Sitting of 16 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Christmas)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.33 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I want in this debate to talk about child welfare and protection, issues that, in view of recent court cases, should be raised in the House before the Christmas recess. The subject involves us all. I am sure that hon. Members will have been appalled and sickened by the latest court case involving a young child, who was abused for a long time and who died from her injuries. She was killed by her mother's boy-friend, who last week was convicted of her murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; the mother was convicted of cruelty and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The case was heard at Norwich Crown court; the jury listened to the most appalling history of violence that the five-year-old girl had suffered for a long time.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House know that such events happen far too often. I found it appalling that the very organisations that were supposed to protect the youngster failed abysmally to do so. I am sure that those hon. Members who represent Norfolk constituencies will be asking themselves searching questions, as the social services, the health authority, the police and the RAF—the tragedy happened in RAF accommodation—all let down the youngster appallingly.
Last week, we also heard details of child abuse in Newcastle, where it is said that some 60 children were abused while they were in care. The council is now saying that hundreds of children may have suffered sexual and physical abuse in its care.
On 1 December, I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say how many men and women had been sent to prison in England and Wales in the past three years for cruelty to children. I was told that there were 398 cases in 1995, 498 in 1996 and 581 in 1997. I stress that those figures apply only to England and Wales; there has plainly been a substantial increase in child cruelty in the past three years in two of the countries that form the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that you are still in the Chair, Madam Speaker, because, many years ago, we served at the same time on the London borough of Hammersmith, whose children's committee I chaired. I now serve as a member of the British parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe; I chair the social, health and family affairs committee of that Parliamentary Assembly. The committee considers all kinds of family issues in the 40 member states, but the welfare and protection of children, whatever their age, is our top priority.
888
That is why I am so concerned about the two cases that I have mentioned. I believe that I have a right, as a Member of Parliament, to ask why such tragic cases continue to occur. I am sure that we can all remember similar cases over the years in which youngsters were brutalised for long periods; many of them, sadly, died from the beatings and suffering that they were forced to endure.
Every time that such a case was heard in court, we were told: "We really must learn from this tragedy. There must be closer co-operation and a better exchange of information. At the first signs of abuse, action will be taken." Those things certainly did not happen in the recent case of the five-year-old girl in Norfolk.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman, and I share much of his anxiety. Does he agree that, in addition to much better co-ordination and co-operation between the agencies, what this country needs more than anything is a change in the whole public attitude towards children and towards child abuse? Is not that even more important?
Mr. Cox: I fully agree that we need a combination of a much greater awareness of the evils of child abuse with much greater co-ordination of the organisations that are in place to protect children. However, many of those organisations, sadly, fall down in that area. We must not simply ask authorities about the procedures that they should be following, but demand that they follow those procedures—whether they involve education services, health services, social services or the police.
When I chaired the children's committee of the London borough of Hammersmith, I had a clear policy. All officers dealing with children would, at the first sign of concern for the welfare of a youngster, report that case to me. It was my responsibility, in co-ordination with social workers, to keep a close eye on the well-being of that child.
I accept that many social services departments are under great pressure. When they investigate concerns within a family, they are often told that youngsters with bruising on their bodies fell down the stairs, caught their faces on the table or fell down while playing. We know that youngsters do those things, but social services departments must take a far tougher approach when there are concerns about a family.
Very often, abused children who make known their suffering are told, "We just do not believe you." We know that children do lie; I am sure that all of us told fibs as children. However, when youngsters' bodies are covered with bruises, they are not lying. They did not obtain those bruises simply by falling down or by playing around at home. Case after case shows that children have been seriously brutalised by the mother, the father or the boy-friend of the mother. That concerns me greatly.
I wish to refer to the number of cases appearing in our courts where youngsters in residential care have been abused, either physically or sexually, by the clergy or by those responsible for their welfare. This morning's The Daily Telegraph carries a report of the case of a man who was the house parent at a Barnardos home who was sentenced at York Crown court yesterday to 11 years' imprisonment for sexually abusing children in his care over some seven years.

889
In another case in the courts at the moment, the prosecution has said that a clergyman charged with the abuse of children
"knew they would be very unlikely to make any complaint. Their word against that of a priest would not be believed.
Knowing that he had that protection, virtual immunity from discovery, he committed sexual offences against young people in a calculated and callous manner."
Sadly, we hear of such cases more and more. I hope that we will start to listen to youngsters who express concerns, because when such cases are concluded in our courts, many of the youngsters who have been abused—many of whom are now middle-aged—say that while the abuse was occurring, no one ever listened to them or believed them.
All of us are deeply shocked and appalled by the cases that we hear about in our courts. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will, in the coming year, propose legislation to compel authorities to follow the tough and constructive guidelines for the protection of young children—whether at home or in residential care—that I hope my right hon. Friend will introduce. We have heard of far too many cases in recent years of the most appalling abuse of children. It is time that a country such as ours did everything possible to stop that abuse.
9.47 am
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I start by congratulating the newest member of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his Front-Bench appointment—an appointment so new that most of us had not heard about it until this morning.
There can be a strange irony in debates such as this, where colleagues do not know the issues that one another will raise. This is a wide-ranging debate, and speeches can spread across the whole sphere of Government policy. I wish to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in my main theme, which involves child care and child protection. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise that matter, but the concerns that he raised will be shared across the House.
I have a different constituency case which, although it is of a similar nature, is not as horrendous as the cases to which the hon. Member for Tooting referred. It concerns the care of children, and the role that grandparents often play in looking after their grandchildren in certain circumstances. As this matter relates to Derby city council, I raised it with the Leader of the House a few days ago—I thought that she might be replying to the debate—to set out my concerns. The case involves the way in which grandparents have stepped into the breach and, I believe, have saved and will save social services a great deal of money by looking after their granddaughter, who otherwise might be put in care.
I wish to outline the circumstances of the case, but I will not be mentioning any names, as I want to deal with the general principle rather than the individual. In July 1998, the Derby city council social worker who had been involved in the case for four years reported that the mother was a drug addict and could no longer care for her
890
two children—a daughter aged 11 and another very young daughter. The grandparents stepped in and have been looking after the eldest girl on a semi-permanent basis.
A case conference was held. The grandfather said:
"The conference apparently recommended that both children should be the subject of 'care and protection' proceedings and removed from their mother's custody."
Long-term problems were discussed, as the grandparents felt that they could look after only the elder child, because of the great stress involved. The grandfather's letter continues:
"The social services worker told us that once care proceedings had been taken we would be 'vetted' and become foster parents…and would receive a monthly cash allowance towards her keep.
In September 1998 when nothing appeared to be happening…we again spoke to the social worker. She informed us that her senior line manager had decided that 'care' proceedings would only be taken in respect of
the younger girl.
"It was stated that if we wished we could take a 'residence order' out in respect of"
the elder girl
"(at our expense), and also we could expect no financial support or assistance for"
her
"care whatsoever. The rationale behind the decision being that if she stayed with us she would not be at threat (though she still remains on the 'at risk' register) and therefore there was no need to take out "care' proceedings in respect of her.
On 25th September, 1998, I had a telephone conversation with"
Derby city social services,
"to ask us if we could care for"
the younger child as well,
"as they were unable to find foster parents. I declined to accept…but went on to mention our concerns about lack of progress regarding our financial position with"
the elder child. The social worker
"wrote to us on the 12th October 1998, and I spoke to her by telephone on the 24th. She listened to what I had to say and promised she would respond…within 14 days. I have never received any letter or further telephone calls from her.
How do they expect us to finance everything…without some form of support? Surely the bringing up of"
the girl
"should be a shared partnership with all parties contributing towards decisions…
The financial implications…concern us greatly. My wife has no income whatsoever. I am on a pension, having been retired for nine years. We are not even in receipt of child benefit."
I hope that the child benefit will be sorted out soon. The letter continues:
"We have no public transport near our home so we have to transport"
the girl
"to and from school every day and sometimes more than once if she has special events at school.
We have just fitted"
her
"out with a new school uniform when she started senior school in September. Application for retrospective financial assistance for this uniform was refused. Clothes, food, pocket money, guides, drama classes, dancing classes, everyday expenses, mean we now have to seriously deprive ourselves of little luxuries (no foreign holiday this

891
year). The whole cost of her life is such that we feel hurt and angry with the impact it is having on us. The school is organising a trip to Germany…We were forced to tell"
the girl
"that we could not afford the trip—application for financial assistance for this was also refused."
What hits me about this case is the fact that if the grandparents refused to take responsibility for the child, it would create a major expense for Derby city social services. The grandparents' good offices are being used, if not abused. If elderly people need to be looked after in a home, attendance allowance can be claimed. It seems a great pity that no such allowance is made when grandparents take over in loco parentis.
There are questions in the case that disturb both the grandparents and myself. I hope that they can be speedily resolved. I was encouraged by the story in The Times on 5 November, under the headline,
"Straw aims to put focus on the family"
which specifically mentioned grandparents. In the review that is taking place, we need clearer guidelines on what should happen in cases such as the one I have cited.
I have no doubt that Derby city council has sufficient flexibility under the current rules to pay an allowance to the grandparents as carers. That should happen. The child is being looked after far better by her grandparents than she would be in a foster home, especially considering the disruption that she has already experienced.
It is a great pity that the most sensible solution, provided by the grandparents, is to some extent being abused by the city council, which is relying on their good will and on the fact that, although they are not wealthy, the grandfather has a modest pension from the public sector, in which he worked for many years in a fairly distinguished role. I seek an assurance that the Government will consider the matter seriously.
My next point may not elicit as much sympathy from the Minister. This has been an unusual year; I am speaking of the calendar rather than the parliamentary year. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is here. Before the general election, he and his colleagues travelled around Derbyshire telling everyone that Labour would get a fair deal for Derbyshire and all our problems would be sorted out by the new, vibrant—well, he might not have used those words—Labour party; so it was astounding to me that this year was the one in which the Government decided to cap the county council.
We went through 18 years of Conservative government in which the council was capped only once. Within a year of a new Labour Government, they had managed to match that record of capping Derbyshire once. They capped it to the tune of £1 million. To an individual, £1 million is a lot of money, but in a budget of £470 million it does not have much bearing on the overall costing.
The capping has resulted in rebilling every household, which has cost an estimated £320,000. It was a token gesture, and I consider it deplorable. The people in Amber Valley have still not had their new bills. Is it a sign of new Labour efficiency that, almost six months after the capping, we still do not have our new bills? By the time we get them, it will be time for the bills for next year's council tax. That is wholly regrettable. The cut for 40 per cent. of the properties is £2.82; more than that will be
892
spent on postage and printing. The move was ridiculous and nonsensical, and is typical of the Labour Government's approach to local government finance, which they have not thought through. We wait with interest to see what happens over the next year.
Child care is a very important issue. I hope that when the Government consider it, they will also consider some of the wider implications of what I have said today about whether it is necessary or desirable for each city or county council to be able to set its own guidelines and rules, when they should really be working within a national framework.
9.59 am
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to make a brief speech this morning, but first I wish to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his sneaky elevation to high office. I was green with envy and wondered what he has that I have not, but the answer is, of course, that he has a beard. I had thought that beards represented old Liberalism, but I am rethinking my position and my turn may come in 2000.
The House should not adjourn until we have had a statement on the future of a freedom of information Act. That has become important because the coalition between Tory peers and Labour Front Benchers is now working and we were promised an early freedom of information Act if that were the case. The Labour party has rightly promised a freedom of information Act for the past 25 years. As each of the secrecy scandals—Ponting, Tisdall, "Spycatcher", Matrix Churchill, Pergau, BSE and cash for questions—broke, we said that everything would be different under Labour, because we would have a freedom of information Act. We put it in our manifesto in 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997; it is probably unique in the history of broken manifesto promises in lasting 25 years. I hope that before the House rises, we shall have a statement to say that the manifesto promise will be kept in 1999.
I know that I have the Prime Minister's support, because he is often quoted as saying that a freedom of information Act is not an add-on, but essential to Labour's thinking. He has said that such a change
"is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years…It would also signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed."
It is also important that an Act should be introduced early in this Government's term of office, rather than later, because once Ministers have been in office for a while they tend to become more cautious. They tend to think that a freedom of information Act might arm their critics. If we should have an economic downturn, which I hope that we do not, Ministers will become ever more cautious. Therefore, the sooner an Act is introduced and the sooner we have a statement, either today or tomorrow, the better.
A freedom of information Act would answer all those smears about new Labour being run by spin doctors and control freaks. We know that there are no spin doctors and no control freaks in new Labour. An announcement today on a freedom of information Act would get rid of all the banter. It is good fun, but it has become a little tedious.

893
The concomitant of a freedom of information Act is a fair, responsible and independent press. Therefore, I hope that we shall have some time between now and Christmas to consider the claim that Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, is a paid MI6 agent. That is an odd claim and would be very damaging for the press if it were true. The allegation has been made by Richard Tomlinson and I have no idea whether it is true, but we should consider it. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would respond to those two points.
10.3 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly about a threat to our democracy that arises from the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which has just reached the statute book. I know that it has just reached the statute book because I received a letter from the registrar asking, rather flatteringly, whether I wished to register myself as a political party. Alongside that, I saw a press release from the Home Office which said that under the terms of the Act it is not possible to register as an Independent. That is strange, because I stood in the election as an Independent and I sit in the House as an Independent. What else should I be? The Tatton Park party, the Flat Earth party or the Knutsford Heath party? It does not make sense.
My complaint is not, however, on my own behalf, but on behalf of many other independent-minded members of established parties. One of the provisions of the Act is that certain qualifiers may not be attached to the name of an established party, and one of those qualifiers is "Independent". From now on, it will be against the law to stand as Independent Labour, Independent Conservative or Independent Liberal Democrat. That clause arose from the Literal Democrat fiasco, when an individual stood as a Literal Democrat deliberately to confuse the voters and so far succeeded in doing so as to draw enough votes from the Liberal Democrats to cost them a seat in the European Parliament.
However, the provision was extended in such a way as to prohibit the right of an individual who has fallen out with his party to stand as an independent member of that party. Suppose, for example, he votes against the party Whip once too often, is seen in Westminster during a constituency week, fails to answer the vibrations of his pager or upsets his local constituency party. For one of those reasons or a combination, he might be deselected and might, rightly, wish to fight for his seat under the label of Independent Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat.
In the extraordinary circumstances of the Tatton election, in May last year, a well-established member of the Tatton Conservative Association, who was not happy with the way things were going, thought seriously of standing as an Independent Conservative. I wished that he would not and told him so—and he did not—but he had a right to do so. If that situation were repeated, he would no longer have a right to do so.
The Act also applies to local government. There is an Independent Labour group on Hull city council, with three elected members and two who have crossed the floor. They will no longer be able to stand as Independent
894
Labour. I have nothing against parties. They are necessary for Government and may even be necessary for Opposition, but some space must be given to free spirits, independent-minded people and people a little outside the system, such as citizen politicians. They do not threaten the system, but reinforce it by adding legitimacy to the members of established parties who get elected.
Threats to our democracy come in many forms and sometimes arise from not very large issues. Yesterday, in the Ecclesiastical Committee, we fought off and blocked a move by the Church Synod to allow a bishop to suspend a church warden for up to two years for a cause that seemed to the bishop to be good and reasonable, which is the very language of the abuse of power. We have had a democracy of one kind or another for hundreds of years and this was the first time that a person elected by many could have been removed by one.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have not yet seen off that proposal?
Mr. Bell: We have not, but my goodness, we will. If it comes to the Floor of the House, we shall make a mighty fight of it.
As I have said, one threat to our democracy comes from the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and another comes from a measure that is being railroaded through now—the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—which seems to have come straight out of the rule book of the old Albanian Communist party. In both cases, the interests of parties are being put ahead of the rights of individuals. On all those issues, as on many others, we in this House stand on the ramparts of democracy and we have a duty to defend them.
10.8 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on regional government and regeneration in the north-west of England. I have been keen to do so for some time, but first I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his well-deserved promotion. In the north-west, we have a strong regional identity and we can show that a track record of successful partnership already exists between Members of Parliament and key public and private stakeholders. For example, in 1994 we created the North-West Partnership, which has now smoothly evolved into the North-West regional chamber. We developed a north-west regional economic strategy in 1993 and revised it in 1996, and developed a family of strategies on transport, human resource development, social inclusion and economic development. We have also developed a regional innovation and technology plan, and a regional rail strategy is in preparation.
We have created a unique agency—Sustainability North West—to co-ordinate environment and sustainability initiatives across the region, including innovative work on climate change. We have a long history of working on information society issues. The GEMISIS project, based at Salford university, acts as the host to similar initiatives in the region that aim to improve the capability of small and medium-sized enterprises through the information super-highway. Leading work has also been done on the year 2000 issue.

895
The potential for growth and prosperity in the north-west is undeniable. The region's economy is larger than those of four European Union member states, and it generates a gross domestic product of more than £67 billion, accounting for 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom's manufacturing output. Eight of the Financial Times top 100 companies have a presence in the region.
The region also has pressing needs, however. We are ranked seventh of 11 in regional GDP per head, and the index of local deprivation identifies 15 of the 55 most deprived local authority areas in the country as being in the north-west, including two of the top three.
What are the region's next steps? I have always strongly advocated full regional government, and I see regional development agencies as a first step towards that goal. When guidance was issued recently on the roles and responsibilities of new RDAs, I was disappointed that there was no formal or proposed statutory role for regional chambers. Moreover, the Government's regional economic, social and environmental agenda can be successfully addressed only by a more formal partnership between bodies such as the North-West regional chamber, the RDA and the Government office of the north-west.
If we are to further an integrated approach to many of the region's pressing needs, we need clarity about how both strategic and day-to-day operation functions will be discharged by the RDA, particularly as regards key regional players, such as the regional chamber. I should appreciate clarification from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on whether designated regional partners have the ability to make their own formal agreements to deliver Government targets and objectives.
In response to the covering paper that accompanies the draft guidance, I suggest the following qualitative and quantitative performance indicators for the regional development agencies: job creation targets for long-term and/or permanent-contract jobs; job-related terms and contract conditions targets; and sector and skill-specific job-related targets. In addition to existing measures on competitiveness, regional GDP must also be assessed in terms of north-west business growth sectors and the expansion of inward investment-connected supply chain links. The regional baseline against which such indicators could be assessed is a further issue requiring clarification and agreement. We should be fully involved in determining a baseline position for the north-west region.
I turn now to the regional development agency and the improvement of economic performance. The direction of draft guidance is towards integration and a framework for delivery of Government programmes. Given the absence of executive responsibility for delivery, the institutional map of local economic development will become complicated over such issues as the single regeneration budget, the role of training and enterprise councils and business links. A regional review of who does what should be incorporated in the aforementioned agreement to ensure that there is no danger of overlapping competencies and unprofitable competition for resources. That should be associated with an honest assessment of capability and the championing by the RDA and the regional chamber of centres or providers of excellence.
In the north-west, skills and reskilling needs are being tackled in a strategic human resource development context, and it is very much my view that the guidance
896
should take that approach. Strong links are required with the national action employment plan and with European guidelines under the employment chapter.
The draft guidance emphasises the need for close collaboration between work on the RDAs' strategies and work on the broader based regional planning strategy set out in regional planning guidance. The role of the regional planning body as a key regional player for the RDA is highlighted, and the regional chamber will effectively fulfil that function in the north-west. The timing of work on the two strategies will be significant, and I propose that guidance should acknowledge the status of the chamber's advice on regional planning guidance—as should any final document—given that it will be subject to non-statutory examination.
Let me offer some thoughts on the RDA, regional partnerships, cross-regional working and Europe. I expect published guidance to acknowledge that the overarching partnership for regional development agencies is that with the respective regional chamber or assembly. Experience tells us that the logical conclusions for that area of the guidance should be that closer links should be forged with members of the Committee of the Regions, and that the regional focus of future Members of the European Parliament should be acknowledged and developed.
I seek confirmation from the DETR that our well-developed partnership approach and the route to EU structural funds should be consequent on strategies and bids prepared by the chamber, its stakeholders and its member bodies, following the consultation on the regional economic strategy with the RDA that I mentioned earlier. That said, it should be made clear that while the RDA will have a role in resource allocation, it will also work closely with local authority partners to identify priorities and to implement local strategies. Throughout the guidance, reference to regional partnerships should give more prominence to the building of social partnerships, and that should refer explicitly to relevant economic, social and ethnic groups.
Sustainable development and social inclusion have a lower profile than was anticipated in the White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", which placed both at the heart of Government programmes. Those two initiatives are not optional, but fundamental to the progress of the north-west.
In conclusion, I shall refer briefly to two other important issues—housing and transport. In November, I hosted the launch of the Greater Manchester and Merseyside housing manifesto at the House of Commons. The manifesto rightly acknowledges that the availability of housing of the right quality in a good environment is one factor that inward investors take into account in considering a region as a location for their business. It recognises the need for co-ordination and co-operation between the public and private sectors to develop housing strategies, and to link them to corporate strategies and plans for urban regeneration. I am pleased that the Minister for Local Government and Housing has agreed to meet authorities in the north-west to discuss the manifesto.
On transport, the chairman of the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive, councillor Joe Clarke, has said:
"Public transport is an indispensable element of a vibrant economy."

897
I agree. I praise the Greater Manchester transport integration project, the largest quality partnership in the country, which has brought together the Greater Manchester PTE, 10 local authorities, local transport operators, Manchester airport and the Highways Agency. In my own constituency of Eccles, metrolink is being extended with enormous economic and environmental benefits, and with an anticipated 10,000 jobs when the full network is on stream.
The Government's proposals for an integrated transport system are crucial to regeneration in the north-west. If the region's publicly owned airports are to play their part in the regeneration process, they need to be freed from legal constraints that prevent them from working in full partnership with other transport operators.
I feel sure that the Minister will not mind if, in Salford parlance, I indulge in just a little more mithering. We all want to see the upgrading of the west coast main line, and the upgrading of the gauge between Glasgow and the channel tunnel should be a priority. That would assist the transfer from road to rail, which I fully endorse, and it would ensure the full co-ordination of the upgrade with engineering work needed to allow faster tilting trains to operate on the west coast main line. I know that the north-west regional chamber is anxious to achieve early progress on the issue.
All in all, the future of the north-west can be positive, but we shall need national and European assistance to sustain our progress and to reach our full and exciting potential.
10.20 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: There are four reasons why the House should not adjourn. The first subject that requires debating is the channel tunnel rail link. Railtrack is really British Rail in modern clothes and the truth is that British Rail personnel always wanted Waterloo—their glossy station—to be the terminus of the channel tunnel rail link. To my anxiety, they are close to ensuring that the only part of the channel tunnel rail link that appears likely to be built is the one that will do exactly what they want—finish in Waterloo.
In fact, the line between Waterloo and Fawkham junction cannot be turned into a high-speed line, so we face the glamorous probability that our high-speed rail link will run from Brussels or Paris to Fawkham Junction—a destination whose name has all the resonance of a wet blanket. It is worrying that Railtrack has actually admitted that, under current plans and despite the upgrading of Fawkham Junction, it is highly unlikely that there will be any train paths to enable passengers on the channel tunnel rail link phase 1 to go through Fawkham Junction during commuter periods. The Government say that that is perfectly all right, because phase 2 will undoubtedly be built. However, I very much doubt that: there is no assurance that Railtrack, which has guaranteed to buy phase 1, will ever buy phase 2.
It is worth considering why Railtrack should have bid for phase 1. If no bank in the City would touch it, how was it that, on the day that Railtrack announced that it would buy phase 1 of a clearly unprofitable line, shares in the company rose? The answer is, first, that Railtrack wanted one part of its activities not to be subject to the
898
Rail Regulator, so it bought into the channel tunnel rail link. The company was perfectly open about that; its representatives told a meeting that I chaired that that was the company's principle objective.
Perhaps more revealing is the fact that, on the day that the Secretary of State turned the first sod in the building of the channel tunnel rail link, the chief executive of Railtrack was heard on the "Today" programme to say, "Of course, our bidding for the second part of the channel tunnel rail link will depend on whether the Rail Regulator leaves us with enough profit to be able to buy it." In other words, Railtrack has taken a clear decision to attempt to blackmail the Rail Regulator into allowing the company to levy access charges on the private train operators at a level that will enable it to secure a profitability capable of enabling it to buy phase 2 of the channel tunnel rail link.
That has never been admitted by the Government, but it is clearly Railtrack's strategy and the reason why its shares went up. It is disgraceful, because if, through access charges, Railtrack exerts enough squeeze on the private railway companies to force those companies to cut back services, the Secretary of State will be able to come to the House and say, "There you are—we always told you that private railway lines don't work." In fact, it will have had nothing to do with private railways, and everything to do with Railtrack, in connivance with the Government, having been excused from proper regulation of its charges.
There is a shadow hanging over Railtrack. I understand that the provisional report of the Rail Regulator suggests that Railtrack's profits are too high—the company is said to be overcharging train operators already. If that is so, the Government might decide that that is an improper way in which to deal with Railtrack's charging and start to regulate it. If they do that, Railtrack will turn around and say that it will not bid for phase 2 of the channel tunnel rail link.
If that happens, my county of Kent will have been ploughed up for a line that does Kent no good at all. The development strategy of Kent and the Thames corridor depends on phase 2 going through Ebbsfleet, around to St. Pancras and linking the north-west to the channel tunnel. Without phase 2, the entire expense of phase 1—theoretically £1.7 billion, but I suspect that it will have risen to £2.5 billion by the time that construction is completed—will have been wasted, but the effort will have destroyed my county. I have asked the Public Accounts Committee to look into the case and I am glad to say that it has agreed to do so. The Committee does not often get the chance to investigate the waste of Government money before it happens, but on this occasion it has a chance to intervene.
There is no prospect of the channel tunnel rail link making a profit, even if it were to be completed within the next 10 to 20 years. The annual loss on Eurostar, which is currently the only source of revenue of London and Continental Railways, is £150 million. The company is proud of the fact that it believes that, this year, that loss will be reduced to £90 million. At Railtrack's extraordinary general meeting, it was forced to reveal that it was looking for an even higher rate of return than the 8 per cent. the Government have guaranteed. I believe that a deal has been done—one that our open Government have not put into the public domain—to ensure a considerably higher guaranteed return for Railtrack.

899
As I told the National Audit Office, the best estimate is that phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link will entail a subsidy of £40 per passenger journey; and that, if phase 2 were to be built, that figure would rise to £60 per passenger journey. I did not want the line to use the tracks it is to use, nor to be designed as it has been, but I now want it to be built, because it is our future. However, we are proposing to throw £1.7 billion or £2.5 billion down the drain; think of the number of alternative transport routes and improvements that that money could have bought.
The second reason why the House should not adjourn is that it is time we took a quick look at the fruit industry in Kent. Hon. Members smile, but they should bear in mind that it is a big industry and an import-saving industry at that. It is difficult to make accurate calculations, but we think that as many as 30,000 full-time equivalent jobs are operated by the fruit industry in Kent alone. There are several fruit farmers in Kent whose annual wage bill exceeds £1 million. We are talking about not some tinpot little local industry, but one of Britain's major industries. I might add that it is one part of the agricultural sector that does not receive one penny in subsidy.
The industry is under threat from several sources, but I shall mention only three. The first is supermarket bullying. It is time that the supermarkets of this country were called properly to account. Let me give two examples. The other day, a local fruit farmer who is one of my constituents received a letter from one of the big supermarket chains—
Mr. Alan Clark: Name it.
Mr. Rowe: All right: Marks and Spencer. The letter asked for a donation to charitable funds of £3,000. However, when that donation is made, it goes in not as a contribution from the fruit fanner, but as one from Marks and Spencer. If that is not an abuse of market power, what is?
Another supermarket—I will not name it as I believe that the farmer concerned is taking the wrong approach—told one of my constituents that it had rejected a load of strawberries. The next day, the farmer went to the supermarket and asked to have his strawberries returned. He was told that it was difficult to know exactly what had happened to them. So he walked around the supermarket and found his strawberries upon the shelves.
Mr. Clark: That is criminal.
Mr. Rowe: I think that my constituent should prosecute the supermarket, but he does not want to risk damaging his capacity to supply supermarkets with strawberries in future. If that is not an abuse of market power, what is?
The Government have a direct opportunity to intervene and address another difficulty in this area. A major, although not the biggest, problem facing the fruit industry is that it cannot find pickers. Sadly, the only reliable pickers that may be easily employed are foreign students. They work extremely hard as they want to make money and take it home. However, only a very small quota of such workers is allowed and we would like it to be enlarged. The opposing argument is that those workers are taking jobs away from British pickers. However,
900
we cannot get British pickers, partly because complex and hostile social security arrangements make them difficult to employ.
For example, it takes anything up to six weeks for pickers to re-enter the social security system. If it rains for a fortnight, pickers will have no income. Most of them have no savings, so they will be in serious trouble. When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was Minister for Welfare Reform—before he was sacked—I took him to visit a fruit farm. He understood the difficulties facing workers and the industry, and I hope that current Ministers are examining that serious issue.
There is also a problem with the national minimum wage. Pickers are paid for piecework. If they choose to spend half an hour or an hour chatting to their friends or picnicking on the edge of a field on a lovely hot day, they might not pick enough fruit to ensure that the piecework rate comfortably exceeds the minimum wage. Farmers are worried that they will be compelled to pay the minimum wage to workers who have been in the fields for a number of hours but not yielded any product. I hope that the Government will consider that issue.
The social security arrangements for part-time work are terribly important on a much wider scale. A recent survey showed that 24 per cent. of workers in the Dover area now work part time. I have always argued for a minimum income and, with the introduction of the national minimum wage, that is now a possibility. However, unless we can encourage people to take part-time work, we will never persuade them into a habit of work in this fluid labour market.
The third issue is the price of diesel. That sounds humorous, but it is a serious matter. The price of diesel is so much cheaper in France than in Britain that it pays hauliers from my county to take their lorries across the channel, fill their tanks and run for a week on cheap French diesel. More importantly, with the removal of cabotage, French and Belgian truckers can operate at much cheaper rates and take work from Kentish and other truckers in the south of Britain. They will gradually push the local truckers out of business.
The noble Lord Whiny sent me not one but two absurd replies on that subject. He said that the Government keep increasing diesel charges in Britain because they want to reduce pollution. He has never explained how it helps to reduce pollution by substituting French for British lorries—I would love to know how that works.
My final point concerns the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital. We are still awaiting the Secretary of State's judgment on the matter, and many of us are comforted by the fact that he is taking so long to make up his mind. The hospital's work load has increased since the review reached the Secretary of State. It has been shown to be the third most cost-effective hospital in the United Kingdom and several of its teams have been singled out as excellent. Opinion in my town of Faversham is unanimously against downgrading the hospital, and I hope that the Secretary of State will find in its favour soon.
10.35 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his elevation to the Front Bench. In my brief contribution, I shall concentrate

901
on how English Heritage allocates its conservation area funding. In particular, I shall highlight how Harrow on the Hill—a key historic part of my constituency, with eight conservation areas in a relatively small geographical area—has been unable to access English Heritage funding for environmental improvements and tackling traffic management problems.
In essence, the problem lies in English Heritage's insistence that a large component of its conservation area grants must be directed towards building repair work. I state at the outset that I think English Heritage does an excellent job. Its annual report details 409 properties and sites under its control, which received more than 11.5 million visitors this year. English Heritage membership is at an all-time high of 384,000 and it has managed to achieve a 60 per cent. increase in its non-government income in the past few years. I am pleased that, since the general election, English Heritage has reorganised its service on a regional basis in order to ensure that its work has a much more local public face, which enables it to be a key partner in regeneration activity.
Nevertheless, I think that further changes to at least part of English Heritage's funding streams will be necessary if my constituents are to be truly able to enjoy the beauty and the history of Harrow on the Hill. History there is aplenty. The hill can claim to be the only remaining former pagan site of worship in London. Records dating as far back as the seventh century refer to Harrow on the Hill, and it is featured in the Domesday book. For more than 1,000 years, Harrow on the Hill was the centre of Harrow. Only the onset of the railway precipitated a gradual shift in Harrow's economic life from the hill to its present location in the Harrow-Wealdstone corridor.
The hill retains many of its key historical features. Beautiful St. Mary's church, which was founded in 1078, has key links with the Archbishop of Canterbury and was visited by Thomas a Becket a few days before his murder. Lord Byron is reputed to have composed some of his early poetry while lying on a tomb in St. Mary's churchyard. The Kings Head complex, which is currently in desperate need of restoration to its former incarnation as a hotel, dates back to 1535 and was used as a hunting lodge by Henry VIII. Seven Prime Ministers have attended the famous Harrow school at the top of the hill, as did the great pacifist, G. M. Trevelyan, who became a Labour Member of Parliament and served in the first Labour Cabinet in 1924. Roxeth school, which is now an excellent state first and middle school, was established in 1850 thanks to the generosity of the then Lord Shaftesbury.
In the past 10 years, it has become clear that Harrow on the Hill is experiencing several significant interconnected problems. I shall give two examples. First, changes in shopping patterns, including the development of large supermarkets off the hill, have led to the closure of most local retail outlets at the top of the hill. Secondly, the increasing impact and volume of traffic—particularly the speed of vehicles moving across the top of the hill—have caused significant problems. I hope that the Government office for London will quickly endorse the view of Harrow council, which is now run by an excellent new
902
Labour administration, that the main road over the hill should be downgraded so that traffic management schemes can be implemented.
Those interconnected problems have led to an overall decline in the environmental quality of the hill area. In 1995, in recognition of those problems, the council secured the support of English Heritage to undertake an environmental study of the area to analyse its problems and suggest solutions. Harrow council introduced a series of key policy commitments and initiatives. A key part of that was the establishment of the Harrow on the Hill forum, which is a partnership between the business interests that remain on the hill, the school, Harrow council and local residents' associations, including the excellent Harrow Hill trust.
The forum has drawn up a strategy for the hill's future, a key part of which has been to secure funding for much-needed environmental improvement works appropriate to the area's character. In my previous role—it seems almost like a previous life—as a councillor in Harrow, I served on the Harrow on the Hill forum. The vision that we developed, which still holds, was of a regenerated core area around a refurbished, modern Kings Head hotel, appealing to a niche market of tourist-based businesses such as those dealing in arts, crafts and antiques. That would reflect the businesses left on the hill and be in keeping with areas similar to Harrow on the Hill.
Crucial to the implementation of that vision was funding to improve public access to and enjoyment of the hill area. With that in mind, in 1997 a bid was made to the heritage lottery fund's townscape scheme. Unfortunately, it was rejected due to a lack of focus on building repair schemes. Building repair is not the key issue in Harrow on the Hill, thanks to the high commitment of local residents and owners to the maintenance of their properties.
At the same time, English Heritage had a similar funding scheme—a conservation area partnership scheme—but that, too, required a great deal of building repair to be necessary before funding approval would be considered. The final round of that scheme, in the form of a partnership between English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund, has recently been announced, together with the heritage lottery fund's new townscape heritage initiative. Again, the funding available under those schemes is aimed primarily at building repair, with too little focus on environmental improvement of the public realm and the space around buildings.
Grants for building repair are clearly important, but it is important also for funders to recognise that, in many areas, the key is not building repair but the environment between buildings and the impact of traffic on those areas. The failure to invest in environmental improvements in public areas can have, and indeed has had, a detrimental effect on the perceived commitment to an area. In the case of Harrow on the Hill, that has been demonstrated by a lack of investment by businesses and other bodies and hence a lack of economic viability and vitality. The repair and improvement of the actual street scene is crucial if we are to preserve the area's special character and interest and then build up its economic viability and vitality.
There is strong public support for the environmental works envisaged by the council. We know that from the many responses to the public consultation, which was part of the original English Heritage-funded study, and from

903
the partnership support generated by the Harrow on the Hill forum for the failed heritage lottery fund bid. Those environmental improvements could be achieved for sums that are relatively modest in comparison with those needed for building repair schemes.
I welcome the new initiative to improve green spaces and create sustainable communities outlined in the consultation paper, "New Links for the Lottery", which was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That will be funded through the new opportunities fund, which is a key reform of the lottery that the Government have introduced. That may go some way to fill the gap in non-building repair-based conservation area funding. English Heritage is currently reviewing its role and the way in which it allocates conservation area funding, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that it takes on board the points that I have made so that we can protect and enhance the Harrow on the Hills of our nation.
10.45 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister to his Front-Bench position. In the light of a briefing from, and discussion with, the Disability Benefits Consortium yesterday, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who represents Sherwood, will guide the Government and, like Robin Hood, take from the rich, not the poor. The figures given by the consortium suggested that, although it has been claimed that more and more money is being given to disabled people, much of that money has been taken from them. We should like an assurance that it will be given back in the form of investment in the development of services for those with disabilities.
I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) because he dealt specifically with constituency issues. He presented his case very well. When the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) was speaking about his position on regional government, I smiled wryly because I thought of how the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), chided the previous Government because they were slow to give devolution. He said that we should not be worried about that because we gave Germany devolution. However, we gave Germany not devolution but federalism.
Having propounded federalism 20 years ago, I regret that we are only now beginning to think it through and are engaged in devolution of power without knowing what is our aim. At the time, I suggested that we should not spend so much money on developing new buildings around London because we should be developing regional assemblies and diversifying power to the communities, and should have a central Administration—a federal Government—dealing with the bigger issues.
As we have moved, rightly, towards regional devolution, I want to raise issues, particularly health issues, that affect the emerging Administration in Northern Ireland. In the past 18 months, we have grown used in this place to yah-boo politics, whereby each side blames faults on the other. The new Northern Ireland Administration will not have the luxury of being able to blame any faults on people who have administered Northern Ireland for more than 20 years. They must therefore tackle the issues.
904
About a week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is responsible for health issues, was reported in the media as saying that Northern Ireland had to make progress because its health problems and hospital provision were far worse than any other area in the United Kingdom. I am not sure that he was right, and he has subsequently been praising the health service in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the moves to improve the ambulance service in Northern Ireland, which are long overdue. There is still a long way to go, particularly if we are determined to go ahead with the golden six hospitals, because that means that, in many areas of Northern Ireland, there will be difficulties in transporting patients speedily to hospital. Circumstances are changing and if, as we hope, they become more peaceful, the health service will not have the provision of, for example, the helicopter service of the Army Air Corps. A helicopter ambulance may be required to serve the Province in emergencies to transport people faster to regional provision in Belfast.
At the same time, I hope that those serving in the ambulance service will not repeat some of the follies that were committed in England during modernisation and the introduction of computer technology in an attempt to direct ambulances speedily to where they were to pick up a patient. At first, it was thought that there were spies in the cab when in fact they were meant to be aids. Technology is vital if we are to progress.
I recently read the minutes of the Eastern health and social services board. They were challenging. I know that, since those minutes were taken, more money has been promised to the service, but one of the concerns that they raised, which was revealed again last week in a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, is that some figures show front loading. In other words, there seems to be more money up front for the next two years and then a decline in the third.
It is 50 years since the establishment of the national health service. Although we have a fine health service, we do not seem able to reach the point where all diseases are treated. The harsh reality is that modern developments in the health service mean that we have given longevity to many people, which means an increase in the number to be treated, but, in addition, new strains of viruses are coming into the country.
My plea is that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of the kingdom where, for years, there has been core funding for the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association. The Minister has said that he will examine the matter, but a disease that is having such an impact on our society should at least have some core funding in Northern Ireland as well.
The health board's minutes also show problems with residential provision, especially for people with learning difficulties. Commitments were given to parents and guardians of people at Muckamore Abbey hospital that those people would not be moved without their consent. I understand the need for change. I recommended community care, but I accept that that system needs a great deal of improvement. However, commitments should be honoured if we are not to lose the trust of our people.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned the care of children. As many of the statutory homes have been closed, we no longer have the necessary provision,

905
which means that there is pressure on social services to provide emergency accommodation for young people in urgent need of care and protection. I urge the Department to examine that again.
As for waiting lists, we have been promised the moon time and again. One problem that the House and the Department have not faced up to is that the greater success we have in ministering to people surgically and medically, the more come forward. In times of financial stringency, we have to accept the harsh fact that the first few days after any operation are the most costly, so a greater through-put of patients means greater pressure on the health service. I do not believe that the Department, or the Treasury in particular, has yet recognised that.
Waiting lists continue. According to recent reports, in 1997–98 fewer patients were seen within the accepted time scale. Of course, there seems to be discrepancies between hospitals in the quality of service that they offer. I should like that to be highlighted so that we can solve the difficulties.
One of the difficulties that I have is reading the tables, which do not compare like with like. For example, the recent figures show the breast cancer mortality ratio aggregated over the years 1994 to 1996. The tables also show breast screening figures for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Would it not be possible to compare like with like so that we know what is really happening? I welcome the fact that the Northern health and social services board has the best figures, while the Southern board apparently has the worst. Interestingly, the Eastern board is second in terms of mortality rates, yet, over the previous three years, had the lowest screening rate at 69 per cent. That leads one to ask to what extent screening helps.
Talking about children took me back to the problems of security and its impact on hospital care. That issue was highlighted when Omagh hospital came to prominence as a result of the tragic bombing in that town. People are demanding that that event means that the hospital should stay. Those responsible for the review will have to take into consideration the need for provision, but the people who have supplied the finances in Northern Ireland have not properly understood the impact on ordinary care and elective surgery of the emergencies created by terror.
Vincent McKenna is a constituent of mine. I doubt that he will ever vote for me, as we come from entirely different backgrounds, but he has done meticulous work in highlighting what has been happening even in the past eight months of peace. During that period, some 1,000 children in the Province have been affected by terror. Some have been brutally murdered, some have been traumatised by seeing their families and other relatives shot before their eyes, some have been injured, some have been sexually abused, and many have been expelled from the Province with their parents by terrorist organisations. The authorities—I especially indict the Northern Ireland Office—constantly hide behind the claim that they are acting on the best security advice, but men like McKenna, who was himself brutally beaten by those he knew to be members of the Provisional IRA, are discounted because the mythology is that we are keeping the peace. We have to wise up.
It is interesting that, the last time an attempt was made to change the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a Labour Administration were in power. It is also interesting that,
906
as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) can confirm, one of the folk involved at that time was Sir Arthur Young, who came from the Metropolitan constabulary. If my memory serves me correctly, we now have on the Patten commission a former deputy commissioner of the Met. One can understand a certain cynicism in Northern Ireland about that. There is a serious charge of corruption against the Met, but a former deputy commissioner from the Met is now seeking to reform the RUC. Charity begins at home—
Mr. William Ross: And reform, too.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Indeed; reform begins at home, too.
I have received communications from various people about the provision of sweaters for the Northern Ireland police service. I asked how many were ordered for the RUC, and when, and received a rather interesting reply:
"No sweaters marked NI Police Service have been procured for issue to the Royal Ulster Constabulary."—[Official Report, 19 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 740.]
The reference to the Northern Ireland police service and the RUC in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 seems to concern ancillary bodies, office personnel, and so on. I doubt whether receptionists will be wearing sweaters marked "Northern Ireland Police Service". Have we been spending money wisely, or are we repeating the folly of the past, when we insulted a proud force of men and women who served their country faithfully? Admittedly, there are those who have overstepped the mark due to pressure, but I am not defending them. I am speaking of the force collectively. Are we to insult them as we did with the previous attempted reform, when tailored uniforms were designated for change and second-hand blue uniforms were sent from England? The House should consider more the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and those who serve them—not the terrorists who plague them—before we adjourn for Christmas.
There is a concerted campaign, headed by Sinn Fein, to discredit the RUC. In an attempt to help people in Belfast at this busy time of year, when people are Christmas shopping and there is much ancillary pilfering, the RUC has opened a cop shop in the middle of a shopping area. Did Sinn Fein welcome it? No. That may be due to a guilt complex; we recall that it murdered people in the area when that shopping complex was built. Sinn Fein's protest at the open door through which people can go to meet the police in the service of the community impeded people's shopping.
Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Patten commission has turned into about the most divisive device in the police force and in Northern Ireland politics for a good many months? I would not say for longer, because there are always divisive influences. Is it not evident from remarkably large attendances at meetings in every part of the Province that there is immense resentment among the law-abiding community—the 80 per cent. of those who support the police in Northern Ireland—at any interference with the force's ethos?
Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am aware of the concerted attempts from different

907
angles to discredit the force, although the bulk of people stand by it. One recognises that the vocal minority does not represent the 80 per cent. of people who certainly support the police service.
It is naive to allege, despite the Patten commission's denial, that a document has not already been prepared. Anyone who has been in this place for years knows that people are beavering away writing papers which will ultimately be put before the chairman for his consideration and marks. Vehement protests that such things do not happen devalue the system.
11.4 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his well-deserved appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. It gives hope to us all. I have always considered him an element of the awkward squad—not that his awkwardness is deliberate. He is often diplomatic, and it is good to see that someone does not have to tow the line all the time in order to be promoted under new Labour. In saying that, I hope that I have not damaged his career on the Front Bench.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), as I did in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I would dearly like to pursue many of his points, but I shall content myself with a few short comments because I want to spend time on a constituency matter. I should point out, however, as I did when I followed the hon. Gentleman's previous speech, that a report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Royal Ulster Constabulary certainly does not downgrade the organisation. Such a document should be given serious consideration in the current review.
I was pleased with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on intimidation, terror and exile in Northern Ireland. I have stated that, in association with Families Against Intimidation and Terror, I am willing to table a series of early-day motions on incident after incident, as they have occurred, so that the House is alerted to what is happening in Northern Ireland despite the ceasefire and the pursuance of a peace process. Often, a terrorist organisation seriously attacks its own community to bring it into line.
I wish to raise the matter of Avenue cokeworks in Wingerworth in my constituency. Unfortunately, I have to keep finding opportunities to raise matters of contamination and pollution in north-east Derbyshire. The following issue is another key incident that must be raised before we adjourn for Christmas because developments may occur very early in the new year.
The Avenue cokeworks plant was closed almost six years ago, with the loss of 313 jobs in Coal Products Ltd., save for one or two people who found work elsewhere in the company. The plant stands derelict on highly contaminated land. If one puts a stick in the River Rother, which runs by the plant, tar and oil bubble up. The plant is clearly an eyesore, which must be tackled.
For five years before the plant's closure, when I was a Member of the House, it was a source of serious pollution. Oven doors fitted badly, for instance, and I received numerous complaints about the plant's operation. I pressed a host of authorities for improvement. In fact, I pressed the right hon. Member for Penrith and
908
The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was then the Minister responsible for the environment and the countryside, for assistance in modernisation in an attempt not only to save jobs, but to ensure decent production standards. At that time, the previous Government were getting around to setting up an independent environment agency, and there was hope that it would be strong and provide an opportunity for such a problem to be tackled. Nevertheless, the plant was closed because of low-quality output and a decline in the market for coal products.
A proposal to opencast the site and some of the surrounding area and to move the contaminated land into a waste cell made available by opencasting eventually emerged, and was put to Derbyshire county council for planning permission. There was opposition to the proposal from North East Derbyshire district council, parish councils, residents, environmental groups, which are very strong in the area, and me. I submitted my formal opposition in July 1995, even though the applicant, Fitzwise, is based in my constituency. The firm now operates as Tawnywood Ltd and Tawnywood (Avenue) Ltd in connection with the project.
Unfortunately, Derbyshire county council accepted the application. The issue is probably the biggest dispute that I have had with the council. The matter of Derbyshire county council was raised by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). On the subject of the council's grant and problems of capping, I have always been a solid advocate on the council's behalf, so in the present matter it was not a case of the council scratching my back because I had scratched its back, as it rejected the line that I had taken.
Let us consider the arguments that are still pressed vigorously against the Fitzwise-Tawnywood plan. Opencasting will harm the neighbouring communities of Grassmoor and Wingerworth. Grassmoor directly overlooks the plant and will overlook the opencasting activities. Those communities and surrounding areas will be seriously disrupted as coal is moved by road, although a main railway line runs through the centre of the site. It would be easy to use rail facilities to move the coal, but that is not part of the proposal. Few communal benefits will come from the development, apart from the cleaning up of the site, which needs to be done in any case, and the addition of a road and some trees.
More serious than the problem of opencasting is the problem of contaminated land. There is grave concern that methods employed to move contaminated land to the waste cell will involve considerable health risks for the community. The Avenue site is acknowledged by its current owners, English Partnerships, to be the most contaminated in its portfolio of 50 sites throughout the country, with the exception of the Greenwich millennium site.
There are high levels of benzene at the Avenue site. I shall quote from a report produced by John Gower, whose views I respect greatly, on behalf of Communities Opposed to Environmental Pollution. He states:
"there are a minimum of 23 types of carcinogenic chemicals on this site and their cumulative effect on health pose a major risk both to communities around the site and the work force who are to undertake the reclamation scheme."
He continues:
"The levels of volatile organic compounds…pose a most serious threat to health if disturbed, with levels reaching 41 times the safety thresholds in soil and 51 times in water. At locations on this site,

909
levels of benzene have been found at 240 ppm. Benzene can cause leukaemia and chronic blood disorders, and levels at less than 1 ppm are known to cause serious health effects."
Mr. Gower goes on to outline the problems associated with dioxins and PCBs—polychlorinated biphenyls—and later states:
"Other nasty chemicals including arsenic, cyanide, phenols, cadmium and nickel are known to cause asthma, respiratory illness, cancers and birth abnormalities and levels of very small particulates smaller than PM 2.5 enter the bloodstream through inhalation and cause heart disease and cancers."
Indeed, there is considerable evidence of the existence of a cancer cluster in the Wingerworth area from the time that the plant was in operation. I am dealing with the case of a local worker who died at the age of 37. It is the most serious case among the massive cancer problems that have occurred in the area. His wife believes, and the evidence suggests, that his work at the plant was the source of the cancer. The situation is similar to that reported in 1997 by the director of public health in Wales with reference to a plant in the Cynon valley. That was a valuable report, with implications for the situation in Derbyshire.
Can the Fitzwise-Tawnywood plan still be replaced? Even if the plan was abandoned, English Partnerships, which owns the site, has a statutory responsibility to clean it up, possibly by using bio-remedial techniques rather than opencasting. Even though Fitzwise has planning permission, various conditions must still be fulfilled. Is Fitzwise-Tawnywood financially viable, with safe insurance to cover its operations? Fitzwise was a subsidiary of NSM Mining, which went into liquidation in 1998.
If pumping stops at the former Williamthorpe colliery, that will cause problems in the water table in the area. It is suggested by Tawnywood that an adjustment is required to the planning permission to allow the use of landfill and sub-surface deposits to prevent contamination of the ground water. I am pressing Derbyshire county council to treat this as a new application, so that planning assessments must start from scratch and the situation can be re-examined in the light of new developments. Manpower planning guidance note 3, drafted by the appropriate Ministry, toughens up the conditions for opencasting. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will keep the relevant Minister informed of my views.
A remedial method statement prepared for English Partnerships by Scott Wilson Fitzpatrick in February 1998 has recently been agreed to by the statutory regulators, although many of us are unhappy about elements of it. Likewise, discharge consents for opencast working have been issued by the Environment Agency. Derbyshire county council has accepted a submission from the Environment Agency of intent to issue the waste management licence, so work could begin soon. However, there has not yet been an application for tar treatment on the site, as required.
The Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the health authorities and the planning authorities have agreed to demolish the chimneys by remote detonation. Given the known presence of dioxins in the chimneys, many of us are worried that the work will go ahead quickly, whereas considerable safety action is needed first to protect the community and the work force. There is also great concern about the asbestos remaining in the ovens when that dismantling takes place. Safety plans for the demolition work are vital.
910
Attempts have been made by Tawnywood to bounce the authorities into accepting an early start to work on the site. A great deal of money is involved. A working programme starting on 4 January is being circulated. I am keen to block that, especially as the original planning application states that no soil handling can take place between October and April because of the weather, unless such work is approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. I hope that the authority will not be persuaded that work can begin as early as 4 January.
I have played another card by asking the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to call in the planning agreement and examine it because of the new developments under the draft MPG 3. If that had been in place when Derbyshire county council considered the original application, the council would have been obliged to refuse it. I have used the same card before with the previous Government, but I hope that this time, unlike the previous occasion, I will get a sympathetic response, especially in the light of MPG 3.
Everything has been done that could have been done in an attempt to resolve the situation in respect of the site. I first met English Partnerships on these matters in January 1997, and have since regularly chaired an English Partnerships liaison group concerning Avenue cokeworks, made up of what might be described as the two sides in the argument. On one side are English Partnerships and Scott Wilson Fitzpatrick, which obviously are keen to have things developed and for the work to be done according to the plans that they want. On the other are councillors, environmental groups, myself and other interests, which think that the matter should be dealt with differently.
The secretary of that group is John Gower, whose work on these matters is invaluable. I want the site cleared as quickly as possible, but only by the safest possible method. That would be best resolved through call-in of the planning application by my hon. Friend the Minister. It would be valuable if he agreed to meet a deputation of the people who have these concerns to pursue the matter further—perhaps before he makes a decision that may go against us—so that we can argue as strongly as we can about the seriousness of the situation.
Unfortunately, Avenue cokeworks is not alone in north-east Derbyshire in presenting problems. In a previous debate, I discussed the situation at SARP Killamarsh, which has considerable problems, and we always have to keep a look out for developments at Staveley Chemicals, which has an emergency plan operating in the area. Opencasting is always a tremendous issue in the constituency and in the district.
Hon. Members would not think that an area with so many such problems because of industrial development would be at the bottom end of the Government's standard spending assessments. That needs to be looked at, but I shall venture down that path on some other occasion.
11.22 am
Mr. Alan Clark: In congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, on his elevation, I also commiserate with him on having landed feet first in a pretty tough, broad-spectrum assignment. We have heard a number of extremely interesting contributions, many of which deserve a full, considered response.

911
I intend to draw the attention of the House—it will not be difficult—to another case where the Government have not fulfilled their manifesto commitment. In 1996, the year before the election, a paper entitled "New Labour: New Life for Animals" was published. Animals do not have a vote, but there is a lobby—not the activists, but a general aura of sympathy—that disapproves of abuse and of cruelty. That feeling is widespread in the electorate and, if it had not been, the Labour party would not have bothered to compose and publish a paper.
The essential premise of the paper was the promise of support for a royal commission on the justification and effectiveness of experiments on animals. That promise was repeated in the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected. Others have drawn attention to the failure to fulfil that promise, although it is no part of my intention to advocate the devices in which those hyper-enthusiasts—to give them a polite term—have and are indulging in. As hon. Members know, someone in prison at present has been starving himself for many days. That is evidence of the high degree of commitment—the House must accept this—that pervades certain sections of society on the issue.
I do not know whether other hon. Members saw "Dispatches" on television about 10 days ago. It used its standard technique of infiltration and betrayal of the trust that the infiltrator had acquired. There was selected editing, cutting and presenting, and a totally biased image was produced, focusing on individuals who, admittedly, probably would not shrink from breaking the law. The programme, however, did not bother to say that those people are the very tip of an iceberg of a large number of well-intentioned and genuinely concerned individuals.
We were told that the royal commission would be ineffectual because it would be expensive, cumbersome and time consuming. I detect in that—and so will the Minister quite quickly, if he does not think that impertinent—the language of the civil service. It will have put before him reasons for not doing anything. A royal commission probably would be inconvenient, time consuming and troublesome for the Government, but there is also a risk that, if it discharged its duties properly, it would conclude that a large tranche of animal experiments are repetitious, cruel, unnecessary and indifferently supervised in the various and scattered laboratories where they take place, and that an enormous proportion are still being conducted purely for the commercial gain and profits of a large number of powerful corporations—or even multinational corporations—in the private sector.
I hope that the Government will think again. I recognise that that would be difficult for them in the atmosphere that is being created, where the temperature is being raised in some quarters and they find themselves under the kind of pressure that we—who are democratically legitimate in this place—should never either bow to or endorse. None the less, it would be a fine gesture if they admitted that a royal commission is necessary, that there is substantial public demand for that and that they committed themselves to it in their manifesto.
I shall conclude by quoting one of our leading essayists, who wrote recently:
"Passionate belief in the rights of animals may seem quirky and extreme".
I have had no diffidence about admitting to being an animal freak throughout my political career, and I made my maiden speech many years ago in support of a Bill
912
introduced by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In my brief period away from this place, I was behaving as I could not behave once I was again a Member of Parliament—going to animal rights protesters' funerals, going on picket lines and so on.
The essayist continued:
"passionate belief in our responsibilities to and for them, whether in laboratories, battery sheds, farrowing stalls, milking parlours, in transit by road and sea, in abattoir, Islamic slaughter-house or farmyard should inform the judgment and behaviour of all men and women who lay claim to reason and compassion."
11.29 am
Mr. John McDonnell: I apologise for my delayed entry into the Chamber. There was gridlock in west London this morning and I was on the school run.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), on his appointment. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) caught in him a whiff of the awkward squad. I see less of that and more the sinew of principle. I am sure that he will serve us well in government.
Before we enter the Christmas recess, I want to raise briefly two injustices. First, I draw attention to the plight of my constituents who, for the past three years, have been in dispute with Hillingdon hospital, and who, this year, will be on the picket line for their fourth Christmas. The dispute involves Hillingdon hospital cleaners, which some will recall I raised previously.
More than three years ago, the cleaning service was privatised, and the company that took over the contract was Pall Mall, which immediately introduced a substantial reduction in wages, eradicated certain conditions of service and refused to negotiate. As a result, the cleaners, largely Asian women, were forced to take industrial action. Throughout, Pall Mall refused to negotiate. Now, after three years, the Hillingdon Asian women strikers have won the right to reinstatement and full compensation at an industrial tribunal.
Unfortunately, the new company which took over from Pall Mall, Granada, refused to implement the industrial tribunal's decision. That means, as I have said, that this Christmas the strikers will once again be out in the cold on the picket line. The women have lived off donations, not social security benefits, and limited strike pay for nearly four years.
As a result of that experience, we should consider our industrial relations legislation and the worst offenders. The fairness at work programme that the Government are introducing will overcome many of the problems that we have seen in past industrial disputes—
Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have just finished speaking on a completely different subject. Does he agree that a strange anomaly is present in Granada, which is a great supporter of the Labour party, which he represents, yet displays a particular expertise in ripping off the consumer and abusing its work force whenever it suits it?
Mr. McDonnell: I am surprised at the way in which Granada is treating these women. We hoped that, when Granada took over the contract from Pall Mall, it would

913
see sense, settle the dispute amicably, reinstate the women and provide compensation. A representative from Granada has been appointed to the Government's Low Pay Commission. For that reason, we hoped that the dispute would be resolved amicably, but that has not happened.
It is with extreme disappointment that we now find that Granada is seeking to challenge the industrial tribunal's decision and to overturn, not necessarily the compensation order, but the reinstatement order. It is on the principle of reinstatement that the women have stood for three and a half long years.
As we debate the new legislation, we need to ensure that we design it so that it tackles the worst employers, rather than just ensuring that we have standards for the average employer to abide by. We must consider the hard cases.
The second injustice which I want briefly to mention has already been referred to the House on a number of occasions, most recently by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). It relates again to the Inntrepreneur cases. I have in my constituency a Mr. and Mrs. Luke, the landlord and landlady of the Crown public house in the beautiful village of Harmondsworth, one of the last lovely villages around Heathrow. They took over the pub 11 years ago and have run it successfully ever since. Their original lease was with Courage breweries.
Mr. and Mrs. Luke agreed a business plan for the pub on the basis of a five-year lease, plus a five-year continuing lease, with a contract to sell a certain barrelage. During the past 11 years, Mr. and Mrs. Luke have worked hard. They have invested their own money in the pub. They have an excellent new kitchen, serve food, have increased their clientele and have been in the "Good Beer Guide" for the past 10 years. For Mr. and Mrs. Luke, this was their investment for retirement which they plan in the next five or seven years.
Inntrepreneur took over the contracts and leases from Courage breweries and immediately increased the barrelage and renegotiated the contract on an unrealistic level, a process which has occurred in many constituencies. As a result, an impossible demand has been placed on Mr. and Mrs. Luke. The lease and rent prices have been forced upwards, again to an unrealistic level, and the company's response to an attempt to negotiate a reasonable level which could be expected from the pub is, "If you don't like it, walk away and leave the keys."
Mr. and Mrs. Luke now face the loss of their pub, their investment, their retirement nest egg and their home shortly after Christmas. This is a tragic story. There will be no room at the inn for Mr. and Mrs. Luke after Christmas. They will be evicted.
Inntrepreneur is now part of the Nomura bank, which is going further in ensuring that the barrelage rates for other landlords are forced up even higher and the renegotiated terms inflict more damage on individual pubs. In addition, it refuses to renegotiate sensible rates at a sustainable level.
That action stems from earlier legislation which was an attempt to break down the breweries' monopolies under the previous Government. That was well intended, but it
914
had these unforeseen consequences which have affected many constituencies. Action needs to be taken to review the legislation and to protect constituents such as mine, Mr. and Mrs. Luke, who are about to lose their homes.
11.36 am
Mr. Peter Viggers: I urge that the House should not adjourn until it has had an opportunity to consider the position of the defence medical services, particularly the royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency.
It is common ground that there are shortages in the defence medical services. It is much under strength in terms of doctors, nurses and other staff. I am convinced that the fortunate circumstances of the Falklands war, where there were fewer casualties than was generally expected—some 250 or so—and certainly the Iraq-Kuwait war, where, mercifully, the number of casualties was small, meant that those who urged that defence medical services should be strengthened and maintained at a good level were defeated by those putting forward Treasury-type arguments, who pointed out that the defence forces might not need the strength of medical services that had previously been needed. I am convinced that that is wrong and that medicine is an essential part of our defence forces.
The study under the previous Government's programme, "Front Line First", was carried out under the heading "Defence Costs Study 15"—the study of defence medical services. That concluded that there should be a single tri-service defence hospital at Haslar. That decision was taken in 1994. It was an integral part of that decision that Haslar should be increased in size to 375 beds and that all the other services should be increased commensurately.
As part of that overall programme, some £35 million has been spent over the past 10 years. Haslar has some exemplary facilities. It has an outstandingly well-equipped burns unit which, because the Government have not carried through the programme to expand Haslar as was originally intended, despite its excellent facilities, has not yet been opened. Only now has an arrangement been reached with the burns unit at Odstock hospital near Salisbury. It is hoped that the burns unit at Haslar will soon be opened.
Haslar has the only hyperbaric unit in the area. It has a helicopter landing facility, which is helpful in cases of air-sea rescue and when casualties need to be moved quickly. Haslar deals with about 110,000 patients a year, of whom 80 per cent. are civilians. When I visited Haslar a month ago, instead of the intended 375 beds under "Defence Costs Study 15", I found only 187 beds were manned. There are severe staff shortages.
The Government's publication this week of a document entitled "Defence Medical Services: a strategy for the future" reveals that the armed forces have only 50 per cent. of the doctors that they need for establishment and only 75 per cent. of the nurses. There are similar shortages across the defence medical services.
So serious is the situation that there is a defence requirement that the Regular Army should be able to have four field hospitals, and that the Territorial Army should be able to have 11 field hospitals. However, in the whole of the Army, there are only four orthopaedic surgeons. It would therefore be impossible, because of a shortage of medical staff, for the armed forces to deploy at proper strength. It is a deeply serious problem.

915
Proposals to close Haslar are being made at a time when the medical environment has been changing. Fashions in medicine have changed. Five or so years ago, the view was that a district general hospital could be sustained by a hinterland population of about 250,000 people, whereas the latest thinking is that a district general hospital requires a hinterland population of about 500,000. There has also been increasing sub-specialisation within the royal colleges. Decisions on the future have had to be made within that context.
The Government have considered the shortages within the defence medical services. I ask the House to consider the chain of logic that Ministers have followed in dealing with the shortages. First, they spelled out the degree of the shortages and the size of the problem. Subsequently, they concluded that they should close the only tri-service hospital. Surely it does not take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon—it takes someone with O-level common sense—to realise that, when there are already acknowledged shortages, it cannot make sense to close the only hospital.
The Government's strategy is to open two medical district hospital units—one at Northallerton, to take over from Catterick hospital, and another perhaps at Cosham, in Hampshire, which will provide facilities for military specialists within a civilian hospital. The Government's overall strategy is that there should be one centre of medical excellence—which they have yet to define.
It simply cannot make sense to seek a centre for medical excellence when such a centre was already selected and chosen in 1994. Haslar is that centre of medical excellence. The college of military medicine was moved to Haslar to be adjacent to Haslar hospital. The Institute of Naval Medicine is near to Haslar hospital. There is the centre of medical excellence.
I tell the House—from my absolute conviction and from talking to many nurses, doctors and other medical staff at Haslar—that, if the Government press ahead with the insane scheme to close Haslar and to find another hospital to become the centre of medical excellence and cannot make an absolute, firm and long-term commitment to Haslar, Haslar's staff will leave. Doctors, nurses and other medical staff have very transferable skills. In recent months, many staff—scores of them—at Haslar have told me that they simply are not prepared to stay in an environment unless the future of that environment can be confirmed to them.
I really do believe—although initially I thought that the point, when it was put to me, was extreme and over-excited—that the defence medical services will collapse inwards and implode if the future of Haslar hospital cannot be confirmed. We would find ourselves facing a serious crisis in which our armed forces cannot deploy because there is not the medical staff to back them up.
So far, I have spoken entirely on the basis of the national military medicine crisis. However, Haslar hospital is in my constituency, and there are also some civilian aspects of the problem, about which my constituents feel very strongly.
This week, I was given a categorical assurance by a Minister. He said, "If we do close Haslar, I can give you my absolute assurance that medical facilities on the Gosport peninsula will not be diminished in any way."
916
I shall not name the Minister, because the assurance was such transparent rubbish that it would shame him if I were to name him.
Facilities in the Gosport peninsula will, of course, be closed if Haslar hospital—which is effectively the district general hospital—is closed, and of course medical facilities will be affected. How can anyone expect medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula not to be affected by the closure of a hospital that deals with 110,000 patients a year, 80 per cent. of whom are civilians, and on which doctors in the Gosport area rely greatly? It is absolutely preposterous and total nonsense to suggest that there would not be such an effect.
The immediate leading edge of the damage that would be done to medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula is in accident and emergency cover. Haslar hospital has the only accident and emergency cover in the Gosport peninsula, backed up—as it should be—by intensive care units, anaesthetists and all the other specialists necessary for intensive care.
I should say, to my regret, that particularly the A32 road between Gosport and Fareham, but also the road between Fareham and Cosham, can become blocked, and that traffic on them moves extremely slowly for over two hours every morning and for over two hours every evening. My constituents are deeply concerned that—with a lack of accident and emergency cover in Haslar—they would have to be transported to Cosham hospital, as it would not be possible to create in Gosport a free-standing accident and emergency unit, as such units have to be part of a major hospital. My constituents suffering any accident or emergency would therefore have to sit in heavy traffic. They are deeply concerned that the delay between collection by ambulance and arrival in hospital could have serious consequences, and possibly cause loss of life.
The idea that medical facilities in the Gosport peninsula will not be affected by closure of its major hospital leaves me speechless. I cannot imagine what the Minister had in mind. Was he thinking perhaps of providing a fleet of helicopters?
I believe that Haslar hospital will not close. Many people have asked me what they can do to ensure that it does not close. Certainly, we are doing everything that we can to enable them to demonstrate the strength of their feeling. We are planning a public rally and march on Sunday 24 January, at 12 noon, when I hope that many people will go from Gosport town hall to Haslar hospital to hand in a petition against the closure of Haslar hospital.
I believe that Haslar hospital will stay open, not because of what will undoubtedly be a very widespread demonstration of support for it in the Gosport peninsula, but because the proposed closure will be overtaken by events. Ministers will discover—it will be demonstrated to them—what has been said to me by many constituents and by many doctors and nurses working in Haslar hospital: unless a firm commitment is given on the hospital's future, doctors, nurses and other medical staff will leave. Therefore, within two years Haslar would close and, consequently, the situation within the defence medical services would be catastrophic.
The Government have to do something about the situation. I am convinced that they have to give the assurance that I am demanding—that Haslar be kept open.
11.47 am
Mr. David Amess: Before adjourning for the Christmas recess, there are four points that I wish to raise. However, before doing so I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his appointment. He may recall that when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, he very generously invited me to a pre-Question Time briefing, thereby demonstrating that he is an inclusive politician. I shall watch his future career with great interest.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is in the Chamber. His arguments for independence were totally unconvincing. Independence is a little like running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds. Both nationally and locally, it is a bit of a cop out. There is one well-established party that those who call themselves independent may join—it is called the Liberal Democrat party or the Literal Democrat Party. Nevertheless, I wish him well in his attempt to persuade the House's authorities that his own party should be recognised.
The first point that I should like to deal with is the Palace theatre, in Westcliff.
Mr. Viggers: Again.
Mr. Amess: Yes, again.
As we move towards Christmas, we think of pantomimes and of the Government. The Palace theatre will be inviting people to watch its latest production—a Christmas production of "Peter Pan". However, unless the Government accept responsibility for something, there will not be another Christmas pantomime at the Palace theatre. The trust board has announced that the Palace theatre will be closing in the spring and that its 42 staff will be made redundant because of a lack of funding. I have raised the issue before with Ministers, but they claim that they are not responsible and it is all down to the Eastern arts board.
I am not putting up with this. We need grown-up politics. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has some responsibility. It is not acceptable to say that it is all down to how much the Eastern arts board allocates. I should like the Minister to have a word with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ask for fair treatment. When the Wolsey theatre in Ipswich gets £322,750, the Mercury theatre in Colchester gets £230,000 and the Palace theatre in Watford gets £204,000, it is not fair that we get £45,000. Our magnificent theatre was given to Southend at the start of the century so that children, women and men could enjoy productions there.
We are not being well served by the Government or the Eastern arts board. I support the Southend arts council in its endeavours to ensure fair treatment. I had a meeting with the chief executive of the Eastern arts board and his sidekick about a year ago. There has been some criticism of the management of the theatre for not putting on sufficiently adventurous productions. When the Palace theatre puts on so-called adventurous productions, not enough people turn up. When it puts on perhaps rather more down-market, popular productions, the place is sold out. The theatre seems to be doing the bidding of the Eastern arts board, yet one local production lost £50,000.
918
The Minister may not be able to give an intelligent answer in the time available, but if he is not able to say anything to me this morning, perhaps he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to me. I shall not remain silent on the issue. I do not blame the trust, which was under the superb leadership of Mr. Albert Reddihough, who devoted 12 years to the theatre. I do not blame the council. I am supporting the local community. We all understand that the arts have to be subsidised in some way. Compared with the amount of money being pumped into other theatres, our £45,000 is not fair.
My second point is on exclusion. Someone said to me the other day, "You can love your children, but you do not necessarily have to like them." We all know that children can break our hearts, but I am worried about the growing popularity of excluding children from school—not just secondary schools, but junior and infant schools. I am sure that I am not imagining the trend, given the number of parents making representations to me.
Before Labour Members groan, I should like to point out that I was here when we had a vote on the retention of corporal punishment. That vote was lost by one. I do not intend to rewrite history, but I believe that it was a mistake. It is difficult for teachers today. They can no longer resort to corporal punishment. They try to persuade children. We all know about the assaults that have taken place and the stress that teachers are under, but too many children are being excluded. They are eventually expelled, people are sent in to try to educate them at home, they all gather together and they are condemned to a life of failure. Is it any wonder that the peak age of offending is 15, given how we are treating children?
Under the new Government, we live in a land of milk and honey with apple pie and all of that. What is the Government's answer to exclusion? Many schools are cute, going for a fixed-term exclusion of up to 14 days. Parents may ask for an appeal, but when the governors meet, usually in a panel of three, they inevitably support the head teacher. The increasing popularity of exclusion is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will pass on my remarks to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
My third point is about the millennium dome. It is a disgrace. I could not care less if the Conservative Government thought up the idea. I was never consulted and there was never a vote in the House on it. It is a ridiculous project that the Labour Government have not only continued to support, but enhanced. A few weeks ago I visited the millennium dome. I make no criticism of the people who escorted me round the site. I was treated extremely well. In case there are any hon. Members who have not yet been there, I can tell them that it is a huge circus tent. When Big Ben strikes 12 and the year 2000 arrives, 10,000 invited guests—I realise that I shall not be one of them—will be asked to watch a circus. That is supposed to be how we celebrate the millennium.
All the talk about the project being behind schedule is rubbish. The 14 exhibition areas are all on time. I think that three of them have been handed over. It is no longer a temporary site, but a permanent one. I have no argument with it being at Greenwich because of the meridian, but anyone who knows London as I do realises that people cannot travel easily in Greenwich by car. The millennium dome is built over the Blackwall tunnel. The air vent even comes up in the middle of the dome. I am told that 12 million people will visit in the first year and will get

919
there on the Jubilee line. We all know what happened when a Minister gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee last week. We are told that 35 trains will bring people in to see the millennium dome. That is cloud cuckoo land. Apparently, a few people will travel on water—a new jetty is being built—but the projections are implausible.
Never mind about the Pompidou building, we have the dreadful Lloyds building and other horrendous buildings, yet we have allowed the same architect to indulge himself further with the millennium dome. It is an ugly building. I bitterly resent the idea that future generations will feel that Members of Parliament enthusiastically agreed that it would be a good way to celebrate the year 2000. I think of the beauty of the Palace of Westminster and magnificent buildings such as St. Paul's. If we had to have a building, it certainly should not have been the millennium dome.
While I am on the subject, Southend has not had a penny to celebrate the millennium. With the huge amount of talent that we have, we shall celebrate it in a fitting way, but not with the millennium dome.
My final point is about the increasing Americanisation of this country and the Government. I have always been pro-America and Americans, but I am sick to death of America at the moment. For the President of the United States of America to lie to the grand jury and the American people and then be rewarded with a net gain of five congressional seats says a great deal about contemporary American culture. A British Prime Minister could not get away with such behaviour. I am talking not about sex, but about the suicides over Whitewater and other issues. Yet the leader of the Labour party could not be closer to the President of the United States of America. Consider his agreement with the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan. When Labour Members did not like the sinking of the Belgrano, we heard about it day in, day out, but they have said not a word about Sudan and Afghanistan. We are deeply damaged by the association of the British Prime Minister with the American President.
I am sick to death of the Government's glitz and the rubbish that they talk about the Post Office, pensions and social security. They have no original ideas, only rhetoric and glitz. In joining other hon. Members in wishing the House a very happy Christmas, my hope for the millennium is that the Government are replaced by a decent Conservative Government.
12 noon
Sir Patrick Cormack: None of us would disagree with some of the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Indeed, some of us emphatically agree with him about the replacement of the Government. It is rather good to end the debate with a typical bravura performance from my hon. Friend, who participates in every one of these debates. We have heard about the Palace theatre at Westcliff at least twice. Although I wish him every success in getting money for the theatre—and he makes his cause passionately and eloquently—if by any sad chance the theatre closes and there is no pantomime next year, his constituents have only to come to the Strangers Gallery to be suitably entertained.
I should also stress that my hon. Friend's views on the United States do not represent official Conservative party policy, nor do his views on the millennium dome.
920
Although he made some interesting comments, he slightly over-exaggerated the transport problem. If the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State wish to go to the dome, they have only to walk on the water to get there.
I warmly congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his appointment. When I walked into the Chamber this morning shortly before Prayers, I had no idea that he would be replying to the debate. He has been suitably rewarded with a ministerial post and I wish him long life and happiness in it. This morning he has the opportunity to answer his hon. Friends and Opposition Members with positive assurances in the certain knowledge that he can give a ministerial commitment but cannot be sacked within 24 hours of being appointed. So I look forward to assurances on picket lines, hospitals and everything else that hon. Members have requested.
Today's debate is one of the highlights of the parliamentary calender. It happens three or four times a year and it is an institution that I hope no Modernisation Committee will ever sweep away as it provides an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to raise a range of subjects.
This morning we began with a speech from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is a regular participant in these debates. This time he did not plead for peace in Cyprus, which was the subject of his previous offering, but underlined the acute concern felt by all hon. Members at the deplorable cases of child cruelty that have occupied so much space in the newspapers recently. He pointed to one or two particularly tragic cases and used his experience as a local councillor to underline how critical it is that the services responsible for ministering to those poor unfortunate children get their act together in a more co-ordinated and sensible manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) highlighted a particular case in his constituency involving the difficulties faced by children and their grandparents who have to bring them up because of their mother's drug addiction. Quite rightly, my hon. Friend did not mention the names of the people concerned, but spoke quietly and eloquently about their plight. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the concerns that he raised. My hon. Friend could not resist referring to the Government's capping of Derbyshire county council and made a trenchant point most effectively.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a commendably—and unusually—brief speech. He made only one point: that the Government should honour their commitment on freedom of information and produce a substantive Bill at the earliest possible date. Bearing in mind all the work that was done by the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to do that. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman's plea has been heeded. Of course we should want to examine such a Bill with great care and my commending his speech should not be taken as a blanket assurance that we will agree with every particular in the Bill. Nevertheless, we would like such a Bill. It was promised to us and we wish to debate it thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a commendably brief and most eloquent speech about the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the peculiar

921
anomaly in which he finds himself as a result of that measure. I must say that I do not agree with the uncharacteristically churlish remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West about the hon. Member for Tatton, who in his brief time in the House has already illustrated the real value that an Independent Member can bring to our deliberations. Although I cannot guarantee that I will not campaign against him if he decides to stand in the next election—
Mr. Paul Tyler: It might help.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Indeed it might. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Tatton has enlivened our debates and brings a degree of dispassionate commitment to the subjects that we discuss. This morning he made a valid point that should be taken on board—indeed, it was taken on board by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) spoke about the north-west, emphasising housing and transport needs. I associate myself absolutely with his plea for the west coast main line that goes through my constituency. It is crucial that it is upgraded as soon as possible. Of course I cannot do the same in respect of his plea for regional government. It came a little quaintly from the hon. Gentleman, who always looks so benign. One expects him to be speaking for the north-west of Scotland, but of course he represents the north-west of England and is himself a wonderful example of the value and virtue of the United Kingdom that is so menaced by devolution and would be further threatened by regional government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an omnibus speech in which he raised four topics. He talked about the channel tunnel rail link and seems to suspect a manipulative coalition between the Government and Railtrack. It would be unfair to expect them today from the Minister, but I hope that we shall have some reassurances in a detailed letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, dispelling his conspiracy theory.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the fruit industry and some of the slightly strange practices of supermarkets. I was shocked by what he said about the supermarket trying to get the grower to give money to charity so that the supermarket could bask in reflected glory. I was even more disturbed by what he said about the fruit grower who found his so-called rejected strawberries being sold on the shelves. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) interjected from a sedentary position, "That is criminal". If that is happening it is indeed criminal and I hope that the fruit farmer in question follows the advice of his sage Member of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent also spoke about the problem caused by cheaper diesel fuel being available on the continent, particularly in France and Belgium, and he also made a short but powerful plea on behalf of the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about the fine historic buildings in his constituency. I have a great fellow feeling for him, although he was obviously a little embarrassed that a number of those
922
buildings belonged to Harrow school, which received only a passing mention—one understands the political correctness that probably dictated that omission. As chairman of the all-party arts and heritage group, I entirely endorse his plea and what he said about the excellent work of English Heritage, both under its first chairman, Lord Montagu, and under its current chairman, Sir Jocelyn Stevens. I hope that Sir Jocelyn and Pam Alexander, the chief executive, will read and act on the hon. Gentleman's words.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about the needs of the national health service in Northern Ireland, particularly the need to upgrade the ambulance service if what he called the golden six hospitals were to function effectively. He also spoke about the plight of children and those with learning difficulties. He made a powerful plea for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is right to salute the men and women of the RUC at Christmas, a season when they have had so many difficult tasks to perform—they have served with exemplary courage through some of the most difficult years in our nation's history.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is another regular in these debates and has a commendable track record on Northern Ireland, is also an exemplary constituency Member of Parliament. He legitimately used this debate to make an appeal through the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that his plea for a calling-in of the application that he mentioned will meet with some success.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea is, if one had to categorise him, the most unlikely candidate for any picket line that one could imagine. He nevertheless explained why his quietly passionate concern for animals led him to join a picket line during his temporary sojourn—self-inflicted but soon regretted—from the House of Commons. He made a powerful plea for the Government to honour their manifesto commitment for a royal commission. Although he recognised the delicacy of the situation, he did not, if I may say so, underline the fact that the Government have a real problem with Mr. Horne, who is a criminal guilty of terrorist acts—the Government would have been entirely wrong to give the impression of bowing to demands. We must put on the record our view that those who commit criminal acts in any cause are not to be condoned.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made a plea for the cleaners of Hillingdon. I sincerely hope that Granada will heed what he said. He also talked feelingly about the licensee of a pub in Harmondsworth and his wife, whose life work is threatened by eviction. Let us hope that those responsible for that public house will heed what has been said this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) talked about the parlous state of the Defence Medical Services. He made a plea for Haslar hospital to be saved. The hospital is of supreme importance, not only in the context of the defence medical services, but to his constituency. He, too, has a fine reputation as a constituency Member of Parliament and has great knowledge of defence matters. There can be few hon. Members who realised that there are only four orthopaedic surgeons in the Army or the significance of the hospital in whose defence he spoke so passionately. Although I cannot promise to join him on the march on,

923
I think, 24 January, I hope that many others will and that, even before then, the Government give him the assurances that he so rightly seeks.
I end where I began—with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. He has an inimitable style and is always capable of entertaining the House. Whether he performs on the boards at Westcliff, in the dome or anywhere else, I am sure that he will always be able to raise a hearty laugh among his audience. That laugh will be affectionate, as he is a man without an ounce of malice, who has served the House and his constituents well.
That is a good note on which to end. I conclude by reiterating my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood and by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members present a very happy Christmas.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I apologise for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House cannot be with us today. She is involved in Privy Council business and, to my cost, I am at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to hon. Members for their good wishes. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he was surprised to see me here, but I doubt whether he was half as surprised as I am. I have tried not to become a smooth man, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) would say, and I believe that there is room in the House for a bit of sinew.
This has been an interesting debate on a number of themes. At Christmas, it is important that we talk about children, so it has been fascinating to hear how many times children's issues have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) all mentioned children. I agree that it is important to invest in children and in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) used a word with which I am familiar—mithering. There has rightly been a good deal of mithering for hon. Members' constituents and community interests. The hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) all made effective cases for causes and concerns in their areas.
Thirteen hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak; they have raised a number of important issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting took pole position yet again. I was delighted to hear his comments about the need to listen to children. Children often talk honestly; we should listen closely when they tell us things. The Government have set up a listening service for children and I hope that we will build on that work. I also hope that we will develop the "quality protects" programme announced on 21 September, which is investing an extra £375 million in residential services, so that we can give children in care a better deal. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should investigate any failures in the child care system and try to learn lessons for the future.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire spoke movingly about a case in Derby. He was right to stress the importance, where it is possible, of family care so that children can keep in touch with their family of origin and
924
remain involved in the community. He was sceptical about the attitude of the local social services department; I will ensure that his concerns are passed to the relevant Ministers and that there is some discussion with Derby social services. He mentioned an old favourite of his, Derbyshire county council, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also takes a great interest. He referred to this year's budget, but I know from my own experience how delighted council leaders are with this year's settlement, which far exceeds anything that they received under the previous Government. I hope that that will be a foundation for the council to develop and build services in Derbyshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, in a short but effective speech, asked about the freedom of information Bill. I am delighted to reassure him that a draft Bill will be published early in the new year—towards the end of January, or perhaps into February—and there will be pre-legislative scrutiny. We propose legislation for the whole life of a Parliament, and my hon. Friend will have heeded the commitment of the Prime Minister to ensure that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, we will have a freedom of information Act. My hon. Friend also tried to tempt me into looking at MI6, but I will resist that temptation this morning.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) spoke about the effects of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and their consequences for him. He is right to say that the word "Independent" cannot be registered—for example, "Independent Labour party" or "Independent Ratepayers party". However, it will still be possible for candidates such as the hon. Gentleman to describe themselves as Independent. One of the important parts of the new Act is a Committee of Members of this House, who will advise the registrar for political parties. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will pursue that route.
I have a feeling that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was a "Blue Peter" speech—one that he had prepared earlier. I know that he missed an opportunity to make this speech only a few days ago. People in Eccles are keen to make best use of their endeavours and not throw anything away. My hon. Friend made some important points about the need to set performance targets for regional development agencies and regional chambers. I agree that these are important new bodies which must be accountable and must deliver. I will draw the attention of ministerial colleagues to my hon. Friend's speech.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a number of points—all, save one, with a European theme. European influences have a great effect on his part of the country. I have known for a long time of his concerns about the channel tunnel rail link and the dereliction and blight caused in his area. I support him entirely in his view that we must ensure that both the first and second phases of the link are completed. The two phases are linked, and there will be consequences for Railtrack if they do not go forward.
Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I come from a rural background and I do not underestimate the importance of the fruit industry. It is important that we look at the power of supermarkets, and he may know that the Office of Fair Trading is currently looking at supermarkets. I hope that it looks closely at

925
pricing policies, and that it will come forward with proposals for us to buy British—to buy Kent fruit and British beef and meat.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent was keen to point out the difficulties that haulage operators in his area face in terms of fuel duty. That is a problem, but some of our rates of taxation are lower than those in other parts of the continent. He referred also to Kent and Canterbury hospital, a subject that is before Ministers. I know that his representations will be heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West spoke forcefully about the joys of Harrow. I entirely agree that we should encourage environmental initiatives and open spaces. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Richard Rogers's task force on urban regeneration. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see more greenery and open spaces in our urban areas.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South spoke movingly about the need to get away from "yah-boo politics" and get on with the real issues. He talked about the need to invest in the health service in Northern Ireland, the distances involved and the importance of making sure that services are close to local people.
I was particularly interested in the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is important to put on record our respect for the work of the RUC. We must ensure also that it has the right equipment, and I do not believe that any police force should have second-hand equipment. However, police forces can learn from one another; just as the RUC can learn from the Met, I am sure that there are things that the Met can learn from the RUC.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned the Avenue cokeworks, which I have had the opportunity of visiting. It is a difficult site, with many problems. I know of my hon. Friend's fight against opencasting, and he made a strong point about looking at bio-remediation measures, rather than dump-and-dispose measures, on that site. I know that he has met with Ministers and I will take up the case on his behalf.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) has a long-standing involvement in animal welfare issues, and talked about the Labour document,
926
"New Labour: New Life for Animals". I must say that there was no manifesto commitment to a royal commission, but I am pleased to inform him that the notion of a royal commission has not been ruled out, and progress is being made. More inspectors have been appointed, there has been a ban on cosmetic testing on animals and there is a ban on testing animals in relation to alcohol and tobacco. A great deal needs to be done and we need to build on the work of the Animal Procedures Committee before moving to a final decision on a royal commission.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said about the dispute. I believe that measures such as the minimum wage and the White Paper on fairness at work will provide the right balance.
The hon. Member for Gosport spoke strongly and with authority about the problems at Haslar hospital. I will ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of ministerial colleagues. I know that he gave a trailer for a demonstration on 24 March and I wish him and the demonstration well.
I will not be drawn on to the boards of the Palace theatre by the hon. Member for Southend, West.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): A fine place.
Mr. Tipping: A fine place, indeed.
Nor do I want to say much about the millennium dome, which will be a monument on which people can make a judgment for themselves. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about having a proper share of lottery funding across the country. We have made progress on this, although a lot remains to be done.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of truancy and school exclusion. I do not know whether he has seen the report of the social exclusion unit, which sets out a way forward.
I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as is the tradition, by wishing you, the staff of the House and all my colleagues both a merry Christmas and, let us hope, a prosperous and peaceful new year.

British Science
12.29 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: European directive 90/220 will certainly not set the world alight, nor will it knock Delia Smith off the top of the bestsellers list at Christmas, but I would like to put it in context because it raises some important issues.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said recently:
"Knowledge is the key to competitive advantage in the global economy."
He went on to say that the Government have a vital role in building and maintaining a powerful knowledge base in our universities, which is why we are putting an extra £1.4 billion, with the Wellcome Trust, into upgrading Britain's science, reversing years of neglect—as was admitted recently in an astonishing burst of honesty from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Science Minister.
Other Government initiatives include a £50 million university challenge fund to exploit university research and develop it in industry. The Department of Trade and Industry has emphasised the startling advances in science and technology, and especially in biotechnology. The Science and Technology Select Committee is currently holding an inquiry into the process of innovation—how scientific discoveries are moved into the workplace—here and in the United States of America. It is clear that moving ideas into industry and the marketplace will require a proactive Government and individual creativity.
The European directive fits into that pattern. It governs a new technology, stating that it regulates
"the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms".
These days, that generally means plants. The directive is designed for experimental and marketing purposes. It follows laboratory stages and tests and is used to assess growth, yields and survivability of plants. The tests start in pots and progress to a few square metres, and finally a large number of hectares.
The regulations require applicants to submit detailed information covering all aspects of the proposed release, the genes and organisms and the transformation methods used, as well as a comprehensive risk assessment, evaluating the risks posed to human health and the environment. Applicants must include full details of how the risk will be managed. There is a fast-track procedure to get information in 30 days, but the standard procedure takes 90 days before approval is given. The final stage after that is the commercialisation of the product.
Companies wanting to market seed in Europe must seek clearance under directive 90/220. Seed directives require national testing before any seed can be grown commercially. The next stage involves approval by every EU competent authority in all member states. Anomalies have certainly arisen in the process. The procedure, and especially the approval process, means that member states can object to anything approved in Britain, for example, while anything approved in Europe can be marketed in this country.
The public are disturbed by the use of genetically modified plants as foodstuffs. A debate is going on about the benefits versus the risks of the technology, not only
928
to human health but to biodiversity and the environment. An assessment can be made only by monitoring, experiments and field trials.
I invite the Minister to comment on weekend newspaper reports stating that a key Government report on the effects of growing genetically modified crops has been suppressed because of a controversial warning of serious environmental risks to our hedgerows, birds and indigenous plants posed by growing genetically modified crops on a commercial scale. It is rumoured that the document also reveals a series of gaps in the UK regulatory framework.
In general, procedures for small experimental releases, which include control measures for reducing pollen transfer, for example, work well, because member states have a fair degree of autonomy. The main problems arise when approval is sought for marketing across the European Union. Within the UK, marketing proposals have been dealt with efficiently and within the deadlines agreed in the directive. Decisions at EU level take an excessive and unpredictable time.
Short licence periods—it is now suggested that they be up to seven years—have been proposed, with no further guarantee of renewal. That is extremely frustrating in an area of plant production in which continuous development is needed. The monitoring processes are too detailed, complex and cumbersome.
The directive applies only to the products of genetic modification and ignores similar modifications made by conventional breeding. If, for example, we consider the potential long-term environmental and agricultural impact of genetically modified plants with herbicide tolerance, we should take account of similar varieties produced by conventional breeding. It is illogical for the full weight of regulatory oversight to fall on GM varieties, while the potential input of similar, conventionally bred, varieties is largely ignored.
The risk assessment carried out before releasing a GM organism must be based on a careful scientific analysis. We in the UK have worked hard to maintain a strong scientific base in that process. An important part of the underlying research has been carried out by or in association with people in my constituency, at the John Innes centre in Norwich, but there is strong evidence that political considerations have influenced the decisions in the EU regulatory process. Public concerns must be listened to and taken into account, but in the long term political concerns should not be used to influence scientific assessment in the application of GM organisms. The scientific and political processes should be kept separate.
It is important for decisions made in one EU country to be acceptable in another. We need to continue the hard work to attempt to achieve harmonisation of the regulations in the risk assessment process among member states and between the EU and other continents, especially north America—although I doubt that the Americans will agree at this stage, because their regulations are very much more lax than ours.
Monitoring the impact of GM crops on the environment, and on food and feed, should be an integral part of the commercialisation process. Certain risk assessment issues are scale dependent and can realistically be assessed only as part of the scale-up procedure, with the hectare field trials that I mentioned. Public and scientific confidence will

929
be improved by instigating a careful, scientifically rigorous monitoring programme. Many scientists in this country, including those in Norwich, will play a major part in that monitoring process and in using their scientific expertise to develop it.
The directive has features that could turn scientists and companies away from Europe and towards the United States of America or elsewhere, thus weakening the competitiveness of European agriculture and destroying the scientific base in our biotechnology industry, which is one of the best in the world and one of the great hopes for industry in this country, producing new vaccines, medicines and the plants about which I have spoken.
The directive needs amendment, adaptation and revision, so that permission to release GM organisms is based on sound scientific and objective information. Each release should be approved by a committee that is truly independent and not based on European political in-fighting. I suggest that the European Medical Agency is just such a body, in which scientific differences could be discussed, and indeed reconciled, to prevent such conflicts as have arisen and will arise again in the coming year or even months.
12.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I join my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office in conveying seasonal greetings to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to others in the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has always been deeply concerned with science. He has always been at the forefront in the House in promoting debate on science. I note that he mentioned the John Innes centre, which is famous among the many gardeners who follow developments in fertiliser and was connected with the late Percy Thrower, who did such a marvellous job for horticulture in the United Kingdom.
The principle of sound science is fundamental to the Government's approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms. That is the case at the national, European and wider international levels. The Government recognise that the technology has enormous potential to improve the quality of life and the competitiveness of the economy, and that the regulatory system needs to support technical developments without imposing unjustified burdens on industry. However, the protection of human health is paramount and the impact on the environment and biodiversity, along with ethical issues, must be thoroughly assessed. The Government are determined that the regulatory system will not allow any product to move to commercialisation before practical evidence on safety is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North asked about recent press reports. The draft report in question was written by a senior scientist in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and explores the wider implications for farmland wildlife and the environment of the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. The risks arising from genetic modification itself are fully covered by scientific legislation, and the
930
report addressed other possible indirect effects. We have no evidence of any harmful effects, but the issues must be explored and have been under debate in the Department for some time. I assure my hon. Friend that no report has been suppressed. The risks of the introduction of genetically modified crops into commercial agriculture are being openly discussed and closely regulated.
In order to address concerns about the possible effects on farmland wildlife, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 21 October that ecological studies will be undertaken on farm-scale planting of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant crops, starting in 1999. The Government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—will now take wider biodiversity issues into account when considering proposals to market genetically modified crops. Those issues will be discussed in detail through an ACRE expert working group and the conclusions will be made public and published.
The United Kingdom has an active and successful biotechnology industry. It spans a wide range of sectors including the pharmaceutical, diagnostic and agri-food sectors. There are more than 250 biotechnology small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom, with total biotechology-dependent sales by UK companies reaching £4 billion. That figure is expected to rise to £9 billion by 2000. United Kingdom biotechnology start-up companies alone currently employ more than 11,000 people. If the anticipated growth occurs, that figure will increase substantially. However, the continued success of the industry depends on public confidence in the technology and a strong, transparent regulatory regime is a vital factor.
At the national level, advice on the release of GMOs into the environment is given to the Secretary of State for the Environment frequently by ACRE, which is one of four statutory scientific and technical committees that give advice to the Government on GMOs. Members of ACRE are appointed on the basis of their technical and scientific expertise in subjects necessary for the assessment and understanding of the highly technical information provided in applications to release genetically modified organisms. Currently, they are a mix of specialists in sciences related to biotechnology, entomology and plant ecology, food safety and human health, and environmental affairs. ACRE is increasingly being asked to address wider issues, and my Department proposes to strengthen the committee's expertise in ecology and biodiversity, agronomy and farming practice.
In the European arena, the United Kingdom has welcomed the Commission's proposals to amend directive 90/220. Experience has shown the importance of the existing sound regulatory framework that secures the protection of the environment and human health while at the same time encouraging the development of biotechnology products and providing a route to their marketing in the community. However, the technology is developing quickly and we recognise that the existing directive needs to be updated.
The main problems that have been encountered with the directive have been the bureaucracy entailed in the approvals procedure in the European Commission and the difficulty of resolving differences of opinion between member states about the products. Concern has also been expressed, by ourselves and others, that the directive does not provide the framework necessary to address the

931
increasing concerns of the public and industry. In our view, the Commission's proposal went some way towards dealing with those problems, although it could do more.
The Government's aim in negotiating the amendment with our European partners has been to ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting the environment and human health and at the same time providing enough certainty for business to allow it to have the confidence to develop new products. The Government believe that our approach is right for the environment and right for business. The revised directive will include agreed time scales—which are vital to the industry—for the approvals procedures. Negotiations have centred on the balance between periods for consideration of dossiers by competent authorities and periods for mediation.
It is generally agreed that the existing 30-day period is not long enough for a competent authority fully to consider a new marketing dossier. A longer period of, perhaps, 45 days appears to be preferred, with a similar period for mediation. Fifteen days is also considered by many to be inadequate for assessing whether a notification complies with the criteria for simplified procedures. We are still some distance from reaching agreement on those points and further discussions on the details surrounding time scales and procedures will be necessary.
The Commission has proposed an enabling provision for simplified procedures for marketing notifications of certain GMO products, but did not specify the procedures or the criteria. Considerable misgivings have been expressed about such an open provision and they have led to calls for criteria, or guidelines for criteria, to be developed before the amending directive is adopted.
The United Kingdom has supported the introduction of differentiated procedures for marketing applications in principle, but of course the criteria will be critical. If there is any ambiguity, notifiers applying under the simplified procedure could find that the competent authority does not agree and rejects their notification. Even if the competent authority which receives the notification agrees that it fulfils the simplified procedure criteria, other competent authorities might disagree and object to notification. Should it not prove possible at this stage to develop clear guidelines or criteria, it may be appropriate to abandon the provision.
To ensure full protection for human health and the environment, the Government support the view that thorough risk assessments are essential and should address direct and indirect effects, and immediate and delayed effects. The United Kingdom has long emphasised the need to develop a harmonised approach to risk assessment for the release of GMOs, and that will be helped by the proposed introduction of the principles of risk assessment. That will foster the harmonisation that will improve the approvals procedures.
The Government believe it right to take a cautious approach during the early stages of relatively large-scale use of the technology. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the current directive does not require any monitoring after a marketing consent has been issued, although it would be possible to attach a specific monitoring condition to such a consent. Rigorous post-commercialisation monitoring forms a fundamental part of the revised procedures.
The Commission proposes to require notifiers to supply a detailed monitoring plan. The United Kingdom believes that no matter how detailed the scientific evidence
932
indicating that a product will not have adverse effects, we still require field observations to confirm that. There should be a means by which unexpected adverse effects can be fed back to the consent holder and the competent authority.
Clear and unambiguous labelling of genetically modified products will be vital to ensure consumer acceptance. The Commission proposal requires that products be labelled either "contains GMOs" or "may contain GMOs". Most member states want to remove the latter option as it offers little useful information to the end user. However, requiring that products be labelled positively raises the question of how to deal with cases in which a GMO is present in trace amounts or in which there are impurities in a non-GMO product.
Further difficulties arise where similar GMO and non-GMO products are mixed together, as sometimes occurs with commodities. One possibility is the establishment of a mechanism to determine thresholds for specific classes of GMO products or individual GMOs, rather than fixing a single cut-off point for labelling. That would ensure that information was freely available to the consumer on GMO products, and that is another important step towards securing consumer confidence in the technology.
As far as action by the UK is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently announced that agreement had been reached with the plant breeding industry for a programme of managed development of herbicide-tolerant GM crops under which the first farm-scale plantings of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would be strictly limited and monitored for ecological effects alongside comparable plantings of conventional crops.
That process will be underpinned by the code of practice of the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, a consortium of bodies representing plant breeders, agri-chemical companies and farmers. The code is voluntary for farmers who wish to grow GM crops developed by SCIMAC. Independent scientists would be able to see whether there were any harmful effects by studying crops on the field scale before widespread commercialisation. If ecological monitoring did reveal harm to the environment, the Government would take appropriate action, including a ban if necessary.
There have been a number of reports that we have imposed a three-year moratorium on insect-resistant crops, but that is not true. We have established with industry that no insect-resistant GM crops are in the final stages of development to be suitable for cultivation in the UK. For that reason, we do not expect insect-resistant GM crops to be grown commercially in the UK for at least three years. The concept of managed development provides a precautionary way forward to investigating, in a proper scientific framework, concerns that some GM crops might be harmful to the environment.
The principle of sound science runs through our policies, in domestic measures such as those that I have outlined and in our negotiations in Europe on directive 90/220. That principle also runs through our measures in the wider international field. The UK has supported a twin-track approach to the development of an international framework on biosafety, based on the promotion of the United Nations Environment Programme's comprehensive international technical

933
guidelines on safety in biotechnology and the development of a biosafety protocol on the transboundary movement of living modified organisms under the convention on biological diversity. In current negotiations on the biosafety protocol, the UK is working with European Union colleagues and through other international groupings to produce an effective international instrument that will contribute to the safe use of biotechnology on the basis of scientific risk assessment and the precautionary principle.
That is an outline of the Government's position on these matters, which has been badly misrepresented in the media. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for the magnificent way in which he continues to develop the debate on science and technology. I wish him well in his endeavours.
12.56 pm
Sitting suspended.

Railtrack
1 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to be able to bring to the House's attention the serious question of Railtrack's activities through its attempted use of permitted development rights in Oxford; and the wider questions of whether companies, particularly privatised utilities such as Railtrack should be able to exercise permitted development rights; and, also—if they are allowed to do so—what forms of consultation with local communities they should undertake and what bearing those consultations should have on outcomes. There is the further question of whether it is appropriate, fair and an act of natural justice for compensation to be payable by local authorities to private companies when those local authorities are successful in defending their local environment.
My constituency interest arises from the proposed development of a ballast storage facility, or what Railtrack calls a virtual quarry, at Hinksey sidings, which abuts my constituency, especially the community of South Hinksey. The site itself and another group of residents who are greatly affected by the proposals—those in New Hinksey and South Oxford—are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), whom I see in his place. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a long and careful interest in the matter and has, like me, heard representations from local people for many months. I am sure that he has passed those on to the Government and added his own representations. Railtrack's activities concern many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who intends, after I have concluded my remarks, to raise the question of Railtrack's general attitude to development in his area.
I feel strongly about the subject, because Railtrack's activities in the case I shall describe have been appalling, not only in its proposals—though one might even argue that the company is entitled to make proposals—but in its response to subsequent events. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) who is to wind up the debate, will be aware that Railtrack has an important responsibility to improve the country's rail network—to upgrade existing rail lines to ensure that they can take faster trains, thereby enabling services to be improved, and to build more lines where necessary. I understand that that requires the laying down of large amounts of hard rock; and that to make that an effective method of building railway lines, Railtrack has to create storage facilities for the quarried rock around the country; and that 13 or 14 such sites are required.
The proposal that Railtrack made in respect of Hinksey sidings in Oxfordshire is for the 13th, or almost the last, of those stockpiling facilities. It has met with strong opposition because of the green-belt status of the site on which the company has chosen to build the storage facility. The fact that it would be a large, highly visible pile of rocks and stones, together with the added noise and dust pollution resulting from stones being transported to and from the site, would significantly reduce the amenity of people living in the area. There has been

935
strong local opposition, not only to the concept and the likelihood of pollution, but to the activities of Railtrack subsequent to events and the manner and mode of its consultation.
One would expect Railtrack to have made a thorough environmental impact assessment before the consultation period started. One would expect Railtrack to communicate carefully with local democratically elected representatives, including, but not exclusively, Members of Parliament. One would expect Railtrack to have given adequate consideration to other options before settling on the proposed site. However, Railtrack has been clearly seen by local people and independent observers to have failed in every single one of those duties, even though they are only the minimum that one could expect the company to perform.
Although we understand that Railtrack has to do its job, the company has to understand that it, as custodian to a large extent of the country's environment, has to balance that need to get on with its job with sensitivity to the environment. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that to protect the environment might in the short term cost a little more in purely financial terms, but that it is an investment worth making, not only for the sake of the improved quality of life and benefits that extend from a good environment, but because certain aspects of our environment and landscape are finite resources. Those sentiments have been echoed by Ministers who say they are concerned with the principle of protecting the environment.
It is clear that, by the time Railtrack produced its proposals, it had not considered either the environmental costs of choosing the site, or seriously considered choosing a different site which might have been more expensive, but which would have done the job at a lower environmental cost. One has to ask whether Railtrack failed to do that because it was concerned solely with its profits—profits that the newly appointed independent rail regulator has recently judged to be excessive. The company is now under the microscope as to whether it is concerned solely with potential profits and shareholder dividends, rather than with its wider social responsibilities. It is a monopoly organisation, so it should pay special attention to those wider responsibilities. It has inherited certain rights and responsibilities from a publicly owned corporation, British Rail, which, for all its faults, would not have acted in as shabby and arrogant a manner as Railtrack has exhibited in Oxford.
When the consultation process opened, we were led to believe that it would be a valid process—that whatever the views expressed by local people and their representatives, they would be heeded by Railtrack. To my disappointment, but not to any great surprise, I have recently learnt that a contract covering the site named as Hinksey sidings had already been signed, sealed and delivered to Midland Quarry Products by the time that that company released its prospectus on 1 June; yet the consultation with local people started much later that summer. I have asked the Minister about the need for Railtrack to carry out adequate consultation. His reply stated that guidance on non-statutory consultation makes it clear that
"both local planning authorities and the public should be informed of proposals for permitted development which are likely to affect them significantly, before the proposals are finalised."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 22.]
936
There is no doubt that Railtrack, in its own mind, and in its contract with the sub-contractors, finalised the proposals even before consultation had started.
The specific problems that were drawn to Railtrack's attention during the so-called consultation related to the impact of noise on local people's enjoyment of their homes and gardens and the amenity of local playgroups and doctors' surgeries. All those groups made representations saying that the noise—effectively that of quarrying work—would significantly reduce their quality of life. Another representation was made in respect of health concerns relating to dust pollution. Railtrack sought to give reassurance in respect of both those matters, saying that there would not be significant noise disturbance because of the distances involved and that the stone would be thoroughly washed at source, so there would be little or no dust.
Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unsatisfactory situation to which he rightly draws our attention is a consequence of the curious legal position in which Railtrack finds itself? As a private sector monopolistic company with public sector benefits inherited from British Rail, it should be investing far more in, for example, safety. It is overcharging some of the train operating companies for work done to stations. It is important that, when the strategic rail authority is established, powers should be taken away from Railtrack. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister set out today what powers are to be stripped from Railtrack as part of the Government's review of the rail industry?
Dr. Harris: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I pay tribute to his sterling work in this area. He has been a thorn in the side of those who seek to exploit their monopoly position and pollute the environment. Railtrack's approach in this matter contrasts with its rather grand environmental policy statement produced in the corporate responsibility review 1997–98—I shall allow the word "responsibility" to hang in the air for a few minutes and return later to the question whether Railtrack is acting responsibly. The statement says:
"We will ensure that new projects … are managed professionally in a way which incorporates assessment of environmental impact and takes appropriate action to keep any adverse impacts to a minimum.
We will aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate."
Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I was referring to my constituents' many concerns about the project, including noise and dust pollution. Railtrack has demonstrated breathtaking irresponsibility by proceeding with the development of the ballast stockpiling facility while an article 4 direction is pending—especially in view of its statements that it was prepared to listen and enter into genuine consultation.
Railtrack may find that its actions will count against it. Local residents have now witnessed at first hand the spoiling of the local amenity. They have heard the noise created by that activity and seen—and, I fear, suffered from—the dust pollution. All of the potential fears raised about the project have been realised even before the

937
Secretary of State reaches a decision regarding the article 4 direction. The concerns of my constituents and the constituents of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East have been validated by Railtrack's recent actions in creating a stockpile, de facto.
I think that it is arrogant for Railtrack to proceed while the Secretary of State's decision regarding the article 4 direction is pending. I hope that it will get its come-uppance in the form of representations to the Minister from local people detailing the damage to the environment and to the local amenity as a result of Railtrack's actions.
In view of those local concerns, Oxfordshire county council took the correct—although brave—decision to issue an article 4 direction which, if upheld by the Secretary of State, would force Railtrack to submit to the due planning process. The Minister knows that his Department received that article 4 direction on 2 November, and it informed me on 9 November that a decision would be made as soon as possible. There are clearly broader issues involved and a significant—indeed, a landmark—decision will have to be taken. So I might understand why the Secretary of State has delayed his decision. However, I seek his reassurance that Railtrack's decision to press on with its proposal will not have a bearing on his ultimate ruling, which should be based on the environmental merits of the case and not any situation that Railtrack has manufactured at the time that the decision is taken.
I now come to the question of compensation as it relates to this case. If Oxfordshire county council is successful and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions confirms the article 4 direction, Railtrack will be forced to undertake the normal planning process—which most would expect to be the normal procedure, given that this is a green-belt area. If Railtrack fails to secure planning permission and does not win any appeal, can it be right that Oxfordshire county council—which had succeeded in preventing a development that, in the view of the planning authorities, would damage the environment—should be forced to pay compensation? Moreover, such compensation would be paid out of the limited funds that are needed for the education of children and the provision of social services to the vulnerable, the young, the elderly and the mentally ill in Oxfordshire. Is it appropriate that the council should pay millions of pounds in compensation to a private company which has acted in such a manner, and which, in the view of the independent Rail Regulator, already makes excessive profits?
That cannot be allowed to happen. It is generally believed that the law must protect those who seek to defend our environment from unsuitable development. It is clear that, with a little more investment, Railtrack could use alternative sites in Oxfordshire, which would prevent the despoliation of Oxford's skyline and the loss of amenity to local people. I ask the Minister not only to urge the Secretary of State to uphold the article 4 direction, but to provide some encouragement in his winding-up speech today to my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East in their campaign to prevent the development.
938
I pay tribute to the campaigners from South Hinksey, South Oxford and particularly the New Hinksey area for the strong, fair, factually accurate and articulate way in which they have put their case. Thanks to their efforts, the development has generated a great deal of media attention that has pointed to the significant problems that the development would cause for those in my constituency and the local area and which similar plans would cause for people up and down the country.
1.16 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for allowing me to make a short speech during this Adjournment debate. I apologise to the Minister for my lack of courtesy in failing to let him know the contents of my contribution. I understand that he will respond to me in writing.
There is a saying that the sins of the fathers are often visited upon their sons. That is certainly true when examining the aftermath of the former Government's disastrous policy of selling off landholdings that were the key to improving the nation's transport infrastructure. Towns such as Harrogate are now paying the price: first, for the deregulation of the bus industry, which put valuable town-centre sites on the market for other than transport use; and then for the transfer of British Rail's former landholdings to Railtrack.
In Harrogate, development blight has virtually paralysed a strategic town-centre site for 15 years. The borough council, like the present Government, wants brown-field sites to be used for development. It wants to see retailing development and effective transport interchanges in our town centres. That would be possible without any cost to the Treasury or local taxpayers if Railtrack could be persuaded to use its strategic monopoly for public good as well as private profit.
The former bus station site in Harrogate cannot be developed without using adjacent land that is owned by Railtrack. The borough council rightly insists that any new development should have a transport interchange, including a bus station—a position that was confirmed twice by previous Secretaries of State on appeal. The borough council is willing to negotiate on commuted payment car parking to make the scheme a success, and the site's current owner, Scottish Widows, has agreed to operate on an "open book" basis with Railtrack in order to demonstrate that the development is marginal in profit terms.
Railtrack holds the key to the town's ambitions. It owns significant areas of land that have remained under-utilised for nearly 30 years. Yet every developer who appears—and there have been many—is treated with suspicion and often hostility, and usually gives up and moves away out of sheer frustration. Why? It is because Railtrack will not negotiate—and, frankly, as my hon. Friend said, it does not need to. That cannot be right.
If Railtrack had had to pay market value for its site, its accountants and shareholders would undoubtedly force it to act. As things stand, Railtrack can simply ignore the howls of public concern and sit on land for which it has no strategic use but will not release for the benefit of future investment in rail infrastructure or for the benefit of the people who wish to use the public transport system in Harrogate. Furthermore, the current planning

939
regulations will not allow the use of compulsory purchase powers because, if Railtrack claims operational use for any part of the land, it will become exempt. In short, Railtrack holds all the cards and the pack remains sealed.
It is ironic that, over the past 10 years, the council has secured investment of £750 million in the Harrogate station area. We seek two simple commitments from the Minister. First, when he next meets Railtrack will he please stress that areas like Harrogate—and Harrogate in particular—need Railtrack to co-operate in the planning system in order to provide the transport infrastructure that both the Government and the borough council desire? Furthermore, will he, if necessary, review the compulsory purchase regulations so that local councils can deal with the matter through their local planning process rather than having to wait for the vagaries of Railtrack and the market?
1.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on an issue which I know is of great concern not only to him and his constituents but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his constituents. Both hon. Members have been assiduous in pursuing the matter with me and I have had several representations from them and their constituents.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised matters relating to development which went far wide of the narrow focus of the debate, which is restricted to permitted development rights. As he will know from his contact with my office this morning, I shall write to him and deal with the points that he has made which are not germane to this debate.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made clear, he and his constituents are concerned about Railtrack's exercise of permitted development rights to stockpile ballast on a site to the west of Oxford. Oxfordshire county council has made a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw these rights. If approved, the effect of that would be to require Railtrack to submit a planning application for further development on the site. The direction has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East that the concerns raised by local residents—including those related to the impact on the green belt, noise, dust and visual amenity—are being taken into account alongside the views expressed by Railtrack and Oxfordshire county council. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say more because to do so might prejudice my right hon. Friend's consideration of the issues involved in the case. A decision will be made as soon as possible, as I have already said in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
This is a complex issue and the Government office has today asked for further evidence from both Railtrack and the county council so that a properly informed decision can be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will be made solely on the merits of the case and will not be influenced by the fact that works have already been undertaken.
940
There are, however, a number of general points of principle arising from what the hon. Gentleman has said, to which I shall respond. Permitted development rights have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. They benefit a large number of bodies in the public and private sectors, including householders. It has been the policy of successive Governments that those rights should not be withdrawn locally without very good reason. Local planning authorities have been advised in circular 9/95 that, generally, permitted development rights should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. The Government stand by that principle. It will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged importance.
The hon. Gentleman questioned why permitted development rights originally granted to a public body—British Rail—should continue to apply to private companies such as Railtrack. In general terms, the planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The ownership of the particular body carrying out the development is not relevant.
The statutory obligations of bodies such as Railtrack necessitate essential development from time to time, just as they did when they were vested in its public sector predecessor, British Rail. It would be in nobody's interest to require the submission of a planning application every time development was proposed, no matter how small or insignificant. Local planning authorities would be inundated with planning applications, the efficiency of the statutory undertaker's operations would be needlessly compromised and the resultant costs would fall to the customer.
I doubt that hon. Members would want Railtrack to have to apply for planning permission every time it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement works on the rail network. To do so could at the very least impose serious delays and at worst impose unacceptable risks for rail customers.
That does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory undertaker enjoying permitted development rights can do whatever it likes. For example, in the case of the exercise of development by statutory undertakers under class A of part 17 of the general permitted development order, the development has to be by the railway undertaker on its operational land and required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot, for example, exploit this power to build an office block or a supermarket anywhere it likes alongside the railway.
As the case that the hon. Gentleman has in mind demonstrates, even where permitted development rights exist, the local planning authority can, with certain exceptions, seek to withdraw those rights by means of an article 4 direction.
Where there is a sound case for improvements to be made to the operation of permitted development rights, the Government will of course give serious consideration to any necessary amendments to the regime. An independent study, commissioned by the Department, into the use made by statutory undertakers of their permitted development rights involved consultation with local planning authorities, statutory undertakers and a wide range of other bodies with an interest in the environment

941
and heritage. It concluded that, by and large, the system of permitted development rights operates effectively, but it made recommendations for relatively minor amendments to the system, and those are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked why permitted development rights should be enjoyed in the green belt. As I said in my written answer to him on 9 November, one reason for withdrawing permitted development rights in a particular case might be the impact on the green belt. To remove those rights throughout the green belt for works involving development, however trivial, would be unjustified. Much of the railway network passes through the green belt and I doubt that hon. Members would want essential maintenance, safety and enhancement works to be delayed or prevented on those parts of the network because of a blanket disapplication of those rights and the consequent need to apply for planning permission.
The hon. Gentleman asked also why the local planning authority may be liable for compensation where permitted development rights are withdrawn. I shall elaborate on the reply that I gave him on 9 November. Since permitted development rights should not be withdrawn save in exceptional circumstances it follows that the body deprived of the rights that would normally be enjoyed should be entitled to compensation.
In the specific case of a statutory undertaker, compensation is payable only following the withdrawal of permitted development rights where, under section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the statutory undertaker subsequently applies for planning permission and the Secretary of State refuses permission or imposes conditions. Under section 280 of the Act, the general principle of assessment is that the claimant is entitled to compensation, including for all expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out any acquisition or works made necessary by the proceeding giving rise to compensation and to loss of profits.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for giving us the opportunity to consider those complex issues. I reassure him that they are receiving serious consideration in our Department and a decision will be made as soon as possible, when we have received the additional information that we have requested, and exclusively on the merits of the case.

Brown-field Sites (Teesside)
1.28 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I am grateful for the privilege of having this debate, in which I want to bring to the attention of the House the need to address issues affecting the ability to achieve brown-field land regeneration. Some of the points and suggestions that I shall make were raised recently in an excellent seminar organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology at the Institution of Civil Engineers.
I represent a Teesside constituency in one of the largest industrial areas in the UK. I shall concentrate on issues that are central to the development needs of Teesside, but which are applicable to other industrial areas in the country. I shall begin by making historical remarks, and then consider the current issues on Teesside and suggest practical Government measures that could help our local economy.
The core industries of Teesside are of long standing. Iron making from the 1850s onwards made way for steel making and heavy engineering in the latter part of the 19th century. That industry was complemented by the growth of salt extraction, and heavy organic and non-organic chemicals at the beginning of this century. Those industries were both land hungry and polluting. They were symbols of what the social historian Lord Asa Briggs called the "carboniferous capitalism" of the Victorian age.
Teesside steel was made from iron mined in the nearby Eston hills and was smelted in furnaces fuelled by coal from the nearby Durham coalfields. At that time, pollution was seen as a symbol of prosperity. When Prince Albert came to Middlesbrough, he was told that he would see "many smoking chimneys" and that that was for the general good because smoking chimneys meant business and employment. Indeed, those smoking stacks dominated Teesside's industrial heartland until comparatively recently.
Technological and locational changes in industry, combined with the rising costs of energy and the decrease in customer demand as the recession of the 1980s bit, meant that many sites were abandoned by industry. The retreat of industry left a great legacy of polluted land, dereliction and visual decay.
Making full use of Government funding, the councils of the day and other regional bodies began the slow and complex job of making good the polluted land and bringing it back into productive use. This work was complemented by the creation of the Teesside development corporation in the late 1980s.
As the Minister knows only too well, I have often criticised the TDC and the autocratic and secretive way in which it conducted its affairs. However, its record in derelict land clearance and remediation has been good. At a cost of some £400 million, it cleared up to 500 hectares of derelict land in its lifetime and brought them back into productive use. Today, the visual outlook of much of Teesside has been changed for the better, as new leisure developments, new offices, new extensions for higher education and new houses have been built on former brown-field land.
The River Tees, once a waterway that ran between the high walls of factories and warehouses, has in many places once again come into the public domain.

943
Teesside is a greener, cleaner place, but there is still a lot to do. There are still more than 800 hectares of derelict land fronting the River Tees, and there are still vast areas of land that have been levelled by their industrial owners, but no beneficial after-use has been properly considered.
There are still large riverside areas which could again become valuable industrial assets for Teesside, but which are effectively left sterile by the seeming disinterest of the landowners. Such land is an underused asset in an area which, as well as being an ideal location for new capital-intensive industry, is a hub in bulk logistics.
The port of Teesside and Hartlepool is one of the top three ports in the United Kingdom in terms of tonnage handled, and is probably the nation's number one export-import facility for chemicals and bulk steel. There is a regional need to build on these strengths. I have an ambition to see the development of what could be a UK Euro-port.
I have been impressed by what I have seen and heard of port-related intermodal development centres. These are developed by port authorities on mainland Europe in, for example, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Wilhelmshaven. I would argue strongly for such a centre in Teesside—a centre where all forms of surface distribution and the infrastructure to service it, as well as safe storage, warehousing and Customs and Excise facilities, could be housed on a single secure large site. It would be a great project, and there is more than enough derelict land near the existing port terminals to allow it to go ahead.
Despite the contractions in and shocks to the industrial heart of Teesside in the 1980s, the area is still one of the heartlands of heavy manufacturing industry. The development agencies on Teesside, especially the highly successful Tees Valley development company, tell me that there is still a steady stream of inquiries from potential investors. These potential investors are anxious to build on the skills, talents and abilities of the people of Teesside. That is our strength.
An area once associated indelibly with one companyICI—now has manufacturing plants owned and operated by some of the world's largest corporations, such as Du Pont, BASF, Union Carbide, Phillips Petroleum, Amoco and Enron. For many of them, their Teesside operations represent their largest stake in UK manufacturing. They are companies with international reach and vision. They are powered by global concerns and strategies, and they are shaping our modern world. There is, I would argue, a UK imperative to ensure that their presence in this country is cemented, and that they become key players in the building of the UK's national capability in chemicals. To underpin that, we need a huge portfolio of available sites on Teesside. The essential problem is that in order to do that quickly and effectively, we need more powers and more resources.
I greatly welcome the setting up of the new regional development agency for the north-east. This will go a long way to meeting the development needs of the northern region and Teesside, but the RDA is only part of the answer. It is not the complete solution to bringing vacant sites back to life. More powers need to be devolved from central Government in order to assemble land and to encourage—if necessary, to push—landowners into the development process.
We must look afresh at and review the practice of compulsory purchase arrangements and at possible fiscal measures. The compulsory purchase order process is long
944
winded. A recent research paper by Drivers Jonas showed that a CPO can often take up to two years to implement, with another two years to settle compensation. A development agency or local authority with a good inward investment prospect anxious to move on to a site cannot afford to wait that long.
I have heard that inflated values are often agreed for land to ensure speedy possession, which involves buyers paying through the nose for land that is often contaminated and which requires new accesses and services. If that does not happen, a job-creating project could go elsewhere.
The CPO process is also complicated. Again, Drivers Jonas tells us that there are no fewer than seven principal Acts, as well as a host of circulars and reams of case law, which have a bearing on the CPO process. There is a cast-iron case for some form of consolidation so that people know where they stand.
I referred to the work of the Teesside development corporation. One of the powers of that body, as of all the other urban development corporations, was the power of acquisition for
"the overall regeneration of the area".
That phrase was enshrined in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which gave special consideration and powers to the UDCs. They did not have to demonstrate any specific use for the land, and did not have to jump through all the hoops that local authorities and existing development agencies now have to negotiate. Why not reinstate that power for these bodies? I am sure that it could be done simply, either through a circular from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or by adding a single clause in any general local government or planning Bill.
The other thing that the Government can do is to state forcefully that the scales are to be tilted in favour of active vacant brown-field land development. They should stress through a new planning policy guidance circular that there will be an active presumption in favour of the compulsory purchase of land that is substantially vacant or derelict. That needs to be backed by strong Government encouragement to large institutional landowners on Teesside, such as British Steel, the port authority and Railtrack, actively to review their land portfolio and market it actively.
I should like to make one final suggestion, which could be considered controversial, but which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will study seriously. There has been much talk of a green-field levy to encourage developers to make greater use of brown-field land. That is one side of the coin, but we must look at the other side too. I would argue that there should be some fiscal stick to partner the carrot of a green-field levy. Why not consider a brown-field levy—say a percentage of the capital value of any site that has remained unused for a fixed time, and where there is no indication of any material progress towards a defined end use? I do not mind what time is fixed; that could be decided later.
Proceeds from such a levy could be ring-fenced, just as the landfill tax is used to fund environmental improvements. The levy could help towards remediation work on brown-field sites where active disposal and marketing are under way. It would be a spur to owners and provide financial assistance to central—and local—Government, who must fund the process. My suggestions could, of course, be applied nationally.

945
Teesside's derelict land problem must be addressed. The suggestions would, if examined, refined and adopted, have a great impact on its ability to enter the new millennium as a strong, confident manufacturing and trading region. I look forward to an encouraging response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
1.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on his helpful and perceptive contribution to this very important and continuing debate on brown-field land regeneration. He spoke not only in general, but in particular, and concentrated most of his arguments on Teesside, which he represents.
I am aware that English Partnerships, in consultation with local authorities and major landowners on Teesside, has decided that a strategic view of regeneration needs to be taken towards the under-used and derelict land along the Tees. That has resulted in several comprehensive studies in order to provide a programme of action to achieve regeneration, ranging from environmental improvements to providing employment opportunities for the region. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, despite the progress in the past decade in derelict land clearance and the return of sites to productive use, there is still much to do.
When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched our policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future", he made it clear that one of our most testing challenges as we approach the millennium is how to create a more sustainable environment and more sustainable communities. In so doing, we must ensure that the best use is made of the many thousands of previously developed—brown-field—sites.
An urban task force was established in April, under the chairmanship of Lord Rogers of Riverside, to identify strategies that will encourage the regeneration of our towns and cities through the redevelopment of previously used land. One of its responsibilities is to look at practical means of ensuring the delivery of development on brown-field sites. It will consider, for example, whether any improvements should be made to the system of public land acquisition. It will examine whether there is a strong enough presumption in favour of acquisition, and whether the process could be simplified. It will address other mechanisms for achieving the goal of assembled land, including lessons from abroad.
The urban task force will also be looking at the possibility of speeding up site preparation by, for example, improved measures for the remediation of contaminated land, and the potential use of fiscal measures and the removal of financial disincentives. Lord Rogers's urban task force will produce its report in the spring.
We are also assembling data for the first stage of the national land-use database, which will provide crucial data on the amount of previously developed land in England. That is a vital step in the process of maximizing
946
the redevelopment of sites. We are, of course, actively working on the new planning policy guidance notePPG3—on housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East discussed the mechanism of compulsory purchase and, like many others who wish to encourage urban regeneration and the provision of better housing, highlighted perceived deficiencies in the system. It is often said that the way in which the compulsory system operates is not the equal of 21st century conditions. Indeed, last year the interdepartmental working group on blight concluded, among other things, that compulsory purchase and blight are inseparable bedfellows.
I am told that local authorities that wish to clear life-expired housing stock are frustrated that their powers seem insufficient to the task; or that the compensation code seems to reward delinquent landlords; or that people in negative equity are put in an impossible position if their properties are compulsorily acquired. In other circumstances, such as those described by my hon. Friend, authorities report that they have inadequate powers to acquire sites for regeneration. Several authoritative reports have demonstrated that the system can be very slow.
In the face of such overwhelming evidence of a reported mismatch between the tasks that we expect local authorities to perform and the tools given to them to enable them so to do, it was plainly essential that we should take the system to pieces—so to speak—and subject it to detailed scrutiny. Therefore, in June my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced the institution of a fundamental review of compulsory purchase and compensation. The review—the interim report of which we are considering—is indisputably the most thorough examination of this complex law for a generation.
The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear his determination that policy making should be a far more inclusive process. For that reason, and in recognition of the magnitude of the task, we have secured an eminent advisory group to assist us in the review. With top lawyers, planners, surveyors, academics, representatives of local authorities, the farming community and other property interests represented on the group, we can be confident that no stone will be left unturned and no argument left unvoiced. If there is an answer to the problems with which we are apparently faced, I have no doubt that the group will find it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not divert into a paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the interim report. It is detailed and exhaustive, and warrants close consideration before publication. However, I am equally sure that he will be interested—I hope encouraged—by some of the group's earliest findings. They were sufficiently important, and advocated by the group with sufficient confidence, for us to take its advice and act without waiting for it to submit its interim report.
Probably the most interesting of the early conclusions was that the lack of local authorities' use of compulsory purchase powers, or their lack of success in deploying them, was less a question of sufficiency of powers and more one of authorities' lack of expertise in and understanding of such powers. That is hardly surprising because if one does not use a skill, one loses it.

947
As the group rightly says, it would be nonsense if we were to allow so basic an impediment to efficiency, effectiveness and fairness as a lack of expertise in operating the system to persist. It has therefore recommended that a comprehensive CPO manual, combining procedural guidance and best-practice advice, should be drafted, to which we have already committed substantial funds. In case anyone should dismiss the idea of a guidance manual as trivial, I should say that initial responses from authorities and professionals have been uniformly enthusiastic. "We could have done with this years ago" was the opinion of one local authority planning officer—from a highly CPO-proficient authority.
Despite the group's conclusion that the erosion of the skills base was a significant factor in the low use made by authorities of their CPO powers, it nevertheless considered very carefully the issues that my hon. Friend has set out so succinctly. In particular, the group examined the proposition that local authorities could not achieve their regeneration objectives because they did not have the powers to do so.
It is true that urban development corporation powers are different from local authority powers, just as it is true that UDCs and local authorities are distinct creatures in statute. However, different powers do not mean less effective or less appropriate powers. As constitutional lawyers will remind us, powers are closely related to statutory functions: UDCs had very precise statutory functions, and powers were given to each UDC only after Parliament had been assured that a specific, geographically circumscribed need had been demonstrated.
As regards local authorities, Parliament does not, cannot and should not interest itself in the detail of individual schemes: those are matters for discussion, resolution and accountability at local level. Given that the nature of the two types of body is different, their powers are different, too, although equally appropriate and equally adequate.
I shall give two examples. In Leicester, the successful delivery of its city challenge regeneration strategy necessitated the acquisition of several acres of land which was under-utilised or, in the context of the overall scheme of regeneration, inappropriately utilised. The city council deployed the powers available to it under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and acquired the land. With good title to the land and vacant possession, the council attracted sufficient interest from developers to undertake a remarkable transformation of the area, in terms of both economics and aesthetics. More recently, a compulsory purchase order, using the same power, was successfully used by the then Rochester city council for the regeneration of part of its riverside area.
I urge my hon. Friend and his colleagues on Teesside metropolitan borough council to examine, with their professional advisers, those cases of the successful use
948
of existing compulsory purchase powers for regeneration-linked purposes, to see whether the perceived impediments to their use are, in fact, real. If my hon. Friend and his colleagues remain convinced of the mismatch between task and tool, I will ask the working group to visit Teesside to explore with him and his colleagues why that may be so and what may need to be done to rectify matters.
I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in the role of ports in local economic regeneration. That is a key theme of our integrated transport strategy, and will be developed in a ports policy paper on which we hope to consult shortly.
I applaud the expansion that has taken place at the port of Tees and Hartlepool, which was undertaken by the port authority and involved studying market potential, making commercial judgments and backing those judgments with development plans. I would expect any further expansion at the port to follow the same process.
It is for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to consider what future direction it wishes to take. Some ports might expand by offering added-value facilities, potentially improving logistical efficiency. In other cases or trades, ports may do better to focus on providing a seamless link between supplier and customer. Those are matters for commercial decision by the port authority.
Finally, my hon. Friend came up with what he called a controversial—I prefer to call it interesting—suggestion of a brown-field levy, as an incentive for people holding previously developed sites to develop them. That would encourage people who are just sitting on land to develop it or release it for others to develop. He will, of course, understand that tax issues are a matter for our right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
We are currently considering some of the options for taxes that would give the right signals to developers. If my hon Friend has any further details of his proposal for a brown-field tax, I would be happy to look at it.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ireland) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Departmental Annual Report
    Mr. Michael Jack: In what ways she proposes to change the format of her Department's annual report to reflect the effect of conflict on the problems of less-developed countries; and when she plans to publish it. [62742]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Preventing and reducing conflict, and responding to emergency and humanitarian needs, are important aspects of our Department's work. There will be a substantial section dealing with those issues in this year's departmental report, which will be published in the spring.
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that he will do rather better than this year's report, where only five out of 201 paragraphs deal with the subject of conflict. The Secretary of State, in the House and outside, has rightly drawn the public's attention to the damage that conflict can do to the effectiveness of our overseas aid programme. Will the Minister consider heading up the title "An Audit of Conflict" and use it effectively as an audit to deal with the victims—who are in many cases the subject of human rights difficulties—so that we may learn more about those problems, within nations and outside?
    Mr. Foulkes: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman was not fully satisfied with the format of the first report, because we followed the pattern used by the previous Government. We are able to improve and develop on that and, in doing so, we will certainly take account of his helpful suggestion.

    Nepal
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What plans she has to offer assistance to Nepal. [62743]
    Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on her recent visit to Nepal. [62747]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have recently published a new country strategy paper and I also visited Nepal in November. Our conclusion is that development efforts in Nepal over the past 30 years have largely failed the people of Nepal. There has been some progress, but poverty is still deep and widespread, and social indicators are some of the worst in the world. We can and must do better.
    We believe that donors must co-ordinate their efforts around Government-led strategies to reduce poverty. The Government need to tackle deep-rooted problems of corruption and patronage, increase the efficiency of Government systems and improve the quality of basic
    950
    services, particularly for poor people. We are prepared to increase our efforts and spending in Nepal, but only if there is stronger commitment to poverty reduction in Nepal.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which showed that there is still widespread poverty and deprivation in Nepal. As a result of her visit, can she say by how much she plans to increase resources and by what means she hopes to change the attitude of the authorities?
    Clare Short: Nepal is an incredibly beautiful but desperately poor country, and its people deserve better. For many years, and in very high proportions, it has been a major recipient of overseas development aid from across the world, and the impact should have been greater in reducing poverty and improving the conditions of the people.
    We have analysed the failures of the past and set down a strategy for doing better. We will put a dedicated office into Nepal, but we will not increase the spend unless we can spend more effectively. We have said to the Government that we will increase our spend if we can work more effectively together, but we must reform the system, deal with corruption and get more effective government, otherwise there is no point in big flows of aid.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has said so far, but what steps is her Department taking to promote better governance in Nepal, and to help bring about the fundamental changes that are necessary if poverty is to be eradicated in that country?
    Clare Short: There was a great struggle in Nepal to obtain democracy, and the people united proudly and won it. There is a widespread sense of disappointment there that democracy has not lead to better governance, and there is rising anger about corruption. For example, there is great interference in the civil service and in political appointments, and therefore not the efficiency in Government systems that is required. I have had frank discussions with the Government of Nepal, all the parties and some of the leading organisations in civil society. There is a lot of disgruntlement and we need to put that into a positive agenda for change. There is also a Maoist insurgency because of the anger of the people, and clearly that will not lead Nepal anywhere. We alone cannot deliver improvements, but we will work hard if there is any will in Nepal to do so.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about Nepal, but now that she has had a few days for thoughtful reflection after her visit to the far east, does she accept that it was an error of judgment on her part to refuse to promote the interests of British companies on that visit?
    Clare Short: No, I absolutely do not accept that. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, having had some time for reflection on the Conservative party's record of having misused aid to promote and assist British exports, of having been taken to the courts and found to have behaved illegally, should be standing there, in the job that he has, suggesting that aid should be linked to the promotion of individual contracts. That is always wrong. What we do

    951
    do all over the world is help to promote the conditions that will generate the economic growth that will reduce poverty. We are working increasingly strongly with major British businesses who want us to do that job and consider that the selling of individual contracts is a job for them or those Departments that exist to do that job.
    Mr. Streeter: No one is talking about aid for trade. Everyone accepts that the Secretary of State's primary role on her visits abroad is to promote development and human rights. Does she not realise that all of us, whether Ministers, shadow Ministers or Back Benchers, all of whose salaries are paid for by the British taxpayer, have an intrinsic obligation, when we travel abroad to Nepal, China or anywhere else, to do our best to promote British interests? Will she give the House an assurance that, on her next visit abroad, she will bother to promote the interests of British companies and British jobs?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has an old-fashioned attitude to what Ministers should do to assist British business. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to consult British business—major parts of British business are, in increasing numbers, making contact with my Department—he would know that it explicitly asks us—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would stop heckling, I could answer his question. British business explicitly asks us to promote more stability, development, the enforcement of contracts and proper regulation so that business can trade and thrive. That is what they want of us. To go to a poor country and say, "Here we are assisting with improvements in education for the poorest children", or, in the case of China, "Here we are assisting with state-owned enterprises beginning to market, so you need skills in accountancy, modern banking, or whatever, and by the way, would you have X contract rather than Y", is a disreputable linkage. It does not promote Britain's interests for Ministers with responsibility for international development who are promoting development world wide to promote individual contracts. That is wrong.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I understand that my right hon. Friend was able to raise repeatedly the issue of good governance during the course of her successful visit, which was well reported in the local press in Nepal, as my right hon. Friend knows. Has my right hon. Friend anything to report on the request by the Speaker of the Nepalese Parliament for help through not only the British agencies, but the international agency network for a research facility to be set up to aid Nepalese Members of Parliament? That would be a major contribution to good governance, certainly in the Nepalese Parliament.
    Clare Short: I am aware of my hon. Friend's visit to Nepal and of his enthusiasm for the proposal, about which he has written to me. I also met in Nepal people who had met him and who remember very well his visit there. The Government are extremely keen to support developments that improve governance and the Parliament's effectiveness. However, throwing money at things is not always the right way of achieving change. There has to be a real, committed will to make change. I had meetings with the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and other big donors, and we shall get behind such proposals if they are realistic. We shall not just throw money around.

    Street Children Projects
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What assistance her Department has been able to give to street children projects affected by Hurricane Mitch. [62744]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The hon. Gentleman's concern for the problem of street children is well known, as is his support for Casa Alianza, to which he referred during the Government's statement on the effects of Hurricane Mitch. Last month, a team of our experts visited Honduras and Nicaragua to assess the need for further relief. Our experts met representatives of Casa Alianza and discussed proposals for targeting street children as part of the relief effort. The next phase of our emergency assistance will, on our team's recommendation, focus on reconstructing basic infrastructure in transport, health and sanitation. I should be glad to discuss further with the hon. Gentleman proposals for work with street children.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for their personal concern about the issue. However, I am sad to report that Casa Alianza was not very happy about its meeting with the team of experts, as it felt that the team had pre-decided the amounts to be spent. I should very much welcome a meeting with the Minister to consider specific projects that the Government could fund.
    Mr. Foulkes: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the meeting lasted 45 minutes. However, the team had also to consider other representations—from Governments, from non-governmental organisations and from the other international organisations working there. As 60 per cent. of roads and bridges, 70 per cent. of hospitals and 80 per cent. of water distribution networks in the area have been destroyed, I am sure that he will understand why the team thought that, currently, reconstructing that infrastructure should be the top priority.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the British public have been responding generously to the disasters emergency appeal. Is he able to estimate, either today or at an early date, how much our own Government have contributed to overcome the disaster, and how much has come from the British public in answer to the appeals?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am not able to say how much has been given by the British public. However, the Government have given £4 million for emergency relief and reconstruction, and have pledged £10 million for the debt relief trust fund that we have proposed establishing. We have also suggested improvements in the debt relief timetable for highly indebted poor countries. When I met the five central American ambassadors to discuss those matters, they were very satisfied with the speed and generosity of the British Government's response.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: If she will make a statement on UK bilateral and multilateral aid to Zimbabwe. [62745]
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If she will make a statement on the levels of European Union aid to Zimbabwe. [62748]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on the British aid programme in Zimbabwe. [627501]
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about aid to Zimbabwe. [62752]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In November 1996, the European Community made £54 million available to the Government of Zimbabwe for poverty alleviation. No further commitments have been made by the European Commission since that date. Britain has a range of small programmes focused on benefits for the poor, costing about £10 million, which were almost all established under the previous Administration, and a £12 million aid and trade provision project with Land Rover, the commitment to which also was made by the previous Administration. Since our Government were formed, we have made it clear that land reform is desirable and justified in Zimbabwe, but that we shall support only land reform that is designed to help poor farmers, that is transparent and that complies with Zimbabwean law. Unfortunately, none of the proposals meets those requirements.
    Mr. Hunter: I welcome that answer. However, will the right hon. Lady consider that we now know that President Mugabe presided over genocide in Matabeleland; over torture of political prisoners, some of whom were British; and over other civil rights abuses? Would it not be consistent with the Government's handling of the Pinochet affair and with their ethical foreign policy to halt all aid to Zimbabwe and to arrest Mugabe when he next visits the United Kingdom?
    Clare Short: The temptation always—it happened after the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan—to make a country's poor pay the price of their Government's misbehaviour is understandable but wrong. If aid projects are benefiting poor people who are often also the victims of bad governance, it would be wrong that they should have to pay a double price by our cutting help because we are displeased with their Government. We should always review when we have problems with a Government.
    We are all worried about the situation in Zimbabwe, but President Mugabe is the elected head of state, not a military dictator. If he or any other leader is in breach of the law and there is a legal process and an application to the British courts, it will be properly considered.
    Mr. Howarth: We have just heard the most appalling example of hypocrisy from the Secretary of State.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with this. I know that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks.
    Mr. Howarth: I withdraw the suggestion that the Secretary of State was intentionally hypocritical. She has
    954
    spelled out a disgraceful policy by the British Government. She knows how corrupt and incompetent Mugabe is and the crimes with which he has been charged. Does she accept that, in saying that she is prepared to grant aid to Zimbabwe to bring about land reform, she is playing into the hands of a man who will dispossess those farmers who contribute no less than 40 per cent. of the country's foreign exchange earnings? They are the engine of what economic activity exists in that country.
    Clare Short: I do not know whether one is allowed to say that an hon. Gentleman is being rude and ignorant and has not listened to the answer but, if that is permitted, that is my response. I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that when a Government engage in behaviour that worries us greatly and of which we do not approve, it is not right to hurt the poor people of that country, who are usually also the victims of bad governance. That is a serious proposition. If the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) cannot understand it, I shall send him something in big letters with short sentences that he might be able to read.
    My second point, of which the hon. Gentleman is clearly also unaware, is that the farmers organisations of Zimbabwe favour land redistribution. The large white farmers agree that the land is badly distributed and that there should be properly organised, transparent arrangements that comply with Zimbabwean law to increase the amount of land for small farmers. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so angry on their behalf; he is misinformed about their views.
    Mr. Winterton: The right hon. Lady is right to say that land reform and the redistribution of some farms is essential for progress and success in Zimbabwe. I have just been there with colleagues from both sides of the House as a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. I support the right hon. Lady's policy of not giving aid to Zimbabwe for land reform unless the proposals put forward by Mr. Mugabe and his Government are acceptable to all the donors. Does she accept that there is a need for aid to Zimbabwe to help the poor? I have visited Porta farm, which has benefited from aid from this country. Will she consider funding specific hygiene, sanitation and education projects that would be a positive help to the poor of Zimbabwe, which is a wonderful country that needs a bit of help?
    Clare Short: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Zimbabwe is a naturally rich country with very able people, high levels of education and good land. It should be progressing well and it is a tragedy that it is in such trouble. One adult in four in Zimbabwe is infected with HIV, but there is no Government programme to deal with it. The life expectancy of Zimbabweans has gone down by 20 years because of HIV. I agree that there are serious needs. The situation is worrying and the Zimbabwean Government are giving a poor lead. We are reviewing our overall relationship with Zimbabwe. If we cannot work with the Government, we can achieve less in the country, but we shall always do what we can to assist

    955
    the poor, who are often the victims of bad Governments, as the hon. Gentleman understands, although some of his hon. Friends appear not to.
    Mr. Swayne: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that future projects will be judged against the criteria that they cannot in any way be used to prolong the life of a corrupt and incompetent regime?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman also appears to have difficulty with his hearing. I thought that I had made it clear in my original answer that our existing commitments were put in place by the previous Administration. Nevertheless, they largely benefit the poor. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that future proposals which do not benefit the poor will not be approved. It is a delicate problem when very poor and oppressed people live under a Government who do not put their interests first. In those circumstances, we always try not to strengthen a bad Government, but to look after the interests of the poor. It is a complex matter, but we struggle to do that across the world.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Having led the CPA delegation to Zimbabwe in September, may I refer my right hon. Friend to the problem of land reform, which is creating difficulties for the Government of Zimbabwe? If they take land from large landowners and do not have the cash to pay compensation, they are accused of seizing the land. Therefore, they are in a cleft stick. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government of Zimbabwe believe that land redistribution is essential but, if they take the land without providing compensation, they face difficulties.
    Clare Short: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend—he led the delegation well and we have discussed the matter previously—but I do not agree that the Government of Zimbabwe are in a cleft stick. Legislation passed since independence requires compensation to be provided in respect of land redistribution. Our position and that of the European Commission and many other donors is that there is a strong case for land redistribution and assistance will be available if it is transparent, properly organised and benefits the poor by providing proper water systems and schools for their children. A serious programme of land reform that would benefit poor farmers in Zimbabwe would get support from the rest of the world community and we are waiting to provide support to a proper programme that fulfils those conditions.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Can my right hon. Friend give us an idea of the projects that will be supported by the £22 million provision that has been made for Zimbabwe? She mentioned the problems of HIV. I know that there are very active Marie Stopes family planning clinics tackling HIV and other problems in that country, which desperately need assistance.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One in four adults in Zimbabwe has the virus and Zimbabwean people have lost 20 years of life expectancy. It is an enormous crisis and there has been no attempt by the Government of Zimbabwe to follow the lead of Uganda, where there has been a marked decline of incidence of HIV. In Tanzania, we headed research showing that the
    956
    early treatment of sexually transmitted diseases massively slows the spread of HIV. The commitments that I read out include some £10 million on sexual health. We want to do more, but we need a lead from the Government of Zimbabwe and from major figures there to deal with this terrible crisis.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State agree that some very good black Zimbabwean farmers are perfectly capable of cultivating the land to the highest possible standards, and that, therefore, redistribution to them would not reduce the agricultural productivity that is vital to the economic future of that country? However, is it not also perfectly possible to redistribute land to good black farmers without confiscating it from its present owners?
    Clare Short: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. That is also the view of the farmers' associations of Zimbabwe. Most of those who own large farms agree that there is an overwhelming case for redistribution and have made detailed technical proposals about how it should be done. Of course, redistribution has to comply with Zimbabwean law, which requires that the land must be acquired legally and compensation must be paid. That is current legislation there. Everyone agrees that, if it were done properly, it could be beneficial to Zimbabwe.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that she is reviewing the UK's relationship with Zimbabwe, and not before time. May I suggest that it is irrelevant whether the commitments were made under the last Government, as they are being carried out by the present Government? How can she justify the UK paying some $20 million a year in aid to Zimbabwe when the President is spending £250,000 a day on a war in the Congo? He must think that Christmas has come early.
    Will the Secretary of State now seriously consider transferring aid, perhaps to neighbouring Mozambique, which is both poorer and more democratic than Zimbabwe? The Mozambican Government would welcome support for cleaning up the debris of war, and such support would send a firm signal to developing countries that, when conditions for aid are broken, donors—particularly the United Kingdom—are ready to transfer funds to countries that abide by the rule of law.
    Clare Short: Well, another Conservative Member with a hearing problem—perhaps the hon. Lady wrote her question before she heard any of the previous exchanges. I have made it clear—it is the view of anyone with any principles who considers aid and development—that poor people should not be punished for living under Governments who do not govern them well. I hope that she understands that clear principle.
    We agree that the war in the Congo and Zimbabwe's role in it are deeply worrying. We are doing all in our power to secure a ceasefire and a settlement because of the consequences of the war for Zimbabwe and a number of other countries in central Africa. I also agree that things in Mozambique are going well. The country has had all the difficulties that history could throw at it, but it has recovered from civil war and has a good Government. We have considerably increased our programme there.

    957
    I wish Conservative Members would bother to find out the facts. I have not announced a review today. Since we took power, the Government have made absolutely clear to the Government of Zimbabwe our position on land. The hon. Lady and the shadow Foreign Secretary pontificate about aid on the radio, but cannot even be bothered to find out what the situation is. The British Government are taking a principled position.

    Former Republic of Yugoslavia
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: When she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union, to discuss the provision of funding for human and civil rights programmes in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. [62746]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The Secretary of State regularly meets her colleagues to discuss this and other matters. In the former Republic of Yugoslavia we are, both directly and through the European Union, supporting work in human rights, helping to develop independent media, promoting peace and supporting the right of refugees to return home.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will surely agree that a concern for human and civil rights should inform and influence all decisions on aid. Does he agree that, if the benighted region of Kosovo is ever to be given autonomy, the civil and human rights of the minority community will have to be honoured?
    Mr. Foulkes: I understand what my hon. Friend says. In Kosovo, we are funding the UNHCR so that it can open an office in Pristina and we are also helping the Red Cross to deal with the victims of the conflict. I hope that he agrees that that is a good contribution from our Department.

    World Bank
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: What recent discussions she has had with the World bank about the bank's role in international development; and if she will make a statement. [62749]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I frequently meet the president of the World bank and his officials. We have been working since May 1997 to increase the bank's focus on human development and poverty eradication. In particular, we are trying to persuade the bank to make the international poverty eradication targets the basis for its agreements with the Governments of developing countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I submitted a joint memorandum to the recent annual meeting of the bank and the fund, stressing the need for the institutions to co-operate more and to take more account of human need in emergency situations.
    Mr. Canavan: What response has my right hon. Friend received to the letter that she and the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American development bank? Were any specific measures suggested to reduce
    958
    the debt burdens of some of the countries that were worst hit by Hurricane Mitch? What is the World bank trust fund doing to help the hurricane's victims, particularly in Honduras and Nicaragua?
    Clare Short: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, when the crisis hit, the World bank immediately recycled the money available to the region so that no money had to be spent paying debt while other long-term arrangements were put in place. The trust fund that we proposed, and to which we made available £10 million, is now at £100 million. A team of experts from the bank is meeting with experts from the Inter-American development bank to provide the resources for reconstruction and the rescheduling of debt. In addition, the Paris Club—which deals with export credit debt—has agreed a moratorium on payments for the next three years. The process is not complete, but there has been fast action to assist reconstruction and to make sure that those countries do not have to pay out money in debt repayment when they need to reconstruct.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that, according to the latest UN AIDS report, AIDS has now overtaken malaria as one of the biggest killers in the world. In many parts of the world, 25 per cent. of the work force are infected, and that is seriously affecting the economic development of those areas. What talks has the Secretary of State had with the World bank to support pharmaceutical companies which may be able to develop and carry forward an AIDS vaccine, which is really the only hope that the world has in terms of the disease?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. Some 35 million people in the world are infected with the AIDS virus. Ten per cent. of all new infections are babies infected by their mothers, and most women infected have only ever had one sexual partner—their husband. Some 40 per cent. of infections are of young women. The epidemic is bad in Africa, but it is spreading across Asia, where we are at the beginning of an even worse epidemic.
    An AIDS vaccine is possible and, hopefully, could be available within six years. However, it will not be brought to market for the strains that are prevalent in Africa and Asia without some intervention because the countries are so poor that they would be unable to pay for the vaccine. As the hon. Lady knows, we are talking to the World bank about arranging measures so that the science is taken forward and a product is brought to market.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party

    959
    and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Chapman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the press reports today of the National Audit Office's view of the privatisation of Railtrack? The NAO found that the previous Tory Government, in their unseemly haste to dispose of that national asset, effectively lost £1.5 billion of public money—public money that could have paid for health, education and the care of the vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a perfect world, we might expect those who lost the money to repay it, but that, as the world is not in all things perfect, the least we can expect is an abject apology?
    The Prime Minister: The £1.5 billion that was wasted as a result of the Conservatives' incompetence is a reminder of what they did while they were in government. Of course, they now wish to privatise the Post Office. I would say to the country that I do not believe that they should be put in charge of our public services again.
    Mr. William Hague: In the light of the fact that Saddam Hussein is still failing to comply with UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance last month that nothing less than complete compliance was acceptable, may I assure the Prime Minister of the full support of the Opposition for the use of military action in the days ahead, provided that action has clear and achievable objectives?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of support. The report by the chief inspector of UNSCOM lists in clear terms the obstacles placed in the way of the weapons inspectors—the delays, the deceit, the refusal to provide documents, the restriction on inspections. No one who reads that report can seriously doubt its conclusion that UNSCOM is unable to carry out its job properly. Indeed, the report states that there are greater restrictions now than previously.
    I remind the House of the very, very clear assurance that was given on 14 November by the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, who said:
    "Iraq has decided clearly and unconditionally to co-operate fully with UNSCOM … and will allow the return of the inspectors to resume all their activities on an immediate, unconditional and unrestricted basis."
    That promise is clearly now broken.
    Mr. Hague: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts go out to the men and women of our armed forces who, thousands of miles away from their families this Christmas, may face the toughest of jobs in the weeks ahead. Does the Prime Minister agree that Saddam Hussein has now tested western resolve on too many occasions; that his determination to build weapons of mass destruction represents a continuing threat to the peace of the whole middle east as well as to the interests of the United Kingdom; and that, as Conservative Members have said before, it must now be a prime objective of western policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
    The Prime Minister: It is the case, as I was saying, that the Butler report makes very clear the obstacles placed in the way of inspection.
    960
    I want to emphasise one other point to the House. I hope that we can make copies of that report available in the Library so that hon. Members can read it and digest the facts that it contains. The report details not merely the obstruction but the fact that it relates directly to documents, sites and personnel that would give a clue as to the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction and the capability to make them. It is not obstruction simply for the sake of it, but a plan of deceit to prevent those weapons of mass destruction from being located and destroyed. As we have said before, we believe that Saddam Hussein, if allowed to develop those weapons, poses a threat not only to his neighbourhood but to the whole world.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: I think that it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland are less concerned with any single detail of the arrangements still under negotiation than with the fact that the agreement should hold fast. Will my right hon. Friend press that point as strongly as he can, so that the people of Northern Ireland can retain the agreement, as the best basis for peace, for this Christmas and all future Christmases?
    The Prime Minister: We hope very much that agreement on the outstanding issues can be reached. I know that intensive negotiations are going on in Northern Ireland to try to bridge any remaining difficulties. On the issues concerning the north-south bodies, the Departments and the way in which the new Assembly will work, the differences between the parties are now very limited. I hope very much that the parties will bear in mind—I am sure that they will—my hon. Friend's plea, which I think would be echoed by everyone in the House and in Northern Ireland, that we should give this process, which is the only process that offers the chance of a stable future for Northern Ireland, every chance of working successfully.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the Prime Minister confirm the existence of a Treasury report that says that Britain could join a single currency within eight months of a Cabinet decision to call a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: A whole series of reports are produced. That report is no more or less than any other. The decision on whether we join, and the process of joining, is a subject that we have set out on many occasions. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said recently that we would publish a draft national changeover plan in the first part of next year. That is the thing to wait for.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Prime Minister reflected on the fact that, next time he answers Prime Minister's Questions in the House, the single currency will already be in operation and we will not be part of it? Whatever his real views—I am sure that he has some real views on the subject—he chooses to appear undecided, leaving business to make its preparations on the basis of guesswork and trying to read his mind. Would not a clear expression of confidence in Britain's future in the single currency and the single market be a much better Christmas present for the manufacturers, exporters and farmers on whom so many people's jobs depend?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we keep to the principles that we have outlined, because the decision

    961
    should be taken in the national economic interest. When those tests have been satisfied, we will be in a position to make the decision. That is the right way to set out the policy, it is the position we have adhered to throughout, and what manufacturing needs most is long-term stability. A decision on the euro cannot be taken on the basis of short-term problems, in manufacturing or elsewhere.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Despite the local difficulties in the football world in the past few days, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's bid for the 2006 world cup is still strong? Will he congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on the excellent work that he is doing to promote that bid around the world? Will he put in his diary for 2006 a date to present the trophy to a mid-20s Michael Owen as captain of a winning England side?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to give my support and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on all the excellent work that he does. As for our bid for 2006, we believe that it is a very strong one. If the conditions can be satisfied, there may be a bid from Africa, but if there is to be a bid from this part of the world, the British bid is by far the strongest. We will carry on fighting the case for it.
    Mr. John Bercow:: For saying that if we ditch the pound and join the euro, that is the end of Britain as an independent country, would the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) be described by the Prime Minister as a lunatic or as a headbanger?
    The Prime Minister: No. I think I would reserve the term "headbanger" for others not located too far from the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me such immediate and visible proof. I remind him that the policy of his party is not to rule out the euro for ever—I think—or has it changed today? The policy that we have set out, basing the decision on the national economic interest, is surely the sensible way and that is the position that we will adhere to.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On Iraq, is my right hon. Friend aware that, although there is overwhelming support in the United Nations for policies to bring about conformity with UN resolutions, if Britain and America bomb Iraq it will be contrary to the charter of the United Nations which requires the unanimity of the five permanent members; it will be illegal in international law; it will cause the death of many innocent people, and 200,000 Iraqis were killed in the Gulf war, leaving Saddam stronger; and it will inflame the middle east? Why does my right hon. Friend do everything that he is told to do by President Clinton, instead of taking an independent view in support of the charter, which has always been central to the policy of the party that he leads?
    The Prime Minister: Such action would not be unlawful at all, for this reason. I take it as agreed between my right hon. Friend and me that the regime of Saddam Hussein must be prevented from building those weapons of mass destruction.
    962
    If we are agreed on that, the question is how. It can be done by Saddam Hussein complying with the agreements that he has entered into, or we have to look for other ways to enforce his agreement. The Gulf war ceasefire depended on the fulfilment of obligations that Iraq accepted at the time, including those relating to weapons of mass destruction.
    Successive Security Council resolutions have confirmed the requirement for Iraq to fulfil those obligations. When in February we made our first attempt, through the memorandum of understanding between Iraq and Kofi Annan, the Security Council said that any breach by Iraq of its obligations under the memorandum of understanding would result in the "severest consequences". The Council has condemned Iraq's decisions to end co-operation again and again. On 14 November, we gave Iraq a further chance to come back into compliance. Given Iraq's manifest failure to co-operate in the past month, I am satisfied that, if we should choose to use force, we have the necessary legal authority to do so.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will visit Brixham in order to take a sea voyage on a beam trawler.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister saying that he would prefer not to witness the disastrous effect and the failure of his conservation policy? Once caught, 45 per cent. of the catch is taken on board, sorted and thrown back into the sea. Millions of prime fish are thrown back every day, dead. Does the Prime Minister feel that that policy is sensible, or is it abhorrent, environmentally damaging and a policy from which he would like to dissociate himself?
    The Prime Minister: Unequivocally, I think that the present policy needs changing. Of course it does. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it cannot seriously be thought that what he said has begun only now. It has been building up over a long period as a result of commitments entered into by the previous Government rather than the current one. Having said that, I agree that the current level of discarding is far too high and a terrible waste. We are working to reduce it with a range of measures, including reducing levels of fishing and making changes to technical rules on fishing gear. We shall argue against excessively large cuts in quota, although some cuts are necessary to conserve stocks for the future. We are committed to improving the common fisheries policy, but I do not believe that the alternative of leaving the policy altogether is seriously sustainable. We must be honest: changes are necessary, but we shall have to achieve them within the CFP.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Prime Minister had a briefing this morning on newly published labour market statistics showing detailed figures for unemployment? Does he know that for 18 to 24-year-olds—about whom he is so concerned—the number in employment has gone down during the

    963
    relevant quarter? Does he know that the number of long-term unemployed aged between 18 and 24 has gone up by 25 per cent. after six months of the new deal? What will he do about the new deal, which is turning out to be a busted flush?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. For a start, there has been a cut in unemployment levels among people within the new deal category who are aged 18 to 24 of more than 30 per cent.—the largest cut in unemployment for young people that there has ever been. Furthermore, even today's figures show employment over the past three months up by 80,000. The number of vacancies unfilled has risen again. There are 260,000 more jobs than there were a year earlier. As a result of what the Government have done, to the opposition of the hon. Gentleman's party, long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. That is how to get through economic difficulties, not returning to having 15 per cent. interest rates, a million manufacturing jobs lost and Tory boom and bust.
    Dan Norris: Farmers in my constituency have been greatly encouraged by the lifting of the beef ban, particularly when they compare that with the lamentable performance of the previous Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way forward in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of co-operating sensibly in Europe, we had the beef ban lifted. When we came into office, virtually nothing had been done to secure the lifting of the ban. As a result of what we did, and within 18 months of our following a different policy, we secured the lifting of the beef ban. I believe that that is the best way to get results for Britain in Europe. We will stand up for British interests whenever it is necessary and, if necessary, alone. However, we do not seek confrontation as the sole method by which to provide British diplomacy with a way forward.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the Prime Minister read today the Treasury "Survey of Independent Forecasts", which forecasts growth for the UK economy in 1999 at just 0.8 per cent? That forecast is below the Chancellor's forecast range of 1 to 1.5 per cent., which was published just six weeks ago. Does the Prime Minister realise that while he complacently talks about stability, the reality is that his policy is bringing the British economy grinding to a halt?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the policies that we are pursuing, we have the best chance of getting ourselves through any economic downturn. Monetary stability is in place because of the independence of the Bank of England, which has given us the lowest long-term interest rates for more than 30 years. Because of the changes that we made in public spending on coming to office, we were able to reduce the Conservative deficit, and are able to put £40 billion extra into our schools and hospitals from next April. Through the working families tax credit and the new deal, we are helping families to make work pay. That is a better way of getting through any economic difficulty than boom and bust, underfunding of our public
    964
    services, and creating a situation where we end up with large numbers of people unemployed for long periods, as happened under the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Further to my right hon. Friend's welcome statement to the House on Monday, does he agree that there is a need for an impact study on the effects of the abolition of duty free on jobs throughout the United Kingdom, and its economic effect on airports, seaports and jobs in such units? The need for the impact study is heightened by the fact that information on the alternative to duty free has never been published. Will my right hon. Friend explain the difference between duty-free goods and tax-paid goods? I think that hon. Members are sometimes confused about that.
    The Prime Minister: We support the notion of having a proper study of the effects of the abolition of duty free. The door to that has now been pushed open as a result of what we agreed at the Vienna summit. Our difficulty is still that, seven years ago, the previous Conservative Government agreed to abolish duty free and unanimity is required to change that. We shall try to do our best to get it changed; if we are able to do so, it will be another example of a better method of diplomacy than that of the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. William Hague: Last Thursday, the Treasury made an announcement that means that people who have done the right thing and saved for their retirement, but who are too poor to pay income tax, will now have to pay a new tax on their hard-earned savings. Will the Prime Minister personally look again at that misguided decision?
    The Prime Minister: I explained last week that we would make an announcement on the policy on that matter, and we did so. We believe that it is in the best long-term interests of all pensioners. If we combine it with the measures that we announced yesterday, for the first time many people on modest incomes are going to get far better access to decent-quality pensions than they have ever had before.
    Mr. Hague: This decision will cost the 300,000 poorer pensioners, who will lose their tax credit on dividends, an average of £75 a year. How on earth is that meant to be in their best long-term interests? Is it not yet another tax increase from a Government who said that there would be no tax increases at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Age Concern has said that it believes the decision to be totally unjust? Does he at least accept that the measure hits poorer non-taxpayers?
    The Prime Minister: No, because the best thing for those pensioners and other pensioners is that we have a healthy method of ensuring that companies earn the profits that allow pensioners to get the best deal. Those people will get the best deal—[Interruption.] No matter how much Conservative Members shout, as a result of what we announced yesterday lots of people on modest incomes, for the first time and after all the pension mis-selling gambles of the Conservative years, are going to get the chance to save properly. It is the best deal for them and for all pensioners.
    Mr. Hague: It is very clear from the Prime Minister's answers that he has no rational justification whatsoever

    965
    for the policy. I am sorry that he cannot admit that it hits the poorest non-taxpayers, because the Paymaster General has actually said that it does so. Although I note that he is not here now, the Paymaster General said in the House on 30 June:
    "I am aware …of the growing anxiety among poorer non-taxpayers who have been hit by the measure".—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 175.]
    Now, the Prime Minister is defending the measure, but will not agree with the Paymaster General. Surely he is not distancing himself from the Paymaster General for any particular reason?
    Why have the Government taken this decision? Is the Prime Minister prepared to think again? Is he prepared to accept representations from Members of Parliament and from Age Concern and similar organisations, and to tell the Treasury to rescind the announcement that it made last week?
    The Prime Minister: No. We looked at this over six months and we believe it is the right thing for future pension provision. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the changes we made yesterday—which I note he does not dispute at all—for the first time all those who have had a full working life will get proper pension provision. Those people will no longer be dependent on means-tested benefits. As a result of stakeholder pensions, people with private pension schemes will get better-value, better-costed and better-regulated schemes. Those people on incomes of less than £9,000 will get special help and those on incomes of between £9,000 and £18,500 will get even better help. Taken as a whole, the package gives the best deal to pensioners that this country has seen after years of pensions mis-selling and pension fraud under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has yet to say a single word in justification of this policy. Yet again, he and the Government are trying to face both ways at once. One day, they want to encourage everyone to save for their retirement, and the next day, they are defending taxing more heavily those people who have saved. The Government's indecision in this area has now produced a real and genuine injustice for several hundred thousand people. It is not too late to think again. Can the right hon. Gentleman produce a single reason why he should not think again?
    The Prime Minister: Yes—and they are the reasons that I have just given the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Opposition Members do not wish to listen to them. Our pension proposals are better for those on modest as well as higher incomes. As a result of the proposals announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday, people on modest incomes will get more help than ever before with their pensions.
    The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a choice between Labour and Conservative on pensions, since I assume that the Conservatives' pension policy is still the one announced by their deputy leader before the election. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear it. That would mean an end to tax relief on private pensions and the abolition, over time, of the basic state pension. It would have a massive upfront cost for current taxpayers. Our proposals will take more people off
    966
    means-tested benefits, improve pensions for people on modest incomes and end the scandals of mis-selling allowed under the previous Conservative Government.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the contribution that carers make to the economy has been consistently underestimated because we do not count the value of their unpaid work? Does he agree that yesterday's announcement of a second-tier pension for carers not only marks this Government's determination to protect the most vulnerable, but should signal our recognition of the extremely valuable work that carers do, at great saving to the Exchequer and often at great personal cost? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the future needs of carers will be at the forefront of Government policy not just in pensions but in other areas of social policy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Carers and disabled people with broken employment records will, for the first time, have the right to a second pension. Three groups will gain from that policy: parents taking breaks to look after young children; others caring for a sick or disabled person; and those forced to leave work because of an illness or disability. Over time, at least 4 million people will benefit by up to £50 a week. That is surely a better set of pension proposals than those of the Opposition, which would do nothing for carers and would abolish the basic state pension.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I am proud to represent the Macclesfield constituency in the north-west and the north-west region as a whole, I am also proud to be a citizen of, and a Member of Parliament in, the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why so much of the Government's legislation and so many of their policies are designed to undermine the United Kingdom and its sovereignty? Is the intention merely to soften us up for the Europe of regions?
    The Prime Minister: No. We are in favour of devolution because we believe in a sensible partnership within the United Kingdom for the modern world. That is why the Conservative party is now in favour of devolution: the Conservatives have changed their mind since the election. As a result of their policy at the election, they secured not a single seat in Scotland or Wales.
    As for Europe, of course we want a Europe of nation states. However, we do not believe that in order to be pro-British one has to be anti-European. That is the difference.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: Bearing in mind the fact that patronage can be just as undemocratic as heredity, will the royal commission be able to consider the complete abolition of the House of Lords? After all, the Scottish Parliament will soon be setting a good example by passing legislation without reference to any second Chamber. Would not a modern democratic Scottish Parliament be degraded if it were involved in the nomination of a few characters to a pantomime such as the House of Lords? Will my right hon. Friend therefore reject such a harebrained proposal even though it is reported to emanate from his former tutor, the Lord Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: As for the long-term future of the House of Lords, we have announced the establishment

    967
    of a royal commission and we shall wait to find out its decision. I am in favour of retaining a revising Chamber and having a bicameral system, which has served our country well. What has served our country ill is the domination of that Chamber by hereditary peers, the vast majority of whom take the Conservative Whip and therefore provide an in-built, permanent Conservative majority. We can get rid of the worst aspects of the House of Lords while preserving the idea of a second, properly revising Chamber.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is ethical to have released every IRA murderer without achieving the decommissioning of a single armament?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that the right policy is that the whole agreement that we entered into on Good Friday is put in place. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Conservative Opposition, to try to stick with the bipartisan policy that we supported in opposition.
    968
    I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we supported that bipartisan approach in difficult circumstances; for example, when it was revealed that, despite their denials, the previous Government had been involved in secret negotiations with Sinn Fein. After the first IRA ceasefire, we continued to support the previous Government's approach when they asked for the ceasefire to be declared permanent and then dropped that demand. We followed them when they included the Washington 3 precondition of decommissioning and when they effectively abandoned it. We supported the previous Government all the way through the process and never once played politics with the issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party will do the same.
    Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: There is a lot of business before I can take points of order.

Competitiveness
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on competitiveness.
The White Paper that I am publishing describes the Government's strategy for modernising the UK economy. Overall, our industrial performance still lags well behind that of the United States and our European partners, despite all the privatisations and trade union reforms of our predecessors' 18 years. Yet a new economic landscape beckons, which will radically change the terms on which businesses compete with one another. As a Government, we have to create the conditions for an economic step change. The White Paper is a wake-up call to the nation to do just that.
The starting point for the Government's analysis is that knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness. An advanced industrial nation such as ours cannot sustain the growing prosperity we want by producing standard products and services made with pedestrian methods and commonplace technology. Others can do that, just as well and more cheaply. We shall win only by developing innovative goods and services that customers want to buy and that use world-class production systems and the most sophisticated technology to keep us ahead of our rivals. We need also to ensure that the best environment for business in the world is here in the UK and the rest of Europe, which is our home market.
The bedrock of that business environment is macro-economic stability. Business hates uncertainty. That is why this Government are so determined to steer a stable course through the world's current economic turbulence. We fully understand the difficulties that this turbulence can cause.
The Government have no illusions that they alone can transform Britain's economic performance. Of course they cannot. It is not the Government's job to second-guess boardroom decisions; nor is the hidden hand of market forces sufficient to secure our competitive success. The false hopes of planning in the 1960s and 1970s and the obsession with laissez-faire in the 1980s both failed. This Government steer a new path: to work with the grain of markets, to use our regulatory powers to promote competition as the single most important spur to innovation; to encourage businesses to collaborate with each other to compete more efficiently; and to invest in the capabilities of the economy, including its skills and technological awareness.
Within this framework, there are three key roles for my Department. First, we must invest in our world-class science and knowledge base. Secondly, we will step up our efforts to convert the fruits of this vital resource into hard commercial success. Thirdly, we will lead a crusade to develop in Britain the spirit of enterprise so characteristic of the United States, so that we seize the new business opportunities that are before us.
The quality of the UK's science and engineering base is the foundation on which the knowledge economy is built. It is the mainspring of innovation, yet university research has been the victim of long-standing under-investment. This Government have acted to reverse the decline.
970
With the Wellcome Trust, we are investing an extra £1.4 billion in British science and engineering. We also need the private sector to increase its commitment to research and development. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be consulting business on supplementing the current tax system with a research and development tax credit for small businesses. That is also why we will back strong participation by UK business in the European Union's R and D programme. However, research by itself does not generate wealth.
We must ensure that more research is transformed into commercial success, and that new ideas lead to successful innovation and new products. My Department will therefore switch resources to increase its support for innovation by 20 per cent. An expanded teaching company scheme will pay for 200 technology champions every year from among our best science and engineering graduates to help businesses innovate and to exploit the latest technology. In addition, the Government will offer a range of new incentives to reward universities which work effectively with business. Our target is to increase by 50 per cent. the number of innovative start-up businesses each year from the public sector science and engineering base by 2002.
Exploitation of science and business development is often strongest when businesses cluster together, creating a critical mass of investment, skills and co-operation. Governments cannot create clusters out of nothing, but they can help emerging clusters to grow. In a new initiative, which I regard as of fundamental importance, the Government will for the first time set up teams, each led by a Minister, to tackle barriers to growth of nationally significant clusters, co-ordinating action across Government and with business. The first of those teams will concentrate on biotechnology, and will be led by the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury.
Boosting enterprise will be given the highest priority in what the Government say and do. We must encourage more people of all ages and backgrounds to start their own business, and we must help those businesses to grow. I have no magic wand that can create an enterprise culture in Britain, although Government can play a role in changing attitudes, facilitating finance, offering networks of support and enabling businesses to learn from one another, improving technological awareness, especially access to the new digital technologies, and promoting at every opportunity liberalisation and competition, without which an enterprise culture cannot flourish.
First, on attitudes, we will back a business-led campaign to promote enterprise in every part of the country. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider how best entrepreneurship skills can be introduced to teaching in school. This year, the Government are spending £15 million to promote links between education and business, and are co-sponsoring, with the private sector, the expansion of the young enterprise scheme into higher education, helping students to run their own businesses. That will build on the measures that the Government have already taken to invest in and reform the education system at every level.
Secondly, the financial community needs to be as entrepreneurial and innovative as the business community. This Government have already introduced a much-needed cut in capital gains tax. Today, I can announce the creation of a new £150 million enterprise fund to bring together public and private finance for

971
high-growth businesses. The fund will help financial providers to develop the expertise to understand and back growth businesses and new innovative technologies. It will help to create in the UK a far-sighted financial community that will be capable of taking risks alone.
Thirdly, to help innovative business start-ups through their crucial early development, I have set the business links network a target of supporting each year 10,000 new growth businesses. In a modern, enterprising economy, businesses need to learn from one another. The Government can play a crucial role. Indeed, we are full partners in the Confederation of British Industry's "Fit for the Future" best-practice campaign. My Department has helped the Motor Industry Forum to bring master engineers from Japan to advise and train vehicle component suppliers on world-class practice. That has produced truly outstanding improvements in performance. My Department will fund up to 10 similar programmes in other industrial sectors.
To help the regional development agencies in England to promote innovation and competitiveness, we shall provide them with an extra £10 million. We have decided to re-focus regional selective assistance on high-quality, knowledge-based projects that provide high-value jobs.
Fourthly, new digital technologies are the nerve system of the knowledge economy. Electronic commerce will be among the most revolutionary changes to markets since the industrial revolution. I recognise that many smaller firms find it difficult to make the leap into electronic trading, so I am launching a new programme to ensure that we achieve a target of 1 million small businesses exploiting the internet to the full by 2002. The Government will invest £20 million in new comprehensive advisory services to ensure that that target is met.
My ambition is that Britain should, by the end of this Parliament, have the best environment world wide for electronic trading. I have today published a document that benchmarks our performance in the digital economy against our main competitors. I will introduce an electronic commerce Bill later in this Session to take our laws into the electronic age and reinforce confidence in electronic trading. I will appoint an e-envoy to help to lead the United Kingdom in international discussions on electronic commerce. The performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office will conduct a study to build on that. I am also developing proposals further to liberalise communications markets.
Finally, if enterprise and innovation are to flourish in the UK, we need greater competition in markets, and those markets need to modernise. For 18 years, our predecessors preached free markets, but took fright at big business. We have already passed the new Competition Act, and we will use it to attack anti-competitive practices, strengthening the Office of Fair Trading so that it can expose all corners of the economy to the stimulus of competition. I will also consult next year on the case for reform of merger policy to ensure that that, too, promotes competition.
The White Paper sets out 75 commitments to boost business capabilities, promote business collaboration and strengthen competition, all aimed at closing the performance gap against our main competitors. In addition, we need to measure how well we are doing. I have therefore decided to develop and publish indicators
972
to track the country's progress: a new competitiveness index. Each year the Government will review Britain's progress against those indicators, and agree what further action is required. A new competitiveness council, drawn from across business, will advise the Government on the action needed.
In one respect only is this a modest White Paper. It is a mere 67 pages, compared with the 634 pages of the three competitiveness tomes published by the previous Administration. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was thoroughly dedicated in his goals, and I commend him for telling Britain some home truths, but still Britain slipped behind. The growl was there, but I am afraid not the bite. Now even the growl has left, and just a squeak remains in the Conservative party.
In contrast, our White Paper charts a realistic and attainable way forward. For too long, a dignified retreat from economic success has satisfied us. Britain has played on half the pitch—inventing but not selling; competing but not working enough with others. Now we are going to do things differently. Government and business will act in partnership, with focus, energy and enterprise. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Secretary of State for fitting the House of Commons into his busy media schedule today. When we heard him this morning, he seemed to avoid telling us in advance the content and substance of his statement, but now we know that he was briefing ahead of it—there is nothing new, and nothing of substance, in it. This time, the leaks contained nothing, and the statement contains nothing. The emperor has no clothes.
The Secretary of State just told us that he has published a paper of only 67 pages. Has he not bothered to read the other two volumes of his own White Paper, which comprise 58 extra pages? He obviously has not got around to that in his ministerial box. How can we believe that the Secretary of State has his heart in this, if he did not even know that there were two additional volumes that he had not read?
The truth is that the Chancellor calls the shots. He has stolen the Secretary of State for Trade's garments. The Government's policies on competitiveness, such as they are, were announced in the pre-Budget statement by his right hon. Friend. The Secretary of State once again—metaphorically speaking, for the radio audience—comes naked into the debating Chamber.
Today, British businesses know that their competitiveness has been gravely damaged by the Government's policies. Now they hear from the Secretary of State that, under Labour's economic policy, they have no future if they are making standard products and providing standard services. What a chilling message for his own constituents.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Nonsense.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman says, "Nonsense." We have just heard the Secretary of State read out a statement saying that there was no future in Britain under Labour for businesses that supply standard products and services. What offer of hope does he have for his own constituents, who make just such goods and provide just such services? He tells us of more money for science

973
and technology, which has been announced several times before, originally by the previous President of the Board of Trade.
Is the e-envoy in addition to the digital envoy announced a short while ago? Will those two gentlemen or ladies be in competition, or has the digital envoy been abolished before being appointed, only to be replaced by the putative e-envoy? The whole thing is risible and muddled.
The truth is that the Government have made it too dear to make things in Britain, through increased taxes, extra regulations and high interest rates. Fearing many more redundancies and bankruptcies, the DTI wants to make it easier to try again when a business has gone bust. There is confidence in Labour's economic policy for you. When the Government redesign the bankruptcy laws, they must be careful not to design a con man's charter. We could not support that.
All we get from the Secretary of State are endless criticisms of management and workers, while he makes their task all but impossible. How will £2.3 billion of extra cost each year for the working time regulations make for cheaper goods and services? How does £2.9 billion a year of extra costs from the minimum wage stimulate jobs? How does £25 billion in extra tax over the life of this Parliament help business to find the money to invest? How can an unspecified amount of extra pension contributions—announced but not quantified yesterday—help our businesses to compete in a price-sensitive market around the world? Does he not see that all those measures make it dearer to make things in Britain, and less attractive for companies to go on investing here or to invest here for the first time?
Will the Secretary of State at least provide some answers to the detailed but important questions that the McKinsey study and the Government's work on competitiveness have thrown up? For example, do the Government intend to make it easier to get planning permission for new hotels, out-of-town superstores and hypermarkets and housing estates in busy areas? Is he aware how unpopular such a McKinsey policy would be in some of those areas?
Will the Government go to Brussels to demand more milk quota to help the dairy industry, which, on the Secretary of State's own analysis, is held back by this quota system that is unfair on Britain? Will he open up the new car market in Britain to full retail competition? Now that he has told the Financial Times that Labour was wrong to oppose privatisation in many cases, will he think again on his policy towards the Post Office, and privatise it, or will he tell us how, without privatisation, it can afford to buy businesses abroad, how much he will let it borrow, and whether he has squared that with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Will the Government veto damaging European Union plans for a withholding tax and the abolition of corporate tax breaks in Britain? Will they stand up for the financial centres of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which bring substantial business to London; or does the Chancellor intend to abolish those centres, which are so popular with rich Labour Ministers, and lose the business from London and those centres to Bermuda, the Bahamas and New York?
974
How much will the Government give in tax breaks to new companies and entrepreneurs? Will those tax breaks, such as the small one at which he hinted in his statement, survive the work of the Financial Secretary, who chairs a working party in the EU to abolish such tax breaks? Perhaps her work will be completed before the Chancellor's consultation.
What will the Government do to persuade the British pharmaceutical industry to invest in the United Kingdom rather than in Ireland, which it tells me is now so much more attractive thanks to Labour's tax increases? Under us, it invested here; under Labour, it is thinking of going elsewhere.
The pantomime season has arrived today with the Secretary of State's performance in the House. He wants to play Aladdin. Unfortunately, as he rubs his lamp no riches will appear. The genie has already worked his 48 hours this week and is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps he is stuck at the dome, awaiting the late arrival of the Jubilee line, like the Secretary of State and his officials.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not play crude politics and make misleading statements about me in his reply. I hope that he does not have a pre-planned reply, but that he will get down to answering some of my serious questions for a change. My colleagues and I will go on asking them, because business needs to know where it stands. As he dithers, factories close. As he fails to make up his mind, business gets into a bigger mess.
The Secretary of State has had nothing to say about job losses and factory closures. He has failed to convince the Chancellor to change his policy to help the workers in his constituency. The White Paper is as much use to a redundant industrial worker in Hartlepool as an umbrella in a hurricane. As we face the prospect of more factory closures in basic industry, will he wake up? This is a wake-up call for him, not for the rest of the country. Ministers are failing. Will he now respond to the questions?
Mr. Mandelson: That was a characteristically ritual, ungenerous and extra-planetary response to my statement. We can understand why, of course. The right hon. Gentleman's mind is on other things. His mind is on his job application to become the next boss of the Institute of Directors, which has emerged in the media. It is clear that he has decided to throw in the sponge, or perhaps the bathroom sponge has decided to chuck him. I do not think that that response will do anything at all for his job application, because it will lack any semblance of credibility among business people throughout Britain. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to answer his serious questions. If I had heard any serious questions, I would have answered them. On today's performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be staying exactly where we want him—on the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the economy in ways that most who practise business in the economy would barely recognise. His problem is that he just cannot come to terms with a new world in which the Labour party works with business, and with the centrepiece of our policies being our commitment to enterprise and competition. He just cannot understand that—he cannot get a handle on it—so he cannot respond.

975
The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand that what business needs more than anything else is stability—macro-economic stability. That is the precondition on which business can get started, can grow and can become successful. In the Tory world of boom and bust, none of the measures that I have outlined today would have been remotely relevant, because none of them would have stood an earthly chance of succeeding with business in the whirlwind conditions of boom and bust that the Tories created over 10½ years and more while in office.
Macro-economic stability is a vital but insufficient condition for business success. Business success depends on a combination of top-quality products and sophisticated ways of making them by capable firms collaborating with others to bring products to market which are driven by strong competition. It is that combination which underpins the policies that I have set forth in the White Paper this afternoon, on which I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has absolutely nothing intelligent or original to say.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a comprehensive range of measures which will greatly enhance Britain's capability to compete. In particular, may I ask him about the proposals for the enterprise fund? It is clear to anyone who looks at the difficulties faced by British business in recent years that a major problem has been that of gaining access quickly and easily to funds to allow enterprise to develop.
Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the enterprise fund will be administered by a different cadre of officials from those who are currently responsible for such things as regional selective assistance? At the heart of the new proposal must be speed, clarity and transparency of transaction if businesses are to get decisions quickly. That is the way in which they will take advantage of market opportunities. The civil service and those responsible for administering the enterprise fund will need to be told that and told that quickly. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a different culture in the administration of this much-welcomed and greatly praised proposal for an enterprise fund?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The aim of the enterprise fund is to provide expertise and leverage to get more funds, primarily from the private sector, into small start-up businesses. That is its aim. It will mark a change in the basis of funding from loans to venture capital and equity-based arrangements.
We propose that the fund should comprise four elements of assistance. The first is a more cost-effective small firms loan guarantee scheme. The second is support from banks for very high-technology venture capital proposals. The third is support for enhanced local and regional venture capital activity. One of the problems with venture capital is that it tends to be highly concentrated in the capital city, whereas, when it is available in the regions, there are inadequate arrangements for levering it into small businesses.
The fourth element is support for innovative proposals by the finance industry to meet the needs of fast-growth businesses. The new fund will contain all those elements, and I have very much taken on board my hon. Friend's strictures on its administration.
Mr. David Chidgey: I do not wish to be considered one of those who are ungenerous in their
976
reaction to the Secretary of State's statement. I should therefore say that, yes, it is high on style, and it is pretty high on ideals—but the key question is whether it will fall short on actions. Building on partnerships between universities and business is, of course, welcome—but will the Government's action reverse Britain's research and development investment record, which has placed us at the bottom of the league? Moves to promote collaboration and best practice in business are, of course, welcome—it is common sense—but where is the Government's action to boost the best of British enterprise through sound economic policies and affordable investment capital?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State three specific questions that may demonstrate the problems facing businesses across the United Kingdom, in every hon. Member's constituency. First, will the Secretary of State, in the spirit of his competitiveness White Paper, confirm the civil aviation research and development grant to the British aerospace industry? The grant—£22 million per year; a vital seed-corn investment in civil aviation and aerospace research—hangs in the balance.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State ensure that his colleagues in government stabilise the pound and bring down interest rates, so that firms such as Carbospar, which is in my constituency, that are winners of the millennium product award—that much-vaunted exercise of his—do not in a moment lose half their projected overseas sales?
Thirdly and finally, will the Secretary of State act to change the investment climate, so that firms such as Lancashire Fittings in Harrogate, which is another millennium products award winner, do not have to take their superb inventions to Sweden to obtain essential finance, instead of employing hundreds of workers in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry?
In a nutshell, in their economic and investment policies, will the Government play their part to help, not hinder, British competitiveness?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the CARAD scheme, we have invested more in aerospace and launch aid than any other Government in the history of the United Kingdom. I therefore do not think that we need to take any lessons on our commitment to investment in the aerospace industry. I keep under review all the financial commitments and schemes supported by the Department, and the CARAD scheme is no exception.
I realise, of course, the difficulties caused by the level of sterling and the recent impact of turbulence in Asia on manufacturers and exporters. A number of factors have to be taken into consideration when addressing that issue. However, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not resort to short-term fixes that would only sacrifice the long-term health of the economy in return for short-term transitory gains. That applies—right across the board—to all aspects of the macro-economy.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem is not with our science and engineering base, which world class and tremendous. The United Kingdom invents an enormous amount. The problem is that we do not have the entrepreneurial climate and the support for

977
business to ensure that what is invented here is also manufactured here. That is what all the measures in the White Paper are aimed at.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when all the envoys have envoyed and all the other wonderful initiatives have been implemented—including the one on coal, which I readily accept is a wonderful initiative—other areas will remain in need of attention? I refer in particular to the textile industry, which has been hammered by the Asian economies. The effects there are seen by loads of Labour Members.
What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we beat off that unfair competition? Will he bear it in mind that the Remploy factories for the disabled face such severe competition that they are losing Ministry of Defence contracts—unfairly, in my view? Will he look into those issues to ensure that, in addition to what he has done for coal and some other areas, we manage to save those vital jobs in 1999?
Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Budge of RJB Mining has today announced the signing of a £1 billion contract for the supply of coal, which is very good news for all those who work for that company. I am having a meeting on Friday with relevant Members of Parliament and trade union officials to consider what I readily acknowledge to be the serious plight of the textile industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry is actively considering measures that the Government might be able to take.
Like all traditional industries, the textile industry needs to look to innovation, continuous improvement in how it does business, and the constant sophistication of its products and production processes if it is to compete successfully in tough and competitive world markets. That is the message of the White Paper.
I draw a lot of encouragement from other traditional industries that are doing that. Today I visited what could be described as a traditional metal-bashing company. Thanks to innovation, the introduction of new technology and the use of the internet—which Conservative Members take such delight in sneering at because they do not understand the real world—the company is once again able to compete in world markets, because it has increased its competitiveness. Every industry—new or old, mature or high-tech—has to do that.
Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of the biotech industry and the need for stability. Will he examine urgently the increasing incoherence that is descending on the regulatory process for the approval of genetically modified products in the United Kingdom, and the real danger that, because of that incoherence and delay, Britain and Europe will be overtaken in a technology that is making enormous strides elsewhere? If we want to be at the centre of technology and development, we are going the wrong way about it in that crucial new area that will affect the whole of mankind.
Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman makes valid and intelligent observations about an industrial
978
sector that is growing in importance, and will probably be one of the greatest contributors to economic growth in this country. We should not take lightly the prospects for that industry or its regulatory framework. That is under active consideration by Ministers. We are consulting widely, not least because, if we are to carry public opinion with us on the new scientific developments and their conversion into products such as genetically modified foods, the public must feel comfortable and secure about the regulation of the industries and the use of such technology. They have to have clear information, facts and labelling about what they are eating in the case of genetically modified foods. We are taking steps to create and maintain that confidence and to ensure that the biotechnology sector moves ahead on a stable and confident footing.
However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is very dear to me. That is why I have announced today that the biotechnology cluster that has sprung up around Cambridge will receive support and help from Ministers, in this case from a team lead by the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury.
Mr. Derek Foster: May I invite my right hon. Friend to ignore the sound growls from the clown prince of darkness on the Tory Front Bench? May I congratulate him on the White Paper, and especially on what he has said about information and communication technology, research and development, innovation and small business development? He will know that Glaxo Wellcome in Barnard Castle employs 1,500 people in my constituency, which, like his, is in the northern region. It is a superb employer, is well regarded in the community and contributes to the community.
My right hon. Friend will also know that the pharmaceutical industry makes a substantial contribution to the British economy—contributing £2.3 billion to the balance of payments and £5.5 billion worth of export—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is time for questions, and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. We have very important business ahead of us, so I shall only take questions now.
Mr. Foster: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I was carried away with my enthusiasm for the pharmaceutical industry. In view of that substantial contribution, is it not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not on the Cabinet Sub-Committee responsible for competitiveness and productivity? Will my right hon. Friend rectify that?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I accept what he says about Glaxo Wellcome, which pours an enormous amount of investment into research and development in Britain. Indeed, if every other private sector company did the same on that scale, we would certainly be in business.
However, my right hon. Friend should not take it amiss that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not on that Cabinet Committee. He cannot be on every Cabinet Committee, as he is a busy man, but I know that he has very much at heart the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. He has to maintain a careful

979
balance in his approach to pharmaceutical pricing, because he needs to consider the investment by pharmaceutical companies in research and development and the time it takes to bring products to market. In considering all those factors in the round and in close consultation with other colleagues, he will, I am sure, reach the right conclusion.
Sir Peter Tapsell: An hour ago, did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister again boast that British interest rates have fallen to their lowest point for 30 years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Long-term."] Yes—long-term interest rates. Will he explain to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that the reason that long-term interest rates in the United States which were 6.25 per cent. in the early summer are now below 5 per cent., and the reason that Japanese long-term interest rates are down to 1.25 per cent., is that business men in America and Asia are apprehensive about the future and are cutting back on their long-term industrial investments? That is also the main reason for the reduction in long-term interest rates in Britain. If Ministers cannot understand the significance of the key business indicator in these matters, they are most unlikely to get their industrial policy right.
Mr. Mandelson: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman's question was; it seemed a little confused. I would expect him to welcome the fact that interest rates have now been reduced to 6.25 per cent. That level is in sharp contrast with the 15 per cent. peak in the 1990s, which led to so many business closures. He is wrong to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wrong this afternoon, but he is right to say that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend has said that, as part of the drive to increase risk taking, he wants to make it easier for individuals to bounce back from bankruptcy. How precisely will that work? What guarantees can he give that all sorts of unsavoury crooks and rogues who have ripped off honest people will not re-emerge from bankruptcy in a different guise?
Mr. Mandelson: There is a difference between rogue, dishonest directors—who will be brought to book more quickly under the proposals being considered by the Government—and those who have honestly set out with a business idea, but have failed through no fault of their own. All we are saying is that no stigma should attach to the failure of honest business people. On the contrary, we want them to try again, to learn from their experience in setting up businesses, and, if they are so inclined, to try to set up a new business. In offering that encouragement, we will make an important contribution to changing the enterprise culture. At the moment, too many people are discouraged from going into business by fear of failure and the stigma that attaches to it.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the broad thrust of the White Paper, although most of the matters with which it deals will be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, where the first SNP Administration will be keen to drive forward Scottish enterprise. How much of the £150 million in the new enterprise fund will be allocated to Scotland? Paragraph 2.25 is particularly opaque on that matter.
980
Whatever the sum is, will it be in addition to the existing Scottish block, or will the Scottish Office be expected to fund it from the block?
Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question—that Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom. There would be little opportunity for people in businesses in Scotland to benefit from the enterprise fund if the SNP had its way and Scotland was separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. In so far as he makes a valid observation about the workings of the fund, we will take his point into account when we draw up in detail the operational methods of the fund.
Mr. David Borrow: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Lancashire aerospace industry—which is based on the two aerospace factories at Warton and Salmesbury and on the many small and medium-sized enterprises across the county—is one of the jewels in the crown of British industry. I am also sure that the White Paper will be welcomed by the industry, particularly the proposal to encourage links with education—I know that he recently visited All Hallows school in my constituency, which has close links with British Aerospace.
Will my right hon. Friend encourage the creation of a cluster for the aerospace industry in Lancashire, and ensure that organisations such as the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace are involved in any discussions on it? Moreover, will he ensure that his officials are aware of the long lead time for aerospace projects? Although the industry is doing well at the moment, the actions that his Department takes and encourages now will have a dramatic effect, perhaps not in five years' time, but in 10 or 20 years' time, when schemes currently on the drawing board are rolled out into the airports.
Mr. Mandelson: I hear what my hon. Friend says in his last observation, and we will consider his point. I agree about the contribution of the aerospace industry to prosperity not only in Lancashire, but throughout the United Kingdom. The aerospace industry has an important set of supply chains—a series of small and medium companies which supply the industry extremely efficiently, among whom it is important to encourage closer co-operation. The Lancashire consortium plays a role, and the Industry Forum draws together all those involved in supplying the aerospace industry. That may well be exactly the sort of endeavour and model that the DTI will seek to encourage further as our proposals are rolled out. I take my hon. Friend's point about the potentiality of the aerospace industry as a cluster in Lancashire, and we will be happy to consider that.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Presumably the Secretary of State can confirm that he has sought to deal in the White Paper with inhibitors to competitiveness. If we are to have competitiveness indices, would it not be sensible to survey British industry on what it sees as the inhibitors to competitiveness at present? I suspect that issues such as high interest rates and non-labour costs would come high on that list.
I believe that there ought to be a wide debate on the matter, and certainly I intend to circulate the White Paper as widely as possible within my constituency. However,

981
I also intend to ask businesses what they see as the inhibitors to competitiveness, and what in the White Paper they see as relevant to them—because I suspect that it will not be very much.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will be disappointed if that is his view, because all the ideas, proposals and measures contained on every page of the White Paper have been based on unprecedented consultation between the Government and individual business men and women from all parts of the country throughout the drawing up and the discussion of the White Paper. Literally scores of business people have been involved in discussions with the Department, and directly with Ministers.
I pay tribute to my predecessor as Secretary of State, the Leader of the House, who was here for my statement. It was she who put the arrangements in place and decided to involve business people to the extent and in the way that has been achieved. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that, far from being disappointed, many business leaders have already expressed to me their great satisfaction with the White Paper, which they see—for once, and at long last—as the most practical and sensible set of appropriate measures from a Government in 20 years.
Mr. Ian Pearson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? I particularly welcome his focus on supporting clusters; the "D" side of R and D; the expansion of the teaching company scheme and encouraging more spin-outs from universities; the new enterprise fund; and targeting new high-growth businesses?
Will my right hon. Friend do two things? First, will he reward and value academics who work with industry so that that option is not, as at present, the third best, behind publishing in refereed journals, or teaching? Secondly, on regional selective assistance, will he ensure that the metal-bashing companies to which he referred continue to be supported in upgrading their businesses, and that they will qualify for regional selective assistance? That will show that the Labour party values the manufacturing sector—unlike the Conservative party, which devastated the sector when it was in office.
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend can rest absolutely assured that our manufacturing sector remains, and will remain, central to our future prosperity and to the Government's aims, objectives and policies. The key point is that manufacturing, like every other sector of the British economy, has constantly to innovate and to bring in new ideas from our science and engineering base. It needs to bring in people with ideas for new products or production systems and new systems for working, because that is the only way in which traditional manufacturing industries and processes can maintain their competitiveness and their share of world markets. Many are doing that now; even more will have to do so in the future.
It is extremely important to reward academics. At the root of the schemes that the Department already organises and that we will refine in the future are arrangements by which academics can leave tenure and go into businesses
982
without fearing that their jobs will close behind them, which would provide a strong disincentive and discouragement. The teaching companies scheme, which produces first-rate technology champions from the academic sector who go to work in businesses, has proved a great success, and we intend to expand it.
Mr. Eric Forth: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the spirit of enterprise in the United States, and his crusade to bring that spirit here. Recognising that the United States is still the world's most productive major economy, with an unemployment rate at half that of the European Union, will he pledge that, if he seeks to steer the British economy in any direction, it will be in the direction of the United States and not that of Europe?
Mr. Mandelson: It might be worth the right hon. Gentleman mentioning in that context that the United States operates rather an efficient minimum wage. It has had that legislation in place for some time, and it has never had any adverse effect on enterprise, business or prosperity.
My view is absolutely clear: Europe is the biggest integrated market outside the United States. We want to make that market as open, liberalised and competitive as possible. That is the only way in which we will create opportunities for British business. Conservative policies would cut us off from the huge home market that is available to British business and sink us somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, which would be of no value to anyone in this country.
Ms Sally Keeble: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and especially his comments in support of the new high-tech industries, which have already proved important in creating jobs in my constituency. Is he aware that many employers, including those in Northamptonshire, say that one of the big barriers to competitiveness is the lack of skills in the local work force? Whether one works in finance, construction or even retail or fast food, one needs some computer skills, so will he say more about measures that will give us a really competitive work force?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right in both her points. The problem for new start-up high-technology businesses, which have a tremendous potential for growth, is the enormous difficulty that they have in gaining access to capital finance in the first place. The venture capital industry in this country is, I think, the biggest in Europe, yet at certain levels, in relation to certain sizes and types of firm—especially high-technology ones—there is an absence of expertise and analytical skills in the financial community.
There is in the financial community a risk aversion and a resistance to financing high-technology firms, which does them considerable harm. It is to get over that prejudice—as some people would see it—or lack of sympathy or understanding that we are taking the measures that we are through the enterprise fund. Through the operation of that fund, we will, as I said, develop a finance community that has much greater expertise and more understanding of that sector, and therefore much greater inclination to offer it seed finance.

983
My hon. Friend's points about skills are well taken. We are entering an extensive and pervasive information age. The information revolution will touch every part of the United Kingdom economy, and we are doing much to raise skill levels so that we have people prepared, able and willing to work in information and communications technologies. We need to do more, as my White Paper makes clear, and I am glad to say that I have the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in making the necessary arrangements, increasing funding, and bringing to fruition our ambitious targets for skill levels in that area.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give some guidance to the House on the application of the Parliament Acts to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill?
Madam Speaker: Yes. The rejection of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill for the second time by the other place now brings into play the provisions of the Parliament Acts. The House of Lords will be asked to return the Bill to this House, where it will be prepared for the Royal Assent. The Parliament Acts require that, before a Bill is presented for the Royal Assent under this procedure, it has been sent to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session in which it was rejected for the second time. The Bill was sent to the Lords on 3 December. In order to comply strictly with the requirements of the Parliament Acts—and I certainly intend to interpret the Acts strictly—it cannot be submitted for Royal Assent until a month after that date.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that the Government will not ask the House to agree any motion directing that the Parliament Acts should not apply.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions launched a policy document on shipping at 10.30. That document is still not available in the Vote Office. Instead of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announcing non-policies this afternoon, would it not be better if the Government made policies that they have decided available to Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: Would those Members on the Front Bench who are responsible for seeing that documents are available do so immediately? Perhaps I might have an explanation of why the document was not available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister in the House today, and the Foreign Secretary elsewhere, have been scrupulous in avoiding giving any information that might relate to any operations that might be carried out in the near future by British forces. In the event that any such operations are begun, may I take it that you will look sympathetically on any efforts to ensure that the House has the opportunity to discuss those matters before rising for the Christmas recess?
Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate—I am sure he does—that I am scrupulous about such matters. I take to heart what he says and I think that I know the full feeling of the House, too.
Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before this afternoon's debate

985
and the vote on the Government motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I would like some clarification on whether the principle behind the motions needs to be decided by the House before any alteration, as described in the amendments, is voted on.
Madam Speaker: I shall deal with that if I am allowed to get on to the main business.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. Let me get on to the main business before I take points of order that relate to it.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised points about payable tax credits. In responding, the Prime Minister seemed to be answering a different question, on the subject of yesterday's statement on pensions. In order to avoid that discontinuity, would it be possible to have the amplification equipment checked in the recess, to ensure that the Prime Minister really understands what is going on?
Madam Speaker: It would be better all round if all hon. Members—and that includes Back Benchers—were rather less noisy at Question Time. Then we could all hear perfectly what was said from the Dispatch Boxes and from all the Benches.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it necessary? I seem to have mushrooming points of order today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify whether you will take points of order before you rule on the order in which amendments and motions are taken? Is that what is agreed?
Madam Speaker: I am trying to get to that point so that I can give an explanation to the House. First, I want to get the presentation of the Bill out of the way.

BILL PRESENTED
  SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Paul Boateng, presented a Bill to reduce the age at which certain sexual acts are lawful; to make it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to engage in sexual activity with or directed towards a person under that age if he is in a position of trust in relation to that person; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 10].

Modernisation of the House
4.36 pm
Madam Speaker: I inform that House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). Do I need to take further points of order after making that clear?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you have selected that amendment, but my query is about the order in which the motions were tabled. Two different motions are published in the Order Paper—Sittings of the House (No. 1) and Sittings of the House (No. 2). What appears to have happened is that the selection of the amendment means that the voting on those motions has been placed in an order different from that published in the Order Paper. I understand that the original order would have meant that the Committee's motion recommending that business can be begun at 11.30 am would have been taken first. Subsequently, if that had failed, there would have been a further vote, on the Sittings of the House (No. 2) motion. However, that order has now changed, and the pecking order will be that the vote on suspending business at 2 pm and resuming it at 2.30 pm will come first.
I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to reconsider the matter, because we are dealing with a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, which I understand was supported unanimously. [Interruption.] Well, it was certainly the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons. That being the case, should not the main proposition be put before the House first?
Madam Speaker: I have given very careful consideration to this matter. It is a House of Commons matter: I am anxious to have as wide a debate as possible and that Members of the House are able to express themselves at Division time.
What will happen is this. I have selected the amendment as I have described. There will be a general debate. At Division time, the amendment, as always, will be put first. If the amendment is successful, all else will fall, as is clear from the note to Government motion 5, which states that
"the above motion will not be moved if Margaret Beckett's Motion on Sittings of House (No. 1) is agreed to."
Therefore, if the amendment to Government motion 4 is agreed to, motion 5 will not be put.
I cannot make the matter clearer than that.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you say that, if the amendment failed, the whole motion would fall? Did I hear you correctly?
Madam Speaker: If the amendment falls, the motion is carried.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I ask you to reconsider your decision, in the light of paragraph 73 of the report?

987
In that paragraph, the Select Committee states—and I think that it does so unanimously—that motion 4 on the Order Paper should be taken en bloc, and that the amendment should be put only if that motion falls. In effect, both are amendments to the business of the House, and I ask you to reconsider and follow the Select Committee report.
Madam Speaker: I have given careful consideration most of the morning to the matter. I am very concerned that, on a matter that concerns the entire House and its proceedings, debate should be as wide as possible and that hon. Members should have a very free choice as to the way in which they cast their votes.
By proceeding in the way that I have determined—by putting, as we always do, the amendment first—what will happen is that, if the amendment fails, motion 4 is obviously carried. That will be the end of it.
Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion has to be put, does it not?
Madam Speaker: Of course the motion has to be put. We all know our procedures. Of course the motion will have to be put. We have been Members of this House for a long time and we know how to put amendments. When amendments fall, the motion is put. If motion 4 is carried, motion 5 falls. I hope that the House now has the answer it wants.
4.40 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Calendar: Initial Proposals (HC60).
I understand that with this it will be convenient to take the next four motions—Sittings of the House (No. 1)—
That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).
Sittings of the House (No. 2)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will proceed with public business, which may include a motion for the adjournment of the House;
(2) at two o'clock on Thursdays, the Speaker shall interrupt the business without question put and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions, after which any business interrupted at two o'clock shall be resumed;
988
(3) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(4) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to a quarter to three o'clock in Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), to half-past three o'clock in Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions) and to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall remain unaltered.
Meetings of Standing Committees (No. 1)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Meetings of standing committees:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:
(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees); and
(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".
Meetings of Standing Committees (No. 2)—
That, with effect from Monday 11 th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Meetings of standing committees:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions: on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees).
Mrs. Beckett: The motions on the Order Paper are designed to put before the House the unanimously agreed report from the Select Committee on Modernisation, which contains recommendations for an experiment with our sittings.
I bow to no one in the House in my respect for its traditions and its history, but I recognise that institutions that fail to change are institutions that die. Certainly the work of the Modernisation Committee itself has been undertaken—or so I thought until a moment ago—very much in the spirit of the best traditions of the House: seeking, if not always finding, common ground; respecting the different experience and different views of others; but nevertheless exploring proposals for change. That was the general spirit of the Committee, and I hope that it will also be the spirit of an informed debate.
Let me begin by identifying the areas where there is undoubted agreement underlying both the work of the Committee and the report before the House. First, I hope that it is entirely clear to everyone that the proposals which the report enshrines do not envisage the House sitting for fewer hours than we do now. Within the same

989
number of hours, the Committee considered whether there are ways in which we can use that time and address our work more effectively.
Secondly, the issue of how this place might work more effectively is the overall and underlying theme of all the work that the Committee has undertaken, including that reflected in its previous reports.
Thirdly, apart from the specific proposals on which the House will be asked to decide tonight, it is hoped that, today and later, hon. Members will examine other issues, such as the operations of the Main Committee in the Australian Parliament, which might contribute to further thinking about the effectiveness of our own methods of parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
That proposal for an alternative forum for debate reinforces the point that I made at the outset: the proposals are not about reducing the work or the hours of Parliament. That idea—raised today only to encourage debate, not for decision—is intended to make available more time and opportunity than now for both scrutiny and debate.
Taking the proposals in the report as a whole—those put forward for decision today and those put forward for debate—the House will see that, far from proposing a reduction in the work of the House, if we pursued all these ideas, there might be both more effective use of time and more time.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Lady has been at pains to explain that the number of hours that the House works will not be reduced. Will she tell us, frankly, whether she is satisfied that the opportunities for Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account will not be reduced as a result of the proposals?
Mrs. Beckett: Absolutely and categorically. Although the proposals for a Main Committee are not before the House today for anything other than discussion, should the House so choose, they would actually offer more opportunity for scrutiny and debate.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the right hon. Lady imagine that the proposed Main Committee would sit concurrently with the House or at a different time? If it sat concurrently, when the House was dealing with main business and legislation, the House would be even emptier than it sometimes is already. If the Main Committee sat at a different time, Members of Parliament would have even less time to deal with their correspondence and their constituencies than they have at present.
Mrs. Beckett: No doubt, in the fulness of time, the House will consider those matters and take them into account. I am not an expert on them; the Committee's extensive discussions on them took place before I joined it. In one Parliament that has tried that procedure, the outcome was not that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: According to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who just intervened, the House should hold no Committee meetings—whether they be Select or Standing
990
Committees—while the House is sitting. That is totally illogical. The Modernisation Committee's proposal for a main Committee provides major new opportunities and is the most important part of the report.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
Mr. Jenkin: The suggestion by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is utterly ridiculous. We must clearly strike a balance between the number of Committee meetings and hon. Members' duties outside the Chamber and responsibilities in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman claimed that as many Committee meetings as possible should be held outside the Chamber because they have been effective in the past. That is a ludicrous extrapolation.
Mrs. Beckett: I did not think my hon. Friend said that. However, as I said before, I am confident that the hon. Member for North Essex has read the report and will contribute to the debate if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn to the specific proposals put forward for decision today. First, I remind the House that the context of the proposals is provided by the earlier reports of the Modernisation Committee approved by the House, which should promote more effective use of the time that we spend in the scrutiny of legislation, for example. Most recently, the House agreed to proposals on scrutinising European Union business that will allow wider and much more effective scrutiny than in the past.
Last Session, we carried the Committee's proposals that more Bills should be published in draft and receive pre-legislative scrutiny. In this Session, for example, I hope that we shall make use of a Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill and that other Bills in draft will receive other forms of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If I must.
Mr. Bercow: The right honourable Lady referred to the opportunity for improved scrutiny of European Union legislation. Presumably she is not seriously suggesting that the House will have a better opportunity to scrutinise the judgments of the European Court of Justice.
Mrs. Beckett: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was either not present or not listening when the proposals for scrutiny of European legislation were advanced. If he had been, he would be well aware that the proposals put forward by several Select Committees—and finally by the Modernisation Committee—extend the areas of scrutiny to the other pillars that were not within the ambit of the scrutiny procedures originally before the Committee. In consequence, not only is a wider area available for scrutiny—including scrutiny of legislation that comes from the Commission—but we have established a different Committee structure to facilitate more effective scrutiny.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before we get bogged down in an argument about the scrutiny of European

991
Union business, I—as someone who spent long hours on the Opposition Benches arguing, night after night, about the common market—remind my right hon. Friend and the Tories that, one dark night, the then Tory Government decided to change everything. They stopped me and my old mate Bob Cryer and some others from arguing the toss about common market legislation night after night—we often kept them up until 3 or 4 am. The Tory Government, backed by most of their Back Benchers who are in the Chamber today, walked through the Lobby against me and my old mate Bob Cryer and sent all the common market Orders upstairs into Committee. At a stroke, the Tory Government stopped our scrutiny of the common market. I hope that we will not have any bouts of hypocrisy from that lot opposite this afternoon.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's hope, but I doubt that it will be realised.
The House also passed proposals to carry over some Bills from one Session to the next. That should enable us to make better use of time for Committee scrutiny in June and July when most of the Bills that we hope to finish during the Session should be out of Committee, and it will enable more steady progress to be made with Committee work as well as with other aspects of legislative scrutiny.
All the proposals give Members a much better opportunity to scrutinise legislation and contribute to the legislative process at a much earlier stage. That should mean not only that legislation will be of higher quality, but that it may need less amendment, particularly less late or unforeseen amendment.
The proposals for an experiment in our hours of sitting should be judged against the background of what should be better handling of legislation, less hurried processes of legislative scrutiny and less likelihood of ill-thought-through proposals coming forward in a rush and needing vast amendment to make them effective.
The existing procedures of the House can be and are criticised in various ways. For example, and with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although I hate an early start and prefer to operate later into the evening, I am well aware that the House as a whole is not at its best in the small hours of the morning. It is a fair criticism to say that the longer we go into the later parts of the evening and the small hours, the less progress on scrutiny, and the less effective progress on scrutiny, we often make.
Caroline Flint: I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention a booklet called "The work of an MP", which is available in the Library, which says:
"By the time a Member finally gets to bed it can sometimes be nearly time to begin the next day's work."
The booklet then asks readers whether they think they would be fit enough to become an MP and suggests that they use the House of Commons Gym. Would it not be better for us to have improved hours of work, so that we would not have to go to the gym when we are here?
Mrs. Beckett: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, even though, as I said, I prefer to work late at night rather than early in the morning. I recognise that there are hon. Members present who have served even longer than I have, but I speak as someone whose service in the House spans 24 years, five of which
992
were spent as an Opposition social security spokesman at a time when there was an extraordinary amount of legislation before the House. On the basis of that experience, I can say categorically that, once we get into the small hours or even late into the evening, progress on legislation slows down, people stray from the point and their concentration wanders. Far less work is done and it is done far less effectively.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)rose—
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly not give way on that particular point to hon. Members who are comparatively new to the House, because lengthy experience drives one to the conclusion that late-night sittings are not an effective way for the House to conduct its business.
I understand the concerns of those who feel that, their own or their staffs patterns of work having been adapted to the present patterns of debate, the proposed experiment in bringing forward our hours will cause problems. The underlying dilemma of how to juggle conflicting pressures and demands is perpetual. It is not created by the proposals, and views both on the dilemma and on its solution vary from Member to Member. Many of us believe, however, that the proposals may contribute to more measured and better-informed debate.
The issue before the House with regard to the proposed experiment is not only when or for how many hours Members are in the House but whether patterns of work that grew up to suit the habits and, frankly, far lighter work load of earlier generations of Members now contribute to us sometimes wasting time in the House rather than making the best and most productive use of it.
That brings me directly to the votes before the House tonight. In its report, the Committee recommended unanimously that the House should be given the opportunity to vote on the proposal initially put to the Committee by my predecessor on behalf of the Government, namely that, on Thursdays, the main business of the House should begin at 11.30 am with questions; that to observe the rule that Standing Committees do not sit during Question Time, they should commence their proceedings at 9 am rather than 10.30 am as at present, and that the moment of interruption of the normal day should be 7 pm rather than 10 pm as now. Since these proposals first came before the Committee, several concerns have been raised about the implications of the alternative timings. Two other proposals were thus considered by the Committee.
The first was that the parliamentary day should, as in the original proposal, commence at 11.30 am but that Question Time should be taken as now at 2.30 pm and Standing Committees should sit as now at 10.30 am. The Committee gave this proposal extremely careful consideration. Those who preferred to make no change at all in the timing of Thursday sittings nevertheless felt that the second proposal would clearly mean less change and hence less impact of change, which is incontestably true. However, as with all such proposals, there are other knock-on effects.
The parliamentary day itself would be disjointed. The debate would have to be interrupted for questions and, because Thursday is the day on which the business

993
statement is made, adjourned for an undetermined period. Many members of the Committee doubted whether that was a preferable outcome. In particular, given that the underlying purpose of making any such proposal was to make more effective use of parliamentary time, this disruptive method of conducting the day caused particular concern. The uncertainty made that proposal less popular with the Committee than the original one.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the right hon. Lady will be fair to the House. It is important to establish the fact that the Opposition on the Committee, comprising just four members, made it perfectly clear that while both propositions should be put to the House, they would not support the proposal that Standing Committees should sit at 9 am and that questions should take place after prayers at 11.30 am on a Thursday. Will the right hon. Lady therefore confirm that, while she has sought to highlight the fact that the report was not, as it were, contested, the main Opposition on the Committee made it perfectly clear that they could not support Standing Committees sitting at 9 am and questions other than at 2.30 pm, which is the present tradition and custom?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did indeed fully intend, and do intend, to make that quite plain, although I might not have put it in quite this way had he not said what he did. I am not seeking in any way to misrepresent the views of members of the Committee.
It is also right that the House should be made properly aware of the fact that the representatives of the principal Opposition party on the Committee made it plain not only that they did not support the proposal that Standing Committees sit at 9 am, but that they did not support the alternative proposal for the House to sit at 11.30 am and then adjourn, with questions at 2.30 pm. It was suggested in Committee that they had no intention of voting for that proposal, should it come before the House, so it will be interesting to see whether they vote for the amendment that they have tabled.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the proposal that Standing Committees should sit at 9 am was not supported by all members of the Committee, and at no point did I intend to convey the impression that it was.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years. We have had these arguments down the years. Tory Members of Parliament have repeatedly opposed the idea that the House should meet in the morning. The reason is simple—they have interests in the City which they want to pursue, and they do not want the House to meddle in their private commercial affairs. For once we should grasp the nettle.
Mrs. Beckett: The reasons for the concerns that hon. Members express is a matter for them, and I expect that we shall hear some of them today. I certainly recognise the variety of concerns of different hon. Members about such proposals. Undoubtedly, Conservative members of the Committee did not support either the proposal for Standing Committees to sit at 9 am, as the hon. Member
994
for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) correctly said, or the proposal for the House to meet at 11.30 am and adjourn at 2.30 pm.
Mr. Winterton: I hope that the right hon. Lady is also prepared to admit to the House that, although the main Opposition—the Conservative and Unionist parties—on the Committee were not happy that the House should sit from 11.30 on Thursday mornings, they were reluctantly prepared to go along with it. We were also supported by representations made to the Committee by Madam Speaker—the information is in the public domain, so I may quote it—and a subsequent letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means on behalf of the Chairmen's Panel, of which, as the right hon. Lady knows, I happen to be a member.
I say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I have been in the House for 28 years and, like him, have been a Back Bencher throughout. I hope that, in many ways, I reflect the interests not only of Back Benchers but of the House in the standard that I have maintained.
Mrs. Beckett: It is clear that many Opposition Members disliked the proposal for the House to sit from 11.30 am but felt that its doing so, with questions at 2.30 pm, was a better bargain than it sitting at 11.30 am and Committees beginning at 9 am. It is also clear that they did not intend to support either of those options for change at that time. Indeed, it should be clearly on record, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the proposal for the way in which the decision should be put to the House was agreed by the Committee.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will get on.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)rose—
Mrs. Beckett: I shall of course give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but I find somewhat strange her statement that some members opposed absolutely any movement on the proposal to sit at 11.30 am. We were willing unanimously to agree the report because the alternatives to sitting at 11.30 am were clearly set out in the report. If we had all opposed any proposal to sit at 11.30 am, we would have opposed the report. The right hon. Lady should not therefore claim that I would oppose the concept of the House sitting at 11.30 am. There was an overwhelming desire of the majority to move in that direction. The Committee was trying to ensure that that could be done in the way that most benefited the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. There is not so much difference between us in our recollection of what took place in Committee. The manner in which the decision was to be made was very clearly discussed. Representatives of the Conservative party recognised that the proposal might—it is still very much

995
"might"—be agreed by the House, and preferred other options, but that did not necessarily mean that they would vote for such proposals.
The third option concerned the entirely different issue, which was raised in several quarters, not least by Madam Speaker, of whether the Committee had examined the very different sittings pattern of some other Parliaments. That reminds me that I did not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield about Madam Speaker's views. He will be as conscious as I am that those views were expressed by Madam Speaker at an early stage, before the Committee had discussed matters with her, and are on record from that time. We took careful account of her concerns and of the alternative proposal that came from various sources, including from Madam Speaker, for a different sittings pattern which I can most easily describe as block weeks, whereby Parliament would sit for a specified period of weeks and would then have a non-sitting week.
The Committee asked the Clerk to draw up a potential schedule on the same underlying premise as the experiment that had previously been considered—that the House should sit for as many hours as it does now, and that it should do so without changing the broad pattern of the parliamentary year as we know it. On that basis, the potential schedule was intended to give us an illustration of what block-week sittings would mean. As the House can see from the report, they would be a move away from the pattern of sittings that has been developed since the cross-party Jopling report almost 10 years ago, and would also increase the periods of no effective scrutiny.
Our examination of the alternative proposal suggested that a complete reconstruction of our entire parliamentary year, including the pattern of our recesses and of the party conference season, would be required for such a proposal to be practicable. The Committee did not feel able to recommend that to the House at present, although some members did find attractive the option of revisiting the parliamentary year. It did not seem to be an experiment that could readily be given an early trial in the House, as it gives rise to much more fundamental considerations.
The ultimate view of the Committee was that the House should be given an opportunity to consider whether it wanted an experiment along the lines originally proposed by my predecessor. Further, it was recommended that if such a proposal were defeated, the House should have the chance to fall back on the variation represented by keeping Question Time at 2.30, although with an 11.30 start in the Chamber, rather than being able to fall back only on the status quo. That decision on the proposed experiment, in accordance with the view expressed by the Committee, lay behind the motions tabled by the Government, on which the House is invited to participate in a free vote. I shall return to the subject of the vote shortly.
I shall touch on two other issues. First, the Committee proposed that, within the pattern of the experiment, consideration should be given to providing a non-sitting week around mid-February, because of the heavy load that all hon. Members carry during the Session from the Christmas to the Easter break. Again, the intention was not to diminish scrutiny and debate overall. Clearly, it will depend on the progress of business whether we can suggest a move along those lines this year. In general terms, many hon. Members would find it helpful for the
996
effective planning of their work if they had the flexibility to undertake other commitments in a non-sitting week during that period.
Secondly, the Modernisation Committee's first report last Session recommended greater flexibility about when Standing Committees could meet and, in particular, that they should be allowed, as are Select Committees, to meet when the House is not sitting. The present report repeats that recommendation, and suggests that a period in September could be designated for meetings of Select or Standing Committees, if their members so choose. Again, the proposal is intended to provide greater flexibility and effectiveness in our parliamentary work.
Mr. John Butterfill: The right hon. Lady says, "if their members so choose." In the case of Select Committees, it is clearly the choice of members whether they meet in September. With regard to Standing Committees, the Government would take the initiative. How would they consult members of Standing Committees to see whether they wished to meet in September?
Mrs. Beckett: Through the usual channels, as I envisage it. Lest there should be any doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, may I say that that was a unanimous recommendation from the Modernisation Committee in the previous Session, before I was a member of the Committee. As I understand it, the proposal was not envisaged as an instrument that the Government might use to force Standing Committees to sit at other times. A number of hon. Members were expressing the wish for greater flexibility in the operation of Committee weeks, and the recommendation was intended to give expression to that thought.
Helen Jackson: In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the points that has been frequently raised with us—in the Chamber and as members of the Committee—is that there would be an opportunity in parts of the summer recess to table, and perhaps receive answers to, parliamentary questions? At present, that element of scrutiny is seriously lost for a significant part of the year.
Mrs. Beckett: There is no doubt that the Committee's thinking was that that would create the possibility, should hon. Members want to make use of it, of enhancing the scrutiny available to them during that period.
I want to say a little more about the on-going work of the Committee and in particular about the proposal to which I alluded earlier—for a body analogous to the Main Committee in the Australian Parliament.
Today the House is not being asked to experiment with a parallel forum or Main Committee, but the Committee seeks the views of Members and their initial reactions to the discussion of these ideas already undertaken. Such a parallel forum might be a Committee of the whole House which would sit apart from this Chamber, which any Member could attend and which might meet at the same time as the main Chamber of the House, but only to discuss agreed business and non-controversial matters. Any matter that became the subject of dispute could not be decided, but would return for decision to this Chamber.
Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the report mentions the difficulties in terms of media

997
coverage of Committees. Does she agree that, if there were to be a Main Committee experiment, it would be crucial to ensure that media coverage of debates was commensurate with traditional media coverage of debates in the Chamber? Does she also agree that, with reducing media coverage of significant business even in the main Chamber, there are dangers that the media might concentrate on the trivial at the expense of the important?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, those are matters that can be explored by the House. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that anyone envisaged that any forum in the House would be discussing the trivial, although there might be greater opportunity to discuss in more depth some of the serious issues for which there is not always as much time as hon. Members would like.
The initial work done by the Modernisation Committee suggested that uncontroversial Bills, Adjournment motions, Members's daily Adjournment debates and debates on Select Committee reports all might be suitable for being taken in a Main Committee, which would perhaps free up time on the Floor of the House and would certainly provide more opportunity for scrutiny and debate.
One other minor reform—which I might, on another occasion, recommend to the House, and should mention for completeness—is that we might provide for Lords messages about Bills to be received when the House is not sitting. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the other place already has such provision for messages from this House. An effect of making parallel provision would be that Lords Bills and Lords amendments could be printed and made available to Members of this House earlier than is sometimes the case at present. It would certainly avoid delays, if the sittings hours of the two Houses were different, in messages being received from the Lords. I am considering that issue and may table a motion to create a similar, reciprocal structure to that which exists within the House of Lords.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I have taken a number of interventions. Before I finish, I must say something about the timing of the debates, how I intend to vote in a free vote and what I recommend to other hon. Members who support modernisation and want an experiment for change in our procedures.
I am sorry that an amendment has been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). As Madam Speaker has pointed out, it will be voted on before the recommendation put to the Committee by the Government. I am particularly sorry because the Committee agreed, as it says in the report, that we should put the Government's proposal to the House and—to avoid there being no option other than a return to the status quo should that be defeated—that the alternative of the House breaking for Question Time at 2.30 pm should then be put to the vote.
Mr. Pike: Does not the way that we are voting mean that we unfortunately have to eliminate the compromise, because the main proposal would otherwise be eliminated? Is it not unfortunate that we are doing things that way round, because it is exactly the opposite of what the Committee wanted us to do?
Mrs. Beckett: It is of course a matter for hon. Members to decide how they vote, but my hon. Friend is correct that
998
the Committee envisaged at that time that the proposal to break was preferable as a fallback for the House to consider—to agree to or to reject as it chose—than having only the option of the Government proposal and the status quo. The tabling and selection of the amendment for debate reverses that.
Since the production of the Committee's report, and since seeing today's Order Paper and hearing of Madam Speaker's decision, I have given careful further thought to my own view and to what view I would recommend to the House. I am very sorry indeed to have to say that the moving forward of our decision in such a manner—by those who, as we are all well aware, do not support and indeed resist a proposal for change—places us all in a dilemma.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my remarks are almost at a close.
I am sorry to find myself in such a position, but I am so concerned that the option to which the amendment would give force might bring the experiment into disrepute—and might lead to its termination rather than to its success—that I fear that I must vote against the amendment. I recommend that every hon. Member who wants our procedures to be modernised and wants change that might be effective in respect of better completion of our work take the same view. I am sorry to have to say that—there appeared to be other possibilities—but that seems to be the position.
I end as I began, by recommending to the House that we conduct an experiment by bringing forward our Thursday sittings. We all know that there are strong views in the House on that matter, and that there are different views. I hope that those different views will all be treated with respect, but it appears that those of us who want the experiment to proceed should vote against the amendment and for the sittings of the House (No. 1) motion.
5.18 pm
Sir George Young: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members from both—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot move the amendment at this stage. We must deal with motion on the Order Paper first. When we come to the next motion, he may move his amendment.
Sir George Young: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can see advantage in the way that the votes will take place.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment is to the first motion, not to the second. Presumably, as the first motion has been moved, the amendment has to be moved to that motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are currently dealing with motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, concerning the approval of the Committee's report, which is not the motion to which the amendment refers.
Sir George Young: There is some merit in the way that the votes will take place. It will enable the House to

999
decide which of the two alternatives it prefers before going on to decide whether it wants change. The amendment allows the House to take that decision, which might have been denied to the House had we approached the matter in the other way.
I begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, both the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired our initial deliberations on the subject, and the present Leader of the House for the way in which they presided over the Select Committee. They both had to cope with a wide range of sincerely held views on the Committee, reflecting the differing interpretations of the role of a Member of Parliament and of the appropriate allocation of available time for our duties.
Some of those differences could be traced back to the different dates of entry of Members into the House, some to the fact that Opposition Members understandably have a perspective different from that of Back-Bench Government supporters'. Other differences were due to some members of the Committee having additional responsibilities in the House. Some have constituencies in or near London and others do not, and some Members have their main office here and others have it in their constituency.
Those varying perspectives of members of the Committee drove us to different conclusions. The Select Committee is not directly recommending this change, as is clear from paragraph 72 of the report. We had a lively but manageable debate. None the less, if I were running a dating agency, there are some combinations that I would seek to avoid.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although Labour and Liberal Members from the 1997 intake were members of the Committee, no Conservative Members from the 1997 intake were on the Committee? Therefore, he cannot deduce from the evidence of the debate in Committee that people's views were related to their year of entry; they were rather more closely related to the party that they represent.
Sir George Young: I stand by the proposition that I asserted. If the hon. Lady analysed her Back-Bench Labour colleagues she would find a similar difference in interpretation of the role of an MP according to date of entry. That different perspective is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches.
I also commend the Clerks on their work, particularly the section on the Main Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) for providing coffee on a Wednesday morning.
I start by making three general points which provide a framework for the debate. I am concerned at the loss of influence of the House of Commons in recent years. I want to see that decline reversed, so I ask: are these proposals likely to assist in that objective?
Let me read a quotation:
"Our Parliament may have its quirks and faults, but it is hard to find another country today whose Parliament is so central to its national life. In Britain, Parliament is where things happen. It is the voice of the people of Britain, fighting out all the complexities of our national issues which in some other countries are settled in smoke-filled rooms."
1000
That was said only two and a half years ago in June 1996 in a speech to the Centre of Policy Studies by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister. I honestly do not think that the Prime Minister could say it today.
Parliament is not central to our national life. The papers have stopped reporting it, the radio has reduced its coverage, Ministers increasingly bypass it, and until recently, Labour Members were sent away from it. We even debar ourselves from discussing some of the live issues of the day.
At best, the proposals before us do nothing to address that central issue which ought to be at the heart of the Select Committee's agenda; at worst, they may even add to the problem, which brings me to my second point.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: As someone who has served in the House for rather a long time also, I should say that the picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints of a golden age in 1996, described by the then Prime Minister, bears no resemblance to the experience that most of us had either then or for many years before it under the leadership of that Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor.
Sir George Young: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously assert that during the past 18 months there has been no change in the role of Parliament in our national life? If so, he is in a minority.
The proposals received a terrible press in July, for which the Government have no one to blame but themselves. The proposals before us originate from the Government and have been through the Select Committee, and it was the Government who launched them on the public before the Select Committee even discussed them.
On 1 July, The Independent quoted the right hon. Member for Dewsbury as saying of the package of changes:
"It reduces the pressure points during the session and adjusts the arrangements to make them more family friendly."
That led to the headline:
"Extra family time for overworked MPs".
The Daily Mirror used the same quote from the right hon. Lady to prop up its headline:
"Four days a week for MPs".
The Evening Standard had the same quote:
"MPs set to spend more time with the family".
Even The Guardian said:
"Reform plan offers MPs longer break at week-ends".
BBC On Line said:
"MPs to get more time with families".
As I said, all that happened before the Select Committee even considered the proposals. So far from the reforms helping to elevate the status of the House, the way in which the Government presented them made that task harder.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not one of the problems facing the House the fact that this is a House of Commons matter, yet we are considering Government proposals? With no disrespect to the Leader of the House, for whom I have great admiration, I am not sure that I believe that the Committee should be chaired by a member of the

1001
Government and Cabinet. That is the problem. We are debating Government proposals which the Government want to get through when it should be entirely a House of Commons matter; proposals should be put forward by the House of Commons through the Modernisation Committee.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend tempts me way beyond my negotiating brief, but I shall touch upon his point in a moment.
Helen Jackson: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee in its early stages when it published its first report on the legislative process, but does he agree that the recent report is totally in line with the basic principles agreed unanimously after much argument and debate—not on party lines—and that the Modernisation Committee was about improving the way in which Parliament carries out the legislative process and the way in which it is presented? Because of the sensitivities, the Committee said:
"Our approach is to recommend various options to be tried out always on an experimental basis."
That is what the Modernisation Committee is doing. It has been working on a cross-party basis, and if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that that will no longer operate, people outside the House need to know that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak. We do not have all that much time and if interventions continue at this rate and at this length, many people will be disappointed.
Sir George Young: I revert to the point that I was making. The Select Committee learned a lesson, which was that we should present any proposals for change on the basis of enabling us to represent our constituents more effectively, not to spend more time with our families. The Opposition's press notice last week was a wiser one, with no references to anything friendly or familiar; none the less the media simply looked up the previous coverage and panned the proposals.
My third point relates to that just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Caroline Flint: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: No, in the light of Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction, I want to make progress.
These recommendations come from a proposition that emerged not from the Select Committee but from the Government. Of course, they are not to be condemned because of their source, and they should be judged on their merit. But any Select Committee, and particularly the Modernisation Committee, will want to develop its own agenda and not just accept the Government's. The Jopling proposals came from within, not without, and went ahead with all-party support. The House of Commons should control the Executive, not the other way around, particularly on this sort of issue.
Against that background, I come to the proposals for Thursday and my amendment.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, the Jopling proposals came forward on an all-party basis, but it was the Leader of the House of
1002
the day who put forward the proposals. Those proposals, which most hon. Members will feel have improved the work of the House, would never have been carried through had it not been for the fact that we, as the Opposition, overrode the concerns of our traditionalists who did not wish to see that modernising step. We had the courage to grasp the nettle and support the Government, even though it was argued that the change was in the Government's interests. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do the same.
Sir George Young: I am not prepared to override my hon. Friends' objections, because I share them.
The Government proposition that we are now debating is in appendix 1, paragraph 11. I should have preferred a much more rigorous analysis in the paper of the then Leader of the House—first outlining the problem, and then relating the solution to the problem—but none was forthcoming. To substantiate the proposal that there should be no whipped business after 7 pm on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get back to their constituencies for a full Friday, the Government should have outlined how often votes after 7 pm currently occur. In the previous Parliament, there were two such votes between the Queen's Speech and dissolution. Between 13 March 1998 and the summer recess, it happened three times. Since we returned from recess, there have been no votes after 7 pm on a Thursday.
The disadvantage of the proposed turbulence in the morning, in which moving forward the sittings of the House will disrupt activities currently occurring in the morning—a matter to which I know other hon. Members wish to speak—is not counterbalanced by a corresponding benefit in the evening. The problem of hon. Members having to stay in the House to vote after 7 pm is a minor one that could have been dealt with through the usual channels. The entire foundation on which the argument for change is constructed is, therefore, essentially a weak one.
Under the Government's proposals, hon. Members also will not know whether they can get away at 7 pm, as the Government's offer relates only to whipped businesses. There could be business after 7 pm, announced the previous Thursday, in which hon. Members will have to take part, whereas they had thought they would be able to get away. The House will therefore face the paradox of rising early on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get to their constituencies, even on those Thursdays when the House will sit the next day.
The case against change is a more powerful one and is made primarily in paragraph 62. The proposed change would allow less time to apply for private notice questions and statements. Statements will also be made in the middle of the day, at lunch time. There would also be the problems that Madam Speaker mentioned in her letter. Moreover, it is not true that hon. Members are currently inactive between 11.30 am and 2.30 pm on a Tuesday. That work will still have to be done—it would be displaced, not abandoned.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the final reason listed in paragraph 62. The Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is in the process of establishing the reduced pressure on the House, as certain matters will no longer be debated in this place but in assemblies and a

1003
Parliament elsewhere—the so-called devolution dividend. If the House wants to consider greater certainty and less business on a Thursday evening, that would be the appropriate forum to do so, when we could consider the objectives that I understand Labour Members want to achieve without causing dislocation in the morning.
We have to consider the proposal also against the background of what has already happened in this Parliament to Thursdays—which is a factor that the Government have ignored. Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday removed Thursday's main anchor. The 3.15 to 3.30 Thursday slot was always well attended—I think that it was as well attended at the Tuesday slot—after which many hon. Members stayed on for business questions. Subsequently, the Conservative party held its main Back-Bench meeting, at 6 pm, when business and whipping were announced. Votes were then held, at 7 pm and/or 10 pm. Thursday was therefore a card-carrying member of the parliamentary week.
Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday has changed all that. The best way in which I can make the point is by referring to last week's all-party notices. There were four meetings on Monday 7 December; 20 on Tuesday 8 December; 16 on Wednesday 9 December; and only four on the Thursday, of which only one was in the afternoon. As for the Conservative party's own Back-Bench committees, there were six on Monday, five on Tuesday, three on Wednesday and none on Thursday. It is therefore as if one of the two walls holding up the parliamentary week has collapsed. The building is now listing and is held up by one wall instead of two, compressing ever more business into Tuesday and Wednesday.
The proposition before the House will make a difficult situation worse, by further eroding Thursday. The proposition makes it explicit that Thursday will end earlier than the other weekdays.
Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir George Young: Yes, but for the last time.
Mr. Hawkins: While my right hon. Friend is reflecting on the changes to Thursday, will he once again recognise that the change to Prime Minister's Questions was announced unilaterally by the Prime Minister? That change has added to the lack of scrutiny of the Executive by the House and by the nation. Those of us who are traditionalists believe that many of the Government's changes have been introduced entirely to bypass such scrutiny.
Sir George Young: I very much regret that the change was made without consultation. I remember, when replying to the first debate on the Loyal Address under this Government, deploring the change.
If there is to be change—the House may have gathered that I do not favour change—I prefer the option that will do the least damage to Thursday: which leaves Standing Committees to meet at 10.30 am and not 9; leaves questions, private notice questions, statements and business questions where they are, at 2.30 pm; and does less damage to the rhythm of the parliamentary week. The reasons for choosing the option are stated in the report, in the section containing the views of Madam Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.
1004
My preferred option involves splitting a Thursday by having questions in the middle and not at the beginning. We could have two half-day Opposition days or a couple of debates on different subjects on either side of questions. Last Thursday, for example, there was one debate on alternatives to prison and then another one on the new deal. Those debates could have been held on either side of Question Time without doing any injury to our procedure.
Other hon. Members may want to develop the case for the Opposition amendment, particularly those who have the responsibility of chairing Standing Committees and are worried about the implications of starting at 9 am for them and for the staff of the House.
I should like to say a very quick word on the Main Committee—a subject that deserves a debate on its own on another occasion. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm in her reply that there will be such a debate. There are some key questions about the Main Committee. What will be the impact on the Chamber of the establishment of a Main Committee? Are the lessons of Main Committees established by other Parliaments applicable to this one? Is it the right response to the challenge that I outlined at the beginning of my speech—of restoring the status of Parliament in the life of the nation? Is it the right response when other constitutional reforms are under way, specifically reform of the second Chamber? Those are the key issues that have to be addressed in relation to the Main Committee.
I should like finally briefly to mention future work. Two duties are performed by Parliament. The first is the legislative process—implementation of the manifesto, and changes to the legal framework of life. The second is the holding of Government to account—interrogation of Ministers, scrutiny of their Departments and audit of expenditure. Much of the Select Committee's work has been focused on the first duty, as demonstrated by its proposals on carry-over of Bills and on Standing Committees meeting in September for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that, in the interests of balance, the future agenda will focus on the second function—scrutiny.
When the right hon. Member for Dewsbury held my job, she said:
"Parliament does not anymore hold Ministers properly to account".
There are many ways of dealing with that deficiency, some of which are mentioned in appendix 4 to the memorandum from the Liaison Committee. I am interested in taking that agenda forward. The details need not be sorted out today. However, I believe that our agenda should be refocused on the responsibilities that I have outlined.
I hope that the House will not agree to the changes proposed by the Government. However, if it does want change, then change as proposed by my amendment would be the better way forward.
5.38 pm
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): I really do not think that Conservative Members, particularly those who served on the Modernisation Committee, have helped themselves by the way in which they have conducted this debate. I say that for the very simple and straightforward reason that, although Committee members recognised that Conservative Members did not want change, we both acknowledged

1005
and respected that position. However, we also knew and believed that it was our duty to take them along with us whenever we could, and that is what we tried to do.
For Conservative Members now to speak in this debate in a manner designed to undermine the proposed change sends a clear message to me and to all my colleagues—that we who represent the majority view in the House and who believe that the modernisation of Parliament is essential if we are to preserve this historic institution in which we believe so strongly will have to modernise Parliament, with Conservative Members adding minority reports to our work. That is, in effect, what they have done today. It would have been more honest, more straightforward and more simple if they had done that at the very beginning of the process.
Opposition Members should remember that a majority of the House favours reform, and that we have always tried to work by consensus. It is up to not only the majority party but the minority party—in this case, the Conservative party—to prove that it is prepared to work towards a consensus. It takes two to make that bargain and stick to it.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, the purpose of the reforms is to make Parliament—not the Government—more effective. That is what we set out to do, although the point has been lost in part of the debate. The fact that some of the press coverage of the lengthy report focused on one or two statements about family-friendly practices says more about some of the briefings that went on, and, sadly, a lack of journalistic effort to understand what the report was about, than about the proposals.
I was pleased, as were all members of the Committee, that Madam Speaker made it clear that, although she had reservations about some of the changes, she and her staff would do everything possible to make them work. We also want to place on record our thanks to the staff of the House, who will also seek to make the changes work. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) talked about the disruption that starting at 9 o'clock in the morning would cause to the staff. I am puzzled about why the argument is always put that way around. It would be possible to comment on the inconvenience to the staff of finishing at midnight. The argument is not that simple. Why are Conservative Members so anxious not to sit in the morning? There are several answers, some of which have been suggested.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: From my limited experience as a former member of the Chairmen's Panel, I believe that it is wrong to ask the Clerks of the House to come in as early as 7.30 in the morning to prepare for Committees. It is difficult enough to travel to London early. They sometimes have to work late. We should be considerate to the staff because they give us such excellent service.
Mr. Soley: That is the hon. Lady's point of view, but it is normal in society to go to work in the morning and go home in the evening. That is a standard working practice which is common in Parliaments throughout the world. I hear and understand what the hon. Lady says,
1006
but it is not like that in the rest of the world. I am not suggesting that we have to be like others; I am just saying that we are different.
Ms Oona King: I am a Member of Parliament now, but I was a member of the staff once. I used to have to leave this place at ridiculous hours. That is unfair. It discriminates against anyone who wants to be in the real world and have a real life. On a more serious note, on one occasion when I left work at 2 o'clock in the morning, I was attacked on my way home. That would not have happened if I had had normal working hours.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: No. I want to make progress, because I know that many people want to speak. I hope that the hon. Lady catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me put the issue in context. The Government have embarked on a major programme of constitutional reform. I appreciate that the Conservative party does not like that. We are reforming the House of Lords, local government, regional government and the government of Scotland, Wales and London. As a result of the work of the Modernisation Committee, we have already improved the scrutiny of European legislation. We shall have to do more such work. The suggestion that the workings of the House of Commons cannot be reformed is ludicrous. Going on like that will destroy this institution.
I have said many times that the House of Commons has a famous reputation around the world. It gained that reputation in the 19th century and the early part of this century. It began to lose it after the first world war, because many other countries copied us, but they jumped ahead whereas we stood still. The Conservatives would go on standing still if they could. It is up to the Labour party, with, I suspect, the support of the minority parties, to ensure change.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: I shall make a bit more progress and then I shall give way.
People outside do not understand why we have late-night sittings. Most people know that it is common sense that good legislation is not made late at night and that the Government cannot be held effectively to account then. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire talked about Parliament being a proud part of the tradition of the previous Prime Minister. I remember, as does he, how the Conservative Government organised their business so that much of it came up late at night when it would not be noticed. We were told that that was supposed to be Parliament acting more effectively. The Conservative Government slipped unpopular measures through after midnight when there would be relatively little questioning and the issue would not get into the media.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is putting up an Aunt Sally. We are not

1007
debating late-night sittings; we are having, I hope, a civilised discussion about two alternatives for Thursdays. Late-night sittings do not enter into it.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman must have missed part of my argument. I was talking about people not understanding our late-night sittings. That is an important issue which is related to morning sittings. Conservative Members protest that we have Committees in the morning. One of the problems that we have to face is that the work of the Committees and the expectations and work load in the constituencies have increased. One reason why the Chamber is frequently nearly empty is that we have a lot of other Committees. What are we going to do about that—abolish the Committees? We have to think more radically and jump over that to come to other solutions.
Many people wonder why uncontentious debates take place on the Floor of the House, often with only a few people present. When they look down on the Chamber and see only four or five people, they ask what is going on. We need to address that. Many people question the unpredictability of Members' commitments, particularly on Fridays. In any democracy, a Member of Parliament cannot guarantee being in a particular place at a particular time. Democracy ought to be unpredictable to an extent; however, it is nonsense to think that we cannot tell people whether we can be present elsewhere on a Friday. Members of the Canadian Parliament can say whether they can be in their constituency months in advance. They can deliver on such a promise in all but the most extreme circumstances.
We also rightly complain about the lack of media coverage of this place. I have regularly been the first to point out the problem, and shall continue to do so, but we do not do our case any good by arranging our debates so that Back Benchers—those who are not members of the Government—do not have a cat in hell's chance of being reported in the media after 5.30 pm. I entirely agree with Madam Speaker and others that we cannot shape the Chamber around the needs of the media, but it is absurd to go to the other extreme and take no account of those needs. I want Back Benchers to be able to make speeches that are noticed in the media. That can happen, but we need to change, as well as the media.
The debate about the use of time in the House has bedevilled us for years. There were arguments under the previous Government about how to change the hours of the House of Commons. Even they recognised that legislating in the early hours of the morning was not a convincing practice for the public. The debate about time is more sophisticated than it seems, because it also involves what subjects need to be debated on the Floor of the House. Only by addressing the problem from that angle can we begin to deal with it.
The proposal for a Main Committee or alternative Committee—we can call it what we will—is important. I urge hon. Members from all parties to consider the proposal and examine how it works in Australia, Canada and one or two other places before deciding whether we should use it here. If the vote tonight goes as I hope it will, the Modernisation Committee will continue to examine the issue. Any proposals will have to come back here for approval. I believe that a Main Committee would enable us to do more to hold the Executive to account,
1008
because there would be more opportunities for Back Benchers to raise many of the issues that are not currently raised.
One example that should appeal to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is that there should be more debates on Select Committee reports. Such debates and more Adjournment debates—not at midnight, but between the Minister and the Back Bencher in the Main Committee—might even get into the main regional news programmes on television and radio. Would that be a bad thing for Back Benchers? I think not; it would be a good thing.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent, but he had better be brief, as I am trying to save time.
Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making interesting and worthwhile points, particularly about how the House might be better reported. My misgivings are that the previous Administration would never have dreamed of using their majority to impose their view on the Opposition on a matter of such magnitude as the timetabling of business in the House of Commons—with the exception of the guillotine. Our problem is that Britain does not have a written constitution. The one guarantee of the power of the House is that such reforms have always been on a strictly consensual basis. The Labour Government are using their majority to pursue a constitutional reform programme that could be described only as a form of elective Stalinism.
Mr. Soley: I have two brief points in response to that. First, if the hon. Gentleman really does believe that in 18 years the Conservative Government did not drive their business through, I must say that they had me fooled for a long time. Secondly, there was consensus on the Committee, but it was broken today; that is a pity. The Conservatives have damaged themselves by that, because many hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted an agreement to be reached.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, are we debating Government business or House of Commons business?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, but a point of debate.
Mr. Soley: I shall let it pass as largely irrelevant to the issues at stake, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) drew my attention to a fact sheet about the hours of sittings in the House of Commons over many centuries. Of course the hours have varied widely. This has probably been one of the longest periods in which we have not changed them. The House has sat on Saturdays and Sundays, in mornings, afternoons, evenings and at night. It was a flexible, changing institution. Sadly, the Opposition are now saying that we should not change anything, in remembrance of some golden age. However,

1009
things are never quite what they were. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has changed, as has much of what we do. We have been left with a model of Parliament that is a less than adequate means of holding the Executive to account and of giving Back Benchers the rights that they need to do their work.
Back Benchers have many roles. They are expected to do much more in their constituencies than previously. They do much more work in Committees. I would like us to do more outside the United Kingdom. Only twice in my career have I been an observer at international elections. It is one of the best things one can do and the countries that are emerging out of authoritarian rule appreciate it, but we can fulfil such duties only if we consider the role of Back Benchers, set it in context and modernise our working times.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think is misleading the House, and he is not known for that. He is suggesting—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to think about what he has said. I am sure that he did not intend to make quite that accusation.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's remarks could be construed as not giving a fair interpretation of the Opposition's intentions. He is suggesting that, by agreeing the amendment, we would be going back on what was agreed in the Committee. However, without the amendment, the two points that were made in the Committee would never be put to the House because, if the first motion is agreed to, everything falls. The amendment is necessary to put the alternative before the House.
Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not right. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman intervened, so perhaps he should listen.
More important, my general point related not just to the fact that the Opposition tabled the amendment, but to the tenor of their comments in the debate. I remember working hard in the Select Committee and sometimes being criticised by my hon. Friends, who will cheerfully refer to the stick that they gave me from time to time, for trying to get the Conservatives on board. Suddenly, I find what I suspected—that they would not stay with it. That did not surprise me, but I felt that I had a duty to try to take them with me. When they return to the Committee, they need to think more carefully about how they participate in order to give the Committee confidence that we can work on a consensual basis. If we cannot, as I said earlier, it will be better if we acknowledge that Tory Members will write a minority report and vote accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that and it would save a great deal of time. It is important to have said that, because the Tory party should not be allowed to get away with what it is doing today without comment.
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: No. I am about to conclude.
1010
As I said in my opening comments, we have embarked on a major constitutional reform which is long overdue. We must also undertake a major reform of the House of Commons. On one level, I would quite like to say that we should make the constitutional change first and then reform the House of Commons, but that is neither realistic nor practical. Today, we are asking the House to try an experiment—no more than that. If that experiment works well, we will stay with it. If it does not, we can drop it, but the request is to try that experiment in order to modernise our proceedings in a way that the vast majority of hon. Members want and people outside expect. Above all, we owe it to the history of this place, which frankly was much prouder some time ago than it has been in recent years, and I blame the Conservative party for much of that.
5.57 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I start by following the final remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) in trying to put our discussion in context. I was struck by the description of some hon. Members as traditionalists. I do not know who is owning up to being a traditionalist. It is certainly not exclusive to the Conservatives; indeed, one hon. Member is raising his hand; the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is not in her usual place today, is certainly a traditionalist. Some take pride in that, but what tradition are they seeking to advance?
As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush pointed out, tradition is all over the place. In the 16th century the House sat in the mornings and had Committees in the afternoons. In the 17th century it regularly started at 7 am and sometimes even at 6 am and was fixed day by day. In the 18th century the House sat at 12 noon. That was changed to 3 pm and then 5 pm. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for pointing out that on one occasion the House met at 10 pm because hon. Members wanted to go to the Spithead Review. So ad hocery has been the name of the game.
At the turn of the century the House sat at 3 pm. That changed to 2 pm and then to 2.45 pm. During the war, in order to adapt to the special circumstances and to save energy, the House sat from 11 am to 6 pm—quite a normal working day. After the war, it started sitting at 2.30 pm with 9.30 am as a speciality on Fridays, and recently there has been some moderation around the middle of the week. We have only become set into a particular pattern in comparatively recent times, so I challenge the traditionalists to tell us which tradition they are seeking to follow. Anyone outside watching the debate will feel that the issue of when and how to meet on Thursdays is a storm in a teacup.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush rightly said, we should be discussing the wider issues. I shall refer only briefly to the proposals for Thursdays, as I believe the argument is a red herring.
Incidentally, to demonstrate that the power of Prime Ministers has a long history, I can tell hon. Members that the House sat on Saturdays in the 17th century and continued to do so until Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole abolished Saturday sittings because he wanted to secure at least one day's hunting a week.

1011
The first paragraph of the report is the most important.
It says:
"The purpose of reform is to make Parliament more effective. This means allowing Members to make the best use of their time, and to balance their various commitments in the House and its Committees with the increasing workload and demands of their constituencies."
The purpose of reform is not to reduce our work load, but to make it more productive. I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that the Modernisation Committee has made some—albeit slow—progress. We have sought to find ways in which to achieve more effective scrutiny of legislation, as our previous reports—our principal work under the previous Leader of the House, to whom I, too, pay tribute—demonstrated.
We have also sought to make the Government more accountable. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the power of Parliament had been reduced in the past 18 months and that we had been less effective in holding the Government to account. Where was he in the previous 18 years? He was in the Cabinet, so perhaps he did not notice what Parliament was doing. He certainly cannot have noticed what happened under the then right hon. Member for Finchley, who had an extraordinary perception of the role of Parliament, which she largely regarded as a rubber stamp.
The Thursday proposals are modest. On balance, I prefer option 2 to option 1, but I really do not mind. Let us do something about Thursdays, for goodness' sake. It is ridiculous for those who sit on the two Front Benches to spend all their time arguing about how we decide which option is better. It is absurd that we cannot treat two propositions equally and then choose between them. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will, in due course, consider how we should put different options on a level playing field, as happened when the House considered Sunday trading, for example.
Our yes-no procedures make it extremely difficult to adopt a balanced attitude to the options on Thursday sittings. Both have advantages and both have disadvantages, but they are both considerably better than the status quo. I want us, after this debate, to move on.
I wholly accept the other principal recommendations in the report. A non-sitting or constituency week in February would be extremely welcome, as long as we are given another week in which to ensure that we are not letting the Government off the hook. The same applies to the designated Committee weeks in September. Those weeks may coincide with the Liberal Democrats' party conference, but it would give me great pleasure as Chief Whip to have an excuse not to attend it for one day.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), to whom I pay tribute, drew our attention to the experiences of other Parliaments. A consensus developed in the Committee—across party lines and involving both newer Members and old lags—that it would be sensible to examine the procedures of the House in a Main Committee or second Chamber. Such a Committee would not remove the supremacy of this Chamber—far from it. It would ensure that we had more time to consider those issues that can be debated and decided only on the Floor of the House.
I hope that hon. Members have read the report. If they have, they will have seen the details of the 400 hours of discussion that could easily have been transferred into a
1012
less formal setting with no reduction in accountability. That time would be better spent in scrutinising difficult legislation effectively and in considering private Members' legislation. The real bonus of a Main Committee would be that it would allow us to discuss all those issues that are crowded out of the House. A number of distinguished Chairs and former Chairs of Select Committees are present—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Chairmen.
Mr. Tyler: I take the view that Chairs may call themselves what they want. They could be Chairpersons, Chairmen or Chairlords for all I care.
It is important that the work of Select Committees sees the light of day and is given proper scrutiny. Each year, only about 12 of the 60 or 70 important Select Committee reports are debated—in limited time—on the Floor of the House. That is a scandal. A Select Committee report, despite all the hard work that hon. Members put into it, will have only a one in five chance of being properly debated.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Procedure Committee is examining the role of Select Committees, particularly in relation to financial procedures. If the Committee recommends a greater role for Select Committees, that would provide hon. Members with a further way in which to hold the Executive to account—scrutiny of the Executive would be enhanced if the Main Committee considered Select Committee reports.
Mr. Tyler: That is exactly my point. To have Ministers respond to the criticisms, concerns and anxieties of a Select Committee that has worked hard in examining the work of Departments would be an excellent way in which Back Benchers on both sides of the House could hold the Government to account.
If such discussions were moved into a forum that is more appropriate—not only in terms of the numbers who can easily participate in the debate, but in format—and if we followed the experience of other legislatures, I believe that hon. Members' doubts would soon disappear. While I was on holiday in Australia, I took a day out to go to Canberra to meet the Clerks and other participants in its Main Committee. The Speaker of the House of Representatives had been one of the biggest critics of the Main Committee when it was set up, but he had been completely converted—he believed that it had enhanced the reputation of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush mentioned the media. In Australia, the media are as likely to televise an intelligent discussion in the Main Committee as they are the often rather silly to-ing and fro-ing in the Chamber. For example, the specialist media found a discussion in the Main Committee on youth suicide was much more enlightening than such a debate would have been in the more confrontational atmosphere of the Chamber. I am not suggesting that such a forum would be a wonderful panacea, but the House should examine the idea carefully.
I give one example of how a Main Committee could make a major improvement to the way in which we handle our business. The Wednesday morning Adjournment

1013
debates are very useful, but the maximum attendance is probably only 15 or 20. If those debates were held in a Main Committee, Ministers could still be held to account, but the House could use Wednesday mornings to consider private Members' Bills. That would be much better than using Fridays, which are a disaster—there are voting problems and great uncertainty about what will come up when.
It would be a huge advantage if private Members' Bills were considered in the middle of the week. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are pointing out that the Government would not like that, but I hope that Labour Back Benchers would like it. I know that Liberal Democrats would welcome the ability to have good debates on private Members' legislation instead of having them kicked into the end of the week. That would also allow us to be consistent in our Friday commitments to our constituents. I believe that most hon. Members want certainty in their parliamentary lives.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating no Friday sittings at all?
Mr. Tyler: Friday sittings can never be abolished because we may always need them for flexibility. However, our consistent approach should be that we only have them when we absolutely must and, I hope, by consensus—not just because the Government have got into a mess in the management of their business.
I do not want to state that the Australian example—or, indeed, the Canadian example—is a model that we must follow precisely, as there will be Westminster variations. Far more legislation is undertaken in the Main Committee in Canberra than would be appropriate here. However, there is one basic rule there that would be helpful—there is never a Division in the Main Committee. If the point is reached in any discussion where anyone at all calls for a Division, the matter comes back to the full Chamber. That is the right approach.
If, in a more consensual atmosphere—in a smaller, but still prestigious part of the building, with public and media access—we have the principle firmly established that those discussions take place without a Division, and that if a Division is called, it is automatically adjourned back to the Chamber, that would be a huge advantage.
The House of Representatives has been very careful to give the proceedings of the Main Committee equal status to those of the main Chamber. It is not just a Committee, or even a Grand Committee—it is comparable to the main Chamber. For that reason, the proceedings of the Main Committee are bound with the weekly equivalent of Hansard. The media and the public see the Committee in that way.
I wish to refer to the way in which we manage our business and its impact on access to the House. Some concern has been expressed about the extent to which the public can have access to the House, and the Thursday change could alter that. However, knowing that the public could come here on a Friday—almost invariably—would be a huge asset.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is quite clearly advocating no Friday sittings, other than in
1014
an emergency. He wants Members back in their constituencies—so that they can then come back on a Friday to show their constituents around the House. Is that it?
Mr. Tylers: The hon. Gentleman may have difficulty in arranging visits from constituents during the week. I have never had that problem.
There are current proposals for August and September which would preclude the free access of our constituents to this House—a far more sweeping change than anything suggested in the report. Anyone coming from our constituencies in August or September is likely to be charged between £6 and £7 per head. Hon. Members may have experience of arranging visits of comparatively large parties to the House of Commons in August or September. We are not likely to be here, so perhaps some do not. However, for a lot of families, that is the only time that they can come here. It is the same for youth groups, although school parties tend to come during the school year.
The proposals which, apparently, have been approved—although they have never been before the House, as far as I am concerned—will lead to our constituents being charged for their democratic access to the Houses of Parliament. Few people will be able to afford the proposed £6 or £7 a head. If any hon. Member is concerned about public access, the proper target is not the report—it is somebody within this building who has apparently decided that the 20 per cent. of visitors who come here in August and September who are British citizens will no longer have free access.
In summary, it is unthinkable that a radical, reforming Government should modernise the House of Lords in this Parliament to make it more representative and more accountable for the 21st century and not make this place more accessible, more representative and more accountable.
6.14 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) adopted a rather more leisurely tone than we have heard before in the debate. I am more relaxed than some hon. Members about whether we start Question Time at 11.30 or 2.30—it is not the crucial issue of our time, and we can take it sensibly. It is only an experiment, and, after six or nine months, we can look at it again. A number of experiments have been undertaken which have been changed as a result of our perception of them. We ought to, as it were, lower the tone of the debate, and get down to some sensible discussion of how we can improve our business.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) rightly said, we must look at the role of Back Benchers and how we hold the Executive to account. That is what is important—not whether we meet at 11.30 or 2.30 for questions. That is a minor matter. I have my own views—mainly because I have seen 11.30 questions at the end of a Session, and they were rather poorly attended. I accept that that is not a good analogy, and I will be interested to see how it might work. I am slightly in favour of continuing the present system.
Like many others, I work here on constituency matters. I have a large mail, and one should finish off one's mail quickly—first thing in the morning—so that the rest of

1015
the day is free. That may make it difficult to have morning sittings. I chair three Select Committees, which makes it more difficult for me than for many others.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman asserted that we have had experiments before in this House, upon which votes have been taken and which have been subsequently changed. I must admit that I cannot recall one.
Mr. Sheldon: The Crossman reforms were undertaken—including some very silly ones—and a number were subsequently altered. We have seen that happen, and it will happen again. I have no objection to that.
I wish to comment on the role of the Member of Parliament with his or her constituency. My enormous advantage—and that of other hon. Members—is that I represent a constituency. I am the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—that is what I am known as. I am against lists, because I want to be responsible. I know full well that I can offend an awful lot of people, and it will not make much difference to my large majority. However, that is not the way in which I operate. I want every individual who walks into my advice bureau to lay their troubles to one side, and know that someone is looking after them. That individual approach is important. It is a question not of votes, but of responsibility.
The major problem of this Parliament is that there is a large majority, and the House of Commons is not designed for a large majority. It is not designed to have such a large number of people with nothing very much to do. I have been in 10 Parliaments—five in opposition and five in government. Admittedly—and unfortunately—I have not spent as long in government as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I have had an opportunity to see things from both sides.
Dr. Starkey: Could my right hon. Friend cite any Member of Parliament who has come to him and said that they had nothing to do?
Mr. Sheldon: I must apologise. I used that expression in the conventional sense of the House of Commons doing what it has always done—allowing Members to bring their views to the Prime Minister and leaders of the Government, and to alter the affairs of state. I am not referring to looking after constituents. Constituencies are important, but they should not take up so much of a Member's time. Duncan Sandys, who was accused of not visiting his constituency, said that he represented Streatham in Parliament, not Parliament in Streatham.
I am in my constituency every weekend—that is enough. Constituents can see me, and I can look after their affairs and respond to their correspondence. Nobody has accused me of failing to represent my area, and I am proud of that. That does not mean that Members should ignore their position here—this is where we were elected for. We are Members of Parliament—not councillors, who live and work in an area every day. That is their job. By all means let us converse about the big issues, but Members must not spend too much time on that.
There are 418 Government Members, of whom about 350 are Back Benchers. That is a very large number. In a normal situation, with 350 Government Members,
1016
there are only 280 Back Benchers, and they have much greater influence and involvement. When they question a Minister, they have much more power. Now we have a problem, in that attendance in the Chamber does not reflect the voting in the country as a whole, because Back Benchers do not feel that they need to be here. I suggest that an important criterion for judging the success of any alteration is how it affects attendance in the Chamber. We shall see what happens at the end of the summer.
My predecessor, Lord Hervey Rhodes—a wonderful man, of whom I had an enormously high opinion—never used to have anything to do with his local authority. His advice to me was not to have anything to do with mine. That was possible in the 1950s and until the early 1960s, but much legislation now involves local authorities, because they get so much of their money from central Government. I now represent parts of two local authorities, and sometimes they disagree with each other, which creates problems for me, but I have to live with those. One has to represent the authorities in discussions with Ministers.
We must have an understanding of local problems, but not at the expense of our work in the House. This is a debating Chamber, in which issues facing the country must be argued. Poorer attendance means poorer reporting. We cannot blame the press for the empty Press Gallery when we do not attend ourselves. There was a time when The Times had a large reporting staff here in its own special room, and all one's speeches were reported; now it does not even report Ministers' speeches. Many hon. Members feel that they can exercise more influence through a letter to a prominent newspaper than by making a contribution in the House, and that is very sad.
The first priority is to impress on everybody the importance of the House of Commons. There is a wonderful quotation to the effect that the greatest ambition of an Englishman is to be elected as a Member of Parliament. With the change of "Englishman" to "Briton", I would accept that wholly. It was never my aim to be a Member of Parliament—that was far too lofty an ambition—but circumstances so fell out that I was fortunate enough to come here. I have never ceased to be astonished at my good fortune.
It is crucial to retain the elements of Parliament that have established our reputation all over the world. Whenever we travel abroad, an assumption is made, not out of deference to us, that we understand parliamentary matters well, because of our long history.
One of the important changes we have made is the establishment of Select Committees. I have been associated with them for well over 30 years, as a member or a Chairman. I well remember Michael Foot speaking against Select Committees and saying that they would detract from the House. To a certain extent he was right. There is no doubt that sending people upstairs to debate important matters means that they cannot be here in the Chamber, but there had to be some way of holding the Government to account; it was not enough to make a brilliant speech and hope to change policy, or to ask a question which could be dodged by a clever manipulation of words.
In a Select Committee, one can ask a question again and again, until the Minister or official is forced to give an answer. I remember my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, when he was in the Public Accounts

1017
Committee, banging the table and saying, "I've only got one minute, and I'm going to get an answer, yes or no." Those asking questions in the Committee were given only 15 minutes, because there was such a demand to speak, as people realised that they were doing something important. The reluctant civil servant said, "Yes."
The battles are fought here, and the decisions must be made here, preferably with a large attendance, but it is difficult to hold the Government to account with a handful of hon. Members behind one. In a crowded House, one can have much more impact. That is what we must try to achieve.
The most important change that I support for Select Committees is, strangely, to put their proceedings on the internet. At present, reports are not put on the internet until corrections have been made, three weeks later. Minutes of evidence are not part of the functioning of the House. A Select Committee can get real answers from, say, the Home Secretary or the Governor of the Bank of England, and there is a bit in the press, but nothing in the House until three or four weeks later.
Uncorrected minutes of evidence should be put on the internet. I have arranged for that to be done overnight, if necessary. The reporters can do that, but we are tied down by questions of privilege. The newspapers, television and radio can use uncorrected minutes of evidence, but the House of Commons cannot. That is absolute nonsense. I am arguing with the legal people, and I have put some points to the various Committees and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been sympathetic, so I am hoping for some change.
That is important, not only because the House can then consider that evidence at Question Time the following day, but because people can see what has been said, and take it as part of the political discussion of the day. When Chairmen and members of Select Committees appear on radio and television, they are a bit apprehensive about saying what was discussed, because they do not have the transcript. They know that what they say is not privileged, so they are careful. If they had the transcript, they could do exactly what the press and the other media do.
I want draft Bills to be scrutinised by Select Committees. That is important, because the Committees build up expertise that can be tapped. I know that we are putting enormous pressure on Select Committee members, but fortunately they are doing very well, and feel that, as the Opposition—if I may say so—are not doing as good a job as they should, part of the scrutiny is being done by Select Committees, and that is of enormous value to us all. Pre-legislation should go to Select Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush was right to say that we need to see reports of debates. On Main Committees, I have nothing against matters going upstairs, but I am a little uneasy about having a replica of the House of Commons. We used to have Standing Committees for regional affairs in which Ministers would respond, so one could argue the case for certain things happening in the north-west, for example. That system was quite popular. I do not know why it was dropped. Perhaps it was taking up too much
1018
ministerial time. We do not want anything too overblown, but particular matters could be devolved to Committee Room 14, say.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent address, and bringing to our debate a balance and a knowledge of what goes on here. He has highlighted the importance of Select Committees, but does he believe, with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), that more Select Committee reports should be debated here, and if so, how can that be done?
Mr. Sheldon: As I was arguing, that could be a matter for one of the debates in Committee Room 14, but there may be other ways to do it. I have already told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I would like to see more debates on the Floor of the House, but, if that is not possible, debates in Committee Room 14 may provide an alternative.
In my 14 years as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have used part of my annual speech to ask other Select Committees to consider expenditure. If Select Committees considered expenditure and concluded that the Government had got it right, nothing more would need to be said, but the Committees do not consider expenditure. I understand the difficulties, because the issues are complicated and the accounts are set out in a way that is hard to understand.
However, with resource accounting, the process will be much easier. For example, child benefit and other expenditure will be entered as an element in resource accounting, and Government programmes will be expressed in terms of money, so that the relevant Select Committee can consider the programme and relate it to the amount spent. Select Committees cannot do that now, because the accounts are expressed in staff or stationery costs. If programmes can be examined by reference to their cost, that becomes an important issue to consider.
We are discussing a trial scheme, and the test of it will be attendance. If such sittings are well attended, I will support a permanent change, but if they are not, we will have to think again.
6.32 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on his remarks. I found myself unable to disagree with almost anything he said. He is a man of great experience, and new Members should pay particular attention to his comments. I also congratulate the Leader of the House on the way that she acted as the Chairman of the Committee. She did so with charm and understanding, and she put up with one or two of us who might not be the easiest Members to control in a Committee. She did so admirably, and the House should recognise that.
We sometimes do not achieve a proper debate in the House, but in following the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I wish to highlight one of the issues he raised—the lack of attendance in the House. One innovation has reduced the numbers of Members attending the Chamber and the time that Members spend here: in every Member's office is a television set, so that we can all see what is going on in the Chamber. Members can sit in their offices, and do not need to be on the green leather Benches. Members have often said to me, "I saw

1019
what was happening in the Chamber on the television, and I thought that I had better come in." They should have been here from the start, but unfortunately that modern and convenient asset has done much to empty the Chamber.
In future, I hope that the Committee will consider one simple change that would assist us in holding the Executive to account. We should ensure that written parliamentary questions could be tabled when the House is not sitting. They would not have to be answered every day, but perhaps they could be answered and published in Hansard once a week or twice a month. Members often want to be able to put questions to Ministers during, for example, the summer recess or the Christmas break. If bombing were to be carried out in Iraq and the House were not recalled, Members would have a hundred and one questions to put to Ministers. The Executive would not be held properly to account if those questions were not answered until 11 January. We should find a way in which written questions can be put and answered when the House is not sitting.
We have heard some argument to the effect that the Committee's report was unanimous, and that it was unfair of the Opposition to table an amendment. It was a unanimous report, but paragraphs 72 and 73 make it clear that there are two aspects for consideration. Motion 5, tabled by the Leader of the House, can be considered only if there is an amendment. The concept that motion 4 will be defeated is nonsense. Once it is passed, motion 5 falls, and the House loses the opportunity to choose between (a) and (b), but the Committee intended that it should be able to choose.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to have to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of his kind remarks about me, which I much appreciate. I have heard several Conservative Members muttering about choice, and it seems to have escaped their notice that, if the amendment they have tabled were to be carried, there would be no opportunity for the proposal in motion 4 to be put to the House. Only one motion can be carried, as one will knock out the other. The matter is quite straightforward.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I gave way, because I wish to clear the matter up. The right hon. Lady appears not to be entirely au fait with the procedures of the House. If motion 4 were passed and no amendment had been tabled, the House would have no opportunity to consider the alternative, because every other motion would fall. However, if the amendment to motion 4 is put, the Government are in a clear position to defeat it, and then motion 4 will be put—as the right hon. Lady desires—unamended. That is as simple as can be.
Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but which point does she not understand? If the House wishes to consider the possibility of questions at 2.30 and Standing Committees not meeting at 9 am, the only way in which that can be done—given the procedure adopted by the Government—is to defeat the Government's first motion.
Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, what the Government did was give effect to the
1020
decision of the Committee, which was that, first, the House would consider the experimental proposal by the Government. If that were defeated, the House would consider the alternative. I can understand it if Conservative Members have thought better of that proposition, but they assented to it in Committee, and that is why the Government have tabled the motions as we have.
Sir Peter Emery: I have—[Interruption.] If I may continue, I must tell the Leader of the House that, if that is what she was saying, the Select Committee was misled. [Interruption.] I should like to finish. I can deal with only one intervention at a time. The Committee was determined to ensure that two options should be available to the House. If I had believed that we would not be able to debate the alternative, and that the Government would table the motions in the way they have, I would have objected to the whole report.
The Committee went to great lengths to ensure that two options would be available. My colleagues on the Committee certainly took the view that we should have the opportunity to allow the House to vote on which alternative it wanted. That was my interpretation.
Mr. Tyler: I have not signed the Official Secrets Act, so I do not think I am betraying any great confidence by saying that I put a proposition to the Committee when it appeared to have reached an impasse. I proposed, simply, that, once the two options were before the House, we should be able to deal with them sequentially, so that there would be a clear choice.
That is precisely what the Leader of the House has done. She has put the main recommendation of the Committee on the Order Paper. If hon. Members think that the second motion is better, they may, quite simply, vote down motion 4, and vote for motion 5. All that those on the Opposition Front Bench, and one or two curious allies, have done is try to reverse that process. I cannot think it a sensible use of our time to argue that point. Let us get on with the debate, and then we can decide on alternative 1 or alternative 2.
Sir Peter Emery: I have never had a high opinion of what the Liberal Democrats say about the right way of dealing with things. It is immensely important to understand that, without the amendment being tabled, the House would have had no chance to show by a vote the number of hon. Members who want the alternative rather than the Government's option. To anyone who believes, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) appears to do, that we can vote down the first motion, I can only say, "Come into the real world." The chances of defeating a Government motion are negligible.
Mrs. Beckett: With the greatest possible respect to the right hon. Gentleman—and with a promise not even to attempt to intervene on him again—may I remind him that, as members of the Committee will be well aware, Opposition Members so little supported the notion of an experiment that they were not going to vote for the proposition at all? How the opinion of the House would have been reflected in that way, I do not know.
Sir Peter Emery: I did not attend the last meeting of the Committee, but there was no doubt that the majority

1021
wanted to change to meeting at 11.30 am. I accept that, and, as a pragmatist, I know that there is no way in which that change can be defeated.
The House has not even started to consider the difficulties of the Government's motion. Standing Committees would meet at 9 am. It is all very well to say that people go to work in an office or something like that at 9 am, but the preparation of the work of Standing Committees is pretty rushed for the Clerks even if they are to be ready for a 10.30 am start. Any amendments tabled up to the closing of the House the night before must be marshalled, got to the printers and prepared for the Committee. If that is to be done in the morning before the Committee sits, the staff will have to come in not at 9 am or at 8.30 am, but at any time from 6 am. Does that make sense? Are the Government really happy to force that on our staff? It is wrong.
No one has considered what the Government motion means to the way in which the House operates.
Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: This must be the last time.
Dr. Starkey: I am a little behind hand, but I was trying to find a reference in the report. The right hon. Gentleman has talked of the difficulties for staff in preparing for Standing Committees. Can he confirm what paragraph 50 of the report says? It makes it clear:
"If the standing committees were to meet as early as 9.00 am, we think it would be desirable to impose an earlier cut-off time for the timetabling of amendments, so that the papers for a Thursday morning meeting could me made generally available on a Wednesday evening."
Sir Peter Emery: I understand that that is a simple statement, but what would the hon. Lady do if a Standing Committee sat until 7 or 8 pm? Could there be an earlier cut-off time? The Committee would not be able to discuss amendments that had arisen from debate if that were so. I do not see that that makes any sense at all.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It would reduce the power of the Committee.
Sir Peter Emery: It would, as my right hon. Friend so rightly says, reduce the power of the Committee.
Let me turn to what the proposals mean to the work of the House. If we meet at 11.30 am on a Thursday, questions will run until 12.30 pm. We shall then have the business statement, which will run, under normal circumstances, until about 1 pm or 1.15 pm. Is that the moment at which Ministers or Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will wish to stand up to make the main speech on the debate of the day? Will they want to do that in the middle of the lunch hour? Is that sensible? Is that what people want? Is that what Ministers really want? I do not think so. It has not been fully thought out.
The amendment would simply make it certain that our Standing Committees can continue as normal from 11.30 am until 1 pm.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Ten-thirty.
Sir Peter Emery: From 10.30 am until 1 pm. If we began at 11.30 am, we could have the main speeches of a
1022
debate. We could then break for questions at 2.30 pm, having had our Standing Committees meet as normal. After that, any statement could be made.
That does not alter the revolutionary factor of change. It has been suggested that the amendment is an attempt to defeat the whole modernisation of the House. It does no such thing. It ensures that the House can operate more sensibly and reasonably, for the convenience of hon. Members. When it was suggested in Committee that the Conservatives were always against change, I reminded hon. Members that I spent my 14 years as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure trying to drag procedures into the 20th century, never mind the 21st.
The Jopling Committee was Conservative led, and proposals went to it rather than the Procedure Committee, so that senior Labour Members could deal with them. That Committee was unanimous, but its recommendations were delayed for two and a half years—not by the Conservatives, but by the then Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party, who objected to any modernisation and change. The Conservative Government could have forced change with their majority, but they chose not to do so, because the Conservative party has always believed in carrying the vast majority of the House rather than forcing procedural change over substantial opposition.
Mr. Derek Foster: The right hon. Gentleman labours under a grave misapprehension. He and I have been in this place a long time, and he is immensely experienced. We sat together on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when God was a lad, and he was a distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee. However, I must tell him that it was not the Deputy Chief Whip who frustrated him. My deputy was acting on my authority, as I was the Chief Whip at that time; I conceded only when it was obvious that my party would win the election, and that it would be to our advantage to have shorter hours. I thought that that was a good negotiating posture.
I have immense respect for the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and I urge my younger colleagues not to dismiss them as though they were being made by a man who does not know what he is talking about. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters, and we should listen carefully to him.
Sir Peter Emery: I am most grateful to the former Labour Chief Whip, who is equally distinguished, and a man of great character. A man who can get up and take the blame, which is normally passed on to his deputy, and say that it was him and not the deputy, is a man worthy of great respect. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the only reason for Labour's agreement was party political is to admit more than I would ever have suggested was behind that agreement.
Let me now discuss the possibility of having a Main Committee or some other Committee. After many years here, I believe that any action that detracted from the importance of the House—the Floor of this Chamber—must be deprecated. However, having said that, I believe that we have to find another way of dealing with some of the mass of matters that—because of pressure of time and because we do not want to sit after midnight so that everybody can speak—are not currently debated, especially reports of Select Committees and the individual private Members' motions that were once a feature of Fridays in the House but have now disappeared.

1023
I acknowledge the possibility of a Main Committee, as long as it does not detract from the Chamber, enabling a whole host of matters which are no longer debated by the House to be considered. If that is what would happen, the proposal is worthy of close consideration.
I finish rather as the Leader of the House finished. The right hon. Lady said that she found it most difficult that the Opposition had tabled an amendment to her motion; and that it was with some sadness that she had to advise the House to vote against the amendment and for her motion. May I suggest that, if there had been no amendment, she would have urged her colleagues to vote for her motion—motion 4? I believe that she would have done so.
Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady nods. If that had been the case, the House would never have had the opportunity of deciding whether the arguments that I have advanced ought to be tested in a Division.
In an early-day motion, 48 hon. Members—a considerable number—have urged that the House should not move away from having questions at 2.30 pm. It is interesting to note that, almost without exception, the Chairmen's Panel perceives no terrible difficulty being caused to the modernisation by holding to 11.30 am and 2.30 pm. I urge hon. Members to think much more fully, not about the glib party political aspects, but about the working of the House. It is the working of the House in which I am interested. If it is passed, the motion will not help the working of the House—in fact, the reverse is true.
6.54 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I hope that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) accepts that all of us are concerned about the working of the House; it is just that we have different opinions about how to make the House work best.
I sat through the start of the debate when Opposition Members were making great play of the fact that the public should have respect for Parliament. I agree, but have to tell them that they are completely out of touch with the public. The public would not find it unreasonable that people should sometimes be asked to come to work at 7.30 am. The reason why doing so in London is difficult is that the vast majority of people in London are coming to work at precisely that time. The public do not find it reasonable that the House should habitually work in the Chamber from 2.30 pm to 10.30 pm, or beyond; nor, if they realised it, would they find it reasonable that sometimes debates are kept going artificially until 10 pm, because hon. Members—on both sides—are attending important dinners and cannot get back until 10 pm.
The public would not think unreasonable the notion that both staff and Members of Parliament have families and family commitments. I know that one member of the Committee is fortunate enough to have his spouse here, but most of us are not in that position.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Dr. Starkey: Certainly.
Mrs. Winterton: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. May I ask, first and foremost, on what
1024
she bases her research into what the people out there want? I have not had a raft of letters suggesting that we should come to work at 9 am.
Secondly, if she and other hon. Members wanted a nine-to-five job, perhaps they should not have stood for Parliament. It is the greatest honour to represent constituents in this place; it is a way of life and not just a job.
Finally, I should like to point out that I did 12 years as a wife living in the constituency and bringing up children—the best job that any woman can do. I was able to do that while my husband was a Member of Parliament and, subsequently, I was able to join him in Parliament. Perhaps hon. Members should think of their constituents first, rather than their own way of life.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is in danger of becoming a little personal. It is better that the subject is dealt with in the round.
Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that I acknowledge that my constituents mostly talk to me about matters of direct concern to them; but when they talk about Parliament they find it extraordinary that we work in a way that is completely alien to the workings of any other organisation in the country. The way in which we work does not enhance my constituents' respect for Parliament. Most members of the public would find it extraordinary that hon. Members should suggest that lunch time is an immutable event that occurs between 1 pm and 2 pm; that no change can be accommodated; and that it is more important than the efficient working of the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, the Modernisation Committee's report and the Committee's raft of previous recommendations have all been aimed at ensuring that the House works more effectively. The recommendations relating to draft legislation, the scrutiny of European legislation, the conduct of debates and setting time limits on speeches to allow more hon. Members to participate are all designed to reform parliamentary procedure so that we can be more effective. Procedures should be designed to be helpful: that is what they were designed to be, but the House has changed and procedures need to be changed too; they should not make life more difficult or make it more complicated for Members of Parliament to participate in debate.
I agree that the essential job of a Member of Parliament when at Westminster remains to legislate, to scrutinise and to hold the Government to account. However, the way in which we do that needs to change, and the measures that the Committee has suggested would achieve that. A balance has to be struck between Members' duties here in Westminster, in their constituency and as people.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) appeared to attempt to outline the job description of a Member of Parliament. All hon. Members do their jobs in different ways, which is absolutely right. We are accountable to our electors for the way in which we balance our activities. I do not think any hon. Member should set down a pattern of activity balancing constituency duties with parliamentary responsibilities in Westminster, and imply that every

1025
hon. Member should follow it. My right hon. Friend quoted the aphorism—which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned frequently in Committee—about Members of Parliament being at Westminster to represent their constituencies and not in their constituencies to represent Westminster. That is an aphorism, and repeating it often does not make it true. I do not think it is true, as I believe that Members of Parliament have dual roles.
Mr. Sheldon: I agree that that saying is often repeated, but I quoted the original.
Dr. Starkey: I understand that. My constituents believe that the role of a Member of Parliament is twofold: first, hon. Members must represent their constituencies; and, secondly, they should represent Westminster in their constituencies and form a vital link between the two. If former Conservative Members who lost their seats at the last election had been more effective links, explaining to their constituents what was happening in Westminster, some of them might still be here.
Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend is speaking total unmitigated rubbish. When the swing is against a Member of Parliament, it does not matter how good he or she is. My hon. Friend will realise that when she has been here a bit longer. Some superb Conservative Members of Parliament disappeared at the last election not through any fault of their own, but because the political swing was against them. Those of us who have been around a bit know also that many of my hon. Friends will not be here after the next election, no matter how good they are at their jobs. It has nothing to do with one's effectiveness as a Member of Parliament: I am afraid that it depends on the swing of the political pendulum.
Dr. Starkey: My right hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect and affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the former Chief Whip. However, he will be as aware as I am that, although his remarks are true in the sense that many hon. Members of good record lose their positions in this place through no fault of their own, the kind of service to constituents that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has just described is extremely pertinent in the case of hon. Members who represent marginal seats.
Dr. Starkey: I am grateful for the support of the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is entitled to his opinion. [Interruption.] I am afraid that you have not read the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I assist the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)? I hope that she will not find it irritating to learn that we
1026
try to address each other in the third person in this place. We say not "you" but "the hon. Member" or "my hon. Friend" or "my right hon. Friend."
Dr. Starkey: My right hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion and I hope that he will accept that I am entitled to mine. It is for others to decide who is right.
Mr. Derek Foster: One of my very good colleagues, the former Member for Keighley, who was killed in a road accident, always stood for a marginal seat—and did so from the Floor of the House. If I called a vote at 4 am to see who was here, he would always appear. He always won his marginal seat because he fought for it from this place. He did not return to his constituency as often as many of my colleagues returned to theirs.
Dr. Starkey: I do not find that argument particularly convincing. The evidence is in my postbag that my constituents appreciate—
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is wrong. The former Member for Keighley did not always hold his seat. He left this place and then returned to represent a different constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to delay the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West but I think it might assist the debate—for which there is limited time—if we made some progress.
Dr. Starkey: I shall move on to my next point, which I hope will not be quite so contentious.
Members of Parliament are also people. Whereas it was the norm 50 years ago that Members of Parliament were men whose wives stayed at home and looked after their families, that is not the case today. Fortunately, a considerable number of Members of Parliament are women and even more Members of Parliament reflect the more modern pattern of family relationships in which men and women share domestic responsibilities. It is not unreasonable that we should take account of that arrangement in the House. I do not think it is sensible for the Government to tell employers to take account of the fact that their employees are people with family commitments or to profess support for the family, and then expect individuals—men or women—to work the sort of hours that are completely inconsistent with their demonstrating any commitment to their families. Those points were rehearsed in the innumerable letters to the Committee as reasons for changing the parliamentary calendar, and the Select Committee report has attempted to respond to them.
I shall try to move on quickly. I wish to refute the assertion made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who opened for the Opposition, regarding the so-called "devolution dividend". I think it is a matter of debate as to whether the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly will reduce the volume of business that comes before the House. However, it is absolutely irrefutable that, although we wish to discuss a huge amount of business in this place, we do not have time to do so.
Select Committee reports are the most obvious example. Statistics show that only 10 per cent. of Select Committee reports are debated or simply mentioned

1027
in debate. It seems to me to be a gross misuse of the enormous effort and expertise that is devoted to producing those reports that 90 per cent. of them are never discussed or referred to in the House. Notwithstanding the existence of the European scrutiny Committees, there is pressure for more time to debate European legislation on the Floor of the House. I understand that there are about eight times as many requests for Adjournment debates as there is time for them.
Ministerial statements are made about important policy matters. However, I would have welcomed a ministerial statement, for example, on the paper produced a considerable time ago about water charging. That policy has now been expressed in legislation, but a ministerial statement at that time would have allowed hon. Members to express their views about the paper well in advance of the introduction of legislation. That was not possible as there was severe time pressure on the business of the House and that subject was not deemed sufficiently important. Even if there is a devolution dividend, I think it will be more than compensated for by the huge amount of other business that the House will want to discuss. The so-called devolution dividend is a red herring.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that he was not fussed as to whether Question Time occurred at the beginning or in the middle of Thursdays. I am very fussed about that because it will make a huge difference. The proposal to move business on Thursdays forward by three hours en bloc while retaining its present order is designed to make the House work more effectively. Several hon. Members referred to the fact that Thursdays have been downgraded. I do not believe that that is because Prime Minister's questions have been moved to Wednesday. I think it is because, although Thursday business continues until 10 pm, we are mindful of the fact that hon. Members wish to return to their constituencies. There is therefore enormous pressure on the Government to schedule slightly less important business—if I may put it that way—for debate on Thursdays so that votes do not take place late at night. The consequence is that Thursdays are badly used.
The proposal put forward by the Leader of the House—that we move everything forward by three hours—would effectively recover Thursdays as sensible days for serious parliamentary business. That would reduce the pressure on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and allow us to have three full days of business in a week, which, in turn, would reduce the probability of the Government's having to timetable serious business after 10 o'clock, as occasionally happens on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. We would therefore be much more likely to finish at 10 o'clock on those days. We could deal with serious business—Government or Opposition—on Thursdays.
That is why the Conservative party's suggestion that we should have questions at 2.30 pm is effectively a wrecking measure to try to ensure that any experiment will be a disaster and we will therefore revert to the status quo.
Finally, there is no disagreement on the Committee about the fact that the House ought to be the pinnacle of our democracy and worthy of public respect, but those of us who want change believe that Parliament has to evolve if it is to retain that respect. With one notable exception in the 17th century, the tradition of Parliament has been to choose evolution, not revolution. These are evolutionary proposals and I strongly hope that the House will seize
1028
the opportunity to move forward and evolve. Otherwise, it will remain pickled in aspic and become ever more distant from the public whom it purports to represent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No speech so far has been shorter than 16 minutes. It would be helpful if we could have shorter speeches.
7.11 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). It is important in such a debate that every case be put. Although I fundamentally disagreed with every word that the hon. Lady uttered, it is important that her remarks should be on the record.
I am in my 28th year in the House and it remains today as big an honour to represent my constituency at Westminster as it was when I was first elected at a by-election in 1971. I had little expectation of preferment then and I have little expectation of preferment today. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would admit that I am a House of Commons man. I have a view of my own and whatever side of the House I have been sitting on, I have never hesitated to put that view.
I say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West that I believe in this House. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is highly regarded not only in his constituency but in the House and throughout the country, has said, our duty lies primarily here in the House to hold to account the Government of the day and to scrutinise as best we can the legislation that they propose. I believe also in my constituency duties and I work very hard in my constituency. That is why I have been returned, but my constituents expect me to represent them at Westminster, to act in their best interests and to try to hold to account the Government of the day—even my own, and I found that difficult enough.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) has left his place. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that I believe that the Modernisation Committee can work best if there is common ground between all its members, whatever their party allegiance. I therefore regret the aggressive and rather unfair presentation that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made of the way in which Conservative members of the Committee behaved over the report and the tabling of the amendment.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who gave an accurate explanation of our action, which we took to ensure that our view could be voted on. If we had not tabled the amendment, the House would not have voted on our option that on Thursdays the House should sit at 11.30 am, Standing Committees should not meet before 10.30 am, and questions should be taken at 2.30 pm followed by business questions, private notice questions and ministerial statements. It is vital that the House vote on that proposal.
Mrs. Beckett: I am reluctant to take up any of the hon. Gentleman's time. He is right to say that we tried to proceed on common ground. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is not here to speak for himself, I understand the

1029
reasons for his concern. I remind the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and other Conservative members of the Committee that if we had not sought to achieve as much common ground as possible, Labour members of the Committee could have insisted that the option of having questions at 2.30 pm was not included in the report. It was included only in deference to those—the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for East Devon were among them—who expressed the view that it ought to be put before the House to find out whether hon. Members wanted to reject the option proposed by the Government.
Mr. Winterton: If a majority of members of the Committee had insisted that our option not be included in the report, there would not have been a so-called unanimous report; there would have been a minority report. Perhaps the right hon. Lady is saying that in future we should not seek to work through consensus and that there could be a series of minority reports. I would regret that, and I think that she would also regret it. The attitude and tone of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush led me to believe sincerely that that may be the only course of action that the Opposition can take in trying to ensure that the House's view, as against that of the Government, is properly registered.
I want briefly to address the issue of Standing Committees sitting in September. During the debates in Committee, I felt that that would be an undesirable development. Although Select Committees can meet in September, that decision is made by all members of the Committee. If Standing Committees met in September, that would be a Government-driven decision which would cause difficulty for many members of Committees. As the Leader of the House knows, September is the favoured month for delegations to the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to visit countries throughout the world.
Speaking as a senior member of the Chairmen's Panel, I believe that the proposal would cause problems also for Committee Chairmen who voluntarily seek to manage the business of the House, which is a heavy responsibility that takes up a great deal of time. I hope that some of the newer Members will, when they vote, appreciate the problems that could arise from that proposal.
Part II of our report, which deals with the second, parallel Chamber or Main Committee, seeks to get a reaction from hon. Members and members of the public who are interested in the way in which the House operates.
Like the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I have been the Chairman of a Select Committee. In fact, I was the subject of a rather interesting rule of which the House had apparently no knowledge until it was applied, and I was not reappointed to that Select Committee in 1992. However, that is water under the bridge, and I lived to fight another day. As one door closes, another one opens. [Interruption.]The door might have been slammed in my face, but others opened, not least in that I now have the opportunity to chair the Select Committee on Procedure.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is right to say that not enough Select Committee reports are debated on the Floor of the House. Many of those reports
1030
are very well researched, as the Committees take evidence from a wide range of experts. The House would benefit from the wider debate that could take place were those reports given greater exposure, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is my view—a view shared by the right hon. Gentleman—that the only way Back Benchers from all parties can hold the Government of the day to account is through the work of the Select Committees. More time must be found to debate Select Committee reports, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, I agree that we should not take the focus away from this Chamber.
If we can learn anything from the parliamentary procedures and experience of Australia, I am sure that we will want to do so. If there is clear evidence that a parallel Chamber is an advantage, I assure the Leader of the House that I shall not stand in its way. In fact, I might well support it, but these are early days in that debate, and we have much evidence still to hear.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne now chairs the Liaison Committee with great distinction. What he said should be read and digested by all hon. Members, not just the newer ones—although the 1997 intake on the Government Benches might like to consider it. He outlined the true role and function of a Member of Parliament, and I am grateful to him for the tone and content of his speech.
I hope that it will in no way embarrass Madam Speaker if I quote Peter Riddell, the political columnist of The Times, who wrote in the section entitled "Week in Westminster" in The House Magazine:
"Madam Speaker delivered a formidable, persuasive and multi-salvo broadside against the proposals for changing the hours for Thursday sittings".
As the Leader of the House said, I fully accept that Madam Speaker, in our valuable meeting with her, went on to say that if the House introduced changes, she and the staff of the House would do their very best to ensure that they were implemented successfully. However, I shall also quote from Madam Speaker's letter to the Committee in which she said:
"It might well be sensible for the Committee to take evidence from House Departments in order to assess the implications properly"
With one or two exceptions, the Committee took no oral evidence. I believe that that was a very grave error of judgment.
Mr. Butterfill: Was there any assessment of the likely cost of the changes? Before the House votes on the proposals, it is important that we know what they will cost the public.
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has only to read the report to see that no facts are given about the cost of the changes, and the Leader of the House made none public in her opening speech.
I hope that I shall not embarrass the Chairman of Ways and Means if I say that, at a very full meeting on this subject last week, Panel members of all parties were outspoken in their support for the arguments deployed by him in his letter of 21 July to the then Leader of the House. They made it perfectly clear that they were disappointed that the views expressed on behalf of the Chairmen's Panel had carried so little weight with the Government and the Committee.

1031
The letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that it was
"the Panel's belief that there will be substantial inconvenience to members, Chairmen and staff if the House agrees to the Government's proposal that standing Committees should meet at 9am … an earlier cut-off time for the tabling of amendments, if implemented, will be a distinct disadvantage to committee members who often rely on the availability of Hansard covering the previous sitting."
I should point out to hon. Members who have not sat on many, or any, Standing Committees that when tabling amendments it is important to have an accurate report of what has occurred in earlier sittings. If we are to bring forward the cut-off time for the tabling of amendments, with everything that goes with it, the House will not only be inconvenienced but will not be able to hold the Government of the day to account in the way it should.
The Chairmen's Panel went on to say:
"There appear to be obvious impracticalities about arranging the selection of amendments late at night or in the early morning … It is unrealistic to suppose that the hands of business managers"—
the Leader of the House is very much a business manager—
"could be tied to the extent that sittings of standing committees after 7pm would be prohibited by standing orders, but the Panel would be exceedingly unhappy if the perceived benefits of bringing forward the whole parliamentary day on Thursdays were not to be extended to the members, Chairmen and staff of standing committees."
Standing Committee Chairmen might not only be caused considerable inconvenience, but would gain no benefit from the so-called improvements. They could not leave at 7 pm because the business managers would insist that the Committees continued to sit, as they can, after 7 pm. I want to make it perfectly clear that Standing Committee Chairmen receive no additional pay or responsibility allowance. They do their job out of love, affection and respect for the House. I have served on the Chairman's Panel for 12 to 13 years, and I greatly enjoy my work, which I believe is a valuable contribution to the work of the House.
As I said, we are also concerned about the proposal that Standing Committees should have the freedom to meet during recesses. I have dealt with that subject, but it is vital that the House should understand the problems that could occur if that proposal went ahead.
We are talking about the House's ability to hold the Government of the day to account. As I said, I am a House of Commons man. I have not adopted the position that I have in order to frustrate the Leader of the House or the Labour Government. I believe fervently in the integrity of this House and in the need for Members of Parliament to be able to do their job properly. I have a nasty feeling that these proposals may well be the first step towards the creation of a professional, career politician, working what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West would describe as normal working hours—that is, 9 to 5. That is not the role of Members of Parliament.
Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I have never suggested in the Select Committee that this House should work from 9 to 5? Will he kindly withdraw any suggestion that I might have made such remarks?
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Lady should look at tomorrow's report of this debate. She has talked of the
1032
normal working day. Working from 9 to 5 is a normal working day. We do an exceptional job; it is not normal, but it is vital to this country's democracy. I plead with Labour Members to think very carefully about what they are doing. They will not always be in government; they may sit on the Opposition Benches in future. I was very concerned about the Jopling proposals. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right to say that the change of rules and procedures played entirely into the hands of the Labour party, which clearly knew that it would form the Government after the 1997 election. Let us not make the same mistake again.
7.31 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the on-going work of the Modernisation Committee and its important and long overdue contribution to the national debate about how we modernise our political system, enabling it to serve us better in the next millennium. I give notice that I do not intend to take interventions, to speak for more than six minutes or to be as self-indulgent as some other hon. Members.
This is my third opportunity to call for a radical overhaul of procedures in this place. I speak now with a little more wisdom and experience than I could in my maiden speech or in the excellent debate in November on the Modernisation Committee's previous report, which gave us pre-legislative scrutiny, which we are piloting, and a far clearer, better and more understandable Order Paper.
In listening with care to hon. Members with considerably more experience than me, I am reminded of the advice that a very senior Labour Back Bencher gave me when I first arrived in this place. It went something like this: "When I came here, Martin, I was just like you—breathing fire and brimstone, wanting to turn the whole place upside down. Funnily enough, as the years went by and I found myself in a position to influence change, I somehow did not want to do so." I assure all hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I remain a passionate advocate of change.
I support the recommendations in the excellent report and, of course, those in the motion, especially the ones to sit earlier on Thursday and to provide more flexibility for Standing Committee sittings. We have heard much about how much more the Committee could do and how it is important to provide more time on the Floor of the House to debate Select Committee reports. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, whose chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—for whom I have great respect—I see in his place, I heartily endorse that.
We can go further still. We spend much time looking at early-day motions, yet they are no more than political graffiti. If the Main Committee's proposals came into force, would not it be possible for time to be made available to debate on the Floor of the House an early-day motion on a matter of some import to which, for the sake of argument—I am open to suggestions-50 per cent. of hon. Members lent their names? The Modernisation Committee is absolutely right to state that this process is evolutionary, that we must consider new suggestions and ideas and that, in many ways, we must return to the fact that this House once was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, a truly flexible and changeable institution.

1033
It is a matter of some regret that this debate falls on the one day of a family event—the Westminster kids club Christmas party—in the Houses of Parliament. Many of the recommendations are about family life and admitting that, perhaps, we should challenge the machismo culture of our politics in this place. I learned my politics on building sites, representing building and transport workers. I can deal in machismo politics, but that does not make it right. There is nothing to commend a Minister having to stand at the Dispatch Box throughout the night, following a full day's work in his or her Department, and somehow answering questions the next day.
I am reminded of something that occurred to me a while ago. If the IRA or some other terrorist group put a drug in the House of Commons water supply which made us tired and Ministers more irritable and less effective, it would be an act of treason which, until recently, carried the death penalty. Yet somehow in our procedures, we have enshrined sleep deprivation to the point of a constitutional requirement. That is nonsense. No business, private enterprise or rapacious capitalist, so admired by Conservative Members, would run his or her operation in such a way.
It is okay to have family life; it is all right for a Member of Parliament to be married or to live with someone and to stay married or living with someone. It is all right for a Member of Parliament to have children and know their names—hon. Members may take that any way that they like—and occasionally spend some time with them during school holidays. My commiserations go to colleagues from Scotland—the fact that the Whip on the Front Bench is Scottish has nothing to do with it—who are severely disadvantaged by the Scottish school calendar.
None of us takes great pleasure in the vultures of the press who circle over Members' private lives, although it is almost inevitable that the hothouse atmosphere in this place, the pressure of hours of working, the way in which we conduct our business and the confrontational nature of our politics will destroy family life.
Opposition to the very modest proposals among Opposition Members has something to do with non-family outside interests too. At one time, one could just about make a case for a Member of Parliament having business interests and other forms of income, but that is certainly not so now. My comments and criticism apply to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are well rewarded; more than twice the average white-collar wage comes our way—plus allowances.
The work of a Member of Parliament has changed. Statistics show that we deal with 50 times more letters and contacts than we did in the 1950s. If there is one thing that I have learnt in my short time in this place, it is that representing 70,000 people is a full-time job. If we have outside business interests, we cannot serve effectively our party in this place or in our constituency, our constituents, and our bank managers—our three masters.
Opposition to changing the hours of work has far more to do with the very comfortable commercial interests to which some hon. Members have become accustomed. It is about time we came clean, stopped the crocodile tears and the hypocrisy, agreed the recommendations and took this place into the 21st century.
7.39 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I am sorry that, to some extent, a party issue has developed in this debate. This should not be a party matter. We need to—and should—debate the subject free of party prejudice. I speak as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, which has tried to consider the measures objectively. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have submitted our views, which are shared by members of the Panel irrespective of party affiliation. Indeed, the amendment, about which hon. Members have complained, has been signed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). That shows that it is not just a party matter; nor should it ever be.
Much in the report is interesting. Some people think that members of the Chairmen's Panel are reactionary, that they are all old and smelly like me and that we will resist all proposals for change. That is not true. For example, I think that the proposal for a Main Committee is extremely interesting. It could free up time for debate in this place. Having been a Back Bencher all the time that I have been in Parliament, I know how frustrating it can be for Back Benchers to sit in the Chamber all night—sometimes all through the night—and still not be called to speak. If we could have more time for genuine debate in the House on matters of great importance, that would be an advantage, so I am keen to explore and take further evidence on the subject of the Main Committee, which could be a workable proposition for us.
Much of what we are about is designed not to release Conservative Members to do private work, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) suggested, but to reduce the time that we spend in this place and to give hon. Members more time in their constituencies. However, I share with the right hon. Member for Ashtonunder-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) the view that our job is essentially in this place.
In the 15 and a half years that I have been here, I have gone to my constituency every Friday, most Saturdays and some Sundays—although I try to keep Sundays as a family day—and I think that that is adequate. If I spent much more time in my constituency, my constituents might become suspicious that I was trying to ingratiate myself with them to get re-elected, and that I considered that a higher priority than doing the job that I was sent to do in Parliament.
What I have done so far has not been entirely unsuccessful. I know that my seat is relatively safe, but the swing against me at the last general election was less than half the national average, so I must be doing something approximately right.
Many of the proposals will make the work of the House much more difficult. I shall focus particularly on the idea that we should start Standing Committees at 9 am. As someone who chairs several Standing Committees, I think that that would be extremely difficult, for various reasons. Hon. Members have mentioned the problems that it would create for the tabling of amendments and for the work of the Clerks, who would have to get in very early to deal with the procedures of the day.
Although we Chairmen readily accept the load that is put upon us, we would have to get in well before 9 o'clock to prepare for the work of the Committee that day. I always get in at least half an hour before any Committee that I am chairing. I come in from outside London

1035
every day, so that would be an additional burden to me and would mean that I had to travel in the rush hour, although that is not the main problem.
The main problem is that, if Committees sat earlier, many of the other activities in which we engage in the House would become virtually impossible. For example, I serve on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and on other Select Committees, notably the Unopposed Bills Committee. The Trade and Industry Committee, which used to sit only on Wednesdays, now usually sits on Tuesdays as well. On six of the eight Tuesdays in this parliamentary Session, the Trade and Industry Committee has sat on Tuesday morning.
It is already difficult for someone like me, who is on the Chairmen's Panel, to combine being a member of a Select Committee with my responsibilities on the Panel. If we go down the route proposed, it will become impossible.
Mr. John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished Chairman of the Finance Bill Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. Does he agree that the time up to 10.30 am on Thursday is crucial for preparation for that Committee? We rely heavily on outside experts, and their views often come to us that morning, immediately before the Committee sits.
Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I intended to refer to it, as well as to some of the problems of major Bills.
Some hon. Members do not fully appreciate how much preparation is necessary for the Committees, on the part not just of the Chairmen and the Clerks, but of the Back Benchers who serve on them and the Front-Bench spokesmen, who need time to prepare. We are compressing the parliamentary week in effect into almost three days, which means greater pressure to sit late, especially on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
If we have sat late in the House the night before, it will be a severe problem to meet early on Thursday morning. With such pressure on us, it will become almost impossible for any hon. Member to serve both on the Chairmen's Panel and on a Select Committee. Regrettably, some hon. Members will have to decide between the two, which we would greatly prefer not to have to do.
It is suggested that we would always be able to get away early on Thursdays, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out, that is by no means the case. Those of us who serve regularly on Committees, particularly those who are Chairmen of Committees, know that the Committees frequently sit well after the House has risen.
I carried out an analysis of the sittings of the Finance Bill Committee, which I frequently chair and on which I have served for most of the years that I have been in the House. Last year, the Committee sat one evening until 12.1 am. That was an exceptional Finance Bill Committee, because the new Government compressed the Bill into a short period. This year was more typical. On successive Thursdays, the Finance Bill Committee sat until 10.30 pm, 10 pm, 10.40 pm and 10.52 pm. On Tuesdays, we sometimes sat later. One Tuesday, we sat until 2.1 am.
1036
Given that that pattern is likely to continue, especially for major Bills, a large number of hon. Members will sit late on Thursdays and will not get any of the supposed benefits of the reforms. I urge hon. Members to think seriously about the burdens that they will place on the staff of the House, those who run the Refreshment Department, those who serve the House in various roles and the costs of the House.
If we do that, we may find that the proposal that Standing Committees should not sit until later and the amendment is worthy of serious consideration and should not be condemned out of hand as a party move. It is certainly not a party move for members of the Chairmen's Panel. We feel that we have a debt to repay after many years in the House, and we try to make this place work as successfully as we can.
7.48 pm
Mr. David Drew: I shall take careful note of your request to keep our remarks brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall speak for no more than three or four minutes.
The opportunity to speak in the debate is a form of catharsis for those of us who have sat on the Select Committee twice a week for the past six months to prepare the report. Some may feel that the report is a mouse rather than a lion—that comment was made in Committee by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Many Labour Members, and others, I hope, believe that the report is the start of other improvements in the House, rather than the beginning of the end, as some Opposition Members would have us believe.
The acrimonious tone of the debate this evening does not reflect the atmosphere in the Select Committee. In the main, we came up with consensus. Although there was always disagreement about when Question Time would be, I hope for unanimity on other parts of the report. Hon. Members should reflect that by trying to make the measure work, if and when it is passed.
The measure is part and parcel of the modernisation agenda, which is not about making this place less effective, but about making it more effective. We have two roles. First, many changes could be made to the legislative role to make Back Benchers more effective. The second role concerns how we scrutinise the activities of the Executive. If we are to get a Main Committee, the measure should go through. I pray that it does; if it does not, the Modernisation Committee will have to start again, because this is a stepping-stone process.
On that point, some of us would argue that the measure provides continuity rather than discrete change from Jopling. We were not Members of Parliament at the time, but Jopling saw the benefits of tidying up Thursdays, and the measure takes that to a natural conclusion.
There is a degree of bitterness and disagreement here, which was not the case in the Select Committee. I hope that we can wash some of that away and move on to the things that the House can do even better, if and when the measure is passed and we move on to the possibilities of a Main Committee and to the other issues that have been referred to, and on which I want to concentrate.
Statutory instruments are used increasingly to bring legislation into effect. That process should be opened up, and perhaps the Modernisation Committee would

1037
consider that. The way in which Select Committees report, or fail to report, has been mentioned many times. The devolution dividend may bring real benefits to the Procedure Committee, and members of it are indebted to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is about to leave, for his chairmanship. The tabling of questions when the House is not sitting should also be considered.
All those things can follow, but if we do not pass the measure we will be back to the drawing board. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that many of us think that modernisation is needed. Conservative Members sit on the Modernisation Committee, although they may not want to call this modernisation. I hope that they will bear in mind the fact that there is overwhelming demand for change—not only from hon. Members, but from our constituents, who find some of our processes bizarre and impossible to explain. They think that the changes are to do not with being family friendly, but with the way in which democracy should be functioning.
I hope that we get the measure through and that we can sell it to people, rather than being told by the press that it is about taking extra holidays. It is about making this place more effective and making it work in the way that it should. I hope that there is less bitterness in the future.
7.53 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: A change to sitting hours
"needs to be considered in the light of its contribution to improving Members' ability to discharge their duties both to the House and to their constituents—scrutinising legislation, holding the executive to account and debating issues of national of local importance."
The author of those words tabled observations and objections to these measures under eight headings and in a personal comment. The author was Madam Speaker. Since she became Speaker of the House, she has made it her bounden duty to defend the interests of the Back Benchers.
I am deeply saddened that this has been turned into a party issue. It is not. Those of us who serve on the Chairmen's Panel—two of my colleagues have already spoken—voted unanimously to support the letter that the Chairman of Ways and Means sent to the Committee. Of all parties, we did so because we believed that these measures, if implemented as stated in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House, would damage the interests of Back Benchers and make it not impossible, but profoundly difficult, for the servants of this House, who serve us so well, to do their job.
Those of us who serve on the Committee regard our non-partisan position, and prize it, very highly indeed. I have served for six years as the chairman of an all-party group that was not, on occasions, uncontentious. It was my proud boast that party politics never entered into things, and that has to be true with members of the Chairmen's Panel. If we were seen to be in any way partisan, the Committees that we chair would rightly have no confidence in us.
I ask the House to accept that the points that I shall make are simple and totally non-party political. This is a political issue. The politics are about the right of Back Benchers on both sides of the House to hold the Executive
1038
to account. This is a battle, but it is between the Executive and Back Benchers—not between Labour, Conservative or Liberal. Nor should it be.
If the measure goes ahead, it will be immeasurably more difficult for Back Benchers to table amendments in Committee. If we are told that we have to sit at 9 o'clock, we will. If I have to come in at 7.30 am, that will make very little difference. I do not often see the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who accused Conservative Members of wanting to do other jobs, when I collect my mail at 7.30 in the morning. If I have to come in then to study amendments, and to read the legislation to make sure that my bit of the job is done well, I will do it, but for me to do that, the Clerks will have to come in much earlier.
With great respect, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) missed this point completely. The cut-off point which the Committee has recommended will be so much earlier that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the papers and Hansard from previous sittings that are needed to table sensible, intelligent amendments will simply not be available.
It is significant that two of the three Privy Councillors who have spoken—the right hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—expressed sympathy with those views. It is the duty of the House to hold the Executive to account.
Mr. Derek Foster: I appreciate the House's indulgence. I should have put my name down to speak, but I did not expect to be able to attend the debate.
I want to announce to my colleagues that I shall vote for the Conservative amendment, because I have listened to the arguments and they are very persuasive.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Rubbish.
Mr. Foster: They are not persuasive to my hon. Friend, but they are to me. Forgive me, but I have been a Member of the House for rather longer than he has. I was Opposition Chief Whip for 10 years, fighting the Conservatives night after night. I was fighting the Liberal Democrats, too, and I will do so again. In my considered view, the Conservatives are right and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is wrong. I have told her so, and she is angry with me, but I have said, "Tough." This is a free vote—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he is now making a speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman was making the point better, and with more force and more experience, than I can. He is known on both sides of the House to be a gentleman of enormous principle, and I believe that he is right.
One issue has not been covered thoroughly, and I want to touch on it. When I was first elected to the House 15 years ago, on four mornings a week members of the public could visit the mother of Parliaments, and see it in all its glory and all its workings. On three of those mornings, they could be taken around the House by their Member of Parliament. I say "three" because many

1039
Members of Parliament have a long distance to travel on Monday, or they do constituency business on Monday morning. Therefore, Monday tended not to be the favoured day, and it still is not.
As a result of the move of Prime Minister's Question Time, without any consultation with Madam Speaker, two things have happened. First, there is now only one day when our constituents can attend Prime Minister's Question Time, whereas there used to be two. Therefore, half as many people see twice as much, and that is undesirable. Secondly, constituents who have come a long way cannot now do as they used to and go around the House in the morning, have a picnic lunch and attend Prime Minister's Question Time in the afternoon. That has been denied them.
This, we are told, is a people's Parliament. If it is, why are we about to be asked to vote to deny our constituents yet another morning when they could visit the House? In effect, groups of school children—tomorrow's Members of Parliament—will be confined to one morning of the week—Tuesdays.
For those reasons, and because we have a duty to defend the rights of Back Benchers, I shall be voting for the Opposition's amendment. But it will be for those reasons, not for party political reasons.
8.1 pm
Charlotte Atkins: Today we have a chance to grasp the nettle of parliamentary reform, building on the success of the Jopling changes. Before us today is a limited proposal to allow business to end at around 7.30 pm on Thursday, and only on an experimental basis. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will bring forward more radical proposals in the near future.
With so many new Members elected less than two years ago, we have the opportunity to think the unthinkable; to consider how best to deliver the legislative process, and how best to use hon. Members' time in the Chamber, in Committee and in our constituencies.
When my father came to the House more than 30 years ago, the demands and pressures of the constituency were far less great, and the needs of a Member's family were very much on the back burner. It has obviously become fashionable for some Opposition Members to sneer at family-friendly practices.
During my father's first term in Parliament in a marginal seat, I was still at school and I hardly saw him, except occasionally first thing in the morning and, to my embarrassment, if I was coming in at night rather later than I should have done. Now, as the mother of a 12-year-old daughter, I hope that things have moved on a little.
If, as Members of Parliament, we want to be well-rounded individuals—I do not mean the sort of roundness that comes at Christmas—we must be in touch with real people's lives. For them, family life is important, and I believe that family life should be important for Members of Parliament too.
Therefore, I applaud attempts to synchronise parliamentary recesses and adjournments with school holidays, despite the problem of Scottish holidays.
1040
How can we attract sensible, intelligent people to stand for Parliament if one of the requirements of the job is to give up any hope of normal family life.
Mr. John Hayes: That could be said of nurses, doctors, paramedics, policeman and people who serve in the armed forces. Are we to assume that none of them have good family lives or care about their families? They are exceptional jobs, like this one, and exceptional jobs require exceptional commitment. It is as simple as that.
Charlotte Atkins: But we have a chance to change all that. We have a window of opportunity with new Members who are not hidebound by tradition. I sometimes think that this is rather like a scene in "Yes, Minister", where Humphrey might say, "Well, we can keep all those Members really tired and away from their constituencies and families." Then the Minister says, "But can we get away with it?" To which Humphrey replies, "Yes, we can. All we have to do is call it tradition." We can get away from such hidebound traditions by looking at the practicalities of the issue.
We have heard from a number of people that that is impossible, but where there is a will, there is a way. We can build in sufficient flexibility for, shock horror, Members of Parliament to be able to attend parents' evenings, the school nativity play in which their child might be starring, and even to plan school holidays without feeling that they are particularly privileged.
As Members of Parliament, we delight in lecturing businesses, small and large, about modernisation, efficiency and family-friendly practices. How can they take us seriously if we do not live up to the demands that we make of them?
Does it make any sense to ask Members to vote at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night with the result that those who want a full day in their constituencies have to drive through the night? No doubt that is what my near neighbours from Congleton and Macclesfield will have to do, because our last train is at about 8 pm. How many hon. Members have nearly fallen asleep at the wheel?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Lady not accept that some hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been in this place for quite a long time have had reasonably successful family lives, have brought up their children and known them, and have come into the office every morning, as I still do, between 7.30 and 8 am, and stayed there most of the day? Can she not accept that there are experiences other than those that she has had over a brief period?
Charlotte Atkins: Yes, I can accept that, but that is not the norm. People outside cannot understand why we persist in these practices. A month ago, I went to Castle primary school in Mow Cop in my constituency where I spoke to a number of 10 and 11-year-olds about parliamentary life. They were bewildered when I said that the start of the official parliamentary day was 2.30 pm. That view is not confined to 10 and 11-year-olds. Their parents are also bewildered by the sort of practices and confrontational behaviour that we experience in the Chamber. That is reinforced if they are or their parents come to this place. They see that we value their visit so

1041
much that we create no facilities for visitors, ensure that they cannot come during the recesses and can only visit at certain times. We should ensure that they have proper facilities, not crowded corridors, in which to meet their Members of Parliament and have a proper hearing.
I am not suggesting, as was suggested, quite wrongly, of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), that we should have a 9 to 5 parliamentary day. That would be ludicrous. That is the sort of thing that has been rehearsed in the media. Clearly, that is not being suggested. We need to strike a balance between the needs of Members from different parts of the country. However, a 7.30 finish on a Thursday would make sense for those who want to return to their constituencies.
I was pleased to hear an Opposition Member say how he always used to return to his constituency for Friday and Saturday. [Interruption.] In my father's day, 30 years ago, it was the exception for Members to live in their constituencies and to give the sort of attention to constituency business that that hon. Member so honourably did.
Let us vote for this moderate experiment. What are we scared of? I hope that it will create a firm foundation for future reform. [Interruption.] We must show that we are willing to consider creating the modern Parliament that we need to achieve the modern Britain that we aspire to create.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not have private conversations during the debate. The hon. Lady is addressing the House and she is entitled to the courtesy of a hearing. [Interruption.] That is a matter of opinion. It is not appalling to me, and I want to hear what she has to say.
Charlotte Atkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have concluded my remarks.
8.9 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: This has been a fascinating debate in revealing so many contrasting views on the wonderful world of Westminster. I should start by saying that I do not yet feel myself to be a Westminster man but a Sheffield man who has the good fortune to represent my constituents here. On Fridays, I do not visit my constituency, I go home. On Mondays, I come away again from my home. It is very much that way round rather than in any other direction.
I hope that this place does not run like the boarding school that it often seems to be, in that prefects who have been here the longest get the most say over what happens. I should prefer it to be run rather like a business or modern organisation in which new people with fresh perspectives and new ideas are welcome and often able to set the agenda, because they have come in from outside with a different view. I hope that we are a representative democracy, representing all views, spectrums and genders, rather than the gerontocracy that we may sometimes appear to be.
I should class myself as a radical moderniser. Like the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), I am waiting for that outlook to change, with the dramatic realization
1042
that things are done the best way that they possibly can be and should not change at all ever again. I await that moment.
I am fully aware that I have only 18 months' experience in the House. However, having been through our consideration of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and its attendant shenanigans, I feel that I may have had an accelerated learning process in studying the House's more arcane procedures, which I hope—if other reforms are passed—will never have to be used again. Nevertheless, with my 18 months, I have not yet swung away from that modernising view. Currently, I see no prospect that I shall do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said in his speech that the Committee's proposals are a small step, and that, in deciding whether to choose option one or option two, we are angels dancing on the head of a pin. We are considering a small part of a bigger agenda, which is discussed comprehensively in the report. I hope that the House will soon be considering some of the bigger changes.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was right to say the proposals are about evolution. The evolution model is a very good one to use in considering modernisation. Students of Darwin will know that evolution is all about an organism's response to a changing environment. Our environment is changing significantly in two key aspects: first, the legislative process; and, secondly, the role of hon. Members.
Hon. Members have to be more responsive on the legislative process. New things are coming along—we must respond to European directives, international conventions and technology changes. I recently spent time with Centrica, which is the British Gas successor, and was told about its efforts to enter the electricity market. It desperately needs legislation on reforming that market. Centrica knows that, because of how the House works, there is no prospect for two or perhaps three years of getting that legislation. I know of other businesses that are in a similar situation, in which a swifter response by Parliament is required to meet their requirements. I do not believe that our current structures allow us to make all the necessary responses.
I am firmly of the view—speaking on the legislative process as an Opposition Member—that quality should be a more significant factor than quantity in deciding the House's business. We need better time management—which both the current report and previous reports dealt with—rather than only having more time. I do not believe that having more time in which we do not do anything useful will gain us much, although other heads in the House say that the time weapon is an important one. As I observed Parliament before being elected as an hon. Member, it did not seem to me that, particularly the Government of Baroness Thatcher, were significantly diverted from their path because the Opposition were able to sit up all night complaining about the Government's actions, yet losing every Division and failing to change anything.
The second key category of change is the role of hon. Members—which has moved on. I very much feel that I am a public servant, answerable to the public and paid for by the public. I believe that the public have a right to their view on what my job should be. To me, their view is that they expect me to be with them at certain times.

1043
Earlier today, for example, I spent time with some young people from Sheffield—young Sheffielders—who wanted to talk to me about the political process. They are not interested in coming into the Chamber and listening to our debates, and no wave of a magic wand will suddenly make them interested in them. I cannot turn around and say, "Sonny Jim, you ought to come and listen to our debates." That is not what they want. They want me to be with them, talking about politics in their terms. I want to have the time to do that.
I honestly believe that I will do as much for the public process by being outside the House debating and talking with my constituents in their schools, youth clubs and communities as often I will do in this place. Having that time is not only about me promoting myself in my constituency but about the public good. I believe that such time is significant.
I believe also that my experience outside the House with people in my constituency informs my contributions in the House and gives me a much better balance, stopping me from getting out of touch and developing "Westminsteritis" in which I see everything from the Westminster perspective. Such experience benefits particularly hon. Members from more distant constituencies, where people's views of life, of London and of events here are very different from the reality.
I deal with my constituency work in Sheffield. My office there is close to my constituents. I do not have the option in the morning of going through my constituency mail here; it is dealt with in the constituency. I believe that dealing with it there gives a better service. Many other new hon. Members have organised themselves similarly. It is perfectly reasonable, especially if one is operating at some distance, to have Sheffielders in a Sheffield office that has open access to deal with constituency work. I work with them on Mondays and Fridays, but, during the week, they deal with the work in Sheffield.
We have an alternative to evolution: extinction. We can moan all we like about how the media ignore us—whereas in a golden age they avidly took down every word that we said—but I do not believe that that moaning will improve matters. The reality is that most citizens would rather watch politics in the form of a media stunt somewhere rather than as a dry statement in the House. In a Stalinist state, one can control the media and insist that all citizens sit in front of the television and watch our proceedings from beginning to end. Fortunately, in our liberal society, we do not have that option.
It is very important that we evolve to cope with events outside the House. We may not like those developments, but they are the reality and the environment in which we live. The issue is very much one of evolving to work and cope with that environment, or of becoming extinct—ever less relevant, so that we are simply talking to ourselves about how we feel spurned, how no one is interested in us any more and what a shame it is that we cannot return to the golden age of 10, 20 or 30 years ago, depending on one's perspective.
On longer-term proposals, I should prefer the House to consider the parliamentary calendar from scratch. I was very interested in the notion of blocks of working at Westminster and blocks of working in constituencies. I find that option very attractive for myself, not only for my family life, which is a consideration for all hon.
1044
Members, but because it would enable me to give my constituents—the ones whom I was talking about, such as young people and various groups of workers—a firm time commitment and to spend a considerable period of my working life with the people who elected me to this place and pay my wages.
I should like the block system to be introduced. However, I think that we have also to consider matters such as the summer recess, to consider the whole system from scratch. The report rejected the block system, largely because it left in place the summer recess. I should be perfectly happy to have a couple of weeks holiday in August and then to work the rest of August and September, as other workers do. There is nothing wrong with that. The long recess should not be set in stone or obstruct more significant reform.
I like also the idea of having different weeks for plenary sittings, for Committee sittings and for constituency work, as that would reflect the work that we really do. As for the summer recess, as far as I am aware, the Thames no longer fouls up so badly that we are required to leave this place. London is no longer uninhabitable in the summer, when we have to go to our country homes—from here to Sheffield—for some decent air. We could also make better use of that wonderful Terrace if we were here in the months when it is most usable, and no longer regret the fact that it has been left abandoned as we all head off. Being here in the summer would therefore have considerable advantages, and we should put the option on the table rather than exclude summer months entirely.
The key thing for hon. Members such as myself, with my working practices, is to get right the balance between constituency and Westminster. One type of work is not to be excluded by the other; it is all about balance. I hope that in our proceedings, both today and in future, we shall, as a representative Chamber, be able to reach views which—although some hon. Members will disagree with them—allow us to move forward and perhaps to create a House that is genuinely fit for the 21st century—which is the phrase that is always used. We should certainly create a House that is able better to deal with business and to respond to the people who elect us, pay our wages and perhaps remove us from here.
8.19 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I welcome the opportunity to discuss modernisation of the House and fully support the changes sought by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I am glad that the Committee's proposals are only initial ones. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has left the Chamber. He asked earlier about receiving Select Committee minutes overnight. Perhaps he does not know that new technology permits immediate conversation of voice-to-type. Obtaining minutes is therefore not an issue, as technology will produce the minutes. We also do not need stenographers as technology is changing so rapidly that it can service democracy much quicker.
I have a small favour to ask of my right hon. Friend. In future reports on modernisation, will she provide financial models so that we can see the likely cost to the House of proposed changes?
Reform of the House should start with an examination of the nature of the Executive—the role of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Those roles are undergoing

1045
changes as we move to elected assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as well as in the English regions over the next 10 years, together with the possibility of an elected upper House.
The Prime Minister is frequently referred to as the chief executive of UK plc. As a new Member, perhaps I could present a different perspective. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company has 22 directors of the board, as we have in the Cabinet. We have more Cabinet members today than when we ran the empire 100 years ago. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company, having asked his senior management to work a 14-hour day, then rewards them by giving them more work in red boxes that they have to read by the morning. No chief executive of a FTSE 100 company makes his middle managers—us—work at least 12 hours a day and frequently 15, 16 or more for less than £65,000 a year. At 10 o'clock, 11.30 or even 1.30 in the morning in the Lobbies, there can be upwards of £27 million worth of senior management voting. They vote on issues on which many of them have failed to speak—or even attend the debate.
Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is interesting. Inadvertently or not, he has made it clear that he regards Members of Parliament as analogous to middle managers. He appears to be missing the point that we are here to hold the Executive to account, not to assist it in its management functions. That is true of hon. Members on both sides.
Mr. Wyatt: That is our role in a modern democracy, but how best do we do it? We are the middle managers between our constituency and the Executive. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] Opposition Members can disagree.
There will be some hon. Members who have prepared speeches for tonight's debate but who will not be called to speak. It is a shame that those speeches cannot be published in Hansard. It seems absurd to go on with such a system.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I speak from the heart.
Mr. Wyatt: So do I.
The House of Lords divides the time available by the number of Members wishing to speak. Why do we not follow suit?
No chief executive would arrange such strange working hours and then allow most of his employees a 10-week break in the summer. It is not clear to me why the House of Commons is different from the rest of the country. Most people seem to manage with two weeks' holiday in the summer.
We have a working day that no union member and no member of the CBI would adhere to. Why? We need root-and-branch reform of the House of Commons if we are to modernise the country. We should be leading, not following. In everything that we have done to modemise the House, we have been reactive rather than proactive. The tail is wagging the institution. That cannot be right.
I look forward to the day when the House sits from 9.30 in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening from Monday to Thursday. I should like to see financial models of the cost of such a move.
1046
The current system actively discourages me from having any sort of family life. Is that right in a modern Parliament? Are we proud of it? I am not. It is a relic of the past. We send the wrong signals to the population. We want the best people here. To ensure that, we must give them the best facilities and the best systems. We do not have that.
Funnily enough, I have no contract of employment. I find that rather bizarre. It is true that I am Whipped to my delight and am here to vote and to be on-message—whatever that means. However, my constituents—the reason that I am here—do not have the foggiest idea what their expectations of me should be. They do not know whether I should live in the constituency. They do not know whether I should be holding weekly, fortnightly or monthly surgeries—or no surgeries. They do not know whether I should have a local office or whether I should be spending hours visiting schools, businesses and voluntary services. It is time that the House considered whether there should be a memorandum of understanding spelling out our responsibilities.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Beyond pathetic!
Mr. Wyatt: My speech is going down famously among the Conservatives.
This wonderful building—it is a wonderful building—is out of date for serving a modern democracy. We must convene a committee immediately to plan for a new Parliament that might kick-start us, albeit late, into the 21st century.
8.25 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made an interesting speech. I shall read some of his comments with great interest in Hansard tomorrow.
I should like to pick the hon. Gentleman up on one or two issues. I was horrified that he described Members of Parliament as middle management. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of our role. We all stand on a party ticket, but once we are elected we must represent the whole of our constituency, not just those who voted for us. We are certainly not middle management. We are here to represent our constituents to Ministers or to whatever organisation our constituents have problems with. I felt that I had to correct that.
We have had an interesting debate, with strong views expressed. I have intervened once or twice—perhaps rather fiercely at times, but that reflects the strength of my views. I have been here for only 15 years. Surprise, surprise—before I came here, I managed to have a normal family life, and have continued to do so since I was elected. Although some newer Members appear not to like the terms and conditions of this place and our role here, hundreds of people stand at every election, and would willingly swap with us.
I regret that the debate has been rather polarised. At times, it seems to have broken down on party lines. This is a matter for the House of Commons—for the Back Benchers. We are here to keep a check on the Government. Having been on the Government Benches for many years, I find it sobering to be in opposition. Many of the young bloods on the Government Benches

1047
may find themselves in the same situation one day. Their role is to keep a check on their Government on behalf of their constituents.
Two of the most telling contributions this evening have come from two Privy Councillors on the Government Benches—the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), a former Labour Chief Whip, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I hope that the new Members, who are every bit as much a part of this place as those of us who have been here a little longer, will consider carefully what those two experienced Members said, because it was most telling.
The other non-polarised view was that of the Chairmen's Panel. The members of the Chairmen's Panel give their time voluntarily, and take on onerous duties to play their part in the House. I hope that those who have listened to the debate will give weight to what they said.
8.29 pm
Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) opened up a new quarry, and many of us will spend Christmas reading his speech to see how we can best deploy some of his arguments.
In the light of the debate, I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a separate debate on the Main Committee. Many speeches touched on the issue, but the debate has focused on Thursdays. When we return, perhaps on a Thursday, may we have a proper debate on the Main Committee, and encourage hon. Members to focus their minds on it?
I regret that we spent so much time on procedural issues. I genuinely believe that our approach has enabled the House to choose between two options, but I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that those who have listened to today's debate may take the view that the Modernisation Committee was conducted with the same tone. It was not. It was a fairly harmonious, conciliatory process. I very much hope that, after a seasonal break and with some good will, the Committee will resume in the new year in a spirit of co-operation.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggested—I think in some anger—that Opposition Members on the Committee should compile a minority report. I hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to withdraw that remark. He will not find four more conciliatory Conservative Members than the four who sit on the Modernisation Committee. We made a number of concessions, and we will approach our future agenda with good will.
The high point of the debate was the speech of the former Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). He blew out of the water the Government's moral case that Labour Members had agreed to Jopling because it was the right course of action for the House. He made it quite clear that they agreed to it only when they thought that they would win the next election. They agreed to it out of base partisan motives, not the high-minded motives that we had been led to believe.
The main debate has been about whether Standing Committees should sit at 9 am or 10.30 am, and whether Question Time should be at 11.30 am or 2.30 pm. The
1048
balance of the debate has gone very much with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a bridge-building speech, and we heard many speeches from those who chair our Standing Committees, including my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Those of us who sit on Standing Committees have a duty to listen to those who chair them. Their unanimous view was that the 10.30 am option is better than the 9 am one.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet took us through some of the procedural consequences, and the implications for staff, if we invited Standing Committees to meet at 9 am. If we are to change, I hope that we make the right change, and heed the advice of those who chair our Standing Committees.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet also mentioned the views of Madam Speaker. I understand all the sensitivities about that, but the real discourtesy to Madam Speaker would be not to refer to her views but to ignore them.
I conclude with a word of caution. I very much hope that the Government do not take the view that they can use their majority in the House to alter the way in which the House works. That would be a sad break with tradition, which, if abused, could undermine the ability of the legislature to hold the Executive to account. Against the background of the debate, and given that there is a free vote on both sides, I very much hope that those who have listened to the debate and take our procedures seriously will agree that the amendment is the right way forward, and that they will vote for it.
8.38 pm
Mrs. Beckett: First, let me respond to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) by saying that, like him, I regret the tone of some of the debate, and hope that, in future, the Select Committee will return to its customary comradely tone. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about the Main Committee. At first, it was not entirely plain to me whether he had proposed an early debate on the matter. Perhaps that is what he means, and we can certainly discuss that through the usual channels.
I regretted, and was perhaps a little surprised by, the tone of some of the debate, but I suppose that I should not have been. Despite what he said a moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks made the ridiculous proposition that in some way in the past 18 months this Parliament has become less central to the life of the nation. That suggestion was comprehensively blown out of the water by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who made the pertinent point that it was complete nonsense, and that the role and treatment of Parliament had been changing for many years.
One or two speeches suggested that there was something strange about the Government making proposals to a Committee and seeking their endorsement. The right hon. Gentleman picked up on that in his closing remarks. As you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is neither strange nor unusual. The most recent example that I can call to mind was in the 1993–94 Session, when

1049
the then Government sought changes in the Standing Orders for the consideration of deregulation orders that were put to the Procedure Committee; so there is nothing unusual about that.
Nor, indeed, do the Government have any intention of using their majority to dictate to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that our conduct in the Committee does not support that suggestion. Although it is not unusual for the Government to propose changes to Standing Orders and so on, it is unusual—and we were advised that it might not be possible—for the Government to put alternative motions to the House.
However, the Government did just that, giving effect to the considered and unanimous decision of the Select Committee at paragraph 73 of the report:
"If the House rejects the Government proposal, we recommend that for this experimental period the alternative scenario"—
the one in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment—
"be adopted."
The Government have gone further than would have been necessary had we chosen to use our majority, and decided to give the House the choice of the alternatives on a free vote.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) commands great respect and affection in the House, and he continues to command mine despite my strong disagreement with what he said this evening. Not only did I disagree with my right hon. Friend this evening; I disagreed with him over the Jopling proposals, and did so forcefully. As he has put his views on record and referred to mine, I would say to the House openly and bluntly that I have had the advantage of serving in the House for a slightly longer period. I have also had the advantage of serving in the Government Whips Office, in a Government who had no majority.
On the basis of that experience and the rest, I can say that the notion that in some way time is the weapon of the Opposition is a myth. As I said to the then shadow Cabinet, very rarely does the House change what the Government do in that way. Instead, we kill a few hon. Members on both sides. That may be considered a suitable occupation for a modern House of Commons, but I have never thought it so.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I have only two minutes.
I remind the House that we are considering proposals for an experiment. The delay in introducing the Jopling proposals has been mentioned, but the principal reason for that delay was that the then Government initially wanted to make a permanent change in the Standing Orders. I hope and believe that my advice as shadow Leader of the House to the then Leader of the House had some influence—I suggested that it would be a mistake to make permanent a change of which the House did not have experience, and that it would be wise to proceed through evolution and experiment. That is precisely what the Government are recommending tonight.
The debate has made it clear that the real choice is between what I would describe as no change or proper change. I do support the mish-mash and half-baked
1050
experiment that is—in my view; and it is my view alone—almost bound, and perhaps even intended, to fail. The House has a choice between the status quo and a good proposal. I urge the House to support the motion, but not the amendment to it.
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [15 December].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Parliamentary Calendar: Initial Proposals (HC60).

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (No. 1)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Amendment proposed to the Motion (Sittings of the House (No. 1)): in paragraph 1, leave out from 'will' to end and add
"proceed with public business, which may include a motion for the adjournment of the House;
(2) at two o'clock on Thursdays, the Speaker shall interrupt the business without question put and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions, after which any business interrupted at two o'clock shall be resumed;
(3) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(4) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to a quarter to three o'clock in Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), to half-past three o'clock in Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions) and to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall remain unaltered.".—[Sir George Young.]
Question put, pursuant to Order [15 December],That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 311.

Division No. 26]

[8.41 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Barnes, Harry

Amess, David

Beggs, Roy

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

1051

Boswell, Tim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Kirkwood, Archy

Brady, Graham

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brand, Dr Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brazier, Julian

Lansley, Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Letwin, Oliver

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lidington, David

Burnett, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Burns, Simon

Loughton, Tim

Butterfill, John

Luff, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Chidgey, David

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Chope, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clappison, James

Madel, Sir David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

May, Mrs Theresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Collins, Tim

Mitchell, Austin

Colvin, Michael

Moore, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Cormack, Sir Patrick

O'Hara, Eddie

Cotter, Brian

Öpik, Lembit

Cran, James

Ottaway, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Page, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Paice, James

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Paterson, Owen

Day, Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Randall, John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Robathan, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Evans, Nigel

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fallon, Michael

Ruffley, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

St Aubyn, Nick

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Fraser, Christopher

Shepherd, Richard

Gale, Roger

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Garnier, Edward

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gerrard, Neil

Spring, Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gibb, Nick

Steen, Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Swayne, Desmond

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Syms, Robert

Golding, Mrs Llin

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gorrie, Donald

Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)

Greenway, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Grieve, Dominic

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Trend, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Tyler, Paul

Hammond, Philip

Tyrie, Andrew

Hawkins, Nick

Viggers, Peter

Hayes, John

Waterson, Nigel

Heald, Oliver

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Whittingdale, John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Willetts, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Woodward, Shaun

Jenkin, Bernard

Yeo, Tim

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Keetch, Paul

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Mrs. Marion Roe and

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Mr. John Bercow.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ashton, Joe

Alexander, Douglas

Atherton, Ms Candy

Allan, Richard

Atkins, Charlotte

Allen, Graham

Baker, Norman

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Ballard, Jackie

1052

Banks, Tony

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Barron, Kevin

Dismore, Andrew

Battle, John

Dobbin, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Donohoe, Brian H

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Doran, Frank

Begg, Miss Anne

Dowd, Jim

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Drew, David

Bennett, Andrew F

Drown, Ms Julia

Berry, Roger

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Best, Harold

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blackman, Liz

Fatchett, Derek

Blears, Ms Hazel

Fisher, Mark

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Boateng, Paul

Flint, Caroline

Borrow, David

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Follett, Barbara

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Breed, Colin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Foulkes, George

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Fyfe, Maria

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Galbraith, Sam

Browne, Desmond

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Burden, Richard

Goggins, Paul

Burgon, Colin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Butler, Mrs Christine

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grogan, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gunnell, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hain, Peter

Caplin, Ivor

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Caton, Martin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hanson, David

Chisholm, Malcolm

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clapham, Michael

Harris, Dr Evan

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Harvey, Nick

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heppell, John

Clelland, David

Hesford, Stephen

Clwyd, Ann

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hill, Keith

Cohen, Harry

Hinchliffe, David

Colman, Tony

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cooper, Yvette

Hoey, Kate

Corbett, Robin

Home Robertson, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corston, Ms Jean

Hope, Phil

Cousins, Jim

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cox, Tom

Howells, Dr Kim

Cranston, Ross

Hoyle, Lindsay

Crausby, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dafis, Cynog

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jamieson, David

Darvill, Keith

Jenkins, Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Denham, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

1053

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Quin, Ms Joyce

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Rammell, Bill

Kidney, David

Rapson, Syd

Kilfoyle, Peter

Raynsford, Nick

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kingham, Ms less

Rendel, David

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Rooker, Jeff

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Roy, Frank

Laxton, Bob

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Levitt, Tom

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Salter, Martin

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Sanders, Adrian

Livingstone, Ken

Savidge, Malcolm

Livsey, Richard

Sawford, Phil

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Llwyd, Elfyn

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lock, David

Singh, Marsha

Love, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Southworth, Ms Helen

McNulty, Tony

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms Rachel

McWalter, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mallaber, Judy

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marek, Dr John

Stinchcombe, Paul

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Maxton, John

Stringer, Graham

Merron, Gillian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Michael, Alun

Stunell, Andrew

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Milburn, Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moffatt, Laura

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Timms, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tipping, Paddy

Mudie, George

Todd, Mark

Mullin, Chris

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Trickett, Jon

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Norris, Dan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Oaten, Mark

Vaz, Keith

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Vis, Dr Rudi

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wallace, James

Palmer, Dr Nick

Walley, Ms Joan

Pearson, Ian

Ward, Ms Claire

Pickthall, Colin

Wareing, Robert N

Pike, Peter L

Watts, David

Plaskitt, James

White, Brian

Pond, Chris

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pope, Greg

Wicks, Malcolm

Powell, Sir Raymond

Willis, Phil

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Winnick, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wood, Mike

Primarolo, Dawn

Worthington, Tony

Prosser, Gwyn

Wray, James

1054

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Miss Melanie Johnson and

Wyatt, Derek

Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had always understood that the business of the House of Commons was traditionally a matter for a free vote. Outside the Aye Lobby, there were no Whips, either Liberal or Conservative, but outside the No Lobby there were at least four Government Whips, encouraging those with no independence of mind into the Lobby. Is not that an abuse of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Whips can go where they please: the Chair has no control over them.
Main Question put—
The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 120.

Division No. 27]

[8.56 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Alexander, Douglas

Caton, Martin

Allan, Richard

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Allen, Graham

Chidgey, David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Clapham, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Atkins, Charlotte

Baker, Norman

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ballard, Jackie

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Banks, Tony

Clelland, David

Battle, John

Clwyd, Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Coaker, Vernon

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Begg, Miss Anne

Cohen, Harry

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Colman, Tony

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cooper, Yvette

Bennett, Andrew F

Corbett, Robin

Berry, Roger

Corbyn, Jeremy

Best, Harold

Corston, Ms Jean

Betts, Clive

Cotter, Brian

Blackman, Liz

Cousins, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cox, Tom

Blizzard, Bob

Cranston, Ross

Boateng, Paul

Crausby, David

Borrow, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cummings, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brand, Dr Peter

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Breed, Colin

Darvill, Keith

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Davidson, Ian

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Browne, Desmond

Dawson, Hilton

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Buck, Ms Karen

Denham, John

Burden, Richard

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Burgon, Colin

Dismore, Andrew

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dobbin, Jim

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Donohoe, Brian H

Caborn, Richard

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dowd, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Drew, David

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Drown, Ms Julia

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

1055

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Fatchett, Derek

Kingham, Ms Tess

Fearn, Ronnie

Kirkwood, Archy

Fisher, Mark

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Flint, Caroline

Laxton, Bob

Flynn, Paul

Leslie, Christopher

Follett, Barbara

Levitt, Tom

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Livingstone, Ken

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Livsey, Richard

Foulkes, George

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fyfe, Maria

Llwyd, Elfyn

Galbraith, Sam

Lock, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Love, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

McAvoy, Thomas

Gibson, Dr Ian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Goggins, Paul

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Macdonald, Calum

Gorrie, Donald

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grocott, Bruce

McNamara, Kevin

Grogan, John

McNulty, Tony

Gunnell, John

MacShane, Denis

Hain, Peter

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McWalter, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hanson, David

Mallaber, Judy

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Harris, Dr Evan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Harvey, Nick

Martlew, Eric

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Maxton, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Michael, Alun

Heppell, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hesford, Stephen

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Milburn, Alan

Hill, Keith

Moffatt, Laura

Hinchliffe, David

Moore, Michael

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hoey, Kate

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Home Robertson, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hope, Phil

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Howells, Dr Kim

Mudie, George

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Oaten, Mark

Jamieson, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jenkins, Brian

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pond, Chris

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Pope, Greg

Keeble, Ms Sally

Powell, Sir Raymond

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keetch, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kidney, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

1056

Quin, Ms Joyce

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Quinn, Lawrie

Stunell, Andrew

Radice, Giles

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Rammell, Bill

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rapson, Syd

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rendel, David

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rooker, Jeff

Todd, Mark

Roy, Frank

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Touhig, Don

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Trickett, Jon

Ryan, Ms Joan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Salter, Martin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Sanders, Adrian

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Savidge, Malcolm

Tyler, Paul

Sawford, Phil

Vaz, Keith

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Vis, Dr Rudi

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wallace, James

Singh, Marsha

Walley, Ms Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Watts, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

White, Brian

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Willis, Phil

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Southworth, Ms Helen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Spellar, John

Wood, Mike

Squire, Ms Rachel

Worthington, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, James

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr Howard

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Miss Melanie Johnson and

Stringer, Graham

Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Day, Stephen

Amess, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel

Barnes, Harry

Fallon, Michael

Beggs, Roy

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fraser, Christopher

Blunt, Crispin

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gibb, Nick

Brady, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Browning, Mrs Angela

Greenway, John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Grieve, Dominic

Burnett, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hawkins, Nick

Hayes, John

Chope, Christopher

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Collins, Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jenkin, Bernard

Cran, James

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Curry, Rt Hon David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

1057

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lansley, Andrew

St Aubyn, Nick

Letwin, Oliver

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lidington, David

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Loughton, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter

Swayne, Desmond

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Syms, Robert

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Madel, Sir David

Trend Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tyrie, Andrew

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Viggers, pater

May, Mrs Theresa

Waterson, Nigel

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Mitchell, Austin

Whttingdale, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Öpik, Lembit

Willetts, David

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Page, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Paice, James

Woodward, Shaun

Paterson, Owen

Yeo, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Randall, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mrs. Marion Roe and

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mr. John Bercow.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
(1) the House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at seven o'clock; and
(3)in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)

MEETINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEES (No. 1)
Motion made, and Question put,
That, with effect from Monday 11th January until the end of the present session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Meetings of standing committees:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:
(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees); and
(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as
1058
provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 66.

Division No. 28]

[9.9 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Corston, Ms Jean

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cotter, Brian

Alexander, Douglas

Cousins, Jim

Allan, Richard

Cox, Tom

Allen, Graham

Cranston, Ross

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Crausby, David

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cummings, John

Atkins, Charlotte

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Baker, Norman

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Ballard, Jackie

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Banks, Tony

Darvill, Keith

Battle, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bayley, Hugh

Davidson, Ian

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Begg, Miss Anne

Dawson, Hilton

Beggs, Roy

Dean, Mrs Janet

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Denham, John

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Bennett, Andrew F

Dismore, Andrew

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim

Best, Harold

Donohoe, Brian H

Betts, Clive

Doran, Frank

Blackman, Liz

Dowd, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Drew, David

Blizzard, Bob

Drown, Ms Julia

Boateng, Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fearn, Ronnie

Bradshaw, Ben

Fisher, Mark

Brand, Dr Peter

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Breed, Colin

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foulkes, George

Buck, Ms Karen

Fyfe, Maria

Burgon, Colin

Galbraith, Sam

Butler, Mrs Christine

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Caborn, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gorrie, Donald

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chidgey, David

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hain, Peter

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clelland, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Coaker, Vernon

Harvey, Nick

Coffey, Ms Ann

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cohen, Harry

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Colman, Tony

Hepburn, Stephen

Connarty, Michael

Heppell, John

Cooper, Yvette

Hesford, Stephen

Corbett, Robin

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hill, Keith

1059

Hinchliffe, David

Martlew, Eric

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Maxton, John

Hoey, Kate

Merron, Gillian

Home Robertson, John

Michael, Alun

Hoon, Geoffrey

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hope, Phil

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Milburn, Alan

Howells, Dr Kim

Moffatt, Laura

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Moore, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Humble, Mrs Joan

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Hutton, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Jamieson, David

Mullin, Chris

Jenkins, Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Norris, Dan

Oaten, Mark

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

O'Hara, Eddie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Öpik, Lembit

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Keetch, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Pickthall, Colin

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Pike, Peter L

Kidney, David

Plaskitt, James

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pond, Chris

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Pope, Greg

Kingham, Ms Tess

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kirkwood, Archy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Primarolo, Dawn

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Prosser, Gwyn

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Purchase, Ken

Laxton, Bob

Quin, Ms Joyce

Leslie, Christopher

Quinn, Lawrie

Levitt, Tom

Rammell, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rapson, Syd

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Raynsford, Nick

Livingstone, Ken

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Livsey, Richard

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rendel, David

Love, Andrew

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooker, Jeff

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Roy, Frank

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Macdonald, Calum

Ryan, Ms Joan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Salter, Martin

McIsaac, Shona

Sanders, Adrian

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Savidge, Malcolm

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sawford, Phil

McNamara, Kevin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNulty, Tony

Singh, Marsha

MacShane, Denis

Skinner, Dennis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Southworth, Ms Helen

1060

Spellar, John

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Steinberg, Gerry

Tyler, Paul

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Vaz, Keith

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wallace, James

Stoate, Dr Howard

Walley, Ms Joan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Ward, Ms Claire

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Watts, David

Stringer, Graham

White, Brian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stunell, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Willis, Phil

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Wood, Mike

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Worthington, Tony

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wray, James

Timms, Stephen

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tipping, Paddy

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Todd, Mark

Wyatt, Derek

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Touhig, Don

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trickett, Jon

Miss Melanie Johnson and

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

NOES

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Barnes, Harry

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bercow, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Brady, Graham

Jenkin, Bernard

Brazier, Julian

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lansley, Andrew

Burnett, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Butterfill, John

Lidington, David

Chope, Christopher

Luff, Peter

Clappison, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Nicholls, Patrick

Collins, Tim

Paice, James

Cran, James

Paterson, Owen

Curry, Rt Hon David

Pickles, Eric

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Randall, John

Day, Stephen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fallon, Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Flynn, Paul

St Aubyn, Nick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Spring, Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fox, Dr Liam

Swayne, Desmond

Fraser, Christopher

Syms, Robert

Gale, Roger

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Gibb, Nick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gill, Christopher

Waterson, Nigel

Golding, Mrs Llin

Willetts, David

Greenway, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Hammond, Philip

Hawkins, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Hayes, John

Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

Heald, Oliver

Mr. Dominic Grieve.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House
9.22 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
As the House is aware, we adjourn for the Christmas recess tomorrow. Following the exchanges at Prime Minister's questions today, and in the light of representations that have been made, the Government have decided that the business for tomorrow will now be a debate on Iraq, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The business previously announced for tomorrow will be taken at a later date.
I take this opportunity to confirm that the business for the week of 11 January will be as I announced last Thursday. It may help the House to know that we hope to take the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, or some part of it, in the following week.
Sir George Young: The Opposition welcome the Government's decision to change the business tomorrow so that the House has an opportunity to debate this grave matter. Who will be speaking for the Government?
Mrs. Beckett: Cabinet colleagues will be opening and winding up the debate. [Laughter.]
Mr. Menzies Campbell: When we may be about to ask British service men, and, increasingly, service women, to put their lives at risk, one would have thought that hilarity would form no part of our consideration.
On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the right hon. Lady's announcement. It is an awesome responsibility to ask our armed forces to risk their lives on behalf of this country, and it is only right and proper that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the matter before the Christmas recess.
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. In fairness to members of the Conservative Front Bench, I do not think that it was they who joined in the hilarity.
Sir Peter Emery: The hilarity was in response to not knowing who would speak for the Government; it had nothing to do with our service men. They are the last people any of us would wish to laugh at. If our forces are to be deployed, will the Government have by tomorrow made up their mind whether the House will be recalled to deal with this very serious matter? I cannot expect the right hon. Lady to answer that today.
Mrs. Beckett: All these matters can be explored tomorrow. I conveyed the seriousness with which we take
1062
this matter by saying that Cabinet colleagues will both open and wind up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not normally the custom except for the most serious matters.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

  EDUCATION
  That the draft Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  MMR Vaccine
  9.25 pm
  Caroline Flint: I bring before the House a petition of 4,800 signatures on behalf of members of the public and Patricia Revell and Kate Coull, who are mothers of autistic children. The petitioners are concerned about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, and the link between it and autism and inflammatory bowel conditions. They feel that several measures should be taken for the good of the children of this country.
  The petition states:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health
  to undertake a full research programme to prove the safety of the vaccine
  to instigate further research into autism
  and to set up and monitor a register of autistic children.
  The petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  A14 (Cambridgeshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of the greatest concern to my constituents and those of neighbouring constituencies. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are in their places. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Jackson) is to reply to the debate. I note that it is the second time today that she has had to do so. I suspect that, as we approach the end of 1998, she will receive the accolade of becoming the Minister who has responded to the most Adjournment debates this year. I thank her for staying with us for just one more time this year.
  The debate is timely. The issues have often been raised with the Government by me, my predecessor and other Members. Circumstances surrounding the A14 have become of increasingly severe concern in my constituency, partly as a result of the rate at which accidents have occurred and the severity of such accidents, but principally as a result of the increase in traffic and congestion. Concern was reflected most recently by a dramatically large response in the region to a series of compelling articles in the Cambridge Evening News.
  The A14 in Cambridgeshire is one of the most heavily used and congested trunk roads in the country. Seventy eight thousand vehicles a day travel on the three-lane section of the A 14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon which passes through my constituency. The Highways Agency calculates that 66,000 vehicles a day travel on the two-lane section between Bar Hill and Huntingdon. The traffic has a very high heavy goods vehicle content: recent observations recorded 5,000 vehicles an hour at peak times, and, of those, one in four was a heavy goods vehicle.
  The Minister has recently answered several questions on the issue. One such answer illustrated that the stretch of the A14 to which I have referred is among the 10 most heavily used sections of dual carriageway in the country. I am familiar with some of the others—for example, between the M25 and Southend, the Al27 is a two-lane section with a high level of usage, but a considerable difference is the extent to which local traffic has been grade-separated on the Al27 by the installation of new junctions and so on. Such safety measures have not been installed on all such roads.
  The British Road Federation took the trouble to write to me when it became aware of this Adjournment debate. The BRF described the A14 as
  "one of the most economically important routes in the country."
  The debate is of significance for a wider region than simply my constituency and the neighbouring ones.
  At each end of the stretch of road between Huntingdon and Cambridge in particular, two heavily used two-lane roads feed in. On one side there is the A14 east-west route coming in as a two-lane section. Recently the A1(M)
  1064
  was opened, as the Minister knows, by her noble Friend Lord Whitty. That road from the north is a four-lane section coming down towards Huntingdon, so on that side there are six lanes feeding into the A14. At the other end, there is the A14 going on to the east coast ports and the M11 going down to the M25 and the Dartford bridge.
  A classic bottleneck is thus created on a trans-European network. The road is in a unique category. I do not know of any other road anywhere in the country that occupies such a critical position for east-west traffic and also for north-south traffic. It so happens that its orientation from the north-west to the south-east makes it a convenient part of routes in both those significant directions. Once the Al-M1 link was completed, it was clear that high levels of traffic growth could occur in the future.
  The road is not congested simply by trunk road traffic. It is also used for local purposes, which gives rise to a serious complication. Originally, in 1972, it was designed to be a three-lane all-purpose carriageway. The stretch in question was built only as a two-lane carriageway. I imagine that the policy of "predict and provide" did not exist then, but even at that early stage, expectations of a need for a three-lane section were rare. That is what should have been built.
  In the past 10 years there has been a 68 per cent. growth in traffic. There has been a significant increase since the opening of the A 1-M1 link. I suspect that the upgrading of the Al to motorway standard up to Peterborough will in due course lead to a further increase in traffic, although in a reply to me a day or two ago, the Minister suggested that that would not be the case. We shall see.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to Cambridge today as a growth centre. In response to questions after his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would foster economic development in areas such as Cambridge. The White Paper states that
  "the Government is reviewing how the planning system can best help promote the needs of clusters of businesses in growth industries; and the implications for their expansion for other land uses such as housing and transport infrastructure."
  Not only is the road critical for existing transport purposes, but the pressures on the road make it impossible to contemplate economic development such as that envisaged by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or development of the kind proposed at Alconbury, which is the subject of consideration by Huntingdon district council. It is extremely difficult to consider the proposals for a new settlement close to Cambridge. One of the principal suggestions for that is a site north of the A14, with considerable traffic on and off that road.
  We must recognise that—in the absence of significant change in the area's transport infrastructure and, most particularly, the upgrading of the A14—those developments would be unsustainable. The Government may soon be contemplating economic development and its promotion in the Cambridge area, which will not be achieved without a Government U-turn in respect of transport infrastructure and the A14 in particular.
  I am told that the Highways Agency estimates that the theoretical capacity on the two-lane section of the A 14 is 68,000 vehicles a day, and that traffic flow would begin to break down at that point, with congestion occurring. On-site observations by Cambridgeshire county council have shown that breakdown occurs at about 50,000 vehicles a day and becomes increasingly severe.

  1065
  Unfortunately congestion occurs daily and the consequences are severe. The number of accidents is high, and a personal injury accident occurs every three days on that road. People in and around my constituency and the Minister will know that a serious accident on 18 November at Lolworth resulted in a fatality. Given the circumstances, it could easily have led to additional deaths.
  Hon. Members will realise that when a road arrives at the point at which congestion is assumed to occur, people divert on to other roads. Measurement of congestion on the A 14 cannot be achieved simply by looking at how many cars use it, because drivers are increasingly using other local roads and causing congestion. There is rat running through villages such as Hilton and along the A428, which is virtually at full capacity. On that road, at the new village settlement of Cambourne, 3,300 new homes are being built, and the first will be sold in the summer of next year. There is increasingly no way out on the road. When blockages occur on the A14, the consequences are congestion in all those neighbouring villages, and congestion and blockages on many neighbouring roads such as the A1198 and the A428. In some villages adjacent to the Al4 there is gridlock. Two examples will suffice. Bar Hill is a substantial village of some 3,000 homes, which exits only on to the A14. There is no other way in and out, so when the A14 is congested—it is often congested in both directions at the same time—traffic backs up into the village and people cannot come and go.
  The small village of Lolworth exits only on to the westbound carriageway of the A14. If one wants to go from Lolworth to Cambridge, one has to go west to the next junction and then come back on the eastbound carriageway. People have to enter and exit the carriageway twice, and they have two chances of meeting congestion. I once stood in the centre of the village when the A14 was blocked. Cars shot past me on Lolworth high street, going to the top of the village. Five minutes later they shot back again.
  The Minister will appreciate that the road—which is part of a trans-European network, part of the trunk road system and an integral and vital part of the national road structure—is essentially a local road for certain purposes. That is one reason why we must deal with the road. Otherwise, life in the neighbouring area will become unbearable.
  Comprehensive improvements to the A14 were in the Government's trunk road programme, but in July Ministers took them out of the self-styled targeted programme of improvements and substituted the proposal for a multi-modal study. In the past few days the Minister disclosed in a parliamentary answer that the start date for the study, in tranche 2, will be 2000–01. As the Minister has previously said that the study itself will take a year to complete, that means that it will be at least three years, and perhaps four, before we know whether the Government intend to upgrade the A14. No doubt Ministers will then say that design studies and public consultation have to be undertaken and programme finance sought. By that time, Cambridgeshire will have been strangled by gridlock.
  1066
  My purpose tonight is to urge Ministers to recognise the need for urgent action and to respond in four key ways. First, the Highways Agency should undertake immediate traffic flow management and safety measures. A study in December 1995 identified 14 potential improvements. Others could now be contemplated, including stronger safety barriers, and so on.
  In response to recent questions, the Minister told me that a number of those improvements are to take place in the spring of next year. Among the measures identified three years ago, the most important, relating to slip roads and lay-bys, are not yet planned, and I urge the Minister that they should be.
  Secondly, the Government have dropped the A14 improvement from the programme. That decision was flawed. Using the Government's own criteria for the assessment of environmental impact, safety, economic factors, accessibility and integration, and based on a study completed by Cambridgeshire county council, it is clear that the improvement of the A14 would bring large and quantifiable benefits.
  For example, without giving an exhaustive account, in relation to environmental impact, the county council has identified an extensive reduction in noise pollution and a reduction in rat running, to which I have referred. In relation to safety, poor design of the junctions and the entry and exit points has given rise to high accident levels.
  On the economy, I refer to the views of the British Road Federation and to the importance of Cambridge as a sub-region and the long journey times faced by companies which are having to engage in just-in-time deliveries and, as a matter of course, to build in the potential for considerable delays when using the road for deliveries.
  On accessibility and public transport, many buses going into and out of Cambridge use the A 14. Therefore, even public transport is significantly failing because of the character of the road. At certain points, the A14 is also a dangerous road for pedestrians. Last Sunday, there was a tragic death on the northern bypass, so there is a clear danger there.
  On the potential for integration between different modes of transport, the A14 is not well optimised for multi-modal activity or for transfer between different transport modes. I suspect that it could not be without grade separation between the trunk road and local roads.
  I look to the Minister this evening to concede that when the July announcements were made, and "A New Deal for Trunk Roads: Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal" was published, no full assessment of the A14 was made in those terms. Will she now agree to consider, perhaps jointly with the Highways Agency and Cambridgeshire county council, those five criteria in relation to the road and see whether the decision was flawed and can be reviewed?
  As an alternative to improvements to the A14 in the programme, the Government seek a multi-modal study. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that to maximise the use of public transport is clearly right, but my third point is to seek from the Minister a concession to reality—that there is, in truth, no prospect of meeting a significant part of the present traffic use, still less the whole of the future traffic growth, by public transport options. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the multi-modal study, significant improvement, upgrade and grade separation of the A14 is part of the solution.

  1067
  In parallel with the multi-modal study, there should be design studies. If they progress rapidly, public consultation should occur in parallel with the multi-modal study on preparing the A 14 for an upgrade at some time.
  If the study is not made relatively soon, there will be no chance of the road being upgraded within the next 10 years, and that would be wholly unacceptable. Therefore, whatever happens, I ask the Minister to assure the House, my constituents and the people of Cambridgeshire that three years would simply be too long. If such a study is to be made, it should be included in tranche 1. I shall certainly be pressing for that in the regional planning conference, although I hope that the Minister will pre-empt that undertaking, and herself undertake to consider including the study in tranche 1.
  Does the Minister accept that, whatever happens, the A 14 must be improved so that local traffic is separated from the trunk road? It really is untenable for the situation to continue—a situation that applies also on stretches of the A1, and that has provided part of the reasoning behind proposed improvements on that road—in which large amounts of local traffic enter and exit the A14, thereby making lane changes. The presence of such traffic is the reason why there are so many dangers on the A14. Does the Minister accept that we must find ways of keeping local traffic off the main road?
  I am not interested simply in laying tarmac over South Cambridgeshire or driving a motorway through my constituency for the sake of it—far from it. We should not be in the business of building roads except when they are strictly necessary. However, I am determined—on the basis of observation, evidence and the views of my constituents—that we must accept a realistic approach to the road. There is no way forward for transport along the corridor except the improvement of the A14. Improvement of the A14 would meet the Government's own criteria—not of predicting and providing or of catering for future traffic growth, but of dealing with the congestion and bottlenecks currently in the system. Congestion and bottlenecks are occurring and have to be dealt with on the basis of current evidence.
  Development is coming fast, and the infrastructure is not coping and will not cope with it. If action does not come soon, there will be further deaths and injuries, and congestion will worsen rapidly. Moreover, the local economy and, in some respects, the national economy, will become gridlocked. The Road Haulage Association and the British Road Federation have testified to the road's critical economic importance. The British Road Federation, in a letter to me, itself regretted the Government's apparent lack of urgency in finding a solution to the problem.
  Thousands of my constituents know only too well that their lives will be made ever more miserable until the road is improved. I call on the Minister to show understanding, and to respond positively to this debate.
  As I realise that the situation will not be changed before Christmas, I should like, through the medium of this debate, to suggest to my constituents that they should try over the Christmas period to stay at home and not drive on the road. If they do have to drive, I ask them to drive safely.
  1068
  I should like also to wish the Minister—when the time comes—a happy Christmas, especially if she is able in her reply to bring added Christmas cheer to my constituents by responding positively to some of the points that I have raised.
  9.48 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to speak in it.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is quite surprised to hear me speaking on roads, as she knows from her previous experience of hearing me speak in transport debates that I usually talk about pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, specifically rail transport. She knows that I am a great champion of those means of transport. However, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has made some valuable points, and there is cross-party support in the county council and in the city of Cambridge for some improvement to be made to the A14.
  I should like to take a little time to explain the reasons why improvement to the A14 is necessary, and perhaps to go back over some history. It may be helpful to do so.
  The previous Government decided not to continue with the A 14 widening scheme. I have a letter from John Watts, the previous transport Minister, to Cambridgeshire county council in February 1997. He explained:
  "The A14-M11-A10 Widening Scheme was withdrawn from the programme after careful consideration of the scheme's economics and the environmental data, to remove uncertainty and planning blight."
  That decision of the previous Government has been continued by this one.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement on the competitiveness White Paper today. Last Monday I was fortunate enough to visit a firm on the Cambridge science park. I must apologise to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), because I think that it is in his constituency, but it is only a few feet over the border with mine—apologies if they are due. I always feel that the science park should belong to Cambridge city and I am sorry that it does not.
  The firm, Biogemma, is owned by a French company that thinks it important to have a research outlet on the Cambridge science park because of the world-beating research that goes on there. It employs about 40 people in high-value jobs, doing research into food technology. The managing director told me that the transport situation has become very difficult, because whenever there is an accident on the A14, the traffic backs up down Milton road. It is impossible even for those trying to travel within Cambridge to get out of the science park, let alone those going on to the A14. They are virtually trapped in the science park. That is not conducive to good business on the science park, so there is a real and immediate problem.
  Those who work on the science park should be looking at alternative means of transport. Unfortunately, for many of them such alternative means are not in place. We do not have a rail link even part of the way to Huntingdon. If the Cambridge to St. Ives rail line were reopened—I have campaigned for that for many years—there would be an alternative and people would be able to leave their cars behind. However, that facility is not in place.

  1069
  Earlier this year I wrote to the county council to find out whether that route was still on its list of projects that should go ahead. My reply from the assistant director of planning said:
  "the Council's current policy is to pursue the development of a rail link on this route."
  I am pleased to report that and to support it. The assistant director went on:
  "It seems likely that any public transport service along this route will need to be funded through a combination of PFI and developer contributions, and we will be meeting with the Government Office to discuss this once growth options for the Cambridge sub-region have been explored".
  Desirable though a railway line is, I am afraid that it still seems a long way off. The problems, however, are immediate. I want essential safety measures to be carried out on the Al4 and I support the plea of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for an earlier study than the second tranche study that has been promised. We need to look at the A 14 corridor, the rail link and the road link and see what essential improvements can be made.
  I entirely support the Government's transport policy. It is absolutely right that we should try to reduce road transport which causes pollution and congestion and is not an efficient means of moving people from A to B. I hope that in the long term, most people who use the A 14 will find an alternative route by rail, bus or some means other than private cars. Many of them could, if the alternatives were available.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: When?
  Mrs. Campbell: There was no need for that shouted remark, as I am being entirely supportive. There are no alternatives at the moment and it is likely to be a long time before there are. I am asking for a short-term solution to ensure both that my constituents can travel in safety, and that the essential economic development on the science park in Cambridge is not hindered by the lack of an alternative transport option.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate, and congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has described the problems of the A14 and on his good fortune in choosing a day when we have been able to have a slightly longer than usual Adjournment debate. The extra time has allowed the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and me to contribute to the debate—I hope that is valuable.
  The stretch of the A14 to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred was in my constituency until the boundary changes prior to the general election, so I have witnessed the continuing increase in traffic and the worsening situation. It is perhaps surprising to people who spend most of their time in or around London to learn that I believe the A14 can get as bad as the M25 on a bad day and the traffic on that stretch can be absolutely awful. As my hon. Friend said, many people who wish to use it now have to build in a lot of extra time to compensate for those delays.
  1070
  I would make one point about the delays. As a user of that road and other two-lane dual carriageways, it seems to me that whatever the theoretical capacity of a road, there is a tendency for almost everyone to drive on the outside lane. The reason for that is usually heavy goods vehicles, one trying to overtake another and both operating at the maximum allowed by the governor on their engines. They overtake imperceptibly slowly and sometimes even have to fall back eventually, with the result that huge queues of traffic build up behind them—leaving the inside lane almost entirely empty. Any theoretical capacity is thus completely destroyed. Perhaps the Minister could attempt to find a way in which that could be addressed as there would be a greater throughput of traffic if both lanes were used properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Minister, knows full well the importance of the A14. Indeed he used to work in a company in my constituency and has experienced the same problems as my constituents.
  I have consistently supported the opening up of the railway line from Cambridge to St. Ives. It is an existing link, all bar three miles at one end. Under the previous Government, at my invitation a former Minister of rail, now Lord Freeman, came to meetings with Cambridge county council, Railtrack, the Railway Development Society and all the other organisations and even walked part of the track to see how that railway could play its part in assisting with traffic movement. It had the particular advantage of running close to the science park to which the hon. Lady referred and the Cambridge regional college which thousands of students attend daily. Sadly, that initiative died away because Railtrack could not be enthused about the idea.
  Disagreements about cost have also come to the fore. Even if my dearest wish came true and the line was opened—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Mr. Paice: Even the reopening of the railway line would not make the dramatic improvement that we want. The hon. Member for Cambridge—I do not say this in a partisan spirit—is living in cloud cuckoo land if she believes that public transport could solve the problems of the A14, although it would make a contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, the A14 must continue to be a vital link in the nation's arteries.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: I would rather not, as I know that the Minister wants a good amount of time, although I may give way in a moment.
  I entirely endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that we should not wait three syears for the study. The hon. Member for Cambridge wrongly said that the previous Government removed the A 14 from the programme of improvements. The previous Government removed from the programme only the section of the road between the M11 and the

  1071
  A10, which forms part of the Cambridge northern bypass in my constituency. My hon. Friend was referring to the section between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which was removed from the programme by the current Government. Now that I have corrected the hon. Lady, I happily give way.
  Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was arguing for an earlier study. I did not say that greater use of public transport would substantially reduce the amount of traffic on the A14, although I do believe that a study is needed to determine whether that would be the case.
  Mr. Paice: A study certainly is needed more urgently than the Minister has suggested in answers to parliamentary questions.
  A significant length of the A 14 remains within my constituency; it stretches almost from the Girton interchange with the M 11 to the Suffolk border. As I acknowledged, the previous Government removed from the improvement programme a section of the Cambridge. northern bypass. That decision was partly influenced by the public inquiry at the time into an application to build a superstore on the northern fringe of Cambridge, and by the possibility that that superstore would contribute to the improvement of the A14.
  I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his decision to reject that application—that took a weight off the minds of many of my constituents in the villages of Histon and Impington. However, it also removed the possibility of any financial contribution to the improvement of the northern bypass, where the traffic problems are almost as severe as they are between Cambridge and Huntingdon.
  The problem affects not only road users, however. The northern bypass cuts close to much housing, so noise is also a serious problem. Despite the fact that my constituents in Histon and Impington and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in Girton and further east in Bottisham have experienced a huge increase in the amount of traffic on the A14 since the opening of the A1-M1 link, nothing has been done about noise.
  I have pursued the matter for some time. The problem goes back to 1972, when a public inquiry into the construction of the road recommended the erection of noise screens. We are still waiting for those screens. I have tried several times over the years to persuade the Minister's predecessors of both parties, and the Highways Agency, to take action. I keep being told that it cannot be done unless there is a new road. The fact is that the A14 is, effectively, a new road because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, it is now taking a vastly increased amount of traffic compared with what it was designed for in 1972. We then had the excuse that there would be a new shopping centre.
  Later, the Minister told me to wait for the White Paper, which I did. However, there is still no real progress on how to address the serious problem of traffic noise affecting many of my constituents. How much longer will they have to wait for the screening which was promised in the 1972 public inquiry? I accept, as the Minister will point out, that my party has been in government for much of the period since then. But I still make the point—
  1072
  particularly as the Government have taken the further improvements out of the programme—that although the Minister asked me to wait for the White Paper, we still have had no answer to the problem of noise.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for allowing me to contribute, as we have a serious problem. We have a Minister responsible for roads, although it seems that the construction of roads is virtually disappearing at present. I hope that the Minister will consult her colleagues about how to address a major problem.
  This is, as we have pointed out, a problem that faces all of us who live and work in and around the Cambridge area; but it also affects businesses all over the country that use that road. Some vehicles come down the east coast on the A1 from Scotland and wish to go through the Dartford tunnel, or to east London. Others go from Birmingham to Felixstowe port, accounting for a vast amount of HGV traffic using the road. The A14 is a major part of the nation's road system, so I hope that the Minister can encourage us in the belief that it will get better.
  10.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I begin my thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his seasonal greetings, which I reciprocate. I am in no position to know whether I have responded to the majority of Adjournment debates during this Session, but I am fairly confident that whoever holds that debatable prize is from my Department.
  I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for his generosity in affording time to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). All three contributions have highlighted the problems over a wide range of areas caused by congestion on our roads network. The speeches touched on the impact of congestion upon our environment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred to the concerns of her constituents and the impact that congestion has on business—a point made also by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for South-East Cambridgeshire.
  The call for speed in tackling the problem came from all three hon. Members, who highlighted the desperate need for a strategic approach to transport and traffic. That is why the Government took the time we did over the roads review, and why we issued the first comprehensive transport document—the White Paper—for two decades. It is abundantly clear to everyone that we must move away from the old predict-and-provide system for roads, and we need a much more integrated approach to dealing with managing our roads system so that there can be a flow of traffic.
  As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we are talking about a road that links the country to many vital ports of both ingress and exit. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that it is part of the national road network, and spoke of the trans-European links, reminding us that the road serves the national network, as well as being depended on by local residents.
  It is abundantly clear that the old predict and provide is not a way of tackling our problems of traffic and transport, not only in the short and medium term but in

  1073
  the long term. There were recurring themes in all three speeches this evening, concerning accidents and congestion. All three urged speed on the part of the Government with regard to the multi-modal study promised to this section of road.
  New unpublished Highways Agency work that has just been completed covering the years 1995–98 shows a rate of 0.17 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres on the A14. That is the same as the national average. The severity ratio has dropped in those three years to below 18 per cent., which is three quarters of the national average. The accident record of the A14 is no worse than the national average for all-purpose dual-carriageway roads.
  I know that that is of absolutely no comfort to anyone who has suffered, or fears suffering, an accident. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the tragedy of a fatal accident. The Highways Agency has plans to improve safety on the route. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, traffic flows on the Cambridgeshire section are the highest on the route, and the proportion of heavy goods vehicles is twice the national average. We share the concerns about safety.
  In 1995, the Highways Agency commissioned a study from consulting engineers Thorburn Coiquhoun to investigate accidents and congestion on this length of the A14 and propose safety measures. The first stage of the safety improvements was carried out in 1995–96, when speed cameras were provided to help to reduce traffic speeds.
  Further safety-related measures to be carried out by next spring include various junction improvements, with small-scale widening, improved signing with advisory speed limits, and the laying of anti-skid surfacing at off-slip roads. An acceleration lane is being constructed on the eastbound carriageway of the Hemingford Abbots junction. Signing and lining improvements are being provided in the Girton interchange to improve lane discipline and the flow of traffic. Queue warning signs will be provided on the Cambridge northern bypass, and work is being done to identify further safety improvements.
  A programme of improvements to the lay-bys is planned for next year, as the accident study showed that many accidents were associated with lay-bys. Investment in better information for drivers is also planned. West of Huntingdon and the A1, schemes are being prepared to change four existing single-level junctions between Thrapston and Brampton to grade-separated junctions. The Highways Agency has just reached agreement with Cambridgeshire police on the provision of additional speed cameras, to be funded by the agency, to supplement the two already on the A14 at Lolworth and Hemingford Grey. Those new units will be erected by the spring.
  As part of its brief for improving the planning of highway investment and improving services, and in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use planning policies, the Highways Agency has embarked on a series of route management strategy trials to examine routes from various operational standpoints. The whole of the A14, from the M1-M6 to Felixstowe, is one of those trial routes.
  The trial began in April 1998, and is due to conclude in April 1999. It is being taken forward in partnership with local authorities, the police, other transport providers
  1074
  along the route corridor, road users and environmental interest groups. We expect the results to point to further measures to improve traffic management, network control and information for drivers. The agency now has a toolkit of measures that it can use, and it is operating as part of our framework for integrated transport.
  Before I move on from those short-term improvements to the longer-term future for the A14 in Cambridgeshire, I want to look back briefly to the past. Under the 1989 "roads for prosperity" initiative, improvements were proposed from west of the A1 through to widening of the Cambridge northern bypass. Although consultants did a great deal of preliminary work on the schemes, little serious progress was made. None of them even reached the first major stage of scheme preparation where the public are consulted on alternative alignments.
  That is a sign that major change to the A14 in Cambridgeshire is not a straightforward proposition. There are very substantial environmental and technical issues, particularly around Huntingdon, the M11 and north of Cambridge. Successive reductions in the programme 'reduced the scheme from motorway to all-purpose trunk road standard, and finally, in 1996, the scheme for widening the A14 Cambridge northern bypass from the M11 to the A10 was withdrawn entirely.
  On the A14 in Cambridgeshire, we therefore inherited proposals for grade-separated junctions west of the A1, and major schemes east of the A1, costing around £200 million, which had been withdrawn or shelved. We consulted widely on our proposals for integrated transport and the roads review, and produced our policy statements in July and a seven-year targeted programme of improvements—TPI—for trunk roads. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked whether we had applied our five new criteria to the A14 before we withdrew it from the targeted programme of improvements, and I can assure him that we did so.
  Mr. Lansley: The application of the criteria for those roads included in the TPI has been published. Will the Minister undertake to publish the judgments made by the Highways Agency on the A14, so that we may consider, and if necessary challenge, them, because they are often qualitative?
  Ms Jackson: I should be happy to do that, but I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said, and the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that speed was of the essence. I cannot see what purpose would be served by asking anyone to refer back to a decision that had already been made, when what I have heard tonight is that the hon. Members wish to urge the Government to make progress on the issue.
  I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is not possible to achieve the desired result overnight. Any solution will take time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has argued tonight that the Government's multi-modal study proposal should be not in the second tranche of such studies but in the first. I shall come to that proposition later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be arguing that we should go back and attempt to unpick a decision that has already been made.

  1075
  He implied that the decision was somehow rushed, or that the road was not tested against the criteria against which all other roads have been tested, but that is not the case.
  Mr. Lansley: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of publishing the criteria, the application of which could be instrumental in how the multi-modal study is constructed. Some work on the study could be short-circuited, because, if it is apparent that, for example, the use of some modes of public transport or the environmental impact could be improved by upgrading the A14, we could move immediately towards some of the conclusions of the multi-modal study, instead of having to go through all the criteria ab initio.
  Ms Jackson: I apologise if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but it seemed that the final sentence of his previous intervention suggested that the criteria could be challenged, and that led me to believe that he was asking to go back rather than forward.
  The junction improvements between Thrapston and Brampton, west of the A1, will be taken forward as safety schemes. However, the major schemes east of the A1, which are of most concern to the hon. Gentleman, were not sufficiently well advanced to be contenders for the targeted programme of improvements. Major road projects on the scale being considered are bound to require the full process of public consultation, preferred route selection, statutory orders and a public inquiry before going ahead. Those processes all take time.
  As I have said in a slightly different way, we want to move away from a piecemeal approach to transport investment, and to find long-term solutions. The old approach of simply trying to build our way out of problems on our roads is discredited, and we need to consider the role that modes such as public transport can play, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said.
  Those hon. Members, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), have spoken of the potential of a railway line between Cambridge and St. Ives. We have announced, as part of the outcome of the roads review, a programme of studies to consider the most urgent problems not tackled by the targeted programme of improvements. One will be a multi-modal study of the Cambridge-Huntingdon corridor.
  The multi-modal studies will examine the contribution that all modes can make to tackling transport problems, while supporting regional strategies for land use and economic development over the coming decades. We will thus consider the A14 from Cambridge to the A1 in the round, taking into account not only road aspects and options but rail possibilities and bus proposals. We have no preconceptions about the likely range of measures that could emerge from the study. We intend to produce solutions that consider all the problems and all the options, and we are not going to be dictated to by pressure to keep pace with traffic growth by building more and more roads.
  In taking the studies forward, we intend to consult widely, and to involve a range of interests, so that, as far as possible, there is ownership and support for the
  1076
  solutions that emerge. Each study will have a steering group, chaired initially by Government offices for the regions, and including the regional planning bodies, regional development agencies, the Highways Agency, transport providers and users, and environmental organisations.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady consider consulting not only the regional planning conference, but Cambridgeshire county council? The section of road to which she refers is in Cambridgeshire, and it is the competent body. I hope that she will give the council a greater status and role in consultation on the study.
  Ms Jackson: It would be highly unlikely for Cambridgeshire county council not to be represented on one of, if not all, the bodies to which I referred. Clearly, there must also be consultation with the users, and with environmental organisations.
  The results of the studies will be considered by regional planning bodies as part of the regional transport strategy that will in future be an integral part of regional planning guidance. When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister signs up to a regional transport strategy, he will be showing that the Government endorse the investment priorities in the strategy.
  As to the timing of these studies, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety announced in another place last Thursday the programme for the targeted programme of improvements and the proposals for taking the studies forward. Regional planning conferences are being asked for their views on the coverage of the study programme, and the timing and scope of the studies. We are seeking replies by 29 January, and will decide the final programme quickly after we receive all the views from the regions.
  We propose to take forward a programme of about 26 studies in total. Those are major, resource-intensive pieces of work, so it will not be possible to take them all forward in parallel. The smaller studies, such as the Cambridge-to-Huntingdon A14 road—which, although complex in the considerations that need to be taken into account, is simple in that it deals with only one corridor route—would probably begin, in a second tranche, in 2000 or soon after. However, we shall be happy to consider alternative timetables put forward by the regional planning bodies. I know that that stretch of road is a priority for the regional bodies.
  Our approach to the trunk road programme is a realistic one. Unlike the previous Administration, we shall not produce a wish list, or attempt far more projects than can be delivered. We have heard tonight in the contributions from Cambridgeshire Members a graphic illustration of that approach.
  We have defined a new role for the Highways Agency as network operator, giving greater emphasis to encouraging the best use of the network. With the agency's recently established structure of area managers, it is well organised to maintain the network and develop essential safety schemes in the shorter term. Our studies will lead to effective longer-term transport solutions that

  1077
  are both affordable and deliverable. We shall put making better use of existing transport infrastructure, supporting public transport and managing demand before new construction.
  I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the other hon. Members who have spoken for bringing the A 14 in Cambridgeshire to the attention of the House. It is
  1078
  an important matter, with wide implications not only for the immediate area, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is made aware of this evening's debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the(a) draft Toll Order for the Skye Bridge and (b) draft Assignation Statement were placed in the Library in 1991; and if he will make a statement. [63320]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: A draft of the Order and the Assignation Statement were not placed in the Library. The Order was not subject to parliamentary procedure but the proposal to make the Order was advertised and a draft of the Order was available for inspection in accordance with the required procedures under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no draft Statement. The procedures in the 1984 Act require the Assignation Statement itself to be made available for inspection with the draft Order and this was done.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers the devolved Scottish Parliament will have to alter the rules governing the amount of capital receipts from right to buy which local authorities must use to repay their capital debt. [63323]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: These arrangements were applied as a condition of the consent to local authorities to incur capital expenditure under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and it would be open to the Scottish Executive to alter those conditions.

  Coalmining Communities
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in allocating resources to help with the regeneration of Scotland's former coalmining communities. [64628]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Scotland's former coalmining communities will benefit from a share of the £10 million being made available in recognition of miners' pension fund surpluses. In addition, we are making £1 million available to help these communities. I will be announcing details about how we will be targeting the funding for these communities, following consultation with Scottish Enterprise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Region of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. We will ensure that it is deployed to complement the range of initiatives already underway, including the new Social Inclusion Partnerships, which will be supported by £48 million over the next 3 years, for which former coalfield areas are eligible.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the suitability of procurators fiscal with qualifications as solicitor-advocate(a) to be advocate deputes and (b) to prosecute in the High Court. [62670]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is responsible for the appointment of Advocate Deputes. My noble and learned Friend is satisfied about the competence of many Procurators Fiscal, including some with qualifications as Solicitor-Advocate, to undertake the work carried out by Advocate Deputes, including prosecuting in the High Court. However, he takes the view that it is necessary for the proper operation of the prosecution system in Scotland to maintain the traditional separation between the role of the Procurator Fiscal and that of Crown Counsel, to ensure independence of decision making and prosecution in respect of High Court cases. He is not, therefore, inclined to appoint Procurators Fiscal as Advocate Deputes.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the relative costs of using(a) members of the Faculty of Advocates and (b) procurators fiscal qualified as solicitor-advocates, as advocate deputes. [62671]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has responsibility for prosecutions in Scotland. The post of Advocate Depute is assessed for remuneration purposes at rates comparable with the Senior Civil Service, on which individual pay is based regardless of whether the incumbent is a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a Procurator Fiscal. There is therefore no significant difference in their relative costs.

  RSA Priority Initiative
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the companies which to date have been offered additional grant if they employ residents of assisted areas under the RSA Priority Initiative launched on 22 May. [63908]

  Mr. Dewar
  Under the pilot "RSA Priority" initiative, launched on 22 May 1998 in five particularly deprived areas of Scotland, nine companies have to date been offered the opportunity to receive additional grant if they employ residents of the designated areas. Information regarding offers of Regional Selective Assistance to individual companies is generally regarded as commercially confidential, although details of offers of £75,000 or more are published in "Labour Market Trends" once the company has received its first payment.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposed identity card scheme for young people announced by Health and Home Department ministers will operate in Scotland. [63857]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government have no plans to introduce an identity card scheme for young people in Scotland, or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Ministers have, however, welcomed the various proof of age card schemes covering age-restricted products such as alcohol,
  513
  tobacco and fireworks, and we have encouraged representatives from these industries to consider the feasibility of developing a multi-purpose proof of age card.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which categories of properties, which are not owned or operated by recognised charities or other non-profit making bodies, benefit from relief on their water or sewerage rates; and what figures he has for the number of properties concerned and the amount of the relief afforded them. [63859]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Following the establishment of the three Scottish water authorities, relief from water and sewerage charges is no longer specified in statute, and is a matter for the authorities. Overall, it is estimated that the amount of relief is some £14 million per annum.

  The exact information requested is, therefore, not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Ward Boundaries
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his timetable is for making further orders to give effect to local authority ward boundary changes following the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. [64035]

  Mr. McLeish
  It is the intention to have orders made in respect of all local authority areas (apart from Orkney and Shetlands) by 31 December 1998. As a consequence of the Petitions for Judicial Review submitted by Orkney and Shetlands Island Councils, we will delay making an order in respect of these 2 areas until 15 January 1999, the latest practicable date if the new arrangements are to take effect for the elections due in May 1999. No order will be made, however, if the Court gives an indication before that date that a decree of reduction is to be granted in respect of the relevant Petition.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of which local authority areas in Scotland he has made orders to give effect to ward boundary changes following the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. [64034]

  Mr. McLeish
  To date, orders have been made in respect of the following 16 local authority areas:

  Aberdeen City

  Angus

  City of Edinburgh

  Clackmannanshire

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dundee City

  East Lothian

  East Renfrewshire

  Glasgow City

  Inverclyde

  Midlothian

  North Ayrshire

  Perth and Kinross

  514

  Scottish Borders

  West Dunbartonshire

  West Lothian.

  Incapable Adults Report
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Scottish Law Commission's Incapable Adults report (Scots Law Com. No. 151). [64388]

  Mr. McLeish
  The subject of decision-making on behalf of adults who are unable to manage their own affairs is an important one. The Government have been made fully aware of the issues through the report by the Scottish Law Commission in 1995 and subsequent public consultation, which attracted a substantial and carefully considered response. We accept the need for reform of the existing legislation in this important area of the law that provides support and protection for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

  It will be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area and this statement cannot pre-empt announcements about the Scottish Parliament's legislative programme. It excludes consideration of the SLC's recommendations about medical treatment and research and advance statements. These are sensitive issues and we received many responses on them in the consultation exercise. We have not made any decisions on these matters yet; and we shall also want to consider what emerges from the Lord Chancellor's recent consultation exercise on similar proposals for England and Wales.

  We agree with the general principles proposed by the SLC that any intervention should produce a benefit for the adult; be least restrictive of the adult's freedom; wherever possible encourage the adult to use existing skills and acquire new skills, and take account of the present and past wishes of the adult.

  In relation to particular aspects of the Report we agree with the SLC on the following:
  The proposed definition of mental incapacity;
  The current office of the Accountant of Court should be expanded to form a new office of Public Guardian;
  The function of the Public Guardian should be to maintain public registers of all those authorised to take decisions on behalf of an incapable adult and to supervise and monitor the performance of financial guardians;
  The recognition of continuing and welfare powers of attorney and the introduction of public scrutiny of the exercise of such powers;
  The creation of a new concept of guardianship to provide for a broad and flexible system of one-off intervention orders and longer term guardianship, with appropriate welfare or financial powers as ordered by the court; and
  That key decisions on applications, and in other proceedings under the proposed legislation, should be dealt with in the sheriff courts.

  There are a small number of areas where we propose to vary the SLC's recommendations.

  We propose to modify the SLC scheme for carers in domestic settings to have access to funds from the bank accounts of incapable adults, in order to meet daily living expenses. Under the revised scheme, the Public Guardian would grant authority to have stipulated payments made for a time limited period from the incapable adult's

  515
  account to a designated account. The Public Guardian would have powers to check that the incapable adult's funds were being applied for the intended purpose.

  We propose to modify the SLC recommendations that residential homes should apply to the Public Guardian for authority to manage residents' finances. Under the revised proposals, registration and inspection authorities in local authorities and Health Boards would authorise the managers of residential establishments to manage the funds of residents who are incapable of so doing, up to prescribed limits, and in circumstances where no other arrangements would be appropriate for managing the finances of these residents.

  We do not propose to follow the SLC recommendation that the Public Guardian should be able to be appointed as financial guardian to an incapable adult. We take the view, however, that the arrangements recommended for withdrawals from bank accounts and for intervention orders, and also for management of finances by residential establishments, should be sufficient to meet the needs of incapable adults with modest estates. The Public Guardian's functions will be focused on maintaining public registers of guardians and monitoring and supervising guardians with financial powers. Local authorities and the Mental Welfare Commission will monitor those exercising welfare powers on behalf of incapable adults.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to amend liquor licensing arrangements in respect of New Year's Eve celebrations for the Millennium, covering opening hours for 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000; and if she will make a statement. [63277]

  Mr. McFall
  It is my intention to issue a consultation paper on 17 December seeking comments on a proposed relaxation of permitted hours for licensed premises and registered clubs in Northern Ireland at the Millennium Holiday and each subsequent New Year's Eve.

  Countryside
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to increase access to the open countryside in Northern Ireland. [63785]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is proposed to issue a consultation paper on providing access to the countryside early in 1999.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the organisations in Northern Ireland involved in reviewing world heritage site nominations as a result of the Government's recent consultation. [64398]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  516
  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 16 December 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service, I am responsible for operational aspects of protection of the built heritage on behalf of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. I am responding to the Parliamentary Question which you put down on 17 December 1998 about the organisations involved in the review heritage site nominations.
  In Northern Ireland, Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), in liaison with the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), reviews world heritage site nominations on behalf of Government. Specifically, EHS has attended a specialist working group convened by English Heritage on behalf of DCMS to advise on the compiling of a new UK tentative list. The Service consults the Department's statutory advisory councils, the Historic Monuments Council, the Historic Buildings Council and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside about proposed nominations.
  I trust you will find this helpful.

  Export Surveys
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what categories of data are used in gathering information concerning export surveys from Northern Ireland; how the data are collected; and what part the NIERC plays in the gathering of such information. [63962]

  Mr. Ingram
  Export data for the UK as a whole are gathered by HM Customs and Excise. However, due to the limitations of this data at regional level, the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland jointly commission the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC) to undertake a bespoke annual survey of Northern Ireland sales and exports. NIERC designs the survey questionnaire, collects and analyses the data and assists with the preparation of the survey report for publication.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the analysis of export behaviour by size of firm was discontinued after the first export survey of 1990; and if she will carry out a retrospective analysis of export data for the period 1990–97. [63964]

  Mr. Ingram
  A detailed academic report was produced on the first export survey published in 1992 (in respect of 1990 data). Subsequent export survey reports have been produced within a tighter timetable with the objective of giving a snapshot of key export information. Additional information is available on request including the retrospective analysis referred to in the question.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent the outflow of the profits of externally owned manufacturing companies is taken into account when evaluating the size of grants and subsidies to be given to companies to encourage them to locate in Northern Ireland. [63975]

  Mr. Ingram
  The potential outflow of profits from externally owned companies seeking to establish manufacturing operations in Northern Ireland is fully evaluated in assessing the amount of grant that can be made available.
  517
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the studies carried out by DED of Northern Ireland's competitive advantages in attracting inward investment; and if she will place copies in the Library. [63963]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (IDB) the arm of DED responsible for inward investment, examines among other issues Northern Ireland's performance in the inward investment market relative to competitors. IDB has not directly purchased or commissioned any study into Northern Ireland's competitive advantage in attracting inward investment. However, a report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers in 1996 into Northern Ireland's investment performance compared with the UK and Republic of Ireland makes comment on Northern Ireland's competitive advantages. For copyright and commercial confidentiality reasons this report cannot be placed in the public domain by IDB.

  Census of Production
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long the period is between completion of the collection of Northern Ireland Annual Census of Production data and their publication by the National Statistics Office in its annual Business Monitor. [63966]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Office for National Statistics publishes regional estimates of industrial production in the Annual Business Monitor approximately twelve months after the completion of data collection.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if data collected in Northern Ireland for the Annual Census of Production are available on a sub-regional basis. [63968]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department of Economic Development does not have any results from the Annual Census of Production (now referred to as the Annual Business Inquiry) below NI level. However, the Office for National Statistics is refining the methodology for providing ABI sub-regional estimates with the intention of publishing these from the 1999 inquiry onwards.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the parties which have access to Annual Census of Production data on a confidential basis before the data are published by the National Statistics Office; and on what criteria such organisations are chosen. [63967]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre, commissioned by the Department of Economic Development to undertake the annual Survey of Sales and Exports, has confidential access to Census of Production data prior to publication. The Centre is the only organisation with access to such information which is given under legal direction (as authorised by Article 7 of the Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will introduce local publication of the Annual Census of Production in 518
  Northern Ireland, following the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and what were the reasons for the discontinuation of local publication. [63965]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no plans to reintroduce this publication which was suspended, due to lack of demand, following release of the 1985 results. Current data is available from the Office for National Statistics Business Monitor series. Future arrangements will be for consideration by the NI Assembly.

  Economic Policies (Inquiries)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish for each year since 1990 the number of contracts entered into by her Department and Northern Ireland Government departments and agencies with outside agencies and consultancy firms for the investigation of economic policy matters, indicating the subject matter of each inquiry and the date the report was(a) completed and (b) published, the name of the consultancy firm or outside agency involved and the cost of each contract; and how many contracts in each year went out to tender. [63978]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Accounts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what estimate she has made of the effect on data for Northern Ireland GDP of manufacturing company profit outflows; and what estimate she has made of the size of such outflows; [63973]

  (2) what plans she has to provide provisional estimates of the main macro-sectoral aggregates in the intervals between the publication of regional accounts in order to facilitate planning by the public and private sector; [63976]

  (3) if she will list the parties which have access to the data for Northern Ireland Regional Accounts on a confidential basis, before the data are published in Regional Trends; and on what criteria such parties are chosen; [63970]

  (4) what plans she has to reformulate the Northern Ireland regional account in line with EUROSTAT standards; [63971]

  (5) which Northern Ireland departments are responsible for the preparation of the Northern Ireland Regional Accounts; and what is the length of the period between the collection and completion of such accounts and their eventual publication by the National Statistics Office in Regional Trends. [63969]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency under its chief executive, Mr. E. F. Jardine. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. F. Jardine to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 15 December 1998:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about regional accounts as this matter falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  519
  Answers to the five questions you tabled are given in the Annex to this letter.
  Several of your questions mention the Regional Trends publication. Normally, the Office for National Statistics first publish the regional accounts in their monthly Economic Trends journal and in a news release. The information is then included in Regional Trends which is an annual publication.
  If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what estimate she has made of the effect on data for Northern Ireland GDP of manufacturing company profit outflows; and what estimate she has made of the size of such outflows.

  Reply:
  Gross Domestic Product is concerned with the physical location of economic activity and therefore its calculation is unaffected by profit outflows. No estimation has been made of the size of such outflows.

  Question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans she has to provide provisional estimates of the main macro-sectoral aggregates in the intervals between the publication of regional accounts in order to facilitate planning by the public and private sector.

  Reply:
  The Office for National Statistics, who compile the annual United Kingdom regional accounts, have no plans to provide interim figures.

  Question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if she will list the parties which have access to the data for Northern Ireland Regional Accounts on a confidential basis, before the data is published in Regional Trends; and on what criteria such parties are chosen.

  Reply:
  Regional accounts data are made available to all users at the same time by the Office for National Statistics, with limited exceptions on a strict need-to-know basis. These are: (1) government statisticians involved in the production and quality assurance of the estimates; and (2) Ministers and senior officials who are provided with copies of the articles containing the figures, no more than two days before publication in Economic Trends.

  Question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to reformulate the Northern Ireland regional account in line with EUROSTAT standards.

  Reply:
  From January 1999, the Office for National Statistics intend to publish the United Kingdom regional accounts, including those for Northern Ireland, on the new European System of Accounts (1995) basis.

  Question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Northern Ireland departments are responsible for the preparation of the Northern Ireland Regional Accounts; and what is the length of period between the collection and completion of such accounts and their eventual publication by the National Statistics Office in Regional Trends.

  Reply:
  The United Kingdom regional accounts are prepared and published centrally by the Office for National Statistics. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which is an agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel, assists in the quality assurance assessment of the Northern Ireland portion of the accounts before they are published by the Office for National Statistics. There is no delay between the completion of the accounts and their publication in Economic Trends.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to publish short-term and medium-term forecasts of the Northern Ireland economy to assist the private sector in its economic and forward investment planning. [63977]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are no plans to publish Government forecasts for the Northern Ireland economy. However, the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre—an independent research body—regularly publishes short-term and medium-term forecasts for the local economy. The Centre's most recent set of forecasts was published at the beginning of December 1998.

  Profit Outflows
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies her Department has undertaken of the economic consequences of profit outflows for the economy of Northern Ireland. [63974]

  Mr. Ingram
  No studies have been undertaken by Government of the economic consequences of profit outflows for the economy of Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the journeys taken by members of the Cabinet in VC1Os of the RAF fleet since 1 May 1997 indicating in each case(a) the name of the Minister, (b) the numbers of accompanying people, (c) the date, (d) their destinations, (e) the costs of the flight and (f) the identification number of VC 10s involved. [62053]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 711.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the document relating to Gulf War illness and depleted uranium leaked to Gulf War veterans; and if he will make a statement. [63046]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Two unclassified documents, both containing references to depleted uranium (DU), are known to have been removed without authorisation from the MOD's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) last month and have since received some publicity. The investigation into their removal is now a matter for the Ministry of Defence Police. In view of the considerable public concern raised by misinformed media reporting of the contents of these two documents, I am today formally releasing both of them and placing copies in the Library of the House.

  In addition, I have asked my Department to collate the information which it possesses concerning mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I will publish this work shortly. Contrary to some media reports, which were based on a misreading of these two documents, the MOD is not

  521
  conducting testing in relation to the possible exposure of Gulf veterans to DU, secret or otherwise. However, as might be expected, we continue to consider all aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses, including any developments concerning the various suggested relevant exposures, where DU is one issue among many.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to test Gulf War veterans for the effects of depleted uranium. [63036]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: Any Gulf veteran who is concerned that his or her health has been adversely affected by Service during the Gulf conflict, including possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU), is advised to seek a referral to the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for a full medical assessment. During this assessment, MAP patients are asked by the examining MAP physician to provide detailed information about possible factors, including DU, to which they may have been exposed during the Gulf conflict.

  The kidneys are the organs most likely to be affected by the presence of uranium and the standard battery of tests carried out as a matter of routine on MAP patients includes a baseline trawl of renal function, which in turn includes serum creatinine, urea and electrolytes, a urine test for protein and blood and an ultrasound abdominal scan. Such tests should indicate the presence of any kidney damage in patients, although such damage would not necessarily have been caused by the presence of DU. The standard MAP tests do not, however, currently include a specific test to detect the presence of DU. The veterans who have so far been examined by MAP physicians have not exhibited symptoms which, in the clinical judgment of the examining physician, have indicated a requirement for a specific referral to another agency or organisation for DU testing. If the examining physician at the MAP considered it clinically appropriate for a patient to be tested for the presence of uranium, the necessary arrangements would be made.

  I have asked my Department to collate the information which it possesses concerning mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I will publish this work shortly. The MOD is well aware that a link has been suggested between possible exposure to DU and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue.

  Our plans for future activity in relation to Gulf veterans' illnesses, including as regards DU, will continue to be guided by the emerging medical and scientific evidence on this subject.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he is undertaking on a relationship between Gulf War Syndrome and depleted uranium. [63064]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence is conducting a range of research into aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, none of these programmes is specifically aimed at investigating the relationship between possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU) and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans.522
  The MOD is well aware that a link has been suggested between DU exposure and Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue. My Department would, of course, be very interested to see any new relevant information on this subject.

  Any Gulf veteran who is concerned that his or her health has been adversely affected by Service during the Gulf conflict, including possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU), is entitled to seek a referral to the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for a full medical assessment.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the Medical Assessment Programme documents (reference MAP/102/22/1/Med pt 1)(a) DU Teleconference-Lt Col Graham, (b) DU Testing Protocol-Alan Casson, (c) Prime for 51 G EDTA-Dr R. Gabriel, (d) DU Information Pack-Alan Casson, (e) DU Testing of United Kingdom Gulf Veterans-Alan Casson, (f) Update-4 Sep 96-Lt Col Graham; what assessment the Medical Assessment Programme has made of the possible link between Gulf War Syndrome and depleted uranium poisoning; and if he will make a statement. [63306]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: The Ministry of Defence has already received a request from a member of the public for copies of the documents designated (a) to (e) in the hon. Member's question. This is currently being considered under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. When this consideration, which has now been extended to include document (f) in the hon. Member's question, is complete, I will write to the hon. Member to advise him of the outcome.

  The MOD is well aware that a link has been suggested between possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU) and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as possible causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue. We would, of course, be very interested to see any new relevant information on this subject.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officer vacancies exist in TA centres in North Wales; what proportion this represents of total officer positions in North Wales; and what is the shortfall of officers in each TA centre in North Wales. [63653]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: There are 49 established officer posts in TA centres in North Wales, of which currently 7 are not filled. TA Officer posts not filled in each TA Centre in North Wales are:

  Hightown Wrexham: 3

  Colwyn Bay: 1

  Queensferry: 1

  Bangor: 1

  Prestatyn: 1.

  REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs of the extension and conversion of the existing premises at Queensferry Barracks to accommodate 101 Battalion REME after its transfer from Chorley. [63624]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Work into the exact cost of adapting the TA Centre at Queensferry to accommodate the Headquarters of 101 Battalion the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers is currently underway.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received in favour of retaining 101 Battalion REME and Cadet Force at Devonshire Road Barracks, Chorley. [63620]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: My Department has received representations in favour of retaining 101 Battalion REME and Cadet Force at Devonshire Road Barracks, Chorley, from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the North West Parliamentary Labour Group, Chorley Borough Council, Adlington Borough Council, Whittle-le-Woods Parish Council and one individual who works at the TA Centre.

  Plastic Baton Rounds (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons plastic baton rounds replaced rubber bullets for use by the armed forces in Northern Ireland. [63931]

  Defence expenditure

  (US$ million)

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium

  4,142

  4,215

  3,938

  4,723

  4,770

  4,078

  3,762

  3,948

  4,572

  4,240

  3,769

  Denmark

  2,127

  2,336

  2,162

  2,610

  2,614

  2,799

  2,702

  2,741

  3,125

  3,086

  2,816

  France

  34,529

  35,909

  35,085

  42,794

  42,399

  45,654

  42,593

  44,381

  47,735

  46,402

  41,545

  Germany

  34,233

  35,369

  33,638

  42,793

  39,893

  42,399

  38,629

  35,933

  41,906

  38,990

  33,416

  Greece

  2,972

  3,465

  3,208

  3,776

  3,907

  4,248

  4,076

  4,347

  5,059

  5,582

  5,532

  Italy

  16,806

  19,148

  19,754

  24,752

  23,583

  24,567

  21,185

  21,190

  20,041

  23,458

  21,837

  Luxembourg

  76

  81

  80

  100

  106

  121

  116

  124

  141

  141

  129

  Netherlands

  6,502

  6,744

  6,402

  7,429

  7,242

  7,871

  7,039

  7,090

  8,181

  7,850

  6,888

  Portugal

  1,135

  1,261

  1,319

  1,711

  2,006

  2,415

  2,241

  2,281

  2,819

  2,601

  2,559

  Spain

  5,738

  7,319

  7,700

  9,556

  9,033

  9,620

  7,211

  7,617

  8,464

  8,616

  7,508

  UK

  30,859

  34,913

  33,436

  38,433

  42,716

  43,122

  35,257

  34,068

  34,086

  34,526

  35,620

  Defence expenditure per capita

  (US $)

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium

  420

  427

  398

  474

  476

  406

  374

  390

  455

  417

  370

  Denmark

  416

  455

  422

  508

  508

  542

  522

  528

  600

  589

  533

  France

  623

  646

  628

  759

  748

  796

  738

  764

  820

  794

  708

  Germany

  561

  578

  550

  550

  499

  530

  481

  438

  509

  475

  406

  Greece

  298

  347

  320

  375

  388

  408

  392

  417

  481

  531

  526

  Italy

  294

  334

  344

  430

  409

  424

  365

  371

  349

  409

  379

  Luxembourg

  206

  219

  211

  262

  275

  312

  296

  311

  365

  338

  305

  Netherlands

  447

  460

  434

  497

  482

  519

  461

  460

  527

  504

  442

  Portugal

  111

  123

  128

  165

  203

  229

  226

  231

  285

  262

  257

  Spain

  149

  188

  196

  243

  231

  246

  183

  194

  216

  219

  191

  UK

  544

  614

  581

  670

  742

  750

  608

  585

  586

  587

  604

  524
  Mr. Spellar
  Plastic baton rounds provide a more effective means of combating physical violence than the rubber bullets they replaced. The increased accuracy of plastic baton rounds also reduces the risk of accidental injury.

  EU Defence Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by each nation in the EU in each of the last 10 years in pounds sterling on defence(a) in total and (b) per head of the population. [64195]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested for calendar years 1987 to 1997 is shown for NATO members of the European Union. Comparisons of defence spending between nations are conventionally given in US Dollars rather than pounds sterling. Figures for calendar years 1987 to 1995 are those which have been published in successive versions of the Statement on the Defence Estimates (SDE). Figures for 1996 are based on information drawn from NATO sources and those for 1997 are as published in the MOD Performance Report 1997–98 (Cm4170).

  Where possible the figures are published against a common definition of defence spending so that true comparisons can be made. Some anomalies and inconsistencies will, however, remain. Particular care is needed in making year on year comparisons of the figures for the UK where there have been changes in the definition of defence spending in recent years and major transfers of responsibility to and from other Government Departments.
  525
  My Department does not regularly collect details of defence spending for EU members who are not members of NATO. Figures for these countries are shown in The Military Balance which is published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The figures given in this publication for the last two years are shown below:

  Defence expenditure

  (US$ millions)

  1996

  1997

  Austria

  2,098

  1,786

  Finland

  2,255

  1,956

  Ireland

  757

  767

  Sweden

  6,501

  5,481

  Defence expenditure per capita

  (US $)

  1996

  1997

  Austria

  262

  222

  Finland

  440

  381

  Ireland

  209

  210

  Sweden

  737

  619

  Chile
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft of the Royal Air Force participated at the biennial Air Show at Santiago, Chile in March(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994, (d) 1996 and (e) 1998. [64016]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Number of aircraft

  Details

  1990

  3

  Harrier GR5 x 2, VC10K

  1992

  8

  Harrier GR5/7 x 2; Tornado GR1 x 2; C130; Nimrod; Tristar; VC10K

  1994

  5

  Harrier GR7 x 2; C130; VC10K; Nimrod

  1996

  1

  C130

  1998

  5

  Tornado F3 x 2; Nimrod; VC10K; C130

  Army Training and Recruitment Agency
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruitment Agency. [64627]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has been set the following Key Target for 1998–1999.

  1. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for commissioned officers.

  2. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for officers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Special to Army training.

  3. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for officers' professional development training.

  4. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for soldiers qualified for service in a Field Force unit following successful Special to Arm training.

  526

  5. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for soldiers' professional development training.

  6. To achieve efficiency savings of 6% (34.7M).

  Army Personnel Centre
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre. [64625]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–1999:

  1. To increase the percentage of posts which are manned (excluding posts gapped for less than 28 days and all posts for private soldiers and subaltern officers) to 91 per cent.

  2. To increase to 91 per cent. the proportion of personnel posted in-year by the APC whose rank and Service qualifications meet the specifications of the post.

  3. To increase the percentage of in-year postings authorised by the APC where personnel are given at least 6 months notification to 52 per cent.

  4. To increase the percentage of change requests received by the APC which are authorised and/or accurately processed within 5 working days of receipt at the Document Handling Centre to 92 per cent.

  5. To increase the percentage of due terminal benefits made by the 5th working day after discharge/retirement or following receipt of the correct authorisation paperwork by Pensions Division, whichever is later, to 96 per cent.

  6. To develop by March 99 the comprehensive feedback mechanism for the continual measurement of customer satisfaction and to maintain that system thereafter.

  7. To achieve a year-on-year reduction of 1 per cent. in operating costs.

  Defence Military Assistance Fund
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the breakdown of expenditure under the Defence Military Assistance Fund in each of the last three years. [63864]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Defence Military Assistance Fund is a cash fund, which is available to subsidise the cost of overseas military assistance in support of the Defence Diplomacy and Support to Wider British Interests Missions. The latter mission includes support to defence sales. Assistance may include the provision of training (either in country or in the UK), advice (by either military or civilian personnel), Loan Service Personnel and Short Term Training Teams.

  The table breaks down expenditure, by country, under the Defence Military Assistance Fund for each of the last three years. This breakdown covers centrally administered programmes only, and does not include military assistance activities funded by Top Level Budget Holders, since these costs cannot be identified separately. Nor does it cover costs borne by other Government Departments, which are a matter for the Departments concerned.

  1997–98—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Albania

  1,000

  Austria

  5,700

  Bahrain

  139,600

  Baltic States

  631,900

  527

  1997–98—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Belarus

  18,200

  Belize

  271,500

  Brazil

  262,200

  Brunei

  5,500

  Bulgaria

  94,600

  Chile

  581,600

  Czech Republic

  193,300

  Egypt

  135,400

  Ethiopia

  38,700

  Finland

  1,600

  Georgia

  50,300

  Germany

  100,000

  Greece

  58,300

  Hungary

  88,500

  India

  253,200

  Indonesia

  62,400

  Ireland

  5,000

  Jamaica

  27,700

  Jordan

  146,400

  Kenya

  145,100

  South Korea

  279,700

  Kuwait

  71,200

  Macedonia

  56,200

  Malaysia

  516,500

  Moldova

  29,300

  Morocco

  56,000

  Nepal

  24,900

  New Zealand

  37,700

  Oman

  1,402,200

  Pakistan

  63,500

  Philippines

  68,000

  Poland

  83,700

  Portugal

  49,400

  Qatar

  169,900

  Romania

  276,400

  Russia

  1,255,000

  Saudi Arabia

  120,900

  Singapore

  176,500

  Slovakia

  39,100

  Slovenia

  108,400

  South Africa

  104,800

  Spain

  23,600

  Thailand

  39,900

  Turkey

  155,600

  UAE

  273,600

  Ukraine

  407,300

  Uruguay

  15,600

  USA

  15,000

  Yemen

  25,700

  Zimbabwe

  36,300

  1996–97—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Albania

  30,900

  Bahrain

  156,200

  Baltic States

  572,500

  Barbados

  196,000

  Belarus

  52,600

  Belize

  502,100

  Brazil

  4,560

  Bulgaria

  66,900

  Chile

  920,110

  Czech Republic

  148,800

  Egypt

  67,780

  Finland

  45,120

  Georgia

  12,900

  Greece

  84,710

  528

  1996–97—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Hungary

  43,000

  India

  43,680

  Indonesia

  1,675,280

  Ireland

  24,240

  Jamaica

  35,270

  Jordan

  156,570

  Kenya

  138,225

  South Korea

  53,340

  Kuwait

  2,570

  Macedonia

  31,200

  Malaysia

  164,390

  Moldova

  30,910

  Morocco

  33,590

  Nepal

  102,800

  Oman

  1,594,860

  Pakistan

  97,490

  Philippines

  20,000

  Poland

  47,700

  Portugal

  40,110

  Romania

  89,000

  Russia

  1,365,000

  Saudi Arabia

  9,210

  Slovakia

  33,500

  Slovenia

  29,300

  South Africa

  80,740

  Spain

  32,760

  Thailand

  57,760

  Turkey

  108,740

  UAE

  105,920

  Ukraine

  251,400

  Zimbabwe

  40,610

  1995–96—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Albania

  18,500

  Bahrain

  19,260

  Baltic States

  585,100

  Barbados

  761,260

  Belize

  834,930

  Bulgaria

  27,800

  Chile

  316,630

  Czech Republic

  100,200

  Dominica

  15,570

  Egypt

  73,660

  Greece

  39,900

  Grenada

  16,490

  Hungary

  18,500

  Indonesia

  691,880

  Jamaica

  12,285

  Jordan

  60,390

  Kenya

  95,590

  Macedonia

  9,300

  Malaysia

  188,780

  Morocco

  26,170

  Nepal

  91,040

  New Zealand

  19,835

  Oman

  749,570

  Poland

  123,500

  Portugal

  40,000

  Romania

  27,800

  Russia

  630,000

  Slovakia

  37,100

  Slovenia

  9,300

  Spain

  9,385

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  15,570

  St. Vincent

  3,970

  Thailand

  95,610

  529

  1995–96—DMAF Expenditure

  £

  Country

  MOD Subsidy

  Turkey

  58,825

  UAE

  54,990

  Ukraine

  142,600

  Defence Export Sales Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Defence Export Sales Organisation has in co-ordinating defence sales promotions with the Defence Military Assistance Fund. [63862]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Diplomacy Mission
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget is for the Defence Diplomacy Mission. [63863]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Defence Diplomacy Mission is funded either by those Top Level Budget Holders responsible for specific activities or from the Defence Military Assistance Fund (DMAF). Figures on the former are not separately identified. The DMAF budget for 1998–99 is some £11 million, of which about £7 million is allocated to activities which now fall within the Defence Diplomacy Mission.

  The increases we intend to make to the DMAF of around £5 million next year and up to £15 million in the two subsequent years, will also be used largely for Defence Diplomacy-related activities.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Christmas season entertainment he is arranging for the troops in Bosnia. [63909]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The principal Christmas entertainment provided for troops in Bosnia this year was a Combined Services Entertainment show which ran from 27 November to 4 December. It played at all major sites and all troops had the opportunity to see it. In addition to this, the British Forces Broadcasting Service will be broadcasting Christmas messages and conducting a radio link with families. There will also be a Christmas delivery of library books and the Service Sound and Vision Corporation are donating videos.

  Units will also be arranging their own activities such as Christmas lunches and carol services. In addition, all troops will be given extra telephone time free of charge over the holiday period.

  Services Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women are currently serving in the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Airforce and (iii) Royal Navy. [64391]
  530
  Mr. Spellar
  The number of men and women serving in the UK Regular Armed Forces on 1 November 1998, were:

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Naval Service

  40,668

  3,302

  43,970

  Army

  102,174

  7,673

  109,847

  Royal Air Force

  50,351

  5,073

  55,424

  Total

  193,193

  16,048

  209,241

  These figures do not include the 4,512 personnel serving in the Royal Irish Regiment (men 4,072, women 440), or the number of Gurkhas totalling 3,578.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions his Department has drawn from the consequences of the explosion at Bhopal as regards the results of bombing chemical and biological weapons facilities. [62662]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The accidental explosion at a chemical factory in Bhopal, India in 1984 provided a large amount of information on the dangers in the storage of very large quantities of toxic chemicals, and on the possible consequences of the destruction, by accident or otherwise, of such storage facilities.

  We advise caution, however, before this information is directly applied to other scenarios. In particular, we do not consider the information on Bhopal forms a suitable basis from which to construct predictions of the consequences of bombing of chemical or biological weapons facilities.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely target accuracy in possible bombing campaigns in Iraq. [62656]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am not prepared to discuss detailed operational issues under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, I can say that only precision guided weaponry would be used.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to ensure the safety of those with diplomatic status in Baghdad in the event of a bombing campaign. [62657]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am not prepared to discuss detailed operational issues under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can say, however, that all relevant factors are taken into account in selecting targets.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to East Anglia. [62734]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so, but I hope to be able to pay a visit in the future.
  531
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Congleton constituency. [62736]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 December. [63664]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I attended a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Homosexual Age of Consent
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 2 May 1997(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 years; and how many replies have been sent in a standard form. [64278]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 2 May 1997 I have received over 3,500 letters on this subject, the large majority of which were opposed to lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 years. All would have been acknowledged by No. 10 and almost all would have received a reply from the relevant Department which made clear the Government's position on this matter.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the political consequences in Iraq of removing Saddam Hussein from power, with particular reference to possible fragmentation. [62658]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the possibility of fragmentation if the Iraqi regime should fall.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the likely impact of a bombing campaign in Iraq on the strength of Saddam Hussein's support in(a) Iraq, (b) the rest of the Arab world and (c) the rest of the Islamic world. [62659]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not prepared to speculate about the possibility of military action or its possible consequences. The statement on 12 November by the Damascus Declaration countries made clear that the Arab world holds Saddam Hussein responsible for the consequences of his actions and the Gulf Co-operation Council summit earlier this month reinforced the message that the Government of Iraq were responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people would no doubt express similar views, if they were allowed to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons for the length of time so far taken by UNSCOM to fulfil its mission. [62663]
  532
  The Prime Minister
  UNSCOM is mandated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 to ensure that Iraq gives up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With full co-operation from Iraq, UNSCOM's work could have been completed very quickly. Instead, Iraq has chosen to attempt to retain its WMD capability at all costs. Its behaviour towards UNSCOM has been marked by persistent duplicity, evasion and confrontation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current officials of UNSCOM, indicating their(a) nationality, (b) salaries and (c) dates of appointment. [62664]

  The Prime Minister
  We do not keep this information. This is a matter for UNSCOM.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government will take to ensure that documents requested by UNSCOM exist before using the Iraqi Government's refusal to provide them as the reason for a military attack. [62665]

  The Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that UNSCOM would not have requested these documents without good grounds to believe they existed. I will not speculate on when and if military action will be necessary. I have made clear that I am watching Iraq's behaviour closely against a range of criteria. Iraq's response to UNSCOM's requested for documents is not a good start.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the observations by Mr. Denis Halliday, the UN's former humanitarian co-ordinator, in Middle East International on 13 November, concerning the deaths of children as a result of the UN sanctions against Iraq. [62668]

  The Prime Minister
  Like Mr. Halliday, we deeply regret the suffering of the Iraqi people and we agree with him that it is unfortunate that the UN has been obliged to sustain a sanctions regime against Iraq for so long. But we reject claims that the Iraqi people are suffering because of sanctions.

  The international community has done all it can to protect the Iraqi people from the effects of sanctions. It is the Iraqi Government, by consistently seeking to thwart these efforts in an attempt to bring pressure for sanctions to be lifted before it has complied with its obligations, who bear responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The latest report by the UN Special Rapporteur Mr. Max van der Stoel into the human rights situation in Iraq also holds Iraq primarily responsible for the precarious food and health situation in Iraq.

  Council of Europe and WEU
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest Information Bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period May to September. [64281]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Shipping Policy Paper
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish his shipping policy paper. [64267]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today published the Government's shipping policy paper "British Shipping: Charting a new course" and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  The policy document sets out a long-term, integrated strategy for British shipping in partnership between Government and the shipping industry, including the trade unions. Drawing on the report of the Shipping Working Group which I set up late last year, the paper sets out 33 inter-related actions designed to develop the UK's maritime skills; secure British seafaring employment; enhance the UK's attractiveness to shipping enterprises; and gain safety and environmental benefits.

  Speed Reduction Measures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the introduction of speed reduction measures on UK roads. [62934]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has recently started a review of speed policy taking account of its effects on safety, the environment, the economy, and the quality of life.

  The Department already issues advice to local highway authorities on the type of speed reducing measures that are available to them and best practice on their use. We shall also shortly be introducing legislation freeing authorities from the requirement to seek central Government consent to make 20 mph speed limits; advice about introducing such limits will stress the need to ensure the required reduction in traffic speed is achieved by making the limits self enforcing through the use of speed reducing features where necessary.

  Officials from the relevant Departments are discussing detailed methods for funding the operation of speed cameras from fine income.

  Northern Line
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the delay in providing new trains on the London Underground Northern Line and what is the expected date when the trains will be operational; and if he will list the financial penalties imposed for the late delivery of the trains. [63402]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground and ALSTOM are working together to introduce the new Northern Line trains as quickly as possible. The first of the new trains entered passenger service on 12 June 1998 and London Underground expect that a full Northern Line service will be provided with new trains by early Autumn 1999.
  534
  Under the terms of the contract, ALSTOM is liable to pay liquidated damages to London Underground in respect of delays in the delivery of the new trains. The amount is commercially confidential.

  Young People (Housing)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department gives to local authorities to enable them to help children between the ages of 16 and 18 years to enter into tenancies for homes of their own; and what guidance it gives local authorities on this subject. [63468]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department does not provide any specific assistance to local housing authorities to enable them to allocate tenancies in self-contained accommodation to 16 to 18-year-olds.

  The Housing Act 1996 requires authorities to allocate social housing on the basis of housing need. A person aged 16 to 18 with dependent children would have to be given priority under an authority's allocation scheme. However, it is the practice of many local authorities to include under 18-year-olds on their housing registers only if the social services authority supports the application or if an adult is prepared to act as a guarantor for any tenancy allocated to the young person. 16 to 18 year olds who are unintentionally homeless and considered vulnerable for the purpose of the homelessness legislation are also required to be given priority under an allocation scheme. My Department's Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness, which is currently being revised, provides general guidance to authorities on these matters.

  Electric Cars
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998, Official Report, column 118, on the Energy Savings Trust, what was the value of the grants awarded for the purchase or conversion of electric vehicles. [64142]

  Mr. Meale
  The Energy Saving Trust has provided grants totalling £501,500 for the purchase or conversion of electric vehicles.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many grants, and of what value, have been awarded as part of the Powershift programme to overseas-based companies for the conversion of vehicles to run on electricity. [64005]

  Mr. Meale
  No grants have been provided to companies not registered in the UK for the purchase or conversion of vehicles to run on electricity. One grant of £120,000 was made available to a company registered outside the UK for the purchase of 6 electric buses for use in a demonstration project in Merseyside.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff were employed by valuation tribunals in England on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 April 1998 and (c) 1 December 1998. [63691]
  535
  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of full time equivalent staff employed by valuation tribunals in England on the dates were as follows:

  1 May 1997: 242

  1 April 1998: 225

  1 December 1998: 211.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many offices served valuation tribunals in England on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 April 1998 and (c) 1 December 1998. [63692]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of offices serving valuation tribunals in England on the dates were as follows:

  1 May 1997: 38

  1 April 1998: 36

  1 December 1998: 34.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) staff and (b) offices he expects to be required to serve valuation tribunals in England on (i) 1 April 1999 and (ii) 1 April 2000. [63690]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Staffing levels are primarily determined by the appeals workload. The staffing complement as at 1 April 1998, which has generally been retained for the financial year commencing 1 April 1999, is for 180 staff. Continuing reductions towards that level are dependent on local decisions by the valuation tribunals and their staff. The staffing complement from 1 April 2000 will need to take account of estimates of the number of appeals likely to arise from the non-domestic revaluation in that year.

  The longer term aim is to move to a structure of 14 administrative units to serve valuation tribunals in England, with one or at most two offices per unit. Progress by the stated dates will depend on discussions with the individual valuation tribunals in each of the administrative units. We expect there to be at most 32 offices by 1 April 1999. It is impossible to be precise about the figure on 1 April 2000, because this will depend on progress locally, but it will probably number 30 or less.

  London Government Headquarters
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what circumstances new or revised bids can be submitted for shortlisting for the headquarters of London government. [64085]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There has been a careful and open selection and short-listing process, which has reduced an initial 55 locations down to seven, and then to a short-list of two. I expect to announce a decision in the new year.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the latest estimated total cost for the construction of the Jubilee Line extension; and from what sources the funds will be derived. [63697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport review Jubilee Line Extension cost estimates regularly. The latest issued estimate of final cost was £2.85 billion (derived from a536
  review in August). LT is currently undertaking a cost review, in the light of the rephased programme for line opening.

  The majority of the project (some £2 billion) has been funded by ring-fenced Government grant. Private sector contributions have also been secured from the developers of Canary Wharf, and British Gas. The remainder is being funded from within LT's overall finances. It is the responsibility of LT to control costs on the project. JLE costs are taken into account by the Government in deciding on the level of overall funding for LT.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63923]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department carries out public opinion research, television, radio and press advertising and direct mailings in support of publicity campaigns. The total expenditure since May 1997 is £10,630,000. The breakdown of that expenditure is as follows:

  £

  Project

  Expenditure 1

  (a) Public opinion research on DETR campaigns

  560,000

  (b) Television advertising

  6,500,000

  Radio advertising

  1,560,000

  Press advertising

  1,840,000

  (c) Mailings in support of campaigns and consultation exercises

  2170,000

  1 To the nearest £10,000

  2 Includes postage

  South West Regional Planning Conference
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to override decisions made by the South West regional planning conference. [64147]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the new arrangements for the preparation of regional planning guidance set out in the planning policy statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cmnd 3885), Regional Planning Conferences will have greater responsibility for determining the most sustainable way of meeting housing needs in their region. It is intended that this should be a more inclusive process, Conference will work together with the Government Office, the Regional Development Agency and other regional stakeholders to produce draft Regional Planning Guidance. Increased legitimacy and transparency of the Regional Planning Guidance will be achieved through new procedures for a public examination before an independent panel. The panel report will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in finalising the regional planning guidance.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given the South West regional planning conference on the effect of the future household projections on each county in the region. [64146]
  537
  Mr. Caborn
  As indicated in the policy statement, "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cmnd 3885) we need to provide enough housing to help meet the housing objective of offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. Achieving sustainable development means addressing economic, social and environmental objectives equally, both for present and future generations. The Government's objective is to provide sustainable solutions which will help ensure that new housing will, by its nature and location, enhance the quality of the environment. The household projections are the starting point for assessing housing requirements and local authorities will need to be realistic in the assumptions that they make about the number of households likely to form and how they should be accommodated.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given the South West regional planning conference on how to meet the needs assumed by his projections for future household numbers. [64145]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's approach to offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home is set out in its response (Cmnd 4080) to the tenth report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Housing and the policy statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cmnd 3885). In considering the broad distribution of housing within the region the South West Regional Planning Conference is also expected to have regard to the Government's policy for urban regeneration, transport and sustainable development and to the Regional Development Agency's regional economic strategy.

  South-west Region (Projected Households)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding his projections for the south-west region future household numbers. [64144]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. Work is currently underway on the 1996 based household projections, which will be issued next Spring.

  South-west Development (Brown-field Land)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will allow local authorities in the south-west to postpone development plans until regional planning guidance is revised following the result of his survey of brown-field land. [64149]

  Mr. Caborn
  No. The importance for the plan-led system of keeping plans up to date was emphasised in the statement on Modernising planning, published on 15 January. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, local planning authorities, in preparing their development plans, must have regard to any regional or strategic planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State, as well as to current national policies and other matters. Therefore, where development plans are being 538
  replaced or altered in the short term, they should continue to have regard to existing regional guidance, including, where specified, the housing provision figures.

  South-west Region (Housing)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given local authorities in the south-west region on sustainable means of meeting the housing needs of their community. [64148]

  Mr. Caborn
  The policy statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cmnd 3885) set out the Government's broad approach. The consultation document, "Opportunities for Change", issued in February set out four broad objectives on which the Government's vision of sustainable development is based and what needs to be done to put it into practice. Further guidance is set out in "Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice", published by my Department in October.

  Local Planning Authorities
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to assist local planning authorities in delivering more sustainable patterns of development. [64150]

  Mr. Caborn
  In October my Department issued a guide to local planning authorities entitled "Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice". This document has been well-received as a source of practical ideas about how sustainability principles can be implemented on the ground.

  My Department's series of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) advise local planning authorities on how they should draw up their plans to ensure more sustainable patterns of development. We intend to issue shortly a new draft PPG11 on regional planning guidance. This will advise the regional planning bodies that the promotion of sustainable development should be a central feature of RPG. Moreover, we will also shortly be issuing a full revision of PPG12 (Development Plans) for public consultation. This will include a section devoted to the relationship between the content of development plans, for which local planning authorities are responsible, and sustainable development.

  Devon County Structure Plan
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has made to the draft Devon County Structure Plan. [64152]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have carefully considered the proposed modifications to the Devon Structure Plan First Review which were published on 28 September and have made objections to a number of policies that appear to conflict with national guidance. A number of objections have been resolved and the extant objections relate to policies S6, C7, C12, C23, T14, H1, E8 and T12.

  The objection to policy HI stated:
  "There is no clear justification for a reduction in the overall provision for housing, below that recommended by the Panel. There appears to be no justification for reducing provision in anticipation

  539
  of a reduction in vacancy rates, having regard to the Panel's findings. Taking account of the panels findings, there does not appear to be a sound basis for projecting a lower level of net in-migration and household formation and that contained in the DETR 1992 based household projections.
  "From a regional perspective, the district distribution is in part consequential on the county provision. However, the reduced allocations for Plymouth and Exeter (compared to those recommended by the Panel) appear to conflict with national and regional objectives in PPG13 para 3.2 and RPGIO para 6.7 and 'Planning for the Communities of the Future' para 58".

  Concessionary Fares (Pensioners)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local authorities, transport authorities and public transport bodies pending the introduction of legislation to encourage greater consistency in concessionary fares schemes for pensioners. [63998]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced our intention to legislate for a statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme for pensioners in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", the minimum scheme will entail half fares, on purchase of a £5 annual bus pass. Meanwhile, decisions on concessionary fare schemes will remain for individual local authorities. I have no plans to issue guidance to them, but I should, of course, be glad if those authorities who at present offer less generous schemes were to implement the proposed minimum in advance of legislation.

  Voluntary and Community Transport
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the summary of the findings of the National Review of Voluntary and Community Transport as presented to delegates at the annual community transport conference. [63813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The summary is an informal document meant only to stimulate discussion at the recent Conference. I will send a personal copy to my hon. Friend. I will ensure that copies of the final report—which is due early in the New Year—are placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what increased provision was made in the local government financial settlement for each local authority to manage current and improved public access to the countryside. [63832]

  Ms Armstrong
  The need for revenue expenditure by local authorities on public rights of way is taken into account, along with other spending pressures and the scope for efficiencies, in the local government finance settlement.

  The Government recognise that their proposals for increasing public access to the countryside are likely to have cost implications for local authorities, and will take these into account in future financial settlements.

  Countryside (Public Access)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will 540
  publish the response to the Government's consultation on improving public access to the countryside; and if he will list the main concerns raised by local authorities. [63831]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment, to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 27 October 1998,Official Report, column 103, and to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 18 November 1998, Official Report, column 672. My Department's analysis of responses to the consultation paper, "Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales," will summarise the key issues raised by respondents, including the representations made by local authorities.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many dwellings in which the household is headed by a person aged over 65 years are leasehold; and how many of these are(a) flats and (b) houses. [64003]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The estimates1 in the table are taken from the Department's Survey of English Housing for 1997–98.

  Households owning a lease

  Thousands

  Type of accommodation

  Age of head of household

  House

  Flat

  Total

  Under 65 years

  668

  691

  1,359

  Over 65 years

  163

  258

  422

  Total

  831

  949

  1,780

  Note:

  1 Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of all leaseholders are aged over 65 years. [64002]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Estimates1 from the Department's Survey of English Housing show that in 1997–98, twenty four per cent. (24%) of leaseholders were aged over 65 years.

  Notes:

  1Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sample variability.

  Trains (First Aid Equipment)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with train operators regarding access to first aid equipment on trains. [63811]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The provisions of the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (HSFAR), a relevant statutory provision of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974, which apply to train operating companies, require employers to provide access to adequate first aid facilities for their employees in the workplace. All trains must therefore be fitted with first aid equipment which on modern trains is located in the drivers cab and on older trains in the guards van.
  541
  There is no legislation which requires train operating companies to provide first aid equipment for use by the public. It is a matter for each train operating company to decide what first aid facilities it makes available to the public. In practice, first aid equipment provided under the HSFAR 1981 is available to train passengers.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many countries are required to ratify the Kyoto Climate Change Convention Protocol for it to enter into force; and which countries have done so to date. [63775]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention incorporating Annex I Parties (i.e. developed countries) which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent. of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 from that group have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. To date, Fiji and Tuvalu have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

  Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the analysis in The Lancet of 8 August 1998 concerning the risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous waste landfill sites in Europe, including the United Kingdom. [63903]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government would be most concerned if a casual link was established between congenital anomalies and hazardous waste landfill sites. The study reported in The Lancet did not establish cause and effect, but concluded that there was a need for further study. The commentary in The Lancet on the study pointed out that the lack of adequate exposure information made the present results difficult to interpret.

  My Department has nevertheless been looking at the results of the study very carefully with the Department of Health and the Environment Agency. The Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College has been commissioned by the Government to carry out a substantial survey of health effects around landfill sites, including congenital malformations. This work will take at least two years to complete. In addition, my Department and the Department of Health have asked the Institute for Environment and Health (IEH) to arrange a one-day meeting of invited experts to discuss The Lancet report, to identify gaps in the knowledge base and to explore priorities for future Government research. We anticipate that a range of expertise will be represented at the meeting including environmental epidemiology, reproductive toxicology, landfill technology and exposure assessment.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to secure the OSPAR agreed cessation of radioactive discharges from the reprocessing plant at Cap de La Hague in France. [64104]
  542
  Mr. Meacher
  It is for France, as an OSPAR Contracting Party, to decide how it will implement the undertakings made at the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting last July. I understand that the French Government are carrying out a full review of discharge authorisations for the La Hague site and that they expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards the cessation of(a) liquid and (b) gaseous radioactive discharges from (i) nuclear reprocessing plants and (ii) nuclear generating stations in accordance with the OSPAR agreement. [64103]

  Mr. Meacher
  In accordance with the undertakings made at the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting last July, the Government are working towards achieving further substantial reductions or elimination of discharges of radioactive substances. UK nuclear operators will be producing twenty-year strategies to show options for reducing discharges, by 2020, to levels which add negligible amounts to historic concentrations in the marine environment.

  The Environment Agency has completed its consideration of BNFL's applications to vary radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site and the Agency's draft decisions are being considered by Ministers. Requests for the applications to be "called-in" for the Secretary of State's own determination are also being considered and decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department proposes to meet the Government's pledge to stop the loss of school playing fields. [64387]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have published The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields)(England) Direction 1998 which is one of the key measures in a co-ordinated approach between my Department, the Department of Education and Employment, and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to stop the loss of playing fields. The Direction requires local planning authorities to notify my Department of planning applications where they wish to grant planning permission, but where the English Sports Council advises against the development, because there is, or the development would result in, a deficiency in playing field provision for schools or the wider community in the area.

  This Direction applies to local authority-owned playing fields and all others which are currently used, or which have been used in the past five years, by educational institutions. The effect of the Direction will be to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to decide whether to call-in a notified planning applications for his own determination, or leave the matter for the local planning authority to decide. Taken together with measures by the Department for Education and Employment to limit the sale of playing fields, these new controls will help to ensure that playing fields which schools and local communities need are not lost for ever.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of schemes supported initially by section 180 and section 73 grants have continued to operate after the grants were tapered to 0 per cent. in each of the last five years. [64215]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The section 180 (formerly section 73) grant programme run by my Department provides grants to voluntary sector organisations concerned with homelessness. The grants are provided on a tapered basis, initially for up to three years to allow organisations to set up new projects to prevent and tackle single homelessness. All organisations are made aware of the tapered and time-limited nature of the grant when they apply, and are expected to have a fund-raising strategy in place to secure the continuation of the project. This approach allows more new projects around the country to benefit from grants than would otherwise be possible. The taper has been applied flexibly and many organisations have benefited from grant for periods well in excess of three years. This year 79 of the 205 projects in receipt of grant have been funded for between four and eight years. All aspects of project performance are considered when deciding whether funding should be offered beyond the usual three year period.

  Detailed records are not kept on whether projects continue to operate when they are no longer in receipt of section 180 grant.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure by programme by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by the exception under (i) E.1, (ii) E.2 and (iii) E.3 of Head E in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63805]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Expenditure by the Department in 1997–98 on research and development, grants and consultancies related to road safety, which is the subject of the exception listed in Head El of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, was £4.2m. The Department does not record separately how much of this expenditure takes place in Scotland.

  In 1997–98, the Department undertook the following programme expenditure' on grants relating to railway services which are the subject of exceptions listed in Head E2 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998;

  £ million

  DETR expenditure

  Total GB

  Scotland

  Payments by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to train operating companies

  1,425

  2136

  Freight Facilities Grant

  8

  3nil

  Track Access Grant

  21

  not separately recorded

  1 These figures include any expenditure incurred in relation to those areas listed in Schedule 5, Head E2 (a-c), to which the exception does not apply, on which separate information is not recorded.

  1 Payments made to Scotrail.

  1 Freight Facilities Grants in Scotland paid by Scottish Office.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 544
  (a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure by programme over £50,000 by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by each exception under Head D in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63798]

  Mr. Meale:
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Expenditure by the Department on the regulation of the energy supply industry under Part 1 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which are the subject of the exceptions listed in Heads D1, D2, D3 and D4 of the Scotland Act 1998, is not separately recorded. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not responsible for funding the relevant regulatory authorities in Scotland.

  Expenditure by the Department in 1997–98 on the Energy Saving Trust, which is the subject of the exception listed in Head D5 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, was £19.7m, of which £1.23m was expenditure in Scotland.

  Quayside Guided Bus Transit System
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has given his approval of funding towards the Quayside Guided Bus Transit System in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne; and if he will make a statement. [64424]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The details of the annual Local Transport Capital Settlement for 1999–2000 are being announced tomorrow. Information about allocations to individual local authorities, and to passenger transport authorities, will be sent directly to Members of Parliament.

  Housing Capital Resources
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about the distribution to local authorities of housing capital resources for 1999–2000. [64485]

  Ms Armstrong
  Details of housing capital allocations for local authorities for 1999–2000 will be announced tomorrow. I am arranging for tables giving individual Housing Investment Programme and Capital Receipts Initiative allocations to be placed in the Library of the House. These tables will also show the performance band in which each authority has been placed.

  Flooding
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Cherwell District Council and Melton Borough Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding on the weekend of 9 to 12 April 1998. [64486]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Cherwell and Melton councils, given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. Schemes will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to each authority to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold and which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  British Board of Agrément
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached conclusions on the status of the British Board of Agrement; and if he will make a statement. [64559]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 637, I announced to the House that a Financial Management and Policy Review of the British Board of Agrement (BBA) would be carried out this year.

  The first stage of the Review—the Prior Options Review—was completed by consultants last July. I have since considered the consultants' report very carefully, and having discussed this with the Chairman of the BBA Council, I have reached a number of conclusions:
  the BBA provides an essential service to the construction industry, and should be encouraged to continue to provide that service;
  the BBA no longer needs to be constrained by the Government rules and procedures necessary for Non Departmental Public Bodies and should have the commercial freedoms necessary to allow it to develop its business; and
  in partnership with Government, the BBA should continue to promote Agrément and European Technical Approvals in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding to be drawn up by my Department and the BBA.

  To these ends, I propose to invite the Council to amend the Company's Memorandum and Articles of Association so that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions can relinquish many of the powers he currently has. The BBA will retain its existing status as a Company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act.

  In order to emphasise the importance to Government of the BBA, I propose that the Secretary of State should be represented on its ruling Council, and, in order to protect previous investments of public funds, that he retains controls over the disposal of the Company or its assets, through specific clawback provisions. Other commercial and organisational issues should, rightly, be passed to the BBA Council to decide. The Secretary of State will cease to make appointments to the Council, but will be consulted upon them.

  As part of the process to promote the BBA, I have asked them to commission a survey of the products market to assist in drawing up a strategy for future development of business opportunities.

  Local authority

  Total cost (£)

  Title of bid approved

  Bath and North East Somerset

  34,600

  Rural Bus Stop Lighting

  Buckinghamshire

  100,500

  Community minibus in the Winslow area

  Cheshire

  16,904

  Community Transport in Chester district

  Derbyshire

  800,000

  Southern Derbyshire rural access initiative

  Durham

  592,000

  Public transport access for coalfields communities

  East Sussex

  259,500

  Accessible buses for Multi-purpose use

  Essex

  803,100

  Flexible bus network for the Dengie peninsular

  Gloucestershire

  25,000

  Provision of Rural Transport brokerage facility

  Greater Manchester

  384,500

  Provision of taxi/bus interchange facilities at 3 rural railway stations

  266,500

  Longdendale taxi-sharing scheme

  Hampshire

  8,400

  The New Forest minibus brokerage project

  Hereford

  186,490

  Enhancement of existing community transport schemes

  Hertfordshire

  176,000

  Dial-a-ride evening services

  19,000

  Improvements to information provision on the internet

  Kent

  40,000

  Rural bus stop information strategy

  140,000

  Upgraded rural routes and real time information

  Lancashire

  203,750

  The Clitheroes interchange demonstration project

  277,856

  The rural quality bus initiative

  Local Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the allocation of capital resources for expenditure on local transport infrastructure. [64630]

  Dr. Reid
  Details of the allocations to local highway authorities and passenger transport authorities in England for capital expenditure on their transport infrastructure in 1999–2000 will be placed in the Library of the House at 10.00 am on Thursday 17 December. Information about allocations to individual authorities will be sent directly to Members of Parliament.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when decisions will be issued to applicants under the scheme of redress for extreme and exceptional hardship for those affected by blight from Channel Tunnel Rail Link route options between 1990 and 1994. [64631]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am today announcing that 28 applicants demonstrated that they suffered extreme and exceptional hardship as a result of past CTRL blight and will be receiving £10,000 each. This is an ex gratia scheme which is additional to normal compensation arrangements for those directly affected by the CTRL. The scheme originated from a finding of maladministration against the then Department of Transport by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Rural Bus Challenge
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement on this year's Rural Bus Challenge competition. [64632]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The schemes listed have been approved for grant under this year's Rural Bus Challenge. This follows careful consideration of the 214 bids received from local authorities. The value of the bids totalled over £41.5 million, in comparison with the £11.4 million available for grant. A Special Grant Report under Section 88b of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 will be put forward for Parliamentary approval as soon as possible in the new year.
  547

  Local authority

  Total cost (£)

  Title of bid approved

  Leicestershire

  69,600

  East Leicestershire Taxibus

  Lincolnshire

  1,219,990

  Making the connection—a package of improvements

  Medway

  232,500

  Real time information and bus priority through vehicle detection

  6,500

  Information upgrade for rural services

  Norfolk

  444,500

  Norfolk coast strategy

  130,000

  Flexible feeder services

  Northamptonshire

  10,000

  Mobile libraries travel guide

  35,600

  Brackley-Banbury Quality Bus Partnership

  20,000

  Safety for women scheme

  180,000

  Dial-a-ride: South Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  16,850

  Development of the postbus network

  Nottinghamshire

  1,150,000

  Worksop area travel choice project

  Peterborough

  74,250

  Rural Taxibus

  Somerset

  130,000

  The Mendips flexible bus project

  1,004

  Exmoor community transport radio

  South Gloucestershire

  612,000

  Community transport co-ordination centres

  South Yorkshire

  5,000

  Improvements to bus turnaround

  15,000

  Western Barnsley—vehicle radio communications project

  3,200

  Refurbishment of accessible vehicle—Western Barnsley

  4,500

  Refurbishment of accessible vehicle—Eastern Barnsley

  Staffordshire

  175,000

  Rural Taxibus and interchange project

  Tyne and Wear

  1,255,000

  Rural Interchange points (package of measures)

  Warrington

  5,000

  Increased use of social and community buses

  West Berkshire

  33,000

  Voluntary bus escort project and co-ordinator

  West Sussex (and Surrey)

  248,600

  Demanding Public Transport

  West Yorkshire

  364,500

  Rural bus service improvements in Denby Dale

  Wiltshire

  463,000

  Wiltshire Wigglybus project

  York

  180,000

  Rural bus interchange at park and ride facilities

  Total

  11,418,694

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  University for Industry
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to allow the University for Industry to be a direct provider of further education and higher education courses; and if resources for such provision will come directly from FEFC and HEFC budgets. [61826]

  Mr. Mudie
  The University for Industry will be launched nationally in the year 2000. There are no plans for UfI to be a direct learning provider but will rather act as a broker of learning opportunities. We expect the further and higher education sectors to make a major contribution to the Uff as a key part of the strategy to embed the Lifelong Learning culture.

  It will be open to the Higher Education Funding Council England (HEFCE) and the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) to allocate places with accompanying funding to enable institutions to develop joint provision of learning opportunities with the UfI.

  GCSEs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average number of hours per week spent teaching GCSE subjects by teachers, excluding head teachers and deputy headteachers, in LEA secondary schools in England. [62029]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 1996–97, in maintained secondary schools in England that had pupils in years 10 and 11, full-time teachers spent an average of 28 per cent. of the school week teaching years 10 and 11 in subjects which can be tested at GCSE, although not all such 548
  teaching will be for GCSE. For a school that has eight periods a day of 35 minutes each, this amounts to 6.5 hours a week.

  Retraining
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make further provision for retraining unemployed people between the age of 25 years and normal retirement age. [62781]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government recognise the importance of the role played by training in helping unemployed adults back to work.

  At present, learning by unemployed adults is supplied through Work Based Learning for Adults; the training option of New Deal 25+ which was introduced nationally from June 1998; further education; and the Single Regeneration Budget.

  The Government continue to keep training for unemployed adults under review and is testing new ways in which training can be delivered in the future. These initiatives include the 25+ New Deal pilots which commenced in November, Employment Zones, Individual Learning Accounts and the University for Industry. Results from these are being carefully evaluated and those approaches we find most effective will be applied widely.

  The future development of Work Based Learning for Adults is being considered as part of the TEC Review.

  Departmental Papers (Schools Circulation)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all departmental papers circulated to schools since May 1997. [63060]
  549
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: A list of material sent to schools by the Department of Education and Employment from 2 May 1997 to 12 December 1998 has been placed in the Library.

  Of the 216 items sent to schools, 130 were sent to all schools over the 20-month period. The remainder had a more limited circulation. Since June 1998 schools have received material in regular batches which clearly indicate the priority of items. From 1 December batches only contain: guidance on legal changes, curriculum development material on key strategies such as literacy and numeracy, data collection and 2 page summaries of documents on key policy issues.

  Further Education
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the proportions of each kind of assistance given to further education students out of access funds in the last financial year for which figures are available. [63470]

  Mr. Mudie
  Over £6 million of Further Education Access Funds were allocated in the following proportions in 1996–97 (the latest year for which figures are available):

  Category

  Percentage of Access Fund allocated

  Fees

  17.50

  Books

  7.35

  Equipment

  10.66

  Accommodation

  6.13

  Childcare

  23.03

  Transport

  25.87

  Other

  9.46

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government are taking to promote access to further and higher education for young people with special educational needs. [63400]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government's policies on widening participation and increasing access are intended to be inclusive and to benefit students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities as well as others.

  The Secretary of State has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) when allocating funds to institutions to take into account the additional costs of providing learning support for students with learning difficulties and disabilities and to monitor the provision made by institutions for disabled students. This was made clear in the grant letter of 8 December to HEFCE. Under the new higher education student support arrangements for 1998–99, Disabled Students' Allowances will no longer be means tested for disabled full time students and the amount students may claim has been increased.

  In further education, the funding mechanism provides for additional support for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities according to need. The grant letter to the Further Education Funding Council of 8 December noted that the FE capital element of the Comprehensive Spending Review (comprising £195 million in total) would enable
  550
  colleges to make progress on disabled access in the context of the Government's commitment to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64137]

  Mr. Mudie
  There have been no official visits to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997 by either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the administrative costs, as a percentage of the total budget, for(a) the Higher Education Funding Council, and (b) the Further Education Funding Council; and what is the national average for training and enterprise councils. [63270]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested is listed below. All figures relate to the 1997–98 financial year, the last for which we have complete figures:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England 0.29 per cent.

  Further Education Funding Council 0.76 per cent.

  Training and Enterprise Councils 13 per cent.

  The figures for all three organisations are from their accounts.

  The three figures are not comparable because of differences in responsibilities between the TECs, the HEFCE and the FEFC.

  Specifically, the figure for TECs is much higher than either of the others because TECs are themselves directly involved in local business support and economic development.

  Mixed Year Classes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority how many Key Stage One and Key Stage Two pupils in maintained schools were being educated in the same class in January(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [63515]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 December]: The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January 1998

  Schools

  Amount

  Hartlepool

  3,218

  Middlesbrough

  4,337

  Redcar and Cleveland

  5,388

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3,828

  Darlington

  2,146

  Durham

  15,901

  Northumberland

  6,741

  Gateshead

  4,442

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,753

  North Tyneside

  2,023

  South Tyneside

  1,582

  Sunderland

  3,490

  551

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January 1998

  Schools

  Amount

  Cheshire

  32,527

  Cumbria

  16,125

  Bolton

  3,948

  Bury

  3,221

  Manchester

  6,380

  Oldham

  4,995

  Rochdale

  4,934

  Salford

  3,909

  Stockport

  5,799

  Tameside

  4,723

  Trafford

  3,532

  Wigan

  3,567

  Lancashire

  32,263

  Knowsley

  2,643

  Liverpool

  4,063

  St. Helens

  1,066

  Sefton

  3,995

  Wirral

  7,091

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  9,407

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  7,227

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,603

  North Lincolnshire

  3,712

  York

  5,691

  North Yorkshire

  23,472

  Barnsley

  6,753

  Doncaster

  5,729

  Rotherham

  6,928

  Sheffield

  8,231

  Bradford

  10,614

  Calderdale

  7,685

  Kirklees

  12,318

  Leeds

  13,885

  Wakefield

  6,984

  Derby

  7,375

  Derbyshire

  27,527

  Leicester city

  7,785

  Rutland

  1,534

  Leicestershire

  19,379

  Lincolnshire

  24,491

  Northamptonshire

  16,926

  Nottinghamshire

  44,327

  Hereford and Worcester

  16,829

  Shropshire

  18,502

  Stoke

  2,902

  Staffordshire

  17,319

  Warwickshire

  10,677

  Birmingham

  5,917

  Coventry

  6,589

  Dudley

  3,129

  Sandwell

  3,712

  Solihull

  1,766

  Walsall

  4,366

  Wolverhampton

  2,570

  Luton

  1,783

  Bedfordshire

  6,811

  Cambridgeshire

  23,463

  Essex

  41,080

  Hertfordshire

  22,708

  Norfolk

  20,500

  Suffolk

  16,988

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  664

  Hackney

  1,818

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,210

  Haringey

  1,709

  552

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January 1998

  Schools

  Amount

  Islington

  2,731

  Kensington and Chelsea

  589

  Lambeth

  2,388

  Lewisham

  2,642

  Newham

  3,716

  Southwark

  4,778

  Tower Hamlets

  4,223

  Wandsworth

  3,056

  Westminster

  1,015

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,033

  Barnet

  2,562

  Bexley

  2,041

  Brent

  1,124

  Bromley

  3,346

  Croydon

  1,531

  Ealing

  2,087

  Enfield

  1,016

  Greenwich

  3,768

  Harrow

  632

  Havering

  3,086

  Hillingdon

  2,175

  Hounslow

  964

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  463

  Merton

  802

  Redbridge

  1,173

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  385

  Sutton

  1,222

  Waltham Forest

  1,917

  Berkshire

  21,018

  Milton Keynes

  5,209

  Buckinghamshire

  9,661

  Brighton & Hove

  2,536

  East Sussex

  11,244

  Portsmouth

  1,328

  Southampton

  1,661

  Hampshire

  25,923

  Isle of Wight

  1,768

  Kent

  33,634

  Oxfordshire

  26,067

  Surrey

  9,900

  West Sussex

  14,948

  Bath and NE Somerset

  4,143

  City of Bristol

  8,094

  North Somerset

  5,512

  South Gloucestershire

  7,603

  Cornwall

  17,001

  Isles of Scilly

  139

  Devon

  35,446

  Bournemouth

  555

  Poole

  610

  Dorset

  8,782

  Gloucestershire

  7,603

  Somerset

  16,805

  Swindon

  6,318

  Wiltshire

  19,168

  England

  1,088,354

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority how many primary school pupils in maintained schools were educated in classes with children from more than one year group in January(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [63516]
  553
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The information requested is not available for January 1997. Figures for January 1998 are shown in the following table:

  Number of pupils in mixed keystage classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January of each year

  1997

  1998

  Hartlepool

  185

  42

  Middlesborough

  105

  99

  Redcar and Cleveland

  233

  291

  Stockton-on-Tees

  148

  385

  Durham1

  1,584

  3—

  Darlington

  3—

  260

  Durham2

  3—

  1,774

  Northumberland

  1,781

  1,292

  Gateshead

  157

  377

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  642

  602

  North Tyneside

  367

  179

  South Tyneside

  48

  79

  Sunderland

  331

  318

  Cheshire

  3,001

  2,171

  Cumbria

  3,415

  1,905

  Bolton

  728

  95

  Bury

  593

  262

  Manchester

  370

  709

  Oldham

  395

  239

  Rochdale

  668

  701

  Salford

  156

  379

  Stockport

  364

  498

  Tameside

  187

  397

  Trafford

  107

  116

  Wigan

  172

  164

  Lancashire

  2,843

  2,578

  Knowsley

  239

  224

  Liverpool

  352

  440

  St. Helens

  51

  0

  Sefton

  108

  110

  Wirral

  678

  249

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  832

  856

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  222

  491

  North East Lincolnshire

  263

  582

  North Lincolnshire

  165

  129

  York

  258

  122

  North Yorkshire

  3,121

  2,419

  Barnsley

  313

  1,034

  Doncaster

  669

  201

  Rotherham

  564

  748

  Sheffield

  1,234

  86

  Bradford

  1,509

  1,075

  Calderdale

  821

  374

  Kirklees

  2,222

  745

  Leeds

  573

  979

  Wakefield

  856

  747

  Derbyshire1

  5,705

  3—

  Derby

  3—

  124

  Derbyshire2

  3—

  1,686

  Leicestershire1

  3,387

  3—

  Leicester City

  3—

  571

  Rutland

  3—

  158

  Leicestershire2

  3—

  1,253

  Lincolnshire

  2,725

  2,095

  Northamptonshire

  1,318

  1,451

  Nottinghamshire

  3,607

  2,859

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,027

  1,508

  Shropshire

  1,212

  1,744

  Staffordshire1

  2,242

  3—

  Stoke

  3—

  146

  Staffordshire2

  3—

  2,084

  Warwickshire

  1,069

  1,107

  Birmingham

  281

  211

  Coventry

  42

  714

  Dudley

  193

  53

  554

  Number of pupils in mixed keystage classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January of each year

  1997

  1998

  Sandwell

  39

  543

  Solihull

  62

  0

  Walsall

  291

  376

  Wolverhampton

  408

  32

  Bedfordshire1

  1,361

  3—

  Luton

  3—

  16

  Bedfordshire2

  3—

  822

  Cambridgeshire

  1,698

  1,118

  Essex

  2,732

  3,131

  Hertfordshire

  3,078

  1,651

  Norfolk

  4,387

  4,246

  Suffolk

  1,650

  1,022

  City of London

  3—

  3—

  Camden

  30

  25

  Hackney

  167

  121

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  118

  62

  Haringey

  0

  24

  Islington

  601

  83

  Kensington and Chelsea

  160

  80

  Lambeth

  238

  172

  Lewisham

  150

  171

  Newham

  233

  432

  Southwark

  90

  82

  Tower Hamlets

  55

  378

  Wandsworth

  172

  202

  Westminster

  0

  66

  Barking and Dagenham

  271

  0

  Barnet

  519

  11

  Bexley

  137

  9

  Brent

  61

  251

  Bromley

  423

  445

  Croydon

  86

  113

  Ealing

  0

  28

  Enfield

  239

  84

  Greenwich

  268

  126

  Harrow

  142

  153

  Havering

  34

  152

  Hillingdon

  31

  198

  Hounslow

  189

  5

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  279

  0

  Merton

  434

  262

  Redbridge

  389

  70

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  46

  39

  Sutton

  74

  78

  Waltham Forest

  316

  317

  Berkshire1

  1,007

  3—

  Milton Keynes

  3—

  941

  Berkshire2

  3—

  1,779

  Buckinghamshire

  4,157

  2,322

  East Sussex1

  1,289

  3—

  Brighton & Hove

  3—

  160

  East Sussex2

  3—

  925

  Hampshire1

  1,477

  3—

  Portsmouth

  3—

  131

  Southampton

  3—

  119

  Hampshire2

  3—

  2,190

  Isle of Wight

  324

  390

  Kent

  4,490

  3,130

  Oxfordshire

  2,096

  2,561

  Surrey

  1,543

  654

  West Sussex

  2,121

  2,106

  Bath and NE Somerset

  575

  588

  City of Bristol

  1,098

  420

  North Somerset

  188

  144

  South Gloucestershire

  736

  686

  Cornwall

  1,830

  2,767

  Isles of Scilly

  10

  9

  Devon1

  1,613

  3—

  Bournemouth

  3—

  0

  Poole

  3—

  43

  Devon2

  3—

  3,306

  555

  Number of pupils in mixed keystage classes. Maintained primary schools by Local Education Authority area, England—January of each year

  1997

  1998

  Dorset

  1,643

  640

  Gloucestershire

  2,095

  2,634

  Somerset

  1,323

  2,264

  Wiltshire1

  2,139

  3—

  Swindon

  3—

  410

  Wiltshire2

  3—

  2,149

  England

  110,850

  95,951

  1 Before local government reorganisation

  2 After local government reorganisation

  3 Not applicable

  British Beef
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local authorities which permit British beef to be served on school menus. [64114]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  New Deal
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of data for the subsidised employment option under the New Deal. [64171]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Over 11,000 young people have found work through the subsidised Employment option of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, in addition to the over 27,000 young people who have found unsubsidised jobs. This figure is drawn from the latest Government Statistical Service data to the end of September 1998 and the provisional Management Information to the end of October 1998.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure by programme by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by the exception under H.3 of Head H in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63801]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Areas excepted under Schedule 5, Head H3 of the Scotland Act 1998 are careers services under the Employment and Training Act 1973, and assisting persons to establish themselves as self-employed under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. This Department spends no money in Scotland on either.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63802]
  556
  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Schedule 5, Head L2 of the Scotland Act 1998 denotes equal opportunities, a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. A DfEE offices and agencies are subject to the requirements of equal opportunities laws, which are GB-wide. Numbers employed in DfEE offices and agencies, and the DfEE's equal opportunities practices, are contained in the Departmental Report which is in the Library of the House. The published draft Statutory Instrument on Cross-Border Public Authorities lists two DfEE-sponsored bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board and Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, which employ 1,003 (CITB) and 41 (ECITB) staff, and whose equal opportunities practices follow their policies as published in their Annual Reports, which are in the Library.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the working group on reducing bureaucracy was established; what are its terms of reference; who are its members; and when it is expected to report. [63960]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Working Group on Reducing the Bureaucratic Burden on Teachers was set up in July 1997.

  The Group's terms of reference were to report to Ministers on:
  the sources of bureaucratic burdens in schools, including those from central government, local government, national bodies involved with schools and schools own management and administrative practices;
  ways of reducing those burdens, including:
  clarifying minimum requirements for complying with legal obligations such as OFSTED inspections;
  streamlining processes;
  identifying best practice and how this can best be spread;
  making best use of information technology;
  areas where further study is needed to identify improvements.

  The Members of the Group were:
  Peter Owen (chair): Director General for Schools, DfEE
  Denis Allnut: Director, Analytical Services, DfEE
  Nick Sanders: Director, School Curriculum, funding and Teachers, DfEE
  Gwenlian Evans: Deputy General Secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers
  Nigel de Gruchy: General Secretary, National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers
  Rowie Shaw: Director of Professional Services, National Association of Head Teachers
  John Bangs: Assistant Secretary, National Union of Teachers
  David Jones: Acting General Secretary, Professional Association of Teachers
  Colin Broomfield: Head of Cheshunt School, Honorary Secretary, Secondary Heads Association
  Pat Petch: Chair, National Governors' Council
  John Fowler: Local Government Association
  Greg Hill: Education Officer for Information Technology, Metropolitan Borough of Solihull
  Michael Collier: Chief Executive, Funding Agency for Schools
  John Taylor HMI: Inspection Quality Monitoring and Development Team, Office for Standards in Education

  557
  Tony Millns: Assistant Chief Executive (Communications), School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Stephen Hillier: Head of Corporate Management, Teacher Training Agency
  Colin Muid: Deputy Director, Central IT Unit, Cabinet Office
  Graham Walker: Senior Partner, Arthur Andersen
  Tony Cann CBE: Chairman, Promethean Ltd.

  The Group's final report to Ministers was published on 16 January 1998, and a copy is in the Library.

  Musical Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the musical education of school children. [63710]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government recognise that music is a key part of the broad and balanced education to which every child is entitled. Music is a foundation subject in the National Curriculum, which every child must study from the ages of 5 to 14, and it will maintain its key place in the curriculum. We also recognise the important contribution made by LEA music services; that is why we proposed new arrangements to safeguard them in our "Fair Funding" consultation document. We will be making a further announcement on this matter early in the new year.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the mechanism for the allocation within London of the £378 million capital budget for London's National Health Service will(a) take into account the levels of activity of accident and emergency departments, (b) take into account the effect on such accident and emergency departments of the closure over the last decade of nearby ones and (c) provide a compensation element for the relatively small increases in the annual settlements affecting some London health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [62514]

  Mr. Milburn
  The importance of improving the standard of facilities and equipment in accident and emergency departments has been recognised by the Government. As a result, £30 million from next year's Modernisation Fund for Capital has been earmarked for investment in accident and emergency departments of which £4.367 million has been allocated to London. These resources will be used to provide faster, better services for patients and a safer working environment for staff. Funds will be allocated across a range of schemes. Many factors will be taken into consideration in deciding which should have the greatest need for investment including, where applicable, the level of activity of accident and emergency departments.

  In response to Sir Leslie Turnberg's review, we are determined to ensure that all Londoners have accessible top quality services with accident and emergency and ambulance services capable of meeting forseeable needs.

  Nursing Agencies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to reform nursing agencies; what representations he has received on this subject; and how much NHS organisations paid for agency nurses in each of the last 10 years. [63235]

  Mr. Milburn
  These agencies are currently required to be licensed under the provisions of the Nurses Agencies Act 1957. We are considering how the regulation of such agencies might be improved, particularly in the context of our plans to introduce regulation of domiciliary care providers. Departmental officials have had discussions with local authorities responsible for licensing agencies and with the Royal College of Nursing as well as representatives of the agencies. The information available on the cost of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff not employed directly by individual trusts and health authorities is shown in the table. Data prior to 1991/2 are not directly comparable.

  Expenditure on nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff not employed directly by individual trusts and HAs

  £

  Year

  1997–98 prices

  1997–981

  216,338,567

  1996–97

  196,475,547

  1995–96

  176,296,636

  1994–95

  144,526,300

  1993–94

  117,189,126

  1992–93

  116,088,250

  1991–92

  121,127,306

  1 Provisional Data

  Source:

  Annual Financial Returns of NHS Trust

  Annual Financial Returns of Health Authorities

  Adjusted GDP Deflator: HMT forecasts 1 October 1998

  Dentistry
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will introduce regulations to lay down minimum quality standards for dentistry; [63483]

  (2) what provision currently exists to ensure minimum standards of quality in NHS dentistry in the United Kingdom. [63484]

  Mr. Milburn
  General dental practitioners working in the National Health Service have to meet the conditions set out in the Dentists Act 1984 and rules made by the General Dental Council under this Act and must also comply with the terms of service contained in the National Health Service General Dental Services (Regulations) 1990.

  We will be reviewing these arrangements in connection with our initiative to modernise the regulation of the health car professions.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what methods his Department records and evaluates complaints which arise in private dental practice. [63485]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Dental Council, of which the Department's Chief Dental Officer is a member, investigates allegations of serious professional misconduct in private dental practice.
  559
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with the General Dental Council over the past twelve months and what was discussed. [63486]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State met the President of the General Dental Council, usually accompanied by the Registrar, on at least three occasions in the past twelve months. We have discussed a number of issues relating to dentistry and the regulation of the profession.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of dentistry services provided by corporate bodies in the United Kingdom; and if he will examine recent changes in that proportion. [63487]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. Only those corporate bodies referred to in Section 43 of the Dentists Act may carry out the business of dentistry.

  Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the amount of public information available on cancer. [63713]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the action which his Department is taking to increase public awareness of the availability of cancer services. [63466]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to providing high quality, patient-centred care to all cancer patients and have introduced a package of measures to increase the amount of public information available on cancer. Patients need clear information to be fully involved in treatment decisions.

  Cancer is a priority area in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" and in conjunction with the Health Education Authority, we have produced information leaflets about early detection and life style factors relevant to cancer. In addition as part of the implementation of the new National Health Service "Information for Health", we are developing a cancer information strategy which will improve the information available to patients and the public. The voluntary sector also has a key role to play in increasing public information available on cancer. We will continue to work closely with them to ensure that patient needs are identified.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create a nursing position which would provide a link between doctor, community and hospital in the treatment of cancer patients. [63712]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce, on a national basis, the scheme under which GPs receive support from an oncology nurse who liaises between the hospital and GP. [63474]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services (Calman/Hine report) covers the organisation and delivery of cancer services through the development of a specialist, multi-professional, multi-disciplinary workforce, better co-ordination between the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors and the greater 560
  involvement of patients in care and prevention. As part of the ongoing implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations, a primary care and cancer working group will shortly put recommendations to Ministers on how primary care can best contribute to the provision of a seamless, comprehensive and high quality cancer service. We can then consider how nursing posts can best be developed to deliver high quality care for cancer patients within acute and community settings.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to representations from GPs on cancer care services. [63465]

  Mr. Hutton
  Substantial progress has already been made in improving the organisation and delivery of cancer services through the ongoing implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations and an integrated network of cancer care. Primary care is seen as the focus of care and we welcome the results of a recent MORI poll that shows that general practitioners want to improve and be involved in improving cancer services.

  A working group on primary care and cancer is currently considering how the primary care role can be developed to allow GPs to contribute fully to the ongoing improvements in cancer services. The group's recommendations will be put to Ministers shortly.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63921]

  Mr. Milburn
  Estimated expenditure on public opinion research, television, radio and newspaper advertising since 1 May 1997 is £8.09 million. The information on total expenditure on direct mail can be provided only at disproportionate cost. A breakdown of the total given is in the table.

  £ million

  Expenditure 1997–98 (since 1 May)

  Estimated expenditure 1998–99

  (a) Public opinion research

  0.88

  11.77

  (b) Television, radio and newspaper advertising2

  2.08

  3.36

  1 The estimate includes the 1998–99 general population questionnaire £1 million (costs for this survey are earmarked only and the full cost is not yet known, although the total cost may be equal to £1.3 million).

  2 Excludes Departmental staff recruitment advertising expenditure which is not held centrally.

  Colitis and Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific support his Department is able to give to the sufferers of colitis and Crohn's disease. [63661]

  Mr. Hutton
  People with colitis and Crohn's disease can receive a full range of treatment from the National Health Service. Support and information is also provided by the National Association for Colitis and Crohn's Disease, a registered charity to which the Department currently gives funding under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
  561
  The Department's policy research programme and the central NHS research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into colitis and Crohn's disease, because of competing priorities. However, the Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government supports biomedical and clinical research, supports a significant portfolio of research related to intestinal diseases and inflammatory bowel diseases. The Council is currently funding three strategic project grants in this area, with a total cost of £186,000 in 1997–98.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish lists for each region indicating the performance of each hospital in each waiting list category. [64006]

  Mr. Milburn
  Details of waiting lists for each National Health Service Executive region and for NHS trusts are published quarterly in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish the patient waiting lists for each acute hospital broken down by type of operation awaited. [63999]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting lists for individual procedures are not collected centrally. However, specialty level information is published quarterly in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what details are currently made publicly available for each acute hospital on the order of patients on a waiting list. [64000]

  Mr. Milburn
  For reasons of patient confidentiality, the names of patients on a waiting list and the order in which they appear is not made public.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63879]

  Mr. Milburn
  The overriding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin, and not nationality. The nine ethnic minority categories monitored by Department are based on those used in the 1991 census which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Cannabis (Clinical Trials)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what input his Department intends to have into the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's discussions on the forthcoming clinical trials of cannabis; and if he will make a statement. [63987]
  562
  Mr. Hutton
  It is the Government's policy to actively encourage research into cannabinoids and not to stand in the way of methodologically sound research into the therapeutic uses of cannabis.

  The Department welcomed the Working Party on the Therapeutic Uses of Cannabinoids on which the Medical Research Council (MRC) has observer status.

  We understand that the working party has now completed its deliberations and that outline proposals will be launched in January before an invited audience. The MRC, via its well established peer review procedures, will consider the proposals for funding.

  The Medicines Control Agency has agreed to advise Professor Asscher's group on the regulatory aspects of their proposed trials.

  Officials from the Department have been invited to, and will attend, the launch on 11 January 1999.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average daily number of cigarettes smoked by a person who has died from a tobacco-related illness. [64098]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996 cigarette smokers in the United Kingdom consumed an average of 104 cigarettes a week, which equates to about 15 a day. Information is not available on the average daily number of cigarettes smoked by a person who has died from a tobacco-related illness.

  Farm Antibiotics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for human health of the use of antibiotics in farming. [63374]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Both the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) have taken into account the public health concerns when providing advice to Government on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. The ACMSF is close to finalising a report on microbial antibiotic resistance in relation to food safety which will be submitted to Government when completed.

  Zinc Bacitracin
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has sought from the Public Health Laboratory Service about the European Commission's proposal to withdraw authorisation of zinc bacitracin as a veterinary medicine; and if he will make a statement. [64028]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The view of the Public Health Laboratory Service has not been sought on the proposal to ban zinc bacitracin as a growth promoter. Both the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food have provided advice to Government taking into account the public health concerns surrounding growth promoters, including zinc bacitracin.
  563
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the public health implications of a change by poultry producers from the use of zinc bacitracin to avilamycin; and if he will make a statement. [64029]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: A working group of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food is considering the question of microbial antibiotic resistance in relation to food safety. In advance of its report, the Committee has advised Ministers that the use as growth promoters of antimicrobials where there is a medical equivalent in current or planned use should be phased out at the earliest opportunity. For growth promoters where there is currently no medical equivalent or where medical use is rare, the advice was that there is currently insufficient information available to justify an immediate ban. The use of substances like avilamycin should therefore be kept under review and if any evidence becomes available of medical equivalents being developed then their use as growth promoters should be phased out.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his planned timescale for(a) making decisions on the recommendations contained in Lord Justice Atton' s report on medical negligence and (b) putting forward proposals for reducing litigation in the NHS. [62672]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering what further action to take in connection with the many replies to his call for ideas on reducing litigation in the National Health Service, including the recommendations in Lord Justice Otton' s report

  NHS Consultants
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce maximum working times for NHS consultants. [63258]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service consultants, in common with all directly employed hospital staff with the exception of doctors in training, are subject to the Working Time Regulations. These regulations came into force on 1 October 1998 and implement European

  EU Member States

  Austria

  Stock exchange turnover tax at 0.15% or 2.5% depending on the type of company1

  Belgium

  Stock exchange turnover tax—normal rate 0.17%2

  Denmark

  Share transfer tax at 0.5%3

  Finland

  Share transfer tax (only for non-Stock Exchange deals) at 1.6%4

  France

  Stock exchange turnover tax at 0.3% on the fraction of each transaction under or equalling FFlm and at 0.15% on each fraction exceeding FFlm. An allowance of FF150 is applied to the tax due on each transaction and the tax due on each transaction may not exceed FF4,000.

  In addition registration duty at 4.8% on the sale of partnership shares in limited liability companies. The rate is 1% for founders' shares in corporations, subject to maximum tax of FF20,000 and exemption if there is no deed of transfer5

  Germany

  No stamp duty on share transfers.

  Greece

  Stock exchange transfer tax at 0.3%6

  Ireland

  Stamp duty on share transfers at 1%7

  Italy

  Stock exchange turnover tax at 0.14%8

  Luxembourg

  No stamp duty on share transfers.

  564
  Community Directive 93/104/EC on the organisation of working time. They set a maximum working time limit of 48 hours a week. Under the terms of the regulations, however, doctors can volunteer on an individual basis to work longer than 48 hours.

  The Health Departments have agreed some derogations with the British Medical Association, as allowed under the regulations. These allow doctors and their employers to organise service cover flexibly to comply with the basic 48 hour limit, thereby maintaining high quality patient care around the clock.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce mechanisms for monitoring the amount of time consultants spend in private practice; and if he will review the current contracts between NHS trusts and NHS consultants. [63260]

  Mr. Milburn
  Negotiations have began between officials and representatives of the British Medical Association on a new contract for consultants. We want to see robust arrangements in place to ensure that the undoubted energy and commitment of consultants is clearly focused on NHS service priorities and on improving the quality of patient care.

  The vast majority of our consultants work hard for the NHS and more than fulfil their contractual commitments. We need a contract which ensures that their undoubted energies are focused clearly on delivering key service goals and priorities, providing patients with the high quality care that they need and expect, increasing productivity where it is needed most and cutting waiting lists.

TREASURY

  Share Transactions (Stamp Duty)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rate of stamp duty applied on share transactions in each member state of the European Union. [62277]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Other Member States impose a variety of taxes on share transactions. The table gives a broad summary of the latest information we have about stamp duties and similar taxes on share transfers in EU Member States.

  565

  EU Member States

  Netherlands

  No stamp duty on share transfers.

  Portungal

  Stamp duty is levied on the transfer of shares at 4% on commission9

  Spain

  Share transfers subject to transfer tax/stamp duty and VAT where more than 50% of a company's assets consist of real property situated in Spain and, as a result of the transfer, the acquired obtains full ownership of these assets or obtains control over the company10

  Sweden

  No stamp duty on share transfers.

  UK

  Stamp Duty or Stamp Duty Reserve Tax is charged on transfers of UK shares at 0.5% whether the transfers are made in the UK or elsewhere. There is no charge on transfers of depositary receipts or transfers within clearance services, but in both of these situations there is a single charge of 1.5% on the transfer or issue of shares into the depositary or clearance service.

  1 International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation. April 1998.

  2 Belgian Ministry of Finance Tax Survey: information correct at 1 January 1997.

  3 Share transfer law, as amended (1998).

  4 Transfer tax law, 1998.

  5 Article 978 of the General Tax Code (stock exchange tax), Article 726 of the General Tax Code (registration tax), 1998.

  6 International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, April 1998.

  7 Stamp Act 1891, as amended (1998).

  8 Stock exchange transfer tax law (1998).

  9 Finance ministry communiqué 23/1/98.

  10 Transfer tax law (1998).

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of stamp duty on share transactions on the volume of shares traded in(a) London and (b) Frankfurt. [62278]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Stamp duty is only one of a range of factors that may affect the volume of share transactions and, like all taxes, is kept under review.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared; [62846]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Council of the Economic Advisers and their principal employment. [62782]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are four Special Advisers in the Treasury: Ed Balls, Charles Whelan, Ed Miliband and Spencer Livermore. They advise Treasury Ministers on the full range of Treasury policy issues.

  In addition, Chris Wales has been appointed full-time to the Council of Economic Advisers and Paul Gregg has been appointed on a part-time basis. Both appointments are on Special Adviser terms. Mr. Gregg's principal employment is with the London School of Economics.

  Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62804]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 31 July 1998,Official Report, columns 665–66, which provided much of this information. Since then, the Treasury has appointed the following.
  566
  1. Public Services Productivity Panel

  (a) remit: to advise Ministers on ways of improving the productivity of government departments and public sector agencies

  (b) membership:Nine

  (c) composition: 3 Ministers, one other public sector, 5 private sector

  (d) remuneration: none

  (e) budget: out of pocket expenses only

  2. Policy Action Team: Business
  (a) remit: to report on:
  how successful business support organisations such as Business Links are in serving the most deprived communities;
  how it can be made easier for people in poor neighbourhoods to get access to support to start a business or become self-employed;
  how access to capital or small firms can be improved, especially for start-ups, including innovative approaches such as `microcredit;
  what can be learnt from new ways of encouraging self-employment, building on the New Deal and Employment Zones and how access to capital can be tied into regeneration strategies more generally.
  (b) membership: twenty two
  (c) composition: 14 civil servants, four other pubic sector, 4 private sector
  (d) remuneration: none
  (e) budget: out of pocket expenses only

  3. Policy Action Team: Financial Services
  (a) remit: to report on:
  the scope for development of credit unions, building on planned legislative change;
  increasing the availability of insurance services to deprived communities;
  the role of banks, Post Offices and other organisations in providing access to and delivery of financial services in deprived neighbourhoods.
  (b) membership: eighteen
  (c) composition: 9 civil servants, 5 other public sector, 3 voluntary sector, 1 private sector
  remuneration: none
  budget: out of pocket expenses only.

  Eurobonds
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue arising from a 20 per cent. withholding tax on interest payments made on Eurobonds paid to(a) non-UK EU residents and (b) all non-UK residents, on the assumption that there is (i) no reduction (ii) a 25 per cent. reduction, (iii) a 50 per cent. reduction and (iv) a 75 per cent. reduction in the Eurobond market in the City of London. [62332]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: Reliable estimates are not available.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of Eurobond market business carried out in the City of London in each of the last three years. [62331]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: There are no official figures for the value of Eurobond market business carried out in the UK.

  Drug Crime
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the controlled delivery method of drug importation into the United Kingdom as a means of combating drug crime. [63266]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This method of investigation is the subject of international agreement under Article 11 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 (The Vienna Convention) and is considered to be a very effective method of combating drug crime.

  VAT Registration
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the net gain or loss to the Exchequer consequent on changing the threshold for compulsory VAT registration. [63401]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost to the Exchequer from increasing the VAT registration threshold from £49,000 to £50,000 on 1 April 1998 was estimated to be £10 million in 1999–2000.

  Pesticides Tax
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about a possible tax on pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [63451]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have received a number of representations on a possible tax on pesticides. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Pre-Budget Report, work is currently being carried out into whether a tax or charge on pesticides would be an effective way to reduce pollution. There is evidence to suggest that pesticides have harmful effects on wildlife, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and on human health. The Government will evaluate the findings of the research project, and the results of other ongoing work, in considering how best to proceed. No decision has yet been taken on whether to proceed with a tax or charge on pesticides.

  Devolution (Barnett Formula)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his definition of the Barnett formula in the context of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament; and what changes have been made to(a) the formula and (b) its interpretation as a result of those establishments. [63482]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have already set out a statement of principles to govern changes to the devolved administrations' budgets in a reply given by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 9 December 1998,Official Report, columns 510–13. I shall be publishing a paper describing the funding arrangements for the devolved administrations in due course. This will include details of the operation of the Barnett formula under devolution. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rotherham Euro Experiment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) costs (b) purpose and (c) results of the Rotherham Euro Experiment; and if he will list the organisations involved. [64190]

  Ms Hewitt
  "Rotherham Euro Week" was organised by the Rotherham Chamber of Commerce. There was no cost to central Government.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63916]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  March 1997–March 1998

  April 1998

  Total

  a) Public opinion research

  121

  306

  427

  b) Television, radio and

  16,299

  newspaper advertising

  57

  6,356

  c) Direct mail

  69

  59

  128

  1 Mainly comprises expenditure on providing information to business about the impact of the euro when it is introduced on 1 January 1999 in 11 EU countries, for which provision was taken in a Summer Supplementary Estimate (HC783).

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63871]

  Ms Hewitt
  Monitoring in this area is currently based on ethnic origin, not nationality. The nine ethnic origin categories monitored within the civil service are based on those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. The categories will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population census.

  Budget
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish a Green Book alongside the Red Book in the March 1999 Budget. [63271]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Government consider that information on environmental impacts should be presented alongside, and not separate from, information on economic and financial impacts. The Financial Statement and Budget Report released in March 1998 included, for the first time, an assessment of the environmental impact of those Budget measures which are expected to have a significant effect on the environment. An updated version of that assessment was given in the recent Pre-Budget Report. The Government are looking to build upon that approach in the future. Including an assessment of the environmental impact of Budget measures within Budget documentation reflects the Government's commitment to put the environment at the heart of the policy making.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the changeover plans regarding preparations for British entry into the single currency will contain details of the Government's convergence strategy. [63866]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Government's strategy for achieving convergence was set out by the Chancellor in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 583–88. The Government believe that the UK economy needs a period of economic stability to deliver the sustainable convergence needed before we can join the single currency and there is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated, before the end of this Parliament, that we have achieved convergence which is sustainable and settled, rather than transitory.

  The outline national changeover plan will set out the practical steps that would need to be followed if the UK were to decide to join the single currency and is the result of Treasury consultation with our 100 organisations, including trade associations and businesses. Its focus is therefore practical business and public sector issues.

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of November 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  50–75% of cases resolved

  Countrywide

  5,293

  2,725

  584

  222

  362

  200

  4

  59

  IFA Network

  406

  117

  169

  117

  58

  56

  14

  70

  Over 75% of cases resolved

  DBS

  2,446

  955

  1,054

  253

  801

  641

  26

  76

  Burns Anderson

  1,288

  440

  685

  265

  420

  364

  28

  83

  Financial Options

  577

  398

  99

  33

  66

  54

  12

  84

  Windsor Life

  9,678

  4,172

  5,105

  333

  4,772

  3,968

  41

  88

  Sun Life of Canada

  29,150

  11,336

  16,081

  2,783

  13,298

  11,463

  39

  88

  Lincoln National

  13,605

  2,255

  10,950

  1,430

  9,520

  8,520

  63

  90

  Standard Life

  7,515

  914

  6,255

  1,314

  4,941

  4,555

  61

  90

  Colonial

  8,732

  3,169

  5,264

  613

  4,651

  4,154

  48

  91

  Sedgwick

  16,928

  9,969

  5,922

  1,950

  3,972

  3,526

  21

  91

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate unemployment rates over the next three years. [64199]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: In line with the convention adopted by previous Administrations, the Government do not publish forecasts for unemployment.

  Brazil
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to assist Brazil in dealing with its current economic difficulties. [64556]

  Ms Hewitt
  We welcome and support the agreements between the Brazilian Government and the international community to restore confidence in the Brazilian economy. The UK's role in furthering this objective is explained in the written statement laid before both Houses today, pursuant to the International Monetary Arrangements Act 1983.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made in the review of personal pensions mis-selling. [64557]

  Ms Hewitt
  Further advances have been made towards completion of the first phase of the review.

  Of the 21 firms whose results are set out below only two have resolved less than 75 per cent. of their cases. Fourteen have now resolved over 90 per cent. of their cases.

  This progress must be maintained. It is essential that all phase 1 cases are completed by 31 December. Although the industry has largely recognised the need for the pensions review to be completed quickly, some firms could still do better. The regulators will not tolerate further delays, and the Government will continue to support their efforts to see phase 1 completed and phase 2 underway.

  The ABI' s Pension Adviser's Support Scheme (PASS), which offers small firms assistance with actuarial facilities and financing for the review is a welcome development. All of the 30 major providers have joined PASS, which should prevent many businesses folding. It has aroused considerable interest among independent financial advisers, and will give a significant boost to the pensions review.

  571

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of November 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Abbey Life

  18,114

  6,742

  10,748

  1,396

  9,352

  8,412

  46

  91

  Berkeley Independent

  186

  123

  53

  32

  21

  15

  8

  91

  Hill Samuel

  6,118

  936

  5,002

  719

  4,283

  3,970

  65

  92

  London and Manchester

  8,614

  1,604

  6,886

  711

  6,175

  5,642

  65

  92

  CIS

  44,681

  7,958

  36,594

  14,197

  22,397

  19,575

  44

  93

  Friends Provident

  7,126

  1,333

  5,526

  837

  4,689

  4,486

  63

  93

  Pearl

  48,506

  4,802

  42,411

  5,855

  36,556

  34,874

  72

  94

  Legal & General

  37,366

  15,359

  21,648

  2,049

  19,599

  18,230

  49

  95

  Hogg Robinson

  2,338

  871

  1,465

  488

  977

  875

  37

  96

  Equitable Life

  7,629

  1,968

  5,528

  1,833

  3,695

  3,492

  46

  96

  A: cases identified as requiring review

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review

  C: number of assessments completed

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due

  E: cases where redress has been offered

  F: cases where redress has been accepted

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/A)x100)

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)x100)

  Swiss Investment Exchanges
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Swiss investment exchanges carry out investment business in the United Kingdom. [64626]

  Ms Hewitt
  With effect from today, the Swiss Exchange (SWX), having satisfied the conditions under sections 37 and 40 of the Financial Services Act 1986, has been granted recognition as an Overseas Investment Exchange. The Swiss Exchange is therefore able to carry out investment business in the UK.

  Business Start-up Loans
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the availability of business start-up loans for people from social classes D and E. [63907]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI's Small Firm's Loan Guarantee Scheme already offers support to people with viable business proposals seeking finance but who lack the assets to offer as security against a conventional loan. By providing a guarantee against default the Scheme encourages lenders to lend where finance would not otherwise be available.

  As part of the Government's Social Exclusion Agenda, I have established a Policy Action Team which will report by July 1999 on methods of encouraging businesses in poor neighbourhoods. The Team's remit includes examining ways of improving access to capital for small firms, especially start-ups in deprived areas.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax reliefs are currently available for companies giving money to universities and colleges. [63858]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most universities and colleges are charities and companies can use tax-effective charitable giving for donations to them.

  Companies can also claim tax relief when calculating the business's trading profits for tax purposes for payments made to an approved university, college research institute or similar institution which are to used for scientific research related to the company's trade.
  572
  Any payments which a company makes to sponsor a university or college will qualify for a deduction when calculating the business's trading profits for tax purposes if the payment is a revenue payment made wholly and exclusively for trading purposes.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  St. Kilda World Heritage Site
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if it is his policy to urge UNESCO to place St. Kilda World Heritage Site on their in danger list; [63392]

  (2) on what date the Government expects UNESCO to announce whether they intend to add the World Heritage Site of St. Kilda to their in danger list. [63393]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government were fully aware of the environmental sensitivities on and around St. Kilda, and of its status as a World Heritage Site, when they made the decision about which areas in the Atlantic should be offered for petroleum licensing.

  We shall be responding to UNESCO to reassure it that there is no case for the placement of St. Kilda on the list of endangered World Heritage Sites.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62812]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  A list of the taskforces, review panels and advisory groups have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent to date by the UK Sports Institute. [62778]
  573
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: Sheffield is working closely with the UK and English Sports Councils to work up a successful application for Lottery funding. To date a total of £825,000 has been received from the Lottery Sports Fund by Phoenix Sports Limited, the company formed by the Sheffield Consortium which won the bid, to allow development work to progress. I have asked the Sports Councils to confirm by the end of December the extent and certainty of the matching funding put in place by Phoenix to take the project forward, to continue to exercise the closest control over payments while the project brief is developed, and to report on the final specification for the project in the light of their consultations with the sports which will use it.

  National Curriculum (Sport)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates he has had meetings with the DfEE to discuss the role of sport in the curriculum; and with whom such meetings have taken place. [63424]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly discuss the role of sport in the Curriculum with colleagues from DfEE. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and I attended the launch of the Sporting Ambassadors Scheme, an ESC initiative to provide opportunities for successful sports men and women of all ages to visit schools to enthuse young people about the benefits of physical activity and a healthy lifestyle, on 1 July. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for

  Country

  Date visited

  Purpose of visit

  France

  10 June 1997

  Meeting/reception with Madam Buffet re preparations for World Cup 1998

  Italy

  10 October 1997

  Italy v England—Quarter final for 1998 World Cup

  United States of America

  23 October 1997

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Trinidad and Tobago

  25 October 1997

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Costa Rica

  28 October 1997

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  France

  4 December 1997

  1998 World Cup Draw

  Belgium

  27 January 1998

  Intergroup meeting on Sport

  Japan

  6 February 1998

  Winter Olympics

  South Korea

  12 February 1998

  Winter Olympics

  Thailand

  14 February 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Belgium

  17 March 1998

  2006 Bid meeting

  Paraguay

  24 March 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Argentina

  26 March 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Qatar

  19 April 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  France

  10 June 1998

  Meeting with Madam Buffet and European Union Ministers for Sport

  France

  10 July 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Switzerland

  1 September 1998

  Meeting with President Samaranch and Sepp Blatter

  Malaysia

  9 September 1998

  Commonwealth Games

  South Africa

  12 September 1998

  IAAF 8th Athletics World Cup

  Republic of Ireland

  27 September 1998

  Gaelic Football—All Ireland Final

  Spain

  5 October 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  France

  23 October 1998

  Council of Europe Hearing of Bosman Ruling

  Cameroon

  1 November 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Mali

  3 November 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Malta

  12 November 1998

  Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup

  Austria

  24 November 1998

  Troika Sports Ministers meeting

  Heads of Missions overseas have reported on the value of these visits, not only to The Football Association's Campaign for the England 2006 World Cup but also in furthering relations between this country and the rest of the world. I will be writing to the hon. Member shortly about these reports.
  574
  Education and Employment and I both discussed sport when we spoke at the Youth Sport Trust's Annual Reception on 18 November.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63880]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The overriding principle on recruitment within the Civil Service is that procedures should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in the area of staff recruitment within DCMS is based on ethnic origin, not nationality. The nine categories monitored are based on those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. This will be reviewed following any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which overseas countries the Minister for Sport has visited as part of his ministerial duties since 1 May 1997; and when. [63425]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The rules on travel in this Government are the same as the previous Government. The hon. Member will wish to be aware that I have visited the following countries as part of my Departmental duties since 1 May 1997:

  In the new year I will be visiting Tunisia, New Zealand and Botswana with The Football Association's Bid team, and receiving in London the Vice-Chairman of FIFA, Mr. Jack Warner. Yesterday I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett) to discuss

  575
  strategy. In the new year I will be meeting with The Football Association's full Executive Committee as part of the planning process for 1999.

  National Lottery Retailers
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many National Lottery retailers there are in each parliamentary constituency ranked in order of the number of outlets. [63774]

  Mr. Banks
  Details on retailers are not held by the Department and are an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the Lottery, to write to my hon. Friend. Copies of his response will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Holiday
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements he has made to notify(a) the Home Office, (b) the DTI, (c) the CBI and (d) the Library that Friday 31 December 1999 will be a public holiday. [63708]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The Government Departments referred to, and the CBI, were among the many organisations included in a consultation exercise carried out by my Department early this year, in order to establish that the proposal for an additional Bank Holiday on 31 December 199 was widely supported. The additional holiday was announced in the House on 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 218, and a press notice was issued on the same day. This was copied to interested Government Departments, and the announcement was widely covered in the media.

  HM Nautical Almanac Office holds definitive information on public holidays, and provides an information service based at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62817]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My Department has a large number of task forces, review panels and advisory groups.

  I have arranged for the information requested for each of these groups to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is practicable.

  In addition my Department publishes the names of all those appointed to its Nationalised Industries and its executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies on the Public Appointments Website (www.open.gove.uk/pau/paupoint.htm). This information was last updated as of 30 September 1998 and includes the date of appointment and remuneration. I placed a copy of
  576
  the full list in the Libraries of both Houses in reply to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 26 October 1998, to which I replied on 28 October 1998, Official Report, column 194.

  Whales and Dolphins
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to assess the cumulative impact of oil developments in the Atlantic Frontier on the breeding, feeding and migration of whales and dolphins in the area. [63054]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC—the Government's statutory advisers on environment matters) that there is no evidence of petroleum developments in the Atlantic Frontier or any other part of the UK Continental Shelf having had any impact on marine mammals. Nevertheless, the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998 require that the cumulative impact of any relevant project on the UKCS should be assessed before any decision about the granting of consent for that project is taken.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will establish an inquiry into the performance of Royal Mail postal services in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [63150]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No. Operational responsibility for the performance of Royal Mail postal services nationally rests with the Post Office Board and management. However, under the package of reforms announced last week on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 21–39, to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom, there will also be a new independent Regulator and a strengthened role for the Post Office Users' National Council to protect customer interests, including standards of service and universal service commitments.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of change in the quality of postal services in rural areas in the past three years in terms of the time of day by which deliveries are made. [63869]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None. Operational responsibility for postal delivery times and arrangements in rural areas and towns rests with the Post Office Board and management. Under the package of reforms announced last week, on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 21–39, to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom, there will be a new independent Regulator and a strengthened role for the Post Office Users' National Council to protect customer interests, including standards of service, and universal service commitments.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on target delivery times for postal rounds in rural areas. [63885]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The target delivery times for postal rounds are set by the Post Office. Royal Mail aim to complete deliveries in rural areas by 2.00pm and in towns to complete first deliveries by 9.30am and to complete second deliveries by 2.00pm.

  WS9 Turbofan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when an export licence for the export to China of designs for a military aircraft engine now known as the WS9 turbofan was granted. [62920]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: I understand that the Spey engine was produced in China, under an agreement with Rolls-Royce, under the name of the WS9 turbofan between 1976 and 1979. As the then Minister for Trade said on 27 October 1995, Official Report, column 837, up to July 1991, all export licence application papers were destroyed after six years. Therefore details of any licence issued for the export of the designs in connection with that production agreement are no longer available.

  Country

  (a) Short term 1

  (b) Long term 2

  Date cover agreed

  Azerbaijan

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—June 1996

  Bahrain

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Reviewed—August 1996

  Egypt

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed December 1993—Last Review October 1998

  Israel

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Reviewed—April 1998

  Jordan

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—October 1995

  Kazakhstan

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—August 1993

  Kuwait

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—1991

  Lebanon

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—1994

  Oman

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Review—ongoing

  Qatar

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Review—1997

  Saudia Arabia

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Review—November 1998

  Syria

  Yes

  No

  ST agreed—1993

  Turkmenistan

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—May 1994

  United Arab Emirates

  Yes

  Yes

  Last Review—January 1994

  Uzbekistan

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—April 1994

  West Bank and Gaza

  Yes

  Yes

  Agreed—November 1996

  Yemen

  Yes

  No

  ST agreed—November 1997

  1 Short Term refers to sales of capital goods or projects on cash terms of repayment. Short Term consumer goods are covered by the Private Sector.

  2 Long Term refers to the general availability of medium and long term cover for the sales of capital goods.

  The markets where either (a) or (b) are not currently provided, and cover is under review are:
  Iran—long term cover is under review, short term cover has been provided since July 1998.
  Kyrgyzstan—Currently no cover, but under review

  In addition:
  Iraq—ECGD is off cover for Iraq for all facilities.
  Tajikistan—No cover available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries have asked for a rescheduling of Export Credits Guarantee Department loans or interest in 1998; in respect of what sums the rescheduling has been requested; what the dates of such requests were; and if such requests have been agreed. [62918]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: Debts owed to ECGD are rescheduled through the auspices of the Paris Club. During 1998 the following countries sought and successfully negotiated debt reschedulings in Paris:

  £

  Country

  Date of Paris Agreement

  ECGD debt rescheduled

  Cote d'lvoire

  23 April

  10,456,000

  Uganda

  24 April

  14,003,000

  Mozambique

  25 May

  2,700,000

  ECGD
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those nations of the Arabian peninsula, the Middle East and Central Asia in which ECGD(a) short term and (b) long term and project cover (i) is not currently available but is under review and (ii) is currently available and the dates on which such cover was agreed. [62917]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: The markets where ECGD is on cover for (a) short term and (b) long term and project cover and the dates which such cover was agreed are as follows:

  £

  Country

  Date of Paris Agreement

  ECGD debt rescheduled

  Senegal

  17 June

  2,630,000

  Indonesia

  23 September

  260,000,000

  Central African Republic

  25 September

  461,000

  Bosnia

  28 October

  5,000,000

  Bolivia

  30 October

  48,393,000

  Russia

  A recent request has still to be discussed

  The Paris Club will shortly consider a request from Nicaragua in the wake of Hurricane Mitch. On 10 November the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary announced a willingness to explore, with other creditors, some kind of moratorium on debt for Nicaragua and Honduras.

  Animal Welfare
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he plans to take to persuade EU partners to include among the EU' s objectives for the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations the need to revise the rules of the WTO and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to take greater account of animal welfare standards; and if he will make a statement. [63490]
  579
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are committed to improving animal welfare standards. At the Amsterdam Summit last year, we achieved our goal of giving animal welfare a special place in the European Union's priorities, formalised in a Treaty Protocol.

  We will need to consult our EU partners closely to consider whether and how best to get the issue on the agenda for the expected new round of negotiations. This will not be easy. There are no widely accepted international animal welfare standards. The WTO is not a standards making body, and developing countries would see any attempt to impose such standards through the WTO as protectionist. Any EU proposal will have to take full account of their legitimate concerns.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he plans to take to ensure that EU producers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage in respect of imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards; and if he will make a statement. [63489]

  Mr. Wilson
  As a result of initiatives we took in our Presidency, the European Commission has been charged with producing a report by June 1999 considering the relationship between EU and third country farm animal welfare standards. If the problem is not soluble under current world trade rules, the EU may need to raise the issue as part of the comprehensive trade negotiations we hope will start in 2000. However, the Government will be determined to avoid imposing EU standards unfairly on developing country producers.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding the impact on animal welfare measures of the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [63491]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the beginning of September, my Department has received more than 200 letters from MPs and members of the public on this matter. I have also met with animal welfare groups to discuss the issues.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the British Coal Corporation's exceptional restructuring costs listed in the answer to the hon. Member for Teignbridge of 11 November 1998,Official Report, columns 223–24, was spent on redundancy payments in each year from 1979–80 to 1997–98. [63346]

  Mr. Battle
  The following table sets out expenditure by British Coal Corporation over the period 1987 to 1994 on redundancy payments to industrial workers. Prior to 1987 redundancy payments to coal miners were not made by British Coal Corporation but were made under the Government's Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme.

  Expenditure by British Coal Corporation on redundancy payments to industrial workers 1

  Year

  £ million

  1987

  45

  1988

  281

  1989

  401

  580

  Expenditure by British Coal Corporation on redundancy payments to industrial workers 1

  Year

  £ million

  1990

  109

  1991

  192

  1992

  405

  1993

  490

  1994

  212

  1 Management records of British Coal Redundancy Arrangements 1987–1994. Figures are on a calendar year basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average redundancy payment made to coal miners made redundant in each year from 1979–80 to 1997–98. [63347]

  Mr. Battle
  Prior to 1987 redundancy payments to coal miners were made under the Government's Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme. These payments comprised lump sums plus ongoing weekly benefit for those over a certain age who remained unemployed. It is therefore not possible to calculate meaningful average redundancy payments to coal miners made redundant over that period. From April 1987 British Coal Corporation became responsible for its industrial redundancy arrangements and this comprised a system of lump sum payments only. The following table sets out the average redundancy payment made by British Coal Corporation to redundant colliery industrial workers over the period 1987 to 1994. These figures are on a calendar year basis.

  Average lump sum payments under British Coal Redundancy Arrangements1

  Year

  £

  1987

  15,300

  1988

  16,040

  1989

  18,530

  1990

  19,675

  1991

  22,730

  1992

  21,460

  1993

  23,535

  1994

  25,670

  1 Management records of British Coal Redundancy Arrangements 1987–1994. Figures are on a calendar year basis

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many coal miners were made redundant in each year from 1979–80 to 1997–98. [63345]

  Mr. Battle
  The following table sets out the number of coal miners made redundant from British Coal Corporation over the period 1979/80 up to privatisation in December 1994. Comparable data on redundancies after December 1994 are not readily available.

  Year

  Number of redundancies1

  1979–80

  1,333

  1980–81

  2,850

  1981–82

  9,294

  1982–83

  8,149

  1983–84

  17,805

  1984–85

  6,537

  1985–86

  30,095

  1986–87

  27,131

  1987–88

  16,800

  1988–89

  6,486

  1989–90

  13,042

  1990–91

  8,100

  581

  Year

  Number of redundancies1

  1991–92

  13,500

  1992–93

  12,100

  1993–94

  21,300

  1994–95

  3,000

  1 British Coal Corporation Annual Report and Accounts (various). Data from 1979–80 to 1989–90 inclusive refer to redundancies of industrial workers at collieries. Data from 1990/91 to December 1994 refer to reduction in colliery industrial manpower

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding claims about energy saving by British Gas Trading Ltd. in promotional material. [64004]

  Mr. Battle
  Neither the Secretary of State nor I have received representations regarding energy saving claims by British Gas Trading Ltd. in its promotional material.

  Baby Jag
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants or other assistance have been given or promised by his Department or by the European Commission to(a) Ford and (b) its suppliers in connection with the new manufacturing and assembly lines for the Baby Jag. [63985]

  Mr. Battle
  To secure the X400 investment for Halewood, Jaguar—a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company—was offered a support package made up of £40 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) and up to a £3 million contribution from the local partners. No offer of support has been made to the suppliers for the X400 project.

  Supermarkets (Prices)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 December 1998,Official Report, columns 289–95, from whom the report published by Verdict Research was commissioned; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [63997]

  Dr. Howells
  Verdict Research Limited Publishes a range of reports on the retailing sector. Their Report "Verdict on Grocers and Supermarkets 1999" was published on 7 December 1998 and copies are available from the publishers (price £890). Verdict Research reports provide independent analysis of retail sectors, key companies and trends. During the debate I quoted from Verdict's news release on their report and I shall arrange for copies of this news release to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations received by his Department on the draft national minimum wage regulations concerning the level of the proposed accommodation deduction, indicating the balance of opinions submitted on the level of the proposed amount; and if he will make a statement. [63781]
  582
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Representations on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations dealing with the level of deductions allowable for accommodation provided by the employer were received, by 6 November, the end of the consultation exercise, from the following:

  Abbeyfield Society

  ABTA

  Acorn Ventures Limited

  Action with Communities in Rural England

  Action Centres UK

  Association of British Riding Schools

  B & N Housing

  Brathay Hall Trust

  Hampshire Care Association

  Hothorpe Hall

  Kingswood Group

  L'Arche

  MENCAP

  British Activity Holidays Association

  British Chamber of Commerce

  Brewers & Licensed Retailers Association

  British Horse Society

  British Hospitality Association

  Experience UK Limited

  FRES

  NCVO

  Outward Bound Trust

  PGL Travel Limited

  Whiteley Homes Trust

  YHA.

  Few of those who responded to the exercise said that they would like the offset to be increased. We are currently considering the representations and will present the regulations to Parliament for approval shortly.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the written advice his Department gives to British companies considering contracts in Chechnya. [63630]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 14 December 1998, Official Report, columns 402–03, and to the written travel advice which he placed in the Library of the House. If asked, the Department advises all companies travelling to destinations about which there may be concern to contact the Foreign Office for advice about travel.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department gave to Granger Telecom, Surrey in respect of the safety of British Nationals working in Chechnya. [63629]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Department did not receive a request from Granger Telecom for advice in respect of the safety of Granger's British staff working in Chechnya. Had such a request

  583
  been received, the Department's officials would have referred Granger Telecom to the Foreign Office for travel advice.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date his Department was informed of negotiations relating to the contract between Granger Telecom, Surrey and Chechen Telecom. [63628]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: There is no record of Granger Telecom having informed the Department about negotiations relating to its contract with Chechen Telecom.

  Credit Reference Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the rules and regulations in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 governing the granting of licences to credit reference agencies. [64078]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no current plans to review the rules and regulations governing the granting of licences to credit reference agencies. However, I am pleased to announce that later this month I will publish a consultation paper on the changes in Regulations needed to put the supervision of rights of individuals and sole traders on access to their credit reference files unequivocally under the Data Protection Registrar. This replaces the dual supervision by the Director General of Fair Trading and the DPR which currently exists under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984. It will complete the regulatory changes on this issue introduced in the Data Protection Act 1998. The change will also give sole traders the clear right to see their credit reference files, rather than the conditional right they currently have. The paper will also set out proposals for making clearer the statements of rights borrowers receive on correcting wrong information held on their files.

  Freephone Numbers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has undertaken to ascertain the impact upon business of changes proposed to the system of freephone numbers by OFTEL. [63521]

  Company Name

  Project Name

  Date of Announcement

  Hosokawa Stott

  Manufacture of Equipment

  1 January 1997

  Tetra Pak

  HDPE Milk Bottles

  1 May 1997

  Associated Capital Corporation

  Credit Card Operations Centre

  22 May 1997

  Brewster Wallcoverings

  Distribution & Warehousing of Paint

  1 June 1997

  Teco Information Systems

  Sales, Distribution Configuration Co.

  30 June 1997

  Telewest Communications

  Sales TV

  1 August 1997

  Viking Direct

  Call Centre, Office Equipment, Stationery

  5 August 1997

  DFDS Transport

  Shipping Agents

  8 August 1997

  Aspentech

  Developer of Computer Software

  31 August 1997

  Centurion Furniture Plc.

  Upholstered Furniture

  1 September 1997

  Kodak

  Manufacture of Imaging Products

  22 September 1997

  Yardley Plastics Ltd.

  Thermoplastic Compounds Processing

  23 September 1997

  Hosokawa Micron Ltd.

  Powder Processing Equipment

  29 September 1997

  Voith Sulzer Paper Technology

  Calendars/Rolls for Paper

  13 October 1997

  AB Thoreb

  Software Programmes/IT Systems

  1 November 1997

  Dunlop Hevea (Ind. Footwear) Ltd.

  Manufacture of Industrial Footwear

  12 November 1997

  ELF Aquitaine (UK) Ltd.

  Pharmaceutical Intermediates

  19 November 1997

  Francis Shaw and Co Ltd.

  Rubber Mixing Machinery

  1 December 1997

  Woodbridge Foam (UK) Ltd.

  Car Seat Foam

  15 December 1997

  584
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The administration of the National Numbering Scheme is a matter for Oftel. Oftel has consulted extensively on changes to numbering arrangements. The National Numbering Scheme was established following public consultation. Oftel' s proposals to change freephone numbers, in line with the Scheme, were the subject of a separate consultation earlier this year and conclusions have yet to be reached.

  Demand for freephone numbers increased by over 50 per cent. in 1998, compared to 1997. Oftel believes that a change to freephone numbers is necessary as it will shortly run out of 0800 blocks of numbers.

  Departmental Visits
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials of his Department visited Chile in each year since 1990. [64021]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Central records are not held for the years preceding 1995; however, the following figures are available for 1995 and subsequent years:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  3

  1996

  6

  1997

  6

  1998

  111

  1 regional conference

  Inward Investment (North-West)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the inward investment projects in the North West which have(a) commenced operation and (b) been announced since May 1997. [64217]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no requirement to notify projects to the Department. The list includes only those projects where the Department' s Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. It does not include projects where the company has requested commercial confidentiality. It is based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. It takes no account of subsequent developments.
  585

  Company Name

  Project Name

  Date of Announcement

  Volclay Ltd.

  Cat Litter and Specialised Clay Products

  20 December 1997

  Learonal (UK) Plc.

  Industrial Chemicals

  2 January 1998

  A1 Security and Electrical ltd.

  Manufacturer of Security Alarm System

  23 January 1998

  North West Forgemasters Ltd.

  Engineering Components

  1 February 1998

  Holt Lloyd International Ltd.

  Car Care Products

  2 February 1998

  Ashley and Rock Ltd.

  Electrical Wiring Accessories

  3 February 1998

  Tomcat UK Ltd.

  Aluminium Structural Components

  12 February 1998

  Delevan

  Fuel Components Servicing

  1 March 1998

  Phonak UK Ltd.

  Hearing Aids

  11 March 1998

  Polynorm Plastics (UK) Ltd.

  Automotive Components

  29 March 1998

  Ultramark Adhesive Products Ltd.

  Self-Adhesive Vinyls and Films

  1 April 1998

  Shell Services International Ltd.

  Pan-European IT Helpdesk Services

  22 April 1998

  Oliver Ashworth

  Distributor and Stockholder of Pipeline Products

  23 April 1998

  IP Information Services Ltd.

  IT-Shared Services Centre

  26 May 1998

  Leyland Trucks Ltd.

  Manufacture and Sale of Commercial and Military Trucks

  1 June 1998

  NGF Europe Ltd.

  Manufacture of Glass Products

  29 July 1998

  SICPS UK Ltd.

  Printing Inks and Security Inks

  1 August 1998

  New Balance Athletic Shoes (UK) Ltd.

  Manufacture of Athletic Shoes

  1 September 1998

  Leyland Trucks Ltd.

  Manufacture of Commercial Vehicles

  2 September 1998

  Candy Domestic Appliances Ltd.

  Manufacture of Domestic Refrigeration Appliances

  21 September 1998

  Sonae UK Ltd.

  Manufacture of Particleboard

  30 September 1998

  Civil Aerospace Research
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to promote British civil aerospace research and development; and if he will make a statement. [64243]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department has maintained a close dialogue with the aerospace industry concerning the support available for civil research which has been provided under the Department's Civil Aviation Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) Programme. Plans for the future promotion of research await decisions about detailed DTI budget allocations in future years.

  Support has been provided by the Government for development of civil aerospace projects in the form of repayable risk-sharing investment known as Launch Investment. Applications for Launch Investment will be considered on their merits and against competing demands on public expenditure.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sums his Department spent on the civil aerospace research and development programme in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [64245]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 67–68.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his Department's(a) current and (b) planned levels of spending on the civil aerospace research and development programme; and if he will make a statement. [64244]

  Mr. Battle
  The budget for the Department's Civil Aviation Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) Programme for the current financial year is £21,102,000. No decisions have yet been made about detailed DTI budget allocations in future years.

  Industrial Tribunal Claims
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the backlog of claims to industrial tribunals in respect of pension rights for part-time workers to have been dealt with. [64234]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Progress on these pension cases has been stayed pending the outcome of a further referral to the European Court of Justice in January 1998. When the outcome of this referral is known, the cases will be processed in accordance with directions given by the Presidents of Employment Tribunals.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial tribunal claims relating to part-time workers' pension rights have been initiated since the European Court of Justice decision of September 1994; and how many have been settled. [64232]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Following the judgment of the European Court of Justice in September 1994 approximately 42,000 cases have been registered claiming part-time worker pension rights. The pension cases are not identified separately in the records of the Employment Tribunals, therefore, information is not available on the number of cases that have been settled.

  Clergy (Employment Rights)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for legislation which will affect the employment rights of clergy. [63711]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Fairness at Work White Paper contained a proposal for an order making power enabling the Government to extend the coverage of employment legislation to categories of workers not currently covered. It also indicated that the Government would consult fully on specific changes before exercising this power. The position of the clergy is one of the matters to which consideration will be given during the course of this consultative process.

  Israel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the reports he
  587
  has received from the IAEA concerning the (a) Negev Nuclear Research Centre in Dimona, (b) Nahal Soreq,
  (c) Yodefar, (d) Klar Zokhayra, (e) Eilabin, (f) Haifa (Yelloweake) and (g) Rehovot (Heavy Water) plants in Israel. [62667]

  Mr. Battle
  The only Israeli plant subject to IAEA safeguards inspections is Nahal Soreq. The IAEA have published only one report concerning this plant, a 1993 report entitled 'The Radiological Accident in Soreq'. I will be placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the reports he has received from the IAEA concerning the(a) Al Tuwaitha, (b) Al Quan, (c) Al Jesira, (d) Akashot, (e) Al Qa Qaa, (f) Al Athaar, (g) Al Hadre, (h) Roshdiya and (j) Ash Sharqat plants in Iraq. [62666]

  Mr. Battle
  The Iraqi Action Team of the IAEA have published twenty-nine reports covering their short-term safeguards inspections in the period 1991–1995. Since then they have published a further six six-monthly consolidated reports. My officials have ordered copies of these reports from the IAEA in Vienna and I will place these in the Library of the House once I have received them in the New Year.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the provision of regional selective assistance in euros. [64552]

  Mr. Mandelson
  With effect from 1 January 1999, recipients of Regional Selective Assistance (in Northern Ireland, Selective Financial Assistance) for internationally mobile investment will be given the option of having their grants denominated in euro where it is to the country's competitive advantage to do so. This will particularly help those companies which trade internationally and who may find it convenient to use the euro a common planning currency. It shows that the UK is well prepared for companies dealing in the euro and will help ensure that the UK remains the most favoured venue for foreign direct investment in the EU.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Terminator Gene Technology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of terminator gene technology on developing countries. [62753]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the implications of all aspects of genetically modified organisms for poor farmers in developing countries.

  Our Government are strong supporters of a Bio Safety protocol which would establish standards to regulate the development and release of genetically modified organisations world wide.

  Sustainable Projects
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that the objective of sustainability is included in UK aid programmes. [62755]

  Clare Short
  Sustainable development is crucial to the elimination of poverty and is central to the Government's policy on international development. My Department applies rigorous procedures to ensure that the projects and programmes we support have clear sustainable outcomes which benefit poor people.

  We seek to work in partnership with recipient countries committed to pro-poor policies and explore with them how assistance will be economically and financially sustainable in the long term. This includes promoting effective planning of government expenditure and revenue, reduction of debt to sustainable levels and sustainable use of environmental resources.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work undertaken by her Department to prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV in the developing world. [62756]

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department has taken to combat the spread of HIV and AIDS in developing countries. [62761]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting national programmes in 39 developing countries. We are also working in collaboration with UNAIDS and other UN agencies in co-ordinated efforts. And we are funding research into development of new methods of protection against HIV, providing subsidised contraceptives and programmes to encourage safe sex, and supporting the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine by contributing to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to help prevent the spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. [62767]

  Clare Short
  We are working to prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa through contributions to the work of UNAIDS, the EC and international non-governmental organisations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation. We have significant programmes with national governments in Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. We are also funding research into the development of new methods of protection against HIV, providing subsidised contraceptives and programmes to encourage safe sex, and supporting the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine, by contributing to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget is allocated to HIV and AIDS projects. [64174]

  Clare Short
  In calendar year 1997, 3.6 per cent. of the UK overseas development assistance (£73 million) was invested in reproductive health, excluding expenditure
  589
  through the EC and the World Bank, which we are unable to dis-aggregate. Much of our spending on improving basic healthcare systems will also bring benefits to people with HIV and AIDS. We estimate that around 40 per cent. of this sum was invested in work which related directly to HIV/AIDS.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the World Bank to increase support for HIV/AIDS vaccine development. [64182]

  Clare Short
  My officials meet regularly with counterparts in the World Bank to encourage them in their support for HIV/AIDS vaccine development through International Aids Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and other channels. The latest of these meetings took place in Washington in November.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress made on establishing an HIV/AIDS vaccine purchase fund. [64183]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank is considering how best to establish a global HIV/AIDS vaccine purchase fund for the long term benefit of the poorest, most affected countries. Consultations continue with Governments and a range of profit and not-for-profit groups such as the International Aids Vaccine Initiative. Britain is committed to supporting the development of a safe and effective vaccine and to creating the conditions which make it affordable and accessible to affected developing countries.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) by project and (b) by country the (i) HIV and AIDS and (ii) education projects her Department supports. [64180]

  Clare Short
  We provide direct support for HIV/AIDS activities in 39 Countries, intensively in ten of these. A list will be placed in the Library of the House. It does not include HIV/AIDS activities supported through multilateral institutions such as United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Bank and World Health Organisation (WHO), all of whom receive funding from the British Government.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Governments of G8 countries to support the International Aids Vaccine Initiative. [64179]

  Clare Short
  We regularly encourage G8 counterparts to contribute to HIV/AIDS vaccine development through International Aids Vaccine Initiative (IAVI). We took the latest opportunity available for us in the margins of a meeting last week of the UNAIDS Programme Co-ordinating Board in Delhi.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is currently providing to Bangladesh. [62757]

  Clare Short
  We have a substantial programme in Bangladesh and expect to invest around £67 million in 1998–99. This includes £45 million for our normal 590
  bilateral co-operation activities, of which more than half is spent on direct poverty assistance, with projects in health and education, micro-credit, employment generation, and food production. Other projects target infrastructure development, and public sector reform. We are also providing £22 million additional assistance this year to assist recovery from the recent devastating floods.

  AIDS (South Africa)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist the South African Government in combating AIDS. [62758]

  Clare Short
  South Africa is one of the countries most badly affected by HIV/AIDS. The rate of new infections is estimated at 1,500 per day and 2.5 million people are already infected. South Africa's leaders are beginning to take the issue seriously and support for AIDS control and preventions is a priority for our development partnership. But the challenge also requires regional action and we are discussing with governments, UNAIDS and the European Commission how to intensify our support for sexual and reproductive health to develop more effective national and regional programmes.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role of NGOs in the delivery of aid. [62759]

  Clare Short
  NGOs have a very important role to play, along with other elements of civil society, in helping deliver programmes and in raising awareness of the needs and rights of poor people in both developing countries and Britain.

  EC Development Assistance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to improve the quality of EC development assistance. [62762]

  Clare Short
  We have recently published our strategy for improving the quality of EC development assistance. It has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It was prepared in consultation with a wide range of interested bodies. The paper sets out 18 detailed objectives for the Department for International Development (DFID) for its partnership with the EC. The main focus is on: improving the poverty focus of the EC's programmes, in particular through forthcoming decisions on resource allocation; rationalising the Commission's organisation structure for managing external assistance, and strengthening staffing; improving aid management systems and harmonising and streamlining procedures to increase the developmental impact of the EC's programmes; and strengthening coordination and collaboration between the Commission, member states and other donors, within a framework managed by beneficiary countries.

  DFID will work with other member states, the Commission. the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors in pursuit of these objectives. We are committed to maximising the effectiveness of the EC's work to promote international development. Our approach will, as

  591
  in the past, be informed by discussions with beneficiary countries, NGOs, the private sector and the academic community.

  Nepal
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assist programmes of good governance in Nepal; and if she will make a statement. [62763]

  Clare Short
  We are assisting programmes of good governance in Nepal and hope to do more in the future. Nepal's new democracy has led to increasing recognition of the need for fundamental reforms to bring about more effective government. The Government's plans for decentralisation may lead to improvements. We shall be looking at ways in which we can support this. We believe that Government and donors need to do more to empower the people to pursue their basic rights. The success of the national community forestry programme demonstrates that the right combination of legislative reform, administrative change and empowerment has great potential for changing the lives of the disadvantaged. This is part of DFID's strategy which we recently published in the Nepal Country Strategy Paper, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Hurricane Mitch
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the findings of the experts from her Department on the reconstruction needs of those central American countries affected by Hurricane Mitch which they visited. [62764]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 3 December 1998,Official Report, column 238.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts she has made to involve the churches in raising awareness of the links between debt relief and the eradication of poverty. [62765]

  Clare Short
  I am in regular touch with churches and representatives of other faiths on this important issue. I addressed the General Synod of the Church of England on 18 November, and called for us to join forces to construct a world-wide alliance of world faiths for the elimination of poverty during the next century. In this speech I made plain the Government's support for faster and deeper debt relief in the right circumstances. But I also make it clear that debt relief was no "magic bullet" to end all poverty, as some campaigners appear to believe. Nor should debt relief be unconditional or unilateral. Not all poor countries need debt relief, and where it is needed it should go only to those countries which are committed to the eradication of poverty. This approach has been fully endorsed by church groups and NGOs.

  Crises Assistance (International Co-ordination)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in the last 12 months on international co-ordination of assistance in response to crisis situations. [62766]
  592
  Clare Short
  The United Nations' Secretary General's Track II reform process has led to improvements in inter-agency joint working and co-ordination within the international community: the UK has strongly supported this process.

  The UK continues to play an important role in supporting the United Nation's disaster assessment and co-ordination (UNDAC) mechanism, including hosting, organising and contributing to disaster assessment, co-ordination and response training events, and regularly providing and meeting the costs of UK experts on UNDAC missions.

  We are also working with the International Red Cross movement to strengthen their capacity to respond to emergency situations within the context of an internationally co-ordinated response system. We are also backing the efforts of non-governmental organisations to develop a code of conduct and minimum standards for humanitarian response.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards providing a corridor of tranquillity in Sudan. [62769]

  Clare Short
  The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Technical Committee on Humanitarian Affairs met on 16 to 18 November 1998. An agreement on the operational standards for rail corridors and cross-line road corridors was signed by the Government of Sudan, the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement and the UN. Further work is being undertaken to put this agreement into effect.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to promote the outlawing of child labour. [62770]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting the International LabourOrganisation's work aimed at producing a new International Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour which we hope will be agreed by all members of the ILO at the International Labour Conference in June 1999. This will cover forms of labour which enslave, corrupt, maim and kill children and young people under the age of 18.

  We are also working with developing country governments and international organisations to help tackle the problem in practical ways because in many countries despite laws against child labour, children from very poor families—often female headed—work as a result of extreme poverty. Programmes are needed to enable their parents to work for a better income and to provide schooling for children. Examples include a project in Sialkot to provide social support for children leaving the football stitching industry. We are also discussing with ILO's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour a possible programme on child labour in small-scale mining in Tanzania. Earlier this year we provided a grant of $1 million to IPEC to help take forward their programmes.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's humanitarian work in Kosovo. [62771]

  Clare Short
  We have worked closely with international organisations, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to ensure that the humanitarian needs of those affected by the conflict in Kosovo are met. We have so far provided £3 million for this purpose.

  A Department for International Development mission visited the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and Albania between 16–26 November to assess conditions on the ground and the state of aid co-ordination. A humanitarian disaster has been averted, but the situation remains serious and must be monitored carefully. The internally displaced persons who were living out of doors are now back under shelter. The international response is generally adequate to meet current emergency needs of displaced people and refugees for food, blankets, stoves, mattresses and fuels. It is vital that this current level of humanitarian operations be maintained.

  AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to promote support through market mechanisms for research on pharmaceutical products to combat AIDS in Africa. [62754]

  Clare Short
  Finding safe and effective vaccines, microbicides that prevent sexual infection and low cost means to reduce mother to child transmission are vital elements of efforts to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. The UK is supporting national and international initiatives to establish incentives for product discovery and product development in poor countries. Left to themselves, market forces will not develop products for the poorest countries. The UK is collaborating with the World Bank in exploring and devising market support mechanisms necessary for industry to engage in developing vaccines and other products of benefit to the poorer countries. This work is still in its early stages.

  Country

  Duration

  Cost (£)

  Purpose

  Thailand

  14 September 1997

  5,808

  To visit DFID projects

  South Africa

  5 October 1997

  4,303

  To visit DFID projects

  France

  22 October 1997

  169

  Meetings with UNESCO

  Sweden

  27 October 1997

  542

  To attend meetings on International Solidarity

  Belgium

  20 October 1997

  386

  To attend the Development Council

  Belgium

  10 November 1997

  201

  To attend General Affairs Council

  France

  19 November 1997

  523

  To visit the European Parliament

  Belgium

  27 November 1997

  390

  To attend the Development Council

  Canada

  2 December 1997

  2,694

  To attend the signing of the Land mines Treaty

  Germany

  9 December

  732

  Pre-presidency meeting

  Italy

  11 December

  1,106

  Pre-presidency meeting

  Portugal

  15 December

  1,229

  Pre-presidency meeting

  Malawi

  1–8 January 1998

  7,699

  To inspect DFID projects

  Bosnia

  2–3 February 1998

  8,975

  To inspect DFID projects

  Belgium

  17 March 1998

  1,001

  EU Seminar on 21st Century

  France

  21 March

  1,448

  Ministerial meeting on Water & Sustainable Development

  Switzerland

  17–26 March

  1,012

  UN meetings

  Belgium/France/Germany

  30 March-2 April

  893

  EU Parliament General Affairs/Lecture

  France

  7–8 April

  1,220

  OECD Development Affairs

  USA

  14–18 April

  6,469

  IMF & IBRD meetings

  Barbados/Guyana

  7–11 May

  4,740

  ACP/EU Ministerial meetings

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on the situation of street children in Colombia. [64178]

  Clare Short
  I have not received any representations on the specific situation of street children in Colombia. However, I recognise the severe problems faced by street children. In Colombia we provide support for two street children projects through the DFID Small Grants Scheme and through our Joint Funding Scheme supports a Save the Children Fund project aimed at improving regional policy towards child rights.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects that her Department is supporting in Colombia. [64181]

  Clare Short
  The projects that DFID currently support in Colombia are as follows:

  Groundwater Pollution Control Project;

  Integrated Coffee Pest Management;

  SENA Post Fruit Handling;

  Efficiency Unit Project;

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine—link on a programme to assess intensive care provision.

  We also provide funding for technical co-operation training, Chevening awards, and through DFID' s Joint Funding Scheme and the DFID Small Grants Scheme which is administered by the British Embassy in Bogota.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the countries she has visited since 1 May 1997, (b) the duration of her stay in those countries and (c) the cost of travel to those countries. [63542]

  Clare Short
  Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied under the previous Administration. The details requested are as follows:
  595

  Country

  Duration

  Cost (£)

  Purpose

  Belgium

  18–19 May

  404

  European Council Development Council meetings

  Switzerland

  2 June

  961

  ILO meetings

  Luxembourg

  8 June

  872

  GAC meeting

  Vietnam/China

  11–18 June

  10,832

  To visit DFID projects

  Luxembourg

  28–29 June

  1,024

  GAC meeting

  South Africa/Mozambique

  19–27 July

  11,140

  To visit DFID projects

  Tanzania

  24–28 August

  4,649

  To inspect DFID projects

  Ghana

  6–9 September

  7,924

  To inspect DFID projects

  USA

  5–6 October

  8,827

  World Bank Development Committee meetings

  Japan

  17–20 October

  13,140

  TICAD 11 meetings

  Nepal

  12–16 November

  10,089

  To inspect DFID projects

  Germany

  23 November

  802

  Meeting with German Development Minister

  Belgium

  30 November

  519

  European Parliament Development Council meetings

  USA

  10–11 December

  8,645

  To attend UN meetings

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the countries which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development has visited since 1 May 1997, (b) the duration of his stay in those countries and (c) the cost of travel to those countries. [63541]

  Country

  Duration

  Cost (£)

  Purpose

  1997

  Canada

  20–22 May

  2,798

  Caribbean Development Bank Annual Meeting

  Luxembourg

  5 June

  464

  EU Development Council

  Botswana/South Africa

  28–31 July

  4,670

  Commonwealth Education Conference and DFID Programme visit

  Monsterrat

  1–3 September

  2,493

  DFID Programme visit

  Italy

  7 October

  755

  Desertification Conference

  Switzerland

  13 October

  448

  UNHCR Annual Executive Committee Meeting

  Ukraine

  24–26 November

  1,344

  DFID Programme Visit

  1998

  France

  13 January

  289

  OECD Meeting

  Bahamas

  10–13 February

  2,922

  FCO Caribbean Forum

  Belgium

  26 February

  299

  European Parliament Meetings

  Colombia

  15–19 March

  4,077

  Inter-American Development Bank Annual Meeting and DFID programme visit

  Mauritius

  20–22 April

  5,210

  ACP-EU Forum

  Ukraine

  11 May

  1,382

  EBRD Annual Meeting

  Grenada

  13–14 May

  2,319

  Caribbean Development Bank Annual Meeting

  Belgium

  18 May

  547

  EU Development Council

  Bulgaria

  1–2 June

  1,099

  DFID Programme visit

  Switzerland

  6 June

  477

  ICRC Conference

  France

  9 June

  273

  National Assembly Debate

  Russia

  2–7 July

  1,078

  DFID Programme visit

  Brazil

  21–24 September

  6,077

  DFID Programme visit

  Belgium

  30 September

  458

  ACP/EU Negotiations

  France

  6–7 October

  369

  World Conference on Higher Education

  Fiji

  12–14 November

  16,304

  DFID Programme visit

  New Zealand

  15–21 November

  1—

  CPA Conference

  Belgium

  28 October

  309

  European Parliament Meetings

  Jordan

  3 November

  —

  DFID Programme visit

  West Bank and Gaza

  4–5 November

  1,877

  DFID Programme visit

  South Africa

  2–4 December

  4,670

  ACOPS Conference and DFID Programme visit

  1 Same invoice

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to include Irish as a category in her Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63881]

  Clare Short
  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin and not nationality. The ethnic origin categories monitored by my Department are those used in the 1991
  596
  Clare Short
  Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied under the previous Administration. The details requested are as follows:

  census which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Maternal Health Projects
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) by project and (b) by country, the maternal health projects her Department supports. [64173]
  597
  Clare Short
  We directly support maternal health projects and programmes in around 20 countries, mainly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. A list will be placed in the Libraries of the House. It includes support for national safe motherhood programmes in Malawi and Nepal. It does not, however, include the maternal health work of multilateral organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Population Fund, the European Community and the World Bank, or international civil society groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, all of which receive substantial support from the UK's Department for International Development.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget is allocated to improving maternal health in developing countries. [64177]

  Clare Short
  In calendar year 1997, 3.6 per cent. of the UK overseas development assistance (£73 million) was invested in reproductive health, excluding expenditure through the EC and the World Bank, which we are unable to dis-aggregate. We estimate that around 15 per cent. of this spend was invested directly in reducing the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. But clearly our spending on improving basic healthcare systems also benefit material health. We are reforming the Department's management information system to track all spending in relation to the International Development Goals. This will include a dedicated marker for contributions to reduced maternal mortality.

  Hemp Industry
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to support the development of the hemp industry into the production of industrial fibre. [64175]

  Clare Short
  While my Department has been active in the development and use of many vegetable fibre crops—e.g. jute, flax, sisal; it currently has no plans to support the hemp (Cannabis sativa) fibre industry in any developing country.

  Palestinians (Aid)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the current level of financial assistance the Government are providing to the Palestinians. [63860]

  Clare Short
  During the last financial year (1997–98), the Department for International Development (DFID) invested £30 million in development cooperation with the Palestinians. This comprised £16 million through DFID' s direct programme in the West Bank and Gaza and contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees and £14 million in contributions to the EC's programmes for assistance for the Palestinians. DFID expects to spend a similar amount this financial year. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry provided some small scale assistance totalling just over £50,000.

  Ethical Trading
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the companies which have agreed to join the Ethical Trading Initiative. [64176]

  Clare Short
  The following companies have joined the Ethical Trading Initiative or have agreed to join and are in the process of doing so:

  B&Q Plc.

  CWS ("The Co-op")

  J. Sainsbury Ltd.

  Littlewoods

  Pentland Group Plc.

  Premier Brands

  Reebok International Ltd.

  Somerfield Stores Ltd.

  Tesco

  The Body Shop International.

  In addition, a substantial number of other companies have expressed an interest in the Ethical Trading Initiative, especially since its annual conference which took place earlier this month, but I understand they are still deciding whether to become members. A number of NGOs and unions are also members and my Department has provided financial support to the ETI. I strongly commend all companies with supply chains in developing countries to consider joining.

  Copies of ETI' s base code and membership information have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Education Budgets
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget is spent on education projects. [64172]

  Clare Short
  The percentage of identifiable expenditure under my Department's bilateral programme spent on education (including scholarships) for developing countries in 1997 was 11 per cent. and is expected to be the same in 1998. It is not possible to identify the percentage of expenditure spent on education under our contributions to multilateral programmes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Communities Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the vade-mecum for the European Communities budget line B2-5122. [64188]

  Ms Quin
  The vade-mecum for budget line B2-5122 can be found in Official Journal No. 44 (Volume 41) published on 16 February 1998, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason European Communities budget lines (i) B3-300 and (ii) B3-301 are not broken down by member state; what elements of
  599
  these budget lines are known by his Department to have been distributed in the United Kingdom; and for what purpose. [64094]

  Ms Quin
  The Commission is not obliged by either Regulation or Treaty to maintain its accounts broken down by Member State for budget lines B3-300 and B3-301. the Commission is also not obliged, as a matter of course, to inform Member States which individuals or organisations have received information services or devolved funding. Official Journal No. L44 (Volume 41) published on 16 February 1998, a copy of which is available in the House Library, gives an explanation of the purpose of each Community budget line.

  B3-300 covers a range of information measures including opinion polling, impact assessment, sponsored visits, publications, TV productions and internet sites. B3-301 funds, in the UK, European Document Centres in university libraries (45) and European Information Centres providing business intelligence on operating in the EU (21). The information held in these various centres generally includes UK Government publications, as well as EU documents and academic and commercial literature and databases.

  European Information Association
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those publications from the European Information Association to which his Department subscribes; and if he will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library. [64093]

  Ms Quin
  This Department subscribes to the following European Information Association publications: European Information; EIA update. These are available in the House Library.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the matters currently being discussed by European Community working groups which await treaty base pending the ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam; and what level of representation his Department provides to these groups. [64193]

  Ms Quin
  On 30 November 1998, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers published an interim progress report on the work in hand for the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This list covers work in the areas of Justice and Home Affairs, external EU relations/CFSP and Institutional questions. Work in these areas involve officials in the working groups and Ambassadors and Ministers as appropriate. I have placed a copy of the Presidency paper in the Libraries of the House.

  Turkish Parliamentarians (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on the imprisonment of(a) Mrs. Leyla Zana and (b) other members of the Turkish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [64121]

  Ms Quin
  We have raised the imprisonment of Ms Zana and the other former Democracy (DEP) Party MPs with the Turkish authorities on a number of 600
  occasions. We have repeatedly stressed to the Turkish government that the prosecution of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views is wrong, and damages Turkey's international standing.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given in another place by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 3 December 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 596–98.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63872]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The overriding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin, and not nationality. The nine ethnic origin categories monitored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Dalit Community
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Indian Government on human rights issues in relation to the Dalit community. [63867]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During my visit to India in November I raised human rights issues with the Indian authorities, including attacks on minority communities. I also mentioned our concerns about religious freedom and tolerance. We will continue to make clear to the Government of India our commitment to human rights.

  Abdullah Ocalan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has held with EU ministers over the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan in Italy. [63861]

  Ms Quin
  Prime Minister D'Alema of Italy raised the issue of the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan during his talks in London with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 November.

  European Union Foreign Ministers also discussed the issue briefly at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 7 December.

  Turkey
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Turkey. [63896]

  Ms Quin
  We attach great importance to our relations with Turkey and value our dialogue on a wide range of issues.
  601
  We have been working with the Austrian Presidency of the European Union and our EU Partners to develop the European Strategy for Turkey to enhance relations between Turkey and the Union.

  Prime Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions British prime ministers have visited(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovenia and (e) Estonia in the last 10 years. [63562]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In the last 10 years, British Prime Ministers made the following visits:

  a) Poland

  May 1988

  May 1992

  August 1994

  b) Hungary

  September 1990

  May 1992

  December 1994

  c) Czech Republic

  September 1990

  May 1992

  April 1996.

  Note:

  Prior to January 1993, the Czech Republic was part of Czechoslovakia.

  No visits were made, in the last 10 years, to Slovenia or Estonia.

  Heads of Government Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from United Kingdom embassies about the numbers and occasions of visits of heads of Government of other EU countries to(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Slovenia and (e) Estonia since each of these countries submitted their formal applications for membership of the EU. [63561]

  Ms Quin
  British Embassies in Central Europe keep the FCO regularly informed of significant events in their host countries, including major inward visits. I am listing indicative details of visits made by heads of government of other European Union member states to the five Central European countries currently engaged in accession negotiations. The list for each applicant country covers the period since it formally applied for EU membership. Although careful efforts were made in compiling the lists to include all visits for which the FCO has records, it is possible some visits were made that are not reflected in the materials available to the FCO.

  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary place importance on developing strong bilateral relations between Britain and the countries of Central Europe. Visits at all levels play an important part in fostering these relationships. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited seven of the ten Central European countries that have applied for membership. He has met all his opposite numbers and has hosted all but the most recently appointed Central European Foreign Ministers.
  602
  Czech Republic
  Visits by other EU Member state heads of government—since 17 January 1996
  French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, November 1998
  Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, August 1997
  Netherlands Prime Minister, Wim Kok, March 1997
  German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, January 1997

  Estonia
  Visits by other EU Member state heads of government—since 24 November 1995
  Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, April 1998
  Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, February 1998
  Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, December 1997
  Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, November 1997
  Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, April 1996
  Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, January 1996

  Hungary
  Visits by other EU Member state heads of government—since 31 March 1994
  Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, May 1998
  Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Guterres, March 1998
  Austrian Chancellor, Viktor Klima, March 1997
  Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, October 1996
  Greek Prime Minister, Costas Simitis, October 1996
  Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, June 1996
  Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, April 1994
  German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, April 1994

  Poland
  Visits by other EU Member state heads of government—since 5 April 1994
  German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, November 1998
  Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, October 1998
  German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, October 1998
  Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, March 1998
  German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, February 1998
  Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, January 1998
  Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, March 1997
  Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, March 1997
  Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, September 1996
  Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Guterres, September 1996
  Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, July 1996
  Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, October 1995
  Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, October 1995
  German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, July 1995
  Belgium Prime Minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, January 1995
  French Prime Minister, Eduard Balladur, July 1994

  Slovenia
  Visits by other EU Member state heads of government visits—since 10 June 1996
  Italian Prime Minister, Massimo D'Alema, December 1998
  Belgian Prime Minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, June 1998
  Austrian Chancellor, Viktor Klima, October 1997
  Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, March 1997

  European Parliament (Elections)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 161, on European elections, if he will list the terms of the mandate

  603
  given to the General Affairs Group by the Committee of Permanent Representatives; by whom that mandate was approved; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Parliament's proposed common principles. [64095]

  Ms Quin
  The Committee of Permanent Representatives made the procedural decision to ask the General Affairs Group to examine the European Parliament's proposal for common principles for European elections with a view to making recommendations to the General Affairs Council. The principle of proportional representation is in line wit the Government's plan for changes to the system for European parliamentary elections in Great Britain. The Government therefore supports the broad aim of the proposal, thought the detailed issues remain to be resolved.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 3 and 4 December; and if he will make a statement. [63165]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. As the details of the main matters dealt with are lengthy, they have been placed in the Library.

  Child Curfews
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of local child curfews which will be introduced in the next year; and if he will make a statement. [63686]

  Mr. Boateng
  Local child curfews are a permissive rather than a mandatory power. The decision to apply for a local child curfew scheme is one for an individual local authority. A curfew notice would be applied only where a local authority identifies a problem involving disruptive children and decides to intervene. The number of curfew notices imposed annually will therefore reflect the nature of youth crime problems as identified locally.

  Local child curfews should be seen within the context of a general community safety strategy. The aim of such curfews is two fold. They will address the need to protect young children from being drawn into anti-social or criminal behaviour, and they will protect communities from the misery and distress which can be caused by groups of unsupervised children.

  Law and Order
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses were received and from whom, to the consultation documents, "Joining Forces to Protect the Public", and "The Future Organisation of Family Courts". [63927]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of responses we have received by 14 December to the two consultation documents, "Joining Forces to Protect the Public" and 604
  "The Future Organisation of Court Welfare Services", and the category within which the respondents fall, are as detailed:

  Joining forces to protect the public

  Category

  Number of replies received

  Members of Parliament

  14

  Probation committees and services

  59

  Probation representative groups

  15

  Sentencers, courts and associated representative organisations

  48

  Police forces and representative groups

  18

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1

  Other partnership agencies

  16

  Individual members of probation staff

  9

  Local Authority sources

  31

  Health Authorities

  4

  Others and the public

  51

  Total

  266

  Additionally, the Prison Service has conducted an internal consultation exercise including meetings with about 250 area managers, governors and others.

  The future organisation of Court Welfare Services

  Category

  Number of replies received

  Members of Parliament

  0

  Probation committees and services

  61

  Probation representative groups

  6

  Probation personnel

  20

  Guardian ad litem and reporting officer (GALRO) panels/GALRO panel committees

  68

  Local Authority sources

  40

  Guardian ad litem and reporting officer (GALRO) personnel

  2

  The judiciary—judges/designated judges/family court business committees

  18

  The legal profession (including associations)

  21

  Clerks to the justices/justices clerks' society/magistrates courts

  26

  The court service

  6

  Government departments/non-departmental public bodies

  2

  Voluntary organisations/partnership agencies

  30

  The public

  10

  Others/academics

  8

  Total

  318

  Some responses were submitted by one agency on behalf of interagency groups. The table illustrates the range of responses received.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63920]

  Mr. Straw
  The total expenditure since May 1997 is £3,446,000, broken down as follows:

  (a) public opinion research £179,000

  (b) television, newspaper and radio advertising £3,267,000

  (c) direct mail £ nil.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63874]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is an overriding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures that they should be fair and that selection should be on merit.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin and not nationality. The nine ethnic minority origin categories monitored by my Department are based on those used in the 1991 census which did not include Irish as a category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Shotgun Licences
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances a shotgun licence can be revoked; what guidelines have been issued to the police concerning the revocation of shotgun licences; and if he will make a statement. [63983]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under section 30(c) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended), a shotgun certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides if he is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a shotgun or cannot be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to public safety or to the peace. The Home Office issued general guidance on this subject in the publication 'Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police' in 1989. A person aggrieved by a decision to revoke a certificate may appeal to the Crown Court against the police decision.

  The Government will keep all controls on firearms under close scrutiny.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's expenditure responsibilities will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales once that body has been established. [63658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for a Transfer of Functions Order to be made to transfer Ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. This Order was published in draft for consultation on 12 November. Until the content of the order has been finalised, it is not possible to state with certainty what functions and associated expenditure will transfer.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the cost to Essex County Council of maintaining illegal immigrants who arrived at Harwich Ferry Port in each of the last three years; [64219]

  (2) what has been the cost to Kent County Council of maintaining illegal immigrants who arrived at Dover Ferry Port in each of the last three years; [64218]
  606
  (3) what has been the cost to (a) Dorset County Council and (b) Poole Borough Council of maintaining illegal immigrants who arrived at Poole Ferry Port in each of the last three years. [64220]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available to the Home Office. The hon. Member should approach the local authority.

  Illegal immigrants who do not claim asylum and who have no special needs are not eligible for support from public funds. Asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants (who are given temporary leave to enter) who are not otherwise detained and who are able to support themselves are free to live within the United Kingdom in a place of their own choosing. Asylum seekers who register their application for asylum at their port of entry may be eligible for Income Support and Housing Benefit and can then find their own accommodation. Asylum seekers who do not qualify for benefits but who may be supported under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989 are supported by local authorities under the terms of that legislation. The Home Office currently has no role in providing support and is consequently not aware of the information sought. The Government plan a fundamental reform of the asylum and immigration laws to remove cash benefits and more strictly control where asylum seekers live.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants who arrived at(a) Dover, (b) Harwich, (c) Portsmouth and (d) Newhaven are currently being detained; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last six months. [64238]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relating to the numbers of persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers, as at 14 December 1998, who have been served with a notice of illegal entry is that: 140 of those persons had been issued with illegal entry papers by the South East Ports Surveillance Team based at Dover; 5 by immigration officers at Harwich; 5 at Portsmouth; and none at Newhaven. Information relating to the previous six months could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of(a) Albania, (b) Bulgaria, (c) Hungary, (d) Macedonia and (e) Romania are currently being detained in the United Kingdom as illegal immigrants; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last three years. [64241]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants at(a) Portsmouth, (b) Newhaven, (c) Harwich and (d) Plymouth ferry ports have been refused entry and removed from the United Kingdom within seven days of arrival in each of the last 12 months. [64239]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relating to the numbers of persons removed or departing voluntarily within seven days of being issued with a notice of illegal entry by the requested ports which issued the notices, between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1998, is given in the table.
  607

  Number of illegal entrants recorded as removed or departing voluntarily1 within 7 days of being issued with notice of illegal entry by selected port issuing notice of illegal entry July 1997 to June 1998

  Date

  Portsmouth

  Newhaven

  Harwich

  Plymouth

  Jul 1997

  7

  —

  5

  —

  Aug 1997

  3

  —

  2—

  —

  Sep 1997

  3

  —

  18

  —

  Oct 1997

  11

  —

  2—

  4

  Nov 1997

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Dec 1997

  2—

  —

  —

  —

  Jan 1998

  14

  2—

  2—

  —

  Feb 1998

  2—

  —

  2—

  2—

  Mar 1998

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Apr 1998

  10

  —

  —

  —

  May 1998

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jun 1998

  9

  —

  4

  —

  1 Persons who departed 'voluntarily' following the initiation of illegal entry action against them.

  1 Represents 1 or 2.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of(a) Albania, (b) Hungary, (c) Macedonia, (d) Romania and (e) Slovenia have sought political asylum in the United Kingdom in the last three months; how many applications have been accepted; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last three years. [64240]

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

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions on applications, August to October 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 for nationals of Albania, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania and Slovenia

  Total applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  1995

  Albania

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hungary

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Macedonia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Romania

  200

  235

  —

  —

  235

  Slovenia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  Albania

  35

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Hungary

  *

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Macedonia

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Romania

  115

  195

  —

  *

  195

  Slovenia

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19972

  Albania

  125

  40

  *

  *

  35

  Hungary

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Macedonia

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  175

  220

  *

  *

  220

  Slovenia

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19982

  Albania

  190

  65

  —

  —

  65

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Macedonia

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Romania

  285

  295

  —

  —

  295

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

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

  2 Provisional figures.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has 608
  had with police forces about domestic violence; and what plans he has to ensure better police protection for women threatened by domestic violence. [63906]

  Mr. Boateng
  Home Office officials maintain regular contact with the lead representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers on domestic violence.

  Before too long, I expect to be able to publish two Home Office-sponsored research reports on domestic violence policing. Their recommendations and other guidance will be disseminated next year to police forces throughout England and Wales.

  E-mail Service Providers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the limits on the information which the police can demand from service providers in respect of e-mail without the need to secure approval from him. [63792]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, e-mail in the course of its transmission over the public telecommunications network may be intercepted only under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State or for one of the limited purposes in section 1(2) or 1(3) of the Act. E-mail held by an Internet Service Provider is subject to data protection legislation and any conditions in the service provider's licence. It is open to the police to apply for a court order in order to obtain any e-mail retained by an Internet Service Provider.

  Signals Interception
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the legislative framework relating to the interception of signals connecting(a) mobile phones, (b) pagers and (c) interactive cable TV services. [63559]

  Mr. Straw
  The Interception of Communications Act 1985 provides that communications may lawfully be intercepted in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system only in obedience to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State or in certain other circumstances specified in section 1(2) and (3) of the Act. This applies equally to mobile and fixed public telecommunications systems and to interactive cable TV services.

  The question whether a communication is, at the point of interception, on the public or the private side of a telecommunications system is a point of fact which has received some measure of clarification by the Courts. I have announced the intention to legislate to bring so-called "private side interception" within the law on interception.

  Pagers operate by wireless telegraphy and, as such, are covered by section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. This provides that it is an offence to use Wireless Telegraphy intending to obtain information about the contents of a message, its sender or the recipient, except under the authority of the Secretary of State or in the course of a person's duty as a servant of the Crown. As police officers are not, in law, servants of the Crown in England and Wales, police applications to intercept pagers in the course of criminal investigations are warranted by the my Department under my authority.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63794]

  Mr. Straw
  Schedule 5 refers to reserved matters. Work is in train to agree secondary legislation on the specification of cross-border public authorities. Until that work is completed, it is not possible to say how many people are employed in these offices or what specific equal opportunities practices are adopted. My Department is committed to a policy of equal opportunities for all staff, regardless of ethnic origin, religious belief, sex, sexual orientation, disability or any other irrelevant factor.

WALES

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is currently planned to be spent on the regeneration of coalfield communities in Wales. [62619]

  Mr. Hain
  The needs of deprived areas, which include communities within former coalfields, of the South Wales Valleys and North East Wales, are taken into account in the various spending programmes of the Welsh Office. Specific programmes, directed to these areas to tackle social, economic and environmental regeneration, include nearly £30 million in 1998–99 under Welsh Challenge and the Strategic Development Scheme; £337,000 in 1998–2000 on the 4 of the 8 approved "People in Communities" pilots in these areas aimed at tackling; and nearly £20 million by the WDA on reclaiming 370 hectares of land, the majority of which is in former coal mining areas. An estimated £10 million of New Deal funding for Wales is expected to be spent in the Employment Service Districts covering Welsh coalfields areas in 1998–99.

  The share for Wales of the recently announced endowment in lieu of the £10 million surplus from the miners' pension fund will be used to fund further projects in former coalmining areas. The South Wales Valleys are part of the area of Wales which is set to gain Objective 1 status, bringing access to a substantial package of European aid.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that imported(a) pork and (b) chicken has not been reared and fed on bonemeal or other animal by-products. [63835]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: No. The ban on meat and bonemeal in pig and chicken feed in the United Kingdom is to prevent cross contamination
  610
  of ruminant feed with meat and bonemeal incorporated into feed for other farm animals. There is, therefore, no basis on which it would be reasonable to restrict imports of pig meat or chicken. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the Government have received undertakings from the major retailers that all own label fresh pork, bacon, ham and sausages sold in their supermarkets will come from meat and bonemeal (and stall and tether) free production systems.

  Eggs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits by MAFF personnel have been undertaken to intensive egg production units since 1 May 1997; and what percentage of these have been unannounced. [63643]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Visits by Ministry personnel to intensive egg production units, as distinct from packing stations, are basically those undertaken by members of the State Veterinary Service in relation to animal welfare. 272 welfare visits have been undertaken since 1 May 1997. Of these, 44 per cent. were undertaken in response to complaints or other indications that welfare may be poor, and in many cases were unannounced.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have taken place under the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 since 1 May 1997. [63380]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The provisions originally set out in these regulations are now included in Schedule 1 of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 2126). This Department has concluded two prosecutions under that Schedule since 1 May 1997. Records of prosecutions taken by other bodies such as local authorities and the RSPCA are not kept centrally.

  New Forest Fox Hounds
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Forestry Commission has found that the New Forest Fox Hounds were in breach of their licence as a result of events on 3 November. [62247]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise and I have asked its Chief Executive to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated 16 December 1998:
  I am writing in reply to your Parliamentary Question (No 62247) addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. regarding the hunting incident in the New Forest on 3 November 1998.
  The Forestry Commission considers that the New Forest Fox Hounds were in breach of their licence conditions on 3 November. We have agreed with the Masters of Foxhounds Association a clarification of the particular condition that the Hunt breached to ensure that there can be no ambiguity in the event of any future occurrence.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect of the introduction of an age addition of £3 in the basic state pension for those aged between 75 and 79 years and £5 in the basic state pension for those aged over 80, and corresponding increases in the rates of premiums for means-tested benefits on(a) gross benefits expenditure, (b) net benefits expenditure and
  (c) income tax revenues. [62870]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The information is in the table.

  Full year expenditure and revenue effects of age additions in 1999–2000

  £ million

  £5 age addition for 80 and over and £3 age addition for 75–79

  Expenditure on Retirement Pension

  910

  Expenditure on means tested benefit

  210

  Net benefit cost

  700

  Income tax offsets

  -60

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Retirement Pension have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Estimates for income tax revenues have been provided by Inland Revenue.

  3. Means-tested benefit expenditure has been estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices and benefits levels.

  4. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and benefit rates, and are rounded to the nearest 10 million.

  5. + cost, — savings.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect of the introduction of an age addition to the basic state pension of £5 per week for those aged between 75 and 79 years and £10 per week for those aged over 80, on(a) gross benefits expenditure, (b) net benefits expenditure and (c) income tax revenues. [62871]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The information requested is in the table.

  Full year expenditure and revenue effects of age additions in 1999/2000

  £ million

  £10 age addition for 80 and over and £5 age addition for 75–79

  Expenditure on Retirement Pension

  1,760

  Means-tested benefit offsets

  "580

  Net benefit cost

  1,180

  Income tax offsets

  "120

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Retirement Pension have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Estimates for income tax revenues have been provided by Inland Revenue

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices and benefits levels.

  4. Estimates are in 1999–2000 prices and benefit rates, and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  5. + costs, " savings.
  612
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimates based on Family Resources Survey 1996–97 of(a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by age, sex and marital status, consistent with his answer of 12 November 1998, Official Report, columns 295–98, and corresponding estimates of the size of each group, (b) non take-up of income support by pensioners in each age, sex and marital status group, consistent with his answer of 19 October 1998, Official Report, columns 597–98 (c) receipt of means-tested benefits and liability for income tax among pensioners, consistent with his answer of 5 November 1997, Official Report, columns 249–50 and (d) patterns of pensioner savings, consistent with his answer of 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 850–52. [63943]

  Mr. Denham
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department, have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64129]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 10 November 1998,Official Report, column 167, if people affected by motor neurone disease will be selected for reassessment under the Benefit Integrity Project, or its replacement, regardless of the rate of disability living allowance received. [64191]

  Mr. Timms
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) has been subject to continuous review and we have made changes based on an analysis of cases showing the rate of change in entitlement. On 23 September I announced further exemptions to the BIP, including people with Motor Neurone Disease (MND) who are receiving the higher rate of the mobility component together with the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

  We plan to replace the BIP with a new system which is part of the routine administration of the benefit and which is both sensitive and fair. We are discussing our proposals with the Disability Benefits Forum. Contact with those with MND receiving a lower rate of DLA would allow the rate to be increased if appropriate.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Benefits Integrity Project has cost to administer for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998 to date. [64009]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 15 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how much the Benefit Integrity Project has cost to administer for (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998 to date.

  613
  In 1997–98 the Benefit Integrity Project cost £8.27m to administer. In 1998–99, up to 31 October 1998, the project has cost £7m.
  Statistical informationabout the Benefit Integrity Project is published on a monthly basis and is placed in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Family Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the numbers of families in receipt of family credit, (b) their average net pay and (c) the earnings of their partners comprising (i) a male as the main earner and (ii) a female as the main earner with (1) one child, (2) two children, (3) three children and (4) four or more children under eight years of age. [64228]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of families receiving Family Credit, May 1998

  Thousands

  All families

  Male main earner

  Female main earner

  All families

  767

  315

  452

  With 1 child under 8

  279

  109

  170

  With 2 children under 8

  141

  88

  53

  With 3 children under 8

  37

  29

  8

  With 4 or more children under 8

  7

  6

  1

  Net earnings of family credit main earner, May 1998

  £ per week

  All families

  Male main earner

  Female main earner

  All families

  100.67

  113.96

  91.40

  With 1 child under 8

  98.73

  113.70

  89.11

  With 2 children under 8

  103.34

  114.73

  84.63

  With 3 children under 8

  108.00

  115.76

  78.25

  With 4 or more children under 8

  111.91

  116.60

  79.24

  Earnings of partners of Family Credit claimants, May 1998

  £ per week

  All families

  Male main earner

  Female main earner

  All families

  41.07

  38.94

  45.14

  With 1 child under 8

  40.67

  38.43

  45.65

  With 2 children under 8

  41.10

  38.07

  47.92

  With 3 children under 8

  41.17

  37.18

  58.94

  With 4 or more children under 8

  53.87

  51.83

  57.94

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to totals

  2. Families may have other children who are not counted in this breakdown (aged 8 and over)

  3. Families with 1 to 4 or more children under 8 do not sum to the total number of families shown as families where all of the children in the family are over 8 are not included in the table

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1998

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of current claimants of severe disablement allowance are women. [64223]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) claimants in Great Britain as at 31 May 1998 is 370,720. Of these 218,740, or 59 per cent. are female.

  Source:

  These figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of SDA claimants, taken from the PSCS(INCP) system and excludes a small number of clerical cases.

  Child Support
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the arrears of child support payments owed by self-employed non-resident parents to children living in Wolverhampton on 30 September. [63435]

  Angela Eagle
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. We have set out proposals for radical reform in our Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm3992).

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Jenny Jones, dated 15 December 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about child support payments owed by self employed non-resident parents to children in Wolverhampton.
  I cannot provide precisely all the information that you have requested, but have provided as much as possible from information available.
  The Agency has six front-line Business Units; each of these consists of a Child Support Agency Centre and associated field offices. Cases where the parent with care lives in Wolverhampton are dealt with by the Midlands Business Unit for which information has been provided.
  At 30 September 1998 the amount of child support full maintenance assessment debt for the Midlands Business Unit was £91,546,756. This can be broken down further to £53,371,759(58.3%) collectable debt, £35,611,688(38.9%) possibly uncollectable debt and £2,563,309(2.8%) deferred debt. Deferred debt is where the Agency has deferred the debt indefinitely, provided non-resident parents meet certain conditions on payment of regular maintenance and any remaining debt. Where appropriate the parent with care will be compensated for the loss of this money.
  To further increase the flow of maintenance and to help non-resident parents pay the arrears that they owe, wherever possible the Agency makes every effort to re-schedule debts; re-scheduled debts are those where the Agency has negotiated a closely monitored agreement with the non-resident parent to pay arrears by instalments. The amount of debt re-scheduled included in the £91,546,756 at 30 September 1998 was £69,513,784.
  It is not possible to say how much of this debt is owed by self employed non-resident parents, however I can tell you that 3.5% of the Midlands Business Unit's live and assessed caseload relate to cases where the non-resident parent is self employed.
  The Agency acknowledges that cases where the non-resident parent is self employed can be more difficult to progress, especially where the non-resident parent does not wish to comply. The key to securing early compliance is by personal contact with our clients. By approaching clients at the initial stages of their assessment we aim to build a better relationship with them, address their concerns promptly and provide an improved level of service.

  615
  We have increased resources for our Client Helplines and the National Enquiry Line, extended our hours of opening to cover 8.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and carried out trials to greatly improve and increase clients' opportunities to secure a face to face service.
  Additionally we have recently completed a pilot study in the South Western Business Unit, looking at how best to process self employed cases. Trials using dedicated staff dealing exclusively with the self employed have shown a marked reduction in processing time and an increase in the collection of maintenance. We intend to have specific sections, supported by accountants where necessary, in each Business Unit by March 1999 to deal exclusively with self employed customers.
  Also, to assist us to trace the whereabouts of self employed non-resident parents, we are exploring the possibility of sharing information with other Agencies and Government Departments. We
  616
  have also revised staff training and raised staff awareness of the Agency's self employed powers, working practices and related issues.
  If all voluntary methods to secure maintenance from a self employed non-resident parent fail, a liability order is applied for. It is hoped that the threat of such action will be enough to ensure compliance. The majority do agree to make an arrangement and only in a very small minority of cases is legal action actually taken.
  We will use any and all enforcement methods legally available but we experience the same difficulties as other litigants in enforcing a civil debt. During 1997/98 we have been successful in registering debt by County Court Judgement in 522 cases. Where all other action has failed, the Agency has pursued cases for prosecution; between October 1997 and March 1998 a total of 15 suspended custodial sentences were imposed. A self employed non-resident parent was committed to prison as a result of non payment of maintenance.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Gulf War Veterans: Illnesses
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many servicemen and women who served in the Gulf War have illnesses still awaiting diagnosis; and what progress is being made in their investigations in relation to these illnesses.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, physicians participating in the MoD's medical assessment programme seek to make a diagnosis for all patients who present themselves with illnesses. A proportion of the patients can, however, be given only a symptomatic diagnosis. I expect detailed information about the diagnoses given to the first 1,000 patients in this programme, and also the initial results from an important study by Professor Wessely into the health of UK Gulf veterans, to be available early next year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Can we be assured that, in cases of doubt involving undiagnosed illnesses, claims can be decided in favour of Gulf War claimants irrespective of the War Pensions Agency's seven-year rule. Of the 400 veterans of whose deaths I was informed by my noble friend in a previous reply, do we know the causes of death and, more particularly, how many were suicides?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is that, as I understand it, the War Pensions Agency already applies to applications the benefit of doubt rule which was first introduced by my noble friend when he was Minister for War Pensions. As to the identification of the causes of death of the 400 Gulf War veterans, up to this time we do not have the information that my noble friend requests. I asked for the information today but it is not yet available.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the National Health Service is being saddled more and more with having to pick up the bill for the health care of Gulf War veterans, we find that the medical assessment programme can advise but not treat and that GPs can apparently treat but not refer locally because they are advised to refer back to the MoD. Does the noble Lord agree that this leaves a gap in NHS specialist treatment that should be plugged by designating informed specialists in the regions to whom GPs can refer sufferers—after all, there are only about 1,000—following the example of what
1342
the NHS has already done for the management of those who suffer injuries caused by radiotherapy for breast cancer?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular difficulties of the type that the noble Lord describes, nor am I aware of any restrictions on how general practitioners within the National Health Service make recommendations. It may be that advice is given to them. If the noble Lord is aware of any particular difficulties, I am very happy to look into them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in light of the failure of the Government to carry out their promises set out in the paper New Beginning, which was published fairly early on in this Administration, and in light of the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act 1998 enacted in the United States of America, which contains the presumption of an association between illness and Gulf War service, will the Government, if by 19th November 1999 the US Government has listed all possible causes of Gulf War illness, carry out their promise to shadow in this country what happens in the United States and make the presumption that these men are ill because of their service in the Gulf?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am very happy to give the noble Countess the assurance that already Her Majesty's Government shadow everything that takes place in the United States. She refers to a recent piece of legislation enacted by the US Congress. I am informed that the US Congress has recently enacted two pieces of legislation in this field, one of which on its face appears to contradict the other in certain respects, and that the matter is being resolved by the US Justice Department.
The noble Countess alleges that Her Majesty's Government have failed to live up to their promises in the document published shortly after they came into office. I shall be delighted to know if she can point to any particular cases in which that has occurred. We are in the process of spending about £6.7 million on research in four different studies. Further, we have drastically reduced the waiting list for people who seek assessment from about 350 when we came into office to the present figure of about 60. We constantly trawl all the literature to make sure that we are completely up to date with developments on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, how many Gulf War veterans or their next of kin receive pensions and other similar payments as a result of that service?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, rather than guess at the figures that the noble Lord seeks, I shall write to him and give him the information. I recently answered a Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, about widows. The number of successful applications for war widow's pension as a result of the Gulf War is in single figures.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris asked the Government specifically

1343
how many servicemen and women who served in the Gulf War had illnesses awaiting diagnosis. Can the noble Lord give the answer to that Question?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I believe that 63 are awaiting attendance at one of the medical centres.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can the Minister tell me what experience our general practitioners have—splendid and excellent though they are—of this disease? When they refer a case to the Ministry of Defence, what advice can the department give? So far we have not found the cause of the problem.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right, although in one sense he prejudges the answer to his own question by referring to "this disease". That is part of the problem. We do not know what has caused the collection of symptoms. That is why we are financing no fewer than four studies: two epidemiological studies, one interactive study to see whether the symptoms were produced by the combination of vaccines that the troops took, and a neuromuscular study.

Meat Hygiene: Enforcement
2.40 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take the same action against meat inspectors and other officials in breach of statutory rules as they have promised to take against private companies.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government take appropriate action against anyone in breach of statutory rules. Where necessary, disciplinary action is taken against meat inspectors and any other officials who are in breach of statutory rules. This may extend to prosecution. Private companies which fail to comply with statutory requirements will, in appropriate cases where other enforcement action has failed, be investigated with a view to prosecution.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he recall that when his party was in opposition, he and his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister vigorously opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service? Is the noble Lord aware that the service is so short of British vets that it is having to employ vets from six different European countries, many of whom are young female vets?
Will the noble Lord agree that an abattoir is not a very congenial place in which to work? In the light of reports a few weeks ago of attacks on Meat Hygiene Service vets, is it not surprising that all of them have not been attacked? What do the Government propose to do to improve the understanding on the part of those
1344
young vets of our culture—there are many cultural differences—improve their communication so that they can communicate the law to the abattoir workers, and instil a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation in abattoirs?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I agree that one does not go to an abattoir for an afternoon tea dance. Due to the shortage of veterinarians in the UK who are willing to carry out meat hygiene work, the MHS is seeking to recruit English-speaking vets from Europe. Foreign veterinarians engaged by the Meat Hygiene Service are required to have a working knowledge of the English language. The MHS recognises that working in slaughterhouses can be a difficult environment for all staff, in particular if they have to take rigorous enforcement action. However, the Official Veterinary Surgeon (OVS) is part of a team and the MHS provides every support to its staff. The MHS operates a hierarchy of enforcement staff. They seek to co-operate with operators. Only if that fails does more rigorous enforcement action come into play, and those are more serious offences such as animal welfare, food safety and specified risk material controls. Out of a total staff of 1,500, 118 are foreign vets, of whom 47 are women. Of the 47, 36 are from Spain.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many abattoirs are operational now compared with five years ago? I should like to know how many are closed but keep their licence. It is necessary that there should be sufficient abattoirs up and running at this time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are 640 licensed abattoirs. In addition there are just over 900 other licensed premises such as cold stores, cutting rooms, and so on. We do not know the number—it is very small—of those which have closed but still retain their licences. As soon as the authorities are aware of closure, they attempt to revoke the licence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he believes that the Meat Hygiene Service is doing its job? Originally we were worried about BSE and E. coli. I understand that the incidence of E. coli is increasing exponentially. I sincerely believe that most abattoir owners seek to co-operate with the Meat Hygiene Service. However, they find that extremely difficult when, the Meat Hygiene Service operators having said, for example, "I found a piece of stainless steel that you have not washed", and having been asked, "Where?", they receive the reply from the inspector, "You can find it". Is that the atmosphere in which these people should be asked to work?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am always wary of anecdotal evidence. However, the protection of consumers is the Government's first priority. We are determined to ensure that meat produced for human consumption is produced to high standards. The MHS has been instructed to take rigorous actions where necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements

1345
of the law to ensure the protection of public health. A balance must be struck between effective enforcement and overregulation. We believe that we have got it right. We are determined to give the protection of public health the highest priority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is it government policy further to reduce the number of slaughterhouses, given that those are often sources of useful employment and local activity in rural areas? Alternatively, as part of its rural policy, does the Ministry include keeping open as many slaughterhouses as possible, and indeed encouraging some to reopen in remote areas which are major meat producers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a fair point about the balance between the rural economy and the fact that there is substantial over-capacity in the red meat slaughtering sector and in particular in respect of abattoirs which slaughter cattle and sheep. There is intense competition between slaughterhouses for throughput and for customers. We know that the profit margins are low.
As a result of that over-capacity, it is inevitable that some will have to close. Abattoir numbers have been declining year on year for more than 20 years in response to commercial pressures and demand in specific areas.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the same strict standards to which he himself has referred in his answers are being applied inside the European Community, in particular in France?
Lord Carter: My Lords, harmonised EC meat hygiene rules—I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to know that they apply equally in all EU member states—lay down detailed and specific requirements for the supervision of licensed abattoirs by official vets; that is, the fully qualified veterinary surgeons. The rules specify the duties and the responsibilities of such official veterinarians in respect of ante mortem and post mortem veterinary inspections.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether the rules were applied equally throughout the European Union. Will the Minister confirm that they are?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as far as we are aware, yes. If they are not, that is the job of the Commission.

CAA: Helicopter Operations
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations the Civil Aviation Authority is required to have and what consideration is given to local residents' views before they authorise helicopter landings in central London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority will consider all aspects of proposed helicopter operations, including helicopter type and capabilities, pilot experience and the level of rescue and fire fighting services available. It is not required to consult with local residents.
However, the CAA is aware of the interest to residents of helicopters wishing to overfly London and therefore attach extra conditions to the permission to fly. These can include restricting the operations and the movement of the helicopters. The local authority also has an interest in respect of planning permission.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that he is aware of the great concern of those people living in the vicinity—I am talking of course about the Harrods' helicopter—where new helicopter landings are proposed on top of tall buildings in London residential areas? Does the noble Lord agree that residents have legitimate cause for worry due to loss of amenity through high levels of intrusive noise, wind turbulence on landing, pollution, and aspects of safety? Do not the divisions of responsibility between the CAA, the local authority and the DETR leave possible gaps in control and as regards consultation with local people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the CAA's prime responsibility in these circumstances is safety. I understand that with regard to the specific site which underlies the noble Baroness's question, a permission was granted last December to operate a maximum of 10 flights per week for a year. That permission was based on safety standards and the frequency stipulated. As far as the CAA is aware, that has not been exerted apart from testing flights and therefore the CAA has not received any representations. Matters of noise and disturbance are primarily matters for the local authority, as in other noise situations.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who live in central London have to suffer helicopters hovering overhead, sometimes for hours on end. While those may be necessary, perhaps for police purposes, will my noble friend confirm that they will not be used, on any account, for tourist flights and other such frivolous purposes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a heliport in London and there are routes to the heliport in Wandsworth. However, the majority of flights in the neighbourhood of this Palace, and, indeed, my noble friend's residence, relate to police and military movements. There are very few building-top sites with permission in central London.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have letters here from Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council which make it clear that Harrods has made an application for a certificate of lawful proposed use which has been refused? Harrods

1347
now has the opportunity either to apply for planning permission or to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the refusal of a certificate for proposed lawful use. In that event, it would be open for members of the public to raise objections.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my understanding is slightly different from that of the noble Earl. I understand that Kensington and Chelsea Council has received an informal approach about planning permission. If planning permission is required and Harrods goes ahead with seeking that, then obviously the views of residents will be taken fully into account in that and in any appeal to the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend that, unlike the situation at airports in London where consultative committees operate with representatives of local authorities and residents who are most affected, heliports are not served by such consultative committees in the capital? If not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a different arrangement in relation to the Wandsworth heliport. We were discussing private helipads on the top of buildings and clearly such arrangements would not be appropriate in those circumstances.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as the chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board. Does the Minister agree that in addition to Battersea—and this matter has been discussed over many years—properly approved, licensed and regulated facilities for landing helicopters in London might reduce the number of ad hoc sites such as the one about which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is concerned which are allowed to operate under existing planning legislation? Do the Government intend to take forward some of the work which was conducted several years ago in the London Heliport Study which looked into that particular issue?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter. That is not planned in immediate terms. But that will clearly be a matter to be considered when we look at integrated transport provision within London to be undertaken both by the Government and, eventually, subject to Parliament's view, the mayor of London.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, I did not wholly understand my noble friend's answer. Is he saying that a consultative committee does operate at the Wandsworth heliport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the structure in relation to that is different from that which exists at large airports. However, there is consultation with users and residents in relation to commercial heliports. I was drawing a distinction between commercial heliports and private use by Harrods and at one or two other sites in central
1348
London which basically consist of helicopters landing on the roofs of buildings which are there for entirely different purposes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that I have a copy of a press release from the Royal Borough in which it is made clear that the application was for a certificate of lawful proposed use, which has been refused? The applicant is now entitled to lodge an appeal against that decision. But as I understand it, if the council had issued that certificate, there would have been no opportunity at all for local residents to make known their views. We were informed that views could not be considered as it was not a planning application but it was for a "certificate of lawful proposed use". The Minister said that the CAA does not have to consult anyone. If the certificate had been issued, there would have been no consultation whatever.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has a point here but, of course, the responsibility of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was to see whether wider planning considerations would apply. I assume, although it is a matter for the authority, that that was one reason for the refusal and why it is now considering whether full planning permission is needed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that Harrods has the opportunity to go to the Secretary of State for the Environment to appeal against the local authority's decision, in which case the public will then have the opportunity to make representations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the planning permission procedure is followed, then appeal would be available.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, are those aircraft compelled by law to carry adequate third party insurance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the answer to that is yes, but I had better write to my noble friend after I have made sure of the terms.

National Bus Company Pension Fund
2.55 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the £168 million surplus in the pension fund of the National Bus Company has now been handed back to the pensioners, and what are the up-to-date costs in legal fees involving the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Official Solicitor.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the previous government decided to fund litigation by the National Bus Company pension trustees on this matter. We opened discussions on a settlement of the trustees' claim as soon as all the

1349
facts and arguments had been fully prepared and considered. We are giving high priority to achieve a just out-of-court settlement without any unnecessary delay.
Expenditure to date by my department on legal and other costs relating to all aspects of the litigation has been £610,000.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, bearing in mind the pensions ombudsman's ruling on 6th September 1996, would the Minister not agree that this issue is a scandal of Maxwell proportions? Which matters are now being discussed by the department and the NBC pension trustees? Has the Secretary of State made a specific offer for consideration by the trustees? How long is it estimated that it will take to finalise the negotiations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as soon as the legal advice was followed by the department, the Deputy Prime Minister ordered that the negotiations should begin. They will be complex negotiations and they may take some time. Nevertheless, we wish to conclude this matter with as much rapidity as possible. I believe that it is unhelpful to describe this as a scandal of Maxwell proportions. Clearly the ombudsman made his judgment on the decision of the previous government and of the previous trustees and we are seeking to remedy that. The precise sum is a matter for negotiation and it would be better to allow those negotiations to proceed.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the debate on Sierra Leone and before the debate on fluoridating the water supply, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on competitiveness.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if the Consolidated Fund Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
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, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

L. Flowers,

B. Nicol,

L. Winston.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have a Christmas present for your Lordships. This completes the cycle of regular committee Motions for this Session but there will be others, not in the regular series, to look forward to in the new year.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Burnham,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sierra Leone
3 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to call attention to the relations between the United Kingdom and Sierra Leone; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am appreciative of the opportunity to have this debate in the House today. Eighteen months after the military coup of 1997 which saw the ousting and exile of Sierra Leone's democratically elected government and nine months after the restoration of President Kabbah to power, today's debate is a timely opportunity to examine the present situation in Sierra Leone.
Since independence in 1961 Sierra Leone's path to democracy has been beset by hurdles. The country's political landscape for the past 27 years has been marked by a series of coups and counter-coups. Africa watchers and human rights groups alike hoped that the election of President Kabbah in February 1996, in the first multi-party elections to be held in Sierra Leone for almost 30 years, would mark a turning point in the

1351
country's political history. Indeed, about 60 per cent. of the electorate voted in elections that international observers deemed to be largely free and fair.
However, Major General Johnny Koroma of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council deposed President Kabbah in a coup on 25th May 1997. In February 1998 the Nigerian-led West African Intervention Force, Ecomog, stormed Freetown and occupied it until President Kabbah's triumphant return on 10th March 1998.
The atrocities perpetrated by this military junta, both during and after its period of rule, are a matter of grim record. Not only did the AFRC suspend Sierra Leone's constitution, it also banned political parties, prohibited demonstrations and assumed extensive powers of detention without safeguards against arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial or charge.
The Amnesty International annual report for 1998 makes horrifying reading. It says:
"As the AFRC and RUF retreated from Freetown, they killed, raped and mutilated hundreds of civilians. Horrific abuses were carried out in the east and the north of the country … Some 250,000 Sierra Leonian refugees have arrived in neighbouring Guinea and Liberia since April 1998, many with amputated limbs, severe lacerations and suffering from disease, starvation and exhaustion after weeks in the Bush".
The report also makes clear the extent of the atrocities perpetrated and states:
"Hundreds of suspected opponents of the military coup were arbitrarily detained. They included supporters of the ousted government, journalists, students and human rights activists. Most, if not all, were prisoners of conscience. Many were tortured or ill-treated. Dozens of extrajudicial executions of political opponents were reported … The arbitrary detention, torture and killing which characterised the period of rule by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), joined by the armed opposition Revolutionary United Front (RUF), after it came to power in May 1997 continued unabated in 1998".
However, despite the subsequent restoration of the elected government in March of this year, the country remains in turbulence, racked by a conflict bordering on out-and-out civil war, as rebel forces of the Revolutionary United Front loyal to the junta clash with Ecomog-led forces and Kamajor armed militias loyal to the government. Only a week ago the West African Intervention Force, Ecomog, reported that it had been involved in fierce fighting against rebel soldiers in northern Sierra Leone. In the past two weeks the Kamajors have been deployed along one of the main roads leading to the capital, Freetown.
In August, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, expressed concern about the civilians caught up in the continued fighting. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that Sierra Leonians now make up Africa's biggest refugee population; 215,000 people are estimated to have fled Sierra Leone this year alone, mostly to Guinea and Liberia. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government will make it a priority of their diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict since,
"without peace, nothing else is possible".
Can the Minister say how that is being put into practice in Sierra Leone?
1352
There is international consensus that Sierra Leone needs to embark on a process of reconciliation following the damage done to the country after the months of butchery. That butchery is continuing today for many in Sierra Leone. Stability and security will only become a reality when the country is at peace with itself. However, the "judicial process" which has taken place in Sierra Leone following the reinstatement of President Kabbah continues to cause concern in the international community and among human rights groups.
In August the high court of Sierra Leone sentenced 16 civilians to death for their part in the military coup. One of those is a broadcaster who gave birth in prison a month before the sentence was passed; another is a former presenter with BBC Radio's Africa Service. Can the Minister update the House on the appeals process for those condemned? And what representations have the Government made to President Kabbah and his government to show clemency in the case of those civilians in the name of peace and reconciliation? It would be interesting to hear whether there has been any response to any such representations.
In October there was widespread international condemnation when 24 soldiers convicted of treason were executed without recourse to a formal appeals process. Will the Minister join the UN Secretary General in condemning those executions in Sierra Leone earlier this year? They are a clear breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
I should now like to turn to the subject of aid. When the Department of International Development pledged £6.5 million to help resolve the conflict by supporting the disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants, were there any conditions laid down? If so, have those conditions been met? I understand that this Government have committed over £20 million since March this year towards reconstruction and rehabilitation of Sierra Leone. If the government of Sierra Leone fail to ensure fair trials and a proper appeals process for all those accused of treason for their role in the junta, what action will the Government take if due legal process is not followed in further trials?
I should further like the Minister to say whether she agrees that such dispensing of rough justice will not help to bring Sierra Leone the peace and reconciliation that the country so desperately needs. As an aside, does the Minister now accept that it was a misjudgment on the part of this Government in May to seek to justify a breach of international law by describing President Kabbah's government as "the good guys"?
I had not intended to refer to the Sandline affair. However, reports in the press today of evidence given to the Intelligence and Security Committee yesterday that the Foreign Office was warned about the activities of Sandline by GCHQ impel me to ask the Minister for a comment. I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, most warmly on having the foresight to raise this question on the very day when the Select Committee in another place is completing the evidence-taking on the question of the role of the Foreign Office in the Sandline affair. The committee took evidence this morning from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Mr. Tony Lloyd, and the question that the noble Lord has just raised was put to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary said that he had only just had notice of it, that he was looking into the report which was published in, I think, the Financial Times this morning, and that he would make an announcement on the findings later.
The extent to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was aware of the conspiracy to breach Security Council Resolution 1132 and the Order in Council, which made it an offence to supply arms and other material into Sierra Leone during the period of the military junta has been examined by the Legg inquiry and by the Select Committee fairly exhaustively. I do not want to go into it in any detail in this debate, except in one or two respects.
First, it was clear that the Foreign Office had originally been alerted to the conspiracy to supply weapons immediately after the article appeared in the Global Mail, describing the deal between President Kabbah's representative, Mr. Spicer, and a businessman from Thailand by the name of Rakesh Saxena in Vancouver B.C. That report was sent by our post in Ottawa to the Foreign Office, which issued a press notice stating how the matter was to be dealt with by any of our posts in response to inquiries about the report.
It does not seem that Sir Thomas Legg dealt with that matter during his inquiry. It would be interesting to know why the matter was not within the current knowledge of officials in the FCO at a much later date than when the Sandline inquiry first surfaced. One would have thought that, having been alerted to Sandline's intention to supply 10 million dollars-worth of weapons during the period of the embargo—at the time of the Global Mail report, the Security Council resolution had not yet been passed—that report would have been drawn to the attention of those concerned when the renewed reports of Sandline's activities came to their notice on about 29th January when, according to the evidence given by Mr. Craig Murray to the Select Committee, he heard about the transaction direct from Colonel Spicer. At that stage, he immediately informed his superior. Action began at that point.
At the end of January, the African Department (Equatorial) was aware of the intention to supply arms illegally. I wonder why that was not connected with the reports that the FCO had received from Ottawa at a much earlier date, and deductions drawn therefrom.
It seems that our intelligence was not that good, although I find it hard to believe that Mr. Rupert Bowen, a former MI6 asset himself and an employee of Sandline at the material times, did not keep his former colleagues informed while involved in the Sandline operation.
1354
According to the Legg Report, only one of the numerous briefings by the security services referred to military operations against the junta and because that apparently referred to a plan for Sandline alone to mount an invasion from Liberia, without Nigerian participation, it was discounted by the FCO. Will the Government inquire into why the security services failed to alert the FCO about what was happening, not solely in regard to the sale of weapons, but also in regard to the impending invasion by the Nigerians on 6th February, contrary to Security Council Resolution 1132?
It was said, when the Sandline affair first blew up, that too much fuss was being made because the "good guys" had won, as the noble Lord reminded us. The Prime Minister described the concerns that were being expressed as "hoo ha". The Foreign Secretary, however, accepted then, and has done all along, that violation of a Security Council resolution was a serious matter. That applied not only to Sandline, but also to the Nigerians. No state or group of states is entitled to use military force across an international boundary, under the UN charter, except in pursuance of a decision by the Security Council under Article 42 of the charter, or in self-defence. Does the Minister agree that every time a state uses force, other than under one of those headings, the rule of international law is undermined, and others are encouraged to believe that they can engage in foreign military adventures with impunity?
Clearly, the military junta was unlawful, having usurped power from the democratically elected government of President Kabbah. However, it must be recognised that the democratic legitimacy of the Kabbah government was deeply flawed. Although, as the noble Lord reminded us, the government were given a clean bill of health from the international observers, about 150,000 voters were disenfranchised because they were living as exiles in neighbouring Guinea and Liberia. There was also an arbitrary adjustment of the totals polled in the election in four districts where the votes cast exceeded 100 per cent. of the recorded electorate. Although the opposition decided to overlook that in the interests of national unity, I hardly think it can be said that the elections in Sierra Leone were a model of democratic performance.
The noble Lord is also right that the military junta committed widespread and flagrant abuses of human rights while in office, as their forces have continued to do since they returned to the bush. I agree that the atrocities committed against civilians are utterly unspeakable. They include amputations, rape, disembowelling and beheading. Unfortunately, the militias of the state also commit acts of violence and extra-judicial executions. Although not on the same scale as the rebels', their crimes are viewed as particularly serious because they are supposed to be restoring law and order.
Restoration of the elected government did not bring peace and order to the country, but in expelling from power the combined forces of the AFRC and the rebel RUF, it triggered even more vicious fighting in many parts of the country. As the Foreign Secretary put it in his evidence to the Select Committee this morning, "The war is not over". Although it is reported daily that the

1355
forces of the RUF are suffering crushing military defeats, they seem to be no closer to throwing in the towel after eight months of bitter fighting.
One of the most appalling features of this conflict is the use of child soldiers. UNICEF's Director-General, Carol Bellamy, said at the beginning of October that recruitment of child soldiers was still continuing, despite the government's commitment to end the practice. UNICEF estimates that there are some 4,000 child soldiers at present involved in the conflict: 2,500 recruited by the RUF and the rest serving with the Kamajor militia. Other observers have put the number of children in the conflict at a far higher figure. Deputy Defence Minister, Sam Hinga Norman, cited "difficulties" in discharging teenage soldiers, including lack of resources and the fact that the fighting was continuing. What are we doing to press the Sierra Leone Government to discharge all child soldiers immediately and to cease recruitment of children? Could an appeal be addressed to the armed opposition to stop using children in their forces?
Rifts in the social fabric of the country, of which the struggle is evidence, have been intensified by some of the actions of the Kabbah government. Instead of promoting reconciliation, as urged by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and as promoted by the UN and Britain, the authorities have upgraded the ethnic Mende Kamajors, a paramilitary force that was supposed to have been disarmed under the Conakry Agreement into a "civil defence force", which is now the only indigenous armed force, pending the re-creation of the national army.
Trials and executions of people associated with the former regime have been continuing. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, reminded us, 24 soldiers were executed in public after a trial from which there was no right of appeal. On the same day, death sentences were imposed in the High Court on 11 civilians including a 75 year-old woman, Nancy Steele, on charges of treason. On 23rd October Corporal Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF, was sentenced to death. Another 15 civilians were sentenced to death on 5th November. According to the AFP yesterday, the total number of people under sentence of death now in custody for treason and other charges is 43. Those include four journalists, four medical doctors, four university professors, four lawyers, a former member of parliament and a businessman. No date has been set for the appeals about which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, asked. The judicial system is clogged up. Only last Friday, a further 22 civilians accused of collaborating with the former junta were charged in the magistrates' court in Freetown. They were accused on a number of counts ranging from treason to aiding and abetting and conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone by unlawful means.
Have we any idea how many more of the 1,200 people in Pademba Road Prison have still to be charged with serious offences arising out of the military interregnum? Cannot we suggest to President Kabbah that there should be a truth and reconciliation commission rather than hunting down and prosecuting
1356
everybody associated with the military regime? Should it not be remembered that some of the people in power today were involved in previous coups? In some neighbouring states, several governments came to power by military coups and are being run by the people who originally perpetrated them.
Journalism is becoming a dangerous profession in Sierra Leone. BBC corespondent, Winston Ojukutu-Macaulay, appeared in court last Thursday charged with publishing false news likely to cause public alarm in connection with his coverage of the armed struggle. It was reported yesterday that he had been granted bail and fined 3,750 dollars, apparently extrajudicially. Two other journalists were reported to be detained on similar charges: BBC correspondent Sylvester Rogers and Concord Times journalist, Sulaiman Momodu. Now it is said that only Mr. Rogers is in custody, and that Mr. Momodu is wanted and on the run. The Minister of Information, Dr. Julius Spencer, had already decreed that all copy about the fighting had to be submitted to the ECOMOG force commander for prior vetting. That seems to be the main reason why those journalists are being detained.
Macaulay's arrest was said to have been ordered by President Kabbah himself, following a report filed by the journalist on 8th December that 8,000 refugees, fleeing heavy fighting, were heading towards Freetown on the highway from the north. Sylvester Rogers was said to have been arrested because he reported that an ECOMOG soldier had been killed by rebels. Another BBC correspondent, Lance Fofie, went into hiding after being told that he too was being sought by the police. What are we doing to persuade the authorities to free the journalists who have been arrested and to ensure that freedom of expression is upheld in Sierra Leone?
Another aspect of the human rights scene in Sierra Leone was highlighted in a report published last month by the UNHCR. Women are severely disadvantaged, having inferior access to education, health, economic opportunities and social freedoms. Violence against women is endemic. Female genital mutilation is widely practised. According to the US State Department, 90 per cent. of the female population are victims of this horrible custom. What specific assistance can we give to the Sierra Leone Government and NGOs on raising the status of women and combatting FGM? I remind the House that according to the FIDH newsletter published recently, other states in the region including Guinea, Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire have been ready to adopt laws banning FGM. I imagine that Sierra Leone could do the same.
The UNHCR report reminded me that when the Home Office originally published its country assessments, it undertook to update them every six months. It is particularly important that that should be adhered to in a situation as rapidly changing as that in Sierra Leone. Yet the assessment of Sierra Leone on the Home Office website dates from January, before the restoration of President Kabbah. Can we have an assurance that that assessment will be updated in the near future?
Sierra Leone is a long way from peace and order and will need help for some time to come. In particular, it will need the external military help that only ECOMOG

1357
can provide, whatever the irregularity of ECOMOG's past actions. Yesterday, at an excellent briefing by the BBC World Service on the transition to democracy in Nigeria, Elizabeth Ohene said that when the elections have taken place there, it is unlikely that the new government will continue to sustain the major role in regional peace-keeping which the military have played, first in Liberia and now in Sierra Leone. It is all the more essential that Sierra Leone accelerates the formation and training of its own national army. A great deal of help will be needed from Britain and others if that is to be achieved. We should give that assistance, but we should seek assurances that the new force reflects the diversity of peoples in Sierra Leone and that soldiers are led and trained to operate within the law.
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, should he applauded for giving us the opportunity to help encourage and boost international support for this difficult period in Sierra Leone's affairs. The debate underlines the fact that Britain has aspects of an effective foreign policy serving not only our national interest but allowing us to reinforce a caring and concerned relationship with friends.
The people of Sierra Leone are at a loss to understand why Britain's contribution, which they express with euphoria, is seen so negatively. Some say that our actions were the finest thing Britain has done for Sierra Leone since independence, with other observers noting that if there was so much criticism of our role, why has there been no UN resolution condemning Britain.
As is well known, the military junta inflicted on Sierra Leone eight months of horror in such a way that no civilised nation could idly sit back without being sickened and driven to action. The psychological, economic and humanitarian suffering of that period will require painstaking confidence-building to reintegrate that country.
I commend President Kabbah for bringing together, for example, different political groups into his cabinet—a move that other African states should be encouraged to emulate. The criticism that a high level of terror is being inflicted by paramilitary civil defence units and soldiers of ECOMOG is, I believe, wide of the mark. That said, any retaliatory action, even in limited form, must of course be condemned but understood in the context of the atrocities of the rebels. Any criticism reinforces the need for President Kabbah to create internal security arrangements with new armed forces and police units under effective civilian management and constitutional control.
On the positive side, President Kabbah is again to be commended, in my view, for ensuring that the trials process of the rebels has been deemed open, transparent and fair. I recognise that this Government do not condone capital punishment, and Tony Lloyd has taken every opportunity to express concern. It must be remembered, however, that that was the law throughout the colonial era. Sierra Leone should, on the other hand, be reminded that the Privy Council ruled that it is wrong to delay execution after conviction and has set five years
1358
as the limit after which there should be no execution. Executions should only be as soon as is reasonable after due process, including the exhausting of all lawful appeals.
There are a number of ongoing initiatives underlining the dual-track approach agreed at the ECOWAS conference in October which stated the desire,
"to combine the strengthening of ECOMOG with efforts at dialogue to achieve lasting peace and national reconciliation in Sierra Leone".
That must be right.
I understand that there was a contact group meeting in London on 5th November. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some of the detail and tell us, for example, whether a follow-up meeting is anticipated. In addition to the contact group initiative, the RUF contacted the Commonwealth Secretariat on 25th September last to ask if it could help facilitate talks with the government. The secretariat, on behalf of the United Nations and the Organisation for African Unity, constituting the three moral guarantors of the 1996 Abidjan Peace Agreement, rightly responded with three clear conditions: first, that there would have to be a clear statement from the RUF on recognition of the legitimacy of the elected government; secondly, that there should be an immediate, unconditional and indefinite cessation of hostilities; and, thirdly, that there should be a willingness on the part of the RUF to enter talks to end the fighting. Although some dialogue ensued, no statement, one regrets to say, has been forthcoming—in other words, little substance to a commitment to engage in serious talks.
It is conceivable that the RUF cannot agree internally or believes that it has a chance on the battlefield to beat the government. A condition of the RUF is that its leader, Foday Sankoh, who has been tried and sentenced and who has an appeal pending, should be flown to a neutral country for negotiations. But here is the quandary. No one wishes to be taken for a ride or to be seen to interfere with the judicial process. What guarantee is there even that the RUF would enter into serious talks if release was granted? The RUF offer amounts to conditionality, which, on the face of it, should be taken as unacceptable but maybe, as there is no tried and tested formula for success in negotiations—flexibility being key—compromise will be necessary to achieve a lasting peace.
In my mind, there are five key areas where Britain can contribute further in a practical way. First, it is considered essential that ECOMOG forces are strengthened by an additional 5,000 to a total of 15,000 servicemen on the ground. I understand that there is a sense of urgency about additional deployments which, ideally, should be completed by the end of this year. There is also a concern about the newly-elected democratic government in Nigeria. For example, should the latter decide—and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—principally through addressing public opinion, to scale down their participation from their current levels of 90 per cent. of manpower, how will the shortfall be met? This will put ECOMOG in a difficult position. What is the United Kingdom able to do to help in this regard?

1359
Secondly, Sierra Leone is to be removed from CMAG's remit because a democratically-elected government has been restored and is not in violation of the Harare principles. Technically speaking that is right, but in reality the situation on the ground is not normal. Will the Minister undertake to keep the situation under close observation and not consider Sierra Leone as off the list, because the situation is far from normal?
Thirdly, while recognising that Her Majesty's Government have no influence with the RUF, they, together with the United States, should make it abundantly clear that, in the unlikely event of fighting reaching Freetown, the RUF would be subjected to severe sanctions. That would certainly help to concentrate minds.
Fourthly, there is continuing concern about the RUF having received training and weapons in the past from Liberia. The confusion in Liberia exacerbates the situation. The United States should use its best influence with Charles Taylor to ensure that the RUF receives no more training, and should generally help police the porous border. Fifthly, as I have already mentioned, President Kabbah has determined the need for recruitment and training for new democratically-controlled security forces—both police and army. That is fundamental. What can the Minister do to help in that regard, possibly in the area of training?
Finally, the economy must be giving great cause for concern with the government presumably needing to know where revenues are to come from for the exchequer. Can the Minister say what specific measures would help rebuild the economy?
The wish list of the Government of Sierra Leone, briefly stated, consists of a desperate need for crutches and artificial limbs together with programmes to reintegrate amputees—women and child soldiers—into society. There is also an immediate requirement for medical equipment, medical transport and beds; and, beyond medical supplies, educational infrastructure to include materials for programmes and teaching aids.
I conclude on an emotive issue to this country in the matter of High Commissioner Penfold and, by extension, his colleague in King Charles Street, Ann Grant. Clearly lessons have been learnt and new directions obtained. I believe that it is time to move on. As to the two officials, I believe that they acted with nothing other than integrity and in this country's and Sierra Leone's best interest.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too, thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for introducing today's debate on Sierra Leone. I have never visited Sierra Leone as such, but I met refugees from that country at the beginning of this year when visiting refugee camps in that part of west Africa. Like other speakers, I had not intended to touch on the question of Sandline, but I should like to quote a recent statement from President Kabbah in which he said:
"It's sad that we are in the headlines now, not because the world cares about the terrible things that have happened here, but because of an internal political row in Britain".
1360
Certainly, High Commissioner Penfold is the hero on the streets of Freetown, I am told. That stems from the impact of getting rid of the outrageous coup forces. However, even now, peace is only guaranteed for 25 miles around Freetown. I reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said about Liberia. I am told that allegations have been made that Liberia is harbouring and supporting the rebels for political reasons. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether or not that is so. If it is, can she say what steps the Government and the United States are taking to stop this work of the Liberian Government?
As we have heard, the coup junta was in power for only nine months. But the rebels are still active. In their mindless viciousness they maim and kill indiscriminately. We really need to appreciate the horror of what is still continuing up-country in Sierra Leone. I am told that the rebels have been pursued eastward but are still engaged in bitter fighting. Witnesses speak of the seemingly mindless viciousness they perpetrate. Fathers have their arms cut off for refusing to rape their daughters; and women and children are being herded into houses and then burned alive. People caught by the rebels are treated violently, and a particularly malevolent game of rebel roulette takes place in which the victims choose their own fate: to lose an eye, a limb or their life by selecting a piece of paper with the grisly option written on it. The extent of these atrocities is, as yet, known only to the protagonists and their victims. We are talking about a very serious situation in Sierra Leone.
As far as concerns the fighting, there is really no Sierra Leone army at present. There is the involvement of the Kamajors but, as the former army was very heavily involved in the coup, I understand that there is no real army at the moment. Indeed, there is just a weak police force. ECOMOG alone is keeping the peace. I endorse what has been said about rumours in Freetown suggesting that its presence there is to be reduced even though the fighting continues unabated. Can the Minister confirm that and, in particular, say what Nigeria's plans are in that respect? Do the Government have any prognosis for the cessation of fighting up-country in Sierra Leone? Should the UN, the Commonwealth and the Government be doing more to support ECOMOG? It is sad that hope is less high in Sierra Leone now than it was in April. That is a great pity.
The horrific injuries to people constitute a problem which will be a burden for a generation. It is not short-term. It is not like paying a sum of money for a year and then seeing the problem go away. A whole generation has been traumatised. My wife is the president of the Church Mission Society; it plans to build and resource a trauma counselling centre. A great deal of this type of work is needed in an area far wider than Freetown as soon as there is stability. Physical, mental and emotional needs are appalling and increasing as the rebels continue to operate. The Bishop of Freetown, Julius Lynch, says that,
"there is need for physical and spiritual healing: to house and feed people: to tend their wounds and support them in their grief. Reconciliation: reconciliation. What is it? What does it mean? A

1361
dictionary definition says that to reconcile means to become friendly again after a quarrel; to make yourself accept something unpleasant. Now that the junta has been ousted, this is what is demanded of us, reconciliation. We are called to reconcile with our killers, our looters, our rapists and their collaborators. We arc called to be friendly again after, what I can term, an unprovoked war".
So many buildings have been destroyed or looted—to the extent of the electric wiring and plumbing being taken out—and tin roofs have been punctured. This is a major problem, not only because of the gaps made but because of the rain. The coastal area of Sierra Leone has 150 inches of rain a year; inland areas have 80 inches of rain a year. Sometimes we think we have a problem with rain here. We have only 30 inches of rain in a year, one-fifth that of the coastal area of Sierra Leone. If you have 30 or 40 big holes in your tin roof, you have a problem in the rainy season. The rain will soon complete the destruction of a property if it is not repaired. We have heard that the Government are providing funds to help. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can update us on what help the Government are giving and what Sierra Leone is receiving for repairing and reconstructing buildings? Freetown is in poor shape, but up-country things are totally desperate.
I wish to ask a few questions about the future. What steps are being taken to train and provide resources for building up Sierra Leone's internal law-keeping forces? I have already mentioned that there is no army and only a weak police presence. There is a desperate need for help to rebuild the army. As I understand it, Sierra Leone had a good officer corps, but when the army had to expand it took on desperate troops and the whole army became vitiated. There is a need to re-establish the Sierra Leone army. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can help us about what is planned in relation to that.
I wish to talk about business confidence. There is a tremendous lack of confidence—obviously because the war is continuing—but there is safety in the Freetown area. There is great need for encouragement and the building up of confidence so that business can be resumed and refugees encouraged to return. There has been a brain drain; so many of the best brains have been lost. There is a need to encourage those brains to come back.
Are the Government planning to help equip Sierra Leone for political, legal and administrative progress? We have heard in the debate about the many failings of the present Sierra Leone Government. Are they willing to accept help from us and other parts of the Commonwealth in order to establish their political position? Failures between parliament and government before the coup may have been a factor in bringing it about. Sierra Leone needs to build up its legal resources—questions have been asked about the appeal process this afternoon—its national and local administration.
There is an enormous need. Sierra Leone requires people who can help as much as money; it needs both. I hope that the noble Baroness can help on these points.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, very warmly for providing this timely opportunity. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for providing such an authoritative statement, as he always does, and has done consistently on this subject.
Anyone living in Sierra Leone who cared to study the British political scene in the first half of this year must have been amazed, after years of relative neglect of their country, at the amount of time apparently devoted to Sierra Leone by these two Houses of Parliament. The famous Starred Question—or perhaps, for the Government, ill-starred question—by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, tabled in February, and a simultaneous article in the Observer, started a war of words in the Commons which continued throughout the parliamentary Session, right up to the publication of the Legg Report.
What has been gained from this debate? I do not want to minimise the skills of the various advocates and witnesses involved, but I contend, after reading through most of the 164 pages of the report, that from Sierra Leone's point of view, we have achieved almost nothing. The report shows up the weakness of the human condition better than any of the scripts of "Yes, Minister". I say this despite the sympathy I, and the whole House, have felt for our own noble Baroness, Lady Symons, throughout this matter. It shows the frailty of administration and the desperate scramble of civil servants and Ministers, both protagonists and bit parts, to get to the front of stage. It is possible that we have learned a little humility from the conclusions of the Legg Report, but I doubt it. It has shown up politicians at their worst, like Shakespeare's "strutting players", attempting to speak their lines before they hurry off the stage in darkness and confusion.
The tragedy is not here in Westminster, it is in Sierra Leone, and yet somehow the plight of Sierra Leone has been overlooked or ignored. I am not denying that there is a political question as to whether or not we ignored a United Nations arms embargo—or, more pertinently, whether we even understood what a United Nations embargo or an Order in Council was about and to whom it applied. As far as concerns Sierra Leone, we ignored at least half of it, and our High Commissioner became a hero, as has been said by the noble Viscount. This is the reality. It is shameful that, in washing our hands of the embargo, we had to let down our representative, who was working alone, in the best tradition of the FCO, in what he believed was our interest. I hope that the Minister can say something personal about the honour which has been denied to him here, even if not in West Africa.
More to the point, whatever we did not do for Sierra Leone then, what are we doing now? That is the real subject of this debate. Peace is still the overriding objective. It does not seem to me—but I hope that the Minister will correct me—that we are taking the fullest advantage of the Commonwealth in finding a peaceful solution to Sierra Leone's problems.

1363
I would hope that after the brouhaha some new initiatives might now be expected from a chastened FCO. The Legg Report (paragraphs 9.8 to 12 on page 84) reveals the somewhat casual social conversations at the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 1997 between senior Ministers and Mr. Kabbah. The results look rather lukewarm. At least Britain and three other countries are supporting a small Commonwealth taskforce of police officers to help reorganise the Sierra Leone police. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on that matter and on the strengthening of the Sierra Leone army. I know that the Commonwealth has pledged its support to reconstruction, but it would be helpful to know what progress has been made both with this and with peace-keeping since last summer when the United Nations resolved to send an observer mission. If the UN and the Commonwealth together are unable to bring greater stability to Sierra Leone, one wonders whether they are able to bring peace anywhere.
Nigeria has played a valuable peace-keeping role and that must be acknowledged despite our diplomatic difficulties. The Nigerians should not be left in isolation with perhaps 10 per cent. Guineans and others. It may be that Commonwealth troops from Ghana and other countries could continue to back up Nigeria, though I appreciate the difficulty of strengthening ECOMOG until some form of democracy is, as everyone hopes, restored in Nigeria next May.
Since President Kabbah was restored last March, the people of Sierra Leone have been waiting for peace and the rehabilitation of their country after the trail of destruction, vandalism and looting left by the previous junta. Sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others have said, the news is not good. Outside Freetown there is still a climate of fear and insecurity. There are regular attacks by RUF and AFRC groups on ECOMOG soldiers and civilian targets on the roads. Authority in some areas is only maintained with the help of the Karamajors and other traditional fighters and armed gangs. Kidnapping, murder and atrocities such as mutilation of innocent villagers are still a daily threat not far from the capital. The effect of interminable civil war on the economy and on the people's morale is almost at the level it was before.
Yet there are many areas, inside and outside the capital, where aid programmes can have an effect. We must look positively at the situation in Sierra Leone because it is so easy to be depressed by it. Parts of Freetown are being rebuilt, its institutions restored, with the help of international agencies including the EU's ECHO programme, which has been a constant source of support through previous governments and, more recently, through the DfID. A lot has already been achieved in emergency assistance, rehabilitation, capacity-building and mediation, much of it through the non-governmental organisations and the Churches. Oxfam, Care International, Action Aid and Christian Aid are among the active agencies involved.
Seeds and tools are being distributed in many parts of the country and displaced people are returning even to areas like Moyamba which were formerly the site of
1364
fighting. This is reconstruction in action and it can be seen, and is being seen, by our own voluntary organisations and others. The Christian Council of Sierra Leone, which has 14 member Churches and 28 affiliates, has been active and successful in promoting a national dialogue through the setting up of public meetings, radio programmes and direct discussions with the president on the nature of good governance and advocacy. This approach has already yielded tangible results such as the adoption by the police in Freetown of a code of conduct.
In a small country, once a lasting peace is secured and guaranteed, it need not take long to restore confidence. The seeds of that confidence are there. But a lot, of course, depends, as others have pointed out, on the ability of President Kabbah's government to renounce their appalling present policy of executing their enemies without the due process of law, to give their opponents a fair trial, to extend the amnesty and to reach a genuine settlement with the various rebels.
Sierra Leone is undervalued by any international yardstick. It is listed as the very poorest country in the world in the UNDP human rights index. In the charts of highly indebted countries, it has one of the highest debt-to-export ratios. We know that it is not exporting anything like enough to pay off the interest on the debt, let alone the debt itself. On any scale its people are among the most deserving of development assistance. It is a potentially wealthy country to which we have a historic obligation and which holds our own culture in high regard. That is very important in the work we are doing overseas. We cannot blame its people for difficulties which were only postponed while we were the colonial power. In many cases, they are endemic difficulties. We must not shrug off an African responsibility because of our own problems or on the fashionable grounds of finding regional African solutions. It is, furthermore, a restored "democracy"—democracy in inverted commas, I admit—in which we have invested a good deal of misdirected political energy in the past year. In my view we should concentrate our resources on solving its current economic problems and give it the highest priority for our humanitarian assistance.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on introducing the debate. As one who spent 32 years in the other Chamber of this Parliament, perhaps I may say that one of the attractions of this Chamber is that it can find time to debate issues such as the problems of Sierra Leone which perhaps receive only fleeting attention in the other place. It has been a useful and worthwhile debate.
When the coup took place last year and there was the determined and successful effort to reverse it and reinstate the democratically elected government, one of the outcomes was the argument which led to the Legg Report and to the whole question of who said what to whom about the Sandline operation. I remember saying at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rather doubted me—that one of the problems lay in the fact

1365
that the Security Council resolution was somewhat ambiguous and sweeping in its wording whereas the British Order in Council was absolutely specific and much more tightly drawn. That was only a suspicion from my own reading of the two texts but I was very interested to note subsequently that Mr. Penfold, our High Commissioner, in his evidence to the Select Committee in another place, reinforced my suspicion when he acknowledged that he was aware of the Security Council resolution but was not aware of the terms of our own Order in Council. I hope that lessons will be learnt from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and my noble friend Lord Avebury raised questions about the precise role of our intelligence services in this matter. I understand that the Intelligence Committee in the other place is to take further evidence on that. I am in no doubt that, whether it be nods and winks or whatever, there must have been some involvement in and approval given to the Sandline operation. I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that to go on arguing about this is fairly pointless. Indeed, I very much welcome the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who introduced a proper sense of perspective in pointing out that, while the rest of the world looked on in astonishment as we continued to argue about dancing on the point of a pin, the situation in Sierra Leone was not perhaps receiving the attention it should have received. I thought that his speech gave us a proper perspective.
I understand that since the restoration of the government—perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm this—around 200 million dollars of international aid has gone to Sierra Leone from the European Union, from the IMF, from ourselves and from the United States, and that it has greatly helped the economic situation in the country and has helped to stabilise prices. But the real crisis in Sierra Leone at the moment, as others have said, lies not with the economy but in the lack of peace, of law and order and of stability. The rebellion, sadly, continues. The official line from Freetown is that ECOMOG has the situation under control. Only yesterday General Maxwell Colby was reported as saying that the rebels will never enter Freetown because they do not have the ability to do so. While that may be the case, he is also reported as saying that ECOMOG needs more manpower and logistics to clear the rebels with minimum force. There have been reports from Reuters in the past few days of considerable battles with loss of life on both sides in the countryside outside Freetown. My information is that there are some doubts as to whether ECOMOG is able to contain the situation.
However, whatever the detailed rights and wrongs of this argument, there is no doubt at all that an unhappy rebellion is still continuing in the country. Peace and stability have not returned, even though the democratic government have returned. Therefore the question we all press the Foreign Office to answer is, what help can we give, and what help is being given by other outside agencies, to try to bring the country back to some kind of normality?
1366
As regards the conduct of trials by the present government, I share much of the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Avebury and others about the extensive use of capital punishment. We may deplore this—I certainly deplore it—but, unhappily, capital punishment is still part of the law of the land there, as in so many other countries around the world, including the United States. It is important to recognise that at least in the country we are discussing, unlike some others in Africa, the due processes of law have been properly carried out. Dr. Banya, the Foreign Minister, telephoned my office yesterday. He sent me an extract from a letter of just two months ago which was addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Sierra Leone. It was written by the president of the International Bar Association, Klaus Bohlhoff. We have to bear in mind that in the early days of the restoration of the government there was a constant public demand for retribution against the rebels. Indeed some people took the law into their own hands. It was the ECOMOG forces and the government who stopped the lawlessness there. The president of the International Bar Association states,
"I have been struck by the evident professionalism and determination by yourself, judges of Sierra Leone and the legal profession to conduct fair trials in the difficult and emotionally charged circumstances in which you find yourself at this point in the history of your country".
I believe we can take some comfort from that, but I hope that we can speak with one voice in this House in making clear to President Kabbah and his government that they are in danger of losing much of the sympathy which they have had if they continue with the scale of executions which is threatened.
On the matter of press freedom, I understand that in the past few days military censorship has been introduced with regard to the reports of journalists. Any government can, of course, do that in times of war, but there is a clear difference—which I hope we would all accept—between censorship of war stories and persecution of individual journalists, such as my noble friend Lord Avebury outlined. I hope that we can speak forthrightly to the Government of Sierra Leone on that matter.
The important point is to see whether there are any means through the Commonwealth, the UN and through our own efforts to try to secure some new reconciliation of the kind which existed back in 1996 between the two forces which, sadly, did not last. Unhappily there are too many parts of Africa where there are conflicts of this kind still raging at the present time. We cannot assert that our Foreign Office should be able to solve all of them at a stroke. That is a totally unreasonable attitude. However, we need to devote more time and energy to trying to get at the source of these conflicts and getting the warring partners to meet together and to recognise that to continue to inflict suffering on the civilian population of their country is not a solution. In the end we should all use our external efforts to the best possible advantage to get them round the table and to come to some kind of political settlement which will enable that country to resume its normal life.

1367
I say in conclusion that Sierra Leone is one of the few countries in Africa which I have never visited. I have always wanted to do so, if for no other reason than that my late father-in-law was awarded the CBE for his services to forestry in the colonial period. I understand that his handiwork is there for all to see. However, I would hope to visit it in times of peace and the restoration of calm and prosperity in the country.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chesham for securing today's debate on Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone's turbulent post-colonial political history—a history of mercenaries, of diamond dealers, of arms dealers, and of coups and counter-coups—has long meant that it is a country which generates news reports disproportionate to its size and 1998 has been no exception with the restoration of President Kabbah's legitimate government, ousted from power in May 1997 by a military coup masterminded by the AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council).
However, noble Lords are well aware that Sierra Leone has come to particular prominence this year. Many column inches were generated as a result of claims by the private military company, Sandline, that it had Foreign Office approval for a shipment of arms to assist in the restoration of President Kabbah in Sierra Leone—a shipment which in fact breached both the UN arms embargo and the Order in Council enshrining that embargo in UK law. The exact nature of the Foreign Office's relationship to President Kabbah's exiled government and the role played by the Foreign Office and its Ministers in that restoration were the subjects of especial scrutiny, as Africa watchers, human rights groups, journalists and parliamentarians alike struggled to fit the pieces together in the jigsaw that is the arms-to-Africa affair.
In the light of the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, I wish to return briefly to the Foreign Office's role in the arms-to-Africa affair. I shall do so in the context of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received any representations from private military companies, including Sandline International, regarding the supply of arms to either Iran, Sudan or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
First, however, and most important today, nine months after the restoration of President Kabbah, the situation in Sierra Leone—a country to which we have long-standing ties of friendship—bears some examination. The months since March of this year have seen repeated clashes between rebels of the AFRC and the Revolutionary United Front, who together embarked on a campaign they called "Operation No Living Thing", on one side, and the ECOMOG Nigerian-led West African peace-keeping groups and the Kamajor militia loyal to President Kabbah on the other.
There is seemingly no end to the cycle of violence and the trail of tears. Outside of the main cities, President Kabbah's control of the situation looks
1368
increasingly shaky. Last month there was a rebel attack on Pendembu. The victims of that attack, beheaded by machetes, were left as a grim message with which to challenge the government. Only days later there were reports of 50 people abducted and 16 murdered in the northern village of Kamporoto. Members of the Kamajor militia are now reported to be deployed along main roads leading to the capital, while it has been reported that Freetown is under its greatest threat since ECOMOG troops ousted the junta in February. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House the benefit of any intelligence on the rebels' advance on Freetown and the safety of the capital.
Most recently there has been heavy fighting around the town of Masiaka with ECOMOG troops inflicting heavy casualties on the rebel forces. Thousands of civilians have once again been forced to flee this land of violence and fear. Some 215,000 have fled this year alone, mostly to Guinea and Liberia. There are now some 530,000 Sierra Leonean refugees in neighbouring countries and the UNHCR said that Sierra Leoneans make up Africa's biggest refugee problem.
During the months of the junta's rule, the people of Sierra Leone suffered appalling brutality, mutilations and systematic rape. The US, the European Union and the UNHCR all have evidence of the outrageous violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law which took place. As my noble friend Lord Chesham mentioned, Amnesty International's 1998 annual report on Sierra Leone catalogues the evidence of widespread slaughter, rape and injury of civilians by rebel forces, including the many cases of limbs hacked off and facial mutilation with machetes.
But President Kabbah's return to power has not stopped the butchery. In eastern and northern Sierra Leone, the rebels of the RUF and the rump of the deposed military junta continue to visit unspeakable cruelty on the civilian population of Sierra Leone in an undeclared war of guerrilla tactics waged on the innocent.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger on the pulse. This is a war where children fight children. It was described by Anthony Bloomberg of UNICEF as "a quiet emergency". Young boys are used as fighting material by both sides. Abducted from their villages, sent into battle as soon as they are old enough to carry a gun, doped with a potent cocktail of drugs to make them "fearless", child soldiers are the most tragic and traumatised victims of the violence in Sierra Leone, all the more so because they are perpetrators of it. What priority are the Government giving to the demobilisation of the estimated 4,000 or more child soldiers, particularly in the light of the fact that although the Sierra Leone Government are committed to their disarmament, Defence Minister Hinga Norman has said that it cannot be done while the fighting continues?
From these Benches we welcomed the British Government's commitment of over £25 million to help the re-building and rehabilitation of Sierra Leone, including support for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants; and for parliament,

1369
the judiciary and the media, in accordance with the Foreign Secretary's pledge to make it a priority of the Government's diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict.
However, does the Minister consider that it is possible to realise the wholly commendable ambitions of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration when Sierra Leone is still in a state of virtual civil war; when there is still no cease-fire; when thousands of child soldiers have been forced into the fight; and when battles are still raging for control over the country's diamond producing areas? How far is reconciliation possible in these circumstances without a peace agreement?
Questions are also being asked in Sierra Leone about why it is taking ECOMOG so long to defeat the die-hard junta loyalists and their guerrilla allies in the interior, despite their repeated promises and deadlines. Does the Minister consider that that may be at least in part because the conventional ECOMOG troops are not trained to fight against guerrilla tactics? But if ECOMOG cannot contain the rebels, what other prescriptions does the Minister have for how peace can be achieved?
Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, which was established to monitor the military and security situation in the country for an initial six-month period up until 13th January next year? Back in August, the UN Secretary-General reported his concern to the UN Security Council about civilians caught up in the continuing fighting in Sierra Leone and urged that every effort should be made to end the threat that they face.
In the light of the Government of Nigeria's ongoing transition to civilian democratic rule, what assessment have the Government made of the view that it will be extremely difficult for an elected government in Nigeria to justify the expense of maintaining ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone given the unpopularity of financing the regional peace-keeping force among the deprived and impoverished Nigerian population?
Given that the UN Special Conference on Sierra Leone emphasised in particular the critical need to support ECOMOG's efforts in carrying out its peace-keeping role and ending rebel atrocities against innocent civilians and children, have the Government drawn up contingency plans with our partners—for example, in the European Union and the UN—should Nigeria reduce, if not withdraw, its level of participation in ECOMOG. Here is a fundamental point which is central to this debate.
Does the Minister agree that unless Nigeria is working, west Africa will not work? While Nigeria's political future hangs in the balance and there are 100 million poverty-stricken Nigerians not far from Sierra Leone's back doorstep, with the potential to destabilise the whole region, what assessment has the Minister made of the view that until Nigeria is working the chances are that Sierra Leone will not work either? I commend the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on this important issue. Nigeria's role has been, and will continue to be, vitally important to the future of Sierra Leone.
1370
We are all agreed that what Sierra Leone needs above all is peace. Reconciliation, the lasting restoration of democracy and respect for human rights are vital commodities which are scarce in Sierra Leone at present. The country presently finds itself caught in a vicious circle. There can be no lasting peace without national reconciliation and, it seems, there can be no national reconciliation without lasting peace.
President Kabbah has certainly paid lip service to those needs, calling for national reconciliation at the UN Special Conference in July. Britain welcomed the return of Sierra Leone's democratically elected government and the concomitant rule of law. Yet the actions of that government, in particular with respect to the judicial process for those suspected of complicity in the coup, have caused concern, as in this House today, in the wider international community and have somewhat tarnished President Kabbah's apparent good intentions.
In October, 16 more civilians were found guilty of the same crime, 11 of whom were sentenced to death for allegedly collaborating with the military junta. In November, a further 15 civilians were convicted of treason and, likewise, sentenced to death. Will the Minister confirm that over 40 civilians have to date been sentenced to death in trials connected with the overthrow of President Kabbah? Furthermore, Justice Minister, Solomon Berewa, has said that a further 50 civilians await trial on similar charges. I should be grateful to hear whatever details the Minister has on the progress that has been made on the appeals lodged with the Court of Appeal for those civilians convicted of treason.
International calls for clemency, including those of the UN Secretary-General, were again ignored on 19th October, when 24 soldiers, sentenced to death for their involvement in last year's coup, were executed by firing squad. That decision was widely condemned, both by the international community—and this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—and by human rights groups including Amnesty International, which released a statement saying that,
"the use of the death penalty will not contribute to the process of reconciliation",
and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, which called upon Sierra Leone to stop the executions.
The convicted soldiers had recourse to a Committee for the Prerogative of Mercy, but there was no formal appeals process. In other words, it was either mercy from President Kabbah himself, or death. President Kabbah chose not to show mercy. Given Sierra Leone's obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which places an obligation on signatory governments to ensure fair trials for all those accused, in what ways are the Foreign Office's regrets at the executions and its concern at the lack of a proper appeals process for the military courts martial taking practical expression?
I return briefly to the Foreign Office's role in the restoration of President Kabbah—as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—not least because today the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State came before the

1371
committee to give evidence on that very subject. It is of course the responsibility of Foreign Office Ministers to ensure that questions are answered. Amidst the conflicting stories and facts, the allegations and counter-allegations, some of which boil down to one individual's word against another's, the Select Committee has found one thing upon which both the High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, Mr. Penfold, and Colonel Tim Spicer of Sandline agree. Both are absolutely certain that the Foreign Office did not make it clear to either of them that the UN arms embargo and the Order in Council which enshrined it in UK law was comprehensive in its coverage and included the supply of arms to President Kabbah as well as to the ruling junta.
Given that the Foreign Affairs Committee has found that Mr. Penfold gave the illegal arms shipment a degree of approval on the basis that he believed that the UN sanctions applied only to the ruling military junta and not to President Kabbah's government in exile, presumably because the true position of the British Government had been well and truly obscured for him, whose duty does the Minister understand it is within the Foreign Office to keep ambassadors informed of issues of legality, such as the Order in Council in this case, and who should accept responsibility if those ambassadors and high commissioners are not kept fully informed?
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Foreign Secretary stated that Mr. Penfold could have done more to inform himself about the extent of the UN arms embargo. Does the Minister believe that the same could equally be applied to Ministers in other aspects of the affair? The Foreign Secretary also said that Mr. Penfold should not have relied on the Foreign Office internal telegram 277 which briefly addressed the issue of the coverage of the UN arms embargo. Is it not a further incredible indictment of the state of communications in the Foreign Office if high commissioners cannot rely on the information contained in internal telegrams?
What is happening in Sierra Leone runs far deeper than parliamentary point-scoring. Bearing in mind the recent manner in which President Kabbah was restored to government and the British Government's role—whatever it might prove to have been—the reason it is so important is that its implications go to the heart of the future of Sierra Leone and the future of a region racked by tension and instability. Let us not forget that the real tragedy in Sierra Leone is the condition of the ordinary men, women and children of the country to whom we owe a moral and political debt, given our historical ties and the responsibility we have towards a member of the Commonwealth.
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for the opportunity to draw attention to the immense problems faced by the people of Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in the world—as the noble Earl,
1372
Lord Sandwich, reminded us—and to talk about ways in which the United Kingdom is helping Sierra Leone to tackle its problems.
The democratic elections held in March 1996 offered the people of Sierra Leone the chance to put behind them seven years of civil war. President Kabbah was elected. The elections were a demonstration of the commitment of the people of Sierra Leone to peace and democracy. They were held despite the efforts of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to disrupt the electoral process through violence.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, reminded us, on 25th May 1997 hopes for a better future were dashed by a military coup. The coup overthrew the democratically elected government. It was rightly condemned by Britain and the entire international community: the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union, the Organisation of African Unity, the Economic Community of West African States and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, quoted from the Amnesty International report, which makes clear that the period of the military junta was characterised by widespread human rights abuses and atrocities, which many of your Lordships remarked on this afternoon. The rule of law collapsed. Hundreds of civilians were arbitrarily killed. The junta had nothing to offer the people of Sierra Leone but murder, violence, torture, rape and looting.
Furthermore, the junta was rejected by the people of Sierra Leone, who stood up for the principle of democracy. There was a widespread yearning for an end to the violence. Many thousands fled the country, and the vast majority of people in Sierra Leone refused to have any dealings with the junta.
Britain led the international efforts to restore the democratically elected government of President Kabbah. We led action in the United Nations; we supported the Economic Community of West African States' efforts to find a peaceful solution. That is why we warmly welcomed the restoration of the government chosen by the people of Sierra Leone in March this year. No one who supports democracy or who has witnessed the scale of atrocities committed by the junta could disagree.
The return of President Kabbah on 10th March was greeted with widespread popular relief. It was a justifiable source of pride for the people of Sierra Leone. It was also a source of pride for the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). It can be argued that the end to that misery would not have been possible without its assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the use of military force across boundaries in those circumstances. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to the rule of law in international relations and the authority of the Security Council. While we welcomed the fact that the rule of the military junta had been brought to an end, we were unable wholeheartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force must be based upon international law. But the fact is that President Kabbah's government faced then, and still faces, the massive task of rebuilding the

1373
country after the abuses of the junta. The democratic Government of Sierra Leone is publicly committed to re-establishing the rule of law, respect for human rights, the restoration of national institutions and, importantly, the strengthening of the civil administration, and also to offering the people of Sierra Leone lasting peace.
Of course, it is right to help the government of Sierra Leone in those tasks. It is right if we care about human rights and the rule of law. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was quite correct when he said that since the restoration of democracy in March, the Department for International Development has committed over £20 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Sierra Leone.
In answer to the specific point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that includes a DfID pledge of £6.5 million to support the Government of Sierra Leone's programme for disarmament, immobilisation and reintegration of 33,000 former soldiers. The programme is vital for rebuilding peace and for long-term reconciliation in Sierra Leone, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, implied. It demonstrates to the combatants that there is an alternative to violence; that they have an economic future if they have a peaceful future.
Britain is providing humanitarian assistance through non-governmental organisations for post-conflict relief and rehabilitation. Current support during this financial year is in the region of £2 million. That money provides direct support for agriculture, health and education. We shall also provide £6 million over three years for a funding programme for good governance in Sierra Leone. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that the money will help to restore not only the key areas of civil society and parliament, but also the judiciary—a point to which he particularly drew our attention.
In answer to the point on aid put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, Her Majesty's Government will continue to remind the Government of Sierra Leone of the need for continuing evidence of their real commitment to human rights and the rule of law and respect for their international obligations, including during the current treason trial process of which I hope to say more in a moment.
We are also helping in other ways: for example, in the United Nations. We fully supported the creation of the United Nations observer mission in Sierra Leone in July. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, particularly asked about it. It is a military/civilian observer peacekeeping mission and it also monitors human rights in a way that we hope helps the Sierra Leone Government to address their human rights obligations. Britain has provided seven of the 40 military observers for the current first phase. Those observers are playing an extremely important role.
We are also planning to help the Government of Sierra Leone to reform the army—a point that several noble Lords raised—to ensure that there is proper democratic control. A reformed army is central to preventing human rights abuses, sustaining democracy and building lasting peace and stability. It is essential to ensure stronger oversight of the military by democratic government and, of course, parliament.
1374
But we all recognise that Sierra Leone faces an uphill struggle. Progress cannot be achieved without a lasting peace. I believe that that point was made by virtually all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. Peace is elusive. Continuing violence in the country is a source of great concern, as many noble Lords pointed out. Since their removal from power in February remnants of the military junta have conducted a campaign of appalling atrocities against the civilian population. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to say that several thousand civilians have been brutally killed or mutilated by the rebels since February. Killings have occurred on an even greater scale than during the rule of the junta. The indiscriminate mutilation of men, women and children is particularly grotesque. There have been more than 4,000 cases of mutilation since February. I believe that the description given by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, went to many of our hearts.
Her Majesty's Government condemn these atrocities in the strongest possible terms. We are also deeply concerned about the fate of children. Not only are children being killed and mutilated but several thousand have been separated from their families, due mainly to their forcible recruitment into rebel forces. The United Nations estimates that 4,000 child soldiers are still attached to the military forces. The majority of them—about 2,500—are forced to fight with the rebels and the rest are recruited by the civil defence force. In answer to the point put by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Moynihan, Her Majesty's Government have expressed their concern on this matter to the Government of Sierra Leone. We shall continue strongly to urge the parties, including the rebels, to disarm and demobilise all children. We shall also continue to support the efforts of the United Nations in this regard. The successful reintegration of child soldiers into civil society will be a difficult and long-term process but it is one that we are determined to follow through.
The rebels are particularly active in the north and east of the country. Like many noble Lords, we are concerned about recent reports of attacks on villages and towns close to Freetown. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made particular reference to that. We understand, however, that the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) has regained control of these areas in the past week or two. We are monitoring the situation very closely. We believe that ECOMOG is in a position to safeguard and protect Freetown at the moment, but we shall be very vigilant and keep the position under review.
ECOMOG is helping the Government of Sierra Leone to combat rebel atrocities and to restore security throughout the country. Her Majesty's Government support these efforts. In addition, Nigeria has played a leading role, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, told the House. Nigeria is making real efforts and daily sacrifices in the interests of peace in Sierra Leone and stability in the region. We hope that other countries in the region will also be able to play a similar role by contributing troops to the ECOMOG force in Sierra Leone.

1375
It is vital to ensure that the rebels who commit these atrocities are starved of weapons. Therefore, the rigorous implementation of the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone is essential. We shall play our part and we expect others to do the same. We welcome the Economic Community of West African States' small arms moratorium. Strict implementation will contribute to stability in the region.
Britain is also playing a leading role in supporting efforts to restore security. We gave £2 million to the United Nations trust fund for peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. Of that, £1.5 million has gone on direct logistical support to ECOMOG. We hope that others can continue to follow Britain's lead in providing much-needed logistical support for ECOMOG. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, Britain organised, hosted and chaired the first meeting of the international contact group on Sierra Leone on 5th November. That conference brought together key international organisations and donors and the Government of Sierra Leone. We are pleased that the meeting resulted in new pledges of financial support for peacekeeping in that country particularly from the Netherlands, Japan and France.
The meeting of the contact group marked an important step in broadening support for the Government of Sierra Leone among the international community. It was an important boost to international efforts to bring long-term peace and security to Sierra Leone. Britain will continue to draw to the attention of the international community the urgent needs of Sierra Leone in this way. In answer to the specific point raised in the debate, we hope that there will be a second contact group meeting early next year.
Diplomatic efforts are vital if long-term peace is to be achieved. The contact group meeting endorsed the dual approach of support for ECOMOG and the pursuit of a diplomatic solution. A proper reconciliation process is the key to long-term peace. We shall continue to encourage the Government of Sierra Leone along this path. Difficult decisions will need to be taken if real progress is to be made. A way to achieve lasting peace has been mapped out for the rebels. In answer to specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the Commonwealth Secretary-General has set out to the rebels clear terms for talks with the Government of Sierra Leone, including recognition by the RUF of the legitimacy and authority of the government; unconditional and indefinite cessation of all hostilities; and willingness to enter into talks to bring about an immediate end to the conflict. The United Kingdom Government fully support the efforts of the Commonwealth in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, also referred to the treason trials. Her Majesty's Government are following those trials very closely. We recognise that the junta overthrew a democratically elected government. There cannot be immunity for those who are responsible for committing atrocities. But the Government of Sierra Leone cannot be in any doubt about our very strong opposition to the death penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, drew attention to the execution of 24
1376
soldiers. Her Majesty's Government regret those executions. We hope that they will be the last. We believe that large-scale executions will not promote national security.
In answer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, my right honourable friend the Minister of State has intervened personally with President Kabbah to urge clemency for those who are sentenced to death. For civilian trials, President Kabbah has undertaken to consider our representations carefully once the appeals process is exhausted. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
International observers agree that fair trials have been conducted under difficult circumstances. However, we have concerns about the lack of a proper appeals process for military courts marshal. We have urged the Government of Sierra Leone to instigate such an appeals process. We shall continue to take every opportunity to remind them of their international obligations to provide fair trials for all concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the arrest of journalists, in particular Winston Ojukutu-Macaulay and Sylvester Rogers. We have asked our High Commission to express to the Government of Sierra Leone our concerns about those arrests. We have asked the High Commission to point out that while we understand the effects of inaccurate reporting on the fighting we look to that government to see what can be done to ensure accuracy, for example by means of daily bulletins on the security situation. Mr. Rogers is unwell and has been transferred to a hospital in Freetown and Mr. Ojukutu-Macaulay has been released on bail.
The noble Lord also asked about the status of women. The DfID is providing funds for a number of non-governmental organisations that work in this field, particularly in the area of women's health. Recent examples include £227,000 to the Marie Stopes international programme for safe motherhood and community health and over £100,000 for the Campaign for Good Governance which is also very active, particularly on women's issues.
Several noble Lords asked about the reports in today's newspapers on Sandline and GCHQ. Sir Thomas Legg saw all of the intelligence reports and assessments on Sierra Leone during the period in question. I believe that this can be seen from paragraph 2.16 of the report by Sir Thomas Legg. He concluded that only one bore significantly on his investigation, and he addressed it in his report at paragraph 6.53. I believe that those questions were dealt with thoroughly in the Legg Report and have been dealt with thoroughly all over again by the FAC.
There was no cover up. There was no effort to mislead Parliament. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary accepted the findings of the Legg Report in a Statement to the House on 27th July. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in particular for his constructive summary of that point. Similarly, I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.

1377
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Home Office country assessment. I understand that that assessment is due early in the new year. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was concerned about the possibility of Nigeria pulling out and the situation in Sierra Leone degenerating as a result. The Nigerians have made clear that they cannot stay indefinitely in Sierra Leone. What we have said to the Nigerians is that they and the rest of ECOMOG should stay, with the support of the international community—I stress that—until a self-sustaining peace has been established in Sierra Leone. We are having those discussions with the Nigerians. I hope that that assures the noble Lord that the Government are engaged on that point.
Sierra Leone is facing many daunting challenges: the shocking atrocities, about which we have heard; being one of the poorest countries in the world; the grave humanitarian crisis; and the plight of child soldiers. But the people of Sierra Leone can also be justifiably proud. They have stood up for democracy. They overthrew a brutal military junta. The Government are doing their best to build a better future for their people. It is a fertile country rich in natural resources. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to support the people of Sierra Leone in their search for lasting peace, security and stability and democracy. We believe that it is right to do so. The rebels must now stop their violence and enter into the internationally supervised disarmament which is available to them. That and the path set out by the Commonwealth is the only way ahead for them.
It is important that Britain remains a friend to Sierra Leone. That does not mean giving anyone a blank cheque. It does not mean ignoring faults. It means continuing to remind the Government of Sierra Leone that we expect a continuing commitment to respect for human rights and international law. We shall also try to build on international support for Sierra Leone because it deserves stronger interest and support so that the people who have suffered so much in recent years can look forward to a better and more secure future.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been useful. I hope that it sends a message to Sierra Leone that we do care. Everyone has demonstrated that in their speeches. As the Minister mentioned, certain aspects need to have an eye kept on them—but we care. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on competitiveness I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Competitiveness
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"The White Paper I am publishing describes the Government's strategy for modernising the United Kingdom economy. Overall our industrial performance still lags well behind the United States and our European partners, despite all the privatisations and trade union reforms of our predecessors' 18 years. Yet a new economic landscape beckons, radically changing the terms on which businesses compete with each other. As a government, we have to create the conditions for an economic step change in this country. This White Paper is a wake up call to the nation to do just that.
"The starting point for the Government's analysis is that knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness. An advanced industrial nation like ours cannot sustain the growing prosperity we want by producing standard products and services made with pedestrian methods and commonplace technology. Others can do that just as well and more cheaply. We will only win by developing innovative goods and services that customers want to buy and that use world-class production systems and the most sophisticated technology to keep us ahead of our rivals and by ensuring we have the best environment for business in the world here in the UK but also in the rest of Europe which is our home market.
"The bedrock of that business environment is macro-economic stability. Business hates uncertainty. That is why this Government are so determined to steer a stable course through the world's current economic turbulence. We fully understand the difficulties that this turbulence can cause.
"The Government have no illusions that they alone can transform Britain's economic performance. Of course they cannot. It is not government's job to second guess boardroom decisions. Nor is the hidden hand of market forces sufficient to secure our competitive success. The false hopes of planning in the 1960s and 1970s, and the obsession with laisser-faire in the 1980s, both failed. This Government steer a new path: to work with the grain of markets; to use our regulatory powers to promote competition as the single most important spur to innovation; to encourage businesses to collaborate with each other to compete more efficiently; and to invest in the capabilities of the economy, including its skills and technological awareness.
"Within this framework there are three key roles for my department. First, we must invest in our world-class science and knowledge base. Secondly, we will step up our efforts to convert the fruits of this vital resource into hard commercial success. Thirdly,

1379
we will lead a crusade to develop in Britain the spirit of enterprise so characteristic of the United States so that we seize the new business opportunities that are before us.
"The quality of the UK's science and engineering base is the foundation on which the knowledge economy is built. It is the mainspring of innovation. Yet university research has been the victim of long-standing under-investment. This Government have acted to reverse the decline. With the Wellcome Trust, we are investing an extra £1.4 billion in British science and engineering. We also need the private sector to increase its commitment to research and development. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor will be consulting business on supplementing the current tax system with an R&D tax credit for small business. And that is why we will back strong participation by UK business in the EU's research and development programme.
"But research by itself does not generate wealth. We must ensure that more research is transformed into commercial success; that new ideas lead to successful innovation and new products. My department will therefore switch resources to increase its support for innovation by 20 per cent. An expanded teaching company scheme will pay for 200 technology champions every year from among our best science and engineering graduates to help businesses innovate and to exploit the latest technology. In addition the Government will offer a range of new incentives to reward universities which work effectively with business. Our target is to increase by 50 per cent. the number of innovative start-up businesses each year from the public sector science and engineering base by 2002.
"Exploitation of science and business development is often strongest when businesses cluster together, creating a critical mass of investment, skills and co-operation. Government cannot create clusters out of nothing, but they can help emerging clusters to grow. In a new initiative I regard as of fundamental importance the Government will for the first time set up teams, each led by a Minister, to tackle barriers to growth of nationally significant clusters, co-ordinating action across government and with business. The first of these teams will concentrate on biotechnology and will be led by the science Minister, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
"Boosting enterprise will be given the highest priority in what the Government say and do. We must encourage more people of all ages and backgrounds to start their own business, and we must help those businesses to grow.
"I have no magic wand that can create an enterprise culture in Britain. But government can play a role in changing attitudes, in facilitating finance, in offering networks of support and enabling businesses to learn from each other, in improving technological awareness, especially access to the new digital technologies, and in promoting at every opportunity liberalisation and competition without which an enterprise culture cannot flourish.
1380
"First, attitudes. We will back a business-led campaign to promote enterprise in every part of the country. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider how best entrepreneurship skills can be introduced to teaching in school. This year the Government are spending £15 million to promote links between education and business and are co-sponsoring, with the private sector, the expansion of the young enterprise scheme into higher education, helping students to run their own businesses. This will build on the measures the Government have already taken to invest in and reform the education system at every level.
"Second, finance. The financial community needs to be as entrepreneurial and innovative as the business community. This Government have already introduced a much needed cut in capital gains tax. Today, I can announce the creation of a new £150 million enterprise fund to bring together public and private finance for high growth businesses. The fund will help financial providers develop the expertise to understand and back growth businesses and new innovative technologies. It will help create in the UK a far-sighted financial community capable in future of taking risks alone.
"Thirdly, support for innovative business start-ups. To help them through their crucial early stage of development I have set the Business Links network a target of support each year for 10,000 new growth businesses across the UK.
"In a modern, enterprising economy, businesses need to learn from each other. The Government can play a crucial role and we are full partners in the CBI's Fit for the Future best-practice campaign. My department has helped the Motor Industry Forum to bring master engineers from Japan to advise and train vehicle component suppliers on world-class practice. This has produced truly outstanding improvements in performance. My department will fund up to 10 similar programmes in other industrial sectors.
"To help the regional development agencies in England promote innovation and competitiveness we shall provide them with an extra £10 million. We have decided to re-focus regional selective assistance on high-quality, knowledge-based projects which provide high value jobs.
"Fourthly, access to new digital technologies. These provide the nerve system of the knowledge economy. Electronic commerce will be among the most revolutionary changes to markets since the Industrial Revolution. However, I recognise many smaller firms find it difficult to make the leap into electronic trading. I am therefore launching a new programme to ensure we achieve a target of one million small businesses exploiting the Internet to the full by 2002. The Government will invest £20 million in new comprehensive advisory services to ensure that this target is achieved. My ambition is that Britain should, by the end of this Parliament, have the best environment worldwide for electronic trading. I have today published a document that benchmarks our performance in the digital economy against our

1381
main competitors. I will introduce an Electronic Commerce Bill later in this Session to bring our laws into the electronic age and reinforce confidence in electronic trading. I will appoint an e-envoy to help lead for the UK in international discussions on electronic commerce. The performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office will conduct a study to build on this. I am also developing proposals to liberalise further communications markets.
"Finally, if enterprise and innovation are to flourish in the UK, we need greater competition in markets and those markets need to modernise. For 18 years our predecessors preached free markets but took fright at big business. We have already passed the new Competition Act, and we will use it to attack anti-competitive practices, strengthening the OFT so that it can expose all corners of the economy to the stimulus of competition. I will also consult next year on the case for reform of merger policy to ensure this too promotes competition.
"The White Paper sets out 75 commitments to boost business capabilities, to promote business collaboration and to strengthen competition, all aimed at closing the performance gap against our main competitors. But in addition we need to measure how well we are doing. I have also decided therefore to develop and publish indicators to track the country's progress—a new competitiveness index. Each year the Government will review Britain's progress against these indicators and agree what further action is required. A new competitiveness council, drawn from across business, will advise the Government on the action needed.
"In one respect only this is a modest White Paper. It is a mere 67 pages compared with the 634 pages of the three competitiveness tomes published by the last administration. The right honourable Member for Henley was thoroughly dedicated in his goals and I commend him on giving Britain some home truths. But still Britain slipped behind. The growl was there but not the bite. In contrast, our White Paper charts a realistic and attainable way forward. For too long, a dignified retreat from economic success has satisfied us. Britain has played on half the pitch: inventing but not selling; competing but not working enough with others. Now we are going to do things differently: government and business in partnership, with focus, with energy and with enterprise. I commend the White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is much to welcome in the White Paper. That is not surprising because, as was said this morning by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, he could have written it some years ago. I also ask the Minister to convey to his right honourable friend in the other place my thanks for the briefing he gave me just after eight o'clock this morning. I thought that the honeypots
1382
would then come in the Statement but, unfortunately, it seemed that the full briefing was on the "Today" programme.
I was in the DTI under the leadership of my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine. I have memories of the three-volume competitiveness White Paper and work which he brought forward. I hope that the Minister does not criticise us for being conscientious about the detail. It certainly moved matters forward and brought home to people what was needed at that time.
In this case, the principles and the theory are there but I worry about the pragmatism. I am delighted that there will be measures, indicators and benchmarks which we can use. I suspect that we shall ask for a quarterly review, even if by way of a Question in the House, of what is happening.
I am worried that noble Lords opposite have the wrong image of small firms. The White Paper puts great emphasis on electronic trading, information and knowledge. That is great. It is wonderful. But many people who run small firms do not get round to reading the newspapers. How does the Minister propose to persuade people under pressure and with limited time to take on board the proposals? My definition of a small firm is a place where the end of the day comes before the end of the work and there is no one to do it for you the next day. We will find great treasure in such companies if there is a practical way in which they can participate in these services.
In the past, small firms were located next to accountants and solicitors and the owners knew their bank managers. Now they start from scratch, often with innovation, which we all want to see, but more often having to learn by mistakes. We cannot afford that in the present economy.
Another problem is the difficulty of attracting graduates into smaller firms. They will flock to the big firms with reputations, although some reputations have changed in the past four months. Is there not some way in which the Minister can bring forward the opportunity for smaller firms to share in graduate skill and knowledge? That is very important.
We need industry heroes, not just service heroes, and I hope that the Minister will bring that about. We all miss John Harvey-Jones who showed that business and industry are fun. That attracts people. I see nothing wrong with it.
The Statement declares that the bedrock of the business environment is macro-economic. I hope that that does not mean tax harmonisation because there could be nothing worse for our economy. I say that with some feeling. I watched so much enterprise and industry slide south from Northern Ireland because of tax issues. The corporation tax of 10 per cent. is a frightening example of what will happen.
The Government have stated that we will use our regulatory powers to promote competition. I hope the Minister will explain that. It appears to be a contradiction in terms. Competition is what you have openly; it is not achieved by regulation.

1383
We have a world-class science and knowledge base. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why in that case about 13 per cent. of pharmaceutical manufacturing in this country has moved to the Far East in recent months. We can rightly be proud of the industry, with its limited subsidy, but already parts of it have gone to Taiwan and Vietnam. I should be grateful to hear what the Minister believes are the reasons.
I also approve of the university-industry links. Such links did not occur in the past because universities believed that industry was not for them to spend time on. I suggest that the Minister discovers how the successful links worked. They worked because people met each other at school sports days and not because the department brought them together by identifying possibilities. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that incentives to the universities apply to industrial processing as well as to innovation and research.
I note that the first of the teams to come forward on the critical mass of clusters will be on biotechnology. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that Friends of the Earth made some fairly serious allegations on Monday. I hope that he will be able to come to the House and dispute them. A statement from the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday indicated that the Minister is not responsible for the £185 million budget of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. If the Minister is not responsible for the budget, who is? I hope that in BSE enterprise the Government will include the Prince's Trust because it has the advantage of using businessmen.
Facilitating finance is absolutely key to the proposals. What arrangements have been made with the banks not to pull the plug when the going gets tough? How can one stop them saying that there is no profit in business from small businesses? I hope that we can encourage the banks to "stay with it" if the rest of us are working to make things grow. I heartily endorse the expansion of the young enterprise scheme. I have seen it change people's lives enormously.
Many proposals in the Statement need more detail which we might not receive today. As regards the enterprise fund, who chooses which enterprises are involved? Is it on a smaller scale than that related to industries? Who guarantees the loan? Who stays with it to make sure that it does not leave them?
I worry about using Business Links because if those who advise in Business Links are skilled in entrepreneurship they would be out there as entrepreneurs and not advising in Business Links. Perhaps we could look at another area alongside if not instead of that. Can the Minister explain why, when motorcar quality of Japanese manufacturers is greater in England, it was felt necessary to bring master engineers from Japan? Could not more engineers from Gateshead and Derby have been employed?
The greatest need will be training to allow the knowledge to be utilised. The Statement mentions the decision to refocus regional selective assistance on high quality, knowledge-based products. Does that mean that the areas with the greatest need will therefore be
1384
neglected? Does it mean that one is picking those with the greatest skills rather than the greatest need? I should be interested to hear the Minister's view.
The Government, rightly, are keen to ensure that people who are bankrupt are not written off as entrepreneurs. There is no quicker way to learn than to make mistakes. That is how I learnt about working capital. When it is £2 million above where it should be, you never let it happen again. I hope that we will see protection against the revival of phoenix companies where the car is transferred to the wife and the company is set up again within a few weeks.
We never took fright at big business. If there was one thing the President of the Board of Trade knew it was that if you are to be globally competitive you have to have large businesses, otherwise the Germans, the French and the Americans will move in over you. That is important. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that competition policy accepts that there need to be many big companies.
We debate the Statement in a climate in which the number of bankruptcies and late payments is rising—and that after the Government put forward the policy, "If you won't pay £500 you might £550." I should be grateful to hear what is to be done about that.
I should like the Minister to comment on two further issues. The IMF, in its Korean restructuring, is moving the tables. The Minister shrugs. I do not expect an answer today. It is telling the Koreans what to do and is about to move Daewoo Electronics out of here in favour of Samsung, which is not interested in "here". We are going to lose jobs by accident. I should like to know whether the Government intend to investigate that wearing their IMF hat.
Secondly, and it is for me to say this, there is sound evidence that the companies which survive best in tough times are run by women. What input to the paper was from the women's group in the Cabinet Office? If there was none—I may be being sceptical—can we have the Government's opinion as to how we obtain more women entrepreneurs? They start from scratch and develop companies which stay, I suspect because the Porsche does not appear on the books in the first year.
I conclude with those queries which I hope the Minister does not feel are too detailed. Industry—getting it right and getting the sums together—is a matter of detail.
5.10 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, one of the benefits of recent skulduggery on the Conservative Benches is the happy return of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to the Front Bench. That is most welcome.
My appearance today is because of the non-availability of my noble friend Lord Razzall. It is therefore appropriate that I declare an interest. I am president of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—BREMA to its friends—though it is not in that capacity that I want to put forward a few points. However, I suspect that the members of BREMA will welcome the emphasis on

1385
digital technology. They are convinced that the British-based electronics industry is well equipped and well poised to take benefit from the digital age.
The White Paper once again identifies, as it seems to have done ever since I became involved in politics over 30 years ago, that Britain is a low pay, low skill, low tech and low productivity economy. As has been pointed out, there have been a number of attempts to cure that malaise. The Secretary of State calls his paper "A Wake Up Call to the Nation". But there is a need for more than clarion calls. Resources must match intent; the means much match the ends; and the words on the cheque need to match the numbers. That is why, though I see some of the glamorous figures quoted, I shall await the expert comments from some of the sectors involved as to just how generous the Government's initiatives will be and what impact they will make.
I am in a little difficulty in that I know that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raises high emotions, both for and against. I admit at once therefore that I am a Mandelson fan, just as I was a Heseltine fan in the last government. I rather suspect that the present Secretary of State sees himself as the natural successor of Mr. Heseltine rather than of Mrs. Beckett.
I agree that the Government cannot back winners. But the Secretary of State is surely right that his role cannot be wholly passive. That is why I welcome the assurance again that efforts will be made to make our competition policy truly effective. The Minister and I spent many months going through the Competition Bill—now the Competition Act. We welcomed it onto the statute book. But the jury is still out as to how effective we will make our competition law. It is too easy to allow it to slip back into listening to hard cases instead of making sure that our competition law favours those who are truly competitive.
The matter of university funding is extremely interesting. Almost at the same time as the Secretary of State's Statement landed on my desk came a statement from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry announcing its study of similar issues called The UK Pharmaceutical Industry at the Crossroads. Again, though I have not had the chance to study either document in detail, it is interesting—certainly from the chapter headings—to see how much shared analysis there is. On the question of university funding the pharmaceutical report says:
"Given limited resources, such funding should be targeted to key areas and focused on a relatively small number of leading institutions".
I wonder whether the Government agree with that. If they intend to put a large amount of money into university research, will it be spread thinly or targeted—as the pharmacists recommend—on a relatively small number of leading institutions?
I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. There is a whiff of big business, which is probably the first love of the Secretary of State, when there is need within his department to keep an eye on small and medium-sized enterprises. There is also a need for co-ordination and co-operation between
1386
departments. This cannot be just an initiative of the DTI. That is why we welcome the announcement today of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. This initiative will touch education, the Treasury, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and they must pull together. That is why I hope we hear for the last time these ridiculous briefings and counter-briefings between the DTI and the Treasury. The spinning really must stop if the Government are to be treated seriously on this matter and if we are to be clear that the Treasury is on board for this initiative.
I noted the visit of Professor Michael Porter, of Harvard Business School. It was said that he made a great impact on the Secretary of State. Among Professor Porter's strong recommendations was a much friendlier tax regime and deep cuts in capital gains tax. Is that the shared analysis of the DTI and the Treasury in approaching these matters?
I do not see many of the usual suspects on the Benches and I do not want to promote a diversion, but the Statement does not seem to fit with the Government's policy on the euro. The Conservative policy of waiting 10 years is positively barmy if we are talking about giving industry some kind of stability in which to make plans. Therefore, on these Benches, in welcoming much of the Statement, we say that it only makes sense if there is an early rather than a late decision on our membership of the euro.
The White Paper has a lot of the fizz we would expect from the Secretary of State. He is right to point out that the privatisation and trade union reform of the 1980s, though taking us so far, still left us with many of the problems which this Statement identifies. It will need not just a government effort, but also a national effort. It is interesting—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us in these news days—that the paper mentions discussions with the CBI but does not mention whether discussions have taken place with the TUC. I should like to know whether there have been such discussions and whether the TUC will be playing a part in seeing the proposals through.
We welcome the targets; we welcome the measurement. The real test will not be a test of the Secretary of State; it will be a test of us all as to how willing we are to change attitudes that have been entrenched too long and that rightly need to be changed now.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, to the Opposition Front Bench. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness there. This is our first debate together and I have looked forward to it. It was also a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speaking about digital technology as it is one of the key frameworks of the document.
As I listened to what I thought were two generous responses from the Benches opposite, I heard understanding and support for the requirement to invest in Britain's capabilities, in the areas of the science base, the skills base and communications technology, and an understanding of the whole of the supply chain.

1387
A number of detailed questions were asked, some of which I shall address now; I shall address others in the fullness of time, because of the time constraint. Many detailed comments were raised which, I agree, is the right way in which to approach micro-economic planning as opposed to macro-economic planning. However, we must not forget that a stable macro-economic background, with low interest charges, low cost of money and sound government finance, is an essential pre-condition. As I said in the Queen's Speech debate, for the past 20 or 30 years it has been difficult for any government to achieve that background stability although we all need to work hard to do so.
I return to the key points. Where I saw and heard the support was, as I say, in regard to investing in the capabilities of our country. The second, strong feature where there is common understanding is the need for government to act as a catalyst and for industry to collaborate. In saying that, I can immediately answer one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness about how we allow small businesses to enter into the modernisation of competitive capacity. I believe that one must drive this forward through collaboration in the supply chain. We have started that in the automotive supply chain and I have personal experience of it from my own career in the North Sea supply chain. Efforts have been made in the food industry supply chain, driven by the larger, lead companies. In key terms, that is how one drives knowledge and the use of knowledge through to small companies within the system.
In such areas as investing in our capabilities and catalysing collaboration throughout the system, there is a strong resonance in the Chamber that that is good micro-economic policy which we must all encourage.
I sensed uncertainty about the third key area of government's role in the micro-economic strategy, which is regulation to ensure open and competitive markets. I thought there was a doubt in the question of the noble Baroness about the role of regulation in ensuring competitive markets. I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in saying that the first tool is the Competition Act itself. That is the framework for competition and it is different from anything that we have had before in this country because it is not about form based competition. It is about removing obstacles and allowing freedom to compete to the hilt unless one infringes the two classical prohibitions.
That is a regulatory structure, but it gives business much more freedom to compete. I can illustrate what I mean by "regulation to achieve better competition" by the overall structure of the Bill. In developing new markets, regulation is totally appropriate to achieve competition. When we discussed the Bill, we talked about the regulatory process for privatised new marketplaces in which state monopolies were turned into new companies. One needs a regulatory framework to ensure that competition grows in those areas of privatisation.
In the immensely interesting new marketplace of electronic commerce and the Internet, I would argue that unless we set the correct regulatory structure, which
1388
protects consumers, harnesses the technology and gives an international framework, we shall not take full advantage of the new marketplace or give our companies the opportunities that they should have to become leading-edge competitors in a new technology or a new marketplace in the next millennium. Therefore, we are convinced that the regulatory framework has a positive role to play in encouraging the correct spirit of competition.
Interesting questions were also asked about the quality of scientific investment, the issue of how funds would be put into science, and the role and responsiveness of the research councils in ensuring that excellence is the outcome of the dialogue in the bidding process between the scientific institutions and the fund providers. We shall use the well-known process of the research councils, but we shall attempt to ensure that excellence is focused through the bidding process which, as we have learnt, is the best way; through the Foresight programme and in the research councils; and through increased links between business, its aims for good scientific investment and the academic capacity to produce new technology.
Much was made of Michael Porter's visit to this country. I can only believe that he was "in search of excellence". It appears to me that he came here because he wanted to find out exactly how we are positioning ourselves as regards competencies within the new European market structure and in order to take advantage of that marketplace. That is an interesting part of the debate. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised and I certainly would not want to avoid it. I advise the noble Lord to look carefully at the text. We recognise Europe as the home market. That is the first great underpinning of a positive attitude towards the European adventure. Without doubt, this paper looks at the capacity to grow, whether through electronic commerce, the Internet, the European research programmes, entry into the marketplace or our competitive regulatory process. The axis is our capacity to exploit and develop in the single market. That is absolutely as it should be and it is vital for the competitiveness of our country.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this is truly a test for us all. It is not government's solution to competitiveness: it is an industry partnership solution to competitiveness, involving government and the people of the nation. The noble Lord asked whether the TUC was involved in preparing the document. Like others, the TUC was deeply involved in the 10 working parties over the 18 months of close counsel with members of the business community, who themselves underwrite and underpin the report as the direction for progress. It made a very strong contribution through the working parties to the development of what, I agree, is a test and a responsibility for us all which we should not fail.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, much of what the Minister said when repeating the Statement is extremely welcome and encouraging, but I have two worries that I should like to put to him. First, at the

1389
beginning of the Statement he asserted that Britain was well behind its competitors in performance and productivity. He implied—I thought a little implausibly—that that is because nothing has happened in the past 18 years to improve our performance.
That contrasts with the reported comments in this morning's paper of his own Secretary of State who said that the attack on state monopoly during the Tory years and the privatisation programme was entirely right and that the then Labour opposition was utterly wrong to oppose it in almost every single case. We should like to be reassured that the Secretary of State is setting the mood and it is the continued attack on state monopoly and increased competition that is the theme rather than "bad mouthing" everything that has happened in the past 18 years.
My second point concerns productivity. As I understand the Government's analysis, much of the argumentation rests on some of the Mackinsey reports—the recent observations on sagging productivity in this country. Has the Minister noted the comments of Ted Hall? He is the head of Mackinsey's global research team in America, although he had a hand in preparing that report here. He explained that nowadays productivity cannot be measured in traditional terms because the productivity gains—the gain in product—are in the quality, innovation and "connectivity", if I may use that word, between people and machines and people and people. He explained that those matters do not show up in the traditional productivity modes. When we add to that the fact that the comparison between ourselves and America appears to ignore the length of working hours applied, it seems a slightly weak basis on which to build up a whole thesis about productivity in this country. Perhaps that should be looked at more carefully before we plunge ahead.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that it was never my intention to bad-mouth policies of the previous government. In looking at the competitiveness report, I was trying to explain the fact that they were long on analysis and relatively weaker on solution. What was undertaken was certainly a reconstruction of competitive markets in areas where we had had state monopolies. That is a pre-condition for a competitive marketplace, as has been said by my noble friend in another place. We believe that very strongly. However, where we failed—and this refers to the second part of the noble Lord's question—is in understanding how value was created through the system.
While we could create the conditions for competitive markets in the newly-freed areas where there had been monopolies, we did not have the same capacity as in the previous government to create higher value added through the private sector chain as well. It is clear that on the basis of the statistics—whether we take GDP per capita or, more conveniently, as the noble Lord mentioned, GDP per hour worked—we are producing less than our major competitors.
To back that weakness even further, we are certainly investing less per capita in the industrial and service system than our competitors; sometimes in the region of 40 to 50 per cent. less. The congruence of less value per
1390
capita produced and less investment per capita is indeed ensuring that we are not as competitive as others. Whether we talk of connectivity or value across chains, the final output is not as competitive. That is an issue this paper is trying to address. As I have said, I believe it is the responsibility of all within our country to understand that and to work to improve it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of an SME as well as of a larger company. I recognise that my noble friend's business experience was not in an SME. However, I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on productivity. Would my noble friend accept that improvement in productivity frequently results in a reduction in jobs rather than an increase?
Often we hear great announcements from major companies, but as my noble friend will know, the way they improve productivity is by slicing away a fair number of jobs. In the past, small companies have been helped by the DTI under both governments. but the help has been dependent on the number of jobs created. Can the Minister tell us whether the new enterprise fund, other grants and finance referred to in the documents rather than the Statement, would also be dependent on jobs being created?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in response to the first part of my noble friend's question on whether productivity essentially always results in job losses, I am sure that there is some connectivity, but I should like to return to the point I made previously. Concentration on adding value through investment and in the process in the workplace is an important feature of productivity and one which may not result in having fewer workers. A company may find itself with exactly the same or a greater workforce because it has understood the methodology for creating value in a new way. That is what we should be concentrating upon.
However, as has been said, in certain sectors of industry new technologies result in fewer jobs. In asking the question as to whether the new methodology for regional aid and grants will be looking at the number of jobs at stake or to be gained, all we have said in the Statement is that we wish to refocus that policy to take into account the value that will be created through jobs. Therefore, we are looking at the quality of the jobs and the quality of the future value capacity of the investment in perhaps a rather newer way than we have done in the past.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I suspect that when the commentators get their hands on this paper tomorrow, or at the weekend, they will find it to be something of a damp squib. It seems to me to contain very little that is new. The schemes announced today have their predecessors in schemes of the mid and early 1980s; that is, the enterprise schemes in support of small businesses and schemes of that sort. I was glad to see that the Minister recognised in his response to the last question—not in the Statement—that the prosperity of the country, which this Government inherited, was due to the policies of privatisation, deregulation and

1391
liberalisation, all of which his party, of which he was a member, voted strongly against. I hope that there has been a genuine acceptance by the Government that these policies have proved effective for our country.
When the Government took over in May 1997, we enjoyed fifth position in the competitive table. I do not think that Britain has been as high in the competitive table for nearly 100 years. Can the Minister hazard a forecast, as a result of this White Paper, on whether we are likely to improve upon that position? I do not expect him to jump up and say "Yes" because when the figures are eventually announced and measured, he may not be around to take blame or credit. However, my point is that we had a considerable measure of success and that should be recognised. That success came from liberalisation.
The most job-positive area in our country at present is that of telecommunications and the Internet, as the Minister correctly stated. I have some interests in that area. As regards electronic commerce, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister looks at Finland. That country leads the world in electronic commerce on the Internet. Thirty per cent. of all commercial transactions in Finland are now conducted over the Internet. They have achieved that not by government regulation but by aggressive marketing and aggressive deregulation. I believe that that should be the way forward.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his views about the effectiveness of Finland in exploiting the new digital technologies. I share those views strongly. We are delighted that so many of its companies wish to invest in the UK because they find it to be the appropriate environment for the development of that technology. They no doubt see the moves we are making to "Europeanise" our capacity to compete as being very good.
I should like to venture a comment on league tables. The noble Lord reminded me somewhat of those football discussions that we have about the competitiveness of the Premier League and how brilliant, competitive and fast it always is until we actually go away and play games against the opposition abroad, when we find that the results are slightly less attractive. My feeling about the noble Lord's fourth place in the league is that he was not very careful about saying which league it was; indeed, it sounded to me a little like the Premier League. Although we may be fourth in whatever league the noble Lord invented in his mind, I look at 18th in the OECD league table, which seems to be the international one, and wonder to myself whether, when we go abroad, we are quite as fit, quite as athletic and quite as successful as the noble Lord may have thought.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, there is much in the Statement to be welcomed. As a member of the Select Committee that looked at the information society some three years ago, I am especially delighted to see the emphasis which has been given to increasing electronic commerce and other applications of information technology. There are also a number of
1392
sums which appear to be new money for a variety of research work. However, I believe that I detected the use of the verb "switch" at one stage; namely, that some new money for innovative research would be found by "switching" it. Therefore, in order to get a better balance, can the Minister indicate where the losses, or the lack of support which the Government now feel is necessary in the fields of research, will fall? At present, we seem to be getting just the positive side and not necessarily the negative side of the Statement.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, when I used the terminology "switching", I did not want to give the impression that we had already defined that we were moving research funds out of one area and into the other. I do not believe that that would be for the Government to predetermine. As I explained, the process whereby the funds are actually directed would be by agreement and discussion with a number of interested parties, whether that be the universities, private research centres or industry. As I said, the research councils will play a strong role in that respect. My use of the word "switching" was truly more related to moving DTI innovation budget funds from one area to research. We are moving funds out of some areas which we might have favoured in the past and putting more, net, into research to make up that £1.4 billion total with the help of the Wellcome Trust, which has already been announced.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to welcome the Statement and the White Paper, which I look forward to reading, just as I was pleased to welcome the White Papers produced by the previous government. It is very important that successive governments should continually take this subject very seriously.
One of the major points that strikes me about today's Statement is the number of positive and practical measures proposed. Indeed, one of the measures which I believe to be of great importance and which, of all the measures supported, could yield the quickest results, is the best practice campaign. Here we can translate that practice very quickly into improved results. I hope that the Government will soon be announcing the sectors to which this campaign will address itself. I hope that they will include in that the energy sector with which I am personally involved, especially the energy efficiency sector.
The reason I make that point is that we now have all the environmental pressures to get greater improvements in energy efficiency, but we have a market situation in which there is no incentive to save energy. Indeed, as the noble Lord will be aware from his past connections—and perhaps he is pleased that he is not in the oil industry at the present time—there is also the way in which prices have fallen. Further, there is a great overseas potential for efficiency in the environmental sector. I hope, therefore, that that will be one of the sectors which will be included in the list.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his welcome for the Statement and his support for the focus on the

1393
bench-marking and best practice areas. Indeed, the noble Lord will be aware—and he will certainly see this when he reads the White Paper—that we have worked very closely with the CBI in its campaign development. I cannot say how much I would like to emphasise the point that the noble Lord has made. I believe that the process of bench-marking and best practice sharing through the supply chain is one thing which will bring small businesses into closer awareness of what this whole challenge is about for the future, based on the knowledge economy. Moreover, through the White Paper, we shall make it clear that everyone is involved in this challenge. I refer not just to high technology businesses but also to traditional businesses, like construction, engineering, banking and, as the noble Lord said, the energy sector.
I turn now to the issue of the lower oil price. I should point out to the noble Lord that it was totally fortuitous that I chose to change careers at this particular time. However, one of the interesting features of the nine dollar oil price, or thereabouts, is that the industry regarded itself as sophisticated, despite the fact that it seemed to drill vertical wells for 80 years. That was always surprising when the thought that you might drill them horizontally was perhaps more appropriate for developing a reservoir. However, I leave that thought with the noble Lord. We are talking about a truly technological application of a new process to change the terms of an industry. So it could even happen in the oil industry.
The point that I wish to make is that that industry, sophisticated as it is, will have totally to rebench-mark its performance capacity to flourish in a nine dollar oil environment. The demands that will be made on that industry are quite extraordinary, but I am sure that it will face up to them. Indeed, we may find many parts of the industry thinking that alternative investment in energy saving projects is probably quite a good way of increasing their return on capital in this current phase. Therefore, there may well be hope for that sector of industry which I know the noble Lord has long cherished and supported.
Lord Desai: My Lords, although I welcome the extra money for research in universities, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that blue skies research, which is high risk/high return research, will be protected and that it will not be discouraged in favour of more applied research? Further, does my noble friend agree that the best use of competition is getting prices down for the consumer? Indeed, I do not see any mention made of the consumer in the document, but I hope that my noble friend agrees with me that consumers must benefit from competition.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the terms and conditions for blue skies research in so far as the government are involved with its encouragement—indeed, I believe that that should be so, as do the Government—will not be changed by anything in the Statement. I also agree that the main beneficiary of competitiveness should be the consumer. After all, the drive is to give the consumer
1394
better and more choice; in other words, better quality at a lower price. That is entirely the spirit with which our competition policy is framed and which applies to this challenge to industry to improve the value of its output for the benefit of future markets.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can my noble friend give us a definition of what a "cluster" is in terms of the Statement that he has just repeated?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, perhaps the easiest response would be that well known expression, "I can't explain it but I know it when I see it". The best definition of a "cluster", in terminology that we currently understand, derives from Silicon Valley, which is the strip of road running south from San Francisco through Menlo Park and past the Stanford complex down to San Diego. It is known to be the greatest centre of the exploitation of digital technology in the world. We are now developing southwards from Cambridge with much the same intent: to create a digital centre of excellence in a "cluster", which is a joint availability of academic excellence, small businesses and large businesses to create an area where the trade-off of ideas, knowledge and technology in partnership creates more value for all within the system.

Fluoride in Water
5.50 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to raise the issue of water fluoridation, which I do not think has been considered in any depth in your Lordships' House since the Water Bill in 1989. The context is the Green Paper Our Healthier Nation, and the pressure that is being exerted on the Government to extend fluoridation schemes. This is a subject I have been studying for many years, and the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in conversation earlier this year, urged me to put down a Motion which could help to clarify thinking on the subject.
There are two strands to my Motion. For the wording of the first part I am indebted to Dr. lain Chalmers, the head of the UK Cochrane Centre which has a brief for high-quality scientific evidence in health-care, who believes that:
"a group should now be commissioned which is seen to he independent of any particular viewpoint in order to draft a protocol, to be endorsed by both supporters and opponents of fluoridation, for a scientifically defensible systematic review of the available evidence (published and unpublished), and that the results of such a review should be made public".
The second strand recognises the fact that this is not just a scientific matter, but that reaching whole populations through the public water supply involves questions of ethics, social policy, cost and cost-effectiveness, appropriateness of the decision-making process, environmental consequences, and so on. Only through a public inquiry, in an area where feelings have always run extraordinarily high, can such matters be properly addressed.

1395
There are logically three questions to which would-be fluoridators must be able to give an unequivocal Yes. First, is water fluoridation effective in reducing dental decay among children, the purpose for which it is put forward? If it is, then, secondly, is it safe? Finally, is it appropriate? For example, as a society we compel motorcyclists to wear helmets, but we do not force people to be vaccinated against quite serious diseases. I say the answers must be unequivocal, because it is axiomatic that for a major public health measure, where millions of people cannot avoid the treatment even if they want to, the science must be beyond reproach.
It is impossible in a short debate to cover all aspects of the argument. Let me start by telling a tale of my attempts to get at the evidence, conscious that the field resounds with claims and counterclaims by scientists on both sides. (And let me say for a start that to anyone like myself who keeps a regular eye on the medical press the notion that the controversy is a scientifically "bogus" one is quite unsustainable.) The only reliable approach in such a case is to go to primary sources.
For more than a year I have been tabling Written Questions to this Government and their predecessor. My first request for the scientific evidence for efficacy and safety was turned down. I then asked for the principal studies, and in particular those that had been randomised. I was given a list which consisted of other people's reviews, which, as any scientist will tell you, are of no value if one is trying to eliminate bias. Next, in an attempt to make things even easier, I asked for the major controlled studies. I was referred again to the list. At the same time I was corresponding with the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health, and after three letters met with the same lack of success apart from a motley collection of secondary sources and reference to a large number of studies in the literature. My Lords, this should be bread-and-butter stuff in the world of science; any reputable body expects to have to display its best evidence if challenged. Even the Committee on Toxicity did so over Vitamin B6 in the summer. Finally, I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her advisers, where, after initial demurring, I was promised a selection of studies but with a warning that some of them were quite old and not of the standard of today's methodology. Indeed. That was in May, and I have had nothing yet.
This has been an eye-opener, and something I have found to be replicated, not only in others' experiences, but in most of the other scientific aspects of fluoridation which I have pursued through Questions. Why is good methodology so important? Among other reasons, because dental caries has long been declining worldwide, and it requires a well-designed trial to determine whether a reduction in decay is due to fluoridation or some other factor; also because the temptation is to cherry-pick your regional examples so as to get the result you want. (Did your Lordships know that quite recently 15 out of the best 25 areas for children's teeth were unfluoridated, and that for 12 year-olds an unfluoridated area headed the list?) No amount of poorly designed studies can constitute good evidence.
1396
What I have been able to see leads me to believe that few, if any, studies meet the criteria of good science, despite all the assertions to the contrary; and that what the arch-fluoridationist Dr. John Colquhoun found, which caused him to change his mind, is probably true—namely, that when proper epidemiological methods are followed and comparisons are made over whole populations and not isolated areas, in New Zealand, in the UK, in the USA, the supposed benefits of fluoridation melt away. Dr. Paul Connett, professor of chemistry and international authority on environmental toxins, is on record as being
"appalled by the poor science underpinning fluoridation".
That the experts on the subject have been unable to refute my suspicion that the evidence is not there, when it would have been so easy to provide it, I find highly indicative, and I draw my own conclusions.
I must confess, however, that this has surprised me, since it had always been the safety issue that really concerned me. The problem with fluoride is that it is no harmless nutrient, as it is sometimes portrayed, but is a substance that ranks alongside arsenic and lead in tables of toxicity. It inhibits bodily processes. No essential function has been proven in humans, as a recent Department of Health report confirms. The origins of fluoridation are interesting, because it was as a result of major environmental problems in the disposal of fluoride as a toxic waste product of American industry in the 1930s that the impetus came to put it into the water supply, and the research behind this was largely funded by the industry concerned. The US Environmental Protection Agency has described it in a letter which I have seen as
"an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem".
For substances of high toxicity, where parts per billion are common currency, 1 part per million can be quite a big dose. But of course it is not a dose at all: it is merely a concentration, and old and young, sick and healthy, malnourished and well-fed, will drink and absorb greatly varying amounts of fluoride. As one doctor has put it:
"No physician in his right mind would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much or as little as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because it may benefit other people's teeth.'".
Incidentally, the claims that it is not medication at all, and that 1 ppm simply replicates the best that is found in nature, were dismissed as wrong by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in the Strathclyde case often cited favourably by fluoridationists. If it is not intended to treat, will proponents please stop talking about teeth. As for the claim that 1 ppm is an "optimal" level, I quote from the Journal of the American Dental Association that this
"has never been determined scientifically and has been used only in general terms".
It was a ball-park figure arrived at in the 1950s, since when, with toothpaste, drops, and a large increase in fluoride in our food and environment, it is overdue for revision downwards and has in fact been revised by some authorities. And yet our own experts, the same ones who cannot find the good scientific studies, are still standing pat on 1 ppm.

1397
None of this should make it too surprising that reports of possible harm have been appearing in the world literature with increasing frequency. Dental fluorosis we all know, that unsightly mottling that can so distress children and which now runs at between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent. in artificially fluoridated areas. Allergy to fluoride is a worry. Skeletal fluorosis is a serious concern, with reports now appearing to link hip fractures to fluoride in the water. Up-to-date research which I have seen, shortly to be published, casts doubt on current recommended safety levels and predicts that over a lifetime of artificial fluoridation we may see an epidemic of bone and joint problems in this country. At present doctors are not trained to look for this because of the ingrained belief in fluoride's safety, and there are no routine NHS tests to indicate possible fluorosis; so the well-worn phrase "there is no evidence" will once again be literally true, but only for want of looking. I will quote two other developments among many.
India has a major problem, with very high levels of natural fluoride producing crippling fluorosis. This has given them a strong incentive for research, which their leading expert talked about on a visit here in October. Professor Susheela, a former president of the International Society for Fluoride Research, stressed that India took no lessons from the West in either quantity or quality of peer-reviewed studies, and expressed her shock at the weakness of our research base and the lack of official interest in remedying this and in facilities for testing. Their principal finding was that there was no change in caries prevalence between 0.5 ppm and way above the maximum limit at 5 ppm; also that fluoride toothpaste gets quickly into the bloodstream, and that a variety of health problems result. The findings have been so clear that the Indian medical and dental professions are now united in wanting to get rid of fluoride at any concentration at all. They are thus poised to join Germany, Japan, the old USSR, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Chile, and other countries and regions, in abandoning the fluoridation of water. Most other countries have rejected the practice from the start.
The second example comes from America. Last year the Washington DC branch of scientists and other professionals working for the Environmental Protection Agency publicly repudiated the fluoridation of water, and stated:
"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology."
Lest there be misunderstanding, let me emphasise that this body embraces the in-house scientists working for the EPA in the Washington area—some hundreds of chemists, toxicologists, and those whose job it is to assess the risks of fluoride; except that, curiously, they were prevented from doing this formally when their political bosses almost uniquely contracted out their most recent fluoride assessment to scientists of a different persuasion. I have contacted Washington and verified these details. This is no bogus controversy, my Lords. Time and evidence have moved on since Jauncey, Knox and the Royal College of Physicians' report.
1398
I quote another US professor of chemistry:
"In the development of drugs.. we generally insist on a [margin of safety] of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies."
Researchers at Odense in Denmark have likewise drawn attention to the exceptionally narrow margin in water fluoridation. Fluoride tablets and drops have to be sold as medicines; why has fluoridated water never been assessed by the Committee on Toxicity? Given all that I have said, it is small wonder that disquiet remains and that assurances do not reassure.
How is it, then, that the great majority of dentists and doctors in the very few countries that now fluoridate are convinced of its benefits and have persuaded others to follow them? In the first place, only a tiny minority of professionals actually read the primary papers: assertions of absolute safety, extensive research and of the "unscientific" nature of anything which disagrees with this, are mostly based on what the professional bodies put out in their publications, and I have to say that these are highly selective. Your Lordships will find nothing of what I have said in these pamphlets produced by the fluoridation lobby (which, incidentally, receives a goodly annual sum from the Government). Knowing some of the background, I find them quite breathtaking in their bias. Independent commentators have pointed to the refusal to publish contrary views, an "unwillingness", in the words of an American dental journal, "to release any information that could cast fluorides in a negative light", in such a way that organised dentistry has now lost its scientific objectivity.
This suppression and distortion of evidence are well documented. Selective presentation is what distinguishes propaganda from science. "The emphasis", the British Dental Journal has advised dentists, is on "propagandising rather than education". (It is there, my Lords, in black and white!) I had an interesting experience recently when, at an All-Party meeting on the subject the MP in the chair, who described herself as a scientist, felt it was entirely right to have three panel speakers in favour of fluoridation and only one against. This mindset is not at all unusual.
What comes across most clearly, and again I quote independent sources, is that fluoridation was a campaign from the beginning, before the first trials were ever completed. It has now, sadly, become a dogma, which is hard to retreat from, and the zeal that accompanies it can be frightening. Few scientists dare oppose it publicly. But the problem that its proponents recognise is that once public doubts take root the campaign is lost; hence, I believe, the absolute nature of the claims that are made and the attempts to bludgeon all opposition.
Political correctness; a bandwagon effect; the emotional satisfaction of a "cause", especially when you are persuaded you are making a difference to society: all these have been quite enough to subvert a profession which is at the same time under pressure from sections of industry to keep up the campaign. (For if flouride is the answer to poor teeth, that lets the sugar and food industries off the hook.) Professions can be wrong, my Lords. Remember what doctors used to think of

1399
alternative medicine—how osteopathy was "quackery" for 80 years until, hey presto, for no good scientific reason opinions changed. Fifty years ago the American Medical Association was endorsing brands of tobacco.
I shall have to leave to other speakers the ethical issues of mass medication, what those who are allergic to fluoride are supposed to do, why we put fluoride and not Prozac in the water supply, what environmental effect the other 99 per cent. of water may have that does not go into children's teeth, why a Government that do not want to be seen as a "nanny" so easily buy the red herring of dental inequality when, even if fluoride were proven to be safe and effective, there are other solutions to the problem.
I am convinced that a full and unbiased review of the evidence is long overdue. I know that the WHO is about to look at the subject again, but I doubt from what I have heard that its process will be as comprehensive as Dr. Chalmers of the Cochrane Centre is asking for. I believe that nothing less than a full public enquiry will meet the case. If this does not happen, I fear that when the hexafluorosilicic acid eventually hits the fan, as sooner or later it will, the Government and their advisers will find they have nowhere to hide. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, what an enormous windmill the noble Earl has constructed and how lustily he tilts at it! This issue has been on the agenda for 30 or 40 years. In fact, most of the scientific work was done quite a long time ago. There has been some new work. But, so far as I am aware, recent papers have nothing more to offer to those who are opposed to fluoridation than the original ones.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject because it allows me—I hope it will allow me—to reassure him about the safety of fluoridation at one part per million or thereabouts. However, it seems that I shall not make much headway as the noble Earl has amassed a wonderful array of arguments to back up his case and I cannot possibly deal with each one of them in the debate. I am also very much handicapped because I had written a rather careful speech exactly timed to 11 minutes and containing much detail and references. But 10 minutes before my time for speaking arose I discovered that I had left it at home. Therefore, I am having to speak in a rather extemporary way.
Another reason why I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing the subject forward is that it enables me to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench about current government policy towards fluoridation as a whole, but particularly with regard to the effectiveness of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 which was subsumed in the 1991 Act.
The noble Earl suggests that the science which backs up the use of fluoridation is somehow less defensible than the science which does not. It is very difficult on the Floor of your Lordships' House to argue the benefits of one type of science versus another. It is something that is done all over the country in academic meetings
1400
and conferences many times a year and occupies much time. Noble Lords are not experts. The best we can do is to look at the credentials of those who back one view or another of a scientific argument.
The credentials of those who favour fluoridation are extremely good. They include 39 national organisations which are concerned with dental health; for example, the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the Health Education Authority and, the noble Earl may be interested to know, the Patients' Association, quite apart from the fact that many eminent epidemiologists helped the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in 1983 to come to the conclusion that the use of fluoride at one part per million in water supplies was perfectly safe and also beneficial.
There are now five million people in this country who have a fluoridated water supply or who live in naturally fluoridated districts. Obviously there are some exceptions but the general trend is that those who live in fluoridated districts, whether naturally or artificially fluoridated, have better dental health. The noble Earl mentioned deprivation. As regards districts which are not fluoridated there is a clear trend for those in the most deprived areas to have the worst teeth with the greatest number of cavities, fillings and missing teeth. However, even in deprived areas, with fluoridation people's teeth do well and are healthier in some cases than the teeth of people in well off areas.
Hartlepool has a natural level of 1.2 parts per million of fluoride in the water, slightly above what is advocated. It is a relatively deprived area. However, it is absolutely top of the league in dental health. In this regard there is also no evidence whatever of cancer, hip fracture or any other kind of problem there which is ascribed to fluoridation. One of the most important functions of fluoridation is to reduce the unfair discrepancy as between the teeth of well off and poor children.
It is perfectly true that fluoride acts mainly on the surface of the teeth and that the frequent and regular use of fluoride toothpaste is effective. However, such toothpaste is far less regularly used in deprived areas, and in those areas the diet is also poorer than in better off areas. The noble Earl says that we can do something about that. I hope that we do but it will take a long time to upgrade the standard of living of the people living in the worst circumstances in this country. The noble Earl knows well that that is a matter on which I have been trying to persuade governments of both complexions to act ever since I was dragged, unwillingly, as it were, into the political sphere about 15 years ago.
Sir Donald Acheson, in his recent report on inequalities in health, states that the difference in the dental health of the top social classes; that is, classes 1, 2 and 3 (non-manual) and the bottom social classes, 4 and 5, was 17 per cent.—if my memory serves me correctly—in 1983 but the difference had increased to 79 per cent. in 1993. It seems to me that despite the availability of fluoride toothpastes, we are going backwards with regard to eliminating inequalities in dental health. Sir Donald is the ex-Chief Medical

1401
Officer of Health in the Department of Health. One of the recommendations in his report is that fluoridation of the water supply should be increased.
As regards the safety issue, the two main dangers mentioned in this regard are cancer, mostly osteosarcoma, and hip fractures in elderly women. In a seminar held about two years ago, many papers were submitted on fluoridation which reviewed—I believe quite dispassionately—all the research that had been done. One paper studied the effects of fluoridation with regard to cancer. It was written by Dr. Paula Cook-Mozaffari, who is a disciple of Sir Richard Doll. She stated:
"Professor Knox in 1985 referred to twenty papers that had examined cancer incidence or mortality in relation to natural levels of fluoride and had found no adverse effect; and to seven geographical and over 30 time-trend studies that had looked for an effect of artificial fluoridation on cancer risk in different parts of the world and had found none. Only the work of Yiamouyiannis and Burk stands out against this weight of negative evidence and their analyses have repeatedly been shown to be flawed in both content and argument".
Yiamouyiannis and Burk are two American statisticians.
As regards hip fractures, Professor Cyrus Cooper, of the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit in Southampton, states:
"The burden of evidence suggesting that fluoridation might be a risk factor for hip fracture is weak and not sufficient to retard the progress of the water fluoridation programme".
In conclusion I ask my noble friend what the Government are doing to speed up the wider introduction of fluoridation and what they intend to do, if anything, about strengthening of the relevant legislation and making it mandatory instead of permissive—changing "may" to "shall"—to allow health authorities to ask water companies to fluoridate when the former feel that is necessary in their district. Yesterday, a judgment was given in judicial review. It was stated that Northumberland Water Authority was within its rights as the law stands not to fluoridate, although the health authority said it should. That suggests to me that the law needs to be changed.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when I saw that this subject of fluoridation was to be debated today, and I noted that the noble Earl was calling for a review, my first reaction was one of exasperation. How could anyone want more research when the amount already done, and fully scientifically assessed, is so extensive and so conclusively in favour of the benefits of fluoridating the water supplies?
Then I stopped and thought again, and for this reason I welcome the debate being brought to your Lordships' House today by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. Today we have the opportunity to put the clear facts to the House and finally to put the false arguments against fluoridation to rest. I hope that the Government will take the necessary action to ensure that the public will be able to enjoy the huge dental health benefits that come from a fluoridated water supply.
Health statistics are kept for all parts of the United Kingdom. There are no health patterns anywhere that indicate that fluoridated water produces any adverse
1402
health effects, when used in the correct proportions, that is one part per million. The noble Earl sent me a paper today which quoted four parts per million as being the safe level. That is not the level recommended as optimal and all water supplies that are artificially fluoridated are at 1 ppm, so you can see there is a very high margin of safety at the optimal dental benefit level.
Fluoride occurs naturally in water supplies throughout the world and therefore has been ingested for centuries. A high concentration in natural water produces mottling of the teeth, fluorosis. This is unattractive but not unhealthy and does not occur where there are correct concentrations of fluoride in the water.
This morning I received a letter from Water UK which states,
"the decision whether to fluoridate a water supply should lie with the health authority—the current discretion on water operators whether to accede to an application from a Health Authority should be removed".
Water authorities want the duty to be imposed upon them. They are clearly tired of the pressures put upon them by those opposed to fluoridation of the water supply. They want to be able to say, "We were obliged to do it", and to pass the responsibility on to the health authorities.
There are already 3 million UK residents using fluoridated water and a further 3 million would benefit if fluoride was in the water supplies in the north-west of England. On the basis of firm evidence, over 60 district health authorities have decided that fluoridation of their water supply would be beneficial for their communities.
There are instances where fluoride has been used in the water supply and for some reason later discontinued. These cases have shown a direct correlation between fluoride and dental health. The Welsh Water company began fluoridation of the water supply to Anglesey in 1956. This continued until 1991. By 1994 dental health had become as bad again as on the mainland. The Kilmarnock study gave much the same result. With fluoridated water, dental decay was reduced by more than 50 per cent. against the "control" community in five years. It was reversed again on cessation.
As an Australian dentist, with no personal interest to declare, I must ask your Lordships to look at the Australian experience and health patterns. Fluoridated water has been in constant use in Tasmania since 1953, in Canberra since 1954, and fluoride is in the water supplies of all major cities in Australia. There is no strange incidence of any "Australian" disease that differs from the rest of the world.
I have a nephew who is a dentist in Sydney. He treats most of the pupils from a large school, which has both day pupils and boarders. I heard from him that he never sees tooth decay now in the city boys but can tell instantly when a boy from the bush comes in, from an area where the family use rain water or a local supply. The country lad's teeth are still as bad as they used to be in Sydney in the days when I was a dental student, before the fluoridation of the water supply.

1403
The Australian nationwide experience spans not just one generation, but two or even three generations. There have been no known adverse effects on general health and markedly good effects on dental health. Australia is advanced in medical research. If all the cancer scares we have heard raised had some basis in fact, the Australia researchers would have been aware of them and the world would have that information. No, we must not be taken in by alarmist talk. Cancer is a disease spread throughout the world and specific links between, for example, smoking and lung cancer have been confirmed. There are no known links between cancer and fluoridation and scare tactics have been used for too long.
We have heard that strange bone deposits are seen. Only last week I put this point to an eminent consultant orthopaedic surgeon and asked him if he had seen such cases, as he is constantly studying X-rays of knees, hips and other bones. His reply was that in many thousands of patients he had treated, he had never seen any sign of unusual bone development, or spicules of the type described linked to fluoride. The most clearly established fact is that fluoride at correct strength in the water supply results in a marked drop in dental caries and has no adverse effects.
It is easy for those who are fortunate in life to say that fluoridation is not necessary. They do not stop to think of the most deprived sections of society who suffer the pain caused by severe tooth decay. In Northern Ireland, the north-west of England and some parts of Scotland, tooth decay is rampant. Hundreds of children each week need to have teeth extracted and suffer great pain from massive tooth decay. The educated, the affluent, have little if any understanding of the pain and suffering caused by toothache due to teeth so badly decayed that the nerve is involved. It is useless to say that those people should go to a dentist for a check up. Until the agonising pain of toothache manifests itself, they are not even aware that dentists exist. They desperately seek relief for the child's pain and the distress caused to the family by disturbed sleep.
The British Medical Association reports that more and more patients are asking their general medical practitioners for help with dental pain and emergency dental treatment. They state that only about 55 per cent of the population are registered with a dentist and many dentists do not accept NHS patients.
Once the toothache pain level has reached this degree of intensity, extraction is usually the only answer to relieve the child's pain. In February this year, in the national health debate, I mentioned that nearly 100 children a week in Blackburn needed to have teeth extracted under general anaesthesia. The situation of such children has dramatically worsened recently, as dentists are no longer to be allowed to administer general anaesthetics and so the child must wait until a medical anaesthetist is available, probably in the local hospital. The shortage of anaesthetists in the UK means prolonged pain for those children to endure. Pain killers will be the only interim answer.
1404
Here today, in your Lordships' House, we have the luxury of debating this subject. Few in this House would be unable to afford to drink bottled water if they were genuinely worried about even the remotest possibility of fluoride being damaging. The situation is quite different for the most deprived section of the community. They need help which can reach even those least informed or aware of health needs.
The only way to ensure an improvement in dental health, and its consequential improvement in general health, for these children is by the introduction of fluoridation to the general water supply throughout the UK. As Water UK says, it cannot be piecemeal. In particular, those members of society living in areas of deep deprivation, who have virtually no contact with the NHS, would be reached and would benefit from the fluoridation of water supplies. Again, I emphasise that the level of concentration is always to be carefully controlled to one part per million.
In September 1983, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, delivered his verdict in what has become known as the Strathclyde case. In his 392-page judgment the noble and learned Lord completely vindicated the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. He went thoroughly into all the points raised. Surely there could be few more thorough considerations of the huge amount of evidence on fluoride. All the applicant's complaints of toxicity, medicinal purpose and harm were rejected.
It was ruled that it was ultra vires—that is, that the council did not have the necessary powers to add the fluoride—so the 1985 Water (Fluoridation) Act, in which I played a part, was passed to remove this grey area and make fluoridation legal. It is an enabling Act.
Over the years I have followed the many interesting questions that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has asked. I have always considered that his wide-ranging interest in complementary medicine and other non-routine treatments was not harming others, and for that reason I have supported rather than opposed many of the rather obscure questions the noble Earl has put on health matters. Today, I am completely opposed to what I consider a most damaging demand for delay and further delay, adding further deprivation to the already deprived.
I consider that fluoridation in water is a well-established practice and has been in use for many years. It is time to decide that fluoridation should be implemented. There are so many aspects of health that can benefit from more research and the money available for research can be much better spent on subjects other than fluoride. I hope the Government will not accept the Motion misguidedly put forward today.
I look forward to the day when dental pain will be something that even the least fortunate children in Britain do not suffer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind Members on all sides of the House that when the figure 10 appears on the clock, 10 minutes have been completed.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Baldwin for initiating the debate. This is a subject about which a growing number of people are increasingly concerned as new and worrying evidence comes to light. Few people in this House can have worked so hard on this subject as my noble friend who has sifted through evidence from all parts of the world—not all of which seems to have permeated in this direction—and few can match his acquired expertise.
Perhaps I may turn from the medical to the moral aspects of fluoridation. There are some people who maintain that it is quite wrong to administer a medicine to whole populations via the public water supply, even if it could be proved that not one single individual suffered adverse side-effects. I do not take such a purist view. If there were substantial benefits and absolutely no disadvantages, it would not be easy to argue against the controlled addition of a "medical product", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, described it in his famous judgment.
However, that is entirely academic. No medicines, not even aspirin or sodium bicarbonate, are entirely harmless to everybody. Fluoride is vastly more dangerous than either of those. It is actually more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic. It used to be used as a rat poison, and the American Food and Drugs Agency requires poison warnings to be placed on the labelling of fluoridated toothpaste in the United States.
Fifty years ago, it was genuinely believed that fluoride in very small doses—in the proportions given by the noble Baroness—was entirely safe, just as it was believed that strychnine in very small doses was safe enough to add to tonics then sold in chemists across the counter without prescription; that DDT was entirely safe; and that asbestos was safe enough to be used in children's playgrounds as a substitute for sandpits, as was revealed on "Newsnight" two or three days ago. Somewhat more recently, it was believed that thalidomide and leaded petrol were safe and that tobacco was relatively safe. It was believed that tranquillisers were safe enough to be prescribed in their hundreds of thousands like Smarties, as they used to be in the 1960s.
Now, strychnine, asbestos and thalidomide are banned. Leaded petrol is soon to be banned, and sales of DDT, tobacco and tranquillisers are heavily curbed. Fluoride is not banned, but even the British Dental Association, in November 1996, admitted that there are risks in fluoride use, even though the association went on to contend that the risks were outweighed by the benefits.
That is where moral considerations kick in. Can it be right to add something to the public water supply which may help some at the expense of others, particularly when there are alternative ways of administering this chemical which would target it much more precisely on the narrow age group—those aged 12 and under—it is supposed to benefit?
Suppose there were to be an epidemic of rape and other sexual assaults carried out by young men in one particular part of the country. Would the Government consider adding bromide to the region's water supply?
1406
Of course they would not. The addition of bromide might well reduce the incidence of rape and similar assaults, but it would also be ingested by women, elderly men, boys under the age of puberty and babes in arms, with unforeseen consequences.
If only one person in a million were seriously adversely affected by fluoridation, it might conceivably be justified—but certainly not if the figure were one in 10,000, still less one in a hundred. Yet somewhere between the latter two figures seems more probable than one in a million.
Are Her Majesty's Government aware of recent research in Boston, Massachusetts—not Boston, Lincolnshire—which indicates that fluoride adversely affects the central nervous system? Similar research was carried out during the Second World War, in 1944, which seemed to reveal the same, but because of the war it remained a classified secret. Do the Government agree that fluoridated water leaches lead from old pipes—of which plenty remain in this country? Are they aware that since 1990, 54 American and Canadian cities, together with Brisbane—which the noble Baroness will concede is a major Australian city—have rejected or stopped fluoridation? Are they aware that in the past few years 17 prominent American organisations have withdrawn their endorsement of water fluoridation? They include the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the National Kidney Foundation and the Society of Toxicology.
Do the Government agree that fluoridated water cannot be used for kidney dialysis anywhere, nor for the manufacture of babyfood in many countries? Do they agree that fluoride is deemed to be a dangerous substance under the 1995 EC dangerous substances directive?
That brings me to my last point. The Government constantly proclaim their determination to be at the heart of Europe. Are they aware then that every single continental EU country, together with Norway, rejects fluoridation? Some have never tried it, some have tried it and found it dangerous and have subsequently banned it, notably the Netherlands. Those countries include such ultra health-conscious countries as France, Sweden and Germany.
Despite that—and this may answer some of the noble Baroness's points—Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have as good a record where the health of children's teeth is concerned as the UK, and a better record than the heavily fluoridated Republic of Ireland. Will the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the next EU summit, be trying to convince the other 13 EU countries that they are all wrong and that the United Kingdom and Ireland alone are right?
6.35 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and I welcome the debate in advance of possible public action. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, feels incensed that the matter should have been raised again. I would have thought that if she is so

1407
confident of her case she would not be worried about a public inquiry but would welcome it as an opportunity to have all the arguments put from both sides. That is what the noble Earl asks and it is an eminently reasonable request. I hope that the Government will accept it and put it into operation.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, made an authoritative and well researched case against fluoridation on scientific and medical grounds, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson. So there is no need for me to go over it again, except to say that in my view any evidence that the addition of fluoride to water supplies assists in preventing tooth decay in children is not conclusive. I shall go no further than that. The medical risks to the general population cannot be ignored, particularly since, as we have heard, fluoride accumulates in parts of the body over time.
My noble friend Lord Rea and I are so often at cross purposes. It is a shame because he is such a nice fellow. He says—and he made it part of his case—that the credentials of those who support fluoridation are good. He cited 39 of them. But how can he say, and who is he to say, that the credentials of the people on the other side are not equally good? After all, when Darwin brought forward his great theory of evolution, all or most of the great scientists and religious people were against him at the time. Should he have dropped his ideas? How the world would have suffered if he had.
In addition, try telling that to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She has been fighting on the issue of organophosphates. Time and time again she has been told by the experts that there is no danger. We are now discovering, and the experts are coming around to the fact, that organophosphates are dangerous and may have been responsible for many diseases and injuries to people who worked with them. Let us not be so confident that the experts are always right. That is another reason why we should have a public inquiry.
Even if the evidence of benefit to children up to the age of 11 is overwhelming, the case for forcing the remainder of the population, throughout the rest of their lives, to ingest a known poison, whose long-term effects on the human body are not really known, is weak. Dental decay is not a life-threatening condition. Why on earth, for the benefit of perhaps as few as 1 million children, should the remaining 58 million have to ingest this substance throughout their lives when there are other ways to ensure that children's teeth and dental care are good?
In a free society mass medication cannot be right in any circumstances. Noble Lords should ponder that. Once we start along that road where do we stop? No doubt all kinds of claims can be made for various substances that benefit one minority section of the population or another, whether it be the young, middle-aged, old, or male or female. The proposition that we mass medicate the whole of the population in order to benefit only a small proportion of children up to the age of 11 is preposterous and one that every person who believes in individual freedom should reject out of hand. Furthermore, it is inefficient and potentially dangerous for the rest of the population.
1408
Tooth decay among children and adults has declined dramatically over the past 25 years. That is due not to artificially fluoridated water but to better dental care, education, diet and free dental treatment, particularly for children. It is upon those factors that we should proceed, not mass medication. There should be better education about the care of teeth, regular check-ups at the dentist and diets that promote healthy teeth. That is what the Government should concentrate upon, not the slipshod and potentially dangerous route of compulsory mass medication.
My noble friend said that the worst cases of dental decay occurred in deprived areas. Let us get rid of the deprived areas, not feed the rest of population with fluoride. I believe that that is the sensible approach to take and I hope that my noble friend agrees with me.
I emphasise "compulsory" since in any given area there is no choice as to the water that a person drinks. There is no escape from the ingestion of a substance that one believes is harmful to oneself and others. Furthermore, individuals cannot give up drinking water if they believe that it contains poison. Water is a life-supporting substance, unlike tobacco or alcohol. We must drink or we die. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the force of the argument about compulsory fluoridation. The supporters of compulsory fluoridation say that the concentration is only one part per million and therefore it cannot do any harm. It can, because it accumulates over a period of time. In addition, because virtually all toothpastes now contain fluoride the amount that is ingested particularly by children may be very much more than one part per million.
In conclusion, off and on over the past 30 years or so I have entered the debate on fluoridation. When I was leader of Reading County Borough Council in the 1960s I helped to resist compulsory fluoridation of Reading's water supplies, and I am glad that I did. Later, when I was chairman of the Land and Works Committee of Thames Valley Water Board, I had some influence in resisting the fluoridation of water supplies in Berkshire. I still believe in what I did then. It is wrong compulsorily to medicate people's water supplies. But I am prepared to support the call of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for a public inquiry. That is the least that the Government should do before they embark on any further measures to introduce the compulsory fluoridation of the water supplies of this country.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for bringing the issue of fluoridation before the House today. The noble Earl has steeped himself in the science of the debate, none of which I care to tackle. I believe that all sides of the argument have been well shaken out this evening. The case that I make for a review of the evidence is made on behalf of the consumer. I declare an interest, for I am a poor, bewildered consumer. My dentist tells me to use fluoride but my doctor is unenthusiastic, while a steady stream of evidence through the media over 20 years or more on balance appears to warn against the use of fluorides. The consumer needs guidance on this subject and that needs to come from a disinterested party.

1409
Just last week in your Lordships' House the noble Countess, Lady Mar, introduced a debate on organophosphates. I do not dwell upon the medical aspects of organophosphates, but the noble Countess expressed disappointment at a report on organophosphate sheep dips. That has a parallel with the present debate. The noble Countess was concerned about the membership of the working party which produced the report, and its terms of reference. She believed that both predisposed them to a particular conclusion. We face similar problems in examining the issue of fluoridation. The consumer knows that a fishmonger will sell him fish. We all know with equal certainty that the BDA and the Fluoridation Society will sell us fluoride. I do not question the good work of those bodies, any more than I question the good intentions of my fishmonger. However, the case for a review of the evidence for and against fluoridation needs to be not only scientifically defensible, but also defensible before the consumer, particularly as the latter may be told to accept fluoride whatever his wishes.
What we appear to lack is a random blind trial with sensible controls. I have asked the British Dental Association for help in this matter and it has provided me with a good deal of information. I have picked out what I believe to be one of its most promising statistics to try to improve its case. It begins by saying that poor dental health is a disease of social deprivation—a true and brave admission. But we are then asked to compare the tooth decay rates of children from Bolton with those from fluoridated south Birmingham. The comparison may well be valid. It may well make a good case for fluoridation. But there are regional and social variations in tooth decay rates. We need to know where Bolton fits into the pattern. We need to know the histories of dental care in the two areas. We need to know the histories of health care for pregnant women. Quite simply, there are too many variables in such comparisons. Even the opinions of individual dentists can vary as regards which teeth need to be filled and which should be pulled. As I say, that point, and indeed other points raised by the BDA and the BFS, may be valuable. But if the proponents of fluoridation want to persuade people of their case, they must share their evidence, not just their opinions however well founded.
Gone are the days when a man in a white coat on a public information film was enough to quell public anxiety. If people feel that fluoride is a poison which should not be in their water, they will need full and open debate to persuade them otherwise before the Government move forward on the matter. That is a case for a review of the evidence.
6.51 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I enter the debate with a strong sense of déjà vu, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who is at the forefront of our search for healthy living and clean medicine, for his telling speech in support of a review of the evidence. I well remember discussions at home when the subject was first debated. My mother, who was a devoted adherent of Lady Eve Balfour, took up the cudgels against her brother who was MP for Abingdon and a
1410
member of the Thames Water Board. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, may have been on the same board with him. It was then considering the need to impregnate London's water supplies with fluoride. So I have been brought up in an atmosphere of division in the matter.
The futility of fluoridation has been well demonstrated. Upwards of a quarter of all water is lost through leakage, and of the remainder most is used by industry so only a minimal amount gets into the drinking water. Reports of the success of fluoride are largely anecdotal. Therefore, if the need is to protect against tooth decay the way to do so is not through a massive waste of the product. Ironically enough, the fluoride used is itself a waste product of the agricultural fertiliser and nuclear industries, among others, so all we are doing is to recycle a corrosive chemical back into the environment through our river system. That is hardly something that we should be doing today.
Regardless of the fatuity of the scheme, there is the problem of the ethics of mass medication, which noble Lords have discussed in detail. Were such a scheme necessary it would still be debatable whether it should be done by enforcement, leaving the individual in the area concerned no option but to be subjected to the use of contaminated water. It may be said that chlorine is used in that way, but at least we can filter out that chemical. We cannot filter out fluoride.
Calcium fluoride, which most importantly occurs naturally in our diet and daily life, is beneficial in the quantities supplied by nature, whereas the waste byproduct of our farming and nuclear industries which is fed into our water system contains trace minerals such as lead, and its cumulative properties have been shown to have a deleterious effect on several of our bodily organs. It has also been described as a cumulative proto-plasmic poison. That surely should be enough for us. Indeed, it is not even a nutrient; and, in addition, it inhibits important enzymes in the human system.
Is fluoridation necessary in any event? Caries may be distressing but it is not life threatening, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out. Is this not a case of nuts and sledgehammers?
So much for fluoridation in principle. The social reason often given to excuse this waste of resources is that the less well off are the ones who need help with the protection of their children and they are less able to define the need. Besides being supercilious and condescending, the principle is no longer true except perhaps among teenaged single mothers, who can surely be approached in a number of other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the use of toothpaste.
The real problem is simply one of diet in general and rationing of a child's sugar intake in particular. Perhaps supermarkets, which claim that they are so beneficial to society, could display sugar-free sweets at the checkout. That might have an instant effect, but whether that would be greatest on the children's teeth or the supermarkets' profits I am not sure.
The efficacy of fluoride for the purpose for which it is intended has been shown to be counterproductive by noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber. I shall not

1411
detail the wealth of evidence that has accumulated over the years, and which other noble Lords have clearly demonstrated. Most of our colleagues in Europe have accepted and acted upon a determination to ban the product.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out the number of poisons which have been introduced into our society from chemical companies in the past 50 years, many of which we have been persuaded were vital to the success of the world in the future and which have now been put in the dustbin. There may therefore be some benefit from harmonisation if it comes about since the Commission will undoubtedly find an early opportunity to ban the use of fluoridation. In the meantime, we need a scientific review of the matter. I support the noble Earl's Motion.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord on initiating the debate. However, my appreciation of the subject ends there because I totally disagree with everything that he said. I have been involved in the issue of fluoridation since it first became a topic in the 1960s when I was a young councillor on the health committee in Manchester. In those days Manchester was the biggest water authority in the United Kingdom outside the metropolitan authority.
We agonised over the issue. In fact, I almost have a feeling of déjà vu because the same tactics were used then as now, only the lead figure is a different person. Every few months we had a different scare as to what fluoridation was supposed to do. We had run out of steam at one stage so Mongolism was dug up; and the argument that fluoridation produced children with Down's syndrome. That was totally blown out of the water when investigated. There was also an argument about bone malformation. We have had a plethora of those types of argument.
The noble Earl graciously sent me a document today containing certain statistics and names. I cannot find anything modern in it; it is history. It goes back to the early 1970s. I believe that it mentions someone from the 1950s. I am sad that some noble Lords who are anti-fluoride seem to denigrate the professional people, medical people of high standing, who happen to be in favour of fluoridation. Those noble Lords seem to rubbish them as though only those names they put forward—I have never heard of some of them—are the people of conscience.
The noble Earl calls for an independent review. I hope that he will not be a member of that review body, having heard the biased and unsubstantiated remarks that he made today. I have a document—other noble Lords may have received it—from the British Dental Association. It is fairly recent—2nd November. I did not ask for it. The document is available in the Library. It states:
"Figures published today by the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health show that children in non-fluoridated areas of the UK are up to four times more likely to have teeth extracted due to tooth decay than those in fluoridated areas. However, over 60 health authorities are being prevented from implementing water fluoridation policies because current legislation is flawed. The
1412
Alliance is calling on the Government to take action and extend water fluoridation to reach 25 per cent. of the population where tooth decay rates are unacceptably high".
Within that organisation is the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health. It consists of 39 national medical, dental and voluntary organisations, including the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the National Health Service Confederation, the Health Education Authority and Mencap. How dare anyone discount almost entirely, as the noble Earl tried to do today, evidence from such outstanding bodies?
I believe that we should move forward. It is certain that in non-fluoridated areas of the UK the decay in children's teeth is five times as high as in fluoridated areas. That statistic is no coincidence; it has been tested and tested again. That is one argument that needs to be put to rest.
My noble friend Lord Rea dealt with the argument concerning cancer, which is the latest scare. There is no definite evidence, but it is said that fluoridation causes a high incidence of cancer. My noble friend referred to a woman doctor who carried out the most recent research on that subject, which showed that it was a load of nonsense. That theme is carried through. They talked about India as if they were talking about the whole continent of nearly three-quarters of a billion people, but they were actually talking about one village which had become polluted not only with an overdose of fluoride gas but with other deadly chemicals which cause other illnesses.
When I was involved in Manchester, I asked our distinguished medical officer of health what he would do regarding his family. He said, "I have grandchildren and I hope that the area where we live will be fluoridated". I asked how much water must a person drink per day before becoming adversely affected by fluoride. He said, "Twice the amount of water which you would use for a bath". That is the volume of water we are talking about according to distinguished medical experts.
I shall not take any longer because all the statistics are evident. The noble Earl has made up his mind. Anyone who is agin him is talking rubbish and anybody who is on his side is brilliant and a genius. There are three of us on these Benches so the die is cast over here. The noble Earl is not going to persuade anyone to his point of view. I believe that it is an act of mischief, it is unnecessary and will affect an increasing number of children and adults. I hope that the Government will not give way on the issue. They have evidence from the most distinguished medical experts in this country and in other parts of the world who have been dealing with the problem for years.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for initiating the debate. It has been interesting, lively and mostly good-natured. With a few exceptions, it has even been moderate in the claims of the opponents of fluoridation as compared with an earlier debate when the opponents seemed to blame fluoridation for almost every ailment, with the exception of housemaid's knee.

1413
I am not concerned to offer evidence or proof one way or another about the possible unintended effects of a fluoridated water supply. But I believe that the debate has already established that there is sufficient evidence of conscientious doubt about whether the private water companies should make themselves responsible for undertaking such a measure of compulsory indiscriminate mass medication. Anyone with doubts might ask the noble Earl for a paper written by a man with a Scots name which inspires confidence, Dr. John Colquhoun, first published by the University of Chicago Press, which tells a most impressive story of a former zealous enthusiast for fluoridation, an active professional advocate of the idea, who has gradually come round to see the opposite of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. He had been involved in a mischievous activity and wished to declare his guilt and to atone for it by joining the ranks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin.
There are serious doubts about the issue. The Government may take refuge in saying that they have expert scientific advice. The trouble is that scientists do not necessarily agree on the matter. That has been exposed by several contributors today. I am impressed by the idea that tooth decay, which the noble Baroness told us was a painful and distressing condition, is not a lethal, life-threatening disease. On the whole, you would tend to take the prudent view and refrain from artificial fluoridation.
The problem with fluoridation is that it is one of those causes which busybodying interventionists are attracted to like moths to a candle. The single issue pressure groups, which are the curse of modern politics, pick it up as a holy crusade that all water should be fluoridated by government decree. If zealots persist in urging fluoridation, it may not be sufficient for the Government to shield behind their scientific advisers. After all, scientific advisers are not eunuchs; they are infected by irrational enthusiasm, especially when one particular view becomes established as received wisdom and then the voice of the establishment.
I apologise for raising the matter, but I have spent much of this year studying what I now regard as the pseudo-science of passive smoking in connection with a book I helped to write called Murder a Cigarette. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the scientific committee on tobacco and health was so carried away by its initial antipathy to smoking that it has exceeded its brief by introducing into what should be a scientific discourse opinionated, biased, fraudulent surveys which are based on no acceptable scientific canons. Close scrutiny of the papers, the original research reports, and then the summary of those reports, demonstrates that there is absolutely nothing in the idea that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause non-smokers to die of cancer. And yet 11 academics, doctors and others on the scientific committee on tobacco and health unanimously signed an official report supporting the received wisdom of the establishment view of the matter.
I say to the Government: beware of official science; beware of politicised science; beware of secret science; beware of pressure group science; and beware of consensus science. If we are to have a review, which I very much favour, let it all be above board.
1414
I hope to bring an original note to the debate by recalling a paper published by my old firm, the Institute of Economic Affairs, back in 1960. It was by a name that some will recognise as APH, A.P. Herbert. It was called Anything But Action?. It was a marvellous, passionate but witty study of a whole range of Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry.
I wish that there were time to do full justice to APH, but I quote one topical extract from page 49 where he says:
"Somebody—I know not who—has decided to put something called fluorides in our water because it is good for the children's teeth. But I have seen it stated that the stuff is bad for old men's bones. No child specialist would care about that. This tale may be untrue. But, however abstruse the subject and wise the specialist, I should always like to see an ordinary watch-dog or two on guard".
That led APH to make some proposals, serious and gay, about the future government approach to committees of inquiry.
He examined the possibility of "committees of nobodies" to get away from,
"the quiet firm murmur of the Establishment".
He thought of having a "committees of everybody", selected almost at random, on the model of a jury, which would hear rival pleadings on fluoridation and everything else and then decide which was most to be trusted.
His devastating comment on committees of experts was:
"Left to themselves the specialists can get up to odious mischief".
They are, he suggests, flawed by a search for unanimity which stifles dissenting minority views which, in the long run, often turn out to be the most dependable.
In his final guidance, the wisdom of APH, he quotes someone saying:
"If a minister requires a considered judgement on a problem of public importance in which action is urgently needed, why not set up two committees, one of people known to favour one course, and one of people known to favour another? Then he would receive two reports, giving the best possible statements of each point of view, without any toning down by a mediating chairman and a tactful secretary. The minister could then decide—which is his job in life".
I close on that note. This would be an ideal subject on which to put to the test the suggestion made by A.P. Herbert almost 40 years ago. We should have two committees. We should allow the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, to appoint his team and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to try to assemble a quorum to represent his view. We should then have two committees taking evidence. They would then present the matter in a way which would allow ordinary people, as well as the Government, to reach a better understanding and decision.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, it is not my intention to cover the scientific points or the very strong case against fluoridation which has been put so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I congratulate him on successfully securing this debate this evening, and I pay tribute to him for all the work that he has carried out on this important issue.

1415
I am opposed to fluoridation and the more I read and hear about it—indeed, the more I have heard in this debate—the more I am opposed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was correct to talk about the civil and moral liberty argument. It is very important. The concept that fluoride can be added to drinking water supplies for entire populations constitutes a threat to people's individual rights. It is mass medication without consent. Once the state starts to say that it will enforce the addition of medicine to the water supply, we are in a very dangerous area. What right has anyone to compel another person to consume fluoride? That encroaches on individuals' rights to the extent that persons will be forced to drink water containing a substance which they do not want to drink.
If I—or anyone else—wish to use fluoride, there are many sources available—toothpaste, mouthwash, floss, fluoride tablets, to name just a few. If fluoride is good for health, why is it that Ireland is the only democracy in the world which forces fluoride on all its citizens by law? I am informed also that in Ireland, one tonne of fluoride is put into the drinking water every day. Of that, 99.5 per cent. is not drunk with the water so all that fluoride, which is toxic waste, is effectively dumped into the environment without any environmental audit or research into its effects.
If fluoride is good for health, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, why has continental Europe virtually none? Holland has banned it. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have stopped using it. Portugal, Greece, Belgium and Austria ended fluoride experiments long ago. France, Italy and Norway never even tried fluoridation and rejected it out of hand. No one is going to tell me that in the many European countries which do not add fluoride to the drinking water, their teeth are worse than those in Ireland which forces fluoride on all its citizens. The noble Lord mentioned parts of India. In parts of India now, attempts are being made to take fluoride out of the water by installing plants and equipment to carry out that task.
Doctor Peter Mansfield, president of the National Pure Water Association, said:
"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person that he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice, 'Take as much as you like, you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay'".
A couple of weeks ago in the Mail on Sunday I was struck by a short letter by a John Graham of Romford, Essex. He wrote:
"I suffered from IBS [irritable bowel system] from 1975 to 1996 until I discovered that fluoride is more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. I switched to non-fluoride toothpaste and the IBS stopped overnight, closely followed by my backache, stiff joints and chronic fatigue".
That proves what Dr. Mansfield said. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. In the other place, where I represented my constituency for many years, I fought against and heard representations about the amount of lead piping in the water supply which was affecting people's health. We were partly successful in relation to that.
1416
If fluoride is good for health, why do we see so much bottled water being used? Most local government officers, and even people in this building, use bottled water. I have never seen anyone in the dining rooms or the tea-room putting fluoride tablets into bottled water. If it is that good, why not?
I am a diabetic and was concerned to learn of the effects that fluoride has on people suffering from diabetic mellitus—they are at increased risk from fluoride. It is also important to point out that of the many national organisations in America who have withdrawn their endorsement of fluoride in recent years, the American Academy of Diabetics and the American Diabetics Association are but two.
The truth is that no one has yet proved that a low-level dosage of fluoride is safe. The one-part-per-million level enshrined in the pro-fluoridation propaganda has never been established and was not established in the debate this evening. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, the whole case for adding fluoride to drinking water is based on tooth decay and that is caused by poor dental hygiene and poor diet, especially one high in sugar.
I feel that the case has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for having a public inquiry before any further fluoridisation takes place in this country. I was pleased to hear that the Newcastle and North Tyneside health authorities' applications to force Northumbria Water to add fluoride to its water were turned down.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he said that no case has been made for levels of one part per million. What about Hartlepool, which has natural levels of one part per million? Teeth there are very good, people are healthy and no harm has been done.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, that is one of the arguments that was put forward. There are arguments both ways. I have heard scientists and I have heard lawyers. In that regard I was once told that there are over 100,000 laws on the statute book and lawyers have not yet improved on the Ten Commandments. I feel that that probably applies in the case of some health scientists as well.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been a difficult and hotly debated topic for over 30 years, as many noble Lords made clear. The passionate and powerful contributions to this debate testify to that. But this debate, instituted by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is very timely in view of the White Paper on public health due in the New Year. I cannot pretend to have the extent of scientific and technical expertise which Members of this House displayed during the course of the debate, but one thing is clear; that is, that the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985—now consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991—is not working. It was originally meant to settle the issue. I was interested in the note of slight exasperation in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in that respect.

1417
Since then some 60 health authorities have made requests to water undertakers to fluoridate the supply. Each of those requests was preceded by a procedure laid down in the original Act which involves close consultation between health authorities and local authorities. Yet each request was refused. The water companies—no doubt we all received the briefing from them—say that they wish to be completely indemnified by the Department of Health for so doing. The worst case has been in the north west where over 20 local authorities made the request for fluoride but were refused. Ironically, the water company adopted what it believed to be the precautionary principle for fluoride but, as we have seen from recent reports, has been slow to accept the threat from cryptosporidium or deal with it. As a result, detailed publicity and consultation exercises carried out by health authorities prior to each request to fluoridate have been a waste of limited NHS resources.
Millions of young children, many of whom live in deprived areas, continue to suffer from painful, distressing, yet preventable dental disease. We heard the statistics tonight—figures released on 2nd November. One in five children living in the poorest districts of the UK can expect to have had a tooth extracted under general anaesthetic by the age of five. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, described the problems of delay that restrictions on general anaesthetics will create in the future.
Sir Donald Acheson recently pointed out that the differential between the better off social classes I, II and III and others in terms of dental health has grown over recent times. He strongly recommends fluoridation. The evidence of the beneficial effect of fluoride in the right dose is very clear. The most recent evidence shows that the rate of decay of young children's teeth in cities with fluoridated water such as Birmingham and Newcastle is four times lower than that of children in cities with non-fluoridated water such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. A clear example is Sandwell in the West Midlands. Its water supply was fluoridated in 1986; 10 years later the rate of tooth decay in five year-olds has halved.
For many years now anti-fluoride campaigners have been fighting a rearguard action against fluoridisation. But what is the real evidence? The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, was kind enough to give me copies of his papers. I read them carefully and am prepared to accept that in high doses fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis. I do not believe that there is any evidence to date that low doses of one part per million of fluoride is causing harm. I did not see evidence properly attested to in that regard in those papers.
Water fluoridisation has been endorsed as being safe and effective, as we heard from several noble Lords tonight, by every reputable scientific body in this country, and 39 organisations belong to the national alliance. We need to look at those credentials. The noble Lords, Lord Rea, and Lord Dean, were right to point to them.
I am not a great believer in medical orthodoxy but I am a lawyer. I do not believe that this is the same as MMR, organophosphates or the Gulf War syndrome. I
1418
want to see evidence of harm. Where are the legal cases? Where are the allegations of harm? Where are the litigants? This is not like organophosphates. We need to see a clearly defined group of victims and I have yet to see that. However, on these Benches we would not object to and indeed would support the Government commissioning further research or a review into aspects of fluoridation to lay to rest some of those fears. We would be interested to see evidence from other European countries and the reasons why they have either withdrawn fluoride from the water or would not wish to see it added.
In terms of the action we wish to see in the short term the Government must base their decision on existing evidence of the benefits and the extensive practical experience of this public health measure. They should act on behalf of the great majority of people who support this public health measure, and in particular on behalf of those children who continue to suffer unacceptable levels of tooth decay. Putting fluoride in toothpaste is simply not enough.
Some opponents of fluoridation raised the issue of human rights today and on other occasions. On that subject I cannot improve on the words of my noble friend Lord Avebury, who is a noted human rights campaigner when he said, in 1994,
"Fluoride is a natural constituent of water supplies, as it is indeed of many foods. The adjustment of the quantity to an optimum level cannot be compared with the addition to water of a substance not found there ordinarily".
I feel that that settles the matter in relation to human rights.
On these Benches our health team wishes to see action on this issue during this Parliament. We believe that the arguments on health inequalities carry the day. In their Green Paper—Our Healthier Nation—the Government supported making fluoridation mandatory once the proper procedures had been followed and a request had been made to water suppliers. I do not know what responses were forthcoming to that Green Paper, but we agree with that approach.
The Government must make a commitment on this issue in the public health White Paper, due in the New Year. If that involves an indemnity to the water companies, so be it. I do not believe that it will ever need to be invoked to any great extent. If we need to improve consultation procedures, let us do it. That should be the proper forum in which to air these doubts and fears. Above all, the Government need to grasp the nettle.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for initiating this short debate. Although I should declare my hand at the outset by saying that in common with my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Rea and Lord Clement-Jones, I do not share the noble Earl's concerns, nevertheless, I have nothing but respect for his persistence and continuing questioning of the scientific and ethical issues associated with the fluoridation of water supplies.

1419
This evening the noble Earl has raised some issues which clearly merit a serious and considered response from the Minister. However, many of them seem to me to have been dealt with satisfactorily already in Written Answers in Hansard—notably those that appeared on 10th June, 3rd September and 11th November this year. I say to him, in all candour, that nothing that he has said tonight persuades me that there is a substantive case to answer. Nevertheless, on these Benches we are glad to have the opportunity of restating our views on the subject.
I know that my noble friend Lord Colwyn—a vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society—wanted to take part in the debate and to reiterate his own personal and professional support for fluoridation as a public health measure. He is unable to be here, but he has made it clear to me that he is well aware of the problem of tooth decay and the role that fluoridation can play in reducing it.
The previous government, in which I was proud to serve, were convinced of the safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to water at the level of one part of fluoride per million parts of water. Our position in opposition remains unchanged. Independent scientific advisers consistently endorsed fluoridation as safe, as I understand do the present Government's advisers. That confidence about the safety of fluoridation is based on well documented evidence, drawn from over 50 years of practical experience and extensive research. Nevertheless, the numerous and varied charges levelled against the safety of fluoridation have always been properly investigated. On each and every occasion, the charges have been found to be totally without scientific or medical foundation.
We need to be absolutely clear that there is no controversy within the scientific community about water fluoridation. Every reputable scientific body which has ever considered the issue has pronounced that this public health measure is safe. I have a list of the major authoritative reviews which I can pass later on to the noble Earl, if he wishes, although from what he has said I expect that he is already aware of most of them.
Tooth decay is a painful, distressing and disfiguring disease which all too often results in the removal of teeth under general anaesthetic. I am told that babies as young as two commonly undergo gas anaesthetics for the removal of rotten, infected teeth. That experience is not just extremely traumatic at the time, but there is also the inherent risk of undergoing an anaesthetic. In addition, it has been shown to undermine a child's ability to establish regular dental attendance patterns throughout life.
Fluoridation has led directly to a halving in the incidence of tooth decay. That is particularly welcome for the vulnerable in society; for example, very young children living in socially deprived areas. In fact, water fluoridation has been shown to benefit most those who have the greatest social and material deprivation. That is surely one of the key points to be made in answer to those who believe that fluoride toothpaste, for example, could achieve equivalent results on its own. Fluoridated
1420
water reaches those who seldom brush their teeth and seldom see a dentist. In addition, the benefits of fluoridation are not confined to young children. The evidence indicates that all age groups, including older adults, can benefit from a fluoridated water supply.
There are those who, although accepting overwhelming evidence of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, oppose this public health measure on ethical grounds because they believe that it infringes civil liberties. The trouble with that argument, it seems to me, is that it seeks to belittle or trivialise a major public health problem; namely, dental caries.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, no individual is at liberty to drink water entirely free from fluoride, as fluoride is found to be present naturally, at varying levels, in all water supplies. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so succinctly pointed out, fluoridation is simply the process of topping up the level of fluoride in the water to the optimum level for dental health, so, for example, the residents of Birmingham can enjoy the dental benefits that the residents of Hartlepool enjoy naturally. A recent survey by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry found that the residents of the West Midlands enjoyed the best dental health in England.
Anyone who is inclined to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in seriously doubting the evidence of the efficacy of fluoride would find it instructive to look not only at the examples of various inner cities, but also at Anglesey. That example was quoted in a Written Answer in another place on 1st December this year, which stated:
"The dental decay rate of children aged five years in Anglesey was reduced by 50 per cent. after fluoridation was introduced there in the mid-fifties. However, since withdrawal of the last of the Anglesey fluoridation schemes in 1991, there has been a 168 per cent. increase in tooth decay".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/98; WA 35.]
When we know, as certainly as we can know anything, that a public health measure is safe and that it can benefit millions of people, I think it can be argued that it is unethical not to implement that benefit. The charge that the general public do not want fluoridation is not supported by the evidence of properly conducted opinion polls, which have consistency shown overwhelming support for the measure. By all means, let questions be asked about fluoridation, but, in my view, it is quite wrong and highly regrettable that as a result of that process a key plank of public health policy should have unnecessary doubt cast upon it and thereby become undermined.
The previous government, in their determination to take practical steps to improve the health of the nation, introduced, as many noble Lords have mentioned, the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 with cross-party support. Although that piece of legislation stands as a testimony to the real commitment to improve public health, it is clear that the Act has not worked in the way in which it was intended. When the Act was introduced, it was expected that technical feasibility would be the only grounds on which water undertakers would refuse to fluoridate. Regrettably, that has not always proved to be the case. The last Minister of State for Health in the

1421
previous government, Gerald Malone MP, consistently called for water suppliers to co-operate with health authorities so that the policy could be implemented. Despite those vehement efforts, over 60 health authority requests to fluoridate have been turned down by water companies and no new fluoridation scheme has been introduced since 1985.
The Opposition welcome Sir Donald Acheson's recent recommendation on water fluoridation. The Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health points out, with regard to oral health, that although overall dental health in children is improving, inequalities in dental health are widening. The report highlights the proven efficacy of water fluoridation in reducing those inequalities and recommends the fluoridation of the water supply.
In order for the Government to fulfil their promise to reduce inequalities in health, those recommendations must be acted upon. The Minister for Public Health stated that the conclusions of Sir Donald's report will,
"contribute to the development of a new strategy for health".
In the case of water fluoridation, the strategy required is not the commissioning of another review or inquiry at the taxpayers' expense, but amendment of existing legislation so that fluoridation schemes can be implemented at the request of health authorities. Under existing legislation the scope for dialogue has, I fear, been exhausted. The Opposition await, with eager anticipation, the arrival of the forthcoming public health White Paper and hope that it will contain a clear statement of policy which will take us beyond the current stalemate on the issue of water fluoridation.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on securing a debate on what I regard as an important issue. It also allows me to acknowledge his work in the field of complementary medicine, which I have long appreciated.
I should also like to acknowledge the contribution of other speakers to what has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, the subject is one which provokes forceful reaction. Certainly, in my 25 years in the health service before coming to your Lordships' House, fluoridation often played a part in my working life, first as a CHC Secretary in the 1970s; secondly, holding public meetings to discuss the issue as a member of the British Fluoridation Society Council and, thirdly, as director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts where many of our health authority members have been wrestling with those issues for well over 20 years.
In responding to the debate I want to start by discussing it in the broader context of public health. Indeed, I would argue that we should always see the oral health of the population as an integral part of its general health. We need to assess any scientific evidence for health problems caused by water fluoridation as carefully as we examine the evidence for oral health benefits.
1422
This country has seen dramatic improvements in health over the past 50 years, and oral health is no exception. In addition to the key role played by the dental profession, addition of fluoride to both toothpaste and water has made a significant contribution to reducing the level of dental decay, particularly in the teeth of children. That, of course, is in line with the first of the two key aims we put forward in our consultative Green Paper Our Healthier Nation. That was
"to improve the health of the population as a whole … ".
But we cannot be complacent. More than half of the country's 15 year-olds have still experienced decay in their permanent teeth. We also have very good evidence that significant inequalities remain in the oral health of the population. Even at regional level there are significant differences in the levels of tooth decay in children. For example, in 1995 five year-olds in the West Midlands had on average less than half the numbers of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth than those in the north west—a point forcefully made by my noble friend Lord Dean. Nineteen per cent. more five year-olds in the West Midlands had no tooth decay at all compared with their counterparts in the north west.
A similar picture emerges when you look at 12 year-olds and their permanent teeth. One further thing stands out when you consider smaller population groups, at health authority level: other things being equal, the worst off in society have the poorest oral health. Now, the Government are determined to change that and to narrow the health gap—the second key aim in Our Healthier Nation.
The challenge for health authorities is how to improve oral health generally and to tackle these inequalities in health status. I do not think that anyone suggests that will be easy. Some people have a history of sporadic dental attendance. As noble Lords have suggested, many people visit a dentist only when they are in pain, and they may have difficulty in maintaining a regular brushing routine with fluoride toothpaste.
There is, of course, the further option then of fluoridating the water supply in areas with high levels of dental decay. The evidence shows that fluoridation of the water supply to the optimum level of one part in a million can reduce the amount of tooth decay in children from similar backgrounds by one third to a half. About half a million people in this country receive water which is naturally fluoridated at or about the optimum level of one part of fluoride per million of water. A further one million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still confers some dental benefit. These areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part per million. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham, throughout the West Midlands, and also in Tyneside.
The Government recognise that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. It also has the advantage of benefitting the whole population. I make no apology for drawing your Lordships' attention to the example of

1423
fluoridation quoted in Our Healthier Nation. Other noble Lords have also referred to it. The example was Sandwell, in the West Midlands, where the water supply was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period an area with a comparable population mix—Blackburn—saw little change in its children's oral health. That example has been replicated in many other places over the past 50 years. The point made by my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the particular advantage this can give in deprived areas is very significant. It is also, sadly, true that where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn—Anglesey and Kilmarnock have been quoted—levels of tooth decay in children have risen after having improved during the periods of fluoridation.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that dental decay and dental problems are not life-threatening. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made a significant point, as did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the use of anaesthesia in young children and the pain which many children suffer as a result of dental problems.
As I have said, we must carefully examine any risks which may attach to fluoridation, as well as the benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about risks. Over the years, many health problems alleged to be linked to fluoridation have been investigated and no link has been found. There is yet to emerge any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially-fluoridated water at one part per million. Indeed, it is estimated that around the world some 210 million people drink artificially-fluoridated water.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, thought that I might pray in favour expert advice. Yes, I do. The view that fluoridation of water at this level is safe is based on medical and scientific opinion throughout the world. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that is based on practical experience and research over the past 50 years. There is currently evidence of just one minor, cosmetic side-effect of optimal fluoridation-dental fluorosis or slight tooth mottling. Even where that happens, teeth are still endowed with extra resistance and I want to reassure the House that that is not a sign of any greater harm and is not significant at the optimal concentration of fluoride used in the water supply.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, raised a number of issues about the safety of fluoride. He has put down a number of questions on some of these matters. As he stated, he met with my noble friend Lady Jay and officials earlier in the year. Rather than respond specifically to every point raised by the noble Earl and other noble Lords on the scientific impact, I want to discuss them in more general terms. However, on the more specific detail, I am sure that discussions between the noble Earl, other noble Lords and the Department of Health will continue. I would encourage that. Certainly, the Department of Health would be happy to explore what kind of study Professor fain Chalmers at the Cochrane Centre has in mind.
1424
I respect the thoroughness of the scrutiny which the noble Earl made in relation to the scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride. However, I make two points on the question of safety. First, it is true that virtually all medical and public health intervention carries risks as well as benefits. It is for the scientific community to advise on the balance of those risks to the benefits and for the Government to decide what is acceptable. Secondly, it is impossible to prove a negative. However many studies attest to the safety of a procedure, it is still not possible to say categorically that it carries no risk.
However, within that context, the evidence I mentioned earlier is highly persuasive. Half a million people in this country receive water which contains fluoride naturally present at a level close to or above the optimal one part per million, and five million receive water supplemented to that level. The corresponding figures for the USA are 10 million and 135 million respectively. Before and during the past half-century of fluoridation, there have been extensive studies of the health of those populations and, apart from improved oral health, the health experience of those receiving the optimal concentration of fluoride is no different from that of the population at large. I thought that that point was very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
I should also like to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Given the readiness with which American citizens resort to litigation on health matters, it seems inconceivable to me that, as fluoridation could be harmful to health, no claim for compensation has gone through their courts.
Of course, too much fluoride can be harmful, just like too much oxygen, too much water, or too much of some vitamins. As has been mentioned, the experience on the Indian sub-continent, where much drinking water comes direct from wells dug locally, reinforces the need for the rigorous controls we have on water purity in the UK. It is impossible to say precisely how much fluoride is too much, but fluoride at the optimal concentration of one part per million has always been present in some water supplies. All of the evidence from here and other countries practising fluoridation indicates that the total intake from such water, together with that from food and beverages, such as tea, is harmless. Naturally, this is a matter which we will continue to keep under review; for instance, in assessing the forthcoming new estimates of dietary intakes in the UK.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked about major control studies which are relied on to support the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. Over 60 years of research into the effects of fluoride and fluoridation has resulted in tens of thousands of published scientific studies. That is the foundation for the overwhelming view of medical and scientific authorities that fluoridation of water supplies is effective and that no likelihood of harm has been demonstrated. In addition, many detailed and authoritative scientific reviews of the literature have been published. I am sure that the noble Earl is aware of several of the most prominent and most recent of those reviews.

1425
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition in which accumulation of fluoride in the bones leads to thickening within the bone. In its early stages it may be found on X-ray but cause no symptoms and no harm. Excessive accumulation may result ultimately in hardening of ligaments, stiffness and pain in joints, weakening of the bones, muscle wasting and compression of nerves. The fact is that studies of the fluoride content and structure of bone, and radiological surveys, in communities in the UK and the US have not demonstrated clinical skeletal fluorosis, even when fluoride levels occurring naturally in drinking water were several times that used in optimal fluoridation.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to studies from Boston on the effect of fluoride on the central nervous system. These were studies which used very high levels of fluoride on rats. The author does not claim that fluoridation of water is harmful; indeed, she claims only that there are effects at much higher doses. There is epidemiological evidence available; for example, the 1986 paper from New Zealand in which seven years of study of more than a thousand children found no effect of fluoridation on child health and behaviour. That supports the conclusion that fluoridation is harmless.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, raised the issue of water fluoridation in Europe. In fact, many countries in Europe have opted for fluoridation of salt; namely, Switzerland, parts of France and Germany. The concern that we would have in following likewise is that this practice could convey a confusing message when it is the advice of many of our health and nutritional experts that we should eat less salt.
My noble friend Lord Dixon referred to the use of bottled water. He may not be aware, but many popular bottled waters are natural mineral waters and that, unlike drinking water, there is no limit on the concentration of fluoride in natural mineral waters. Indeed, some of them contain concentrations which are much higher than the one part per million used in fluoridation.
I should like to turn now to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Dixon; namely, whether fluoridation can be described as "mass medication". I would say no. Almost all water contains some naturally occurring level of detectable fluoride. Even where that natural level reaches or exceeds the optimum level for dental benefit, it cannot be described as mass medication. Artificial fluoridation merely adjusts that level to the optimum level for dental health benefits and does not therefore add any substance or medication which is alien to the water supply. It is worth making the point that many substances, like chlorine, are added to the water to make it safe to drink without it being termed "mass medication".
1426
I move on now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Rea about current legislation. He is right. The final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 87 (1) of that Act states:
"Where a Health Authority have applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area."
I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that the north west has a closer connection in this respect than the north east? For example, when Manchester ran the water authority it fluoridated the water in the north west for 17 other authorities, but that was cancelled when the industry was privatised with the results that have been quoted tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that information. Certainly, in my own experience, I believe that Birmingham City Council, which fluoridated the water many years ago, showed a great deal of foresight which has reaped enormous public health benefits for those living in the city.
As my noble friend Lord Rea suggested, the operation of the Act has not been successful. Indeed, that was confirmed by yesterday's judgment in the judicial review, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon referred, in which the Tyneside Health Authority sought unsuccessfully to challenge Northumbrian Water's refusal to accede to its request to fluoridate its water. Since 1985, 55 health authorities in England—and that is nearly half of them, accounting for the mergers which have taken place in the past 12 years—have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, none of those requests has been successful. So there have been no new fluoridation agreements since 1985. The reason for this is quite simply that none of the water companies has exercised its discretion to agree to a health authority's request.
It was noted in the Green paper, Our Healthier Nation, that this legislation needs to be reviewed. As my noble friend Lord Rea suggests, the key issue is whether the word "may" should become "should". We will be announcing our decision on any changes necessary in a policy statement on fluoridation in the public health White Paper planned for the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, raised the issue of the public. I have two comments to make in that respect. First, opinion polls have quite clearly demonstrated public support for fluoridation. Secondly, in our response in the White Paper we shall be looking at ways in which the public consultation process can be strengthened. In the meantime, we are encouraged by the readiness with which the water industry has indicated that it is prepared to look again at the legal and practical problems surrounding fluoridation.

1427
In his Motion, the noble Earl asks for a public inquiry. Such inquiries are normally held where a case of major public maladministration is suspected which has resulted in harm to health, often significant loss of life and/or costly damage to property and the environment. These criteria do not apply to fluoridation, but we are not complacent. There has been, and continues to be, no shortage of authoritative scientific reviews of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation, and of the effects of fluoride. The Government will, of course, continue to review the latter and look sympathetically at soundly-based proposals for further UK-based research.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Earl for the opportunity to hold this very important debate on the issue of fluoridation. I acknowledge the impassioned contributions of other noble Lords. The oral health of our nation is important and is part of a wider concern for the overall health of the nation. Despite reductions in the levels of dental decay, the instance of dental decay is still too high. Fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. The Government believe that there has not emerged any convincing evidence of harm to general health as a result of drinking artificially fluoridated water at one part per million. The Department of Health will continue to monitor the results of research on the effect of fluoridation, but fluoridation will remain one of our tools in improving oral health and fighting tooth decay.
8 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I think I have a few minutes and I will take only a very few minutes to wind up. First, I thank all those speakers, an encouraging number, who have come to take part this evening. I am very grateful for the debate that we have had. I do not intend to pick up the whole field and repeat everything that has been said. I just want to pull out a few key points. As regards the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I am very sorry that I have exasperated her. I can quite understand that, as a dentist, she must feel exasperated when this particular matter is challenged. But I have to say that from what she said and from what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has said, all I have heard is just the assertions with which I started one year ago when trying to get at the evidence. I would urge any of your Lordships who want to find out what the truth is, to try your luck, as I have—and I hope you have better luck than I have had in actually getting the hard primary sources which can alone solve these questions.
With respect to our doctor who spoke earlier, and to someone else who mentioned credentials, it is not ultimately credentials that matter, but the quality of the science. It is on that point that I take my stand in this debate.
Passing to one point that the noble Baroness mentioned when she said that there was no evidence from Australia and that there were no known adverse effects, and researchers would have been aware if there had been, my mind went at once to smoking. How many years was it before people began to think that perhaps they ought to look? Unless you actually look—this is a
1428
fundamental thing in medical science—unless there is a culture of thinking there might be a problem, you can have all sorts of things, not necessarily Australian diseases, as was said, but the ordinary bone diseases which we all have, and of which there is a growing epidemic for causes unknown. It needs looking at to see what are the causes. So it is a question of saying, "there is no evidence". If you do not look you will not see evidence.
I understand—and it is obviously particularly dear, I suppose, to a Labour Government—the argument for the deprived and the poor. Do we not all feel that? I draw to your Lordships' attention the Chilean experience where they went specifically for the deprived and the poor. They stopped fluoridating because they found that the deprived were, by definition, less well nourished than the others and were less able to stand the toxic effects of fluoridation in the water supply. It was therefore discontinued. So it is no good starting with that argument, which everybody uses—and I quite understand it—in favour of the deprived unless you are quite, quite certain that you are doing good and that you are not doing harm.
I very much warm to what my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross said about being beware of the consensus of science. He raised some of the slight worries that I also have about passive smoking and the other issues which can very rapidly become a crusade. I think that that is something that we need to be aware of and to beware of. Having studied these things for some time, I am forming a tentative law, which says that the quality of the science is in inverse proportion to the public profile of the issue. It is because these things come up and there is premature consensus that it becomes politically incorrect in the scientific community to oppose it. And anything which later contradicts it has great difficulty in being heard. The noble Lord had a very good point there and I am glad that he raised it.
I turn again to what I said in my opening remarks about optimum levels. It is not so; there is no good science supporting an optimal level here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle is much quoted in this regard and I would like to read what he said. He said:
"There is no evidence"—
—this is in his many pages of judgment, to which the noble Baroness, I think, referred—
"that water with a natural fluoride content of 1 p.p.m. is normal by world standards".
And I skip a bit:
"Thus to suggest as do the respondents that they are merely replicating nature by increasing the fluoride content of surface water is inaccurate".
The point about Jauncey, who is prayed in aid by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, among others, is that, first, it was a long time ago, back in the early 1980s. Science, as I said in my opening remarks, has moved on since then. Secondly, I would submit—and I say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that a court of law is not the ideal forum in which to judge a scientific matter. It depends among other things, on whether all your

1429
witnesses can appear, and that did not happen in the Jauncey case. So whereas you can look to him for matters of definition, I think it is wrong to try and take courts of law as authorities in systematic scientific reviews, which is what Dr. Chalmers and I are calling for in this case.
We heard what could be described as, perhaps not unfairly, "party lines" from the Benches on this side. Perhaps, in the interests of time, I should skip them and move on to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Of course, I was disappointed, on the whole, by what he said, but I did welcome the encouragement that he gave and the fact that the department will look at what Dr. Chalmers is saying. I am grateful to him for that.
He echoed the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and said that it was inconceivable, that there were no legal claims. I wonder if they are not aware that Colgate has paid out £1,000 for somebody damaged by fluoridated toothpaste. Beyond that isolated point on toothpaste, I think that it is easily answered because how would people who have a disease—it may be a chronic bone disease or some other kind—know that it was to do with fluoride in the water? Their doctors would not tell them so if there is no culture of looking at this and understanding that it could cause problems? I think at present that there is no way that people are going to come forward and claim—unless they are clearly allergic, and there have been cases of this—that the water supply is to blame.
On the question of mass medication, again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, is prayed in aid. Let me quote him. He talks about Section 130 of the Act defining "medicinal products". He said:
"I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents"—
and he is talking here about the water supply—
"falls within the definition."
He had no doubt whatever.
There is one final question that I thought I would like to leave with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because among all the cherry-picking of the areas, Birmingham is always quoted. There are worries in my mind about Birmingham. One of them is that the number of dentists has gone up by 84 per cent. while the population has decreased by 15 per cent. during fluoridation. The other—and I would be very surprised if this has been looked at quite as carefully as the noble Lord says—is quoted in the Cancer Control Journal, which noted a,
"marked rise in the cancer death rate after the introduction of fluoridation in Birmingham".
Birmingham is also known as an infant mortality blackspot. I should like to see the studies. I accept the noble Lord's point that you cannot prove a negative, but I would like to see some studies after a year to reassure me on that point. On the bone question, I wonder how Birmingham has tackled this. I have seen a letter, and I quote,
"Birmingham Health Authority has no facility to collect biological samples."
1430
And a letter from the House of Commons Library confirming:
"No Birmingham research on the uptake of fluoride in bone has been done."
I believe that there are still questions around that and I would leave that thought with you.
In conclusion, this issue reminds me of nothing more than one of those wild west stage sets, which look very impressive but, when you get closer, you find that it is only a façade and that behind there is in fact little but scrub and empty desert. I would remind your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, emphasised, that it was not I who framed that initial wording but a doctor who is at the very heart of evidence-based medicine, Dr. lain Chalmers, who shares my concern that the case has not been fully made out.
My Lords, once again I thank everybody for taking part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Food Prices
8.9 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view of the disparity between farm-gate and supermarket prices for food products; and what steps they intend to take to redress this imbalance.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is our third debate on agriculture and related subjects in recent weeks. That shows how important a subject agriculture has become and also the importance of the rural communities of Britain. Perhaps I may say how pleasant it is to see so many new faces attending the debate.
We know that farmers are in crisis. We know that the Government have agreed to inject a large sum of money into the agricultural industry to try to stave off the worst effects of that crisis. We know that BSE, E. coli, the high value of the pound and the green pound, cheap foreign imports and no export market have depressed farm product prices to uneconomic levels. Yet we see the prices of agricultural products in our supermarkets continue to rise in such a way as to rub salt into the wound of the depression at the farm gate. We must ask why. That is the reason I decided to ask this Question today.
Is it excess profiteering and greed to feed an ever-hungry shareholder or is it spiralling costs for the supermarkets which must be passed on? Two things are fact. First, the average British family pays £1,000 per year more to buy the same food as its European counterpart. Secondly, the average profits of supermarkets in the United Kingdom are three times those of their European equivalents. In the United Kingdom the food retail industry is dominated by the Big Four: Tesco, with annual profits of £866 million—I repeat that figure, £866 million; Sainsbury, with profits of £735 million; and Asda and Safeway with profits of £400 million. Those four control nearly 65 per cent. of UK food production and distribution. They have doubled their profits on food and soft drinks in the past 10 years.

1431
Lest it be thought otherwise, I am not against profit. "Profit" is not a dirty word. Profit is to a large extent what makes the world go round. Without profit there is no business. But profiteering at the expense of the agricultural industry and the housewife by not passing on market decreases is neither fair nor ethical. Profiteering is not the same as profit. Profiteering is wrong but making a profit is fair. What we must do in today's debate is distinguish between these two words.
The power of the Big Four supermarkets is enormous. They have virtually killed off the local butcher and greengrocer from our high streets. They have the financial clout to run loss-making promotions to entice more customers into their stores. The threat of delisting is enough to frighten any producer. All the supermarket has to suggest is, "If you won't sell to us at our price, we will remove you from our list of suppliers." That is a death threat to any business, large or small.
According to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, in the past five years shelf prices in British supermarkets have increased by 16 per cent. at Tesco; by 15 per cent. at Sainsbury; by 9.5 per cent. at Safeway; and by 4 per cent. at Asda. That is a frightening statistic. How Tesco can go to 16 per cent. and Asda to only 4 per cent. leads one to wonder what is going on. Prices are often rounded up to the nearest 5p or 9p further to increase profits. The housewife very often does not notice. But if she does and complains, the supermarket can then refuse her custom. The supplier, too, cannot complain for fear of being delisted. So in fact what we now have in this country is a cartel, a monopoly over our food industry being run by the Big Four.
To be fair, the Office of Fair Trading is investigating at the moment, and yet nothing is seen to be happening. How long does it take to investigate such blatant profiteering? What are the powers when it has proved the case. And prove the case it must, as now we have the Meat and Livestock Commission reporting the facts. These facts were widely publicised recently in various newspapers, including the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the News of the World. They proved that huge profits are being made and that there are large add-ons from the farm gate to the supermarket shelf in all meat produce.
According to the MLC report, the supermarkets are making £81.50 more profit per beef steer than they did three years ago, £10 more on every lamb and £7 on every pig. While the farmer sells his beef for £515, having kept the animal for up to 18 months and from which he has to take his feed, grazing and veterinary costs, often leaving him with a very small return, if any, on his capital outlay, the supermarket makes a profit of £267.80 for cutting it up and putting it on the shelf. The story is the same for sheep. The farmer gets £35 gross and the supermarket makes a profit of £25 net. With pigs, the figures are £50.90 for the farmer and £30.20 for the supermarket. For chickens, the farmers get £1.12 and the supermarket makes a profit of £1.31. So, in the case of the humble chicken, the supermarket actually makes a bigger profit than the farmer receives for rearing the bird.
1432
Another way to look at the same statistics in the MLC survey is that lamb now selling in the markets at £1.40 per kilo sells in the supermarket for £12.99 per kilo for leg steaks, £10.49 for gigot chops, £8.69 for double loin chops and £5.49 for half legs. In every case the farmer is left with little or nothing after costs but the supermarket is making a healthy profit.
To be fair, Tesco has stated—I am sure the figures are correct—that the price of £1 paid for meat at the farm gate rises to £3.15 before it can be distributed to its stores as a result of weight loss in killing and curing. Nevertheless, profits are there for all to see and at a time when the farmer, the essential start of the food chain, is struggling to break even, let alone make a profit.
The story does not end with livestock. Fruit farmers, who have no choice about when to harvest, are told what the price is—take it or leave it. According to John Breach, chairman of the Independent Fruit Growers Federation, fruit growers are in dire straits, often having to sell at a loss in order to recoup any costs as the following week their crop is totally worthless, being over-ripe and unsaleable. David Nike, an agricultural business consultant, has stated that 60 per cent. profit margins are being added on to the price of the humble potato.
There is something seriously wrong with our food industry. Surely what we need is a supply chain which offers transparency, shared profits within the chain—in other words, each link in the chain being satisfied by the return, including the final consumer—and a long-term commitment from both supplier and buyer. There surely is no gain from reducing the cost of food to the consumer when farmers and growers cannot cover their production costs for in the end the supply will undoubtedly dry up as no one can carry on doing something at a loss for ever.
We urgently need to set up independent and verified farm assurance schemes with collaborative marketing to meet buyers' demand for consistency and quality of product. Then, and only then, would we have a sense of confidence in the food chain. The farmer could rear his meat and grow his vegetables and fruit knowing that there was a market for them at a profitable level; the buyer from the supermarket could find himself with a reliable and consistent supply of food; and the consumer could be assured of good, consistent quality at a steady and affordable price.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, to confirm that the Government will hurry along the Office of Fair Trading investigation and put a stop soon to the unfair way in which our farmers and producers are being held to ransom and our housewives' shopping bills are being increased in this cavalier fashion by the Big Four supermarkets. I should like him to confirm whether it is a fact that only four people from the Office of Fair Trading are looking into the problem. That seems very few people for a major problem. I also hope that pressure can be brought to bear, as we near the 21st century, for a completely new approach to the marketing of that vital commodity to human life, food. A fairer and more equitable system, as I have already described, to benefit everyone in the food chain and not just the

1433
strong and wealthy supermarket would be very useful. I should be grateful to hear from the noble Lord that the Government will consider such an idea already being actively promoted by the National Farmers Union as a way out of the current crisis.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, on asking this Unstarred Question. I am not a farmer, but I find the idea that there is a clear relationship between farm gate prices and supermarket prices both a little naïve and a little outdated. A management guru said recently,
"Companies used to compete on costs, but now they compete on knowledge".
Indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State virtually repeated this when he introduced the White Paper on competitiveness a little earlier today.
Let me explain what I mean. I am sure the noble Lord owns a camera. He will have a clever camera that does all kinds of clever things. But these wonderful things are possible because the producer has a knowledge of optics and electronics; they do not depend necessarily on the materials that are used. That is what adds the value. That is what enables a dealer to get a higher price for a camera. Surely it is the same with food. There is a long supply chain from farm gate to supermarket. The noble Lord told us all about it. It is this supply chain which adds the value. I refer to the preparation, the cleaning, the packaging, the transport and the organisation to get the food to the supermarket at the right time. The farm-gate prices have little relevance after all those operations.
The noble Lord may have a point if the supermarkets are using their buying power to force down prices at the farm gate, and then engaging in a scheme to maintain high prices in the shop. However, as the noble Lord has said, the Director General of Fair Trading is looking into this matter. Sadly, his inquiry will end before March 2000, when the new Competition Act comes into force. Under the present regulations, the director general has no powers to act in relation to prices as such. If he discovers anti-competitive behaviour, he can issue directions and rap naughty supermarkets over the knuckles. That is not really much of a deterrent. However, under the new Act, matters will be completely different. There will be complete freedom to compete, but not to abuse. Perhaps it is this abuse which the noble Lord calls profiteering. That is what he is concerned about.
Under the terms of the new Act, if there has been an abuse of market position, instead of getting a rap over the knuckles and being told not to be naughty, companies can be fined 10 per cent. of their turnover—£80 million in the case of Tesco. Injured third parties can sue for damages. In addition, if he thinks there has been abuse, the director general does not have to wait—therefore the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, will not be so greatly tested—he can impose interim measures pending the completion of his investigation. These are altogether much tougher rules.
1434
I might add that the new legislation makes the director general entirely independent of Ministers. His sole concern would be the anxieties of the noble Lord and of farmers. In all fairness, I think the noble Lord should congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on getting the legislation through. Sadly it did not come into force on 7th November, when it received Royal Assent. If it had done, perhaps the farmers would be in a much stronger position.
The noble Lord is concerned about the profitability of supermarkets. Profitability is a difficult concept and I am not sure whether this is a useful line of argument. First of all, under present legislation, firms can charge whatever they like. Most prices are pitched at what the market will stand, both at the farm gate and in the supermarket. At present the Director General of Fair Trading can get prices reduced only if there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, because measures to combat the abuse of market power come into force only in March 2000. Until then firms will presumably continue to charge what the market will stand. However, this rule is already in force on the Continent. It could be one reason why, for some products, supermarket prices are lower there than here. Unlike on the Continent, our food prices are zero rated for VAT, and therefore our prices should be lower.
In addition there is the difference in accounting practice between here and other European countries. Indeed, if you calculate profitability based on return on capital employed, the returns are higher on the Continent than here. Therefore, as I say, I am not sure that profitability is a useful line of argument. There is also the confusing problem of the pricing of certain products, because some are priced as loss leaders, and therefore a selective shopping basket of priced goods can prove things either way. The noble Lord pointed out that there are four major supermarket groups, but there are also the discounters from the Continent, who are competing quite strongly with the supermarkets.
As regards farm-gate prices, obviously the CAP has an important impact. The prospect of lower support prices must be worrying for farmers, but other factors such as the welfare of animals and the use of chemicals enter into the value chain to justify higher prices. However, the reality is that, if market prices have decreased, businesses have to adapt. Oil companies, for instance, have had to adapt to the fact that oil prices have gone down from 18 dollars a barrel to nine dollars a barrel in the past 18 months. Those companies are having to adapt to that situation. That is one of the factors in business.
The supply chain is where the business happens, as the noble Lord pointed out. This is where the nub of his argument lies. If the farmers are being exploited, that is bad for business. Exploitation is bad for any business, including supermarkets. It is bad for a variety of reasons. First, the public will not want to shop at, nor indeed investors invest in, firms that exploit. Retailers are shunning products made with child labour or which are not environmentally friendly, because the public just do not want them. The public have become much more discerning in these matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that it is bad for productivity if part of

1435
the supply chain is exploited because it is just not efficient to go from one source to another exploiting them. Like all businesses, supermarkets need the entire chain to be innovative and competitive. Indeed this factor is repeated in the White Paper on competitiveness which we discussed this afternoon.
This competitiveness is achieved by creating a common understanding and, at the same time, by having vigorous competition. Supermarkets need suppliers who can continually respond to the rising quality of demand because that is the way to the customer's wallet. Exploitation has no place in this: competition has. I say to my noble friend the Minister that by virtue of the Competition Act I think the Government have already taken steps to solve the noble Lord's problem.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am not as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the effects of the Bill which will come into operation in 2000. I could not quite follow his speech but I gather that he was giving farmers a lecture about being competitive and producing what the supermarkets want. I gather that he compared the farming industry with the oil industry and generally taught us our business, as he is entitled to do. I believe he explained that the supermarkets have great costs as regards killing the beast, skinning it, throwing away bits and so on. He might consider that the farmer has to raise the calf to 18 months and then has to put it into calf—apply the bull, if the noble Lord understands that expression—and then has to rear the new calf. He has a three, four or five year period of preparation, which is slightly different to the mere killing of the beast and butchering of it. Therefore I think the noble Lord's argument loses a little of its virtue in the face of the difficulties experienced by the primary producer.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—as he said himself—has raised a subject which has been much discussed. However, he looks to the future which I think is right and proper. I am glad that he has raised the matter. There is no question that for the first time for many years the public support the farmers because the figures produced are so horrendous that the public realise that the old myth that this is only farmers grumbling is no longer the case. They have a genuine grievance. In addition, the countryside as we know it is in danger as a result of the financial conditions. The promises for the future by the governments of all the large EU countries do not bode well for the countryside.
The figures I have are probably from the same source as those given by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, might look at the most telling. He said that in terms of capital the French make more money. But the simple shopping basket test carried out by the Sunday Times was horrifying. The same items cost in the UK £81.59; in Holland £49.55; in Belgium £50.67; and in Italy £60.90. Whatever is said about capital, the matter is straightforward: people are paying more in this country than in equivalent countries in the
1436
European Union. There must be some reason for that. It is an extraordinary thing that we have the four large supermarket companies.
I have nothing against Tesco; indeed I am all for it. In Forfar there is a Tesco store that is absolutely wonderful. You can buy virtually anything there. I can sometimes buy a bottle of Whyte & Mackays whisky, of which I am fond, for as little as £14 a litre—in which case I normally buy three or four bottles.
Of course the supermarkets are to a certain degree holding the country to ransom. Taking the figures that are available on farm produce, instead of prices falling in the stores, they have been held up simply because the supermarkets can do that. I dare say that they do not meet and decide to hold up prices, but they are holding them up. The four large stores sell some 67 per cent. of food in this country. It is ludicrous that they have all happily taken the extra profit and not one of the large stores has tried to grab the market. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is bad for business. We talk about competition in farming; but there must certainly be competition in retailing.
It is the old story. In most cases the primary producer gets it in the neck. Whether it be a matter of oil, tin or food, the primary producer is often hammered. The oil business can take care of itself. It has large profits. Those profits do not exist in farming. Farming needs to be looked after if we want to keep the countryside. If we want to let the countryside go, a large number of competent young men can buy big acreages and farm them purely for profit. They will not keep up hedges or ditches; they will simply grow as many crops as they can and pay as little as they can for the land, doing themselves a good deal of financial good but not doing the countryside any good.
Labour governments supported agriculture and did it a lot of good from 1947 onwards. If we take the case of the Milk Marketing Board, have the public benefited at all from its abolition? The farmers certainly have not. The price of milk has plummeted. It must be realised that if farming is to be kept as a stable industry, which is for the good of the country and what urban people want, the Government have to allow, and assist in, some organisation of the primary producer.
Many factors can help. I should like to think that we can help markets, as has been done in France. In many parts of France the supermarkets do not have a look in when it comes to food, because there are very good markets. One of the lessons we have learnt is that butchers—and in my part of the world fishmongers—can thrive as individuals because butchers hang their meat properly. The supermarkets do not hang meat. One of the tenets of shopping at a supermarket is that, once the customer has bought something, he or she gets out of the way as quickly as possible in order to assist the cash-flow. So there can be survival for certain individual concerns. But there is no question that the bulk of our food will be in the hands of the big organisations. The Government must keep them in their place. They cannot be allowed to merge further. Since only four of them handle the food that we buy, that would be a highly dangerous position. Matters would become a great deal worse.

1437
The Government are conscious of the problem. The new Act will not solve it. The Government have to look to organisation, and to helping any such organisation to produce a constant supply of good food. In that case protection would be needed from the flood of cheap food from overseas, which is produced under different conditions to those enforced on our farmers here. The Government have a case to answer. I thank the noble Lord for introducing the debate.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire. While the debate has focused on the disparity between farm-gate and retail prices, there is a wider question; namely, the disparity in power between the farmer and the retailer, and whether that leads to abuse.
It is perhaps instructive to reflect that over the past 10 years the retail price index for all items represented by "a basket" of selected consumer goods has risen by 55 per cent. During this period the retail food price element of the index has risen by 40 per cent. In other words, the price of food has fallen in real terms—a fact for which no doubt the supermarkets can take some credit.
However, within that overall picture farm-gate prices have risen by only 7 per cent. The upward rise in the retail price index for all items and RPI food has been relatively smooth. By contrast, the rise in farm-gate prices has been characterised by alternative periods of sharp rises, often due to currency weakness as in the period 1993–95 following the devaluation of sterling in 1992, followed by severe declines. In 1997 farm-gate prices fell by 14 per cent. on 1996.
Should noble Lords believe that prices paid to farmers will rise as agriculture falls out of a low trough, perhaps I may remind the House that under Agenda 2000 proposals price cuts vary from 30 per cent. for beef, 20 per cent. cuts for cereals, to 15 per cent. for milk.
What will the demand for competitive agriculture mean for the likely price of foods to the consumer? Does the past lead us to believe that it will be anything other than a continuing rise, with the balance of the margin going to the retailer? Indeed, MAFF's own statistics pointed to the effect of Agenda 2000 in reducing the retail price index by a mere 0.3 per cent.
During this time, farmers have been left holding the short end of the income stick, while at the other end a small group of intensely efficient retailers have been pulling in profits of up to £850 million each. Between them, Tesco and Sainsbury turn over more money than the Republic of Ireland. In terms of relative size, the individual farmer is not a David to the supermarkets' Goliath; he is more like a microbe. Retailers are simple, ruthless machines which perform solely for profit and share price. Their scale gives them the opportunity to be mercilessly efficient in reducing unit costs.
The modern parlance that the consumer demands ever-improving quality at a reducing price can have no other outcome. Multiples demand more food, better food, to be put before more consumers at a faster rate and at a lower cost. For this to work, today's price must
1438
be undercut by tomorrow's and that of the day after, and so on. To do that and at the same time increase profits supermarkets apply continual downward pressure on their suppliers. Farmers must get less, abattoirs must be paid less, packaging costs must be reduced, and the supermarket will always get the same, or increased, slice, even if the overall income stream is smaller.
That is confirmed in the Meat and Livestock Commission report, which states that the gap between meat prices for producers and retailers has widened significantly in the past three years, suggesting that supermarkets have not shared in the overall decline in industry margins. In the summer of 1995, the gap between what the supermarket paid processors for packed retail cuts of beef and the retail shelf price was 15.5 per cent. of the total price. In the summer of 1998 it rose to 23.8 per cent. Between July and September 1998, the multiples took £267.80 for every £515 spent on the steer to pay for staff, building, shelf space, shareholders and expansion. In 1995 the multiples took £186.30 from a steer price of £743.
While other noble Lords have pointed out that it may not be of direct relevance, and claim and counterclaim rage in the press, one significant increase in costs that must be recognised is that relating to safety and welfare issues. It is not generally recognised that there is now, following safety and other increased legislation, a collection of inspectors in white coats, each with a clipboard, standing over each operator in the slaughterhouse. I trust that the Office of Fair Trading in its inquiry will analyse and report on all those aspects.
Following the food scares, the BSE crisis and the animal welfare issues, the consumer, through legislation, now imposes higher standards on agriculture. Farmers, in trying to take their produce out of the commodity bracket and to brand it, even if that is no more than "British", are confronted by a supermarket intent on imposing its own branding, whatever the supply. In that way, the supermarket maintains its creed to the consumer and its control over the income stream. It is a fair question to which the Government must respond, that labelling must be honest and correct. "British produce" must be British and produced to British standards. As consumers demand, through legislation, that farmers must meet certain production and welfare standards, should it be acceptable that foreign supplies can be sold that do not conform? This is a question that must be addressed in Europe by Ministers. Access to the market by supplies below indigenous standards should only be allowed provided it is clearly marked that they do not conform to home standards.
The Minister of Agriculture recently joined the British Retail Consortium to confirm that all supermarket branding and fresh pig produce will be to British standards. Will the Minister also insist that below standard produce from overseas will be labelled as such?
I should also like to draw attention to other issues targeted by the supermarkets in order to reduce farm-gate prices: namely, auction markets and cattle movements. In setting up producer clubs to source direct supplies, the supermarkets source entirely on a

1439
deadweight basis, to their quality standards. The price paid by the majority of deadweight operators is at some stage linked to the price obtained at the live auction. It is fair to say that most deadweight purchasers will pay a system of bonuses, some immediate and some at the end of the marketing season. However, this denudes the auction market of a high quality product and effectively lowers the average quality of the auction offering. This in turn lowers the average market price. Thus the deadweight producer lowers the average market price which is used to determine the price he or she is paid. The high quality deadweight product is also influenced in the average price by the bottom end product at the market.
It must be remembered that the auction market is not only an end market, it is flexible and provides an acceptable outlet for all standards. It allows the producer—maybe overstocked or low on feed—to sell an animal to be purchased and finished by another producer. It also provides an infinite variety of choice to suit all customer requirements.
One of the criticisms of auction markets concerns welfare. The Livestock Auctioneers Association is to be commended on developing new standards and systems, as markets are public places visited by all and sundry. There is not much by way of welfare in a large stock wagon going round farms, possibly incurring between 10 and 20 stops for a load before setting off on a long journey. It is far better for the farmer to take his consignment to an efficient market, with good loading and unloading facilities. The livestock industry must retain a broad geographical spread of markets. I trust the Minister will endorse that.
It is also important to understand the issue of livestock movements. Some slaughterers on contract to multiples are already offering a premium of at least 5 pence per deadweight for cattle that have been moved once only. Others have laid down a two-movement limit, and more anti-movement enticements will follow.
The claimed justification is that livestock are more easily traced, their welfare has not been compromised and they have been supposedly cheaply produced as sales commission by auction markets or by dealers is a non-essential expense. The drive is being helped by the cattle passport system which remorselessly clocks up a movement every time an animal changes hands, even if it was only held temporarily by a broker. If this justification is not quickly shown to be a falsehood, the flexibility of livestock finishing will be destroyed and efficiencies between upland and lowland farming jeopardised. Putting animals through an auction market does not automatically create welfare problems or impose a burden of unjustified expense. It is simply more efficient to move cattle to their bulky feed and bedding than the other way round.
In conclusion, I draw to noble Lords' attention that there are many issues to be addressed as well as the simple cost analysis, which must also bear careful scrutiny. I ask the Minister what is his reply to those who call for a supermarket regulator. I urge noble Lords
1440
to remember those issues when the subject of CAP reform returns and the much anticipated food standards agency legislation appears.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise for the quality of my voice, I have a heavy cold. However, even if I breathe hard it will not cross the Floor of the House.
I join in the comments made by colleagues on how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for having the energy to seek the debate. He did so in order to make a point and also to share his concerns with the House. He should be grateful, as I am, for the quality of the contributions. They have not been great in quantity but the quality has been there. It is a lesson on the topic that we are discussing. At the end of the day quality is all-important.
I have been impressed by the facts and knowledge displayed by colleagues. I have learnt a great deal on which I shall reflect. I must declare an interest, first, as a consumer who is interested in prices being as low as possible but fair. All farmers are consumers and so have an interest in the price they have to pay when they visit supermarkets.
I started my working life in the retail industry as an errand boy. That was a staggering 59 years ago in 1939 with the Newcastle Co-op. I became a director of other co-operative societies and my interest in retailing stems in part from my professional work with co-ops. I also declare an interest as honorary secretary of the All-Party Retail Industry Group. I remind the House that that receives much of its support and sustenance from the British Retail Consortium. In the context of this amicable debate we should recognise that the consortium represents retailers who sell more than 90 per cent. of the goods that pass over our counters. The body represents 320,000 shops and 30 per cent. of the commercial property floorspace. It provides employment for 2.9 million people, 11 per cent. of the total workforce.
I am also president of the Institute of Meat. My predecessor was the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who followed the noble Lord, Lord Vestey. I throw that fact into the debate to demonstrate that those of us who are not farmers and do not come from an agricultural background nevertheless take an interest in these matters.
I have referred to my connections with the Co-op. The Co-op has large stores and very many small stores. Whether the supermarket chains have 25,000 square feet, 50,000 square feet or have hypermarket status, by and large their outlets are of the larger size. There are many other organisations apart from the Co-op that are community-based.
In this debate I am not prepared to throw either bouquets or brickbats because the position is not straightforward. I hope that noble Lords will not try to find a villain or a saint. In this story there are no villains or saints. The villain of today will be the saint of tomorrow. There was a time when the farming community was vilified because of some of its activities.

1441
The same applied to some of the larger stores. At one time the scapegoat was the European Community, but the scapegoat changes. If I were a farmer I would fully share the concern and anguish about the state of the industry. That is the livelihood and heritage of the farmer. The present state of the industry may drive many people not just to despair but, sadly, suicide, as we read in the newspapers. I have enormous sympathy for the farming community which is affected by the present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred to an orderly state of affairs in which products were produced and marketed in a reasonable way. Robert Owen started the Co-op movement in 1844. He believed in co-operative communities in which people grew their own food and provided their own materials. I do not think that we should look at two ends of the chain, one being the farmer and the other the consumer, because each is dependent on the other.
Everyone is entitled to fight for his livelihood and that includes the supermarkets. Anyone who believes that the situation in retailing is hunky-dory has another think coming. My experience of these matters goes back 50 years. No industry has undergone a greater revolution than retailing. The biggest change came about four or five years ago with Sunday trading. That was a massive, traumatic change but change occurs all the time. Sometimes people will be on one side of the argument and sometimes on the other.
Life is becoming more complex as is retailing. The retail chain is also becoming more complex. I do not believe that the price to the consumer is the be-all and end-all. Sadly, in certain quarters there is a tendency to believe that all one must do is sell as cheaply as possible. Good sense tells one that quality and fairness to suppliers is a very good profit-maker. It makes sense to treat suppliers and employees fairly and charge the consumer a fair price, but that is not life.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We appreciate the complexity and efficiency of the retail industry. What worries us in this case is that with an over-supply the price to the consumer is not falling. Therefore more is not being consumed and the natural process of recovery is not taking place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I am afraid that I am unable to speak to the detail because I am neither a practitioner nor a professional in this area. Reference was made earlier to the price of oil. It was said that oil was not strictly analogous to this case. It is not. However, when one hears the word "glut" one believes that automatically that should be reflected in lower prices. In the case of oil, for every 62 pence paid for a litre 50 pence is a tax that is imposed on the industry. We are all beneficiaries of that. We must be very careful about where we start and finish.
Over the past 10 years the price of goods in the shops has risen by 36.5 per cent. General inflation has risen by 50 per cent., but in real terms the price of retail goods has fallen by just under 14 per cent. Efficiency,
1442
innovation and competition all play a part. When one criticises the supermarket one must bear in mind that the consumer is not attracted solely by price but by the range of goods, their quality, the opening hours, the increased role of new or extra services and their quality and value for money.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has far greater experience of these matters. However, when one considers pigmeat, only parts such as the loin and the steak are particularly attractive. But the person who has produced it may feel that he is entitled to sell all of it at a premium price. That is not so. The imbalance is dealt with by the retailer selling at less profit. As a consequence today much goes abroad.
I see that my time is nearly up. As an ex-Whip I do as I am told—sometimes. I conclude by agreeing that there is need for a better system than one that drives farmers to despair, not through their own fault or by government action but by a combination of factors. This has been a very good debate. It is not in the interests of supermarkets to treat their suppliers badly. If they do, it will backfire on them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for allowing noble Lords to express their views.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, any regular attender of this House over the past few months will realise that the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has arisen in a number of different forms in at least three or four debates. Anyone who has listened to those debates will appreciate that there is a significant problem.
I do not wind up on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches as a farmer or with any farming background, but as a representative of the consumer interest. The case on behalf of the farming community has been well made and effective. Indeed, following the remarks of various speakers, there has been a remarkable achievement by major supermarkets. Three years ago the average consumer probably believed that most farmers were heavily subsidised, and battening on the consumer through tax subsidies and handouts from Brussels. Over that three-year period the behaviour of the supermarket chains seems to have succeeded in turning public opinion the other way round. The old adage that one never sees a poor farmer is turned the other way. The consumer now believes that one never sees a farmer who is not poor. That is a remarkable achievement on the part of the major supermarket chains over that period.
As various speakers have said during the course of the debate, we are talking about four major supermarket chains because they represent 66, 67 or 68 per cent. of the UK food market. Therefore if we are to have any serious debate on the issue, we must talk about the behaviour of those four supermarkets and the interrelationship of those four supermarkets with the farming industry.
I do not wish to go into the statistical points made effectively tonight and previously on behalf of the farming community. The case has been made strongly about the interrelationship between farm-gate prices and

1443
the prices for the consumer in the supermarket. I commend those who are not convinced to read from time to time the trade magazine Grower which is full of uncomfortable reminders of how multiples exercise their power over the farming community.
We have not yet heard the Minister's winding-up speech. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, put what I understand to be the Government's answer to the points made. While he did not speak on behalf of the Government, he gave what I understand to be the Government's response. I understand that the noble Lord spoke for himself. However, I anticipate what the Minister will say: that the Office of Fair Trading is currently looking at the issue as to whether supermarkets are charging excess prices and will be reporting early in 1999. The noble Lord made some comments about whether or not there was profiteering or overcharging. It would be entirely inappropriate to prejudge what the Office of Fair Trading will say.
However, I take issue with the noble Lord on the question which has been well trailed: that the four major supermarkets have margins well in excess of those prevalent in continental Europe. He made the point that the return on capital for the supermarket chains is lower than in continental Europe. One fundamental fact differentiates us from continental Europe as regards the property market. The high cost of land for the development even of out-of-town supermarket chains in the UK significantly reduces the return on capital for the UK supermarket chain compared with continental competitors. I do not think that that is a particularly satisfactory response.
The supermarkets' response is that nothing is wrong. Those of us who have raised the issue have been lobbied. Some of the lobbying which I and others have received from the supermarket chains would have us believe that supermarkets are beneficial organisations, almost charities, providing a service to the consumer almost on a free basis. The point is exaggerated in order to make the argument. However, there are some characteristics of the industry about which the Government should be concerned. One of the defences put forward by the major supermarkets is that the shopper typically nowadays has a choice of several supermarkets within a short drive. In reality that is not normally true. Although no one, single major supermarket has more than 25 per cent. of the market, that does not apply when one considers the matter on a city-by-city or region-by-region basis. For example, Sainsbury's and Tesco's combined share of the market is 57 per cent. in London and the south. Asda is based predominantly in the north.
In agriculture the relationship between the farming community and the buyer is changing significantly. Although this point was mentioned in previous debates, not many noble Lords have referred to it today. Supermarkets are seeking control over production. Some farmers have commented that they foresee the day when a Tesco or Sainsbury's farmer will produce only what his supermarket boss tells him, including for the beef farmer what bulls to use and on what day to sell his finished cattle. The fear is that supermarkets are
1444
beginning to dominate the farming community and to introduce a range of vertical agreements which will operate against the consumer interest.
What should the Government do? Clearly farmers are bleeding. It is simply not enough for the Government to say that the OFT is looking at pricing; that when they have seen its report they will decide what to do; and if that is not enough they will wait for the Competition Act which will come into force in May 2000. Bearing in mind the significant public concern on the issue, action clearly needs to be taken before the year 2000.
I have three recommendations. I welcome the Minister's response to them. First, I do not think that the Department of Trade and Industry can rely on the Office of Fair Trading to consider the pricing issue. There has to be significant consideration of whether or not there is market dominance by individual supermarkets in individual cities. For example, in Cambridge everyone shops in Sainsbury's. Does Sainsbury's have market dominance in Cambridge; and what is the effect of that market dominance on the pricing policy of food in Cambridge? That issue requires strong direction from the Government. It cannot simply be left to the Office of Fair Trading to consider.
The second issue is whether or not the vertical domination of the supermarkets within the farming process is a problem. When the Competition Bill was debated in your Lordships' House, significant attempts were made to increase the powers in the Competition Bill on that vertical domination issue. Those attempts did not succeed. Nevertheless, we believe that the Department of Trade and Industry has a responsibility, in particular in the light of allegations in relation to the major supermarkets and the farming community, to look at that vertical domination.
Finally, I do not believe that it will be sufficient simply to rely on the powers of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Act to deal with the problem. All the evidence of the past shows that where cartels, or potential cartels, exist they will always circumvent the powers that the law will impose upon them. The Government need to take the initiative—I do not know which ministry or Minister it should be—to get together the farming unions, the farmers and the supermarkets to agree what can be done to solve the problem. The fact is that housewives go into supermarkets to buy products at this price. There would be no point in housewives doing so if the pricing policies of the supermarkets drive so many farmers out of business. Prices then have to rise.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Rowallan for bringing forward this important and timely debate. As we heard last week, farmers are indeed going through a particularly difficult time. Some are going out of business, some are struggling and others are looking with concern to the

1445
future of their industry. My noble friend Lord Rowallan, spoke about that issue again tonight. He asks the Government:
"what is their view of the disparity between farm-gate and supermarket prices for food products; and what steps they intend to take to redress this imbalance".
A few weeks ago, at a time when some Welsh farmers were getting only 25 pence for a whole lamb and some were taking their stock to the RSPCA and dumping them, I bought four Welsh lamb chops in a local supermarket. Those four lamb chops cost me £3.50.
I mention this as it highlights the agony being experienced by farmers. They see their local supermarket price and they compare it with the price they are obtaining at the farm-gate. So where does the blame lie, or, to put it less aggressively, why are the prices at the farm-gate so low? My noble friend has linked his Question from farm to supermarket.
It is true that the top five supermarkets, Asda, Somerfield, Kwik Save, Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco, dominate food retailing in Britain. Between them they control half the grocery market. The remainder is split between the Co-op, Iceland, Marks and Spencer, William Morrison, discounters such as Aldi and smaller independents. Does this dominance help or hinder consumer interests? I think that most people would agree that the supermarkets have given the customer better value over recent years. But some consider that the process may have gone too far and that food quality and customer choice is being compromised for the sake of profit.
Some say that supermarkets are the consumers' best friend. They have kept prices low while dramatically expanding the range of goods offered. But that does not tell the whole story. While supermarket prices for pork, beef and lamb have stayed about the same over the past three years, farm-gate prices have plummeted.
The NFU compared prices for August 1996 with August 1998 and found that, while the farmers' share for beef had risen from 31 per cent. to 34 per cent. as consumer confidence rose following BSE, the share for everything else had dropped dramatically. Lamb went from 39 per cent. to 24 per cent., poultry and milk from 46 per cent. to 30 per cent. and pork from 42 per cent. to a mere 24 per cent.
The rapid growth of supermarkets and the closure of traditional bakeries, independent butchers and local corner shops, all add to the reduction of choice in some areas. But, from the customer's perspective, how much more convenient to be able to do your shopping in one store, usually with ample car parking space, a crèche to leave your children to play in, someone to help you load your goods into the car or to provide a home delivery service. So far, the poor farmer has paid a heavy price in falling income.
Furthermore, in the past 10 years, 50,000 retail businesses have disappeared from our towns; village shops are on the verge of extinction and local producers are unable to distribute their goods or are forbidden to do so by increasingly arbitrary measures. The powers of the health department and the agriculture ministry have
1446
already damaged organic farmers, traders in unpasteurised milk and cheese, high street butchers and small producers of every kind.
However much we may lay the blame at the door of the supermarket, we have to accept that we also bear the responsibility for the sea change in our shopping habits. Those of us who have local shops but do not support them on a regular basis, should not be surprised if they are unable to make an adequate living. Before too long they will be forced to close, unable to compete with the supermarkets.
In the short term, when the pound is strong, cheap imports may be seen as an attractive substitute for domestically produced food which is temporarily more expensive. But, in the longer term, it will be disastrous if a significant number of domestic producers are forced out of business. Both supermarkets and customers should be aware that, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan pointed out, this scenario is not in their long-term interest.
The message to farmers must be that, since supermarkets are and will remain their largest customers in the foreseeable future, it is important that they work closely together. Farmers can strengthen their hand by closer co-operation; many have already started along this path.
For their part, supermarkets must recognise that they carry great responsibility, to customers and farmers alike. They can be a positive influence on Britain's agriculture. As the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Grantchester, said, they must accept that farmers need to achieve a proper living; that consumers expect quality and good value products, clearly labelled, from which to make their choice of purchase. Supermarkets on the whole do not buy directly from the farmer but through their suppliers and meat processors.
Sainsbury's has formed partnership arrangements with 10,000 livestock farmers. Those farmers produce animals of agreed specification for sale to their meat suppliers. The benefit to the farmers of partnership includes a guaranteed outlet for 52 weeks a year, giving them greater long-term security.
Tesco has pioneered a major initiative in partnership with its producers and is funding research to raise welfare standards in its meat and livestock products. It also commissioned an independent report to analyse the supply chain for beef and lamb. Tesco welcomed, in public, the establishment of a food standards agency.
The British Retail Consortium conducted a recent MORI survey undertaken between 6th–10th November to ascertain customers' attitude to shops and shopping in Great Britain. They considered range of goods, quality of goods, opening hours, range of extra or new services, quality of services and value for money. Their findings support customer satisfaction in all areas ranging from 88 per cent. to 61 per cent. and reaffirm that customers are continuing and will continue to shop at supermarkets.
If customers continue to demand the "better cuts" rather than using some of the cheaper meats, if demand from the Eastern countries and from Russia remains depressed and if the pound continues to be strong, there

1447
appears to be little that can be achieved as regards raising the price to the farmer while lowering prices on the shelves.
So what should the Government do? I have some questions and suggestions. First, will the Government push ahead and establish the food standards agency, which should have been included in the Queen's Speech? Secondly, will the Government give greater direction to the labelling of products to make sure that UK labelling is applied only to products grown and processed in this country, rather than to those grown elsewhere but processed here, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred? Thirdly, will the Government give more thought to the whole question of packaging, some of which is not necessary and causes additional environmental problems? Fourthly, will the Government make some commitment to ensuring that animal welfare standards set by our country and our farmers do not jeopardize our farmers to the extent that they become uncompetitive? Fifthly, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we await the response from the Office of Fair Trading, to which we look forward urgently.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Again, I thank my noble friend for making it possible. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is unwell. From these Benches we wish him a speedy recovery and look forward to debating with him in the near future.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments in relation to my noble friend's speedy recovery. He asked me to apologise for not being present tonight. He wanted to be here. As everybody knows, he takes a great interest in agriculture, but I am sure he will be cheered by those words of encouragement. I am sure that everyone hopes he will soon be up and about and enjoying a drink at Christmas.
This has been a good debate and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for raising it. It raises many issues of specific concern to farmers at the moment and draws attention to the inquiry being conducted by the OFT. I do not know whether there are four or more people examining this issue, but I shall investigate what the noble Lord said and write to him on the matter. However, I can tell him that the OFT is due to report early next year. It has been said that I cannot anticipate what it is going to say, but we all look to receiving an early reply and studying it at great length.
Everybody who spoke tonight mentioned the powers of the supermarkets and what might be done in that regard. I hope to answer many of the points raised in the course of my response. First, I agree with everyone who spoke that there is no denying the power of the big four supermarkets. We know how successful they are and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, there is no turning back the shopping habits of the British people. The supermarkets drive a hard bargain, not only
1448
with suppliers here, but also with those abroad. They also demand high quality products at competitive prices and benefits come to the suppliers from that. Guaranteed access leads to large markets. It is therefore a matter of benefit for both sides.
The concern expressed in this House and wider in the media is that supermarkets are in some way "ripping off" the consumer. I must emphasise that there is no clear evidence one way or the other and that is why it is important that we receive the report from the OFT. It is fair to say—my noble friend Lord Haskel made a good point—that if the Competition Act had been in force (it is not the Government's fault that it is not in force; industry, including the farming industry, requested a delay of two years) it would have helped considerably in relation to some of the matters discussed this evening. Having said that, we have been keen to discuss the problems of the farming community with all parts of the food chain, including the retailers. Given their share of the market, they are extremely important to the producers.
It is important that supermarkets understand that it is not in their interests to drive British producers out of business. That is why we, as a government, have been seeking a way forward and why my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently met senior members of the British Retail Consortium not only to discuss how the present market conditions affect BRC members, but also to consider whether anything more can reasonably and properly be done to alleviate the difficulties that farmers are presently experiencing.
In addition, my right honourable friend made many contacts with retailers in the course of his duties. They are aware of the problems of the farming industry. They are making efforts to ensure that their sourcing practices meet or exceed consumer expectations in areas such as quality, traceability and local supply. However, as has been said, they must also have concern for the higher standards in relation to animal welfare and the environment, which are a cost to our farmers. They have given us some assurances that, from the beginning of next year, they will demand the same high welfare standards from imported pigmeat as our own producers have to meet. They will also not accept meat from pigs that have been fed meat and bonemeal. As has been said, in addition they have given an undertaking not to sell imported meat, processed or packaged in the UK, under a British label. I believe that everyone will agree that those are valuable commitments which will benefit both producers and consumers alike.
However, retailers are but one part of the food chain. It is important that all involved in the food chain recognise their interdependence. The Government need, and are determined, to do that. We want to bring together all parts of the food chain and encourage them to discuss how they can work together because that is in everyone's interests, from producers and others in the food chain right through to retailers.
The whole supply chain would benefit from working more closely. The benefits of collaboration are urgently required for our primary producers. That is the reason

1449
for this debate. As we have heard, the primary producers are critical of the multiple retailers and other major buyers. We must accept that the big customers are important and that it is right that in many instances they dominate and set the trends in the market. In additions, they provide access to many millions of consumers. It has been admitted that that is a fact of business life. It is inevitable that small businesses, such as farmers, will encounter difficulties when dealing with major companies if they are not well organised. They need better collaboration. Another aim of the Government is to bring them together.
Like many noble Lords, I was particularly pleased to see the launch at the Royal Smithfield Show by my noble friend Lord Donoughue—it is unfortunate that he cannot be present—and the president of the National Farmers' Union of a joint MAFF/NFU initiative to highlight the benefits of collaborative marketing to our primary producers. Through that approach and better marketing our producers can offer the scale, quality and consistency of supply required by major buyers. Collaborative marketing means producers achieving economies of scale, having recourse to professional marketing, technical and administrative assistance, strengthening their negotiating ability, which is important given the forces against them, and improving supply chain communication. The Government fully agree with the NFU that that is the best way forward for many of our farmers. They must come together and market their produce better. They have a very good story to tell.
1450
I advise my noble friend Lord Grantchester that we must ensure that the labelling indicates whether something really is British. While indicating that a product is British, we must tell the story behind that and say that being British means that it is of better quality and is superior. Retailers, as well as consumers, ought to pay more for that because they are getting a better bargain.
If we can bring this together, it is the kind of initiative that will not only help the producers but everybody in the food chain including the consumer. I am delighted at the initiative of the National Farmers Union in that respect. This can only be of tremendous benefit to producers and consumers alike. I believe this is the way forward. We must wait for the report. I cannot anticipate what it will say—nor indeed would noble Lords wish me to—but I think it is right that we have this initiative.
It is also right, as has been recognised tonight in different reports, that the supermarkets do not agree with what is being said. They say, rightly, that they have to pay not only the price to the producer but other charges, including cutting of meats, transport and so forth. We are not entering into the argument here, but we say that the producers should have a fair bargain in return for all their hard work. Bringing the two together is a good thing. Better marketing must lead forward. That will benefit us, not only in this country but overseas.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, once again for initiating the debate. It is taking place at the right time. I hope that all sides of the industry—producers and retailers—will take note of it and that it is also noted by the OFT which is preparing the report. It can have done nothing but good.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  EU Candidate Nations: Administrative Assistance
  EU Candidate Nations: Administrative Assistance
  Sudan: Bombing
  Sudan: Bombing
  Turkey: Attacks on HADEP Officials
  Turkey: Attacks on HADEP Officials
  Algeria
  Algeria
  Burma: Human Rights
  Burma: Human Rights
  Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  Consolidated Fund Bill and Human Rights Act 1998
  Consolidated Fund Bill and Human Rights Act 1998
  Scottish Parliament: Funding
  Scottish Parliament: Funding
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Research
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Research
  Government Publications and the Labour Party Manifesto
  Government Publications and the Labour Party Manifesto
  Lt. Col. Tharcisse Muvany Muvinyi
  Lt. Col. Tharcisse Muvany Muvinyi
  Recidivism
  Recidivism
  "Family": Definition
  "Family": Definition
  Royal Commission on Long-term Care of the Elderly
  Royal Commission on Long-term Care of the Elderly
  Phoenix Database
  Phoenix Database
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Violence against Women: Prevention Initiatives
  Violence against Women: Prevention Initiatives
  Medical School Recruitment Policies
  Medical School Recruitment Policies
  Boys: Under-achievement
  Boys: Under-achievement
  Equal Opportunities Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Equal Opportunities Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Scotland and Northern Ireland: Corporal Punishment in Schools
  Scotland and Northern Ireland: Corporal Punishment in Schools
  Scotland: Incapable Adults
  Scotland: Incapable Adults
  War Pensions Agency
  War Pensions Agency
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  MMR Vaccine: Research
  MMR Vaccine: Research
  Statute Law Database
  Statute Law Database
  Immigration Appeals: Selection of Tribunal Members
  Immigration Appeals: Selection of Tribunal Members
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal: Members' Ethnic Origins
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal: Members' Ethnic Origins
  Slaughtered Cattle: Disposal of Carcases
  Slaughtered Cattle: Disposal of Carcases
  Forestry Strategy, England
  Forestry Strategy, England
  Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme: Transport of Gravel
  Maidenhead Flood Alleviation Scheme: Transport of Gravel
  Scallops: Conservation
  Scallops: Conservation
  Foresight Programme
  Foresight Programme
  Algeria: Export Credit Guarantee Indebtedness
  Algeria: Export Credit Guarantee Indebtedness
  Public Art Collections: Commercial Loans
  Public Art Collections: Commercial Loans
  Chancellor's Gate: Granite Setts
  Chancellor's Gate: Granite Setts