteorological Office
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Meteorological Office for 1997–98. [5062]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office is responsible for providing quality meteorological and related services for the government, the armed forces, the public, aviation and commercial customers. During 1997–98, the Meteorological Office will be set the following challenging targets:

  (a) to improve the Global Numerical Prediction (NWP) Index by eight index points from a baseline of 100, over a rolling three year period ending March 1998;

  (b) to improve the UK NWP Index by four index points from a baseline of 100 in 1996–97;

  (c) to achieve an index point improvement in the Service Quality Index from a baseline of 100 for 1996–97;

  (d) to improve efficiency in year by four index points as measured by the agreed Efficiency Index;

  (e) to achieve an overall Return on Capital Employed of at least 11.6 per cent. averaged over the two years 1997–98 and 1998–99 (not less than seven per cent. in year); and,

  (f) to achieve a total contribution to core and central services from commercial activity of £3 million.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has for relieving the Crown Prosecution Service of unnecessary bureaucracy. [2925]

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what measures he proposes to increase the efficiency of the prosecution service. [2927]

  The Attorney-General
  The independent review which I announced to the House on 12 June 1997 will examine the organisation and structure of the Crown Prosecution Service, its policies and procedures and consider whether and, if so, what changes are necessary in order to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local public prosecutors.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to review guidance to Crown prosecutors. [2926]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). That Review will examine internal guidance including the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in each of the last five years. [2929]
  269
  The Attorney-General
  In the last five years, the Law Officers have consented to the prosecution of 31 defendants for offences of incitement to racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

  Cigarettes (Sales to Children)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Attorney-General how many successful prosecutions there have been(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire in each of the last five years of retailers for selling cigarettes to children under 16 years of age. [3450]

  The Attorney-General
  Offences of selling tobacco to children are generally prosecuted by local Trading Standards offices, and proceedings are handled by the Crown Prosecution Service only on those occasions when they are initiated by the police.

  No figures are available for the cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service since the CPS does not maintain central records by reference to particular offences. The Home Office have, however, provided the following statistics for the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for the offence of selling cigarettes to persons under 161. in Nottinghamshire Police Force Area and England and Wales 1991–95.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Nottinghamshire police force area:

  Prosecutions

  4

  4

  —

  3

  1

  Convictions

  4

  4

  —

  3

  1

  England and Wales:

  Prosecutions

  101

  74

  143

  98

  155

  Convictions

  85

  57

  108

  80

  128

  1An offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Section 7 as amended by the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 Section 1.

  Source

  Home Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 450, what percentage of archival units produced by Government departments in 1965 have been (a) retained by Government departments with a specific future date identified for release into the public domain and (b) retained by Government departments with no specific future date identified for release into the public domain. [4311]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Question concerns a specific operational matter on which the Chief Executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Nicholas Cox to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 18 June 1997:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the above.
  270
  The great majority of records produced by Government departments in 1965 will by now have been destroyed under the normal arrangements for handling public records. Neither the Public Record Office nor Government departments kept statistics at that date of quantities of records created or destroyed, so that it is not now possible to give percentage figures for those records retained by their department.
  Approvals given by the Lord Chancellor for retention of records all give a date by which the approval is to be reconsidered. As stated in the White Paper Open Government (Cm 2290 July 1993), paragraph 9.24, records retained by departments for other than administrative reasons are subject to regular review, ie at least every 10 years
  The Chief Executive, Mrs Tyacke, or I would be very pleased to discuss any of these matters with you further, if you wished.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 450, what percentage of the archival units passed to the Public Record Office from all Government departments in 1965 and what actual number have been subsequently (a) released into the public domain in their entirety and (b) released into the public domain in part. [4312]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Question concerns a specific operational matter on which the Chief Executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Nicholas Cox to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 18 June 1997:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive on business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the above.
  During 1965 47,865 archival units were transferred to the Public Record Office.
  To produce actual and percentage figures for those archival units which have been subsequently released either in whole or in part could only be done by checking against each individual item its expected and actual release date, and to do so would incur disproportionate cost.
  The Public Record Office estimates that around 1 per cent. of its holdings are unavailable because they are closed for longer than 30 years.
  The Chief Executive, Mrs Tyacke, or I would be very pleased to discuss any of these matter with you further, if you wished.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Legal Services Ombudsman intends to publish his sixth Annual report. [4873]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published his sixth Annual Report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TREASURY

  Devolution
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to limit the powers of the Chancellor to itemise funds voted for Wales following devolution; and if he will make a statement. [2934]
  271
  Mr. Darling
  Treasury Ministers are discussing financial arrangements for devolution with the Secretary of State for Wales and other Ministers. The outcome of these discussions will be set out in the White Papers which we intend to publish shortly.

  Public Expenditure Surveys
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had regarding the dates of future public expenditure surveys and their publication; and if he will make a statement. [3678]

  Mr. Darling
  We promised in our Election Manifesto to conduct a comprehensive spending review, the details of which I announced in the House on 11 June.

  Public Borrowing
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his golden rule on public borrowing. [3423]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 12 June 1997 Official Report, column 568.

  UK Trade
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies the Treasury has commissioned to identify the currencies in which the United Kingdom's trade is denominated. [3315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The most recent official data on the currency of invoice of UK trade can be found in the Central Statistical Office's Business Bulletin, Issue 12/89 "Currency of Invoicing", published on the 15 December 1989. The currency of invoice of UK trade is one of many factors the Treasury considers in assessing the short-run impact of exchange rate changes on the economy.

  Bank of England (Monetary Policy)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what parliamentary scrutiny there will be of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. [3321]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The new arrangements will provide for the Bank to make regular reports and give evidence to the Treasury Select Committee. The Committee will have the opportunity to examine the Bank's performance on monetary policy on a regular basis, and the House will be able to debate the Bank's Annual Report.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set for ministers in his Department to respond to correspondence from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [3543]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Ministers aim to reply in 15 working days to letters relating to Treasury business, in 18 days to correspondence concerning the Chancellor's other departments and in 23 days where a report is required from a local office.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the autumn 1997 Public Expenditure Round. [3519]

  Mr. Darling
  We do not intend to hold a Public Expenditure Survey in 1997 but intend to conduct a Comprehensive Spending Review, the details of which I announced in the House on 11 June.

  Budget
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations have so far made representations to him about the Budget on 2 July; and, of those, which have been invited to the Treasury to make personal representations to(a) Treasury ministers and (b) Treasury officials. [3367]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received written representations from many organisations, some of which have met Treasury ministers and officials.

  Drugs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the street value of drugs smuggled into the United Kingdom in 1996–97. [3557]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information available on a wholly illicit market is insufficient for making any reliable assessments of the street value of drugs illegally imported into the United Kingdom.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 6.62 of the Financial Statement and Budget report 1997–98, if he remains committed to increasing fuel duty on average by at least 5 per cent. a year in real terms. [3381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget Statement.

  Oil Taxation
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what review of oil taxation is being conducted inside his Department. [3247]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All aspects of the tax system are kept under continual review.

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to enable the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to obtain VAT refunds; and if he will make a statement. [4208]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: I have no plans to allow SEPA to claim VAT refunds in respect of its non-business expenditure. Tax liabilities of publicly funded bodies are taken into account when setting levels of public expenditure in Scotland.

  Knight Williams & Co. Ltd.
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent steps he has taken to ensure that former clients of Knight Williams & Co. Ltd. receive adequate compensation;. [4525]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the use of the locked box agreement to satisfy investors' claims against Knight Williams & Co. Ltd. [4524]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I welcome the fact that the Investors Compensation Scheme has now started to make offers of compensation to investors. I hope that progress will not be unnecessarily delayed. The Securities and Investments Board have made it clear to investors that their actions in relation to the "locked box" will not affect investors' rights to claim either on the ICS or in the Knight Williams & Co. liquidation.

  Inland Revenue Officers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) VAT and (b) Inland Revenue officers were in post on 6 May. [4009]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staff in post numbers for the beginning of May 1997 are(a) 23,315 in Customs and Excise as a whole, of which some 6,850 are operational VAT officers, and (b) 53,500 Inland Revenue officers.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government sold its BP shares. [3772]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The last of the Government's shareholding in BP was sold in December 1995.

  Tax Levy
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statements have been made by Ministers on the eligibility of(a) companies never nationally owned and never privatised and (b) BP for a special tax levy. [3773]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Ministers have made it clear that the windfall tax will be levied on the excess profits of the privatised utilities. Details will be announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement on 2 July.

  General Government Expenditure
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to change the definition of general government expenditure. [4050]

  Mr. Darling
  General government expenditure (GGE) is defined by the Office for National Statistics on the basis of national accounts concepts. The introduction of the new European System of Accounts (ESA95) in 1998 will lead to some changes in national accounts which will affect GGE.

  PSBR
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise the definitions of capital spending by 274
  local authorities to exclude investment in, and purchase of, long-term assets from the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement. [4204]

  Mr. Darling
  We have no plans to change the definition of capital spending by local authorities included in the calculation of the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) the English Tourist Board, (b) the Welsh Tourist Board and (c) the British Resorts' Association regarding the impact on tourism of a national minimum wage. [4023]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received any representations from these organisations on this matter. The UK tourist industry must compete on the quality of its product and service. The introduction of a national minimum wage, by helping to create a better rewarded and better motivated workforce, will drive up standards and promote business.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of a 0.5 per cent. increase in interest and mortgage rates on(a) inflation and (b) economic growth over one year. [4275]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The effects of changes in interest rates cannot be precisely estimated. In general, increased interest rates can be expected to result in lower underlying inflation and economic growth in the following year than would have occurred otherwise.

  Budget Projections
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the assumptions for the 1997 Budget projections. [5077]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The report is being published today as a Command Paper. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies his Department has undertaken of the effect on jobs and investment in Wales of the creation of a Welsh Assembly. [2936]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None, but my Department is keeping these issues under review.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales exercise powers previously exercised by local authorities. [3737]
  275
  Mr. Ron Davies
  Both the Higher and Further Education Funding Councils exercise powers to fund education institutions that were previously exercised by local authorities.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales are(a) specialist and advisory and (b) executive; and what is the annual grant-in-aid to each. [3738]

  Mr. Davies
  The information requested is as follows:

  Table A

  Advisory NDPBs and tribunals1

  1997–98 Grant-in-aid budget £

  Environment Agency Advisory Committee for Wales

  Nil

  Agriculture Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  Nil

  Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee

  Nil

  Historical Buildings Council for Wales

  Nil

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Nil

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  500,000

  Staff Commission for Wales

  11,000

  Welsh Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education

  Nil

  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Medical Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Optical Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Dental Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Committee for Post Graduate Pharmaceutical Education

  5,968

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  9,000

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Nil

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Nil

  Welsh Committee on Drugs and Alcohol Misuse

  10,000

  Valuation Tribunals (Wales)

  Nil

  Registered Inspectors Appeals Tribunal (Wales)

  Nil

  Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales

  Nil

  Agricultural Land Tribunal (Wales)

  Nil

  Rent Assessment Panel for Wales

  Nil

  1Generally, advisory NDPBs do not employ staff or incur expenditure on their own account.

  Table B

  Executive NDPBS

  1997–98 Grant-in-aid budget £

  Welsh Development Agency

  83,460,000

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  9,480,000

  Wales Tourist Board

  14,570,000

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  47,919,000

  Land Authority for Wales

  nil

  Countryside Council for Wales

  23,300,000

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  12,327,000

  National Library of Wales

  5,991,000

  Sports Council for Wales

  6,596,000

  Welsh Language Board

  5,748,000

  Arts Council of Wales

  14,459,000

  Tai Cymru

  2,770,000

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  9,100,000

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  975,000

  276

  Table B

  Executive NDPBS

  1997–98 Grant-in-aid budget £

  Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  1,391,000

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  236,787,000

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  174,599,000

  Residuary Body for Wales

  nil

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  nil

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Nil Wales what steps he is taking to recruit more speech therapists in Wales. [4459]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The recruitment of NHS staff is a matter for individual Trusts. Additional funding is being provided from 1997–98 onwards to increase the numbers of students being trained and to enhance the number of clinical placements across Wales. This will encourage recruitment in areas where qualified Speech and Language Therapists are required. I will be keeping a close watch on progress in recruiting qualified Speech and Language Therapists.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drugs Research Unit
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the terms of reference of, and funding provisions for, the drug utilisation research unit at Queen's University, Belfast. [4012]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: Acontractual agreement between the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and the Queen's University of Belfast sets out detailed terms of reference for DURU, listed below.

  The Unit (DURU) shall:
  continue the work of the Department's (DHSS) Prescribing Information Unit of visiting general medical practitioners to encourage safer and more cost-effective prescribing and to collect further data on prescribing habits, consultation profiles, locum and home visit arrangements and other information necessary to understand present behaviour and to develop better prescribing practice;
  develop the work of the Prescribing Information Unit by advising, supporting and assisting the officers of the Health and Social Services Boards in making general medical practitioners aware of their prescribing patterns;
  collect and collate all available data on drug utilisation and construct a comprehensive prescribing data-base;
  support the work of the Royal College of General Practitioners in updating and disseminating the use of the practice formulary and other guides to rational prescribing, and to analyse the reluctant benefits;
  seek the optimal format for conveying new essential drug information to general medical practitioners;
  compile statistics on self-poisoning;
  identify inappropriate prescribing;

  277
  relate utilisation to indices of morbidity and analyse the reasons for intra and inter-regional variations;
  encourage and assist all hospital medical staff in improving the rationality and cost-effectiveness of their prescribing by the development and application of agreed hospital formularies and to assess the success of self-regulation.

  Running costs of DURU are met by an annual grant provided by the Department of Health and Social Services, as stated in the agreement with the Queen's University of Belfast. Funding for the year ending March 1997 amounted to £312,667.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the terms of reference and membership of the review committee on the work of the drug utilisation research unit, Queen's University, Belfast; what representations she has received concerning the outcome of the review committee's recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [4013]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The terms of reference for the review of DURU were to assess four dimensions of the unit's work, comprising: scientific quality; policy, service relevance and value; management and accountability; and options for future management and funding.

  The Review Team comprised the following three members: Professor Mike Rawlins, Department of Pharmacological Science, University of Newcastle; Professor Peter Noyce, Department of Pharmacy, University of Manchester; and Dr. Colin Bradley, Department of General Practice, University of Birmingham.

  The Department has received written correspondence regarding the outcome of the review of DURU from Martin Caton (MP), David Morris (MEP) and Dr. McGavock, Director of DURU. The decision not to renew the contract for DURU was based on the Review Team's recommendations and peer review of those recommendations. Nothing subsequently raised in correspondence to the Department gives cause to change the original decision.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of plastic baton rounds used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary since the batch with an excessive muzzle velocity was supplied in 1994. [4550]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 7,437 plastic baton rounds have been used by the RUC since ammunition manufactured in 1994 was issued on 18 May 1994.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the(a) number of people injured by plastic baton rounds since 1994 and (b) rate of injury per round used; and what are the figures for the previous three year period. [4549]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 94 alleged injuries associated with incidents involving use of plastic baton rounds between 1 January 1994 and 24 April 1997. This is a rate of one alleged injury for each 94 rounds fired (compared with a rate of one injury for each 95 rounds fired for the period 18 May 1994 to 25 April 1997).
  278
  The figures for the previous three years are as follows:

  Year

  Alleged injuries

  Rounds fired

  injuries/rounds fired

  1993

  14

  523

  1/37.3

  1992

  8

  77

  1/11

  1991

  10

  323

  1/32.3

  These statistics are based on total security force firings.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when plastic baton rounds were first used in Northern Ireland; how many rounds have been used to the latest available date; and how many deaths and injuries have been caused to(a) adults and (b) children over that period. [4553]

  Mr. Ingram
  Plastic baton rounds were first used in Northern Ireland in 1973, and a total of 65,204 rounds have been used. There have been 14 fatalities associated with their use. There have been 565 alleged injuries associated with incidents involving plastic baton rounds since 1981 when records of these were first kept.

  Of the 14 people killed, seven were under 16 years of age. The last fatality was in August 1989.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Royal Ulster Constabulary discovered that plastic baton rounds in use since 1994 had excessive muzzle velocities; on what date they were withdrawn; and how many of the faulty rounds were used by the RUC between those two dates. [4547]

  Mr. Ingram
  Rounds manufactured in 1994 entered service with the RUC on 18 May 1994. The RUC received notification from the MOD on 24 March 1997 that some 1994 rounds were outside the agreed specification.

  All 1994 rounds were withdrawn by 25 April 1997.

  The number of rounds with muzzle velocities in excess of the upper limit which were supplied to the RUC or actually used is not known.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the rules for the use of plastic baton rounds by the Royal Ulster Constabulary; on how many occasions they have been used by the RUC since the batch with an excessive muzzle velocity was issued in 1994; and if she will list the dates on which and places where they were used. [4551]

  Mr. Ingram
  The use of plastic baton rounds is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

  The RUC's operational guidelines specify that baton guns will be used only "in accordance with the principle of the minimum and reasonable amount of force necessary in the protection of life and property, the preservation of the peace and the prevention and detection of crime." They also place limitations on the firing of baton rounds at a range of less than 20 metres to situations where the safety of police officers or others is seriously threatened, direct that firing should be at selected persons and not indiscriminately at the crowd, and aimed so that they

  279
  strike the lower part of the target's body direct. A higher point of aim is permitted only if the safety of police officers or others is seriously threatened and the attacker's body is shielded from the firer.

  In his 1996 Inspection of the RUC Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that "The RUC conditions/restrictions in use are clearly defined and accord with those issued by the Home Secretary to Forces in England and Wales, save that the authority levels for use of baton rounds and their subsequent operational controls are lower."

  The RUC, in conjunction with ACPO colleagues, in England and Wales is currently revising guidelines on the use of baton rounds with a view to recommending common guidelines for use by police throughout the United Kingdom.

  I will write to the hon. Member with the further information he requests once it has been prepared.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the RUC discovered that plastic baton rounds in use since 1994 had an excessive muzzle velocity; and if she will make a statement. [4548]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC received notification from the MOD on 24 March 1997 that some rounds manufactured in 1994 were outside the agreed specification.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers of each type of injury caused by plastic baton rounds since 1994. [4552]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. There have been 94 alleged injuries from incidents involving the use of plastic baton rounds from 1 January 1994 to 24 April 1997.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Dartford River Crossing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was his Department's evaluation of the net present value of(a) each of the privately financed options and (b) the conventionally financed alternatives for the Dartford river crossing. [49]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  When compared on the same basis the net present values of the various private and public options were:

  NPV of costs

  Dartford river crossing plc

  Dartford river crossing plc

  Dartford tunnel group

  Thames tunnel company

  Structure

  Bridge

  Immeresed tube tunnels

  Tunnel

  Tunnel

  Privately financed options

  234

  240

  278

  271

  Publicly financed options

  180

  191

  199

  201

  Difference between options

  54

  49

  79

  70

  Departmental Publications
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what literature for bereaved relatives and friends of those killed on the roads his Department provides; and what plans he has to fund additional publications. [3690]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that booklets are produced by several police forces and by the voluntary organisations with whom the police work closely. Since staff from my Department do not have regular contact with bereaved relatives of those killed on the roads, nor expertise in counselling, it would not seem helpful for the Department to provide such literature.

  National Air Traffic Services Computer System
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he is taking to ensure that the computer system operating National Air Traffic Services is not affected by the millennium problem. [4448]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) commenced a review of the threat to its business from the millennium problem in May 1996. It has included some 700 items of operational equipment in the review process and has already commenced remedial work in areas where there are known problems. NATS is planning to conduct further remedial work during 1997–98 prior to running extensive integration tests for assurance during the winter of 1998–99. In addition to work on internal systems and with its suppliers, NATS has also initiated discussions on the Year 2000 problem with its customers and related air traffic control organisations.

  Train Operating Companies (Punctuality)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the quarterly punctuality figures recorded by OPRAF by train operating company. [4509]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, 10 June 1997, column 413.

  Bus Route Tenders (London)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what basis London Transport's tendered bus routes are allocated; and for what reason tenders are not published. [4235]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport awards contracts for bus routes on the basis of best value for money. The content of tender documents is commercially confidential.

  Car Clocking
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take in respect of advertisements for car clocking doctors; and if he will make a statement. [3837]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is illegal under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 knowingly to sell a vehicle with a falsified mileage, but there is no offence of "clocking" and
  281
  it is not presently illegal to advertise a mileage correction service. Equally, it is not illegal to tamper with an odometer and there may be legitimate reasons for wanting to do so. Tampering might be an offence if, on evidence, it is found that such an action assisted in the commissioning of an offence.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations were made by English Heritage to the inspector during the public inquiry into the proposed Salisbury bypass;. [4314]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from English Heritage to the Transport Minister objecting to his proposed Salisbury bypass. [4315]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  English Heritage did not appear at the public inquiry to object to the proposed bypass. The Inspector had before him a folio of correspondence between the Department of Transport and English Heritage. I will place a copy of that folio in the Library together with copies of the more recent exchange in which English Heritage now indicates opposition to the proposed bypass.

  Roads Programme
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to discharge the manifesto commitment to carry out a strategic review of the roads programme. [5061]

  Dr. Strang
  I am today launching the Roads Review. The objective of the Review will be to determine the role which roads should play in an integrated transport policy and to establish a forward investment programme for the trunk road network in England.

  The Review will be broadly based. Unlike reviews carried out by the previous Government, it will not merely consider what road schemes should be added to or deleted from the trunk roads programme. It will look afresh at the environmental impact of roads and take into account parallel work on developing an integrated transport policy for the UK which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced recently, including, in particular, work on issues such as whether steps should be taken to manage demand for travel by road, and if so, what means should be used; and, the extent to which we should encourage the use of other modes of transport. It will also consider the role which new technology and improved information systems can play; and the impact which investment in roads could have on regional development. The Roads Review, work on an integrated transport policy and the comprehensive spending review will be very closely co-ordinated.

  We intend to consult widely during the Review. During the next few weeks my Department will be consulting key representative bodies both about the range of issues which need to be covered and how we might involve them effectively in the Review. We then intend to launch a public consultation in July, inviting responses by the end of October. We would particularly value contributions from the Regional Planning Conferences, local authorities and other regional bodies. We shall consider in due course what arrangements will be appropriate for continuing
  282
  regional consultations on trunk road planning beyond the Review, taking account of the comments received in response to the previous Government's proposal to bring trunk roads within the Regional Planning Guidance system.

  We hope to announce the conclusions of the Review next Spring. In the interim the Highways Agency will continue to take forward maintenance work, small safety schemes, and two re-signing projects in line with existing plans. Schemes on which construction is already well advanced will continue, but preparatory work on new major schemes will be put on hold at the end of the current stage, except in the relatively few cases in which some procedural step needs to be taken to ensure that work done to date is not lost should we ultimately decide that the scheme should be taken forward. Work on developer funded schemes will also continue as these schemes either have been or will be scrutinised thoroughly in the appropriate planning processes and they are generally small improvements which do not have any wider strategic significance.

  There are also 12 cases on which urgent decisions are pending. We therefore propose to carry out an accelerated review of these cases against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact and announce our decisions on them in July. It may be that in some of these cases we decide in July that a decision cannot be taken in advance of the main Review. In the majority of cases we will take a decision either to take the scheme forward or to abandon it. The cases in question are:

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNRR)

  M25 Junctions 12–15

  M66 Denton-Middleton Contract 3

  A2/M2 Cobham J4 widening

  Salisbury Bypass/Wessex Link DBFO

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass Contract B

  Weald and Downland DBFO

  Cumbria Bradford DBFO

  South Midlands Network DBFO

  A40 West London Approach DBFO

  A13 Thames Gateway DBFO

  M62E/M606 Link Roads.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names and salaries of the board members of English Partnerships. [4004]

  Angela Eagle
  The names and salaries of the board members of English Partnerships are:

  Salary from 1 April 1997 £

  Salary from 1 December 1997 £

  Days per week

  Lord Walker of

  Worcester MBE

  Does not

  Does not

  (Chairman)

  accept salary

  accept salary

  —

  Sir Idris Pearce

  (Deputy

  Chairman)

  28,730

  28,940

  2

  Bill Jordan, CBE

  6,980

  7,035

  0.5

  283

  Salary from 1 April 1997 £

  Salary from 1 December 1997£

  Days per week

  Councillor Michael Carr

  6,980

  7,035

  0.5

  Dennis Stevenson

  6,980

  7,035

  0.5

  Stephen Massey

  6,980

  7,035

  0.5

  Anthony Dunnett (Chief Executive) and Paula Hay-Plumb (Managing Director-Operations) also sit on the board as executive members.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the future of English Partnerships. [4003]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department receives frequent correspondence about English Partnerships' programmes and projects.

  Wild Animals and Plants (Illegal Trade)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further steps the Government plans to take to stop the illegal trade in wild animals and plants. [3800]

  Angela Eagle
  The Police and HM Customs are Excise are primarily responsible for enforcing the controls on the trade in wildlife. The Government is committed to supporting their work and recognises that controls on trade will contribute to wildlife conservation only if they are fully and effectively enforced.

  The Government will continue to contribute to efforts to crack down on the illegal wildlife trade both at home and abroad, through its participation in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Police and Customs officers are part of the UK delegation to the CITES Conference currently taking place in Zimbabwe. The UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding on enforcement with the CITES Secretariat on 12 June. This will secure more rapid and effective exchange of information between the Secretariat and UK enforcement agencies during investigations into the illegal wildlife trade.

  A new EC Regulation on the wildlife trade came into force on 1 June. The UK fully supports the new Regulation, and will continue to make a full contribution to the new EC Enforcement Working Group which was established last year.

  A new Statutory Instrument, The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, also came into force on 1 June. It strengthens enforcement officers' powers, and increases penalties for breaches of the EC Regulation.

  The Government also attaches importance to the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. This has already shown that the Department of the Environment, the Crown Prosecution Service, the statutory enforcement agencies and responsible voluntary bodies can work together effectively in this field.

  Environmental Protection Legislation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation on environmental protection. [3854]

  Angela Eagle
  We are considering all the mechanisms including legislation, available for delivering our Manifesto commitment to put the environment at the heart of decision-making across Government. Much can be done administratively, such as through the initiatives which we will introduce to green government and to strengthen co-operation in the European Union on environmental issues. Where we conclude that legislation is required, we will seek appropriate opportunities to introduce it.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow water companies to base their charges on the council tax banding of a dwelling; and if he will make a statement. [3417]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 18 June 1997]: As the Deputy Prime Minister announced at the recent Water Summit, the Government is to review the system of charging for water. Among other issues this review will consider alternative bases of charging, including the use of council tax bands.

  Environment Agency
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the responsibilities of the Environment Agency. [4226]

  Angela Eagle
  The Agency's main statutory responsibilities are to:regulate industrial processes with the greatest pollution potential;
  regulate the disposal of radioactive waste and (except on nuclear licensed sites) the keeping and use of radioactive material and accumulation of radioactive waste:
  regulate the treating, keeping, movement and disposal of controlled waste;
  preserve or improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters;
  take any necessary action to conserve, redistribute, augment and secure proper use of water resources;
  exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence;
  maintain, improve and develop salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries;
  promote the conservation and enhancement of inland and coastal waters, and their use for recreation;
  maintain or improve non-marine navigation;
  regulate the remediation of contaminated land designated as special sites; and
  administer, in accordance with regulations on producer responsibility, registration of businesses and exemption schemes.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities the Environment Agency has in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [4228]
  285
  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State is the competent authority of transit for the whole of the United Kingdom for transfrontier shipments of waste under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93. He has delegated the day-to-day administration of this function to the Environment Agency. Also, section 84(2)(b) of the Water Resources Act 1991 places a statutory duty on the Environment Agency to consult, in such cases as it may consider appropriate, with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency over water quality objectives. This relates to parts of the rivers Esk, Sark and Tweed.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for The Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations replaced by the Environment Agency in 1996, indicating in each case whether they had been operating under an exemption in terms of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 33. [4225]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency was formed from:

  (a) National Rivers Authority: Exempt from VAT

  (b Waste Regulation Authorities: Exempt from VAT

  (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and other sections of the Department of the Environment: Not exempt from VAT

  Scotland
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities he has in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [4227]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 3 June 1997,Official Report, column 158.

  Wyre Borough Council
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the non-receipt by Wyre borough council of the outstanding payments of ERDF non quota section: grant payments under reference number EPNW5299–72912, EPN-W529972916, EPNW52997291, EPNW52997291, EPNW-529972917, EPNW529972914, EPNW529972913 and EPNW5299–2917; and when he expects payments of the outstanding moneys to be made. [4059]

  Angela Eagle
  Regrettably, payment by the European Commission of the balance of ERDF due under the Non-Quota Fisheries Programme is still outstanding. This is because the European Commission have yet to approve the final annual report on the programme. The Commission have not yet formally responded, although I understand they will be seeking further clarification on a small number of details.

  Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are in touch with officials at the Commission and hope to reach a conclusion shortly, which will enable the Commission to pay the final balance. Once this ERDF is received, we will ensure that all outstanding payments to Wyre Borough Council are made promptly.

  Housing
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend Part M of the Building Regulations to encompass new housing; and if he will make a statement. [4309]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 472, to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).

  Capital Receipts Initiative
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to take forward his proposals under the capital receipts initiative. [4842]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today issued a consultation paper to all local authorities in England. That paper sets out our proposals for the distribution of any additional spending between local authorities.

  We wish to ensure that spending generated under the receipts initiative will be directed towards priority housing needs. Capital receipts themselves, however, have not always been generated in the areas of greatest need. Some authorities have generated significant volumes of receipts but have relatively low needs. Others have had little or no scope to generate significant receipts, yet have particularly high needs. We are, therefore, proposing that resources should be allocated on the basis of one third according to the proportion of eligible set-aside receipts and the remaining two thirds in accordance with assessed need.

  The paper also sets out our objectives for spending. Our intention is that the resources will be targeted on housing and housing-related regeneration schemes. We, therefore, wish to ensure that local authorities integrate the additional spending into their housing strategies, plan for badly needed repairs to dilapidated stock and support new provision where it is needed.

  It is also our intention that this initiative should contribute to and complement this Government's wider policy of increasing training opportunities and leading the young unemployed into work and financial independence.

  My Right hon. Friend, the Chancellor, will announce the amount of additional resources that will be available for 1997–98 and 1998–99 in the Summer budget.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Garden Extensions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a new permitted development right for householders to extend their gardens. [4977]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A consultation paper was issued last November on a proposal that householders should in future be able to extend their gardens onto adjacent land, without needing to submit a planning application. The Department received 425 replies, copies of which have now been placed in the Department's library. Three hundred and sixty-one expressed opposition and only 34
  287
  offered support. Many objections concentrated on the damage impact that such a proposal could have on the open countryside with the creeping suburbanisation of specially protected areas such as the National Parks and the Green Belt. Concern was also expressed about the resulting lack of control over the erection of ancillary buildings and the absence of any size limit on the land which could be added to a garden.

  The Government's view is that the impact of a proposed garden extension is best considered, as at present, through the normal planning process and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Wales and I have therefore decided to withdraw this proposal.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of the £27.50 limit on the amount of rent which can be covered by housing benefit for single under-25 people; and if she will make a statement. [2237]

  Mr. Bradley
  There is no national limit on the amount of rent which can be covered by Housing Benefit for single people under 25. The single room rent is determined by independent Rent Officers for the locality in which the claimant lives. The single room rent restriction was introduced by the previous administration in October 1996. They initiated a monitoring exercise and we will look at the results carefully. The Government has also commissioned research to gauge the impact of this, and other measures. The results are expected next year.

  Conferences (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department takes to make the conferences and public meetings which it sponsors accessible to disabled people, with particular reference to(a) the availability of hearing induction loops,(b) the availability of sign language facilities and (c) the use of accessible buildings for wheelchairs. [3976]

  Mr. Field
  An increasing number of the Department of Social Security buildings are accessible to disabled people, including those in wheelchairs, and have induction loop facilities for those with a hearing disability. Where accommodation outside the DSS estate is being used, organisers of events make every effort to take into account the needs of the people attending. Sign language interpreters are provided where a need is identified.

  The Department has also provided training for its staff on the Disability Discrimination Act which includes reference to the provision of services to disabled people. We will continue to make progress on this important issue.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 3 June,Official Report, columns 143–44, on the level of compliance with CSA maintenance assessments, what plans she has to review the operational effectiveness of
  288
  the Child Support Agency; if she will undertake an investigation into (a) the types of case which are most likely to result in zero compliance and (b) the methods employed by the CSA to enforce compliance against those absent parents who have only ever made limited or zero contributions to their children's maintenance; what assessment she has made into the proportion of full compliance cases in which there was an existing maintenance agreement between the parents; and if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the system of interim maintenance assessments adopted by the CSA.[4231]

  Mr. Bradley
  We intend to look closely at all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service. Children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live.

  We expect the Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered in(a) the over-30-months scheme and (b) the accelerated slaughter programme. [2904]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 13 June 1997, 1,494,040 cattle had been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme, and 6,478 cattle under the Selective Cull Scheme.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that relevant hon. Members and local authorities will be consulted over future proposals to store carcases or rendered material from the over-30-months scheme in their constituencies or areas. [2830]

  Mr. Rooker
  Commission Regulation 716/96, under which the over-30-months scheme (OTMS) operates, expressly prohibits the purchase of animals showing any clinical signs of BSE. BSE suspects are being sent for direct incineration under entirely separate arrangements. Nevertheless, it is now the practice of the Intervention Board, which has executive responsibility for the day to day operation of the OTMS, to consult the Environment Agency and the local authority about the suitability of any dry or tallow storage facilities offered to it for OTMS material. The local Member of Parliament is also informed that these consultations are taking place. Contracts would be let only for stores which comply with the waste management provisions of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related Regulations and which have, or where appropriate, are likely to be granted, local authority planning approval which would allow for the storage of meat and bone meal or tallow. No new cold storage facilities for OTMS carcases are under consideration.

  Fruit Farming Industry
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist the fruit farming industry in the aftermath of the frosts in May. [2905]
  289
  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission has the matter under review but I have no plans to provide any further specific assistance to the fruit farming industry. It is, in any event, too early to assess the economic consequences of the recent frosts.

  Fisheries Management
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress there has been on developing regional fisheries management at the intergovernmental conference. [2906]

  Mr. Morley
  In the context of negotiations on the Common Fisheries Policy the European Commission has committed itself to exploring ways of developing greater involvement of local fishing interests in the decision making process. This is a welcome step forward.

  Slaughterhouse Hygiene
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking against slaughterhouse owners who fail to implement adequate standards of hygiene. [2907]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has instructed the Meat Hygiene Service to enforce the Regulations vigorously. Ministers will not hesitate to revoke the licences of slaughterhouses which fail to maintain adequate hygiene standards.

  Cattle Traceability
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making with the implementation of a cattle traceability system. [2908]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I am considering responses to proposals for a computerised cattle traceability system. I intend to bring this system into effect in Great Britain as soon as possible.

  Quota-hopping
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with the European Commission on quota-hopping. [2909]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made on 18 June 1997,Official Report, columns 331–44.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria will be used to determine the location of the Food Standards Agency. [2910]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Food Standards Agency will need to be located where it can carry out its tasks most effectively, having regard to the costs involved. We shall consider this issue further in the light of the responses to Professor James's Report.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent risk material from sheep affected by scrapie entering the food chain. [2911]

  Mr. Rooker
  Sheep with scrapie and the heads of all sheep are prohibited from being used for food. On 5 June my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that he intends to extend the controls to cover the spleen and for older sheep the spinal cord and to require compulsory slaughter with compensation for sheep with scrapie.

  Imported Beef
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to ensure that imported beef complies with the same standards of traceability, quality and hygiene in relation to the removal of specified bovine offals on domestic beef. [2913]

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to restrict imports of beef that do not conform to United Kingdom regulations introduced to guard against BSE-infected meat entering the human food chain. [2914]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5 June,Official Report, columns 227–28.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce progress on negotiations on the lifting of the EU ban on British beef. [2915]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) earlier today.

  BSE
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent of BSE on the continent of Europe. [2916]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table gives the total number of confirmed BSE cases in cattle in European countries other than the UK as at 27 May 1997:

  Country

  Number of cases1

  Number born in UK

  Denmark

  1

  1

  France

  27

  0

  Germany

  5

  5

  Republic of Ireland

  222

  12

  Italy

  2

  2

  Netherlands

  2

  0

  Portugal

  69

  7

  Switzerland

  250

  0

  1For Member States the numbers are those reported to the Commission under Council Directive 82/894/EEC (as amended). Figures for Switzerland were taken from notifiable disease statistics issued by the Swiss Federal Office of Veterinary Affairs

  Woodlands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the management of Forestry Commission woodlands in England following Scottish devolution. [2917]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently considering the possible effects of Scottish devolution on the Forestry Commission. However, the responsibility for forestry in England, including the Forestry Commission's woodlands, rests with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Scottish devolution would not affect this.

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and in what form he will consult on changes to quarantine regulations for pet dogs and cats. [2918]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Because of the wide and legitimate interest in this subject, we would expect to consult at some point on this matter. Decisions on when and how to do so have yet to be taken.

  Health and the Environment
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is considering undertaking for the long-term health of consumers and the safety of the environment. [2919]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is committed to placing protection of the public first. To that end, my officials are working in close consultation with colleagues in the Department of Health and other Departments to prepare for the establishment of a Food Standards Agency. The Agency will be responsible for assuring public health in all matters of food safety policy.

  At the same time we are also taking a number of initiatives to drive up meat hygiene standards in abattoirs. Poor hygiene practices will not be tolerated and the Regulations will be enforced vigorously.

  The Department has a number of measures in place to protect the environment and is considering whether further measures are necessary. Existing measures include strict approval arrangements for pesticides, Codes of Practice on protecting air, water and soil, and voluntary incentive schemes to promote environmentally friendly farming.

  The Government also aims to secure reform of the CAP to reduce food prices, save money and provide more targeted support for the rural economy and enhancing the rural environment.

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the damage caused to farm machinery by holes associated with badger setts; and if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to limit such damage. [3923]
  292
  Mr. Morley
  The Department is aware that where badger setts undermine farm tracks or fields they can pose a serious risk to farm machinery. In such cases, farmers should apply to the relevant Regional Service Centre for a licence under the provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to close down those holes of the sett which pose a risk.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the live export of animals from British ports by sea and air; and if he will make a statement. [4179]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government accepts that in general the export of live animals is a legal trade. However we have made clear our strong preference for meat to be exported on the hook rather than on the hoof; that we will seriously consider banning the export of calves for rearing in narrow veal crates if the European Court of Justice in its forthcoming judgment finds this to be legal; and that we wish the new EU rules on welfare in transit, as now implemented through the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, to be strictly and scrupulously enforced. We are also reviewing current procedure relating to the inspection and certification of live animals for export.

  Genetically Engineered Soya
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 356, what steps he is taking to ensure that tryptophan is not present in genetically engineered soya imported into the United Kingdom. [3465]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 June 1997]: The amino acid tryptophan occurs naturally in a wide range of crops, including soya. In assessing the safety of the genetically modified soya, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes compared the levels of tryptophan present with those found in non-GM varieties of soya and concluded that they were equivalent. The committee also considered the results of a range of animal feeding studies, none of which showed any adverse effects. As a further safeguard, the company which applied for the authorisation has agreed to monitor the genetic stability of the crop by providing periodic updates on the levels of nutrients in both the genetically modified and related non-genetically modified forms.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the number of salaries of his Department's special advisers falling within the range of(a) £24,349–£29,999, (b) £30,000–34,999, (c) £35,000–£39,999, (d) £40,000–£44,999, (e) £45,000£49,999, (f) £50,000–£54,999, (g) £55,000–£59,999, (h) £60,000–£64,999, (i) £65,000–£69,999 and (j) £70,000–£73,484.[4554]

  Mr. Morley
  Consistent with the practice of previous administrations and in order to protect the privacy of individuals, only aggregate information on the salaries of special advisers will be published.

  Once all salaries have been agreed the number of advisers paid in each of the appropriate £10,000 bands will be published.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified general practitioners of working age are(a) resident in the United Kingdom and (b) in practice. [3803]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information was published in "General Medical Services Statistics, England and Wales", on 1 October 1996, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on NHS prescription charges for pensioners. [3834]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be examining the question of prescription charges as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government remains committed to the historic principle of the National Health Service that health services will be available to all and access will be based on need, not on ability to pay.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses are employed in the NHS currently; and in each case how many were employed in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1987. [3439]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Table A: National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) doctors and General Medical Services (GMS) doctors (headcounts) in England in 1987, 1992 and 19951

  1987

  1992

  1995

  HCHS medical staff and GMS General Medical Practitioners2 (Headcount)

  69,570

  75,740

  181,000

  11995 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  2Figures exclude hospital practitioners and clinical assistants to avoid double counting as most hospital practitioners and clinical assistants also work as general practitioners.

  Table B: NHS HCHS nursing and midwifery staff and GMS practice nurses in England in 1987, 1992 and 19961

  1987

  1992

  1996

  HCHS nursing and midwifery staff and GMS practice nurses2 (Whole-time equivalents)

  336,110

  353,170

  3342,480

  Not included in the above:

  HCHS Learners4

  64,560

  34,740

  2,670

  Project 2000 students4

  Not applicable

  18,300

  34,000

  Notes:

  11996 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  2Excludes agency staff.

  3The figure for 1996 is not directly comparable with figures for earlier years because of the introduction of a new system of classifying staff in 1995.

  4Learners are nurses on traditional nurse training courses, and are directly employed by the NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries, they are supernumary not employees, and are thus
  294
  excluded from the count of NHS HCHS nursing staff. Figures for project 2000 students are headcounts and should not be added to other nursing figures in the table which are whole-time equivalents.

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. HCHS figures are as at 30 September each year.

  3. GMS figures are as at 1 October each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses and bi-annual General Medical Services census.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require health authorities to provide counselling before and after blood tests for hepatitis C. [3379]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. In general, patients should be given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision before any diagnostic test. For hepatitis C, this would include discussion of the treatment options, the consequences of a positive test and advice about lifestyle. However, when the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all doctors on 3 April 1995 about the "Look Back" exercise to identify those infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusion, the letter specified that counselling should be made available before and after testing for those found to be infected in this way.

  Malaria
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many notified malaria cases there have been in each year since the abolition of NHS prescriptions for malaria chemoprophylaxis. [3802]

  Ms Jowell
  An amendment to the regulations covering the provision of malarial prophylaxis came into force on February 1995 and since then travellers have to pay for their anti-malarial drugs. The number of cases of malaria reported in the United Kingdom for the last 10 years is given in the table. There have been 325 cases of malaria reported to the Malaria Reference Laboratory for the period January to March 1997; this compares to 397 cases reported for the same period in 1996 and 314 in 1995. The number of cases of malaria varies each year and reflects the variations in transmission in the endemic areas as well as the number of people travelling to malarious areas. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Number of cases of malaria reported in the UK to the Malaria Reference Laboratory, 1987–1996:

  Year

  Cases of malaria

  1987

  1,816

  1988

  1,674

  1989

  1,987

  1990

  2,096

  1991

  2,332

  1992

  1,629

  1993

  1,922

  1994

  1,887

  1995

  2,055

  1996

  2,500

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated on the change in incidence of the new variant form of CJD. [3835]
  295
  Ms Jowell
  New variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) came to light in early 1996. Mathematical modelling indicates that it is likely to be three or four years before we can make soundly based predictions of the likely course of the disease.

  NHS Staff Contracts
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to abolish confidentiality clauses within NHS staff contracts. [4203]

  Mr. Milburn
  The matter is currently being considered.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that hospital trusts send out ethnic monitoring questionnaires with application forms. [4041]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health recommends ethnic monitoring of job applicants as good personnel practice in "Ethnic minority staff in the NHS: a programme of action" and in guidance to the NHS on medical appointments. Chairs and Chief Executives of NHS trusts and health authorities are accountable for meeting equal opportunities objectives locally. Postgraduate deans conduct ethnic monitoring of specialist registrar appointments.

  The NHS Executive is working with NHS employers, professional bodies and Royal Colleges, education consortia, trade unions, Deans and others to tackle discrimination and encourage adoption of best practice.

  Wythenshaw Hospital
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been transferred out of Wythenshawe hospital in each month since January 1996 because of a lack of available beds; and what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) transferring patients and (b) their treatment. [4181]

  Mr. Milburn
  A patient cannot be admitted to hospital unless a bed is available. The number of Accident and Emergency patients who were transferred to other hospitals as a result of Wythenshawe Hospital being full is set out in the table. Both Withington and Wythenshawe Hospitals are part of South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Withington

  Elsewhere

  Total

  January 1996

  —

  9

  9

  February

  2

  21

  23

  March

  4

  27

  31

  April

  8

  31

  39

  May

  2

  16

  18

  June

  2

  30

  32

  July

  6

  33

  39

  August

  16

  28

  44

  September

  21

  54

  75

  October

  7

  32

  39

  November

  9

  18

  27

  December

  24

  70

  94

  January 1997

  24

  32

  56

  February

  26

  42

  68

  296

  Withington

  Elsewhere

  Total

  March

  12

  27

  39

  April

  14

  37

  51

  May

  18

  49

  67

  Source:

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by his Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than£4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour; and what estimate he has made in each case for the national health service generally. [4187]

  Ms Jowell
  No staff in my Department or its agencies earn less than £3 an hour. Sixty-one full time staff earn up to £3.50 an hour; 47 full time staff and two part time staff, earn between £3.50 and £4 an hour.

  For the NHS generally, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry gave the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 2 June 1997 at columns 20–21.

  Corticosteroids
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who(a) have been prescribed and (b) took corticosteroids in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[4173]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is not possible to estimate the number of people prescribed and taking corticosteroids. Thirty-one million prescriptions items for corticosteroids were dispensed in England in 1996.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take to tackle racial discrimination in the health service. [4044]

  MrMilburn
  We are determined to take action to ensure that the Health Service is free from racial discrimination. The NHS Executive has signed up to the Commission for Racial Equality's "Leadership Challenge" as a signal of our commitment in the European Year Against Racism.

  The NHS Equal Opportunities Unit is working with NHS employers, professional bodies, the Commission for Racial Equality, trade unions and others to enhance the capacity of the Service to tackle discrimination and encourage adoption of good practice. This work includes supporting NHS trusts and health authorities, whose Chairs and Chief Executives are accountable for meeting the goals of "Ethnic minority staff in the NHS: a programme for action", by promoting and disseminating best practice. Progress towards these goals forms part of the "NHS as a good employer" benchmark set out in the annual Priorities and Planning guidance.

  Gyms and Health Centres
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the provisions of access to gyms and health centres on prescription; and if he will make a statement. [4129]

  Mr. Milburn
  General Practitioner exercise on prescription schemes are being adopted at local level. For the price of a prescription, patients can make use of local health and leisure facilities for a planned programme of appropriate exercise. Some prescription schemes already make use of gyms. Individual local health care teams are best placed to decide which facility would deliver the greatest benefit to the patient. Detailed guidance for primary health care teams is contained in the Health Education Authority's document "Promoting Physical Activity in Primary Care".

  NHS Prescriptions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people receiving NHS prescriptions who do not follow the full course of treatment. [4284]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1996 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of prescribed medicines in a random sample of 2,082 households found that 8 per cent. could be described as residual or wasted. Within this, 0.7 per cent. were completely unused, 4 per cent. were approximately half used and 3 per cent. were almost gone.

  Ophthalmic Service
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the cost of the ophthalmic service in England and Wales is borne by the users. [4379]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are no charges for the general ophthalmic services provided under the National Health Service, but only selected groups are eligible for NHS sight tests and spectacle vouchers. We do not have information on the cost of similar services provided privately.

  Electricity Transmission Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the health effects of electricity transmission lines on those living in their vicinity. [4281]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department obtains advice on the health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and other sources including its own funded research. The primary focus of concern has been on power lines and childhood cancer where the results have not shown a proven link: the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation conducted an extensive review of the subject in 1992 and concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that might be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances or work in the electrical, electronic and telecommunication industries. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has endorsed the Advisory Group's report. A supplementary report in 1994 was published by the NRPB to take into account the results of epidemiological 298
  studies from Scandinavia, France and Canada. Copies of the Advisory Group's report and the supplementary documents are available in the Library.

  Several epidemiological studies are currently under way to investigate childhood cancer in relation to various possible causes including electromagnetic fields. The largest study of this type in this country is the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study which is funded in part by the Department of Health with technical support provided by the NRPB. The Department is also funding two pilot studies, one of adults and one of children, looking at cancer incidence near power lines.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report of the Efficiency Scrutiny into Prescription Fraud. [4843]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have now received the report of the "Efficiency Scrutiny into Prescription Fraud". I will be publishing it today, and placing a copy in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to determine the health service's strategic need for hospitals to be financed under the private finance initiative. [4060]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health will develop its capital investment system so that it will prioritise all major acute sector hospital schemes in accordance with health service needs. This system will apply to both Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and publicly funded procurement options. Proposals for dealing with small-scale acute schemes and non-acute schemes under the PFI will be put forward in the near future.

  HIV/AIDS
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of HIV/AIDS sufferers receiving treatment (i) by health board area, (ii) in Wales and (iii) in England; what was the spending per head on treatment and care of HIV/AIDS sufferers in England; if he will give the spending in England and Wales on prevention of HIV/AIDS, in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [4214]

  Ms Jowell
  The total number of HIV positive individuals (including those with AIDS) receiving treatment in 1995 in England was 13,146. In Wales the corresponding total was 197. These data are derived from the National Survey of Prevalent Diagnosed HIV Infections, and record all identified HIV infected patients treated by statutory services during 1995. This is the latest year for which figures are available. The data cover all areas in England but there may be a small element of under reporting. The breakdown of numbers treated in each Regional Office area in England is as follows:

  Number

  Northern and Yorkshire

  532

  Trent

  407

  Anglia and Oxford

  509

  North Thames

  7,014

  299

  Number

  South Thames

  2,693

  South and West

  686

  West Midlands

  410

  North Western

  895

  The total number for Wales is as follows:
  Wales: 197
  The total allocation for AIDS treatment and care in England in 1995–96 was £195.1 million. The funds are allocated to health authorities on the basis of the number of AIDS cases reported by the authority to the Public Health Laboratory Service. The funds are directed by health authorities mainly to the statutory health care services, but may also be used to fund a range of other service providers as determined by local needs assessment.

  The funds are no longer ringfenced and it is up to health authorities, taking account of local needs assessment and priorities, to determine their local priorities for expenditure. The allocations for AIDS treatment and care in England for 1996–97 totalled £185.7 million, the reduction was because the latest AIDS projections report indicated that the number of people alive with AIDS and severe HIV disease in 1996–97 would be around 10 per cent. lower than previously projected. The allocations for 1997–98 are £199.6 million. This increase represents a contribution towards the costs of new combination therapies. In 1995–96 £49.6 million was allocated to health authorities in England for HIV prevention. These funds continue to be ringfenced, and the corresponding totals for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are £51.3 and £52.3 million respectively. In Wales the majority of expenditure on HIV/AIDS is targeted at preventative measures. The expenditure in 1995–96 totals £2.2 million.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 423, on dental services, if he will list equivalent figures for lapsed dental registration in the three years before the introduction of dental check-up charges, and in each year subsequent to it. [4219]

  Mr. Milburn
  The adult patient charge for dental examinations was introduced in January 1989. Adults were first registered under the new dental contract in October 1990; the first registration lapses occurred two years later. The number of adult registration lapses for each of the full years 1993–94 to 1996–97 is given in the table.

  General dental service: Number of adult registration lapses

  England

  Year

  Million

  1993–94

  4.2

  1994–95

  4.7

  1995–96

  4.6

  1996–97

  4.1

  1. The first adult registration lapses occurred in the autumn of 1992, mid-way during the financial year 1992–93. During that part year there were 2.8 million lapses
  300
  2. These figures relate to the number of adult registrations lapsed after a period of two years during which the patient had not attended the dentist. These figures are affected by improvements in the Dental Practice Board procedures for eliminating duplicate registrations.

  Proposed NHS Trusts Merger
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to oppose the proposed merger of the Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital and St. Peter's Hospital NHS trusts. [4310]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any merger proposal will be considered carefully according to its merits and the benefit to patient care.

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations his Department and the NHS Executive have had about future possible uses of the west Norwich and Stephens sites of the Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust after the new Norfolk and Norwich Hospital has been opened. [4521]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department and the Anglia and Oxford Regional Office of the NHS Executive have not had any consultations about future use of the sites of the present Norfolk and Norwich and West Norwich Hospitals and no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates his Department has made of the number of car journeys per day by(a) staff, (b) patients and (c) visitors that the new Norfolk and Norwich Hospital is likely to generate. [4522]

  Mr. Milburn
  A traffic impact assessment (TIA) commissioned by the Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust has identified likely daily flows of traffic to the new hospital as follows:

  Staff: 2,666

  Patients: 1,486

  Service vehicles: 180

  Visitors: 1,212.

  The TIA made proposals to provide public transport, cycleways and footpaths to the new site which were accepted by the Planning Authorities.

  Accident and Emergency Facilities
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department currently lays down for health authorities on accessibility to 24-hour accident and emergency facilities in urban areas. [4523]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to decide what facilities are needed in their area, taking account of varying local conditions.

  In addition, on 29 October 1996 the NHS Chief Executive wrote to the Chief Executives of all health authorities and NHS trusts reminding them that their first priority was to meet pressures on emergency services. He went on to say that it is a fundamental expectation that accident and emergency departments must not close to emergency admissions. He stressed this point again last week in a speech to the Conference of the Institute of Health Service Managers
  301
  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the towns and cities in Britain, with a population greater than 50,000, which currently have no NHS 24-hour accident and emergency service within their boundaries. [4512]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1995–96 there were 211 National Health Service trusts, special health authorities and directly managed units with large accident and emergency departments. We do not hold information on which towns and cities have accident and emergency departments within their boundaries.

  1Source: The NHS Performance Guide 1995–96.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate the number of salaries of his Department's special advisers falling within the range of(a) £24,349–£29,999, (b) £–30,000–£34,999, (c) £35,000–£39,999, (d) £40,000–£44,999, (e) £45,000–£49,999, (f) £50,000–£54,999, (g) £55,000–£59,999, (h) £60,000–£64,999, (i) £65,000–£69,999 and (j) £70,000–£73,484. [4558]

  Ms Jowell
  Consistently with the practice of the previous administrations and in order to protect the privacy of individuals, only aggregate information on the salaries of special advisers will be published.

  Once all salaries have been agreed aggregate information will be published giving the number of advisers paid in £10,000 bands.

  Hospital Access
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues to ensure that new hospitals are accessible to patients, visitors and staff by public transport(a) with regular frequency, (b) for 24-hours a day and (c) at a reasonable price. [4520]

  Mr. Milburn
  The policy on access by public transport is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which produces guidance for local authorities. It is for the local authorities to interpret the guidance when considering planning applications by National Health Service trusts for new hospital sites.

  Guidance issued by NHS Estates, an Agency of the Department of Health, advises NHS bodies to provide facilities in a way which allows them to be accessible to patients and draws to their attention the need to consider access, circulation and vehicle parking, highlighting the need for a good public transport service to meet the needs of staff, patients and visitors, with the aim of reducing demand upon, and the expense of, car parking facilities.

SCOTLAND

  Diabetics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow pen needles to be made available on prescription for people with diabetes who require insulin; and if he will make a statement. [4139]
  302
  Mr. Galbraith
  The Department of Health, on behalf of all the UK Health Departments, evaluates appliances for safety, efficacy and value for money.

  The Department of Health is currently considering whether needles for pen injection systems should be prescribable by general practitioners on the National Health Service.

  Council of Ministers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many European Council of Ministers meetings Scottish Environment Ministers have attended since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [4224]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Scottish Environment Ministers have attended three Environment Councils since 1992. In line with our Manifesto commitment that a Labour Government would mean Scotland's concerns being heard at the heart of Europe, Scottish Ministers work closely with their colleagues to ensure Scotland's interests in European matters are taken fully into account. Their attendance at Council meetings, where matters of interest to Scotland are to be discussed, clearly contributes to the delivery of our commitment.

  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) persons and (b) organisations have been convicted under sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in each of the past 10 years; what was the range of fines imposed and the average financial penalty; and if he will make a statement. [4058]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The information requested is not held centrally and the data could be collated only at a disproportionate cost.

  Up to 1995–96 the information requested is within the annual reports of individual river purification boards, which are available in the House Library. However, information on convictions in the former island council areas is not held centrally. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is presently considering the information which should be contained within its 1996–97 annual report and we will bring this issue to its attention.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and if he will make a statement. [4057]

  Mr. Chisholm
  There are no present plans to modify the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The Act may however need to be amended in the light of developments in relation to the EC water framework directive currently under negotiation.

  Cattle (Computerised Traceability)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the computerised traceability scheme proposed by Mr. Brian Pack of Aberdeen and Northern Marts; and if he will make a statement on the estimated time scale for the introduction of a fully computerised traceability scheme for beef herds in Scotland. [4217]
  303
  Mr. Chisholm
  Aberdeen and Northern Marts carried out a feasibility study on a computerised tracing system for Scottish cattle in 1994. This voluntary system was considered by the Department, as were contributions from other sources. Circumstances have changed considerably since then. Both the Government and the industry ascribe great importance to the introduction of a mandatory national system. We are proceeding urgently on this basis.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the number of salaries of his 304
  Department's special advisers falling within the range of (a) £24,349–£29,999, (b) £30,000–£34,999, (c) £35,000–£39,999, (d) £40,000–£44,999, (e) £45,000–£49,999, (f) £50,000–£54,999, (g) £55,000–£59,999, (h) £60,000–£64,999, (i) £65,000–£69,999 and (j) £70,000–£73,484. [4556]

  Mr. Dewar
  Consistent with the practice of previous administrations and in order to protect the privacy of individuals, only aggregate information on the salaries of special advisers will be published. Once all salaries have been agreed the number of advisers paid in each of the appropriate £10,000 bands will be published.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having
been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

AIDS Survivors: Treatments
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the case of long-term survivors of HIV and AIDS diagnoses, they are aware of what treatment regimes, if any, these patients have followed.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the choice of treatment regimes for HIV and AIDS patients is a matter for discussion between the patient and the doctor. As your Lordships will understand, records of individuals' treatments are of course confidential. Information published from recent clinical trials currently indicates that so far the use of combination retroviral drugs is delaying the onset of AIDS and increasing survival. There is relatively little scientific analysis available about the types of treatments which have been used by long-term survivors.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Is she aware of evidence from surveys and indeed clinical trials suggesting that what long-term survivors may have in common is that they have mostly rejected conventional drug treatment and have embraced a range of unorthodox therapies including lifestyle changes? Would she not agree that if that is substantiated it has enormous implications for the direction of future research as well as for public policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am of course aware that a number of people with HIV and AIDS have enjoyed great personal benefits from their use of what I suppose one might call complementary alternative therapies. The problem is that the scientific analysis of such therapies is difficult because a number of different therapies are used and individuals tend to change from one to another. It is the case, of course, that money is being spent on R&D programmes in this area and the NHS R&D programme has recently identified two specific topics which are being funded. They are the evaluation of manipulation therapies in the treatment of back pain and acupuncture for the management of pain in primary care. I realise of course that they are not directly related to HIV and AIDS, but I hope that they indicate to the noble Earl that interest in these subjects is being taken by the programme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that patients are now gaining great benefit
1338
from the modern cocktail treatment using a multiplicity of drugs and that one should not rely just on complementary medicine? Does she further agree that there may be all kinds of interesting factors as regards personal resistance? It has been found that one or two people have survived for a very long time. Is the Minister aware that those people are being researched to find out what is occurring? Is the Minister further aware that no one has yet made a definitive statement that complementary medicine is better than standard treatment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that what seems to be most successful in achieving long-term help for people who are HIV positive is a combination of what one describes as orthodox treatment and other less orthodox methods. Data from some of the clinical trials—the multinational Delta trial is probably the most substantial—show that there is a relative reduction in mortality of about 30 per cent. when a combination—the so-called "cocktail"—of anti-retroviral drugs is taken. As I said to the noble Earl, there is not adequate scientific knowledge on the question of complementary therapies.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as research is so important, will the noble Baroness do all that she can to induce the research council to allocate a less derisory proportion of funds to complementary medical research because some of the results seem very promising?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree that research is the foundation of evidence-based medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and I have spoken often about the matter in the past. I shall do everything I can to look into the question of whether adequate funding is going into this area. As I said, I am encouraged by the fact that the NHS research and development programme itself has taken up specific questions of complementary medicine. There is evidence that where complementary medicine has improved the general health of individuals with HIV it seems to have a positive effect on the immune system, which makes it easier for people to fight opportunistic infection.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while the triple combination drugs have had an enormous effect both in reducing the transition from HIV to full-blown AIDS and in reducing death rates from AIDS, most of those effects have been enjoyed abroad? In the United States and France, for example, the transition rates from HIV to AIDS are down by one-half whereas in the United Kingdom the figure has increased. In those countries also the death rates from AIDS have been reduced by one-half but barely reduced at all in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister say what is the Government's explanation for this rather poor record?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe the point is that the combination therapies have been only recently introduced into this country. As the noble Lord will know, there are trials in only the most limited areas, particularly in London, of up to three years using the particular forms of combination therapy to which

1339
I believe the noble Lord referred. In an earlier answer I referred to the encouraging data from the United States, which I am sure our clinicians are looking at very closely.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government will be aware, as, I am sure, will the noble Baroness, because she is an expert in this area, of what has been the experience in France—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—where people are living longer and where, through the combination therapies, there is evidence of improved survival. Can the Minister say whether her Government will continue the good work of the previous government in funding such therapies?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that I know a great deal about HIV. She knows a great deal about NHS funding; that individual funding decisions about individual therapies are taken by local health authorities; and that specific AIDS grants are given to health authorities for treatment and care. I am sure that those authorities which have the greatest problems will look at the issue.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about exchanges, not only with the countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred, but also with the World Health Organisation and those countries, particularly in Africa, which have been particularly afflicted by this disease?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the clinicians who are experts in this area in this country are very aware of the problems faced by people in the third world and particularly in Africa. One of the problems in dealing with the large numbers of people with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa is the expense of the combination therapies to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the latest figure for the total cost of treating HIV and AIDS? Can she say how much we are spending on research, care and treatment centrally; how much local authorities are spending; and whether there are any plans to increase or decrease those amounts?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on the overall question of funding, a total of £199.6 million has been allocated for AIDS treatment and care in 1997–98, which represents an increase of over 7 per cent. on the previous year. That is seen as a contribution to the new and expensive combination therapies. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, local funding is a question of discretionary funding to individual health authorities and emphasis is given to those who have the greatest need.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness a little further and refer back to the question of long-term survival and what patients may or may not have done to stay well? Is it not the case that
1340
there has been no proper formal study of these survivors? Does that not represent a very serious omission which ought to be rectified without delay?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is right and that there has not been a long-term scientific retrospective study of survivors. That is simply because it is difficult to ascertain at what point you would begin to study them, as it were—if that is not a convoluted way of putting it—in order for them to be part of any scientific trial. The scientific evidence that there is suggests that those who have survived are those who have been involved at the cutting edge of medical developments and who have been exposed to the original Zidovudine treatment and then the triple combination therapy. As I hope that the noble Earl will understand, there is evidence that where complementary medicine has been added, people have done very well.

Antiquities: Illegal Traffic
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer given by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 3rd June (H.L. Deb., col. 563), how it is possible to define or prove in law that antiquities have been illegally excavated in, or illegally exported from, their country of origin.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, any legislation in this country would need to define an illegally excavated or illegally exported object as being one which was excavated or exported contrary to the law of the country of origin. Evidence would be required to establish the relevant foreign law. Factual evidence would also be required about the circumstances surrounding the excavation or export. For exports, it should be straightforward to prove that the export contravenes the law of the country of origin. However, proof of the circumstances surrounding an excavation may be more difficult.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtful and constructive Answer. We all abhor the illegal import of antiquities. Will the Government press for more official provenances and encourage more stringent policing from the countries concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to achieve congruity between our laws and those of other countries, we shall need a combination of changes to our law and adherence by many countries to international conventions. That is not an easy process, but it is reassuring that every advance that we make provides additional protection, as was seen by yesterday's conviction in the Bullrush case.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Criminal Justice Act 1993 allows

1341
prosecutions for acts committed abroad? If that is applicable in this case, when will the relevant section be brought into effect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. As I said when the matter was debated earlier this month, officials of the Department of National Heritage have approached the Home Office about this issue. I am happy to be able to confirm that the Secretary of State for National Heritage has now written to the Home Secretary seeking to make progress on the implementation of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the scale of the market in looted antiquities, and does he agree that it is in the nature of successful looting and successful illegal export, as with most crime, that there is no available documentation of the circumstances?
If the noble Lord says, "You are reading", I am doing so because my noble friend Lord Renfrew, who is not here today, asked me to put a supplementary question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would not dream of telling the noble Baroness that she was reading; but she has answered her own question. If we knew the extent of illegal exporting and illegal excavation, we would know the cases involved and we might be able to make some attempt to deal with them. As the noble Baroness said, it is an unknowable statistic. Indeed, illegal activity usually is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, apart from practice and voluntary custom, there are not circumstances in which an auction house has a legal obligation to prove affirmatively that the goods were legally excavated and exported? In that context, may I ask the noble Lord also whether our courts do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord was a great help when he raised this issue when we last debated the matter and suggested that one protection would be further advance knowledge of what was about to be put on sale. I gave the noble Lord a not entirely accurate answer; but perhaps I may now be able to help him by saying that it is possible, using the auction search service which is provided by a company called Thesaurus, for countries of origin, victim countries and public museums to learn shortly before an auction takes place what is likely to be displayed for sale, and thus to take action to remove an article from the sale if that seems appropriate.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, as the Getty Information Institute has, after three years' research, had considerable success in the establishment of Object ID, an identification system for cultural objects, and as proving the provenance of the objects is essential to the control of the illicit trade, does the noble Lord agree that common recording standards must be adopted and that
1342
the use of a system such as Object ID should be co-ordinated at national level by the Home Office encouraging police forces to use a common system, by the Department of National Heritage encouraging its use by heritage bodies, and at the international level by the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for drawing my attention to the details of Object ID. I can confirm that the Department of National Heritage has been in discussion with Dr. Robin Thorns and that we are very interested in the proposals which have been put forward by the Getty Information Institute. We shall be pursuing those discussions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think that perhaps we should move on. We spent a little long on the first Question.

Digital TV: Regulation
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they consider that the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) should take in the public interest to investigate and if need be to regulate the proposed £0.5 billion joint venture between Sky TV and British Telecom to subsidise set-top black boxes to receive digital TV and to develop interactive services.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, Oftel already regulates the operation of so-called "conditional access" services for digital television; that is, services which will control access to broadcast television through digital set-top boxes. Oftel has broad powers covering all questions relating to subsidy and operation of the set-top boxes in respect of broadcast services. I can also confirm that the Government intend, at the earliest opportunity, to extend the scope of the existing regulations to provide the same safeguards covering the use of the same "black boxes" to control access to interactive services.
The proposed joint venture will be subject to scrutiny by the European competition authorities and by the Director-General of Fair Trading; since Ministers may have some statutory role to play as part of this process, I cannot comment further at this time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is topical since the matter appeared in the Financial Times only yesterday. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer our questions and tell him how pleased we are to see him here. Do the Government share the reported concern of the Independent Television Commission about the ever-increasing influence of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, a foreign citizen who controls five of our national newspapers with a readership of 26 million, and who, through cable and satellite television, also controls one of Britain's main news channels with worldwide viewers numbering 70 million? What do the Government propose to do about that?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome. It is a pleasure to stand opposite her twice running. I congratulate her on the topicality of her Question. As to bidders and competitiveness, it is clear that the ITC also has a regulatory responsibility to ensure that there is quality in broadcasting, competitiveness in the market place and free choice. Therefore, let the ITC take its decisions, backed up, of course, by the OFT and the Commission. I believe that it is for them to judge at what point the offerers of services have too much power. I leave that to the authorities to whom it applies.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches welcome the Minister's response? However, the Question comes from a side of the House which when in Government steadfastly opposed any effective regulation of the Murdoch domination of these matters. Will the new Government take a fresh look at competition in the media field generally not only in the matter of black boxes but in the matter of the new award of multiplex franchises by the ITC, which has also been referred to in the press in the past few days? If I may put a Scottish point of view, Scottish Television is being allowed to have excessive domination not only in the west of Scotland but in taking over the excellent regional franchise holder, Grampian Television.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cannot comment on the position taken on media bids in the past. I am so young in the House that I have not yet caught up. I believe that we must strike a careful balance between the capacity to bring on new technology, where there will be few players with the ability to fund these options, and the creation of opportunities that this wonderful revolution in information services provides. The challenge to look again at competition policy is probably an early one. We want to make the offers available and see who is there to bid, and then we will consider competition issues.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, on 4th June the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas whether the Government had confidence in the ITC, which was taking crucial decisions about digital terrestrial television. The Minister's response was (how shall I put it?) somewhat
1344
opaque. I have advised the Minister now at the Dispatch Box—whom I should also like to welcome—of my intention to seek further clarification. Bearing in mind that confidence is like virginity—either it exists or it does not and there is no scope for qualification—can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have confidence in the ITC? I ask the Minister to bear in mind that in giving his reply any qualification must mean that his response is negative.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for his welcome. I am still trying to assemble the full import of the last sentence of his Question. The answer is that the Government have full confidence in the ITC.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to make use of set-top technology as the means of delivering their promise to install Internet capability in schools?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. Currently, we do not have any plans because the state of the development of the technology is still open. I believe that it is an extremely good suggestion and it is one that we shall take seriously and comment upon at a later stage when the technology is available.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that after next year we will be unable to see rugger internationals involving England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales unless we watch them on Sky?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I was unaware of it because of late I have been more inclined to watch football than rugby. However, the consumer should always have choice. If not, the competitive bidding process is not working correctly.
Lord Annan: My Lords, in other words is the Minister willing to review the list of sporting events that should be available to terrestrial television?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to put the question to the appropriate department.

National Health Service: Policy
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on charging for National Health Service services in view of the recent announcements of the Secretary of State for Health that charges for visiting a National Health Service doctor or staying in a National Health Service hospital are not to be ruled out.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to repeat the Government's manifesto

1345
commitments on the National Health Service. Access to the NHS will be based on need, not ability to pay. The manifesto also promised that we would raise spending on the NHS in real terms every year and put the money towards patient care. Every aspect of the Department of Health's comprehensive spending review, which is part of the Government's comprehensive spending review announced last week, will naturally be judged against that commitment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Will the new Labour Government honour their manifesto pledge? As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Health has said that no charges are to be ruled out. Bearing in mind that yesterday the noble Baroness told us about cancer services, can she now give a commitment that no one who is dying of cancer or who has a terminal condition will have to pay for a hospital stay or a visit from his or her GP?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can confirm that no one will have to pay for cancer treatment. Without wishing to be discourteous, I am rather surprised that after several years as a Minister in the previous government the noble Baroness accepts the truth of media speculation. The rather frenzied speculation about NHS charges for this, that and the other is just that—unfounded speculation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the spending review will not simply take into account charges but will deal with the whole administration of the National Health Service, its priorities, how it is run, those treatments that should be given priority and those that should not and, above all, whether real progress will be made in phasing out mixed sex wards, a matter about which I, and indeed the House, which passed a Bill to outlaw such wards in the National Health Service, are concerned?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stoddart is aware of my genuine concern about, and attention to, the question of mixed sex wards. It is part of the responsibilities we shall be looking at in the comprehensive spending review. The review is about setting priorities in the medium and long term—not just the next two years—and it will consider the matters the noble Lord has raised. Its purpose is to channel resources of the public sector towards the achievement of the manifesto promises and so advance the key principles of fairness, opportunity, employment and investment that we hope the National Health Service will always represent.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a pensioner. Does the Minister agree that such charges as are referred to in the Question would be a tax on pensioners, because it is the elderly who use the services of the National Health Service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness. I can
1346
only repeat what I said earlier. All speculation about individual charges is just that—speculation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of opinion poll evidence that 56 per cent. of those who voted Labour at the election did so expecting that increases in taxation would result, presumably agreeing with the mistaken view of Polly Toynbee: trust them, they are liars? Under those circumstances, since the Government must inevitably disappoint nearly half their voters whatever they do about taxation, do they accept the view, which I would commend to any government, that they will not rule out prudent increases in taxation when they appear to be in the national interest?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl, I think, is trying to take advantage of the fact that I am a newly appointed Minister, and, as in the debate on the Queen's Speech, is inviting me to speculate about the Budget and future tax arrangements, which I am sure he will understand that even someone as green as I am is unlikely to do.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, on how many occasions were prescription charges raised by the previous government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, prescription charges today are 28 times more expensive than they were in 1979. Even after allowing for inflation, they are 10 times more expensive than they were in 1979.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, would the Minister like to confirm that it was a Labour Government who first introduced the principle of prescription charges? And is it not the case that today 80 per cent. of people are exempt from paying prescription charges and only 20 per cent. have to pay, which is a reversal of the situation before the Conservative Government came in? The Minister talked also about press speculation. Will she comment on what Mr. Dobson was quoted as saying in The Times of 14th June 1997:
"We are ruling nothing out. We are looking at every aspect so that we can get the health service on an even keel and get through the pressures of this coming winter. We are going to look at charges"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there is nothing inconsistent with what I have said and the press speculation to which the noble Baroness referred. As she raised the subject of the situation when her government took over and our government came in, what is true is the appalling state of NHS finances today. We have inherited a service which is £300 million in debt. A record number of health authorities and health trusts are in deficit; waiting lists are at record levels; and, as was

1347
revealed today, prescription fraud, which was totally unchecked under the previous government, is losing the NHS over £85 million a year.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.32 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Imperial College Bill Southampton International Boat Show Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which were brought from the Commons in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, have leave to proceed with the said Bills in the present Session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the agents for the Bills shall deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a declaration, signed by the agent concerned, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Commons in the last Parliament;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session of Parliament be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.] King's College Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this
1348
House, have leave to introduce the said Bills in the present Session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That every such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 o'clock on Monday 23rd June next with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Parliament;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session of Parliament be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Powers of NHS trusts to enter into agreements]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("agreement") insert ("(which includes a series of connected agreements)").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to clarify a short point which arises on the certification of what is called an externally financed development agreement. The purpose of the Bill, as the Committee will be aware, is to remove any doubt about the power of NHS trusts to enter into such agreements; for example, an agreement for a hospital project where finance is to be provided from the private sector.
The Bill is designed to set at rest any question that the NHS trust is acting ultra vires, and that those who provide the private finance may lose their money as a result. To be legally watertight under the Bill in the area of ultra vires, an externally financed development agreement will usually need to be certified as such by the Secretary of State. In practice, an important project is likely to involve a series of separate agreements, not necessarily all between the same parties, which together form the total package; for example, a project may involve the lease of a hospital site and such subsidiary matters as the provision of laundry facilities for staff and patients. The lease would normally be in one

1349
document in the usual form, and the laundry services would probably be the subject matter of a totally different document.
It would be inconvenient and cumbersome if everything involved in the project had to be contained in one document. However, I have been told by the Financial Law Panel that the department has indicated that it is its present intention to certify only one document in any project. Does that mean that if, for convenience, the project is contained in five separate documents, only one agreement will be certified, and therefore made legally watertight in the area of ultra vires, and that the other four agreements will not be certified and therefore can be vulnerable?
The amendment is designed to make it clear that the Secretary of State can be asked to certify all the agreements which form a particular project, by saying that the agreement includes a series of connected agreements. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of that legal point. If the amendment were to be considered necessary to ensure that agreements are properly certified and that no part of such an agreement remained vulnerable, is it not a pity that the definitions could not be contained within just one clause? As a layman, it is difficult sometimes to find one's way through legislation. I have had to read social security law and regulations over the past 20 years, and sometimes still feel no better off when trying to unravel them. Clause 1(5) contains definitions of two other terms which fall within subsection (3). I am referring to the terms "another party" and "facilities". If it were necessary to have the amendment to secure the underlying nature of the agreements, we might be able to look at having all definitions within one clause.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for employing his legal erudition to move the amendment. I, too, feel rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we are, as it were, amateurs in the legal minefield. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for acquainting me with the reasons for putting down the amendment before he did so. The amendment, as he said, seeks to clarify the fact that a series of connected agreements may be treated as a single externally financed development agreement, and certified as such by the Secretary of State. I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's intention to improve and clarify the Bill, but my advice is that the amendment is unnecessary. The purpose of this Bill is simply to give bankers reassurance that NHS trusts have the power to enter into externally financed development agreements; in other words, private finance contracts. We have been in close contact with the banking community at all stages, and they have signalled their satisfaction with the Bill as drafted.
Their confidence in the Bill is not misplaced. My legal advice is that the Interpretation Act states that the singular includes the plural. This allows the Secretary of State to certify a group of agreements as constituting one externally financed development agreement. This, in practice, is what we see happening.
1350
Typically, a major PFI scheme involves a contract between the NHS trust and the private sector consortium, and a series of further contracts between the consortium and its individual members; in other words, a whole group of contracts. However, it is unnecessary to certify each of them separately.
What we envisage is what already happens in the leading PFI schemes: there is an overarching project agreement between the trust and the consortium which incorporates all the others by referring to them. The Secretary of State will issue one certificate which lists or refers to all the documents that constitute the externally financed development agreement—that is, the overarching project agreement and all the related contracts—and will certify that they together constitute such an agreement. Certification of the project agreement will therefore provide certification of all the related contracts.
It is, of course, true that this approach would not allow the certificate to cover contracts made subsequent to the certificate, which might happen if, for instance, a member of the private sector consortium were replaced by another company. However, I am advised that the proposed amendment would not solve that problem. The easiest way of covering such contracts would be to amend the overarching project agreement to include the new contract and to issue a new certificate. This could also be done if a contract were accidentally left out when a project agreement and its related contracts were being certified. I have to say that, given the time, money and amount of legal brain power applied to these agreements, I find that particularly unlikely.
Some lawyers have asked what would happen if a satellite or subsidiary contract fell outside the scope of the Bill. In practice, it is hard to see this happening since in Clause 1(3) the Bill refers very loosely to agreements "in connection with" the provision of facilities to enable a trust to discharge its functions. If the satellite contract were omitted accidentally from the overarching project agreement, the agreement could, as I have said, be amended and recertified. If the satellite contract were not related to the functions of a trust, it is hard to see why it would form part of the PFI scheme in the first place.
While we understand that the intention behind the amendment is sound and is meant to be helpful the approach we are taking makes it unnecessary. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling the amendment, but hope that he will not press it.
Lord Brightman: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, which is entirely satisfactory and relieves me of all anxieties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("() he is satisfied that the provision of those facilities in the circumstances proposed is in the interests of the population of the area served by the trust and is in the wider public interest; and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. They derive from the experience at Norwich in relation to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital project. Reference was made to that during our Second Reading debate on 3rd June by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Therefore, there was reference to the issue from all sides of the House.
The purpose of the amendments is to obtain reassurance that when the Secretary of State is deciding to give his certificate under Clause 1(2) he must be sure that, according to Amendment No. 2, the proposal he is certifying is in the local and wider public interest. Amendment No. 3 provides that he must make sure that the proposal he is certifying has been the subject of adequate public consultation.
The relevance of the Norwich affair is that the project, although subject initially to detailed public consultation, was subsequently changed to a material degree. In particular, a smaller existing hospital within the city of Norwich, which was to have formed part of the project as initially discussed, was scheduled to be closed under the revised proposition. That has created a considerable amount of public concern. It is for those reasons that the amendments have been tabled. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: The amendments could well be categorised as constructive opposition, which is the way the Liberal Democrat Party has said that it will behave certainly during the first part of the Government's term in office. They allow my noble friend to speak on a topic of strong local concern in at least one part of the country. There is no doubt that the citizens of Norwich, as represented by their elected council, do not feel that,
"the provision of those facilities in the circumstances proposed is in the interests of the population of the area served".
Nor do they feel that there has been,
"adequate public consultation".
as provided in the amendments.
One of the pledges of the Labour Party in its manifesto was that health service provision should become more locally accountable, since the previous government steadily eroded local democratic representation on health authorities and trusts. A meeting of Norwich City Council just over a week ago resolved that:
"The proposals for a new district general hospital at Colney received planning permission from South Norfolk District Council and tacit approval for PFI-funding from the previous Tory Government, despite strong local opposition.
"Norwich City Council opposed the approval particularly on planning grounds: the proposals are environmentally damaging, economically damaging to the City and very poor in access for both service users and staff.
"Norwich City Council therefore resolves—
To request an independent review of all decisions made with regard to new hospital provision in the Norwich area. This review to be held in public and 'transparent' in all details, including finance. The review to consider environmental impact, sustainability and access issues as well as economic impact".
That is the first of a series of clauses. There are six other clauses.
1352
I understand why the noble Baroness is anxious that the Bill should pass through this House unamended. One of the reasons is the ability to go ahead quickly with this and other schemes. However, this scheme in particular is very expensive, environmentally disruptive and opposed by local opinion. Surely it is time to step back and not be in such a hurry. Alternative and much cheaper schemes have been drawn up in outline and costed. Surely they should be examined. It is unnecessary and unfair to suggest, as did my right honourable friend Mr. Alan Milburn, that if the current scheme is not accepted lock stock and barrel Norwich will go to the back of the queue. Is that fair when a much cheaper and more acceptable alternative has been drawn up in outline by a highly respected architect and is waiting in the wings?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for reminding us that all those important decisions about private finance schemes should not be taken by politicians or bureaucrats locked away in ivory towers, without consideration for the public in whose communities they will be built and who will use the new hospitals. I very much take on board the specific points made by the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Rea about the Norwich situation. But as my honourable friend Mr. Milburn, who has been referred to, made clear in another place in announcing the wider review of PFI in health, on 10th June, in future we must be satisfied that the projects have taken due account of the needs and wishes of local communities. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will wish to endorse those sentiments.
However, despite sharing the noble Lord's concern on this matter, I cannot agree that the right way to address it is by amending the Bill in this way, as there is already legislation in place which requires consultation on such matters.
It is not possible to consult every single member of the public on every single local health service issue. Instead, the Committee may be familiar with the expression that the community health councils are the "patients' watchdog.". Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the 1977 NHS Act states that it is the,
"duty of a Community Health Council … to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district.".
We continue to acknowledge the pivotal role played by community health councils in articulating the views of local people, and they are required to be consulted on important changes to health services. Regulation 18 of the 1996 Community Health Council regulations state:
"It shall be the duty of each relevant Health Authority to consult a Council on any proposals which the health authority may have under consideration for any substantial development of the health service in the Council's district, and on any proposals to make any substantial variation in the provision of such service".
I am sure your Lordships will agree that a major PFI development is precisely the sort of "substantial development" on which a council could expect to be consulted. Given the requirement for consultation which already exists, we cannot agree that the Bill should be amended to make yet further provision.

1353
But my honourable friend, Mr. Milburn, is looking at the whole prioritisation of PFI schemes. He has made it clear that in the future, that will be done on the basis of major capital schemes and their relevance to the health service. Service need will be paramount. These conditions build upon the existing, well-established framework for approving major capital schemes as set out in the Capital Investment Manual, which requires the Department of Health and the Treasury to give their approval for major projects. Those bodies are also able, at a stage in the approval process long before the certification point with which this Bill is concerned, to ensure that consultation has taken place and that the interests of all parties have been taken into account in deciding whether a scheme should progress. That is the general point of the amendment which has been put forward and which lies behind the contribution from my noble friend Lord Rea.
I understand that there are particular anxieties in Norwich in relation to the proposals for the building of the hospital there. But the health authority carried out a formal consultation along the lines of the general principles that I have discussed. Although I understand there is controversy about it, the people in the local community realise that it is the best possible solution to the local problem of where to build the hospital.
Perhaps I may quote from a letter to my honourable friend in another place from one of the Members of Parliament for Norwich, Mr. Charles Clarke. He said that when he was elected he reviewed the facts about the situation in Norwich in relation to the new hospital and had a series of meetings with Ministers and civil servants:
"It became very clear to both myself and my colleague, Dr. Ian Gibson",
who is another Member of Parliament for Norwich,
"that the real choice here was between the particular site which was being proposed and no new hospital at all".
Without in any way wishing to sound heavy-handed in relation to this matter, that really is the situation. As my noble friend Lord Rea suggested, there are particular problems in that community. The hospital has been given a high priority in my honourable friend's review of the PFI in the health service. There are many other competitors for immediate funding who are wanting to go ahead with their contracts and who have the interests of their local community at heart. I am afraid that it is the case that because of that prioritisation system, any project where there has been a problem, which has been properly reviewed and where discussion has been going on for many years, will find itself pushed back down the queue.
However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will understand that the specific legislation which is in place will allow proper and appropriate consultation to be held on future schemes. Proper consultation has taken place on the specific matter that he raised, although I know that subsequent controversy has occurred. Given that it is also in the interests of the whole NHS building
1354
programme which lies behind this measure to go ahead as quickly as possible, he will find it unnecessary to press the amendment.
Lord Ezra: I thank the Minister for her full answer to the issues raised by the amendments. I am reassured by what she said: that there is already in place in other legislation an obligation to carry out full public consultation and to consider the interests of the local population and any wider areas which may be involved. Therefore, on those grounds I agree that it does not seem necessary to introduce such an obligation in the present Bill.
However, the second reason for moving the amendments was to relate them back to the Norwich case which seems to have been particularly long drawn out and complicated. I have done that. We referred to it on Second Reading and it has been referred to again now. The Minister must be well aware that there is continuing concern about that issue. Having achieved my two objectives, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("other than services provided by professional staff which have direct impact on patient care").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson who unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon due to other urgent commitments.
The purpose of the amendment is very simple and again relates back to the discussions that we had on Second Reading. The concern is that the reference to "services" in the Bill does not make it clear that that would exclude clinical services.
There seems to be general agreement by the Government and everyone else that clinical services should not be affected by any project by private investment; and that those should always be kept apart and fall within the public domain.
The wording used here to cover that point is proposed by the BMA. Having looked at the matter very carefully, that is what it proposes. I can read it out in full; but in summary the BMA defines clinical services as services provided by professional staff, whom it describes as doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses and other health professionals, which have a direct impact on patient care. Those are the words used in the proposed amendment.
The BMA then goes on to describe in full what it means by those services. I do not need to detain the Committee by going through those. Therefore, here we have the wording put forward by the BMA to support the views already expressed and assurances given by the Secretary of State for Health when he spoke to the Royal College of Nursing in May. He said that the Government would keep to their promise not to extend private finance to include clinical services. At a later date, Mr. Alan Milburn MP, Minister of State for Health, spoke in very much the same terms and in our debate

1355
on 3rd June the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, (at cols. 612 and 613 of Hansard) said very much the same thing. There is no doubt about it at all; that is the Government's intention. The purpose of the amendment is to put that intention on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I find the amendment as worded extremely obscure. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred us to the brief of the BMA, but by merely excluding services,
"which have direct impact on patient care",
he would render the subsection nearly meaningless. However, when one looks at the brief of the BMA, it makes specific reference, as the noble Lord said, to diagnostic services such as radiology, pathology and clinical biochemistry.
The only point that I should like to make at this stage is that I believe it would be a great pity if the Government were to rule out the possibility of a PFI scheme for those services. I say so for one overwhelming reason. There must be very few radiology departments and clinical pathology departments where the professionals involved could put their hands on their hearts and say that they have all the equipment that they need. My experience is that most departments have been calling for some years for an upgrading of their equipment to take advantage of modern technology, to be able to buy new machines and, therefore, provide a very much better and often—especially in the case of pathology—much quicker service.
There is a second angle to the matter. Both this Government and the previous one have been looking for more collaboration in such fields for trusts, and perhaps neighbouring trusts, to form consortia to provide a more effective and cost-effective service in support of the substantive clinical services. It would be quite impossible to achieve that aim on the basis of no additional capital expenditure. I say impossible, but that is perhaps an exaggeration. There may be cases where it could be done. However, in the majority of cases, the clinicians and the technicians who provide a great deal of those services—although I am not clear whether they have a direct impact on patient care—and the other clinical services, for example, medicine, surgery, gynaecology, and so on, that need diagnostic services, would be far more enthusiastic if they thought that a scheme of rationalisation, or of collaboration, between neighbouring trusts would bring with it the prospect of substantial additional equipment, such as might be provided under a PFI scheme, than would otherwise be the case.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, I believe that the BMA has got it wrong. By seeking to rule out any PFI for these diagnostic services, we would in many cases rule out necessary improvements in the quality and cost-effectiveness of such services. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will take full account of that view. If the Government are to follow through what may have been their
1356
intention when the Secretary of State spoke generally at the conference of the Royal College of Nursing—namely, that they were intending to exclude such services—I believe they will find the improvements that they seek to make much more difficult to achieve. I cannot believe that that is their intention.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has actually highlighted the difficulties that we have with the whole business of PFI. In contributing to the debate on the basis that amendment talks about services, the noble Lord mentioned capital equipment. That is the sort of confusion about which we need to be most careful. We all recognise the worry that clinicians and doctors have that they may end up being employed by a private company rather than the National Health Service. That is the main worry. However, the difficulty is where you draw the boundary. It is all very well for the BMA to say that it is concerned about the professionals with whom it works closely and that, "We should be protected and our immediate colleagues should be protected". Indeed, we recognise the justification of that concern, but it is not just them; it goes into other areas.
The amendment refers to,
"professional staff which have direct impact on patient care".
There are many other white-collar workers working in a hospital; for example, the manager of the cleaning staff, the manager of the catering staff or the manager of the boilerhouse. Which one of them does not have a direct impact on patient care? If they do not do their job properly, surely that impacts on patient care. As I said, it is most difficult to draw the boundaries.
There is one particular risk that I foresee in providing reassurance to those who are worried about the possible privatisation of patient care. If we set a list of those services or professions which could be construed as being directly involved, we effectively say that everything else that is not on the list is available for privatisation. We must be very careful in that respect. When considering the issue raised this afternoon by the Front Bench opposite about the review which is taking place, the question was posed in terms of the extension of charges. In any review process, I should like to think that we would actually consider how we can eradicate the charges that we have at present. We must think in both directions.
There needs to be some mechanism to provide reassurance not only to the professions involved but also to the public at large that the use of PFI for the next year or so, just to keep the capital building programme going, is not the thin end of the wedge of privatisation. I am fairly confident that my noble friend the Minister can provide that assurance.
Lord Winston: I find myself completely in agreement with the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, I also find myself, most surprisingly, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, over the issue of definitions. It is impossible to define what is a patient service. I should like to extend the proposition made by the noble Lord to include, for example, the operating theatre. There are

1357
many examples in the working of a large general hospital where there is urgent need of investment which would pertain to, reflect and be important for patient services, which really cannot be distinguished.
What we need from the Government is an undertaking that we will not have a creeping privatisation of the National Health Service. I am sure that that is the spirit of this Government. I hope that we can look forward to hearing some kind of reassurance from my noble friend the Minister in that respect. That is the best we can hope for if the Bill is to proceed as it must.
Baroness Cumberlege: While I very much respect the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we on these Benches cannot support the amendment for the two reasons given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. First, we believe that the approach is too centralist; and, secondly, we have difficulty with the definition of what does or does not have a direct impact on patient care. We are back into those grey areas which so bedeviled the Minister on Second Reading. As the noble Baroness will remember, I pressed her during that debate to define what she meant by the definitions regarding subsection (3) referred to in Clause 1(5). At that time she was unable to do so.
When looking at the BMA evidence—and I am most grateful to the association for sending such evidence to me and other Members of the Committee—it is clear that the BMA has difficulty in defining clinical services. It starts with a list but there is a caveat at the bottom of the list which states that it is not exhaustive. That is the problem with lists. It is far better to build in a degree of flexibility. Those of us who do the weekly shop know how difficult it is to stick to a list and how much we would miss if we did so. We would have none of those little luxuries which make life worth living.
The RCN does not even attempt to define what is meant by clinical services. Although I would expect the new Labour Government with their roots embedded in a history of centralised bureaucracy, to deny local people the power of decision making, I am surprised and sad that both the BMA and the RCN are denying their members the choice which we gave them in our clear policy contained in the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act which covered this ground.
At Second Reading of this Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was clearly not ready or prepared to define services. In answer to the probing questions that I put she admitted that although the Government had undertaken to present the Bill to Parliament, they had not yet defined what they meant by services. That was unlike the previous government. When I was asked at the Dispatch Box by the noble Baroness during the passage of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill what was the position regarding clinical services, I gave a clear answer; indeed, one which her noble friend Lord Carter had no problem at all in understanding. I am glad that the noble Lord is present to listen to this part of the debate. My reply was:
"The noble Baroness also asked about the privatisation of clinical services. I remind her that it is no part of the Government's policy through PFI to transfer the delivery of NHS clinical services into the private sector … However, if a trust explores local arrangements
1358
for private sector provision of some clinical and clinical support services we would not stand in its way. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is a matter of local determination and it cannot be carried through without the support of clinicians. If a PFI project is submitted for approval and its viability depends on the privatisation of clinical or clinical support services which does not have the consent of local clinicians it would not receive departmental backing".—[Official Report, 21/5/96; col. 785.1
With our policy the decision was left for local determination.
It seems to me a great pity that the people in the service, doctors, nurses, managers, scientists, laboratory staff and so on, who have by far the greatest knowledge of the local situation and of what will work both geographically and professionally, are, under this Government's proposals, being denied the power to influence their own destiny. The Government's approach is to ignore all that wisdom and understanding and to deprive local clinicians of their rightful opportunity to influence the shape of their new facilities—as highlighted by the noble Lord opposite—and give the best possible service to patients. Instead, they will have to conform to a template set centrally by a remote bureaucracy.
I understand from a letter which the noble Baroness sent to me yesterday evening—for which I thank her—that there is to be a list of which services may or may not be included in a PFI contract—no local decision making but a central government list, a diktat. While I have a sense of relief that the Government are at last getting their act together on this part of the Bill, I have serious misgivings that not only will the list be deeply problematical but, like all lists, it will prove to be rigid and inflexible.
One of the great strengths in the 50 years' life of the NHS has been its ability to respond remarkably well to advances in modern technology; to increasing consumer demand; to an ageing population; and to the shift away from institutional care to looking after people in their own homes. Many of those challenges have been met through a sharing of skills and flexibility in working. The enemy of innovation is to place people in a strait-jacket and to give them titles from which they cannot escape. That is exactly what the Minister proposes to do. The Government's unimaginative, rigid and centralised approach will, I fear, set in aspic some of the very attitudes which in extreme cases verge on professional tribalism. I urge the Minister, whom I know does not lack flair and imagination, to try to persuade her colleagues to trust those who work day in, day out, treating, caring and managing patients, for it is they who know and in our policy it is they who would have been trusted to make the important local decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he was in no doubt about the Government's intention. I admire his certainty. I refer to the document given to me by the Minister which contains the speech made by her colleague, Mr. Milburn, when he met key stakeholders on 10th June 1997. He said in that speech:
"Definitions of clinical service can he vague, especially in the area of so-called clinical support services, and I have commissioned advice on this thorny issue. I understand and recognise the benefits of including service elements in the current model of PFI scheme".

1359
That raises a whole series of questions. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give a definitive statement as regards what her colleague was saying on that occasion.
Lord Rea: My noble friend will be pleased to hear that I shall not say a great deal on this amendment except to record my view that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in tabling the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in moving it, have performed a useful task because it allows my noble friend further to clarify the Government's position on what is certainly a thorny problem.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friends who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Rea whom I thank for his helpful intervention. We are at one in seeking to exclude clinical services from PFI agreements in the NHS. As has been said by several Members on different sides of the Committee, the difficulty is to define those services in a way which is legally and professionally watertight as well as making common sense. I am aware of the BMA's contribution to that and its proposal which is framed in the amendment.
Since Second Reading I have tried—possibly without the flair and imagination which the noble Baroness opposite attributes to me—with officials to draft exclusions which appropriately reflect the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I share. Some of our discussions have more resembled linguistic philosophy seminars than drafting committees for a Bill. Every attempt we have made has met with objections. That is why I feel that I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee although I sympathise with its purpose.
If we look in detail at the wording of the amendment, the Committee may understand some of the difficulties we are all encountering in attempting to enshrine this policy in primary legislation. The amendment refers to,
"services provided by professional staff which have direct impact on patient care".
I can see endless scope for lawyers to argue over the exact definition of such terms as "professional staff'. My noble friend Lord Monkswell has already identified an area where that might happen. The phrases "direct impact" and "patient care" are other areas where I believe there is scope for enormous debate. For example, is the accountant who might negotiate effectively on the hospital's behalf covered by the definition, or the chef who prepares the food that helps the patient on the road to recovery? I am afraid I do not think the amendment helps us to get round those problems.
When noble Lords discussed this issue at Second Reading I reiterated the Government's clear commitment that we would not allow clinical services to be included in the PFI, or in public/private partnerships as they develop. That is an extremely important point and I am happy to repeat it here. We have decided that if we attempt to define clinical services on the face of the Bill we immediately introduce an element of doubt into the legislation whose sole purpose—as I have said before
1360
is to remove any doubt. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, whose name was to the original amendment, intended, but I believe that that is precisely what would happen. Once the banks and their lawyers detect any uncertainty of purpose this Bill will face trouble and the real overriding concern which it attempts to deal with, which is to get hospital building programmes off the ground as soon as possible, may be delayed again.
As there is not yet any agreed definition of the boundaries of "clinical services" and we cannot delay the Bill while the work is carried out to arrive at such a definition, my honourable friend Mr. Milburn, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, is looking again at the thorny problem. Members of the Committee are right to challenge the Government about their intentions regarding clinical services. It is right that we should be prepared to demonstrate that there is now more certainty than ever before about the commitment not to privatise the NHS.
Under the previous administration—the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, explained it clearly—there was no commitment to exclude core clinical services from the PFI. Under this Administration, there is. It is our stated policy that clinical services are excluded from PFI and we will abide by that. However, there is ongoing debate—I acknowledge reference again to the fact—about some of the grey areas, in particular the definitions of so-called clinical support services. We have said that that is being addressed as part of the wider review of PFI in health which has already begun and which was announced on 10th June. It is obviously essential to consult widely on these issues before decisions are made, precisely to avoid the problems, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred, in somewhat alarming language, about central bureaucracy. Any schemes which come forward before the review is complete will be considered on a case by case basis. None will be allowed to proceed where projects transfer to the private sector categories of services which Ministers believe, in the interests of the health service, should be provided directly by the NHS.
Once the review is complete, we shall have a categorical statement of what may or may not be included in PFI. I am sure the Committee will understand that there would be no purpose in this widespread consultation if I sought to anticipate the detail of what that review may uncover. However, I am pleased to be able to answer one of the most pressing questions raised at Second Reading. I am sorry that this will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. We have decided that pathology and radiology services will be excluded from PFI. I know that there will be other services about which noble Lords may want immediate similar assurances, but I believe strongly that the review should be conducted before conclusions are drawn. Our commitments on pathology and radiology are given both to respond to specific issues raised by noble Lords during the Second Reading debate and, I hope, to act as a signpost for the future about our intentions.

1361
Perhaps I may make one further general point. Before this Bill, it was theoretically possible for clinical services to be included in PFI. The Bill does not make it any easier for clinical services to be included. Its impact is neutral in that respect. The important difference is that the present Government are committed to excluding clinical services from PFI; previously there was the discretion which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, explained. The wider review of PFI will result in a list of services which may or may not be included. But to amend the Bill today to try to make the commitment more explicit would be a serious mistake because it would undermine the purpose of the legislation which is to move quickly ahead on the organisation and start on hospital building programmes.
Following what I hope is a convincing restatement of the Government's overall policy on this issue, and the specific exclusion of pathology and radiology services from PFI, which I am happy to announce today, I trust that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may thank her for that clear explanation. I am left in no doubt that the Government are seeking a centralised solution. What are the Government's objections to leaving it to local determination?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Baroness's question reveals the Government's clear difference in philosophy in relation to PFI: to make it possible for hospitals to be built under private finance initiative, we hope with further public-private partnerships. The previous Government's intention was to allow such wide discretion that privatisation of individual schemes could occur at local level. We do not want that to happen. We want there to be safeguards for what we regard as a National Health Service, with all the guarantees that were in our manifesto.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, responds to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may say this. The noble Baroness recognises that her announcement today causes me much disappointment; it will also disappoint many people in the health service. Schemes which have been in preparation for perhaps a year or more because of the need to find sources of capital to invest in new, modern, up-to-date equipment will now be abandoned. Schemes for collaboration between neighbouring trusts will probably founder. I do not know whether the noble Baroness realises that that will happen. It will be for my noble friends to form a view. However I suspect that we may wish to return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. If that is the Government's final word, I think that they have made a silly decision and I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to agree that what has been decided is silly. I said that I knew he would be disappointed. I
1362
confirm to him that as regards the initial schemes under the PFI hospital building programme none of the concerns that he expressed is relevant.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may follow my noble friend to ask this. As regards schemes which are being stopped in midstream, will there be compensation for the developers who have invested so much in them?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am not sure to which schemes the noble Baroness refers. I can only repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. As regards those schemes under immediate consideration, none of the issues that I have raised in relation to pathology and radiology services will be affected. If the noble Baroness is so concerned about retrospective financing, I hope that she will think about the £30 million spent under the previous regime in private consultancy fees which did not result in one hospital building programme being started.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. I refer to the speech by her honourable friend Mr. Milburn. He stated:
"Those schemes that fail to make the list, for whatever reason, will be invited to stop any further work, decline any tenders they have and stand down preferred partners if they have selected them".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My honourable friend Mr. Milburn was referring to the strategy of the national programme on PFI schemes as regards which, as with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, there will be people who will be disappointed because their schemes will not be included in the priorities.
Baroness Cumberlege: Will the noble Baroness say whether or not they will receive compensation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That will be up to the individual contractors to discuss with those with whom they were forming the financial arrangements.
Lord Ezra: Having listened to this interesting and lively debate, I believe that my noble friend Lady Robson was fully justified in putting forward the amendment. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out that the purpose of the amendment was to initiate just such an exchange of views.
I fully recognise the difficulty of achieving a proper definition. I agree with all noble Lords who made that point; we foresaw that at Second Reading. On the other hand, we believe it necessary before the Bill proceeds further at least to attempt some definition of clinical services. As do those on the Government Benches, Members of the Committee on these Benches believe that clinical services should be excluded from PFI. The problem as ever is the grey area. The announcement made today by the Minister has eliminated certain aspects of the grey area; it has become clearer in colour. No doubt, as time goes on, the issue will be further clarified. I hope that there will be clarification before the Bill finally passes through another place. All

1363
concerned will then be well aware of what is involved in the reference to services. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 26, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The absence of a certificate given under this section shall not affect the validity of any agreement to which a National Health Service trust is a party and which it had power to enter into apart from the provisions of this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 6 seek to clarify subsection (6). I do not expect that the discussion on this amendment will prove as absorbing as the debate we have just heard. Subsection (6), omitting a few words for brevity, reads as follows:
"Nothing in this section affects the validity of any agreement … if the agreement … has not been certified … but would have been an externally financed development agreement … if it had been so certified".
Any agreement would by definition be an externally financed development agreement if so certified. I therefore have difficulty in seeing what exactly the subsection does. I think, although I am not certain, that it probably seeks one of two things. Either it seeks to say that the absence of a certificate does not invalidate an agreement if the agreement is one which the NHS trust had power to enter into apart from the Act; or, more probably, it seeks to say that an uncertified agreement is valid if it is one which the Secretary of State would have certified if an application for a certificate had been made because the requisite conditions are fulfilled. The latter construction seems to accord with what is said in the Notes on Clauses.
I have tabled two amendments to cover the two possibilities. Amendment No. 5 takes out the whole of subsection (6) and states:
"The absence of a certificate given under this section shall not affect the validity of any agreement to which a National Health Service trust is a party and which it had power to enter into apart from the provisions of this section".
Amendment No. 6 leaves in paragraph (a) of subsection (6) but rewrites paragraph (b) so that the subsection as a whole would read:
"Nothing in this section affects the validity of any agreement made by a National Health Service trust if the agreement—

(a) has not been certified under this section; but

(b) would have been so certified if an application for a certificate had been duly made".

I wonder whether the Minister would consider referring the wording of subsection (6) back to the draftsman to see whether its purpose could be more plainly expressed. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I support Amendment No. 5. At Second Reading when we discussed the vires of a trust in concluding PFI agreements, I made a point which I believe was correct in its interpretation; namely, that the Bill will cover major projects which are externally financed but will not cover a deal where the private sector contractor finances the project from its own resources. In her reply—and I am grateful to her for putting the reply forward—she said that Clause 1(6), the clause that is now subject to this amendment,
"provides that nothing in the Bill affects the validity of an agreement between a trust and a private contractor which does not have a certificate … Apparently there is clear legal advice that trusts are able to enter into contracts without a certificate and the certificate process provides concrete reassurance to the banks which are funding the larger schemes".—[Official Report, 3/6/97; col. 612.]
That would seem to indicate that the Bill's concern is only with the larger projects and that perhaps there is not so much concern for the many smaller projects coming forward under the PFI initiative.
I wonder whether the Minister was in fact correct in the advice that she received on that occasion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, indicated, there are two halves to subsection (6). Clause 1(6) makes it clear that the section will not affect the validity of an agreement made by a trust only if, first, the agreement has not been certified under the section and, secondly, it,
"would have been an externally financed development agreement for the purposes of this section if it had been so certified".
Because of the second part of the requirement, only those agreements that fall within the definition of an externally financed development agreement will be protected by Clause 1(6) as it stands. I am advised that the definition does not include those contracts where the contractor or service provider is providing the finance itself.
Amendment No. 5 would set out clearly on the face of the Bill that, where there is no other party (it does not use those words, but has that effect) and therefore no certificate, the validity of an agreement is not at risk. Does the noble Baroness not see that as a form of clarification—not seeking to amend the terms of the Bill but merely making the provision clearer on the face of the Bill in relation to the many smaller projects?
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, commented that discussion on this amendment might not be as absorbing as on the previous one. It is no less welcome than the previous amendment. The noble and learned Lord is trying to clarify a matter which underpins whether or not contractors feel secure in the way in which they enter into agreements. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, drew to our attention the worries that smaller contractors might face.
On this side of the Committee we welcome any clarification in subsection (6) provided that it does not necessarily hold up proceedings. However, we should not wish any such clarification to alter the policy intention as we see it behind subsection (6) as it currently stands. On that basis, we are neutral in relation to this amendment.

1365
When I originally examined the noble and learned Lord's amendment I had some difficulty. At that stage, given the way in which it was phrased, referring to "any agreement", it appeared that agreements might go out with the normal range of PFI contracts. I am grateful to him for his explanation today. It clarifies that matter.
Provided the policy intention is not changed by this clarification, we remain neutral on the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to the noble and learned Lord for his suggested amendment, and for the contribution made by the noble Viscount. As the noble and learned Lord said, the amendment reflects an interest in replacing the wording of the existing subsection (6). We have considered the amendment carefully. However, the legal advice we received is that it does not improve the meaning of the Bill, nor does it correct an error or omission. We feel that the existing text satisfies the reasonable concern that the validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this clause.
The amendment suggests that the validity of any agreement into which a trust enters, whether externally financed or otherwise, should not be affected. However, the advice I received is that it is unnecessary to make the point since a trust has express powers to enter into such contracts—under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the 1990 Act which set up the trusts. The Bill is specifically designed, as I have said several times both on this occasion and at the Second Reading, only to address the question of externally financed development agreements, about which the banks have expressed concern, and not any other kind of contract. It leaves the validity of self-financing deals entirely untouched. We therefore do not see any reason to accept the amendment. The self-financing equity funded schemes are not covered and it was never intended that they should be. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount. It was a point that he raised at Second Reading and I hope that my remarks clarify it.
In addition, there is the general financial case that I have made on a number of occasions that the banks, waiting to lend and go ahead with the schemes—and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, confirmed her point of principle in wishing to support that intention—have seen and agreed the wording of the Bill. Their legal advisers have made it clear that it satisfies all their outstanding concerns, which are related to major hospital building projects. If we now change the wording of the Bill with no good cause, it will risk creating doubt and delay, which I think we all agree would be unfortunate, on a matter which is generally agreed. Even if we do not agree on the detail, it is a timely piece of legislation. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Brightman: I have in my hand the Notes on Clauses. Paragraph 14 reads:
"Subsection (6) is designed to ensure that the validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this clause".
1366
I ask why subsection (6) cannot simply read in this way, using the admirable wording of the Notes on Clauses:
"The validity of an agreement which meets the conditions set out in subsection (3) cannot be challenged merely because it has not been issued with a certificate under this clause".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble and learned Lord raises an interesting and sensible point. I agree that anything which adds clarity in that way and simplifies the drafting is entirely to be welcomed. I am advised that the way in which it has been phrased is part of the legal understanding. Of course, I defer to the noble and learned Lord on a matter of such detail, but since the amendment seeks to ensure that the validity of all trust contracts should be included when the proposal is only dealing with the externally financed development agreement, it may unnecessarily over-complicate the issue.
However, if the noble and learned Lord would like me to take away his wording and refer it back to my officials, I shall do so. I believe that their response will be that the way in which the amendment is drawn up does not add to the clarity of the Bill as the wording is now expressed.
Lord Brightman: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and will take up her kind offer. Perhaps she would be good enough to refer this amendment back to the officials to see whether we have the best form of words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ABSENCE OF RELEVANT DISCHARGE TERMS
(" .—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) the result of a determination or order made by a court on an application for judicial review or an audit review is that an externally financed development agreement does not have effect, and

(b) there are no relevant discharge terms having effect between the National Health Service trust and a person with whom the trust has entered into the contract.

(2) That person shall be entitled to be paid by the trust such sums (if any) as he would have been entitled to be paid by the trust if the contract—

(a) had had effect until the time when the determination or order was made, but

(b) had been terminated at that time by acceptance by him of a repudiatory breach by the trust.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The ultra vires question is central to the purpose of the Bill, as the Committee will know. Although the Bill is welcomed by the financial markets for what it does, there are two aspects of the ultra vires risk which are not covered: first, the risk that a certificate of the Secretary of State might be quashed; secondly, the risk that a contract might be upset on the grounds that the NHS trust exercised the power given by the Bill for an improper purpose.
The point raised in my amendment was highlighted in a paper published by the Financial Law Panel in May 1996 entitled Transactions with Local Authorities. I am not certain whether the Committee is aware of the existence or background of the Financial Law Panel but it is a prestigious body chaired by a former Master of the Rolls, with a High Court judge among its membership and a representative of the Treasury as a "participating observer". Its purpose is to identify areas of uncertainty in the law affecting financial markets and to seek to remove them or limit their scope.
In connection with a proposed certification procedure affecting public authorities which the paper was discussing in 1996, the panel said that a third party,
"should be protected absolutely against the consequences of a transaction, which has been certified, subsequently being held to be ultra vires. The simplest approach would seem to be that, on the grant of a certificate, the transaction is conclusively deemed to be infra vires, so far as concerns third parties acting in good faith".
I have been assured within the past few days that this approach is strongly supported by the British Bankers' Association, notwithstanding their satisfaction with the Bill as a whole. The amendment which I am advocating is lifted straight from Clause 7 of the Local Government (Contracts) Bill which the Government have just introduced in the other place. There is a close connection between the two Bills. They have common objectives. The Long Title of the NHS trust Bill which we are considering reads:
"An Act to make provision about the powers of NHS trusts to enter into agreements".
The local authorities Bill is described as:
"A Bill to make provision about the powers of local authorities … to enter into contracts".
There is the same wording in each Bill.
The local authorities Bill has the same kind of regime for certification of contracts as the NHS trust Bill. Clause 2(1) of the local authorities Bill reads:
"Where a local authority has entered into a contract, it shall be assumed that the local authority had power to enter into the contract if the contract is a certified contract".
So there are the two situations, one dealing with NHS trusts and the other with local authorities, with the same background and the same problems.
If a safeguard clause for third parties acting bona fides is contained in the local authorities Bill, why should not a similar safeguard be contained in the NHS trust Bill? I shall not bore the Committee by reading my amendment; it is in rather technical legal language. It is enough for me to say that it protects innocent third parties from loss if the certificate of the Secretary of State is set aside in precisely the same form, mutatis mutandis, as the protection set out in the local authorities Bill.
Perhaps I should add that Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 which are grouped with Amendment No. 7 are purely consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The amendment deals with the absence of relevant discharge terms in contracts. As a layman, I approached it from the point
1368
of view of what it would mean to me if I were a contractor wishing to enter into a PFI agreement. As a contractor, I should expect that in signing the contract I would find that it would normally contain details about what would happen when it came to an unexpected end: that is, of course, unexpected to one of the parties. As a contractor, I should normally expect that those discharge terms would be written into contracts to detail what recompense I or the other party would have, depending on which one is considered to be the loser.
I then thought: what difference would the amendment make to the Bill? Perhaps as a contractor I started work in good faith, as the noble and learned Lord suggested. I started work for a trust thinking that it was a PFI contract. Then the contract turned out not to have been such a contract because a court decided thus upon a judicial review or upon an audit review. As I understand an audit review, it could be decided by an NHS trust that it had entered into a contract without having the appropriate resources to keep to the terms of the contract.
Let us say that the court made that decision. Then, under Amendment No. 7 proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the contractor still gets paid as the contract provides, even though there were no discharge terms within that contract. I assume that it makes the situation as though the National Health Service trust had repudiated the contract. To me it is a belt and braces amendment giving security to contractors and, as such, it would seem to be the sensible move. On that basis we would not oppose it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful again to the noble and learned Lord for his interest in trying to improve the Bill in this way. Ever since the idea of PFI was conceived and developed in detail what has been called a "safe harbour" clause in the contracts has been discussed at great length. I am also aware that there are considerable similarities between the wording of the amendment and the present Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
However, the provision would mean that the contractor would not be prejudiced if the contract turned out to be ultra vires—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. He could recover all the moneys due to him as though he could sue on the contract. In effect, the contract would be validated by the Secretary of State against the possibility of it being ultra vires of the trust. I understand that that approach was initially favoured by some members of the banking community because a similar provision exists in local government legislation and because of the "belt and braces" approach described by the noble Baroness.
However, we believe that the circumstances of the PFI contracts in the NHS are different from the circumstances with which the local government provision was intended to deal. In that instance there was usually a straightforward contractual relationship between two parties, whereas most PFI agreements are considerably more complex, as we discussed when the noble and learned Lord introduced his first amendment this afternoon.

1369
The Bill before the Committee works on an entirely different principle; it underpins the vires of the trust making clear beyond doubt that a trust has the power to enter into externally financed development agreements—EFDAs as we have learnt to call them. To attempt to amend it at this stage in order to introduce an element of "safe harbour"—though I acknowledge what the noble Baroness said about belt and braces—would be a mistake, if for no other reason than that it would create uncertainty and doubt where at present there is clarity and certainty. Moreover, it would be unfortunate. It would suggest that a Bill whose only purpose is to put beyond doubt the validity of PFI agreements, also contained a provision which contemplated their invalidity.
The banks who are ready to lend into the PFI schemes and their legal advisers, as I said, have seen and agreed the wording of the Bill as drafted. They have said that it provides sufficient reassurance for them to lend once the Bill is enacted. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. Since the objective to be achieved by the Bill before us is the one we have described so often in terms of its accelerating the much needed hospital building programme, I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Perhaps I can make a general point. We do not have a blank sheet of paper on this issue. We do not have a great deal of time to revisit endlessly what might be described as the intellectual arguments for what it is probably not unfair to describe as a Holy Grail of a safe harbour. I have already described this afternoon the numbers of hours spent and wet towels which have been used in trying to get some of the definitions right on this Bill. This issue has taken on a significance which may be out of proportion with its real importance. It will no doubt remain a topic of conversation, when PFI lawyers are gathered together. But I must emphasise that the simple fact is that the Bill before us today will enable real hospitals to be built under PFI. The bankers have agreed and understood the terms; that much is certain. I therefore ask the Committee not to accept the amendment and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press it.
Lord Brightman: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I shall consider the matter over the next seven days and, if necessary, bring it back. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DURATION
(" .—(1) This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of a period of three years beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this Act shall continue to have effect after the date in subsection (1) for a period specified in the order.
1370
(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson. Its purpose is quite simple. Its seeks to set a term to the application of the proposed legislation. The reason for that is that the Bill is being rushed through to meet a special situation. In the meantime we are well aware that much further consideration is being given to the whole issue of PFI in the NHS. In due course therefore we may expect further, more detailed, legislation and it does not seem necessary for this Bill to have a prolonged life. In any event, there is a safeguard in that in subsection (2) we say that the Secretary of State may prolong the period if need be. It is a simple proposition. I have explained the reasons for it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Home: I listened with some care to what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I believe I understand his anxiety. However, I have four short but major worries on this topic.
First, if the Bill when enacted does not work, remedial legislation will have to be brought forward well before the proposed expiry period. If it is working well, why stop it at that moment? Secondly, projects of this nature will still take time, despite the Bill. For some of them a period of three years could turn out to be too short. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will be able to control the number and speed of these projects and that power in itself will regulate progress.
In relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, I understand that officials from the Department of Health have been talking with financial practitioners on the size and duration of eligible projects and I hope at some stage that the noble Baroness or the Secretary of State in another place will give us some guidance on their interpretation of eligibility.
Fourthly, while I accept that deadlines concentrate the mind of investors, financiers and sponsors, a three-year duration set at the outset will cause concern and uncertainty about a piece of legislation which is designed to remove just that uncertainty. I believe those points are supported by the British Bankers' Association, which represents many of the practitioners involved in PFI. For that reason, I do not feel able to support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am not sure whether the Committee is aware that my noble friend has joined the Front Bench, though not for this subject area. I therefore welcome him onto the Front Bench. For the reasons that he so commendably outlined, the Opposition do not support the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I join with the noble Baroness in welcoming the noble Earl to the Front Bench and look forward to his contributions in that capacity.
In a previous amendment we were discussing what is colloquially known as a "safe harbour" provision. I believe that this one should be referred to as a "sunset"

1371
clause. This is an unusual legislative device normally used only in circumstances where there is a potential problem about a piece of legislation—for example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act where habeas corpus was suspended—and where the need to review a piece of legislation is regarded as being part of the agreement to allow it to proceed at the time. I understand that is the principle behind the amendment, but the difference of circumstances is such that it would not qualify in that category.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for making points which otherwise the Committee would have been extremely bored to hear me make again in relation to the element of uncertainty which may be introduced into the Bill if the amendment is accepted. There is also the problem that all PFI contracts contain discriminatory legislation clauses which allow the contractor to terminate the contract if legislation is enacted which threatens that contract. Such clauses have been essential in the early days of PFI to reassure the private sector, as the noble Earl described, that it would have the right to orderly termination of contracts if the goalposts are moved after contracts had been signed in good faith.
We believe the amendment is precisely the kind of discriminatory legislation which could cause the private sector to walk away from the PFI, and, far from enabling deals to reach financial close, would—in the way suggested by the noble Earl—precisely reawaken the doubts which have been so unfortunate and so problematic in the past. I do not believe that we should doubt the Government's commitment to the private finance initiative. We take the view that it has great potential in the NHS; it is one model of public/private partnership that we want to develop. We will look at other models. We are currently reviewing the possibilities. The noble Earl was right to draw attention to the fact that my honourable friend in another place is at the moment prioritising strategies for schemes in the way that we discussed earlier today.
For many years, as we all know, so many of these projects have languished in the queue for Exchequer capital, and those which tried to progress through PFI found themselves gridlocked, for reasons that we all understand. When we discussed these matters at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, whose name is on the amendment, argued for limiting the Bill's duration on the grounds that there was some uncertainty about the accountability of those providing services under a PFI contract. That was not a point raised by the noble Lord today. But, as the noble Baroness was concerned about it, perhaps I can provide reassurance on that point.
We believe that the Bill enhances the accountability process which already exists. PFI schemes, as the Committee will know, have always been subject to Department of Health and Treasury approval. Once the Bill is enacted, schemes must also be certified as EFDA (externally financed development agreements) by a senior civil servant, thereby introducing another level of control into the process.
1372
Trust chief executives are, as the Committee knows, formally accountable to Parliament through the NHS Chief Executive for the performance of their trusts. The responsibility for ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the trust's performance rests unambiguously with the trust board. We feel that those are very clear lines of accountability. We know who is in charge and we will know who is managing the contracts.
That is an extremely effective way of focusing the consortium's attention on the overall service provided, in the way in which the noble Baroness sought reassurance. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it is accountability of the most direct kind, which we do not feel will be improved by limiting the duration of the PFI Bill or within the terms of the amendment to which the noble Lord spoke. I believe that the accountability of the trusts for their PFI schemes is very clear. I hope very much that the noble Lord will pass on those assurances to his noble friend and will not seek to press the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like in particular to thank the noble Earl for his intervention, which I considered very important. I also congratulate him on his new Front Bench responsibilities. I listened with care to the Minister's remarks and in the light of the assurances that she gave to me to pass on to my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Short title and extent]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

The Innovation-Exploitation Barrier: Science and Technology Committee Report
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Hogg Baroness Hogg rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, The Innovation-Exploitation Barrier (3rd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 62).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to have this opportunity to draw your Lordships' attention to this report of the Sub-Committee of the Science and Technology Select Committee of this House. It was an honour to chair the sub-committee on a subject of such importance, particularly at a time when all economies are undergoing dynamic transformation, ascribed to the digital revolution though perhaps more correctly associated with the impact of the falling real price of computer power.
But I should like to start by thanking human power—the members of the sub-committee—for the energy and good humour with which they applied their formidable intelligence and accumulated expertise to the task of completing our inquiry by mid-March. My particular

1373
thanks go to our clerk, Dr. Don Rolt, who had to hit the ground running when he was parachuted into committee life from our embassy in the United States, as well as to Dr. Tim Bradshaw and our special adviser, Professor Peter Swann of the Manchester Business School. Those thanks are more than usually heartfelt, in that it was entirely due to their combined drafting marathon that we kept to the very tight timetable imposed by the looming advent of Prorogation.
Since the subject of our inquiry straddled both industry and finance, I should declare a number of interests. I am currently chairman of the consultancy London Economics. I am also about to become chairman of the Foreign and Colonial Smaller Companies Trust. I am a non-executive director of NPI, GKN and the Energy Group, and a member of the international advisory board of NatWest.
We were stimulated to engage in our inquiry by the Bank of England's recent report on the financing of technology-based small firms, in which the Bank called for wide debate on the height and—I should say—permeability of the innovation-exploitation barrier. But with limited time, our focus was necessarily narrow. We concentrated mainly on the interface between universities and new businesses, although we took the opportunity to review some of the issues related to the provision of capital raised in the Bank's report, whose conclusions we generally supported. We were extremely fortunate in the quality of our witnesses from industry, the venture capital business and the universities, many of whom appeared before the committee at extremely short notice, itself perhaps evidence of the increased attention paid to these issues on all sides.
To a certain extent we attempted to benchmark our findings against those which followed an earlier investigation by the Select Committee into innovation in manufacturing industry, which was conducted in 1991. Our general conclusion was that the climate had indeed changed for the better. We were greatly encouraged by the amount of evidence on the impact of a change of attitude towards risk taking, part of a general change in culture in this country since the beginning of the 1980s, which I hope all sides of the House would wish to acknowledge. Many of our witnesses indicated that research partnerships between industry and universities were increasing and that business incubation was hatching out bright ideas into viable enterprises.
But it was not all good news. Our report highlights important remaining obstacles to development. We believe that a number of the support schemes funded by government have not yet realised their full potential. In this country, we have clearly still further to go in dismantling the barrier before we can match the powerful academic-industrial relationships seen in the United States.
The committee identified a number of outstanding concerns. We believe that a funding gap continues to be faced by certain start-up businesses because of the disincentive effect of the relatively high cost of carrying out "due diligence" for small investments, although some of that cost may be self-imposed by investors at
1374
inappropriately high levels. New data from the enterprise investment scheme provide the opportunity for a more detailed evaluation of the contribution made by business angels and an assessment as to how their role could be expanded, which we urge the Government to carry out.
The committee also believe in the need for review of an area which we did not have time to investigate fully: the system supporting venture capital trusts. The intention was clearly to encourage risky investments in start-up businesses and we were warned of the need to ensure that it continues to meet its primary purpose. Other noble Lords may have more to contribute on that point.
We were surprised to discover how little hard evidence there was on the effectiveness of a number of different developments which carry the fashionable label "science park" or the slightly more clearly defined notion of a "business incubator". We were most fortunate in that our adviser, Professor Swann, is a recognised expert in the analysis of clusters and their impact on economic development.
Since we concluded, a report has been published urging the creation of more technology parks in the capital, commissioned by the London Planning Advisory Committee. This reinforces my view that some rigorous appraisal is needed in this area. As Microsoft pursues its widely-advertised intentions to create Silicon fen, Cambridge may provide a particularly useful case study. This area is one in which I know the noble Lord the Minister takes a great personal interest, so I hope that he can be prevailed upon to respond to our recommendation that government should help the spread of best practice by leading or initiating some serious research.
We also remained concerned about the patchy quality of management skills in high-tech start-up businesses. I hope business schools—perhaps indeed the new Oxford School of Management—will take note of our encouragement to promote the study of innovation. Business education and management theory tend to be disproportionately concentrated on the organisation (and re-organisation) of large companies.
In the time available we could not conduct a serious investigation on the condition of the science base, which is clearly the seed-bed of high-tech innovation. But we did receive some warning signals. A number of witnesses raised concerns about the standard of equipment in universities, arguing that this might lead industry to seek research partners elsewhere in the world. Although there is inevitably a danger of special pleading in such evidence—no doubt many businesses would like to see universities carry more of the capital costs of the exploitation of scientific ideas—we believe there is an issue here for the funding councils. We urged them not to spread gain or pain too evenly, but to ensure that a higher proportion of funds be channelled into creating centres of excellence. The corollary is that such special equipment should be available to researchers not merely from the university in which the centre is located, but those of high calibre from other institutions.

1375
We received a good deal of evidence about certain weaknesses in the operation of the Foresight programme. Certain lines of research fall across or between sectors on which Foresight is focused, and we recommended that a clear policy of seeking out "misfit" lines of research, and evaluating them separately if necessary, should be established. We also believe that this programme suffered from a common weakness: it was insufficiently well known by potential users. Communication is critical. We recommend that future Foresight reports should be made more accessible to small businesses.
An important theme of the report is the need for more rigorous evaluation of systems intended to support innovation in order to ensure their objectives are met. If I may be permitted a brief personal note, my experience inside government taught me that our system of administration is better geared to initiation than follow-through, and that conscious effort has always to be devoted to rebalancing this tendency. Monitoring and measuring the results of programmes, and feeding this information back into their application, may be a lot less exciting than announcing new ones, but it is crucial to the effective use of taxpayers' money. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, The Innovation-Exploitation Barrier [3rd Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 62].—(Baroness Hogg.)
5.13 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, has been very fulsome in her praise of the intelligence of the committee. I am sure that she is correct, but perhaps with one exception. Therefore, I apologise for the short interjection that I shall make during this debate.
I wish to draw attention to a couple of issues which are highlighted in the report which, from some personal experience, I believe are important in the academic sector. The first concerns the crucial question of the attitude of universities and university departments to intellectual property rights and their exploitation. As the report quite justifiably and correctly says, there is a very real need to increase awareness of the essential task of universities to draw on intellectual property rights, IPR, benefit from them and increase their budgets. But there also has to be a degree of realism in the universities. At the moment and in general, in my limited experience, there may not always be the right balance. It is fair to say that in some cases the universities are still somewhat unrealistic and we need to address that issue.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to two examples that I came across recently. The first relates to a venture capital company I spoke to two or three weeks ago. I tried to interest the company in my work and some IPR in which I am involved. The company discussed with me its experiences in dealing with a university department with which I was connected. The company had spent over a year negotiating with the department, but finally accepted the fact that the
1376
percentage of return was not realistic. That simply held up the possibility of investing in that research. That is certainly still a risk.
The other experience concerns my own medical school, which involves only a small amount of money. I negotiated with a drug company in relation to a particular research experiment. I was perfectly happy to receive the money that the company was offering, but felt it appropriate to put the money through the medical school company that deals with that kind of work. I was clearly going to gain the financial benefit I needed, plus a little bit of overhead. The medical school was so hard-headed in its negotiations that eventually the drug company went elsewhere. I lost the money and the research, lock, stock and barrel. That experiment was finally carried out in another university department in Europe and the results were published last month. That is rather irritating.
In my experience, there is a slightly more flexible attitude in the United States. In biotechnology we are competing mostly with the United States and we need to look to their example for the moment. I should declare an interest as a university academic. I have been very interested in the notion of gene transfer and transgenics, not in small mammals (mice) but in rather larger animals, and have been looking at that technology in some detail. Some of the preliminary research has been done in my own department and some by a colleague in California. Patent applications are proceeding from that work and the work looks extremely promising. There is a great deal of interest in it.
It is very interesting to see the difference of approach between my American colleagues in California and the speed with which their lawyers got together and looked at the patent application, and the degree of flexibility that they showed, compared with the approach in my own university department.
The other concern I have works both ways. I was at a meeting in the United States on gene therapy at, I regret to say, a ski-ing resort, Snowbird, about two months ago. One of the net results of the interest in exploitation can be a degree of secrecy, which is very counterproductive to scientific research and basic research. I sat through one all-day session trying to unravel the secrets of gene technology, but found again and again that a series of commercial companies were clearly interested. Therefore, each experimenter in turn was not prepared to divulge the specific nature of the experiment being carried out. That is always a problem when we are trying to exploit a project, but clearly we have to try to find a balance in the universities on this issue.
The report makes a very important point about the creation of centres of excellence. There is very clear evidence from Professor Roberts that we are in a very critical state in the universities where most of our basic research is currently carried out. It is clear that the fabric of our universities is deteriorating. Laboratories are finding it extremely difficult to maintain equipment. There is increasing worry in the higher education sector, not least because decisions are currently being delayed.

1377
We await with anxiety the Dearing Report to find out what the fate of university spending will be. We are in a very competitive situation.
Europe as a whole spends less than 2 per cent. of its GNP on research and development. If we are to remain competitive in the world as a whole, particularly in biotechnology, we must look at how we can best focus our research. The report emphasises the need for that and the fact that in concentrating expertise in departments, we shall need to open up our university departments so that students and researchers from different universities can have access. Clearly, that will be a problem because, as has been pointed out, the money that is allocated by the higher education funding councils is not adequate to meet all our objectives. One of the real issues facing exploitation from academia is the serious concern about our lack of equipment and research facilities which are becoming inadequate.
We are living in an increasingly competitive world economy, as many of us have said repeatedly. It is clear that in the next century we shall live on brains, not brawn. This is a vital report. The exploitation of intellectual property is one of the most important areas not only for the development of this country, but for European development also. Because of the very nature of our science base which, particularly in the field of biotechnology, is one of the best in the world, we shall have to lead in Europe. We must therefore address this issue carefully. The report goes some way to helping, particularly with regard to focusing on such good university centres.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, the ground covered by this report from the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, most ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, on the innovation-exploitation barrier—sometimes described as the innovation or development gap—has been dug over many times in the past, including in a previous report by the Select Committee in 1991. Therefore, we cannot expect to have discovered any radical simple solutions to the problem.
The premise from which we start is that the UK is a fertile ground for generating new scientific ideas but is poor at nurturing them to sturdy plants in a commercial environment which is capable of producing abundant fruit. That view has been challenged by Mr. Ian Harvey, of BTG, previously the British Technology Group, who believes that the UK does pretty well in comparison with our European neighbours in exploiting new ideas. The culture certainly seems to have changed recently in the United Kingdom, particularly in the universities where academics are now much more aware of the importance of intellectual property rights, the need for patenting and the potential for the exploitation of their work.
Having said that, we are not as successful as the United States. Clearly, there is no room for complacency. The report points to a number of areas where fairly small and painless improvements might be made with little public investment. From the broad
1378
survey of the report which the noble Baroness has given us, the two areas which I should like to single out and to which I should like to draw the attention of the House relate to the provision of seedcorn funding and the need for business incubators at an early stage of innovation. The two are interdependent because the incubators provide a protective environment for company growth, with facilities which reduce the perceived risk of a new business venture and therefore encourage the investment of venture capital.
It is generally acknowledged that the difficult step in proceeding from the original laboratory concept or invention to a successful commercial product or process lies at the development stage where sums of about £100,000 are required—that is, after personal and family funds have been exhausted. At that stage, classic venture capital finds that the cost of "due indulgence", as it is called—that is, in assessing the risk—is just too high relative to the investment that is required to be made.
It is at that point that business angels can make an invaluable contribution. Business angels have often made their money by running technically-based companies themselves and they are well placed to make a rapid assessment of the technical viability of a new enterprise in fields of which they may have experience. Therefore, they are happy to accept the assessed risk and to invest small but significant sums in the enterprise, given the tax advantage that is available to them. Additionally, and importantly, business angels may wish to provide management advice and hands-on involvement at the early stage of growth. Having brought the company to a more viable stage, normal venture capital can then be attracted to allow further expansion. The rapid development of small ventures is another attraction provided by the business angels because at that stage the speed at which a venture grows is often important in securing a new market niche.
The problem then lies in bringing together innovator and investor in the form of the business angel—in other words, establishing an effective dating agency or service. That function is beginning to be undertaken by some banks and other bodies. However, it seems that there is a barrier which has not entirely been removed. The report makes the important recommendation that the role of business angels should be further examined by government in order to identify ways of expanding their role.
A complementary concept to that of the business angel is that of the incubator, to which the noble Baroness referred. An incubator is defined as a property with small work units, providing a supportive environment for entrepreneurs and investors during the start-up stage of their businesses. Incubators are often associated with the universities and provide a symbiotic relationship in which some technical problems can be fed back to the university departments as research projects, and where the staff can readily interact and migrate between the two. That is an exciting concept for bridging the innovation gap. The evidence of success in the United States is encouraging. However, there is limited experience of such ventures in the

1379
United Kingdom and the report makes the strong recommendation that research into the effectiveness of incubators is required.
It is to be hoped that the Government will examine all the recommendations presented in the report as well as the two to which I have referred as a contribution to improving the capacity of UK industry to create wealth from our very successful science and engineering base.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it was a great pleasure and privilege to take part in this particular examination under the leadership of our chairman. I commence my remarks outside the scope of the examination by acknowledging the tremendous drive for technological improvement that exists in the majority of commercial enterprises. "Innovate or die" is not a bad precept for any business in today's world. That thrust which often spills over into small firms and university research departments, and which is a continuous process for dynamic business, is not the focus of our attention but is a very important sector for innovation.
The report is directed particularly at an examination of the reasons for the often expressed criticism of British society that it is long on ideas but short on implementation, to explore the validity of that assertion and to see what steps might be taken or are being taken to improve matters. Critical to the future of our country's economy is success in developing new businesses, particularly in the new technology fields. While many new small firms may not become global businesses and some will fail altogether, a number will grow and become the giants of the future, so we neglect this area at our peril.
It is my opinion that first and foremost what we are discussing is a problem of human motivation. What is it that turns a researcher in a laboratory into a thrusting entrepreneur; or, if that question is inappropriate, how does one motivate university research departments to look for opportunities for commercial development and the establishment of new businesses that might result from their work?
I believe that there are three factors: mutual interest, peer pressure and money. I place no order of priority on those factors. I first became aware of this issue when in the United States undertaking an earlier examination by the Committee of Careers for Academic Researchers. In that country there appeared to be a fairly common approach in the university field where a circle of mutual interest had come into being. Universities funded research and researchers, and held the intellectual property rights to any discoveries. The researcher who made a discovery with commercial potential would set out to establish a new business. If successful, he would gain from the capital appreciation of the business and perhaps by salary. Of course, in so doing he would generate a stream of revenue that flowed back to the university, and investors gained through capital appreciation in the way that investors do. While it is becoming more common to see this pattern in the UK,
1380
there is still a wide variety of practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, has said, the committee received encouraging evidence in this area.
However, I raise two points that cause me concern. First, there is a strong temptation for the holder of intellectual property rights to sell them for immediate capital gain. Although this may appear to be beneficial in the short term, I suggest that it may well result in long-term loss. It is almost impossible to assess the true value of intellectual property rights in a market-based economy. It follows that inevitably sellers are weak sellers. In addition, if the intellectual property is sold abroad—Japan is particularly active in this field, and paragraph 3.6 on page 18 illustrates what is going on—the benefits of enhanced commercial activity, employment and tax revenues are lost to this country. I can only urge all who are working in this field to think very carefully what they are about.
The second potent factor is the background fiscal climate. Starting up new businesses in this field is high risk. Market potential is a slippery commodity and failure is always in the background. We tend to regard failure as unacceptable, but if we wish to encourage greater activity in this field attitudes to failure must change. In addition, one must recognise that because it is a high-risk process, it needs to be a high reward area if one is to see it expand. In particular, the successful entrepreneur needs an exit route that is not penalised by the tax system. If society at large wishes to encourage for everyone's benefit a high level of activity in this way, it must put in place a tax regime that encourages the activity.
Mr. Quysner, chairman of the British Venture Capital Association, gave evidence to the committee. I quote from page 63. Perhaps I may take the liberty of adding a couple of phrases in brackets to clarify his evidence:
"If I make an early stage investment in the [new] company alongside 3i and the entrepreneur, and the company is successful. then I exit [the company is taken over], 3i will pay no capital gains tax because it is an investment trust, my partners will pay no capital gains tax because they are exempt and the entrepreneur will pay capital gains tax at 40 per cent., having created a great deal of wealth and having created tax revenues".
Ouch, my Lords!
As we run up to another Budget we can only hope that the Government, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will bear in mind that the impact of action in this area in the wrong way may quite literally kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I end where I began. This is a problem of individual attitudes, whether they be among those who control research establishments, direct investment or actually undertake research. It is vital for the future of this country that there should be great activity in this area, and it is essential that we create the conditions that encourage that activity. It was a great pleasure to take part in this particular examination.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I, too, took part in the deliberations of this committee. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, who chaired the proceedings with great patience and

1381
considerable purposefulness. She needed to be purposeful because it was decided that, in view of the pressure of time caused by the electoral timetable, we should restrict ourselves to a limited part of the subject. That was a good decision, because innovation and its exploitation constitute a series of very complex problems. The fact that we had to focus on one particular area was valuable in concentrating our minds.
Over the past 15 years or so I have spent a great deal of time on this subject as an industrialist on various government bodies and, more recently, as chancellor of the University of Strathclyde, which has a very good record in this field. I have come to the conclusion that people try to be too prescriptive. It is not possible to be prescriptive on this barrier and the climbing of it because of the variability of the factors involved. Present in each case are considerations of financial needs, technological needs, market knowledge or lack of it, and management experience or, more often, the lack of it. Therefore one should not provide a prescriptive solution but a useful environment, encouragement and effective support in the areas where the workers—those who are trying to climb the barrier—are themselves deficient.
There are a number of ways in which this barrier can be surmounted. One route on which the committee received some evidence was via the supply chain of large companies. Some companies—not enough—encourage their suppliers to innovate. They guide them, help them and encourage them to extend their market to others. That is a great source of strength for those companies. The process could be extended by the Government's adoption of the US small business innovation scheme which is described in the report. Large customers, such as government or large industries, can encourage smaller companies to develop high quality and self-confidence in their products. They can also provide a useful seal of approval which those companies can use in the market.
A second way of overcoming the barrier is licensing. It is a short cut which involves sacrificing some of the potential rewards in exchange for the financial strength, marketing and technological resources of large companies which they license. The role of the British Technology Group has been mentioned. It is a valuable and highly effective one, with feedback both of advice and of finance.
The problems of inventors, whether they are individuals or universities, seeking to exploit their ideas correctly are manifold. They have been explored fully over the years, and they are well known. The provision of finance may, understandably, have attracted much attention and probably because of that the development of the venture capital market has been rapid and constructive. Other support is necessary for the overloaded entrepreneur, and the role of the recently developing participating business angels—individuals with experience of building their own companies who then invest in new, often similar companies—is a powerful one. They bring not just money but experience to people who are themselves almost, by definition, inexperienced. They provide an insight in management which is deeply lacking.
1382
The role of universities is well developed (though unevenly so) as innovators. Some are good at raising their own seed capital and at preserving their intellectual property. Others are not so good. There is a need to spread best practice.
The report also mentions the long-standing problem that small and medium-sized enterprises are too often unaware of university resources. Universities have to market their skills to a diverse and preoccupied audience in small and medium-sized companies. That is often not an easy task. There are things that can be done. The chemical industry has for long been active in this sphere, and the initiative of the Royal Society of Chemistry in running a series of conferences and exhibitions, imaginatively titled "Technology Car Boot Sales", is to be commended. It could be emulated by other learned societies in other disciplines.
The report mentions the lack of awareness in small and medium-sized enterprises of the Foresight programme. Frankly, I am not surprised at that. There is a similar lack of knowledge in large companies, I am sorry to say. The effects on small and medium-sized enterprises of Foresight will, at best, be second-order because of time pressures. Generally speaking, there is not time to read the reports that come out, valuable though they might be. We are baying at the moon when we hope that Foresight reports will be read by small and medium-sized enterprises.
The programme itself has had considerable influence on the way in which research funds are allocated but it is far too early to judge what effect it has had on wealth creation, which is its primary objective. It is probably too early to evaluate it, but that should be done in the next couple of years because we are changing the direction of science investment in a dramatic way and we need to be reassured that it is achieving its ends.
Britain is rich in innovation. It has become better at exploiting its commercial applications. The task remains to encourage it with sensitivity and discrimination by offering effective support in a way that does not increase the load on heavily burdened entrepreneurs seeking to be everyone in a company with only 24 hours in a day. The report makes a useful contribution to solving the problem.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the subcommittee is to be congratulated on producing a readable and interesting report. The topic is one which has attracted a great deal of attention, interest and activity over the past decade or so.
Rather than dwell on many of the sound specific recommendations in the report, I should like to stand back for a moment to consider what has been going on. Even if we go back only as far as the committee's 1991 report on Innovation in Industry, I am amazed at the large number of initiatives, studies, reports and conferences which have been devoted to that topic. Those have not been confined to government, or even one government department. Scientific and trade associations, academics, the Bank of England, the CBI, and many others have all spent goodness knows how

1383
many hours and days on those issues. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we have been giving enough thought to those problems, rather why have not all those efforts, and the man-hours devoted to them, produced the right results in the field? Perhaps we are not so good at spotting the successes.
Many of the studies start with a basic premise. Indeed, the report we are debating sets the scene in its title. It refers to a barrier. The premise, of course, is that there is a real problem which faces the UK. We are going to slip genteelly into industrial oblivion. The writing is on the wall. Everywhere else in the world seems to be able to do it better. Countless witnesses, in evidence to the committee, set the scene for their remarks, either overtly or by inference. That scene is that there is this barrier; that things are bad—perhaps worse than they have ever been before.
Even if someone starts their evidence by grudgingly admitting that things may not be as bad as they used to be, goodness, that is still no reason for complacency—shudder the thought. We have to do a great deal more, we are being told, if we are not to be overtaken and marginalised by the nearest developing world nation. I do not believe that I need to say more to sketch my point. It has been made by other noble Lords this evening.
Noble Lords who have read the report will have seen those pitches time and time again. Even Mme Cresson, the European Commissioner responsible for research and education, has spoken of an innovation deficit in Europe and the need to foster a genuine innovation culture. Has that British disease, too, crossed the Channel?
What we need to ask ourselves is why it is, despite all the many efforts, from Realising our Potential, through Foresight to SMARTS and SPURS and so on, we are not yet at the top of the pile. One reason is that the participants in many of those exercises, or those who take a close interest in them, are few in number, and keep reappearing, like well known actors and actresses, in each new initiative. It is all a bit esoteric—of deep interest to some, but not always very specific.
Universities are urged to do something. Funding councils are given some advice. Someone, usually the Government, needs to refocus their ideas or efforts. I am not sure how all that grabs the managing director of a small business, where cash flow and bottom lines, to say nothing of markets and staff problems, will be the issues which fill his or her in-tray. We have often seen good advice given to concentrate on a few key issues, to avoid spreading research funds too widely, and so on.
Always assuming that the basic assertion upon which so much of that work is based is correct—that is, that there are barriers and poor interfaces, and a serious widespread lack of enterprise—my feeling is that the messages that we are trying to transmit need to be given a great deal more thought; thought, not about their content or importance, but how to publicise and interest the real wealth producers and potential wealth producers in those topics. I fear that the ability, or the lack of it, to get the key points across too often goes by default.
1384
We are on to the next study or conference before we have succeeded in getting the findings of the last one to the real audience. I welcome the emphasis of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, on that crucial point. I was glad to note that the Royal Society of Chemistry recognises that there is "an awareness gap" and is working on closing it.
Finally, a passing thought on the reasons for clusters and science parks. Paragraph 6.18 of the report recommends that a study of science parks should be undertaken to determine the elements which are crucial to success. I ask myself why it is that antique dealers seem to group their shops together in a town; sometimes in one town but not in another. Why do we get half a dozen or more fast-food outlets within a few yards of each other? Why in souks and other bazaars, whose existence spans the centuries, do we often find shops and stores which sell the same product—for instance, carpets, material or gold—grouped together? If we knew the answer to that perhaps we would know the answer to the success of science parks.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with the reputation of the main institution, the accommodation on offer, the infrastructure, or easy access to public transport. Perhaps environmental and cultural features are an enjoyable extra, not a reason for a successful cluster. Perhaps, put simply, it is because customers like to go to a place where they will find what they want, be able to compare prices and strike a real bargain. Mind you, that does not explain why some towns are full of antique shops while others have none; or why in the souk gold shops are to the left and the carpets for sale are to the right of the centre alleyway. Perhaps it is all a matter of chance and is not scientific. If we knew the reasons for that perhaps the studies would produce better ideas. Perhaps the whole thing is as unscientific as the reason why No. 11 buses often travel in clusters.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Cuckney: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee II of the Select Committee whose report we are considering, I too wish to begin by paying tribute to our chairman, my noble friend Lady Hogg. She exercised her role in a particularly apt and constructive way when we take into account the severe time constraints under which we had to operate.
The report is clear and explicit in its recommendations. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by unnecessarily repeating what is stated so clearly in it. However, I wish to emphasise one or two particular points which I believe should receive continuing attention.
First, there remains a tendency too often to attempt to eliminate risk, yet risk is an essential feature and characteristic of entrepreneurial activity. By all means, expose areas of potential risk; by all means, identify areas of risk. However, it must be up to the potential investor to exercise judgment, and one must remind him of caveat einptor.
Attempts to minimise risk have, for instance, led to the apparently anomalous situation which has developed, and to which attention was drawn in our

1385
report, of the venture capital trusts which provide tax relief for investors. They are intended to invest in a range of small companies in order to spread a risk, but are founding asset schemes with a high property content. I emphasise the word "apparently" because our committee did not have time to look into the issue in any detail. I have no particular trust in mind, but one must recall that one of the reasons for the ending of the BES schemes was the number which became involved not in risk-taking propositions but in strong asset-backed schemes.
Secondly, the deterrent to the establishment, growth and development of small companies, in particular when trying to raise extra funding, is the high cost of due diligence. I recognise the fact that that poses a problem for professional firms providing due diligence services, particularly in the light of the problem of the costs of professional indemnity cover—that is, if they can obtain professional indemnity cover. It is a growing problem. There needs to be a fresh approach to due diligence, concentrating much more on identification and highlighting areas of risk in much broader terms rather than attempting to provide such excessive and costly detail. I recognise that that could conflict with the justifiable need for greater investor protection, but, again, it must be left to the investor to asses risk, provided that there has been no deliberate concealment.
Thirdly, I do not believe that there has been a shortage of venture capital, but I do believe that there is a shortage, on acceptable terms, of working capital and loan capital. I am therefore greatly in favour of strengthening and extending the small firms' loans guarantee scheme. I understand that in 1992–93 there were 2,342 loans worth some £52 million. In 1995–96 those had risen to 7,478 loans worth approximately £274 million. Of course, some encouraging changes were made to the scheme in March 1996.
Finally, I believe that the newer universities, especially in the former polytechnic sector and often with strong local connections, can do much to help not only themselves but also small businesses in their area, particularly with the development of business incubators. I and I am sure other members of the committee were particularly impressed with the developments by the University of Strathclyde in those areas—and it is pure coincidence that its Chancellor is a member of our committee.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I, too, welcome the excellent report and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and her team on its preparation and presentation. Two of the subjects with which the report deals are particularly close interests of mine. The first is the importance of developing relationships between the universities and industry. I have the honour to be president of the development committee and a governor of the University of Hertfordshire, which, perhaps together with the University of Strathclyde, is leading the way in its efforts to promote productive links with industry. As Hatfield Polytechnic, the university's foundation was closely linked with de Havilland and the aerospace industry, now sadly no longer at Hatfield. But
1386
as aerospace has declined, Hertfordshire is rapidly becoming a cluster of pharmaceutical and information based high-tech. industries. The university regularly tops the league tables of the new universities and it has already had many research links with industry. It is an active partner in Hertfordshire Business Link, working closely with the Hertfordshire TEC, Hertfordshire County Council and the chamber of commerce.
The university has long promoted sandwich placements of applied science and technology students in local industry so that theoretical knowledge is underpinned by practical experience. Such students have regularly found subsequent employment with those firms.
More recently, the university has been promoting teaching company schemes under which high quality graduates are placed in companies to tackle strategic issues under the dual supervision of a member of the university staff and a senior executive in the firm with financial support from the DTI. Ten such schemes are in operation or under negotiation and more are in the pipeline. I mention that because I believe that we are moving in the right direction and I welcome the report's support for those initiatives. I hope that those initiatives will be extended.
My other particular interest in the report is the problem already mentioned by several noble Lords of the availability of seed capital for start-up entrepreneurs. Through its various mechanisms, the City of London is an ample provider of venture and development capital to companies and entrepreneurs which have already established a track record of success. The problem area, as the report points out, is the first £100,000 which can transform an idea into a prototype, which in turn can begin to create a market.
The problem is not new. The various schemes identified in the report have all helped. I should mention in particular and welcome the small firms loans guarantee scheme, which the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, mentioned and the SMART scheme. Both those schemes have achieved a great deal and I trust that the new Government will follow the committee's recommendations and give further support to those schemes.
The report stresses also the importance of business angels, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Tombs. It promotes the development of networks of business angels. In this computer age, it is theoretically easy to develop a national database of business angels. The problem is that many such persons are naturally reticent and often highly individualistic. They would not take kindly to being bombarded with hundreds of schemes. Therefore, it is likely to be difficult to persuade such people to allow their names to be included on such a database.
However, I believe that it may be possible to overcome that difficulty by having some sort of confidential filter; that is, a manager or a dating agency, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, suggested, to preserve the confidentiality of the business angels and also to act as an assessor of the projects submitted. Such a body could be funded by government, the private

1387
sector or jointly. That is a matter for debate. But I hope that the report will prompt serious consideration of that and similar ideas.
I believe that another possible source of that elusive initial £20,000 to £50,000 is the National Lottery. The new Government have promised already to divert some of the lottery proceeds to health and education. Backing young entrepreneurs with seed capital is another appropriate and positive use for lottery resources. Converting an idea into a successful business is itself something of a lottery and winning or losing is always a gamble.
The Prince's Trust does valuable work in that area but there is room for more. Two years ago, with the support of 3i, I put the concept of a millennium technology fund to the Millennium Commission for that purpose and 3i had agreed to evaluate the projects on behalf of the proposed fund. The idea was rejected by the commission as being outside the scope of the Millennium Fund as defined. However, I still believe that the concept has merit and I hope that the Government will give it some consideration in their review of the lottery.
As I said before, I welcome the report and again I thank the noble Baroness and her team. I look forward in particular to the winding-up speech of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, for whom I had the pleasure of working for several years and whose presence in your Lordships' House I have welcomed already on an earlier occasion but it is now a pleasure to be able to repeat the welcome to him in person.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Hogg and her committee for coming forward with this excellent report. It seems a long time now since I was involved in venture capital and a great deal has improved in that time. I hope that I can offset, to some extent, the pessimism displayed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Things are now much better. I can scarcely recognise the present scene from that which existed 12 years ago. But there is clearly still a great deal left to do, as the report outlines. I hope that the report will prove to be a helpful catalyst in producing the changes which are required.
I wish to confine my remarks to two principal areas: the DTI and business angels. But perhaps I may first make a few asides. As regards diversity, it is extremely important to have a lot of different schemes providing help. Entrepreneurs have all sorts of different needs. It is extremely important to have different sources of advice and funding. It is very often the oddball who appeals to some other oddball who has money who turns out to be the most successful entrepreneur of all.
Secondly, there is the importance of celebrating failure because 80 per cent. of small companies will end in failure. That must not be thought to be a stigma by the people who have put their heart and soul into it. They must be encouraged to get up and try again. We should honour the people who are prepared to take those
1388
risks for taking them. They are not some kind of nuisance to society when they happen to go down, having done their best to succeed.
We must extend that tolerance of failure to the Government. If they are to be successful in promoting and backing such companies, they will fail on occasions and we must allow them to fail as part of the price of success.
I turn first to the DTI. It seems to me that the DTI has a very crucial role to play in technology transfer. A small business which needs technology needs to know where to go for it. It does not have the time to find out or the time to dig around and see what is going on. It needs to be able to go to one source for advice. That obvious source of advice should be the DTI, or an arm of it.
The DTI is also in a position to command the respect and admiration of most academics and those who are involved in research. They will feel comfortable in entrusting the DTI with information about what they are doing and what sort of applications that research may have. Perhaps the DTI should take on itself the task of providing a database of information on companies which are likely to be in the market for research and those providing it. It may perhaps be something based on the worldwide web, although one hopes it will not be designed by the person who designed the present world-wide web site, which is difficult to use. It seems to have been designed by someone who knew what was in it but was unaware that it would be used by people who did not know what was in it. That aside, the DTI could provide such a database and make it available to a range of intermediaries who would be paid by small companies to find the research they wanted or by entrepreneurs to find the people who could use their innovations. That would seem to me a very useful road for the DTI to go down. The one-stop shop concept has been a success as regards general business advice and such a database would fit very well with the DTI's portfolio, especially in view of the great improvement that has come about in that department in the past few years.
Secondly, there is the question of business angels. I pause briefly to pay tribute to the Prince's Youth Business Trust which has been such a successful source of such angels for so many companies during the past five years and which I am delighted to see has been taken under the wing of the new Prime Minister in a way which augurs very well for its future.
There are two aspects of a company which needs £50,000 to £100,000 of new capital which stand out. First, there is the risk. The risk is very high. Therefore, those providers of capital who are large providers of capital and whose capital comes from fundamentally risk-averse sources, such as pension funds, are faced with the problem that they want to carry out a lot of due diligence to assure themselves that the risk is not really as large as it seems. However, they do not have the people to undertake that due diligence and they come up against the familiar problem that arises with people who tip shares in newspapers; namely, that if those people were any good at tipping shares, they would not be doing so in newspapers.

1389
It is the same problem that you face if you are running a venture capital business. If you are any good at picking companies and if you are any good at carrying out the necessary due diligence, it is far better to spend your time doing the due diligence on a £10 million company than on a £100,000 company. Indeed, you would make far more money out of it for yourself and for your investors. The limitation on due diligence is not a financial matter. It is not a question of: if the Government paid you to do it you would do more of it. It is a personal matter. A good individual with good judgment only has so much time in the year and, however much anyone pays him, in a business like venture capital where you are making your money on capital returns you will do a great deal better if you concentrate on the big opportunities.
Then there is the problem that a business of that size needs all sorts of extra help. It probably only has one or two principal people in it and there will inevitably be areas of business expertise which it does not have. Its days will be full of trying to build the business and it will need help as well as cash. No institution is set up to provide that, except, looking back to the old days, the 3is. I believe that the 3is is the exception to the rule and that probably stems from the way that it was founded. Certainly in the old days I remember it being prepared to make investments of as little as £20,000. I believe that that is fading now, although I am not totally up to date with what is happening in that respect. I believe that even those concerned with the 3is are finding the strain of making small investments quite significant. It is possible that the gap is opening up again at the bottom of what they can do.
It is into that gap that the business angel fits perfectly. First, business angels will assess the risk on the basis of what they think of the entrepreneur. That is the risk in such businesses: is he good or bad? He can draw up a business plan but, if he is any good, the actual business that he is doing in three years' time will bear no resemblance to that business plan because he will have found all sorts of new opportunities and he will find new problems arising for which he will have to find new solutions. Indeed, the whole concept will have changed out of recognition. At that level, you are investing in the person, not in the business. That is a judgment which is best made by a business angel rather than by some kind of venture capital organisation.
Secondly, the business angel will be in a position to provide the personal help which is required. If the Government are to consider providing the help and support that such business angels need, I believe that that would be a very profitable way to go. The help that they need is two-fold. First, they need a network. If you are a business angel you will need to know where to go to find opportunities. Similarly, if you are an opportunity, you will need to know where to go to find business angels. It need not be a network in the usual sort of sense; indeed, it could be the souk mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—somewhere where you know you will find what you want. It could perhaps be the regional development agencies proposed
1390
by the new Government or the new site in Cambridge proposed by Microsoft. What better place for punting than Cambridge, unless perhaps it is Oxford?
Further, business angels need financial fairness. By that I do not mean a lot of tax incentives. If you look back in history at tax incentives, it will be seen that they have not worked well in the area because they tend to attract the sort of investor who is not really interested in personal participation and risk. I certainly remember the days of the BES when that was true and, if it is also true with venture capital trusts, I shall not be surprised.
The other aspect of tax incentives is that, if they are at all significant, the Treasury tends to put terms on them which are so totally uncommercial that they ruin the point of tax incentives in the first place. That was certainly true of the BES scheme and the rules surrounding it which made it almost impossible to make a commercial investment of equity. The Treasury will always tend to try to do that if the tax incentive is too great and the opportunities for loopholes and misuse of the incentive make it too much of an opportunity for those who are not really interested in risk investment to miss.
I shall listen with great interest to the reply of the Minister from whom we shall be privileged to hear twice today. I shall listen with even greater interest to what my noble friend Lord Home has to say in what I hope will be the first of many appearances on the Opposition Front Bench. He is in a fairly unusual position today as he will be making the first speech from this Front Bench after the accession of the new leader of our party. I hope that his telepathy has been working well since 5.15 p.m., so that he knows what our policy is.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Ellesmere: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for rising to speak briefly during the gap, but I feel I must add my own contribution to what others have said about the excellence of the report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and her colleagues against a very tight timetable. I should like to make some comments about the debate, to which I have listened with great interest.
My main impression is that, as is quite common, a good deal of the emphasis has been on what universities and university scientists do, can do and might do. That is a quite natural emphasis as it is undoubtedly true that schemes proposed by government, industry or anyone else—indeed, even reports in this House—are listened to and read very attentively by university scientists. They have the habit, rather like children in a large family sleeping in the same bed, of all rolling over at the same time when one of them says, "Roll over". The industrial reaction to these imperatives is generally rather more varied and different. That, I believe, is a great problem.
I should like to follow up a little on what the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said about the degree to which exercises like the Foresight programme have been successful in networking. To my mind, there is no doubt at all that scientists in industry, in government service

1391
and in universities are very well networked. They meet at meetings, they know one another quite well; indeed, they are often colleagues of long standing. In as much as the Foresight programme was aimed at networking—and, in my view, that was its principal objective—it did not really have much to add to the networking of scientists. Where it did have a great role to play was in the networking of that scientific community with the management community in industry. There, I am afraid, it was manifestly much less successful.
There are, of course, good exceptions to the rule that management and science are separate in industry. Indeed, one only has to consider the chemical, pharmaceutical, electronic and, perhaps, aerospace industries to see that it is possible for companies to have managements which are in good contact with their own scientists and with the science base in general. But, unfortunately, there are many companies, even large ones—I have in mind the construction industry, or many of the utilities—in which the managements seem somewhat unaware of the potential benefits to them, their products and processes from contact with the science base.
An equally difficult problem for those companies—indeed, perhaps it is an even bigger problem—is that there are very many small to medium-sized enterprises which employ no scientists at all and who are, therefore, not on the science network. Again, there are exceptions; for example, the new biotechnology companies are certainly not in that category, but many others are. It is a great problem for government to devise schemes that will somehow embrace the management community in these somewhat backward looking large industries and in very many of our small to medium-sized enterprises. My question for the Minister at the end of today's debate is whether he has in mind any possible approaches that would reach areas of the problem that previous approaches have hitherto failed to meet.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, having successfully avoided sitting on any technology committee throughout 30 years in banking, it is perhaps rather alarming to be standing here on the first occasion at the Dispatch Box to comment on a report of such an august body as the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
As others have done, I thank my noble friend Lady Hogg for initiating this debate. She has received many congratulations from other noble Lords. I, too, thank her for her hard work in chairing the sub-committee. I also add my thanks to those members of the sub-committee for their hard work in producing what is a thought-provoking document. We are also grateful to those people and institutions who took considerable time and trouble in amassing and producing the evidence. From these Benches we welcome the report and we are pleased that the general thrust of it recognises that progress is being made in breaking down the innovation-exploitation barrier while correctly pointing out that there is still much further work to be done and that the barrier, while shaky, is still far from destroyed. I do not intend to take up much time by going through
1392
the report in detail for both it and the evidence given to the sub-committee make fascinating reading. I commend both documents to noble Lords. The recommendations in those documents are succinct and to the point and are supported by the evidence.
I receive one clear message from this report which is that the relationship between the small businessman and the financier still leaves a lot to be desired. There is nothing in the evidence which points the finger of blame at either side, and that would indeed be a sterile exercise. It is obvious from the report that the small businessman, particularly in the science industries, finds the financier tough and often expensive and the financier does not really understand the business, possibly because the businessman has not explained it properly or has, in the financier's eyes, got his priorities wrong. That is an awareness gap, identified by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and also by the Royal Society of Chemistry which recommended bringing together academia and industry. That is right but financiers should also be included in a tripartite effort.
I elaborate on these conclusions by taking a few examples from the report and adding some thoughts on what might be done. The report states that personal and family savings are likely to be used in the earliest stages, and then we move progressively through seed corn. SMART funds, small loan guarantees and on to business angels. I have been involved in two start-up situations, admittedly not in the scientific field, where family funds were needed not only at conception but well into start-up. Many families do not have the money to continue funding beyond conception. I must say that in my experience, angels—business or otherwise—in most families are normally outnumbered by rogues.
I have some sympathy with those who complained about the rigidity of the small loan guarantee scheme, already mentioned by two noble Lords. On one occasion I found the bank involved inflexible not only as regards the 70 per cent. it was lending under guarantee; it was also extremely tough as regards how the other 30 per cent. might be provided, in effect requiring the 30 per cent. to go in as equity. I am aware that there have been some recent changes to the scheme of which I have not had personal experience but I hope that the Government will keep it under review. I hope that they will consider extending the two year repayment holiday sensibly advocated by Barclays Bank and also greater flexibility within and during the running of the loan scheme. Most small businesses experience hiccups from time to time and certainly in the case of which I have experience there was no willingness, even if there was ability. on the part of the bank to extend anything other than sympathy which did not solve the problem.
The report touches on the cost of due diligence, and here I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Cuckney. It is indeed a problem. The report rightly states that business angels can reduce the cost of due diligence through experience and instinct. However, I believe that much more can be done to keep potential investors and financiers up to date with what is going on in various scientific developments. I wonder whether high-tech industries should not spend much more time

1393
inviting bankers and financiers to their science parks and to their clusters to bring them up to date with what is going on. In 30 years in banking I have never been invited to a science park. I have invited myself and that was not much liked. However, the ignorance that arises as a result of not going to these parks is considerable. Financial analysts visit these companies and although they provide data on which investment and credit decisions are taken they are not the members of the committees who say yes or no to an investment and it is those members the businessman needs to educate.
I agree with the report that the evidence seems to be that science parks and clusters are much more effective than scattered units. I was pleased to note that Mr. Kent from the Bank of England mentioned Silicon Glen in Scotland, one of our biggest clusters. I am afraid that I am not well acquainted with the clusters in Wales and therefore I may be a short-term member of this Front Bench. I admit to being biased but I believe that Silicon Glen has great potential to grow to become a centre of scientific excellence both in innovation and in the attraction of all types of investment. In due course I believe it could rival Silicon Valley, provided that the Government do not undermine the hard work of previous Secretaries of State for Scotland in promoting it as a venue for investment.
There is, however, one cluster where new concepts are constantly being invented and where cross-fertilisation of ideas occurs, often through exchanges in the pub or the canteen, and where the experiences of people from all over the world are shared to everyone's benefit and where co-investment happens because ideas are promoted by trusted and acknowledged experts. I refer to the City of London which initially thrived because of a requirement to be near the Bank of England. Although that requirement has long since gone, any financial institution with international aspirations will wish to locate in or around the square mile. I am not sure how far the analogy can be taken for I am not suggesting that each cluster should have a regulatory authority but it might be worth noting that centres of excellence attract investment. As has already been said, few would dispute that there are centres of excellence in science in the United Kingdom, especially in the universities.
Finally, the sub-committee noted that the CBI report Tech Stars suggested that new technology firms paid more attention to research and development than they did to sales and marketing. I believe that that is right. It is understandable that small firms should do so as marketing is time consuming. Whereas, in a small firm, R&D can sometimes be done late into the night or at home, marketing takes vital people off the premises and out of the office, and in some cases they do not know where to start with marketing. Some years ago the committee for Middle East trade took some small technical businesses to the Arabian Gulf, having already established through the assistance of the embassies that there was a potential market for their products. The embassies also contacted some potential buyers. As a result some of those small firms doubled their annual turnover in two days. Not all our embassies are in a position to do that. However, I hope that the Minister
1394
will ensure that the export promoters of his department are at all times fully briefed to assist small high-tech firms in marketing their wares.
It is an excellent report which I commend to your Lordships. I hope that the Government will take careful note of its recommendations.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to reply, having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Home. I congratulate him on his elevation.
The Government recognise that innovation is central to improving the UK's competitiveness, be it in the industrial or the service sector. The President of the Board of Trade, in her recent speech launching Competitiveness UK, spoke of the Government's determination to build an innovative high-tech economy. She committed the Government to three important things: improving finance for emerging high technology firms; improving partnerships between industry, the science and engineering base and government; and encouraging greater investment by British business in best practice sharing and research and development. Those objectives are emphasised in the contributions made in this excellent report.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. "Innovate or die" concentrates the mind wonderfully on the central challenge. We have our minds concentrated and the report has helped. It is excellent in its brevity and concise in its conclusions. I congratulate the noble Baroness. That is rare in reports on these difficult subjects.
To the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I say this. We come with a fresh and positive attitude to innovation. From that new attitude let us hope that new ideas will flow. There may even be some in this reply, although there will probably be more later. For that reason I am delighted to be able to debate this excellent report so early in the life of the Government. I am also pleased to have had the opportunity to do so before the publication of our response. I am sure that today's proceedings have both raised the profile of the subject and brought many new and helpful insights to bear on the issues. In combination with the debate on 22nd May of the report on the EU's fifth framework programme, it would be appropriate today to say that we are off to a racing start in a discussion of the vital matter as regards how best to combine our science with the competitiveness that our companies need in world markets. Both reports have attended to those crucial questions.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I think that the committee's report contains a great deal of encouraging news. However, while it is clear that the UK has taken significant steps towards effectively realising the commercial potential of our world-renowned research base, I agree that there is no room for complacency. We have much to do, and we have much ground to make up, as has been stated.
To achieve improved competitiveness and sustainable development, first, we shall have successfully to exploit a great deal more of our own research in this country

1395
rather than overseas. Too much of it is going abroad. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Home. We must use our own research better; and we must proselytise that better in all our export discussions and drives. It is a crucial point. We have to encourage the successful launch and growth of many more small businesses. We have to take risks with that. Not all of them will flourish. But it is through them that we shall gain the benefits of increased employment. We shall have faster application of technology and more effective delivery of value added. That is really what international competitiveness is about.
We are convinced on this point and believe that we shall attain those goals only if we build lasting and productive partnerships. I speak here of the partnerships beyond the most crucial one. It seems obvious to say it, but the most crucial partnership is between the customer and the business. We should never forget that. Businesses will not exist without the customers. However, we must improve the crucial partnerships between the science and engineering base and industry; links between government and business; and in particular links between government and small business.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, mentioned, it is important to understand the synergies between large and small businesses in the supply chain. It is an important point in successful regional or sectoral clusters such as those of which I am aware in California, Northern Italy and Bavaria. I now learn of the Fen Valley, Silicon Glen in Scotland, and Hertfordshire clusters. They are growing everywhere. It is important that we possess more examples of those highly dynamic, technology-based business centres. University research and small high technology firms, as the report makes clear, play key roles in developing such clusters which will sustain development longer. There will be failures, but that will sustain development longer. We must attend to the issues of the longer term growth and development which those partners must understand better. A stronger grasp of those issues would also help us to understand better the real nature of the spark in the science park, a topic raised in the report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, again emphasised today. It will be extremely interesting to see what additional impact will result from Microsoft's newly announced investment in Cambridge.
The report therefore addresses issues at the heart of government policy, and the Government warmly welcome this inquiry. As an aside, we warmly welcome, too, the small business task force which is to be set up following the Amsterdam Summit concluded this week. It was excellent to listen to one of the changes of focus that was reflected, I think from our own Government's urgings, on the importance of the development of small businesses in both technological and employment terms. I look forward to more stimulating work from that small business task force which, I am sure, the Commission will put in place quickly.
Your Lordships rightly identify three areas of major importance: the removal of barriers to the growth of high technology small firms, in particular financial
1396
barriers; the importance of extending industry/higher education links; and the future development of the Foresight programme.
Turning first to high-technology firms, the report, and that by the Bank of England on the financing of technology-based small firms, the CBI's Tech Stars report, and the Enterprise Panel's report on business incubation, pinpointed many issues surrounding the development of such small firms. The direction in which we have to go is much clearer now than in the past. We are on firmer ground, and action rather than extended inquiry and discussion is required on the issues raised.
The committee draws attention to a number of factors which are still inhibiting the birth and growth of high technology small firms, and we have taken those on board. We recognise that there is indeed a specific difficulty for high-technology firms in accessing finance initially. But simply bringing finance and technology together is not enough for success. We need to build a virtuous circle. There must be access to the right finance at crucial points in the lifecycle of a firm in order to allow it to grow. In addition, we need to be sure that there is a strong management. It would be wrong not to state that it is important that all of this is taking place in a sustainable and stable financial environment where inflation and the cost of money are low. We should not forget that the higher the volatility in general financial circumstances, the more difficult it is for smaller firms to make their way. After that—and I do not dismiss that task lightly—the challenge is that of the matchmaker, the midwife and the parent all rolled into one. (Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is better at carrying us through that process.) I believe the DTI has that view of its potential role, and it is an important one. This is not merely a matter of start-up finance; it is the ability to help sustain what may be a lengthy process.
Finance is crucial in the early stage. It is a patchwork affair, drawn from many sources. No one financing package precisely resembles another. Studies confirm that, for all its success in growing such firms, that is the case in the United States as well. The patchwork seems to work. For that reason it would be wrong to be prescriptive in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, made clear, a package needs to be available. It is also clear that the presence of one source of finance—venture capital, informal capital, business angels, bank financing or government research awards; we have heard much comment today on the different schemes—tends to draw more and more into the potential. So the more you have, the more you get. That is not a bad thing. It is also clear that all these different sources of finance depend upon investors' confidence in the managerial, marketing and entrepreneurial skills present in the management team. I keep returning to the people as much as to the technology and the idea itself. How we develop the skills of the people involved is a factor that we need to keep in mind as well as: is this just a financial barrier? The two are married closely together.
Many noble Lords raised the question of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme as one option for finance. I was glad to hear the support that the scheme received from the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney. It is designed so as to attract lenders to offer finance to firms

1397
with no collateral which would fall outside the normal criteria. It is interesting that only some 8 per cent. of lending under the scheme currently goes to what we define as high-tech businesses. The Government are committed to refocus the scheme, within existing resources, so that more high-tech firms can benefit. To achieve that we are reviewing applications to join the scheme from new, specialist lenders with experience and expertise in providing finance to small high-technology firms. I hope that the introduction of such lenders will also help address your Lordships' concerns about the scheme being unduly risk averse—although in my banking days within my old company we used to regard a no-collateral investment as quite risk averse from the start. So we must keep some balance in this respect.
The committee also drew attention to the small business innovative research programme in the USA. Of course our own SMART programme is based upon that highly successful initiative, the value of which is universally understood. It was recognised as such by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, whom I am also pleased to see again. I thank him for his welcome.
The problem, as was pointed out in the report, is that, given that we have SMART and a partner scheme such as SPUR, there are sometimes difficulties in the borrowers getting clear in their minds which option is for what. To that end, the report commented on the confusion felt by some in dealing with the schemes; namely, there are too many options. Even if we want a thousand flowers to bloom in terms of the financial options available, we have taken forward a simplification process in regard to DTI programmes. SMART, SPUR and the regional enterprise grants for innovation have now been combined into a single SMART scheme. I hope that will help.
Business angels were acknowledged by many noble Lords to be very important to firms in their early life. Even the bankers in this Chamber seemed to agree on that, which I regarded as extremely encouraging. The British Venture Capital Association's directory of business angel and introduction services lists over 40 business angel networks, over a quarter of those run by the Business Links programme. We encourage and welcome co-operation between these networks. I wish to underline the importance of Business Links. In another context the One Stop Shop for information, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is available. The Business Links System is something to which all of us should attend as being absolutely key to this process.
While on the subject of early stage financing, noble Lords queried the inhibiting effect of due diligence costs upon investments. We are in contact with the venture capital industry about these concerns but there does not seem to be a common view among investors. For those investing in start-up companies the due diligence becomes more complex because of the lack of a track record. The emphasis is then particularly on the knowledge and technology of markets as well as on assessment of the competence of the management team. The costs of such investigations is entirely dependent upon the existing knowledge of investors and may be much more significant for the individual business angel.
1398
The CBI's report, Tech Stars, has widened this discussion to include the prohibitive effects of disproportionately high transaction costs alongside due diligence. We were interested to see that it pointed to an initiative by the Oxford Investment Opportunity Network to reduce some of these costs by making legal and due diligence packs available as templates to its members. The Government will continue their dialogue with the industry to establish more firmly the nature of the fundamental issues and whether more of that approach, namely the pack solution, will bring down costs.
Finally, I do not want to leave the subject of financing without two "plugs", as they are technically known in the business. We are particularly keen to see the alternative investment market in the UK and the new European initiative, EASDAQ, successful. We think that they will create greater liquidity at the lower end of the financial markets and we wish both experiments well.
I wish to say a word on some of the venture funds. I am happy to see that Merlin ventures focusing on biotechnology are also springing up. In welcoming Microsoft's investment in Cambridge, I should have noted that its venture capital trust is worth £10 million. It will be extremely interesting to see how it does.
In that brief résumé of what are the financial barriers and how we can get through them, I hope I have left your Lordships with the idea that there are many flowers blooming, there are many opportunities and we are intent on ensuring that they are most usefully used by the small companies which we are trying to encourage.
I also wish to emphasise the importance of management. In that sense, the incubator system about which many noble Lords spoke is an important place for bringing together new management and. through that system, encouraging the idea that the people and the money understand each other better.
I wish to say a word on education. I have talked about the importance of the quality of management in small companies. It is important that we concentrate more on collaboration between higher education and business. The links between the business schools, the old polytechnic/university structure and small businesses are ones which we should encourage more. The work done by the polytechnic sector has been much more enterprising than people have given it credit for. That is not to gainsay our old universities and the academic structure. I believe that we need to pay attention to the capacity for small businesses in local areas to work with the local polytechnic.
While on higher education, my noble friend Lord Winston and other noble Lords picked up the issue of intellectual property rights. The Government agree that universities need to be aware of the importance of managing the intellectual property. We welcome the work being done by the industrial liaison officers and the guidance on the subject issued by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in 1992. We should like to see the wider adoption of IPR management best practice among institutions so that it enhances rather than inhibits the effect of the IPR capacity.

1399
I now revert to the emphasis which your Lordships put on Foresight. The Government agree that there should be a much wider awareness and take-up of the opportunities arising from this programme. In my business language, that means that we must market Foresight more clearly. I agree that reading long reports is not what most entrepreneurs enjoy, so somehow we must get the ideas marketed better to them. We shall do that. In the meantime, I note that Foresight has gone some way towards addressing the Committee's concerns about what it described as "misfit" lines of research, research which falls between sectors. I am glad to note, for example, that projects on nano-technology and investment science were among those funded by the £7.5 million Foresight package of initiatives in Scotland at the end of last month. Nano-technology is very small, for those of us who have to worry about the work. The Foresight programme needs better selling and better focus.
My next point is on relevance, which the committee made clear in its report. We have many initiatives, many options. The DTI is chasing lots of opportunities. I wish to revert to the noble Baroness's final thought: the important point is where these are adding value. Output matters as much as input, and output measurement, I have to say, is weak. I hope that my use of these economic terms is not confusing anyone. Where are we getting our bang for the many bucks we are spending? We must look at that; as the noble Lord, Lord Craig, said, entrepreneurs go for action, they do not go for reports. We must measure their action. I believe that we shall try to do that. We have evaluation systems in place whose findings help us to make improvements. We must do more work on them. These are not easy questions to answer but we must analyse what we are getting for our money and apply our limited resources more effectively. That will be a fundamental issue which we wish to develop in the Government's formal response to your Lordships.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say how stimulating I have found the help from the committee in painting the challenge as clearly as it did in its report, which the Government accept with enormous pleasure. Britain is changing, it is becoming more innovative and more competitive. We have work to do and the report helps. I thank all noble Lords.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I shall not try the patience of the House much longer. First, I wish to renew my thanks to the members of the sub-committee for carrying me through the daunting task of chairing such a distinguished group and for their contributions to today's debate. I shall not single out any contribution for a response except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Craig, that I share his irritation with the gloom industry. I wish to reassure him again that the overall note of our report was positive. We concluded that the climate for innovation had improved which, no doubt, had the thoroughly admirable effect of ensuring that the report
1400
received no media attention whatever. That may, however, have had something to do with its coincidence with the prorogation of Parliament.
I wish to make one further point in responding to the gloom industry since it did not arise in the debate. We were impressed by the amount of evidence we received to the effect that the climate for innovation in the United Kingdom was now markedly better in many respects than in some continental European countries. Sometimes we are bemused by comparisons with the United States and the powerful engine of innovation created by the weight of strong industries and strong universities there and forget the comparisons with continental Europe on which we received much positive evidence.
My final remark in response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Craig, is that whatever else we decide is the defining characteristic of a good cluster, I do not think that the behaviour of No. 11 buses constitutes best practice.
I wish to express my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Home and welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. The debate was greatly enriched by his expertise and I know it will continue to enrich the quality of debates in this House on many issues where he has so much to bring to our discussions. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and detailed response. I greatly welcomed his emphasis on added value and was delighted to hear that he will be keeping a sharp eye on what I think he called the "spark in the park". I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning Inquiries
7 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the rules of public planning inquiries should be reviewed to balance the democratic rights of objectors against the inordinate length of certain inquiries, lasting in certain cases over two years.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in raising this subject today on the rules of procedure at public planning inquiries, particularly where major infrastructure is involved, I am mindful that there is a bonus for short debates that attract only eight speakers: we have a little more time—not too much time but more than the 14 speakers that joined in merrily with my noble friend Lord Bradford's sparkling debate yesterday.
I should like to thank in advance all those who intend to take part in the debate and who, I know, will bring both quality and experience to what I believe is a very important subject. I particularly look forward of course to hearing the reply by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I congratulate her on her recent appointment.
First, I should declare that I am a working surveyor, compared with the phenomenon of a working Peer. There do not seem to be many working Peers around this evening. Perhaps my noble friend who is very versatile is a working Peer. I should add that I am not

1401
involved in any current major inquiry. My brush with planning goes back quite a few years. It has made me respect the system that has evolved ever since the first planning Act of 1932. Today the planning system runs at approximately 480,000 applications a year, mostly on minor issues. Out of those come about 14,500 appeals, all of which are handled by the planning inspectorate, which, I believe, provides a very good service, often handling very contentious issues with firmness, fairness and professionalism. However, even with that excellent service, the planning system needs overhauling from time to time and it is generally agreed that that time is now.
The encouraging note is that there seems to be no political divide on that objective. How that objective is achieved may be another matter. The House will recall that last January my noble friend Lord Ferrers, when he was Minister of State for the department, announced that he was issuing consultation papers on improving the system, in particular with local development plans. Local development plans are of course of great interest to all property owners and developers. I understand that over 90 plans are due to be publicly examined during the course of this year, taking up a great deal of the inspectorate's resources. I am not sure what happened to the consultation papers, but soon afterwards the manifesto of the noble Baroness's party published very similar reforms. I hope that tonight the noble Baroness will enlighten us about the Government's plans for improving the system.
But the debate tonight is a little narrower than the general improvement of the system. It concentrates on the major planning inquiries that take a very long time to complete. The House will recall that most of them in the past have concerned such difficult subjects as nuclear power stations, opencast coal, motorways and ring roads around cities, with the most popular—or unpopular—subject being airports. The Channel Tunnel escaped such scrutiny as it progressed through parliamentary procedure which must be open to the question of how it compares with the public scrutiny of a full inquiry. There certainly was a difference in time.
Up to now, the blue riband for the longest public inquiry goes to Stansted Airport, some years ago, followed by the Sizewell inquiry, which I believe took two years. That dubious honour will undoubtedly be surpassed by the Terminal 5 inquiry when it is finally completed at the latter end of next year. I do not for one moment criticise the very great care and scrutiny exercised by that inquiry. I simply say that a three-year inquiry, followed by at least six months for the inspector's report, followed by scrutiny within the department, followed by the decision of the Secretary of State add up, in my view, to some four and a half to five years. However difficult a planning issue may be, it is surely a grotesque timescale for any inquiry to take over three years to complete its hearing.
Such inquiries represent only a very small part of the system. Yet, as they are very high profile there is a danger of dragging down public confidence in the whole system. The minuses of such a lengthy procedure must include blight on property, damaging uncertainty on the area generally and the despair of those taking part. Such
1402
a lengthy procedure also offers the real, practical possibility of the inspector or inspectors falling ill and the whole inquiry starting again. All those arguments are well known to the noble Baroness and her department and I shall not labour them.
In the hope of not being criticised for being critical but of being considered proactive, I have sought to see whether there are any procedures which might help to streamline the present system. The first point that has been put to me is an absolute must of any major inquiry—that the government policy on whatever is pertinent to that inquiry must be up to date. That must reduce the danger of a good deal of lengthy policy arguments.
My second point is that there seems to be a great deal of support for giving inspectors wider authority to establish the key issues of the inquiry and curtail a host of repetitive objections. Thirdly, there is the need to establish agreement on technical data between the parties before an inquiry sets sail. I am sure that would reduce the cost. Fourthly, there is surely the need for a timetable from when the department has received the inspector's report to when the final scrutiny report reaches the Secretary of State's desk. I see no reason why the Secretary of State himself or herself should not be subject to some similar discipline of time to announce his or her decision.
Lastly, on a general issue, I hope very much that the value of the cross-examination at the local plan inquiries will not be lost. I believe that there is a very great deal of value both for participants and the local authority to attain this discipline. Examination in public procedure in cases of structure plans does not have such cross-examination.
It is a truism to say that we are the trustees of planning for the next generation. Effective and efficient planning is a very important goal for which to strive. We have a very good system and I am sure that we can improve on it. Whatever happens on the broad issue of change of the system, I hope that we shall be able to say that the days of the giant public planning inquiry are over and we have learnt a better route without damaging the sensitive interests of all concerned.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the debate. He is an excellent person to do so, as he has practical experience as a surveyor and I am sure has participated in a good many inquiries. This is not a huge subject but to me at any rate it is a very interesting one.
The fact is, as the noble Earl said, that most public inquiries are concerned with relatively limited proposals and are short. Proposals which are of significant size, whether by private companies, by government or by public bodies, are the inquiries which by their nature are time consuming. There are three reasons for that. First, the issues may be technical and complex—for instance, about noise or hydrogeology—inviting differences of expert opinion. Second, plans and policy documents have become over-lengthy, too numerous and excessively detailed, and they have to be discussed.

1403
Third, there is the endless repetition of similar arguments by third parties, usually the public, but including at times local authorities and pressure groups.
Civil servants usually blame counsel, solicitors or professional agents for the length of inquiries. As in all areas, they vary from the competent to the long-winded. But that is not the main reason for the length of time taken, certainly since the recent procedural reforms as a result of Circular 15/96.
There are only two effective ways of reducing the time taken at inquiries. First, one can reduce the scope and extensive character of the development plans of the policy documents themselves. They have grown since the 1960s from 10 to 20-page land use details to documents covering 120 to 130 pages dealing with economics, the provision of bicycle paths and anything politically correct that local authorities can think of. That has been encouraged by government, which issue endless, often ambiguous, planning policy guidance and discussion papers, and by the courts, which have, by subjecting the administration process to legalisation, made it sclerotic. The procedures have, through statutory instruments and the courts, become too formal and bureaucratic. Secondly, time at inquiries could be reduced by controlling rigidly the rights of third parties to participate.
Prior to the Skeffington report in 1968, inquiries did not have the public element and were short. The first review of the LCC development plan took a mere five weeks. Members of the public usually repeat themselves endlessly and raise many irrelevant issues. Inspectors try to control it but have no real authority to prevent the persistent from taking time. In any event, the political interventions of MPs in the planning field make it effectively impossible to deny objectors their day in court.
The department produced Circular 15/96, which introduced a number of improvements. Can the Minister tell us whether appeals have become shorter as a result or is it too early to tell? Two consultation papers came out in January this year, one on planning appeals. One suggestion there is that more appeals could be handled by hearing or written method, the Secretary of State to decide on the method. Primary legislation would be needed to bring that about.
Mediation between the parties is a novel idea. I am a supporter of mediation in a number of areas. I confess to being a little sceptical about it in the planning arena, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments. The promptness of delivery of statements is important, and the document comments on that and the possible cost penalties for late delivery. The second consultation paper is on speeding up the delivery of local plans and unitary development plans. I mentioned reducing the scope and the extensive character of development plans and hope we may hear about that. I was kindly sent all those reports and papers by the department, but they are from the time of the last government. I am sure that we would all like to hear from the Minister what, in the light of the manifesto
1404
commitments, the present Government plan to do. I am glad that privatisation of the inspectorate at any rate does not seem to be on the agenda.
To return to the matter we are debating, the length and number of inquiries seem to be in the public interest overall in a parliamentary democracy such as ours. Their character can be said to reflect a long tradition of participating government which goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. It is important in a true democracy for people to sense that they can influence affairs and participate in government in matters affecting their environment and their property. It induces better administration and decision-making because the decisions are subject to external testing. The length of time of inquiries is a price that may have to be paid for that.
The alternative—a Napoleonic European approach—is to issue directives in relation to large schemes without a public right to object (the French nuclear power stations are an example) or with only limited rights. That line of approach seems to me to be politically unacceptable. The plan-led systems here have probably reduced the number of appeals but have led to longer development planning inquiries, which is dealt with in one of the consultation papers. That still does not eliminate the need for appeals on planning decisions and I guess that they will go on.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing the debate and hope that it will not be considered unsuitable if I concentrate my remarks—which I hope will be as brief as the two preceding speakers—on the inquiry T5 to which the noble Earl referred.
The T5 inquiry began in May 1995. Whenever I inquired of people how long they thought it would continue, the reply was always, "About another year". So it has dragged on and the noble Earl informed us that it is now suggested that it is due to stop officially in June of next year—informed opinion suggests that July or August may be more likely. The threshold for the end of this specific part of the inquiry process is therefore still moving away from us. After that, of course, there follows the consideration by the inspector and so forth.
Much as I support the democratic right to make lay objections to planning applications—T5 is a major planning application—the whole process has great costs attached to it. I want to address the costs to the British Airports Authority in putting forward this application. It is said that before the process began around £30 million had been set aside by British Airports Authority for the prosecution of the application. It is possible that over the intervening three years that sum has increased. For example, there is anecdotal evidence of the delight among consulting engineers at the fees that they have received; in the 1995–96 annual report the company put the cost of the inquiry and design costs at £144 million. Of course, the major part of that will relate to design but it is a large sum of money.
The major opposers in that inquiry consist of a group of local authorities—10 in all—known as LA T5. That group has so far spent around £3.6 million, of which

1405
£1 million has been subscribed by Surrey County Council, the lead authority in that group of objectors. Even for an authority as large as a county that is a considerable sum and resulted in growing doubt among councillors, understandably, as to whether the decision taken by the full council in that case can continue to be justified—because of the expense—in terms of the other demands on their budgets. I do not know what the situation is within the other nine authorities, but it is a justifiable doubt on the part of responsible members of a local authority.
There are therefore problems even for major authorities. If the length and cost of such an inquiry is a deterrent for a local authority, how much more of a deterrent is it to individual objectors or small special interest groups who feel their position to be threatened? They often have to attend the inquiries themselves. Someone commented to me the other day, "If even you, with all your background knowledge of the affair, were to turn up to the inquiry for a single day, you would find it difficult to understand what is happening". That is due to the judicial type of procedure adopted by a public inquiry. So individual or small groups of objectors are faced not only with costs, which means that they themselves have to act as legal representatives for their cause, but also with the difficulty of conducting that representation imposed by the process.
The application for T5 is perfectly legitimate; I do not say that it is not and I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of the case. It is justified by British Airports Authority in terms of the need to supply a growing market for air travel and to do so in this country rather than elsewhere in the European Union. As against that, the objectors also have legitimate objections. For example, there is a planning objection; that is to say, the over-concentration of a large amount of economic activity in one specific small area of south-west London/north-west Surrey on the edge of the conurbation—contrary to planning policy guidance to reflect a point raised by the noble Baroness.
The question of ground access must be considered. Heathrow Airport is now the largest single generator of traffic in the whole of the United Kingdom. It has 50,000 employees and once T5 is completed will have 80 million passenger per year going in and out of the airport. Of course, the 50,000 employees go in and out on a daily basis. Finally, to name but three of the objections, there is the problem of noise.
The system with which people are faced is that one is obliged to oppose an application in order to obtain mitigation of the circumstances which will arise if that application is granted. In other words, in order to gain concessions from the applicant one must oppose.
As an example, I refer to the question of noise. Before this already two year-long inquiry started, the British Airports Authority was simply not interested in making any kind of promise to cap the noise level at Heathrow, but, as a result of the inquiry so far, as I understand it, it is now willing to undertake a legally binding way to cap noise levels at Heathrow to their 1994 level. That may not be sufficient or exactly what is decided, but nevertheless a concession has been made. No doubt, as
1406
the process continues, other concessions will be made, but it is a very expensive way of putting forward mitigating circumstances when a major application is being made.
So what can be done to make the process more sensible? I believe that the noble Earl touched on one of the factors which make this kind of infrastructure inquiry so difficult. In the case of Terminal 5 there is no government policy on airport provision. So, when an application is made, the applicant has to justify the application in terms of need, the effect on employment, housing and so forth. One has to concentrate on all that before one can get to the effort to mitigate the ill effects of major applications of large economic growth on the surrounding area.
It is not like that in every other country in Europe. As I understand it, the Dutch have a totally different approach. Schiphol Airport is a planned airport for long-term investment. It is not subject to incremental growth at the will of the company which runs it as Heathrow has been. There is a great deal of discussion about the mitigating circumstances which should be engineered into the airport in order not to make its effect on the neighbours of the airport too bad. Now, a fifth runway is being constructed at Schiphol, not because it is going to have more than 80 million passengers, but because of a 40 million passenger threshold. The burden of noise from aircraft movement will be spread over the widest possible geographical area and therefore no one group of people will have the whole burden.
If we had a proper airports policy, then discussion about an application could go almost immediately to the relationship between that development and the local environment in the broadest sense of that word. I believe that we would then wish to see matters such as noise and how to mitigate it and ground access and how to improve it discussed between the parties in a sensible way, only bringing to a public inquiry those matters on which it is impossible to agree in an ordinary discussion as between equals. That is the way; namely, a basic policy and then the rational discussion of mitigating measures leading to an inquiry only when one cannot reach a sensible agreement. That seems to me to be the right way to go forward.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl for raising the question of planning inquiries. My own interest is that for many years I have been involved in the work of the National Trust. From 1991 to 1996 I was its chairman. The Trust is endlessly involved in planning inquiries, some of which are large and some are small, but collectively they account for considerable staff time and cost. Some of the inquiries we are involved in are very costly indeed. In the past couple of years at least two have cost us over £100,000 each and several more cost over five figures.
The inquiries are predominantly to do with road and similar schemes. They are my principal concerns this afternoon. The costs that we have to meet in these big inquiries are not just for legal representation, but the need for experts—traffic engineers, perhaps. There is

1407
not much point in attacking a road scheme, assuming the need is evident—and that is not always self-evident—unless you have a realistic worked-up alternative to put before the inspectors. That is very costly.
I also have the honour to be an honorary vice-president of both the Council for National Parks and the Friends of the Lake District. In relation to their size they probably spend even more time and effort on planning cases than does the Trust. Each of them has a huge amount of experience. I have consulted their staff widely and also the CPRE and barristers. In all this there is a common thread of interest: the environment. In that sense they are third parties—an important point which I shall come back to. I should add at this stage that I am not a planning expert, nor am I a lawyer. For better or for worse, my only interest, as it were, is as a user of the process.
It is important at the outset to record that whatever criticisms we have of the inquiry process, we at least have a process. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord or the noble Baroness who said that we are not Napoleonic yet. It is a well worked out process and one that I believe we can be proud of. What I wish to do is to draw attention to a few points where the organisations I have referred to believe the process can be improved, whether it be in matters of fairness, efficiency or effectiveness.
As regards cases covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, we have the DoE circular Planning Appeal Procedures. I have read that. It is an admirable document full of sound common sense. The question is then the extent to which these procedures and this common sense is reflected in practice in what actually happens, in particular for schemes that are not covered by the Act and, therefore, presumably not covered by that guidance.
I will start with one example. It is perhaps the commonest criticism that has been made to me. It is that fuller use could and should be made of pre-inquiry meetings to agree, for example, facts; to establish other common ground; to identify critical issues, and so forth. All that is admirably covered in the guidance note; but I believe I am right in saying that these rules do not apply to road or similar big infrastructure schemes which have been mentioned. As I say, it is perhaps the most common criticism that has been made to me.
There are several related points which have to do with planning meetings. First, if pre-inquiry meetings are to be effective, they should include all the interested parties. They should not be limited to the two main parties as apparently sometimes happens. Secondly, it is important at this stage—the scoping stage, if you will—to bring in the environmental dimension. A strategic environmental assessment at this stage can often identify options or courses of action on which there can be a degree of consensus or at least approaching a consensus. Thirdly, there is the need to get ordinary local people involved. They often have real sense and unique local knowledge to contribute. There are several ways of achieving that such as evening meetings, local conferences, and so on. If one is to obtain the local
1408
feeling, the local people should be informed. The way not to succeed is to allow them into the formal process of being intimidated by aggressive barristers. One notes as an aside that some inspectors often show undue deference to barristers, especially in what I would call the "heavyweight team". I dread to think what is happening at the Terminal 5 inquiry.
A good example of an early public consultation which included environmental organisations was the proposal by Northern Electric to upgrade the power line to Whitby, across the open moorlands of the North York Moors National Park. The developer was able to measure the level of public concern being generated by the proposal and settled for a lower key development instead, thus possibly saving himself the cost of a fullscale public inquiry.
I could go on, but shall simply conclude on this point by noting that properly organised pre-inquiry sessions can be enormously effective in, for example, saving experts' time in preparing evidence, attending the inquiry and giving evidence. Indeed, in some cases, as in the case of the North York Moors, it may even obviate the need for a fullscale inquiry.
I should like to make two points on appeals: first, third parties—those with a legitimate interest—should have the right to seek to secure the calling in of applications where the planning decision is clearly contrary to planning policy. I am sure that we all know of examples where consent has been, in a sense, "improperly" given. This is especially relevant to local plans. Secondly, the developer should not have an automatic right of appeal. Could not the planning inspectorate be empowered to decide whether an appeal should go ahead?
Once a lengthy public inquiry has been called, there are many problems for voluntary sector organisations. Earlier exchange of proofs of evidence—for example, six weeks rather than three—before the inquiry starts would enable organisations with small staff resources to muster an effective case. Extending the period of notification of the inquiry date from 28 days to 42 days would also be beneficial. Late submission of evidence by the developer should be discouraged. If proofs are submitted late, there should be grounds for an adjournment.
Numerous other points have been made to me about the process during the inquiry, many of which have already been mentioned this evening: for example, excessive time being spent on cross-examination; frequent repetition and duplication of evidence; and apparently occasionally, even today, the reading out of evidence. We must also guard against the tendency of the big heavyweight legal teams to go for overkill, giving rise, needless to say, to the impression that they are spinning things out and squeezing the little man.
Voluntary sector groupings should also be involved in the discussions that take place outside the inquiry on matters such as undertakings or conditions. This relates to mitigation. The inspector calls for such discussions to take place in order to speed up the formal process; but by leaving some groups outside the process, it is likely

1409
that the process will take longer. This may possibly lead to hardened attitudes and even to downright opposition if the development goes ahead.
I have given just a selection of a great number of practical and useful points that have been made to me. I do not suppose that any of them are novel. They will be familiar to many, whether or not they agree with them. The conclusions that I draw are therefore, first, that probably the great majority of appeals (whether by hearings or inquiries) are conducted expeditiously and satisfactorily, but that there are problems with the big inquiries, particularly with those schemes not covered by the 1990 Act; secondly, not enough attention is given to the environmental dimension, and to the important role of the environmental NGOs; thirdly, the policy guidance note is probably not working as effectively as it should; but, much more importantly, schemes that are not covered by the DoE rules should be covered by equivalent rules.
Just on a year ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, produced his report Access to Justice. It was full of practical suggestions, so I conclude by suggesting that there is a case for a similar report to see whether we can make the planning inquiry system (in the widest sense of the phrase) work rather better. It is an important part of our justice system; it is important to the economy and it is important to our quality of life.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly. I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling this Unstarred Question on an important, if narrow, issue. The noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke most trenchantly in answering the specific point that our planning inquiries are of an inordinate length and that those times need to be reduced. I should like to speak in slightly wider terms than those of the Unstarred Question to say why there needs to be a general review of the planning process and to comment on the way in which I hope that some of the proposals in my party's manifesto should help to achieve that end.
Some years ago I was a councillor in the London Borough of Wandsworth and served on the planning committee for a couple of years. That certainly does not make me an expert—I make no claims at all in that regard—but I do know the importance of proper planning procedures, especially to local communities.
I also played a minor part—I was in opposition—in drawing up my local borough's unitary development plan. I was continually frustrated through not having any remit beyond the scope of the borough. There was no strategic guidance. Although some of the local boroughs got together to try to co-ordinate the unitary development plan, the whole process was frustrated by a lack of any sort of strategic guidance.
I do not think that I am being too parochial in talking about Wandsworth because we had to deal with some very typical planning issues. Perhaps two of the more famous—if I may use that word—related to large and prominent derelict sites in the borough. I am thinking particularly of the Battersea Power Station site and of the Gargoyle Wharf site which may be better known to
1410
your Lordships as the Guinness site where "The Land is Ours" protesters camped for a number of months before being removed by the police. Whatever one thinks of such protests, it is certainly a failure of the planning process in the most general terms that those sites have been derelict for so many years. I hope that guidance and strategic leadership from the Government will do something to get those sites developed. I know that many of the local residents' groups which try to work with my local authority are constantly frustrated by the lack of encouragement that they receive from the local council.
Of course, there needs to be a balance between the legitimate needs and financial requirements of the developers, the views of local residents and the general strategic aims for the regions of our country. It is difficult to achieve that balance, but three things could be done to help in that process. The first is to speed up decision-making, which is, I believe, the purpose of this debate. I know from my own experience in business that a quick decision is much more important than a wrong decision—if I may put it like that. It is better to know that the answer is "no" than to hang around for ages when you should be getting on with the other aspects of running your business. Speed of decision-making is very important.
I refer secondly to clarity of purpose. I hope that my party's manifesto commitment to a strategic authority for London will lead to greater clarity of purpose with regard to planning in my area of London. That is most important.
The third factor, which is perhaps more controversial, is the increase in the value of sites, particularly those in inner cities. There has been a great deal of pressure on greenfield sites around cities. I believe that there is a general consensus as to the need to build on greenfield sites. I am very much against it. My experience in London is that many infill sites, or brownfield sites, can and should be used for development. If the Government make crystal clear in whatever guidelines they like to set out that greenfield sites will not be developed under any circumstances, the value of brownfield sites will go up. That will help the developers to come up with schemes that they believe meet their financial requirements.
I have strayed wide of the Question but I believe that there are a number of planning issues that the Government now have the opportunity to look at. There are huge needs within our inner cities and opportunities which, if the planning process can be made right, mean that these sites can be developed.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this interesting topic. Many points have been made that one would like to pursue but perhaps they lead down alleys that should not be followed given the narrow area that is being discussed. I declare an interest as chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association, although I am not sure that that affects the comments that I shall make.

1411
I was interested in the way in which the noble Earl formulated the issue. He spoke of balancing the democratic rights of objectors against the inordinate length of inquiries. It is not only applicants who are prejudiced by the length of inquiries. One thinks of the resources of local authorities and those representing objectors, interest groups and communities, even when working in a consortium. That difficulty was raised by almost everyone to whom I spoke on this issue before the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to heavyweight legal teams spinning out inquiries. They do. However, I believe that that is part of a much wider issue. I immediately thought that if anyone suggested that counsel could cut it down a bit he might think, "I must not expose myself to a claim for negligence for shortening the case". There may be formal or informal points to be made on this matter to those who have been involved in the McDonald's libel trial. I agree with the noble Lord that many analogies can be drawn between the planning inquiry system and the general court system, and there are lessons to be learned from the Woolf Report and how that is put into practice, possibly without having to begin a similar exercise to deal just with planning inquiries.
Objectors do not have many rights. They have no right of appeal. It is suggested in many quarters that one improvement to the system would be to allow objectors to have limited rights, for example if the application in question were a significant departure from the development plan. Appeals are in themselves something of a democratic safeguard. I am concerned that we do not subordinate fairness to efficiency in what is after all a disputes procedure, not necessarily between individuals and certainly not in the case of the inquiries we are considering, that attempts to reconcile societal conflict. I do not believe that the inquiry system can be a conveyor belt.
There is no doubt scope for adjusting the management of an inquiry. The previous government consulted on the subject. I understand that there were over 200 responses to the consultation paper on inquiries. The message I received was that the responses had been mixed in nature. I am not sure what that indicates. Like other noble Lords, I shall be interested to know how the Government intend to take forward that work.
Changes such as mediation, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, do not address major inquiries, although I believe that there is scope for trying to bring people together at not such inordinate expense. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to particular sites being of such importance that public interest probably demanded wide and deep public discussion of their future, as in the case of certain major developments. I believe that there is scope even for community groups to receive funding to support their participation in that process, at the same time co-ordinating their comments in the hope that the process may be speeded up.
I smiled when I heard the points made about the abilities or otherwise of the legal profession as compared with the view that perhaps members of the public are often inept in presenting their case. Having
1412
chaired a planning committee in a borough next door to that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which introduced a procedure that allowed public representation at a development control committee, I discovered that invariably those who were worst at presenting their case were the banisters, principally because they said, "The way I would put it to you is this", and used up the time with such language. However, I agree that the local knowledge of individuals and community groups is valuable and must not be lost as a result of any change to the inquiry process.
As my noble friend said, for the big developments the issue is: how is the policy made and where is the policy? I observed that the Minister nodded vigorously when my noble friend referred to the policy vacuum with regard to airports. If there is a policy vacuum, something must fill it, and it must be the inquiry. I do not believe that the inquiry should itself be the policy-making exercise. In referring to Terminal 5 I should declare an interest as a member of Richmond-upon-Thames Council that is part of the consortium LA T5, referred to by my noble friend. I have considerable personal interests in the outcome of the inquiry.
The Secretary of State said in 1993 (before he achieved that position) that the Government's aviation policy such as it exists was absurd. That is the point—such as it exists. We are in an odd situation. Policy has been made previously by an inquiry. Previous inquiries are now being disregarded in the current inquiry. In reporting on Terminal 4 the inspector said that it should be the last major expansion of Heathrow. Indeed, he approved Terminal 4 on the basis that in part there was a limit on flight numbers. That limit has been abandoned.
I am unable to resist the opportunity provided by today's debate to ask a question of the Minister, of which I have given her notice, in connection with the Terminal 5 inquiry. On 8th June The Observer carried a report which indicated that a senior government source had stated that Terminal 5 was to be approved. I shall be grateful if the Minister can refute that report on the record and confirm to your Lordships that the Government will not make up their mind until the inspector has reported and that they will have full regard to that report.
Planning is essentially a holistic exercise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that development plans should assist and reflect the co-ordination of transport, housing, leisure, employment and so forth. There is real concern about the development plan process itself taking too long. I am told that the previous government's consultation paper on that issue attracted 350 responses—again, mixed.
I return to the issue of democracy. Local authorities have the main responsibility and are accountable. They are the bodies which create local plans. That process, too, causes problems for interested parties. Public local inquiries and indeed examinations in public in the case of structure plans impose their own strains. I have become aware of the real dangers of the outcome of those inquiries being skewed by the resources that large landowners and prospective developers can bring to the

1413
system as against local people who have valid points to make. There is scope for such inquiries to be much less adversarial.
We need to see the policy context set properly at each level, not in a Napoleonic way, as described by the noble Baroness. I am very much an enthusiast for involving local communities in the plan-making process. I am also aware of the tendency on the part of planners to want to impose plans neatly in a hierarchy at every level, rather ignoring the fact that life is not like that, and we are not starting from here. Nevertheless we have not yet achieved the setting of a policy context for what should be plan-led development. We still have an uneasy alliance with a presumption in favour of development because the plans are not adequate, and, in particular, take so long to make that they are often out of date by the time they come to be applied.
Having listened to the comments made this evening, it occurs to me that there must be scope, not necessarily for an enormous reorganisation of the system but for piloting some new procedures and good ideas which have arisen as a result of the discussion provoked by the latest consultation paper, and even more by people's frustration.
I wonder whether it might be possible to take some of those ideas forward in a minimalist way to see how they run rather than switch the whole system and then find that the new procedures do not work that well either. Let us not forget that the length of inquiries may be the result of the strength of opposition to an application. We should not agree to a new process which does not allow opposition to be expressed. Let us also remember the cardinal principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for introducing the debate, which has produced an extraordinary succession of excellent speeches, full of thoughts and suggestions for our new government, to which I hope they will pay close attention. I hope that the Minister will be able to address at least a few of them, although I am sure that many will not be fitted in during the allocated time. I hope that she will not take up all the spare time that she now has, and will write to us all giving a more detailed reply to some of the suggestions that have been made.
I shall not take up a great deal of time. I must be the most ignorant person here when it comes to planning procedures. It is a key and complicated area of our democracy. It is one which will repay a good deal of study before any revisions are made to them. I am greatly attracted to the idea of piloting, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is an idea which has worked well in other areas when difficult matters are being dealt with. I hope that it is something that the Minister will take into consideration.
I find myself, albeit I hope briefly, in a policy-free zone. So all that I shall attempt is to offer a few personal thoughts. One of the matters of which I am
1414
most proud during the 18 years in which we were in power was the way in which we were able to encourage people to take more responsibility for what was happening to them as a result of actions taken by the various arms of the bureaucracy. We may have run rather behind in reflecting them in our planning system. I should like to see much more active local involvement in producing local and regional plans.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said about Schiphol was interesting in that regard. Consent to the development of Schiphol had, as it were, been agreed through whatever processes they have in Holland. They did not wait for each successive development to produce a new plan and a new controversy: it had been agreed how life should go; and then discussions could proceed to decide how to deal with the consequences of it. That is a much better way to involve people. If you can get their consent to local and regional plans, then many of the matters that people might wish to raise at a planning inquiry on a particular application would have been taken to have been dealt with already in consultation on the regional or local plan. That of course comes back to the problems raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how long it takes to get the plans approved.
We could perhaps consider also the use of referendums in some circumstances. It strikes me that there are some planning inquiries where the democratic structures are already committed. Manchester City Airport is a project which is so strongly supported by the local authorities that local people may not have the access to the representation by their representatives that they should have. A consultative referendum again would be a way of producing a picture of the local attitude to the development which might shorten the inquiry, because it would be a substitute for a great many of the individual objections made by individual objectors and it would have much more power because it would be an expression of the will of the entire community and could not be dismissed as the will of just a few cranks.
Lastly, I support those who have emphasised the importance of cross-examination. It is key that individuals, organisations and others should have the right to cross-examine. No one, however august or important, should be able to get away with giving evidence that is not questioned. On some occasions that may lead to long inquiries. It might perhaps be said that T5 is running inordinately late. I agree. T4.30 has always been what I thought was right.
7.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has given us the opportunity for a short but trenchant—if I may use the word that has been used before—debate on the planning inquiry system in this country. He asked a straightforward question:
"Whether the rules of public planning inquiries should be reviewed to balance the democratic rights of objectors against the inordinate length of certain inquiries".

1415
I am tempted to give a trenchant answer and reply simply, "Yes", to the noble Earl. But such a brief reply would be more than even the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was looking for from me. It would not give me the opportunity to respond to some of the important issues that have been raised this evening. I shall try to deal with the main themes, and write to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on specific issues if I am unable to cover them.
It is very much an issue of getting the balance right, as the noble Earl points out in his Question. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that we were not Napoleonic yet. I endorse the view that we should not be Napoleonic in the future either. There are serious democratic issues about the rights of objectors to be heard properly and fairly and we should not be willing to sacrifice those rights.
I turn, first, to a recurring theme of tonight's debate; that of major infrastructure projects and how we deal with them through the planning process. The Heathrow Terminal 5 public inquiry is an obvious and controversial current example. It might be helpful if at this point I respond to the specific issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I am grateful to her for giving me advance notice of it—about the press reports on the Government's attitude to the inquiry. For the record, I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government have reached no conclusions on the outcome of this application. We will not take a decision on whether planning permission should be granted until the inspector's report has been received and carefully considered. Clearly, it is impossible for me to say at this stage what the outcome will be. That was made clear in another place in an Answer given by my noble friend the Minister for Transport in London.
A major issue connected with infrastructure projects causes great concern throughout the House and elsewhere. It relates to the concern which arises from the delays associated with coming to conclusions about the projects. That concern was reflected in our manifesto commitment to take urgent action to look at the issue. It must be tackled in the context that has emerged from tonight's debate; that of getting the policy structure right. Speeding up the delivery of major infrastructure projects—for instance, road schemes, rail links, airport developments, reservoirs and large waste incinerators—is a priority for this Government. Such projects are often of national significance and can have major effects in terms of regeneration and regional developments. It is therefore clear that one of the first requirements is to have in place an explicit strategic policy framework against which to assess the need for such projects. At present, we have discussion at inquiries and, as was pointed out, sometimes sequential discussion of the same issue at sequential inquiries. When such issues are of national policy and principle, that is an inevitable recipe for delay.
We hope to bring forward later this year proposals for improvements in both the practice and procedures in this area for consultation and to be innovative in
1416
the measures that we are prepared to examine for speeding up the system overall. I would not like to prejudge the content of the proposals that we would bring forward, but it is interesting that next week we will have a debate in this House under the Transport and Works Act 1990 setting out the policy framework around the order for the station at Stratford for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. After a general decision is taken about the strategic policy issue through both Houses of Parliament, it will be possible to have an appropriate local planning inquiry at which the rights of objectors are safeguarded, but where we have put clearly on the record the national policy in this area. It will be interesting to see whether we can build on such examples.
As noble Lords have made clear tonight, the occasional notorious, long inquiry must be seen in perspective. In each of the past five years, between 89 per cent. and 94 per cent. of inquiry appeals were dealt with by inquiries lasting no more than a week and in many cases only one day. However, although those are numerically few, the major infrastructure projects frequently have a wide significance and potential impact. Furthermore, in such inquiries, as regards the issue of costs, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it can be difficult for the individual voice to be heard as a result of the structure, the legal representation and resources that are available. There is no doubt that we consider it essential to find a better way of dealing with such projects.
As regards the call-in powers of the Secretary of State, it is the Government's policy to interfere as little as possible in the day-to-day running of the planning system by local authorities. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to be very selective about calling in applications for his determination and will in general take that step only when planning issues of more than local importance are involved. As with previous governments, we will use the power only rarely, but it exists for situations when it is appropriate that it should be invoked, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will recognise.
The major infrastructure projects that have been mentioned tonight need a national policy framework, which can be established only at that level. However, the Government believe that there is greater scope for decentralising the consideration of planning policy to the regional level and for applying the same kind of principles. We have indicated our intention to set up regional chambers, building on the arrangements already established by local authorities, as a better means of co-ordinating land use, transport and other planning issues at the regional level. I say to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that in the consultation process on the Greater London Authority we shall examine how we can provide a London framework for policy making into which local authorities can feed their plans and from which they can take a policy direction. I hope that that will be a helpful development.

1417
The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Hamwee, were interested in what action the Government propose to take following the department's publication of consultation papers on proposals to speed up the planning appeal system and the process for adopting development plans. Development plans are prepared by local authorities and are important because they can provide the basis for planning applications which are coming forward. If we can get those district-wide development plans in place there will be more certainty as regards policy, speedier decisions and, it is hoped, fewer appeals. Unfortunately, it has taken a long time to get those plans in place. Only marginally over 40 per cent. were adopted by the end of last year, which is five years after the present arrangements were introduced.
A review was undertaken last year to identify the reasons for delay and the scope for amending the procedures. A report of the review and a consultation paper were published in January, alongside that on the planning appeal system. The report indicated that, while there were some exceptions, the inquiry stage of the local planning process and the time taken by the inspector in reporting were not the main causes of delay. A number of options for change were put forward, including the possibility of statutory time limits for all or part of the development plan process; changes to procedure to encourage the resolution of objections through negotiation ahead of the inquiry, an issue that was raised tonight; the adoption of procedural rules for inquiries to give inspectors additional powers to control proceedings, which was another area of concern; and simplifying adoption procedures following the inquiry. All those matters were raised today and it is interesting to look at the possibility of some pilot schemes in some of these processes to see whether they will be effective.
Most of the proposals have received substantial support, but, as regards balance, two of the proposals—those of restricting the right of objectors to be heard at a public inquiry and making the report of an inspector binding on a local authority—were widely opposed on the grounds of natural justice and democratic accountability.
The noble Earl who introduced the debate was very anxious to safeguard those rights of democratic accountability. That is a very clear illustration of the sort of balance that he was calling for and that has been widely recognised as necessary. The planning system will work only if local people have ownership of that plan and confidence in it as a framework for decisions which actually affect their lives. We propose to publish draft revisions to guidance and regulations on those matters in the autumn.
On planning appeals, the consultation paper contains a number of suggestions designed to improve and to speed up the handling and determination of planning appeals. Those include changes to the way in which the procedural method is chosen; reducing the scope for extended exchanges of statements in written representation cases; the introduction of a non-statutory
1418
mediation service to resolve disputes and changes to the costs regime.
The issue of mediation was raised by my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There was general support for the notion in the responses to the consultation. Alternative dispute resolution is a field which is growing in its application in a variety of areas and we should look to see whether it has an application within the planning framework.
Two changes have been suggested to reduce the length and scope of inquiries. The first applies to called-in planning applications and will enable the Secretary of State to call in a proposal in order to examine not the whole proposal but a particular aspect of the development. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to that. In such situations, the local planning authority and developer would prepare an agreed joint statement of case on those aspects of the proposed development not in contention, thus leaving the inquiry to deal only with the contentious issues.
The second proposal is to extend the existing requirement in called-in cases for the Secretary of State to specify those matters which concern him particularly to planning appeals which are recovered for ministerial decision. That should encourage the parties to focus more closely on the essential issues.
The public reaction to all these proposals has been extremely positive, although some reservations have been expressed. A number of the proposals are capable of being implemented either administratively or through secondary legislation but, where necessary, we do not rule out the possibility of primary legislation if and when the opportunity arises.
As well as speeding up the appeals process, we believe that it is important to simplify the various procedures. That was an area referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The department has already issued detailed guidance in Circular 15/96 on how that can be achieved without compromising the quality of decision or the ability of parties to have a fair hearing. It includes the more widespread use of informal hearings, which I believe will be welcomed by the House this evening, and, where practical, to have tighter control over cross-examination.
The implications of delay caused by lengthy inquiries—and indeed, by the planning system as a whole—are extremely far reaching as many noble Lords have said this evening. There are the economic costs, which are substantial, the resource costs for those involved, and environmental considerations. There is also the human element: the uncertainty caused by delays can be as worrying for third party objectors as it can be for developers. We take very seriously the need to speed up our planning system while protecting people's legitimate rights to be heard.
There is no doubt that some improvements have been made over the years but that has been achieved largely through amendments to the procedural rules and through guidance. But I fear that we have failed to address the fundamental problems about the policy

1419
context in which those decisions are taken. That has led to the problems caused by long inquiries for large-scale, controversial development proposals which really should be determined in a different forum.
The Government believe that more can and must be done. We want to ensure the delivery of sound planning decisions much more swiftly than hitherto. At the same time, we must protect the ability of interested parties to put their views fully and fairly. We are determined to make the planning system as efficient and effective as possible. We recognise the problems—delay, uncertainty, blight and costs. Therefore, we are looking at the operation of the planning system at every level; at how national policy is formulated; at regional and local level as well. It was mentioned this evening that there is a need for a holistic approach. I hope that it is possible to have a more integrated consideration of the environmental and transport issues. We believe that the creation of the new department of which I am a member and which brings together the regional interests of regeneration, the environmental interests which it is so important that we take on board, and the transport issues, will help us to consider those issues in the round rather than sequentially.
As I have said, we are examining closely how to improve the way in which major infrastructure projects of national importance are considered and implemented. We must achieve the right balance so that we can deliver on developments; we can ensure that the environmental considerations—responsibility for the next generation—play a central part in policy-making; and that the democratic rights of citizens are taken fully into account.
1420
We believe that, by setting out strategies and policies which are firm and unequivocal, we can set the scene for swifter and more focused inquiries. I believe that that would be widely welcomed throughout the House.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.] King's College London Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of this day, the Bills had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, passed through all their remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
Imperial College Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons and, the declaration of the agent having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to the resolution of this day, the Bill was read a first time pro forma and referred to the Examiners.

Southampton International Boat Show Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons and, the declaration of the agent having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to the resolution of this day, the Bill was read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Security Vetting Appeals Panel
  Security Vetting Appeals Panel
  Religious Education in School
  Religious Education in School
  Theological Teaching
  Theological Teaching
  Sixth-form Colleges
  Sixth-form Colleges
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Prison Management: Contracting Out
  Prison Management: Contracting Out
  Prisons: Clergy Visiting Hours
  Prisons: Clergy Visiting Hours
  Albania: US Bases
  Albania: US Bases
  Baltic States: UK Support for EU and NATO Membership
  Baltic States: UK Support for EU and NATO Membership
  US Bilateral Military and Security Agreements
  US Bilateral Military and Security Agreements
  NATO/Russia Founding Act
  NATO/Russia Founding Act
  NATO/Ukraine Charter
  NATO/Ukraine Charter
  NATO Enlargement Costs
  NATO Enlargement Costs
  NATO: Accession of New Members
  NATO: Accession of New Members
  NATO: Members' Status
  NATO: Members' Status
  NATO: Equipment Procurement by New Members
  NATO: Equipment Procurement by New Members
  Trade with Burma: Policy
  Trade with Burma: Policy
  Year 2000 Date Change
  Year 2000 Date Change
  Prescription Fraud: Efficiency Scrutiny Report
  Prescription Fraud: Efficiency Scrutiny Report
  New Variant CJD Cases
  New Variant CJD Cases
  NHS Dentistry
  NHS Dentistry
  Fluoridation: Water Company Responsibilities
  Fluoridation: Water Company Responsibilities
  Community Dental Services
  Community Dental Services
  Crop Cultivation on ESAS
  Crop Cultivation on ESAS
  Tobacco Subsidies: EC Records
  Tobacco Subsidies: EC Records
  Emtryl
  Emtryl
  Transport Policy, Scotland
  Transport Policy, Scotland
  Magheramorne Quarry: Planning Application
  Magheramorne Quarry: Planning Application
  Dangerous Dogs: Northern Ireland Legislation
  Dangerous Dogs: Northern Ireland Legislation
  Parades Commission
  Parades Commission
  Garden Extension: Permitted Development Proposal
  Garden Extension: Permitted Development Proposal
  Salisbury Bypass
  Salisbury Bypass
  Vehicle Doorlock Security
  Vehicle Doorlock Security
  Driving Test Retakes
  Driving Test Retakes
  Roads Programme Review
  Roads Programme Review
  Planning Applications: Timescale
  Planning Applications: Timescale
  London Underground: Contract Awards
  London Underground: Contract Awards