Sitting of 27 January 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    TYNE TUNNELS BILL
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Drug-resistant Tuberculosis
    Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to the letter from the Minister for Public Health (POH/3/5437/23) of 14 December 1997 on drug—resistant tuberculosis, what response Her Majesty's Government have had to its recommendation that while all patients should be closely supervised throughout their treatment, fully directly observed therapy is essential for those who are, or are suspected to be, poorly compliant with treatment, and for those with drug—resistant disease. [23413]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government have consulted widely on the best means to ensure effective treatment for people suffering from TB and particularly for vulnerable groups suffering from multiple drug-resistant TB. Both the interdepartmental working group on TB and the British Thoracic Society support the view adopted by the Government that directly observed therapy should be provided early in cases of patients suffering from drug-resistant TB where the patient is, for whatever reason, poorly compliant with treatment.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why are we not supporting universal directly observed therapy for TB?
    Ms Jowell: Ultimately, the judgment on whether therapy for people suffering from drug-resistant TB is provided is for the clinician. Clinicians decide whether treatment should be provided in this way.

    Maternity Services (Wakefield)
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on new hospital provisions in the area of the Wakefield health authority, with particular reference to maternity services. [23414]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I understand that Wakefield health authority is consulting local people about proposals to reshape acute and maternity services. As the issue may be referred to Ministers for decision, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As he knows, my constituents' major concern is the suggested closure of the maternity unit at Pinderfields hospital in my constituency. It is a first-class unit, highly efficient and most secure. It can offer a back-up service to any mother or child in danger or with problems. Does the Minister accept that there is much concern, especially in my constituency, but generally throughout the Wakefield area, about the threatened closure? Does he accept that there is a fair amount of unjust concern in respect of the health authority and major concern among my constituents? Will he visit the unit to see for himself its efficiency and the way in which it helps people? I have witnessed that, and I would like him to join me in experiencing it.
    Mr. Boateng: Any invitation to visit my hon. Friend's constituency is almost irresistible. I will certainly look at my timetable to see how we can accommodate his helpful suggestion. He is a doughty fighter for the NHS in his constituency. He understands that, in considering anything that comes to us from the health authority, we will ensure that his constituency and its surrounding area enjoy a high-quality, up-to-date NHS providing in a modern and responsive setting the treatment to which his constituents are entitled. He has my warm assurance on that.

    Pharmaceutical Prices
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will make a statement on the future of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. [23415]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The present pharmaceutical price regulation scheme ends in September this year. We are considering what the future arrangements should be. Our twin aims will be to keep down the cost of drugs for the NHS while helping to sustain the international success of the British pharmaceutical industry.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State intend that the renegotiation be completed, and the revised arrangements be in place, by October?
    Mr. Dobson: It is our intention—we may not succeed, but it is our intention.
    Mr. Blizzard: Community pharmacists who serve neighbourhoods in my constituency are under threat from applications to site pharmacies in out-of-town supermarkets. If such applications succeed, those community pharmacies will go out of business and, if they do, many people without cars in those neighbourhoods will be disadvantaged, especially the elderly and lone

    131
    parents. Will my right hon. Friend please look into the problem and try to help community pharmacists to withstand that threat?
    Mr. Dobson: We are certainly aware of the problem, but there is a balance to be struck. We want to retain as many local community pharmacists as possible and to encourage trained pharmacists to make a greater contribution to the national health service than they are making at present.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: This is all waffle—the Secretary of State should look at his Government's Competition Bill.
    Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) shuts up for a minute and listens, he will hear me say that there are substantial numbers of people who find it convenient to obtain the drugs they want when visiting the supermarket. The balance is one between two different types of convenience and it will have to be struck.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that the Secretary of State wants to defend the pharmaceutical industry, but he must also bear in mind the fact that some of the supermarkets might pick and choose the type of drugs they want to sell, which would endanger the overall spread throughout the country. Will he bear that in mind when making his evaluation?
    Mr. Dobson: I will certainly bear in mind those very points, because they are the points that we have been making in our discussions with the various interested parties. However, as I said, there is a balance to be struck. We want to maximise the convenience of all potential users of pharmacies, and to encourage and extend the contribution that trained pharmacists can make. At the moment, I do not think that they are getting a great deal of job satisfaction out of some of their work and we are not getting a return on the substantial investment in their lengthy training.

    Staff Morale
    Mr. Sawford: What proposals he has to improve staff morale in the NHS. [23416]
    Mr. Dobson: The election of a Labour Government committed to the national health service that we founded was a great start in raising morale in the NHS. Since being elected, we have—unlike the previous Government—listened to the people working in the NHS. Their views and experience are reflected in the proposals in our White Paper, "The New NHS", which will make the NHS modern and dependable. Working with staff, we are combating assaults on staff, introducing family-friendly employment policies, combating racism and promoting health and safety at work. We have also lifted the gagging clauses on staff which were imposed under the previous Government.
    Mr. Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that staff morale in my local health authority has been immensely improved this winter, due to the £1.6 million that the Government found for local health services? In Kettering, we have benefited from £93,000 for the expanded intensive
    132
    care unit, which I had the great pleasure of formally opening the other week; £35,000 for extra staff in accident and emergency; £35,000 for the medical assessment unit; and £56,000 for the surgical assessment unit. Those are all positive developments which have affected staff morale in my local hospital. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House in what ways he will further involve local staff in all decision-making processes within the local health authority and the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: I should start by paying tribute to all the hard work done by people working in the NHS in maintaining services during the Christmas and new year period and during this period, as winter pressures build up. We are determined to ensure that the staff working in the health service—the people who have developed a vast amount of precious experience—have their say in how things go on in future. That is why we are to establish a new task force to look at how to improve staff involvement, drawing on the direct experience of people currently working in the health service and also, quite properly, drawing on the experience of other, private sector businesses which have a good success rate in staff involvement.
    Mrs. Roe: What does the Secretary of State believe the effect on staff morale at the Whittington hospital in North London has been following the publication in last Saturday's Daily Mail of an article headed:
    "How the NHS betrayed my Mum"?
    The article contained a description of the appalling treatment of a woman patient. Delays in her admission and diagnosis had culminated in her death, amid squalor, noise and broken equipment.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a disgrace that the chairmanship of that NHS trust hospital has been vacant for nine months—since 1 May 1997, when Baroness Hayman resigned to take up her post as a Labour Minister in the House of Lords? Is this not an example of the Labour Government's contempt for staff and patients?
    Mr. Dobson: It is nothing of the sort—and the chairman's post has been filled.
    The treatment of some old people in acute hospitals has proved to be indefensibly bad. That is why, before Christmas, I asked the health advisory service to conduct a survey of the way in which old people are treated in acute hospitals, a move which was welcomed by every organisation campaigning on the issue. We will take whatever answers the survey comes up with very seriously.
    If the hon. Lady will give me details of the case that she cited, I will pursue the matter. The Whittington hospital serves people in my constituency, and—whatever fall from grace may have been revealed by the report in the Daily Mail—most of my constituents who have to go there tell me that they receive a good service from the staff.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that staff morale has improved a great deal since the Labour victory on 1 May? However, all those in the national health service feel better when everyone is pulling their weight. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing discontent among staff and patients about the fact that doctors who are supposed to be national health service consultants spend far

    133
    too much time—more than their contract allows—doing private work? That means a long wait for those whom they should be treating in the national health service.
    Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that the previous Government introduced what they called a full-time contract for consultants, which allowed them to work less than full time in the national health service.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The pressures on the health service—there are longer waiting times, and it was reported today that 10 per cent. of patients had waited for four hours on trolleys in accident and emergency—reflect the staff shortage that the Secretary of State knows exists. We are talking about 8,000 nurses, 1,500 hospital doctors and 1,000 GPs. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that his Department, he as Secretary of State and the Government will, in the near future, take the one step that, more than anything else, will guarantee good morale in the health service? Will they accept, in full and without phasing, the recommendations of the pay review bodies, so that the NHS can get back to work and do its job, and so that doctors and nurses do not lose theirs?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman does not know what is in those recommendations, and he does not know what the Government's response will be. No one would wish to play down the significance of people's pay in relation to their morale, but—as staff tell me time and again—there are other important considerations, and we are addressing those important considerations.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the casualty watch survey, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, got it wrong about the four patients in Halifax? They had not waited 17 to 24 hours. They were in an assessment unit in proper beds, being treated by proper nurses and proper doctors. The community health council has now admitted that it was wrong.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend refers to inaccuracies in the report relating to Halifax. We take any reports of such happenings extremely seriously. I have made it my business to investigate them all. One of those to which the British Broadcasting Corporation gave great publicity this morning referred to someone who, the BBC claimed, had waited 65 hours on a trolley at East Surrey hospital. That woman had come off an aircraft at Gatwick. She was believed to be suffering from malaria and was put in a separate room, which happened to be in the accident and emergency department, because it was believed by the people running the hospital that that was the best place for her to be isolated from the rest of the patients—to protect the patients and her. I do not know whether the BBC has given similar publicity to acknowledging that it was wrong.
    Mr. Nicholls: With reference to the reply that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) some moments ago, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when ward nurses compare their salary with his, they will be profoundly insulted? If he wants his earlier replies to be taken seriously, the one step that he could take today to improve morale in the national health service would be to respond to the call made last week by the Royal College
    134
    of Nursing to accept the recommendations of the independent review group, when they come, as they were accepted by the previous Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such an assurance should be given today, or when it comes to nurses' pay, is it all generalities and humour?
    Mr. Dobson: When it comes to staging pay increases, the Tories are old stagers. They have been doing it for years. I do respond to certain calls from the Royal College of Nursing. The first speech that I made in this job to the RCN annual conference made it clear that we would abandon the previous Government's crackpot arrangement whereby there was a national agreement, and then staff and management had to negotiate about whether the staff would get 0.8 or 1.1 per cent. in a local agreement. That was a waste and totally stupid, as everyone had told the previous Government. We got rid of the arrangement, which is why I got a standing ovation at the RCN annual conference.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the current trend in hospital waiting lists. [23417]
    Mr. Viggers: If he will make a statement on progress in reducing hospital waiting lists. [23421]
    Mr. Dobson: As I have said before, the Government will ensure that by the end of this Parliament, hospital waiting lists are shorter than the record levels that we inherited from the previous Government—record levels that were rising faster than at any time in the 1990s.
    Mr. Bruce: My question was a short one, and that was not the answer to it. The right hon. Gentleman and his team hit the ground running when they took over the Department of Health, but surely he has realised by now that he is running in the opposite direction to the one in which he said he would go. Waiting lists are going up to record levels, and we had a report overnight about what was happening in accident and emergency departments, even though there is no flu epidemic as there was last year. The right hon. Gentleman has announced in the past week that he wants more people to go back into mental hospitals, and that he wants abortions to become easier, but he does not have the money needed because of the inflation that his Government have caused. What will he do about bringing down waiting lists now, not in five years' time?
    Mr. Dobson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I did not refer to "the current trend" in waiting lists. I thought that I had explained that we inherited a record level, and that waiting lists were then rising faster than they had ever risen before. They are no longer rising faster than they have ever risen before. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, waiting lists are like a supertanker: it takes time to slow down the increase, it will take longer to stop it, and it will take even longer to turn waiting lists round, but turn them round we will.
    Mr. Viggers: May I remind the Secretary of State of the Labour party manifesto, which included the very simple promise:
    "We will … End waiting for cancer surgery."?

    135
    Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the woman who, this week, had to wait 27 hours on a trolley while needing renal dialysis? Will he apologise to the women who need operations for breast cancer, who now have to wait twice as long for their operations under the national health service than patients in private medicine? Above all, will he apologise to all the people who voted Labour because they thought that the Government would be capable of fulfilling their promises?
    Mr. Dobson: I will not apologise for any of the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I certainly will not apologise for abandoning the eighth round of GP fundholding and transferring the £20 million that the previous Government had earmarked for the bureaucracy of fundholding, or for diverting £10 million into improved breast cancer treatment for women and £5 million into improved children's intensive care.
    Mr. Truswell: On the question of tackling waiting lists, will my right hon. Friend and his team accept the thanks of my constituents for the part that they played in progressing the planning process affecting the future of Wharfedale general hospital? However, will they acknowledge the increasing anger of local people at the way in which services at the hospital are being run down, including the proposed withdrawal of 60 acute beds? Will my right hon. Friend and his team do their utmost to ensure that Wharfedale general hospital continues to be a genuine general hospital, providing a wide range of services to the surrounding communities?
    Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I met a delegation from the Wharfedale general hospital recently. Although I am not supposed to issue edicts about the future of hospitals from the Dispatch Box, I think that I can safely say that it is unimaginable that that hospital should cease to be in Otley and cease to provide a wide range of services for local people. Those who are putting around stories to the contrary are misleading the local people.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not keep it a secret that his Minister of State has a 40th birthday today? I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him on his birthday.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dorset health authority has had substantial extra funds? I understand that these are an additional £401,000 for intensive care for children, and an additional £1.7 million for winter pressures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is tackling the problems faced by the health service in a way in which the previous Government certainly did not?
    Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that my hon. Friend's figures for the extra funds that have been found for Dorset are as accurate as her recognition of the 40th birthday of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    Mr. Maples: I join in congratulating the Minister on his birthday. I think that it makes him 10 years younger than the health service. I wish that I could say the same of myself.
    136
    If certain London hospitals knew their future, would not that help to reduce waiting lists in London? The Turnberg report has, I believe, been sitting on the Secretary of State's desk for several weeks. Why is he hiding its conclusions from the public?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly received the report of the Turnberg review. I have been discussing it with my colleagues and hope shortly to publish both the report and our considered response to it.
    Mr. Maples: Is not it the truth that the Turnberg committee was set up to resolve the Bart's problem and that it has not done so? It has not given the Secretary of State a convenient solution, so he will have to make up his own mind about it, but, because he is having great difficulty in making up his own mind, he dare not publish the report. May I remind him, while he is thinking about the Turnberg report, that when he set up the committee, he promised a moratorium on further rundowns and closures of London hospitals? Since then, Queen Mary's University hospital, Roehampton, and Edgware Community hospital have been run down to the point where they have effectively been closed as district general hospitals. How many more London hospitals do the Government propose to close?
    Mr. Dobson: As I wrote that policy commitment, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we promised that there would be no hospital closures during the Turnberg review. There have been no hospital closures. I have read the Turnberg report and I have a good idea of the Government's response to it, but all I can say to the hon. Gentleman and his eager colleagues is watch this space.

    Prescription Fraud
    Mr. Dobbin: What proposals he has for tackling prescription fraud in the NHS. [23418]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): On 7 January, I announced a comprehensive programme of action, which includes plans to create a specific criminal offence of prescription charge evasion, improvements to prescription form security, the establishment of a hotline and internet websites for reporting suspected fraud and the forthcoming appointment of a fraud supremo to spearhead this initiative.
    Mr. Dobbin: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the national health service loses £90 million to £100 million a year through prescription fraud and that had the NHS had access to those funds, it could have carried out something like 14,500 heart bypass operations, 68,900 cataract operations or 22,200 hip operations? To put that in a local context, my local health authority, Bury and Rochdale, did not spend anything like £100 million on setting up a health aid line for patients. Does he agree that those who are defrauding the system represent a tiny minority and that the vast majority of health workers, doctors and pharmacists are doing a sterling, honest and realistic job and deserve our help and support?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the scale of the problem which is cheating the national

    137
    health service of some £100 million every year. He is also right to say that the overwhelming majority of patients and NHS professionals are decent, law-abiding citizens who are simply doing an honest job. That is why we are determined to bear down on the few rotten apples who are not. Their activities not only defraud the taxpayer, but rob patients of resources that they deserve.
    Dr. Brand: Does the Minister agree that one of the ingredients for tackling fraud, especially prescription fraud in the NHS, is to have a thriving chain of community pharmacies? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department will consider a remuneration package for community pharmacists to replace the threatened abolition of retail price maintenance in respect of over-the-counter medicines?
    Mr. Milburn: In addition to their role in dispensing medicines, community pharmacists have an important role to play—for example, in helping to crack down on prescription fraud. That is why we are entering negotiations with the pharmacy profession on introducing a new scheme whereby pharmacists are rewarded appropriately when they spot counterfeit or stolen prescription forms. We want to enhance their role in that and other respects.
    Dr. Fox: I am sure that the Minister will agree that a simplified prescribing system would enable us all to crack down on prescription fraud. At the moment, those who benefit from free prescriptions in one area of medicine are able to do so in others. In other words, someone who requires one life-saving medicine can claim all prescriptions free, irrespective of his or her income. How much does that cost the national health service in a year?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not have the figure, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. The current system of prescription charge exemption is extremely complex and, in some cases, difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as part of the comprehensive spending review, we are considering how we can make the system easier to understand and simpler to administer. In addition, later this year, we shall be launching a major publicity campaign to try to get across the message to patients—who sometimes simply get it wrong—about who is exempt and who is not. In the meantime, the Government will not stand back idly and allow those who are defrauding the system to get away with it. They are cheating the system and robbing taxpayers and patients of money that should be going into patient care.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the introduction of a national identity card scheme help to root out fraud?
    Mr. Milburn: Following the efficiency scrutiny report on prescription fraud, we accepted that patients who turn up and claim an exemption from the prescription charge should prove their entitlement to that exemption. That is important, and we hope that, through our discussions with the pharmacy profession, we shall be able to introduce those checks at the point of dispensing before too long.

    Access to Treatment
    Sir Robert Smith: What plans he has to ensure that the same access to treatment under the health service is available to every NHS patient. [23419]
    Mr. Boateng: We said in our manifesto that when people are ill, the national health service will be there to help, and that access will be based on need and not on the ability to pay. We meant that, and the steps set out in our White Paper, "The New NHS" will improve consistency. We shall work with the professions to produce national service frameworks and clinical guidelines, and we shall challenge and address variations not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. This gives maximum national consistency, while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness.
    Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he is aware that next week Age Concern is launching an age discrimination awareness campaign, specifically on the problem of health discrimination and access to health care for the aged? Will those guidelines ensure that, regardless of age, people will have equal access to treatment under the NHS?
    Mr. Boateng: I welcome Age Concern's work in this area. Our senior citizens are a valuable asset. They must be nurtured and cared for, and we are here to ensure that the NHS does just that.
    Ms Walley: I welcome the steps that have been taken so far. Is the Minister aware that people in some parts of the country have worse ill health than those in other areas? There is particular concern about the health of the people in Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire compared with the whole of the west midlands. Will he consider carefully North Staffordshire's application to become a health action zone, so that we can ensure that people have fair and equal access to the national health service?
    Mr. Boateng: Health action zones will, indeed, help address the real problems of inequality in our society. They are new and innovative, and will ensure that we focus on the failure of previous Governments, especially the last Government, to tackle inequality. The Conservative Government banned civil servants from using the word "inequality". Civil servants can now talk about inequalities in the NHS, and, more than that, this Government will do something about them.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an increasing number of patients are turning to complementary therapies, because they find them effective? Does he also accept that there is a problem, because only a small number of general practitioners understand alternative and complementary medical treatments? Does he have any plans to rectify that? Is it true that the Department is about to set up an alternative health register, following the Secretary of State's discussions with the Prince of Wales?
    Mr. Boateng: We very much welcome the increasing developments in the field of complementary medicine.

    139
    We believe that such treatments have a role to play, but it is important that people get good, reliable information about them. We shall help to ensure that they get just that.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that equal opportunity for good health is as important as equal access to treatment? Does he share my concern about the gross inequality between different regions in morbidity and mortality; the chance of life itself? Will he confirm that, unlike the previous Government, one of this Government's top priorities is to tackle the health consequences of poverty?
    Mr. Boateng: We shall, indeed, tackle the health consequences of poverty. There is no doubt that a lack of jobs and poor houses contributes towards ill health. Sadly, the previous Government did nothing about that. The Minister for Public Health will shortly produce a Green Paper on this subject. I assure Opposition Members that it will address the issues that have been raised.

    Bureaucracy (Essex)
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in (a) North Essex health authority, (b) Essex Rivers Healthcare, (c) North Essex Mental Health Trust and (d) New Possibilities Health Trust. [23420]
    Mr. Milburn: In December 1997, I announced that, in 1998–99, an £80 million saving will be secured from reductions in management costs for investment in front-line patient services. Regional offices will shortly set targets for all health authorities and trusts to reduce management costs.
    Mr. Russell: May I suggest to the Minister that further savings could be made if quangos were abolished and those trusts were amalgamated and brought under some form of local accountability—thereby releasing thousands of pounds into the front-line services that he mentioned? We have also the nonsense in which trusts operate side by side. I draw his attention to, for example, Colchester general hospital, which operates from a cramped site because the next-door NHS trust is busily selling off that site. Why do we not bring back the NHS under one control, so that it is the people's NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: That is a very radical approach for the hon. Gentleman to take, and a useful policy initiative at which we shall take a good, close look. Meanwhile, as he is aware, a process of trust mergers is under way across the country. However, those mergers will occur as a product of local discussion and local agreement rather than because of national edict. If local discussions are occurring in his area and if they produce a trust merger proposal that results in improvements in patient care, Ministers will examine the process very carefully. The acid test, however, is whether that type of structural change leads to improvements for patients.
    Mr. Ruffley: Does the Minister understand that—although he talks tough on cutting costs—he is proposing to add a new dimension of bureaucracy with the White Paper's primary care commissioning units? What will be the cost of that new bureaucracy? Has his Department calculated the cost? If so, what is it?
    Mr. Milburn: The answer is that we shall be cutting bureaucracy by £1 billion during the course of this Parliament.

    NHS Trusts
    Angela Smith: What proposals he has for promoting shared responsibility between NHS trusts for local services. [23423]
    Mr. Milburn: The plans in the recent White Paper "The New NHS" herald the end of competition within the national health service. We plan to introduce a new statutory duty of partnership that will clearly set the requirement for NHS trusts to work together with each other, with other health service organisations and with other local agencies responsible for promoting good health.
    Angela Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. However, does he share my concern that the South Essex health authority—despite the extra £17 million that the Government have given to it—is still implementing wide-ranging cuts in front-line services? If health authorities and trusts will follow the line described by the Minister, they could raise the necessary money by efficiency savings and not by cuts.
    Mr. Milburn: When any of those issues are discussed locally, it is important that the consequences for patient care are thoroughly investigated. The Government want big improvements in efficiency and quality in all parts of the national health service—which is why we will be bearing down on bureaucracy and why we are introducing a new performance framework to measure how individual trusts and health authorities are performing. In short, we will be expecting trusts to be comparing rather than competing.
    Mr. Rowe: Is the Minister aware that the Kent and Canterbury hospital in east Kent has developed services with two other hospitals—William Harvey hospital, in Ashford, and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, in Margate—which have reached a standard that the Royal Colleges greatly applaud? Is he further aware that the East Kent health authority now proposes to destroy the central hospital in that co-operation? Will he give an assurance that when, as is certain to happen, the community health council applies to the Secretary of State for a review, he will take those admirable developments—which he commends in principle—into account?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, consultation is currently under way in east Kent, led by the health authority. If, as he expects, any of the area's community health councils object to the results of that consultation and they land on Ministers' desks, of course we will take a proper and full assessment of the consequence for patient care.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Skinner: When he expects to announce the results of the review of the NHS with particular reference to waiting lists. [23424]
    Mr. Milburn: On 18 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a wide-ranging programme of action to ensure that fewer patients are waiting for admission to national health service hospitals

    141
    by the end of this Parliament. The review of the NHS, to which my hon. Friend referred, is part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. In his statement to the House on 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advised that the review would take around 12 months to complete.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to turn this supertanker around, he will need money? Does he accept that, over the past few months, the NHS has received money over and above that included in the Tory spending limits—which I recommend as a good idea? Will he ensure that, in order to get waiting lists down, he takes account of the fact that there is already an extra £10 billion of tax income in this financial year? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the NHS wants a big slice of that? While he is talking to the Chancellor about using some of the money, will he also tell him that, instead of phasing in pay awards for nurses and others, he should pay them, like Members of Parliament, in one fell swoop?
    Mr. Milburn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware of my hon. Friend's views. My hon. Friend will be aware that, since the general election, the Government have invested an extra £1,500 million in front-line patient care. As he is also aware, the Government are committed to real-term increases in NHS funding not just next year but each and every year.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is well aware that it has been increasingly difficult to get people who suffer from mental illness into hospital for appropriate care. It has been even more difficult to get people into hospital who require long-stay care for the treatment of mental problems. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the courage that he has shown finally to change the policy on community care for those suffering from mental health problems and disability, which is so often associated with mental handicap. Will the proposals that he hopes to put forward, which I appreciate will cost money, enable people with appropriate problems to gain access to hospital care and long-stay care if they need it—totally in accordance with the wishes of organisations such as SANELINE, which campaigns so well for the mentally ill?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Sometimes, there has been naivete about the potential benefits to all patients of care in the community. Of course, for some patients, the policy works, and works extremely well. But for others, it does not, has not and will not work. That is why we must strike an appropriate balance between care in the community, intermediate care, 24-hour nurse care, and, where it is needed, acute care in hospitals for severely ill patients.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sort of situation that was described to me by a consultant in my local hospital? He told me that he had to refer 300 patients back to their doctors for foot and ankle treatment because, under the guidelines laid down by the previous Government, he was simply not allowed to increase the waiting time for such patients. Is he aware
    142
    that that means that there is a huge unmet need, which is one of the reasons why the Government will have many problems in trying to reduce waiting lists? Should not we really be blaming the Conservatives for not meeting the demand when it was needed?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government inherited a very difficult position on waiting lists, which, as we have made clear from day one, will take time to remedy. We are committed to having fewer people waiting for hospital treatment by the end of this Parliament. In addition, we shall make progress year on year towards achieving that objective. For example, by the end of March, we shall eliminate the need for anyone to wait more than 18 months for hospital treatment. We shall then set further targets for improvement. There will be incremental improvement every year towards our objective of having fewer people waiting for treatment.

    Community Hospitals
    Mr. Breed: What are the Government's plans for developing community hospitals. [23427]
    Mr. Dobson: We want to promote a health service close to home. In some places, that will involve community hospitals providing a wider range of services. However, they must have high standards and they must provide good value for money. Our White Paper proposals will make it possible for primary care groups to run such local hospitals if they decide that that is best for the patients in their area.
    Mr. Breed: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he accept that there continues to be widespread concern throughout Cornwall about the health authority's proposal to close four community hospitals, which are a vital part of health care provision in a largely rural area? They provide good quality care that is accessible to a large proportion of the population.
    Mr. Dobson: I understand the concerns of people in Cornwall about the health authority's proposals to close four community hospitals. At one point, the health authority, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, said that the problem was caused by the Government keeping the authority short of funds. In an outburst of honesty, the chief executive then admitted on television that he would like to close the hospitals whatever the level of funding. I cannot issue any pronunciamento on the future of those hospitals. If the community health council decides to object, the decision will be a matter for me. I have made it clear that we would like to promote community hospitals because we want people throughout the country, not just in Cornwall, to be able to turn to an efficient, effective, high-quality health service that is close to home. We do not want people to have to travel vast distances for relatively straightforward treatment.
    Mr. McNulty: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to correct some misinformation given out by the Conservative Front-Benchers during this Question Time? Far from being in doubt, the future of Edgware hospital is secure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 120-plus organisations and individuals who took part in the Edgware review, which has been sanctioned by the

    143
    Department of Health, deserve our congratulations? Edgware will be a model community hospital for urban areas and the community will stay involved while the plans are being implemented.
    Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to all those involved locally and in the Department, including the 40th birthday boy, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has contributed to sorting the issue out. A trail-blazing effort has been made in Edgware to create a community hospital in an urban area providing first-class services that local people want.
    Mr. Brazier: Does the Secretary of State agree that the views of the community, particularly those of the primary carers—the general practitioners—should play a particularly important role in his decision on the future of the Kent and Canterbury acute hospital and the Whitstable and Tankerton community hospital? Does he further agree that the community has every reason to have sent me 630 letters already, which I have sent on to him, on the future of the two hospitals?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall bear all representations in mind, but there are a few crocodile tears from Conservative Members. Most of the closure proposals come from boards dominated by chairmen and non-executive members appointed by the previous Government. I am glad that some of them are no longer there.

    Nurses (Primary Care)
    Mr. Pond: What proposals he has for boosting the role of nurses in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 pilots. [23428]
    Ms Jowell: The National Health Service (Primary Care) Act personal medical services pilot scheme offers considerable opportunities to boost the role of nurses in the development of primary care and community health services. For the first time, nurses can lead in the delivery of primary care services, including employing general practitioners.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that this is the first time in the history of the national health service that nurses have been given the green light—by the new Labour Government—to run primary health care in that way, as in the new minor injuries unit at the Gravesend and North Kent hospital in my constituency? Does she agree that giving nurses that major role will result in an improvement in the quality of primary care services?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right that the measures taken by the Government in approving pilot schemes under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act put nurses in the driving seat. That is good for nursing and good for patients. It would not have happened had it not been for the insistence of those who are now in government, when they were in opposition, that the provision be extended to nurses. It was the joint efforts of
    144
    the present Government, when in opposition, together with nursing organisations, that delivered that good deal for nurses, which is also a good deal for patients.
    Mr. Lansley: The Observer tells me that I have the honour to represent the healthiest constituency in Britain, and I would like to keep it that way.
    Madam Speaker: I am your constituent.
    Mr. Lansley: Indeed, Madam Speaker—an example of good health, if I may say so. In that respect, we especially value the role of nurses, including those employed in the community health trust to provide health visiting and school nursing services. In advance of the publication of the Green Paper on public health, will the Minister act to prevent redundancies next week in that community health trust, because they would diminish the universal screening services that it provides, which we regard as of considerable importance to the maintenance of public health in the area?
    Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I recently met staff and representatives of the Lifespan trust to discuss some of the difficulties that they were facing. I understand that the trust has recently announced that although it has accepted some requests for voluntary redundancy, the need for compulsory redundancies has been averted through staff turnover and redeployment. The trust has reviewed children's health services and is implementing a new model that will be responsive to identified clinical needs.

    Social Exclusion Unit
    Mr. Watts: What action he is taking to support the work of the social exclusion unit. [23429]
    Mr. Boateng: The work of the social exclusion unit is being supported right the way across Government, by all Departments. Our Department is working closely with the unit as it tackles its initial priority areas, and many other departmental initiatives within the Department—those relating not only to health but to personal social services—have a direct bearing on the wider issues of social exclusion. We shall continue to work on those and to take matters forward with the health action zones, and with our work on drug and alcohol misuse and on family support and early intervention. That is all about tackling the underlying causes of social exclusion, which were too long neglected by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I draw to his attention the fact that my constituents in St. Helens have been left with a legacy of Tory Government reforms that mean that they now have a two-tier health service, with whole areas of poverty-stricken communities excluded from really good health services? What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that resources are made available to communities such as St. Helens?
    Mr. Boateng: We recognise the needs of communities such as St. Helens. Indeed, I was up in my hon. Friend's part of the world only last Friday, and what is happening

    145
    there is that we are beginning to see the spirit of co-operation replacing the ethos of competition and division that characterised the Conservatives' period in government. It is all about co-operation, not competition. The Government will take forward that agenda, which is welcomed by the people of this country.
    Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister agree that ambitious public health targets are of the greatest value to the poorest and neediest people in society? Will he therefore give an assurance that his Government are not considering any watering down of the ambitious public health targets under "The Health of the Nation" strategy established by the previous Government?
    Mr. Boateng: We need no lectures from Conservative Members about public health. They did sweet FA about public health when they were in government. We are tackling the issues.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that poor health in constituencies such as mine is the result of poverty, unemployment and poor housing? Will he applaud the initiatives already taken in my constituency, and especially in the Vauxhall area, where health and social services workers are making joint efforts to improve health? Will that encourage him to award Liverpool the status of a health action zone?
    Mr. Boateng: The sting is in the tail. We must indeed bear down on inequality across Government, focusing the activities of Departments and recognising that when one Department takes a lead others will have a role to play. That is what it is all about. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is promoting the work of the social exclusion unit, right the way across the ministerial team, recognising that our work needs to be linked with the good work done by other Departments. That is how the Government will take forward the agenda.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Social Security questions yesterday, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Secretary of State said:
"We sought and considered the advice of the Government Actuary … and we changed the rebates … we sought that advice and acted properly on it."—[Official Report, 26 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 5.]
I raise the matter because it is now clear that she misled the House, no doubt inadvertently. The Government Actuary's report recommends rebates higher than those announced by the Government, who also announced greater reductions in the contracted-out money purchase schemes than were recommended.
It is clear that the Government did not in fact follow the Government Actuary's advice. Have you, Madam Speaker, been informed by the Secretary of State that she intends to come to the House to put the record straight and, if not, can you advise me, as I am a new Member, what action can be taken to correct the record?
Madam Speaker: Indeed I can. I heard the hon. Gentleman out because I believe that he is not raising a so-called point of order facetiously but is quite serious, whereas most points of order that I hear are not serious. I want to tell him very clearly that it was not a point of order. [Interruption.] It is very important. It was not a point of order. Hon. Members may no doubt often disagree with what Ministers say and with the answers that they give, but I cannot rule on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. He, and any other hon. Members who are concerned about Ministers' answers and think that they are misleading, should use the Order Paper to bring the matter to the attention of the entire House and of the media. It is not a point of order, because it is not a matter on which I can rule. I hope that I have been helpful.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For good reasons, I am sure, the shadow Secretary of State left Health questions halfway through, and I am certain that he made his apologies; but he has commented in the past to his fellow Conservatives that their party could not win when it came to the national health service. Given the low priority that they give to questions, leaving only one shadow Minister on the Front Bench, I wonder whether Conservative Members have approached you requesting a shorter Question Time.
Madam Speaker: The shadow Secretary of State for Health had another appointment, and he apologised to me quite properly because he had to leave the Front Bench.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
148
Again on a health matter, could you be like others who chair our courts, such as magistrates, and help Back Benchers to hold the Government to account a bit more? We were clearly told through the general press and through direct information from the Department of Health that we were to have the statement on public health today.
Madam Speaker: By the press?
Mr. Hughes: First, by the press, and secondly by civil servants in the Department. In the event, we are not having a statement. Sometimes, quite understandably, there are delays, but I ask you to be more like a magistrate who, when the Crown Prosecution Service suddenly finds that it cannot proceed with the work of the day, must at least come and explain why the matter has been put off to another occasion.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the entire House know when statements are to be made because they are on the annunciator screen soon after 12 o'clock. He should not worry about the press or anything else. When a Minister is to come to the Dispatch Box and it is on the annunciator screen, the House knows that there is to be a statement.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties currently have large postbags about the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, both of which are to be debated on Friday this week. I have been trying for some time to get copies of those Bills, so that I can write to my constituents about my views on them. Unfortunately, neither has been printed yet—the Bills are not available. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] I wonder whether you can make inquiries as to why we still do not have them.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, of course. It is the hon. Member promoting the Bill who produces it for printing. There are murmurs in the House that these Bills are ready. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to check again, but I will do so as soon as I am able to leave the Chair. It is for the hon. Member who has the Bill to see that it is printed and made available to others.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may not have heard, but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), used what I thought was a most inelegant abbreviation; inelegant at the best of times but, in terms of parliamentary conduct, thoroughly unbecoming of a Minister of the Crown. Could you rule whether "sweet FA" is parliamentary language?
Madam Speaker: I am not certain whether it is unparliamentary, but it is certainly most undesirable. I hope that hon. Members, and particularly Ministers of the Crown, will use better language in the future in the House.

Home Zones
3.36 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable highway authorities to make provision in residential areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians and pedal cyclists have priority in the carriageway over mechanically powered vehicles, for the purposes of promoting safety and of improving the environment; and for related purposes.
A home zone is a street or group of streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority and cars travel at a top speed of 10 mph. Drivers have to give way to pedestrians, and cyclists, and are normally responsible for any injury caused to them. The change in the status of the road is clearly indicated through signing, traffic calming measures and landscaping features such as seating, other street furniture and plants.
In some streets, parking is rearranged to make better use of space—especially if the residents are part of a community car-sharing scheme. I should emphasise to the House that residents must be in favour of creating a home zone and should be involved at the design stage. There are at present no home zones in this country, but they have proved to be popular and effective on the continent of Europe, in Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
In December, I was pleased to host an event in the House, sponsored by the Children's Play Council, when we were treated to a presentation of what home zones looked like by a speaker from the Netherlands. It was clear to me—and to everyone there—that they are most attractive places, which are of benefit to the whole community; not just the people who live there, but visitors. They improve people's quality of life, by creating safer, healthier public space, which promotes good community relations.
More people are encouraged to go out into the streets, leading to less street crime and burglary. It is safe for young children to go out beyond their own front door—a freedom that older hon. Members will remember from their childhood, but which is denied to our children today.
Article 31 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991, recognises the right of the child to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. Obviously, that is healthier for children than staying indoors, and it is more environmentally sustainable than requiring parents to drive them to further-flung physical activities. It encourages the perception of physical activity as part of the routine of everyday life, starting as young as possible, which will also help to reduce dependence on the car in future generations.
There has been a great decline in the number of children walking to school. In 1971, about 70 per cent. of children aged seven walked to school; by 1990, the figure had declined to less than 10 per cent. Of 10 and 11-year-olds, in 1971, more than 90 per cent. walked to school, but in 1990 the figure was down to slightly more than 50 per cent.
The United Kingdom has the worst record in western Europe for child pedestrian accidents, most of which happen within a very short distance of the child's home.
150
In home zones, children have a chance to learn about traffic without risk of injury—and, by the way, there is no evidence that when they then go into ordinary streets, they are more at risk than they would otherwise have been, as has been asserted.
Older people and people with a disability find it safer to walk in the street in home zones.
In December 1997, at the event in the House of Commons that I mentioned, we heard from residents of a self-contained group of Victorian streets, the Methleys, in Leeds, where there is already overwhelming support for its becoming a home zone—even to the extent that resident drivers undertook a two-week trial of a 10 mph speed limit. I found it especially moving and touching to hear those children describe in the House the difference that the trial made to their lives and all the activities that they could now safely engage in. They could actually use those expensive bikes and rollerblades that all our children today demand and then hardly ever use because it is not safe for them to use them. I am very glad to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), who represents those residents.
Research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1996 found that estates with traffic calming and good space in the front street provided the best environment for children. Nearly one child in four engaged in all kinds of healthy activity in such areas—three times the level in poorly designed estates. The authors of that report concluded that streets in estates should have a speed limit of 10 mph.
I shall now briefly outline the law as it stands. Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows the imposition of variable speed limits, indicated by traffic signs. For non-trunk roads, the power rests with local authorities, but all proposals by them for areas to have speed limits below 30 mph must be approved by the Secretary of State.
Under current departmental guidelines, draft applications for reduced speed orders must include several features, including the following. There should be engineering measures, such as road humps and narrowed gateways into the zone. The emergency services must be consulted. Usually the distance from any point in the zone to the boundary of the zone should be no more than 1 km.
To date, those provisions have been used to create 20 mph zones, but the same legislation would enable lower speed limits to be established. I believe that 20 mph zones have been very successful; nearly 300 schemes are in operation.
I understand that Ministers intend to issue new regulations to make it easier for local authorities to set up such zones, and that the new rules may be in place by the summer. I should welcome that move.
Highway authorities also have powers under the Traffic Calming Act 1992 to introduce measures such as buildouts, pinch points, gateways and rumble devices. Highway authorities can use traffic regulation orders to control traffic, to avoid danger to persons or other traffic using the road; to prevent use of the road by vehicular traffic in a manner that is unsuitable to the existing character of the road; to preserve the character of a road that is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot; or to preserve or improve the amenities of the area through which the road runs. They can also introduce 20 mph zones under the legislation.

151
However, highway authorities cannot reverse priority on a road from vehicles to pedestrians. The only provision in law for according such priority is on a pedestrian crossing. Even in pedestrianised streets, pedestrians enjoy priority not as a legal right but in a de facto fashion, as relatively few vehicles are allowed to use such streets at any one time.
Under section 29 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended in 1991, local authorities may prohibit or restrict vehicles using a street so that it can be used as a street playground, and that is probably the closest equivalent that Britain has to a home zone. However, if a local authority tried to make an order under those provisions to replicate the features of a home zone, its decision would be open to legal challenge, as it would be hard to demonstrate that the zone was being used primarily as a playground for children.
Therefore, we need clear powers to reverse the priority to pedestrians from vehicles. Primary legislation would be required to do that and to give local authorities the power to define which roads should be covered by such a provision.
My Bill seeks to enable the creation of home zones where residents want them. That power will be welcomed by local authorities and the general public.
We all know that most residential streets today are blighted by motor traffic. Too many people are driving too fast along streets that were never designed to accommodate so many cars. Parallel issues on rural roads need to be addressed at some point, but 80 per cent. of the population live in built-up areas.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's 10 minutes are up.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Lembit Öpik, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Ms Joan Walley.

HOME ZONES
Mrs. Helen Brinton accordingly presented a Bill to enable highway authorities to make provision in residential areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians and pedal cyclists have priority in the carriageway over mechanically powered vehicles, for the purposes of promoting safety and of improving the environment; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed [Bill 113].

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Education (Student Loans) Act 1998

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Protection of the Countryside
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes. More than 30 hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that Front-Bench spokesmen will note what I have said and not deprive Back Benchers of time.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the recent decisions by the Government to allow large-scale development in the countryside; is deeply concerned that the protection of the green belt and green spaces may be further weakened by the Government in the future; and urges the Government to strengthen protection for the countryside, while encouraging the renewal of towns and cities, by increasing the share of new housing which is built on previously developed land.
  In the past few weeks, public concern about the threat to our countryside from new development, and particularly, but not exclusively, from housing, has been mounting. The instinct of the people, their alarm that much of our green and pleasant land is about to be covered in concrete, is right. That threat is the direct result of the actions taken by the Government since 1 May.
  Even in the days since the Conservative party announced the subject of this afternoon's debate, there has been a slight greening of the Government's rhetoric. Alas, their actions belie their words. The Secretary of State's latest newspaper article shows that he still does not understand the issue. For more than half the Cabinet, comfortably housed at taxpayers' expense in official residences, the problem may not seem very immediate. Ministers who have just squandered £60,000 of our cash on wallpaper may not need to look out of the window.
  For the rest of us who have never authorised the spending of £100,000 of public money to cover the annual cost of our flat, the threat is a reality brought home day after day by one Government blunder after another. Those blunders show that Labour does not understand why the countryside should be protected. They show that Labour does not know how to protect the countryside and does not even care about the consequences of not protecting it. The Prime Minister may speak of hard choices; the Secretary of State makes only concrete choices.
  The Government's housing mistakes cannot even be explained by their hostility towards rural areas. Starving the countryside of cash to reward Labour's strongholds in the urban north is bad enough; indeed, it is what we are coming to expect of a Government who put a Minister whose tax affairs are reported to be the subject of investigation in not one but two countries in charge of the Inland Revenue. However, while some parts of the Government seem to adopt the standards of a banana republic, until now at least there has usually been some rationale behind their actions.

  153
  When it comes to housing and planning, even that has disappeared. Covering the countryside with houses is not only bad for the people who live, work and play there and for the environment that they have cherished for generations; it is equally damaging for our towns and cities. Whenever the Secretary of State allows new homes to be built in places previously thought to be protected, he destroys the incentive to regenerate our urban heartlands.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that people in the borough of Elmbridge in Surrey, which has met all the policy planning guidance criteria for a green belt and which is already under development and infrastructure pressure, are alarmed about the casual language used by the Government? That will inevitably increase development pressure and speculation in Elmbridge, which covers my constituency.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was shocked earlier today when he told me about the alarm in Elmbridge, but I entirely understand why it has arisen. Each time the Secretary of State inflicts new homes on countryside that is miles away from places of work, he adds to the congestion on our roads and increases carbon dioxide emissions.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Birtenshaw Hall farm development on the fringe of Bolton, for which the local Labour council refused permission, only for it to be granted by the Secretary of State in the previous Administration, much against the wishes of almost the entire local population? Is he further aware that in the past few weeks Bolton metropolitan council has had to donate £1 million to Barratt as compensation for trying to protect that land?
  Mr. Yeo: As I shall explain to the House, under the previous Conservative Government, the target for the number of homes being built on previously developed sites rose from 38 to 50 per cent. in the past decade, which is a substantial achievement.
  For half a century, the choice of where to build new homes has been shaped by a planning system understood by builders, implemented by local councils, accepted by the public and respected by Ministers. In just nine short months, the Secretary of State has undermined that system. He has attacked the role of local authorities and condemned huge tracts of countryside to the bulldozer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] As my hon. Friends point out, he has not even had the courtesy to turn up to the debate on the havoc that he has caused.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has overturned the exhaustive public examination conducted by an inspector on West Sussex county council and insisted on adding further homes to an already extraordinarily high target, to make a total of 50,000 homes? That is unachievable. Will he condemn out of hand that callous move and acknowledge that West Sussex does not have the infrastructure to take those new houses?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that, and will be glad to learn that I intend to deal with it later.
  154
  The Government have permitted developments that prove that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning spoke the truth last September when he said that the
  "green belt is up for grabs."
  The Government have refused to accept the need for a higher target for the proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed sites beyond the 50 per cent. that is currently being achieved. They have displayed contempt for the local councils responsible for planning and ignored the advice of independent planning inspectors and of their own chosen panels of planning experts.
  Three new schemes show how little the Secretary of State cares for the green belt. Earlier this month, he gave the go-ahead for 10,000 new homes on green belt near Stevenage, a scheme opposed locally by the Conservatives. The scheme was steamrollered through Hertfordshire county council by a shoddy conspiracy between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties cooked up to prevent the issue from even being voted on by the full council. Does the Minister agree with the Labour leader on North Hertfordshire district council, who said:
  "We feel very let down. The Government claims to be committed to protecting the environment and regenerating urban areas and now we have them supporting plans to rape 2000 acres of Green Belt"?
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the Thatcher Government, of which I believe he was a member? It became the rule for every local authority that the 15 per cent. of planning application appeals that were allowed under the previous Administration went up to something like 50 per cent. It became impossible for local authorities to defend their green belt because the market philosophy dominated 18 years of Conservative rule and Conservative country planning.
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is off message. The Government have been trying to say that they believe in the market philosophy. The debate is about where homes should be built. Our concern is that under this Government, they are being built more and more often in the wrong place.
  The second recent decision was when the Secretary of State, only last week, approved 2,500 more homes in the green belt outside Newcastle despite the existence of 4,000 empty homes in one part of the city alone. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that that decision will accelerate the decline of inner-city areas such as his?
  Thirdly, last August, after dithering for months about the industrial development of 150 acres of farmland in the green belt in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Secretary of State finally overruled the independent planning inspector who had recommended that the development should not be permitted. The land in question just happened to be owned by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council. The decision was sneaked out in the first week of the summer parliamentary recess.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The hon. Gentleman has quoted with approval my remarks about the Newcastle green belt, which it is

  155
  certainly my intention to defend and to go on defending. Does he agree that what is needed now is a tax on speculative green-field development?
  Mr. Yeo: Once again, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is on message. It is certainly true that the old Labour solution to every problem is, "Let's have a tax increase," but, judging by some of what I have read in the newspapers, I thought that there was at least some prospect that the solution to the problem might be a tax cut, in the form of a cut in VAT on conversion work. We shall see.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems with the Government's change in policy is that even land that the Government say should never be developed immediately acquires a premium? In my constituency, the result is that those interested in creating the Colne valley park find that they cannot buy land for that park, because—even if the land is zoned to be green belt until kingdom come—those willing to sell say that there is a premium on the land, as it may be capable of being developed hereafter.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important point—that the malign consequences of starting to weaken the protection of the green belt go extremely wide.
  Different factors applied in each of the three cases that I described, but the outcome was the same: building was allowed when it should have been prevented; building will occur on sites that were previously protected; and building will go ahead solely because of a decision by the Labour Government. The power lay with the Secretary of State; he exercised it and, in each case, he made the wrong choice. Instead of covering acres of newsprint with misleading green claims that will not save a single blade of grass, he should stop covering acres of countryside with new houses.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Regional Development Agencies Bill, the Secretary of State arrogates to himself even greater powers to make such decisions, thereby entirely ignoring the views of elected local councils, such as my local council in Bromley?
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that I shall table amendments to that Bill, which is in Standing Committee next week, to try to reverse those powers.
  The purpose of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl—the sort of sprawl the Secretary of State seems so keen to encourage. Perhaps his ambition, as he cruises home in his gas-guzzling, chauffeur-driven Jaguar, is to see urban sprawl along every mile of the A1. Perhaps what he means by an integrated transport strategy is to build more and more homes on each side of every road in country. Whether or not that is his ambition, it is likely to be his achievement, because what he has done is to invite developers to dust down every planning application that they have not pursued for years because it had so little chance of success. He has warned councils not to bother to waste staff time and taxpayers' cash to fight
  156
  applications on the green belt, because the Secretary of State will allow them through anyway. He has kicked in the teeth every protester who wants to save his or her own environment. As Simon Jenkins wrote in The Times last week:
  "The effect is to abandon all green-belt zoning round London and other cities … Mr. Prescott has forged that most crushing of planning tools, a precedent."
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the decisions of the former Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, who allowed all sorts of developments all over the place in the open countryside, contrary to all sorts of recently developed local plans, especially in my constituency? Does he regret that, when councils complained to Mr. Ridley, his response was, "The more they squeal, the more I know I'm right"?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I regret nothing about my former right hon. Friend.
  The green belt is only one part of the picture. The countryside contains huge areas that have never enjoyed green-belt protection, and those areas are also in danger. At present, half of all new housing is built on previously developed sites—a proportion that has risen from only 38 per cent. in 1985. That was good progress under the Conservative Government, but it was still not enough. The present consumption of green-field sites is unsustainable, which is why at the election we pledged to build more than 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed sites. We believe that the target should be two thirds—a target which is attainable and realistic.
  Last year, the present Minister for London and Construction told Planning Week that our target was "a recipe for disaster". Does the Secretary of State read Planning Week, I wonder? Has he talked to his ministerial colleagues? The Secretary of State now says that he wants to do better than 50 per cent. What is the Government's target now, and do they understand that, whatever it is, it will be credible only if it is backed up by decisions that are consistent with it?
  New homes will be built on previously developed sites only if the Government send out the right signals. Developers respond to what the Government are doing, not to what they are saying—and what the Government are doing is removing old protections and destroying the countryside where people go for walks and enjoy beautiful landscapes, and where sometimes there is silence during the day and darkness during the night.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Amid all the rhetoric, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in 18 years the previous Government did nothing to reform a planning system which was deeply centralised, which was top-down in principle and which offered nothing to local people who wanted it to reflect housing need, and the need for environmental sustainability and capacity in their communities? Does he also recognise that the present Government have sound policies, which offer, at regional level, an opportunity to make the system "bottom-up"? The previous Government sold the pass on

  157
  planning development and housing development; this Government are taking major steps to democratise the system.
  Mr. Yeo: Is there a 10-minute rule for interventions as well, Madam Speaker?
  Madam Speaker: No, but I can ensure that hon. Members who make long interventions are not called to speak.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for that, Madam Speaker.
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that it is not rhetoric when 10,000 homes are built on green belt in Stevenage. It is not rhetoric when 150 acres of green belt in the west midlands are covered by industrial development. It is not rhetoric when 2,500 homes are built on green belt outside Newcastle. Those are facts, not rhetoric, and they are facts which result from this Government's decisions.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend has heard Labour Members mention the needs of local communities. Is he aware of the proposal for a new town at Broadclyst to house some 8,000 people? That proposal is on the agenda because Labour-controlled Exeter city council refused to carry out full audits of its brown-field sites. It has nothing to do with the community in my constituency; my constituents are happy with things as they are. The aim is to impose the requirements of city dwellers on those in the countryside.
  Mr. Yeo: That is a powerful example of the way in which an urban-based Labour-controlled council is riding roughshod over the interests of people in the countryside and the long-term environmental interests of the area.
  The Secretary of State has claimed that he wants
  "to decentralise decision-making on many issues—including the regional provision of land to meet regional housing need."
  He recently wrote:
  "Planning will remain clearly under local democratic control."
  In practice, yet again, the Secretary of State's actions belie his words.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred to West Sussex. The county council concluded that 37,900 homes could be accommodated by 2011—a view which was shared by the panel of experts appointed by the Secretary of State himself to examine the matter. Suddenly, the importance of local democratic control and the wish to decentralise decision making flew out of the window; the Secretary of State decided to inflict an extra 12,800 homes on the county.
  I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the Labour leader of West Sussex county council, who said:
  "This is the starkest possible illustration that the Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of the … new homes said to be required by 2016 on brown field sites rather than on green field sites in the countryside."
  Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the basic problem for many rural areas such as Somerset, which I represent, is the methodology used to predict housing need, and the
  158
  "predict and provide" philosophy that has been the on-going policy of both the previous and the present Government?
  Mr. Yeo: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Regardless of whether the Government have a "predict and provide" philosophy, they will undermine the system if they bust apart the protection of the green belt, overrule their own expert panel and the all-party agreement on a county council, and force more and more housing. It is nothing to do with "predict and provide"; we must get the principles of the planning system right.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the case of West Sussex and the examination in public, the results of which the Secretary of State unilaterally ripped up, the work and effort of the councils and environmental groups that went into that examination in public were described as trail-blazing, innovatory and of a very high level of technical competence?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend points out what a disgraceful decision it was on the part of the Secretary of State to overrule that agreement.
  The Secretary of State has claimed that the Government want to move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy. Will he put his money where his mouth is and admit today that that is what he wants to do? He was utterly wrong at every stage in the case of West Sussex. Or is his claim that he wants to give up that system just so much green chatter dictated to him by the Prime Minister's office—words whose meaning he does not even understand?
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to all that bad news about West Sussex, the decision taken means that 60 per cent. of those houses will be built on green-field sites?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to point out that that could well be the consequence of the decision.
  I urge hon. Members from all parts of the House to join us in the Lobby, and to remember the views and needs of their constituencies. I urge Labour Members in particular to reflect on whether No. 10 shares the views of the Secretary of State. Might there perhaps be a change of policy just around the corner? Has the Prime Minister got wind of the possibility of a Conservative party campaign on the issue? Is this another example where the bumbling and confusion of the Minister responsible has forced the Prime Minister to step in?
  The green belt is important. It serves both town and countryside. It will be destroyed at our peril, and the Conservative party will defend it. The countryside is important. It is not there to be covered in concrete. How can a Government who claim to govern in the interests of all the people be so consistently contemptuous of the views of those who live in rural areas?
  The towns also are important. The people who live there deserve consideration, too. All those interests coincide.
  Mr. Mike Hall rose—
  Mr. Yeo: Too late.

  159
  Allowing developers a free rein damages town and country alike. The Government have made a disastrous start to their planning policy. They have already done irretrievable damage, but a change now would be better than nothing.
  The choice was put simply last week by a Labour peer, the noble Lord Rogers, who asked:
  "Are we going to revitalise our run-down cities by building in them or are we going to start abandoning them and building in the countryside?"
  The Government could give the right answer to that question this afternoon, by admitting their errors and reversing their decisions on Newcastle, Hertfordshire, the west midlands and West Sussex.
  The Government must give three assurances without qualification: first, that they will not weaken the protection of the green belt in any way; secondly, that they will raise the target for building new homes on previously developed sites to the Conservative party target of two thirds; and thirdly, that they will not again interfere with or overrule the decisions of independent planning inspectors or of local authorities seeking to protect their environment.
  All those assurances are needed, whether the projected number of new houses is 2 million, 3 million, 4 million or 5 million. They will be needed, even if the old "predict and provide" method is scrapped. Those assurances are needed now. The Government can start to regain credibility on this issue only if they accept the Opposition motion, which I commend to the House.
  4.14 pm
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises that it was a Labour Government that created the planning system which has done so much to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and to regenerating towns and cities; recognises that the Government is shortly to announce its decisions on the way forward on planning for housing; is confident that the interests of all citizens, both the 80 per cent. and more who live in towns and cities, and those living in the countryside, will be considered; welcomes the importance that the Government attaches to revitalising towns and cities and making the best possible use of brownfield sites and existing buildings to meet housing demand; and believes that the regional planning conferences should be given greater say in reaching decisions on the most sustainable solutions for providing decent homes in line with the Government's recently announced policy for modernising the planning system and using regional planning to find integrated solutions to the problems of economic development, housing and transport".
  For the past nine months we have heard nothing but scaremongering from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, and today we have had to listen to the complete hypocrisy of the Opposition junior spokesman on the environment, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
  If Conservatives are such defenders of the countryside, why did they lose so many seats last May in the general election? The reason is simple: people do not trust them. It was the Conservative Government who let the housing market collapse. It was the Conservative Government who
  160
  left us with the legacy of urban sprawl, out-of-town shopping, derelict inner cities and building on the green belt. They failed to protect the countryside, and they know it.
  Whole areas of open space in urban and rural areas have been devastated in the name of the free market. Let us get the facts right. We did not set the 50 per cent. target for new house building on brown-field sites, or the household projections. It was the Conservatives. We did not force counties such as Berkshire, Kent and Bedfordshire to increase the housing figures in their structure plans. It was the Conservatives. It was not this Government who axed social housing and let homelessness increase to a deplorable level. The Conservatives did that when they were in power. The fact is that poverty and deprivation have increased in the countryside under the Tories, and they did nothing about it in 18 years in government.
  What we should be getting from Opposition Members is not a rant about protecting the countryside but an apology to the British people for failing to provide decent housing in rural and urban areas. The Conservatives did not plan ahead. They did not give two hoots about how we can achieve a proper balance between housing need and protecting the countryside.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk should look back at what he and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) were responsible for when they were in government. Why have not the Conservatives put up their top man for the debate? This is their debate. They were trumpeted on Radio 4 this morning as the great defenders of the green belt. Where is the main man from the their team? Where is the shadow Secretary of State?
  We had hoped that the Conservatives would tell us their policies, as this is their debate. In fact, their policies change daily. I think that they advocated a two-thirds build on brown-field sites on Radio 4 this morning. They advocated 60 per cent. yesterday. Why not go for broke, and go for 100 per cent? They are in opposition, and they will stop there for many years to come, because they have changed their policy three times in nine months. Quite honestly, they set the incredibly low standard of 50 per cent., but they did not reach that in 18 years in government.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister is being uncharacteristically unreasonable in his remarks. Does he applaud the setting up of the all-party future development group, which met last week and was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? Does the Minister agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who said at that meeting that to stop rural sprawl we must stop urban rot? Does the Minister not realise that urban rot is under the control of Labour city councils?
  Mr. Caborn: The urban rot is there because of the previous Government's policies, which ran down councils and took all the powers from local authorities. The Opposition are the great defenders not only of the green belt but of local authorities—great transformations have happened in the past nine months.

  161
  The problem is that the Opposition have opted to give us the monkey and not the organ grinder to speak in this important debate. The House knows that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is an expert on this subject, as he has said so many times. If this is such a priority for the Opposition, why has he stood aside? Has there been a reshuffle on the Opposition Front Bench that we have missed? No, there has not.
  I can tell the House why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is not speaking today. It is not because he is too busy. Indeed, he is in his place. It is because he has a declared interest. One has only to glance at the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak in today's debate because he is a non-executive chairman of the National House Building Council and a non-executive director of Aggregate Industries plc, a building materials and quarrying company. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak in the debate because he has vested interests. It is disgraceful.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I can speak in the debate, and of course I would declare my interests. The National House Building Council is not a building company. The Minister knows perfectly well that it is a standard-setting consumer body. Although I would declare my interests, I could still speak in the debate. However, I am leading the next debate on London Underground and transport.
  How can the Minister accuse me of not speaking when the Secretary of State is not even here to listen to the debate? How can the Minister have the total hypocrisy to make such an allegation? Let me refer him to one particular issue. Why did he overrule the independent inspector's report in the west midlands and allow industrial development on 150 acres of green-belt land in my constituency? Why did he not have the courage to announce that decision in the House instead of doing so in the first week of the August recess?
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Caborn: As the right hon. Gentleman has made such a long intervention, I hope that he will not be called to speak in the debate.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that his colleagues are being economical with the truth when they suggest that all or most of the new housing will be in the countryside. He knows that the green belt is protected. I am proud to say that previous Labour Governments laid the foundations of the planning system and the countryside protection that we have today.
  Sir Norman Fowler rose—
  Mr. Caborn: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman should not be so arrogant. I shall give way in a little while.
  Previous Labour Governments created the national parks, extended the green belt and laid the foundations of the planning system that protects the countryside. Those foundations were laid down by the Attlee Government in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
  Fifty years ago this week, Attlee's Minister of Town and Country Planning, Lewis Silkin, who represented Peckham—a good inner-city constituency
  162
  like my own—set out the principles for today's planning system. On this very spot, he said that Labour had a duty to protect the countryside and provide decent housing for rich and poor alike. He said that it falls to us
  "to secure a proper balance between the competing demands for land, so that all the land of the country is used in the best interests of the whole people".—[Official Report, 29 January 1947; Vol. 432, c. 947.]
  We reformed the planning system to protect the countryside, and we shall do the same again on the same principles.
  Mr. Soames: The Minister accused my right hon. Friend and my party of scaremongering. Does he understand that a decision by the Secretary of State to overturn a faultless and scrupulous public examination of west Sussex county council's structure plan has caused great anxiety? Furthermore, does he understand that that decision already undermines the green-belt principles?
  Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman listens, I shall explain how we shall address those issues. As I said, we inherited from the previous Administration a system of imposition from the centre. We have been following that system, but we shall alter it. Indeed, we have already started to modernise it.
  The Conservatives had 18 years to deal with the weaknesses in the system: we began that process on 15 January. We have produced a consultation document on regional planning guidance. In a few weeks, we shall set out a new approach to household growth and sustainable development.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Caborn: No, I must make progress.
  I do not wish to pre-empt the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making on housing and the countryside.
  Mr. Sayeed rose—
  Mr. David Ruffley rose—
  Mr. Caborn: I assure the House that we shall take an integrated approach, and we shall put in place new planning guidance and policies that not only protect the countryside, but benefit our towns and cities.
  Unlike the previous Government, we are determined to make our towns and cities better places in which to live. That means proper, co-ordinated redevelopment and the release of empty spaces and properties at prices that people can afford.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Ruffley rose—
  Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way. [Interruption.] The Opposition have just asked for the debate to continue for an extra half an hour, and now Conservative Members are trying to intervene. They want to extend the debate, and I am trying to enable them to do that.
  Sir Norman Fowler: It is our debate; we decide.
  Mr. Caborn: Absolutely.

  163
  It is a simple equation: what is good for our towns and cities is good for the countryside. Urban and rural areas are not separate, but interconnected and interdependent. It is no use dealing with the symptoms of urban sprawl: we must address the causes. We intend to do just that, by using a mix of planning guidance and new policy tools. We have no intention of ducking our responsibilities on housing need, and no intention of removing the safeguards on the green belt. We want to strike a better balance.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have conducted a survey in my constituency on attitudes towards the green belt. People do not take a Luddite approach: they realise that some green-field sites will need to be developed. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that development on green-field sites should be held back until brown-field sites have been exhausted? It is cheaper and more profitable for developers to develop green-field sites before brown-field sites, which are often more expensive and more problematic. Will the Minister give that undertaking?
  Mr. Caborn: All those suggestions and ideas have been considered, and the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement.
  Mr. Yeo: The Government do not know.
  Mr. Caborn: It is not because we do not know, Tim. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought that I was in Committee. I have seen that much of the hon. Gentleman in Committee. He knows that we are consulting, and will respond to the consultation document that the Conservative Government issued before they left office.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend has just given. Will he ensure that the message reaches councils in the north-east? In Sunderland, we have acres of period listed buildings that are sliding towards dereliction, while all around us local authorities, all of which are Labour-controlled, are busy granting planning permission for green-field sites. It will take intervention from his Department to ensure a change for the better.
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows as well as I do that we inherited that problem. It was caused by the underfunding of local authorities, which were starved of the cash and the power to intervene.
  Three things will help us to achieve our objective. First, we will move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy for housing. We have already done that for road building. We do not believe that patterns of the past should dictate the future, and we propose a new approach for translating household projections into regional planning guidance.
  There has to be much more flexibility at the margins. The Government have every intention of ensuring that the new planning system offers the most sustainable options in meeting local housing needs. We have already stated
  164
  how we plan to modernise the planning system to meet those objectives, and we will further elaborate on the matter in our forthcoming statement.
  Secondly, we want to introduce a new system in which Whitehall will not impose its figures on local councils. Instead, we should like local authorities to work in partnership with the Government and to take responsibility for assessing their own housing needs. We want to decentralise power, so that local people can have their say in decision making on the provision of land to meet local and regional housing needs.
  Thirdly, we want to avoid unnecessary building in the countryside by protecting the green belt and maximising the use of brown-field sites. The previous Government set a target that half of all new house building should be on brown-field sites. This Government, who have been in office for only nine months, are determined to do better than that. The previous Government were in office for 18 years and did not manage to reach their 50 per cent. target, and that was a poor performance.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Ruffley: If all that is true, can the Minister explain why—on 27 July 1997, in an informal briefing to The Sunday Times—the Minister for London and Construction said that he wanted to release for green-field site development areas such as Dorset and Suffolk? Is that true or not?
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction will be replying to this debate, and can be asked that question directly. However, his statements and mine have been exactly the same.
  Mr. Yeo: The Sunday Times was wrong?
  Mr. Caborn: I said that my hon. Friend and I have been misquoted, not only in The Sunday Times but—on the Radio 4 interview—in this debate by Opposition Front Benchers. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) believes that his question adds substance to the debate, he is wrong.
  Mr. Sheerman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on those three points? Like me, he probably realises the absolute hypocrisy of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who was part of the gang round the Thatcher Administration, who ruined so much of the English countryside. They failed also to tackle an incentive system to promote building on brown-field sites, whereas this Government will put their hand to achieving one. Is it not true that we will not develop the estimated half million acres of brown-field sites unless we make it more economic to do so?
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend describes extremely well the previous situation, which epitomises the previous Government's hypocrisy. I remind the House that—in contrast to what Conservative Members have been saying in this debate—88 per cent. of England's population live on only 12 per cent. of the land mass, and that 90 per cent. of—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to dispute those figures, would they please stand up and do so?

  165
  I repeat that 88 per cent. of England's population live on 12 per cent. of the land mass, and that 90 per cent. of that population is in urban areas. It is therefore vital that we focus our efforts on using as much brown-field land as possible.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman talks about protecting the countryside, although about 100,000 new homes are projected for Devon, increasing its population over 15 years by between 45 and 47 per cent. Does he not realise that—if we are to protect the south-west's environmental benefits—such an increase is an impossibility? For the benefit not only of the countryside but of people from urban areas who want to come to the countryside, he must realise that it is impossible.
  Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would know that all those factors will be put into the equation. Conservative Members have obviously not listened to what has been said. Fundamental changes have been made in the way in which we deal with household growth. Moreover, local authorities are now allowed to use capital receipts to renovate rundown housing and to concentrate resources on areas of greatest need. Those changes are making a difference.
  Mr. David Heath: I welcome much of what the Minister has said over the past five minutes or so about change of policy. Does he agree that the inevitable logic of that is to halt the structure plan process, which is occurring in counties across the country at the moment and which is reaching examinations in public in Somerset. for example, while new policy areas are brought into play, so that structure plans relate to new policy and not old policy?
  Mr. Caborn: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands the system. [Interruption.] If he knew the system, he would know that it is a rolling programme and that it is reviewed every three to five years. Any mistakes that are made or any changes that take place can be factored in. A projection has been made over 25 years, and any new Government policy will be factored in.
  We must improve the flow of information and intelligence at regional and local level on the number of potential brown-field sites. In our forthcoming statement, we shall be looking at how we can more effectively and accurately address the scope for brown-field site development. We shall also be looking at options for introducing new economic instruments and financial incentives to bring more brown-field sites into play.
  The Government are committed to protecting the green belt and enhancing the quality of life in both town and country. Part of that means a good-quality environment. It also means decent homes, jobs and access to services. We cannot protect the countryside at the price of a poor environment for people who live in our cities. We are not going to do that. Our approach links urban regeneration with the protection of the countryside; that is bottom up, not top down.
  Such an approach is getting overwhelming support. The Countryside Commission and the House-Builders Federation have welcomed what we are doing. This week, even the Council for the Protection of Rural England—
  166
  which some Opposition Members have been using as a campaign front—said that our approach to housing and the green belt is to be welcomed. Irrespective of what Conservative Members have been saying, people are starting to understand that we are looking at the bigger picture: how to create more sustainable towns, make better use of brown-field sites, and protect the countryside and the green belt.
  It helps no one, least of all those who live in the countryside, to pretend—as Conservative Members have in this debate—that hard choices about how and where people live do not have to be made. We all have responsibility for ensuring that the framework for achieving sustainable development is right, and that people are made aware of the choices that have to be made.
  We are committed to protecting the countryside, but the countryside cannot be frozen in a time warp. People in the countryside need homes and jobs. With what we have heard from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the art of lies, damned lies and statistics has sunk to a new low. Let us hope that Back Benchers' speeches are a little more considered.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I have in my hand the paper from the examination in public of the Somerset structure plan, which I attended last week. I commend attendance at such an event to any hon. Member. The experience leaves one in no doubt about the need for improvement and change in the process. I listened for three hours to what the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) might refer to as lies, damned lies and statistics on migration into Somerset.
  Somerset faced an allocation of 50,000 extra houses, of which two thirds were not to meet the needs of the household formation of the people of Somerset, but were based on projections of the forward requirements of people—the net difference between those leaving Somerset and those wishing to move in. That convinced me that the present approach cannot be sustained. It is one of over-provision in advance and of over-allocation and licensing of sites. That is why I would be opposed to a green-field tax, which would allow development of green-field sites.
  I have had the same responsibility as the Minister for urban policy and trying to regenerate our cities. I carried through the legislation on urban development corporations. All Governments and councils have a continuing responsibility to ensure more urban regeneration and development of brown-field sites.
  The Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out the failure to address the issue of windfall sites. The number of brown-field sites is not static. They are not simply the relics of the Victorian or later ages. They arise continually with new developments. To ensure urban regeneration and to protect our countryside, we must have a greater concentration on the development of every brown-field site.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm what the Secretary of State said in The Times: that, in two or three weeks, there will be a new statement of policy. I understand that it will propose a retreat from the current "predict and provide" policy, and will change the emphasis in the process from top-down to bottom-up.

  167
  That calls into question the comments of my Somerset neighbour, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I listened to the chairman, who was conscientiously carrying out the examination in public. I felt it almost impertinent to intrude on a discussion between professionals under specific subject headings in the structure plan. It was very difficult for a lay person to intervene, even though I was trying to speak on behalf of my constituents and with the support of the other Somerset Members.
  The chairman of the inquiry, together with the inspector, drew on Government circulars and on advice from the Government office for the south-west, which was represented at the structure plan hearing, about what he was allowed to do. Nobody in Somerset is under any illusions about the process being bottom up. Representatives of adjoining counties were also present at the public examination of the structure plan. Their main interest, it seemed to me, was to make sure that Somerset did not change anything, in case there were implications for them.
  The structure is rigid, and needs greater flexibility. I have seen how the process has developed. I have also seen how strong the public reaction has become to announcements of future housing projections. There is a need for greater public consent and involvement in the process. We all know that nobody likes houses being built next door, and that there will always be opposition to any development, but there must be some broader public understanding.
  Ministers of all parties have been trapped by a system that rolls on remorselessly. I accept that I have been part of that. I had responsibility for planning as the structure plan system developed. It is very difficult for ordinary people to plug into the process. There is a public gallery at the public examination, but the number of days that the inquiry sits, the hours that it sits and the division of the subject headings do not lend themselves to public involvement and understanding.
  That results in a situation such as that which I have experienced. We had a public meeting at North Petherton—a village between Bridgwater and Taunton—protesting against the proposal to built 1,500 houses in what are euphemistically called two new villages. The proposal would effectively join Bridgwater and North Petherton. Together with another proposal to join North Petherton and Taunton, it would result in virtually 10 miles of continuous development in the heart of what is meant to be a rural county.
  The county planning officials helpfully explained the background. The people tried to make it clear that the proposals were not acceptable to them. The officials were perfectly happy to explain the proposals, but said that they had all been decided on two years before and determined in the structure plan process. By the time the issue arrived in the sphere of consciousness of the local residents, they had no opportunity to achieve any change.
  We are dealing not just with the present proposal for 4.4 million homes, but with a process which, unless altered, will presumably require another 4.4 million for the next 25-year period and another 4.4 million for the 25-year period after that. That will rapidly become
  168
  unsustainable. We are aiming for the competing objectives of good housing in our towns and cities and an attractive rural environment.
  We must move away from "predict and provide" and towards a shorter time scale. We should phase the processes forward to maximise the impact on brown-field sites and not allow a larger allocation of green-field sites, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out, are cheaper to develop and will always be developed ahead of brown-field sites.
  The article by the Secretary of State contained many points that command widespread support, but he did not deal with approaching the issue on a shorter time scale, with a greater focus on brown-field sites. Rather than indulging in too much ribaldry about targets, I hope that all hon. Members will sign up to two thirds. What is wrong with a target of three quarters? We can at least strive for it, and create pressure for it.
  The harbourside development in Bristol and the Bridgwater docks did not involve public money. They were developed because developers saw the opportunity to turn them into attractive urban environments. Urban regeneration need not always be expensive, and it can produce attractive urban living conditions.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: I was appalled by the comments of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). His brazen attacks on Ministers did a disservice to politics and had nothing to do with the subject of the debate. He and his party should be ashamed.
  My constituency has the downs to the north and the sea to the south. I asked the Council for the Protection of Rural England where we should build houses. It did not have an answer. There is no answer in my constituency. I should like to address the issue for some colleagues in West Sussex, who have been moaning about the decision. With the exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—he is no longer the hon. Member for Crawley—they were not around in 1994–95, when I was leader of Hove borough council and was trying to develop a harbourside site in Hove.
  The problem that we had with infrastructure was simple. West Sussex county council, run by the Conservatives, was not interested in discussions about the development of that site. Over the past few years, it has blocked every opportunity to create a development there, time and again.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Caplin: Yes, I should like to hear an explanation from a newcomer to the area.
  Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—also a newcomer to his seat—for giving way to me, because I could not allow him to get away with the complete nonsense that he was talking. Does he not acknowledge that the reason why Shoreham harbour, most of which is in my consistency, has not been developed is that he and his colleagues have said, "One more lorry? Over my dead body"? They have not allowed any more transport to get to the site, and, without that transport infrastructure, nothing can be built.
  Mr. Caplin: That proves who is in charge and who is responsible for the environment. We say that we do not

  169
  want any more heavy goods lorries, and the hon. Gentleman says that he does. [HON. MEMBERS: ""Yes, you do."] No, we do not.
  I shall now talk about housing and retail superstores, which I notice Conservative Members have not mentioned. When I asked the Council for the Protection of Rural England the other day where we should go to build houses, the first thing to which it referred me was the 1995 document, "Where shall we live?"
  That document was generated by the Conservative Government, and mentioned the total of 4.4 million new homes that the Minister has already mentioned. However, it did nothing but ask a question. It had no suggestions about how to deal with the issues. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk, did not give any explanation either about how the Tories proposed to deal with them.
  Mr. John Gummer rose
  Mr. Caplin: I have only 10 minutes, so it had better be short.
  Mr. Gummer: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in that document and in the material accompanying it we said that we would build at least 60 per cent. of the new homes on brown-field sites, and that I said further that we would hope to build 75 per cent. of them there. The fact that the Government have now stuck to a target of 50 per cent. means that my hon. Friend has had to say that when we are returned in four years' time his target will have to be downgraded, simply because, over the next four years the Government will not have done what we promised we would do, and were doing.
  Mr. Caplin: I do not know which document the right hon. Gentleman has been writing or reading, but it is not "Where shall we live?" What he says is not in that document, I am sorry to say. Let me remind him and his hon. Friends that what the Conservative spokesman said earlier is that in 18 years of Conservative Government the figure rose from 38 to 50 per cent. He never accepted until this afternoon, or until the "Today" programme, or wherever he has been appearing, that the target should be higher for house building on brown-field sites. After all that time, the right hon. Gentleman has obviously got mixed up.
  In my constituency, the problem is that we have a high level of homelessness, so we need to build new homes, but we cannot build them because we do not have the space. No one has the answer, and the neighbouring Conservative council is trying to block any development ideas.
  Mr. Loughton: Nonsense.
  Mr. Caplin: Let me tell hon. Members what happened in the past. There was a proposal to dig up green land in Hove and build a superstore. Along came the developers with their ideas, and the local Labour party, of which I was leader in the late 1980s, objected. Even the local Tories objected with us. Then along came a Secretary of State and said, "Of course you can knock down the golf course and build a superstore". That was the Tories' policy, and they cannot deny it, today or ever.
  170
  What we have heard this afternoon has been not only hypocrisy but the arrogance that got the Conservatives kicked out on 1 May. It is still there now that they are in opposition, and it is about time they had some humility before the electorate and admitted their gross mistakes over the past 18 years, when they allowed concrete to be generated all over the United Kingdom. They alone were responsible for the developments in that time. Now, as in so many areas of policy, the Labour Government have to come along and clear up the mess.
  The other day, I went to a meeting chaired by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon—
  Mr. David Drew: Stroud.
  Mr. Caplin: Sorry, Stroud; it is somewhere close by.
  I was appalled by the comments made at the meeting. It was an attempt by the Conservative party to use the Council for the Protection of Rural England, a respectable organisation, as a front. I say clearly to the CPRE, "Don't be used by the Conservatives."
  Mr. Loughton: What about Lord Rogers?
  Mr. Caplin: Lord Rogers was there making a point, and he was perfectly entitled to make it. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) was not there.
  Mr. Loughton: I was.
  Mr. Caplin: Well if he was, he certainly did not contribute.
  The CPRE was being used by the Tories for their own ends. The House must stand up against such action. [Interruption.] I hope that if the hon. Member for South Suffolk sums up later, he makes a better speech than he did at the beginning—and if he does, he may like to comment on what I have said.
  There are always tough decisions to take when one is in government, whether central or local. That has always been clear to people. Local authorities are capable of taking decisions in their localities. However, far too often they pass difficult decisions to the Government.
  In modernising the planning process, we have a duty, as I hope the Minister who replies will say, to allow local authorities to make decisions and not to pass them up the line. If they pass decisions to the Government, often a bizarre inspector comes in and makes a ridiculous decision.
  I shall give the House an example. About two years ago, an appeal was lodged concerning a golf driving range on an area of green land abutting my constituency. I went to the meeting as a councillor, to represent my constituents. Two applications had been made, one for a golf driving range, which would have been a tremendous development, and the other for a car park.
  That was while the Tories were in power, and the inspector said, "You can't have a golf driving range, but you can have a car park." Yet today the Tory party is trying to persuade us that it cares for the environment. It is all pretence. The Tories never have cared for the environment, and they have concreted over more of the United Kingdom than the Labour party ever will.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on his comments. They were well reasoned, and brought a better tone to the debate than that provided by the two Front-Bench speakers. The right hon. Gentleman took a strong stand on the subject even before the general election and opposed some of what the previous Government were doing, so, on that ground alone, he displays a measure of consistency, which is welcome in the debate.
  Not many statistics have caused as much recent turmoil as the Conservative Government's adoption of the projection—accepted so far by the new Government—that by 2016, a total of 4.4 million new homes will be needed for newly created households.
  I shall deal with those numbers first. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman somewhat sidestepped them. However, there are real doubts about the housing projections, and those doubts must be addressed, because once land is released for development it will be almost impossible to retrieve it from the developers if the numbers turn out to have been wrong.
  I shall give one important example. There is undoubtedly a rising number of people living alone in Britain, for reasons such as divorce, and the facts that young people leave home earlier and old people live longer independently. However, the Council for the Protection of Rural England has rightly pointed out that the effect of a related trend, cohabitation, has been seriously underestimated.
  During the 1980s, the number of unmarried couples choosing to living together more than doubled, yet the Government predict that over the next 25 years the number will remain virtually static. Given the fact that nine out of 10 people who leave marriages go on to cohabit with someone else, the Government's projection is, to say the least, conservative. It should be re-examined, because such figures make an important difference. If, over the next 25 years, the rate of increase in cohabitation continues along the 1980s line, 1.4 million fewer homes will be required.
  Of course, even if the problems with housing predictions are resolved, it is likely that a substantial number of new homes will still be needed. I do not believe that anyone argues against that.
  With development on such a scale, it is essential that the right kind of housing is provided: housing that meets the requirements of new householders. I believe that current policy is fatally flawed in that regard. The Environment Select Committee considered the issue last year and said:
  "developers will naturally wish to build homes which will maximise their profits and … there may therefore exist a dynamic which will effectively inhibit the building of homes which are affordable by those on low incomes."
  Conservative Ministers would not accept that point at the time, because they believed that the market, combined with councils requiring developers to include some social housing, would be more than adequate. I believe that they were wrong.
  The Institute of Housing, in a submission to the Select Committee, said that it was vital that the figure of 4.4 million should not simply be taken as a green light to
  172
  developers, but that proper consideration should be given to where houses should be built, what types of houses are needed, and what local services and businesses should be located around them, to make the house a home in a successful, functioning community. Those powers no longer rest with the local authorities and are not exercised by Government.
  On close consideration of the type of household that will develop in the future, it should be obvious that estates of big houses in the most beautiful areas of the countryside may well meet part of the demand for housing and satisfy developers' need for profit, but they will certainly not meet housing need, which is a different issue. That is especially the case for social housing: homes for the elderly and for single young people on low incomes, which will not easily be provided by the housing market.
  Rural people are genuinely concerned about the loss of green-field sites around their towns and villages, but most are not NIMBYs. They accept that there will be changes in the character of the countryside, but reject the idea that the answer to housing need is to allow companies to build rows of large detached houses around every village. In Cornwall, there is certainly real support for homes for local people—every village survey has shown that—but not for ever more suburban semis catering to incomers and the rich retired.
  The Conservative Members who still represent rural areas have been very agitated recently about development in the countryside, but the figure of 4.4 million was the product of the Conservative Government, who allowed huge rural development, and especially out-of-town shopping centres, often despite local refusals, and even overturning planning inspectors' reports.
  Cornwall, including my constituency, suffered many such cases. I say suffered because, in an area in which many town centres are filled with struggling businesses, shoppers are being lured away. That is bad not only for the town centre business but for the countryside, because the more derelict town centres become, the less people want to live in them; so the move out into the countryside is encouraged. The new Government started to create policies to put that right, but, frankly, they shut the stable door long after the horse had bolted, and the existing permissions will be taken up for many years to come.
  We must consider whether the fact that many people want to leave urban areas and have a different life style is a sign of the attractions of living in the countryside—despite the hours of commuting to which many people subject themselves—or of the policy in cities and towns going wrong.
  Urban areas can and should be places where people want to live, even when they earn a larger salary. Indeed, some of the most expensive and desirable housing in the country—in Kensington or Bath, for example—is inner-urban and developed to an extent that would not be allowed by planners, who would say that it was too dense.
  Improving derelict town centres, reducing traffic congestion and crime, and ensuring that schools and other services deliver high standards are steps that are necessary to slow out-migration and stop the creation of urban ghettos with a poor quality of life; yet much that the previous Government did achieved precisely the opposite. Conservative Members would carry more conviction if they acknowledged that they made those mistakes.

  173
  The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman missed the opportunity to unite opinion across parties and put real pressure on the Government to make policy changes and call a halt to some of their recent decisions.
  Regenerating urban areas is necessary if we are to relieve pressure on green-field sites by using land that has already been built on. The Secretary of State's promise in The Times yesterday to do better than the previous Government's target of 50 per cent. of new houses on brown-field sites is very welcome; but how far will the Government go, and when?
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is to be development on urban sites, land must be decontaminated, and that the initiative of councils such as Norwich city council in cleaning up the land where once proud factories stood is important and should be taken up more widely? Should not we compliment councils that do that and use biotechnological techniques to clean up land?
  Mr. Taylor: I agree; we should. That is another issue which the Select Committee considered last year. I intend to propose one way in which we may release further funding to help local authorities with that process when there is no business that they can charge.
  It would be easier to accept Ministers' recent decisions to allow development in the countryside if the Government had their policies in place; but they do not. Figures are being thrown around: not long ago, we heard that the figure of 4.4 million new homes might rise to 5.5 million; then it was back down to 5 million, and now Ministers say that they may drop targets altogether; and the 50 per cent. target for brown-field development might rise to 60 per cent., but, then again, it might not. The uncertainty undermines the attempts of local councillors, pressure groups and Members of Parliament to play their critical part in the development of sound policy.
  There is a straightforward package of measures that the Government could adopt to stop unnecessary development in the countryside and revitalise our towns and cities. From what the Minister said today, and from the article by the Secretary of State that I read yesterday, I believe that the Government are heading in that direction, but they are again letting the horse bolt before they close the stable door.
  When the Government's target for the proportion of homes on brown-field sites is finally set, we believe that it should be far nearer to the round table on sustainable development's recommendation that three out of four houses should be built on previously developed land. Incidentally, I commend the round table's study to any hon. Member who has not read it, because it not only sets the target but explains how to achieve it.
  Development companies should be encouraged to invest in the clean-up of polluted areas, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, so that local people can once again put them to good use. Perhaps the most obvious measure of all, filling empty properties, could release 800,000 homes that are currently boarded up.
  Such action cannot stand alone: it must go together with the regeneration of the town centre. Problems facing urban areas must be urgently addressed, as there is no
  174
  point in building homes in places where no one wants to live. The Conservative party must consider its record on the problem of dereliction, if it wants to correct it.
  We must recognise that building new homes is big business. When areas of land in beautiful countryside are released for development, that is where big business will go. We cannot change the fact that rural locations are attractive to developers, but we can discourage them from cherry-picking such sites—which are now both cheaper to build on and easier to sell—at the expense of urban regeneration.
  Building on green-field sites is positively encouraged at present, because no value added tax is charged on new development, while the refurbishment of empty homes and offices carries the full rate. That financial incentive for concreting the countryside makes no sense. A green-field development levy is one way in which we could remove the financial advantages of building on the countryside and discourage unnecessary rural development. The money raised could be used to fund social housing and improvements in urban areas, encouraging people to choose to live in them. Indeed, it could fund the remediation needed to restore derelict land for development or could help to cut VAT on the renovation of old buildings.
  Another sensible measure would be the rewriting of planning guidance to create a new development hierarchy. First preference must be given to restoring existing buildings for occupation; then we must develop brown-field sites; and only after that should we allow green-field development. That should be made clear not only through tax and financial incentives but in hard-nosed planning guidance that councils can use, in the knowledge that inspectors will back them up and Ministers will give them the ultimate support that they deserve.
  Mr. Drew: Part of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is covered by the sequential principle. The difficulty that I have experienced—as have other hon. Members who have been councillors—is that an agreement is signed with one developer who then goes on to do a deal with a second developer, and that is where things go wrong. The policy must include a suggestion to make the agreement hard and fast, so that developers stick to the principle that has been agreed.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge. The influx of councillors into the House at the general election may have done a lot of good, because their perspective is not always to follow what Ministers say is the reality, as against what they find the reality to be when they have to deal with it.
  We must make the town a place where people not only come to for work, but want to live in. Many people depart for the country because they are sick of the fear that their homes will be broken into and are afraid that local schools will deliver poor results for their children. Making town centre living more attractive can be done by putting back green spaces, helping inner-city schools meet the highest standards, making public transport a far easier way than the car to get around town, and improving crime prevention.
  The previous Government set a budget projection for regeneration which, for 1999–2000, was even lower than for 1998–99—and that figure was £300 million lower

  175
  than the figure for 1997–98. They planned a £300 million cut in urban regeneration which would help people to stay in towns. The policy was not working.
  The new Government have provided an extra £100 million, but have not restored the funding to where it was for 1997–98. They have looked hard at the work that is needed to invest in the cities and towns of this country to make them more attractive to live in. The biggest single task for the Government is to restore existing buildings and town centres, not to create new ones. Liberal Democrat policies of social investment are well designed to achieve that; Labour's steps in that direction—although welcome—are still too small.
  We must put an end to the kind of situation that has outraged the people of West Sussex—about whom we have heard so much. The local authority studied housing need in the area and was backed up by an independent study. However, the Deputy Prime Minister overrode the decision and ordered the council to build 20,000 more homes than local people, responsible to their community, had shown were needed.
  It has been pointed out in the debate time and again that the Government are falling into the trap of a long-term national target based on dubious assumptions. To say that a change later will solve the problem of the structure plans is simply not true. We will have to put up with years in which developers buy land that they earmark for development, but which perhaps they will not develop. However, the local authority is entirely unable to remove the developer because it could not possibly afford the compensation that would be involved if the Government realised that their policy was wrong.
  As the debate has demonstrated, the issues surrounding urban development over the next 25 years are far from resolved. The Government's intentions are unclear and are causing a great deal of concern both to residents of rural areas and to those trying to find a decent place to live in Britain's cities.
  The Secretary of State's article in The Times yesterday, entitled:
  "The Green Belt is safe with us"
  is a case in point. While saying that he wanted to keep the presumption against development in the green belt as strong as ever, he nevertheless saw "no need" to intervene in the plan to build 10,000 homes on green belt land around Stevenage, or again in Newcastle. We cannot judge that against the new Government policy, which we are told is on the way, because we do not know what the new policy is.
  A complete moratorium on permitting major new developments in the countryside or green belt should be put in place until the Government have resolved their policy, which is, we are told, weeks or months away. Indeed, the Minister kept referring to a policy paper that the House has not seen. If the Government are serious about that—and I believe that they are—and if they want to protect green spaces around our towns and cities, the go-ahead for permissions on previously undeveloped land in the countryside and on the green belt, which their new policies suggest would not be given, should not be given now in the weeks running up to the publication of the new policy. That is a simple thing for the Government to announce, and it would take the tension out of the debate.
  176
  If they wanted to take the pin out of the hand grenade that the Conservatives believe they have on this issue, that would be the way to do it.
  My county of Cornwall fought and won the argument against a proposed 10,000 increase in house building, which came from the Government. The previous Government argued against the county, but the county won. It persuaded the inspectors who looked at the debate that the migration figures did not add up. We showed that the figures on which the present Government are still basing their policy certainly did not apply in Cornwall. I have no reason to believe that they apply anywhere else. The figures are not right. Ministers know it, the Opposition know it—so why allow these major developments to go ahead now?
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was an important contribution to the debate because, in effect, he turned his back on decades of policies by the previous Government, which favoured planning free-for-alls. We are now struggling with the consequences of that. The fast buck has finally rebounded on the executive barn conversion.
  We should remember that green-belt policies were devised by Labour politicians to protect the interests of Labour cities. The green belt was designed to preserve the city. That is the purpose of the green belt—to enable development and to create incentives for development in the cities themselves. The Conservative party should appreciate that during their 18 years in government, the opposite occurred. A tax and development system bled the in-town in favour of the out-of-town. It is with the consequences of that we are now grappling. Sprawl and rot go side by side, hand in pocket.
  I took some comfort from what my hon. Friend the Minister said, because he indicated an important change in the emphasis of policy. However, it is important that we are clear that that change of emphasis has to be definite and quick because there is now too little time left to us to reverse the consequences of the planning policies of the Conservative Government. It is now essential that we tax green-field development and spend it on the inner city. The proceeds of that green-field tax must go to the inner city. Unless we do that, we cannot grapple with the consequences of the planning decisions that have already been made.
  When I put that issue quite directly to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, his policy, I am afraid, was St. Augustine's policy:
  "Give me chastity … hut not yet."
  The hon. Gentleman would not accept the case for the tax on speculative development in the green fields. Without that, we cannot make progress with the policy.
  My city of Newcastle is a strong case in point. It is time to make planning strong and to impose tough choices on developers and speculators. I hope that the new Government will make it clear that no houses will be built on the area now allowed for development in the green belt in the city of Newcastle unless and until the taxes on that development are in place, unless the public transport corridors are in place with the finance committed and until polices about which we can be convinced lead towards the restoration of the inner city are in place and, beyond any mistake, seen to be working.

  177
  Newcastle's historic centre is in a state of decay. There are hundreds of thousands of square feet of 19th-century commercial property—property that is capable of conversion into precisely the sort of housing that young single people would wish to live in. But there is a price tag for that and unless we make the economic incentives strong enough, it simply will not happen. In many ways, Newcastle is a city divided, rather than united. It has examples within in it of some of the highest quality of city living anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst.
  Unless those problems are looked at together, we shall not make sense of this. Some inner-city neighbourhoods in Newcastle are popular, and people wish to live in them. In other inner-city neighbourhoods, which are running down, owners cannot find buyers, landlords cannot find tenants and the city council is engaged in a policy of clearing its own property. In the past five years, 1,000 social houses in the council sector have been pulled down.
  Shortly, the Government are to take us forward into new health, education and welfare policies. We must see the links between those changes in policy and in the planning policies that we are discussing. Newcastle has 8,000 empty properties—4,000 in the inner-city west end of Newcastle alone, part of which I represent. Figures announced yesterday show that for results Newcastle is in the bottom six of local education authorities. There is a link between those two things. Those things can be tackled. They can be changed—indeed reversed—but powerful policies across the board are needed to do so. Please let us see the links between different types of policy.
  Newcastle is a great party city, but some parts of my constituency have the highest crime rates in England and some of the highest insurance costs, which go with them. Those two things are linked. Those problems can and must be tackled. More than one in four households in Newcastle are workless. The Government propose to tackle that issue, and when they do so, and are seen to do so, we shall have viable inner-city neighbourhoods.
  Twenty thousand people in the city of Newcastle receive incapacity benefit. Newcastle is fourth from the bottom of the league for incidence of cancer. Death rates for young men in Newcastle are increasing because of dangerous life styles, the impact of drink and drugs and the lack of secure prospects. Those critically affect the welfare of certain neighbourhoods. If we address that problem—if we tackle sprawl and its economic underpinning, the rot of our social and human infrastructure—we can make cities viable, and if we do so we shall never need the proposed building on the Newcastle green belt.
  However, while money is made too easily by sprawl, rot will continue to spread. I hope that my Government will take it upon themselves to have planning policies in the bold colours of both red and green. Those colours should go together if we are to allay people's fears. The answer to these planning problems is to bring new heart, hope and life back into the inner city.
  I hope that the Government will say clearly, in the debate and in the statements that are to follow it, that they will lift from the brow of Labour's inner cities the crown of unnecessary sprawl, and that they will lift urban neighbourhoods, which need and deserve support, from their cross of growing greyness. Housing policy can play
  178
  an important part in Labour's policies of welfare reform and environmental protection, but unless the links between those policies are made we shall continue the policy of sprawl. I urge the Government to defend the green belt, not in the interests of the countryside—although that may well be necessary—but in the interests of the cities.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: I heard much in the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) with which I would agree, but I find it difficult to understand why it is a satisfactory solution to the problems to tax, rather than stop, development on green-field sites. I should much prefer it if we started by asking ourselves whether development should take place.
  I do not blame the Deputy Prime Minister for not being in the Chamber today; the speech of the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning would have been as painful for him to hear as it was for many hon. Members. However, he was not here for another reason: as far as we can tell, the decisions with which we profoundly disagree were taken by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, and I am sorry that the latter is not now in the Chamber to listen to what I hope will be an explanation of why those decisions were so arbitrary and so harmful.
  It would be quite possible for us to carry the whole debate by blaming one another—going back over the past 20 years, looking forward and thinking about this, that and the other—but the fact is that, during the past four or five years, no one would have given permission for 12,000 houses outside Stevenage, joining Stevenage with its nearest town. This is a new kind of policy. Perhaps the Government intend to change that policy now that they have discovered that it is incredibly unpopular, but it is a new kind of policy.
  Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who spoke so much sense, mentioned that Cornwall had been able to prove to an inspector that the figures that had been handed down were wrong, and the Government upheld the inspector. In the case of West Sussex, that did not happen. The council, on an all-party basis, proved to the inspector that the figures were far too great. The Government turned the inspector down and, as their supporters said, betrayed the Labour party locally.
  Therefore, I do not think that it is unfair to say that the case that the Opposition are making is not about yesterday or about the Town and Country Planning Acts or numbers of houses, but is based on the actual decisions taken by the Government in the nine months in which they have been in power. Even if the Labour party hates everything that the previous Government did, it must also be worried—if it is being fair in any way—by the decisions that the Labour Government have taken.
  I found the article by the Deputy Prime Minister in The Times yesterday very difficult in one sense. I yield to no one in the praise that I have given the Deputy Prime Minister for his support of the environment internationally. He has been kind enough to reciprocate, but his policy has in fact been a continuance of a policy and a bipartisan policy and I am very pleased about it, so in a sense I am sorry that I must criticise the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue.

  179
  However, it is no good writing articles in The Times in which one pledges to defend the green belt when one has just agreed to a large series of buildings in the green belt round Newcastle, when, in the delicate way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central put it, that is quite difficult to justify, given the number of empty houses that there are in the middle of that green belt.
  I believe that the Labour party has failed to understand how the market works. Developers will not develop the inner cities if they have the chance to develop outside; that is the fact. Previously we did not have a target of 50 per cent; that was the figure that we were reaching from 38 per cent. I said clearly that we would do 60 per cent., but when the round table on sustainable development said that it felt that we could do 75 per cent. and produced the figures, I said that if that stood up I would go for 75 per cent. It is on the record that that is what the Conservative Government said.
  I am happy for Labour Members to say that we did not achieve that, but it does not help their case because, until the article in The Times, they said that they would not even try. They did not have a policy of 60 or 75 per cent. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is constantly saying that he is misquoted. To be misquoted once may be considered an accident; to be misquoted twice and one begins to wonder whether he was ashamed of what he said and wished he had not said it.
  Again and again, the Government have said that they accepted what they referred to as the previous Government's target of 50 per cent., and it is no good their now pretending that they have not. The article in The Times makes precisely that point. The Deputy Prime Minister now says that the target is 50 per cent., but that they hope that they will do better. Therefore, there has been a change of tack on that.
  If the private developer is to do the job that we want him to do, there must not be an easy option. Governments will not find good places in inner cities to build houses by having great lists of brown-field sites, changing every day, as the Council for the Protection of Rural England rightly said that they should. Governments will not achieve the building in that way. The people who find such sites will be the people who will make profits out of them. It must be made profitable for them to do so, and that will not be achieved by allowing profits to be made more easily in another area.
  That is why it is important to set a high target and not to argue about the figures. I wish that I could have suggested figures below 4.4 million. It is in the Government's interests to have a lower figure. I accepted the figure of 4.4 million because, having looked at all the opportunities for reducing it, I could not truthfully suggest that a lower figure would be likely. But that does not affect the argument, because we will have more homes than we would wish to accommodate. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the majority of them at least are built in the inner cities.
  We have two problems—inner-city deprivation and dereliction, and the need for more homes than we would like to build. Those two problems can solve each other. It is perverse that so far the Government have not tried to solve those two problems but have exacerbated them by
  180
  agreeing to build in the green belt, which the Conservative Government would not have done and did not do. The Government have changed the policy.
  But the situation is worse than that. The Minister for London and Construction gave it away. He will talk as if protecting the green belt and the countryside is a selfish activity by people who are lucky enough to benefit from it. That is what he has said and his articles have shown it again and again. [Interruption.] I am careful not to accuse him of the things that he plainly has not said. That is why he put the finger on Dorset and Suffolk.
  Some Labour Members are even more adamant than that. One day, I spoke with the leader of Stroud district council on the telephone and I asked him why he wanted to build in the beautiful Painswick valley—the only access to Stroud which is so far unspoilt. He said that everybody else has had to have houses, so he did not see why they should not have some houses as well. Despite living in an area of outstanding natural beauty, they felt they should have the houses as well.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I am about to sit down.
  If we want sustainable development, we do not want a Government who change the policy; we want a Government who force people to build in the town.
  5.33 pm
  Ms Christine Russell: I have never before listened to so much phoney outrage and pious untruths as I have heard in the past hour and a half. Where have Conservative Members been for the past 18 years?
  Since May 1980, I have chaired a local planning committee. It was the build-anything-anywhere planning policies of the previous Conservative Government which led to acres of green land going under a sea of concrete. It was the Conservative Government's policies which led to the destruction and the desecration of our city centres and to the dependency on the motor car. It was the Conservative Government's policies which impoverished our countryside.
  In Chester, with the support of local people, Labour councillors consistently opposed out-of-town retail parks and leisure complexes. We turned them down only to find, months later, that the Government-appointed inspector carrying out Conservative Government planning policies allowed the appeal and there was absolutely nothing that we or the local people could do about it.
  It was not only the green-field sites on the edge of the city that were affected. We have spent 18 years and a lot of public money—so far, fingers crossed, successfully—defending the Sealand basin, a valuable green space in the heart of the historic city of Chester which has been nibbled away round the edges. It is not only the green fields on the outskirts of our cities that need planning protection; we must also tighten planning protection for the valuable green spaces in our city centres.
  I was born and brought up in the countryside, and the previous Government's disastrous policies affected the rural areas, too. The enforced sale of council houses and the complete unwillingness of the Conservative Government to invest in social housing have led to most

  181
  Cheshire villages nowadays being little more than dormitories for better-off commuters working in Manchester or Merseyside. Gone are the village schools and shops and the sense of community.
  The household growth timebomb has been known about for a long time. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) knew about it. He spoke about it several years ago at a conference that I attended. But the Conservative Government did nothing about it. A roof over our heads is a basic human right and I am sure that most experts would agree that, whatever the figure of potential new households—be it 1 million, 2 million, 3 million or 4 million—probably 40 or 50 per cent. of those people will need social housing.
  One of the Conservative Government's worst legacies is the 5,500 people on the housing waiting list in the fairly affluent city of Chester. That is hardly a good testament to their Government.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Russell: No.
  If we do not grasp the nettle, poorer families will continue not to have a roof over their heads because house prices will spiral.
  The new Government have made a good start. We have released £800 million of capital receipts, but in my city and in most other cities the state of the housing stock is so appalling that most of that money will have to be spent on repairing and renovating existing stock, not on creating new units.
  After 18 years on a planning committee experience, I firmly believe that the system is too rigid. We need more flexibility and I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of a use-class order for social housing. At the moment, we have no mechanism for controlling the type and tenure of housing.
  I was pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support the idea of reviewing the tax position. If concrete is poured over green fields, the development is VAT free, whereas if one converts an old building for residential use, the full tax rate is payable. Given that this Government's hallmark is fairness in taxation, I hope that Ministers will at least be prepared to consider removing that anomaly.
  Local authorities have been criticised in a number of quarters. Chester local authority has carried out a brown-field audit and has innovative plans to regenerate the inner city—to build on the old gasworks and put houses on the old canal basin. There is enormous potential, as there is in many of our cities, to re-utilise the floors above shops for housing. They may not be suitable for families, but they are certainly suitable for young people, particularly students. They are ideal for single-person households.
  I have read all the Government's documents and believe that we face enormous challenges. We cannot deny that the number of new households will grow. How are we to accommodate them? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked, how will we create safer, more vibrant city centres where people want to live? How will we support sustainable, living communities in our countryside? How will we protect our wonderful built and natural environments?
  182
  We cannot walk away from those challenges, and we cannot repeat the mistakes that the Conservative Government made in the past 18 years. The key to meeting those challenges is improving and modernising the planning system. I am delighted that the Government will take an holistic approach—the system has been crying out for it for years—by bringing together economic development, transport, housing and the environment. The Labour party laid the foundations for modern planning 50 years ago and has always believed in planning. Some 10 years ago, I spoke at a planning conference when a previous Conservative Minister of State said that he did not believe in planning at all. He is still a Member of this House, although he is rarely seen here now.
  Fifty years later, I have every confidence that the new Government will create a new co-ordinated planning system, which will improve the quality of life for everyone in the 21st century.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When I heard the Minister of State introduce the debate, I realised immediately that policy in this area was on the move, but was unclear about where it was moving to. There were occasional protestations of good intentions, but, by and large, I had the impression that there was no policy at the moment.
  I read what the Deputy Prime Minister said in the newspaper yesterday, and realised that most previous statements on that subject were now inoperative. We are told that, in a few weeks' time, some further announcements and guidance will be issued. Meanwhile, I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that, unfortunately, in the first nine months of the Government's period in office, some fairly startling decisions have been taken.
  The reaction to the dramatic decision to allow large-scale development on green belt land near Stevenage and Newcastle, which was criticised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), has driven the Government to realise that the cavalier way in which they have been proceeding so far cannot be sustained, and that they must reconsider the policy.
  The Minister of State tried to disguise his difficulty of having no policy to outline today in response to this debate by making an extremely belligerent attack on the previous Government's record. That will not impress Labour party supporters in rural and urban areas who support the principles of conserving the green belt and the countryside. Demand for change comes from all sides, against a background where most people know what we should aim for.
  Obviously, we should begin by trying to regenerate inner-city areas. If the Government can build on the excellent record of the last Government, going way back into the 1980s with the setting up of public-private sector partnerships, urban development corporations—much of the regeneration resisted at the time by Labour councillors in many cities—good luck to them. Newcastle upon Tyne, like Nottingham and many other cities, bears all the signs of successful urban regeneration in the past.

  183
  The principle of building on brown-field sites underlay the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. If that can be built on, all well and good, but belligerence is uncalled for.
  Mr. Caborn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way just once, but, like everybody else, my speaking time is limited.
  Mr. Caborn: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the two documents that we issued on 15 January, "Modernising the Planning", which is a policy statement, and "The Future of Regional Planning Guidance", which is a consultation paper? We are trying genuinely to deal with the points that Conservative Members have raised and bring them into the public domain. I presume that he has read them, and will be contributing to the debate.
  Mr. Clarke: I found the documents bland and uninformative. They contrasted somewhat with the Government's decisions, whether they were taken by the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. I am waiting for a better document to be issued, in the light of the hints dropped in yesterday's article and today's debate.
  The Government should build on the city regeneration which we started, and get rid of the remaining dereliction. Naturally, there will be some development in suburban and rural areas, because some is required. We expect some household generation in rural communities, because new families there must be provided for. We even expect the development of some light industrial employment in the countryside to help the rural economy. However, we all strive to get the balance right. It is avoiding the point to embark on extraordinary attacks on what happened in the past 18 years.
  A successful balance has been achieved in my constituency. A third of my constituents live in essentially suburban areas of the city of Nottingham, while the rest live in a rural area, scattered over the countryside of southern Nottinghamshire. The local planning authority provided land for development and, with the healthier housing market, a lot of development is going on. Attractive new housing is being built at Gamston on the edge of the existing conurbation, without prices going out of control. Some of the bigger villages were expanded, with a certain amount of barn conversion. There was some out-of-town shopping development, but I am glad to say that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was Secretary of State, he brought an end to unrestrained development of that kind.
  What has happened so far has resulted in a reasonably satisfactory balance. With some development permitted, the green belt has been rigorously defended throughout the past 18 years. We have had no serious setback on green belt policy.
  Mr. Caborn: That is not true.
  Mr. Clarke: It is in my constituency.
  184
  The threat that we now face, in the light of current policy, results from the Government's recent decisions, alongside the planning approach hitherto adopted. The present policy cannot be sustained when one considers what "predict and provide" threatens to inflict on us all.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) criticised the basis of predictions. We have all been challenging those predictions. In this short speech, I shall not repeat the arguments set out in an extremely good article in The Times yesterday by Nick Nuttall. Not all the points he made were good, but many of them required answers.
  I detect from what the Minister said that he will give up the top-down process of seeking to forecast until 2016, which produced the unlikely result of 4.4 million households, and allow much more local discretion for local provision over shorter time scales. What has happened locally so far has a tremendous top-down content. At county level, the trouble is that far too many predictions assume that one can extrapolate from the developments and movements of population of the past 20 years precisely what will happen for the next 20 years. That is not necessarily the case.
  The Nottinghamshire structure plan demands provision for 69,250 dwellings in the county by 2011. The expected increase of population, itself a little challenging, is only 50,000. It is expected that the formation of smaller and smaller households will continue—I agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell—on a scale that looks increasingly incredible. Worse, the distribution within the plan assumes that growth will continue where it has in the past.
  The plan has acceded to pressure that growth should be permitted in the most prosperous and attractive parts of the county, not those crying out for development, such as the north of the county where the coalfield closed down. Of the total, 14,400 dwellings are supposed to be provided in Rushcliffe, compared with places that need development, such as Mansfield, which is to provide 8,000, or Ashfield, with 8,500. Nottingham, which has a much bigger population, is to provide only 8,000 new dwellings.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the developers whom I want to develop parts of my constituency find it attractive to be given such an invitation to move into the green-field sites of Nottinghamshire, where it is easier to sell properties for more money without the difficulties of urban regeneration and development of brown-field sites in north Nottinghamshire or in Nottingham.
  If my local planning authority is to be asked to provide 14,400 new dwellings, all the talk of targets for brown-field site development is ridiculous. It is difficult to find a brown-field site in my constituency. One closed colliery has been earmarked for industrial development. Other than that, development can go only into the countryside. That will have a disastrous effect on the character of the neighbourhood.
  If the policy is to change, if we are to abandon the predictions and go for a shorter time scale, may we have an assurance that where structure plans are in place or local plan inquiries are forthcoming, the whole thing can be revisited? Can not only the national but the local targets and their distribution be regarded as up for sensible debate again?

  185
  I hope that the Government will also live up to their commitment to put alongside their approach to planning their approach to transport and to the roads programme.
  Mr. Caborn: We are.
  Mr. Clarke: It is not happening in my part of the world.
  The reason why "predict and provide" must be abandoned for housing allocations is that it appears to have been abandoned for the road programme. To give another example from my constituency, the large-scale provision that the planning authority in my borough is supposed to make is supposed to be made along the trunk road corridor of the A52, which leads from Nottingham to Grantham. Unfortunately, all the projected improvements along there have been postponed, and, so far as I can see, postponed indefinitely.
  I recently had a meeting with Baroness Hayman. The prospects of the A52 improvements coming back into the programme are next to nil. I myself urged other schemes on her, to save them from the axe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  5.52 pm
  Barbara Follett: I welcome the chance to talk again about Stevenage, this time not about our prowess at football but about the land to the west of the A1(M). Many people do not like that land being referred to as Stevenage west.
  While I welcome the long overdue evidence of environmental concern from Conservative Members, I fear that it owes more to perceived political advantage than to any real desire to protect the countryside. Conservative Members can shake their heads for all they are worth; they look like my granddaughter's Noddy doll. Their howls of protest would be more convincing if they were not criticising the very policies they formulated and followed in government less than nine months ago.
  I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) eloquent and clear, but it was also clearly hypocritical.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That term has been used on several occasions, not only by the hon. Lady but by other hon. Members. It is not a description which I want used in the Chamber. We should use more temperate language.
  Barbara Follett: Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. He was perhaps a little bit economical with the verityé. Only 14 months ago, it was he, as Secretary of State for the Environment, who said:
  "even accommodating more housing in our towns and cities, as we … must"—
  I agree—
  "means that some development on green-field sites will still be needed. That is unavoidable."—[Official Report, 25 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 46.]
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady point out the difference between a green-field site and a green belt site?
  186
  I know of no circumstance in which I have ever suggested that we should allow green belt land to be used in that way. That is the basis on which I made those remarks, and on which I attacked the Stevenage decision. I was therefore being neither hypocritical nor unclear about the truth.
  Barbara Follett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that semantic slither.
  "Unavoidable" was exactly the word used by Hertfordshire county council when, after months and months of trying and public inquiry, it failed to find the space for the final 10,000 houses of the 65,000 that it had been set to find by the previous Government. It had managed to put 55,000 houses on brown-field sites. It had stacked them into the towns, but it could do no more. It had to start considering other areas, unless it was to build, as was suggested, on one of the few parks in Stevenage and one of the even fewer parks in Watford.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Lady believe that that has happened because existing policy is being followed? If the policy is about to change and the Government announce the changes that they have suggested, does she think that the permission given in respect of the green belt area should be reversed?
  Barbara Follett: Hertfordshire county council knew that there was a correlation between overcrowding and crime and between overcrowding and violence. It knew, as did the former Secretary of State, that some building on green-field sites was unavoidable, so it chose the least worst and most sustainable option: 1,500 acres to the west of the A1(M) near Stevenage. The land is in the constituency of the right hon., but recent, Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Before the general election, he was the Member for St. Albans.
  The site has several advantages. It is close to public transport and to Stevenage, whose economy will benefit from the extra demand. Despite the confident but deeply inaccurate interventions of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), it will not merge with Hitchin. To prevent such a merger—believe me, the citizens of Stevenage do not want it either—Hertfordshire county council released 5,000 extra acres into the green belt to compensate for the 1,500 that it had removed. I remind hon. Members that the amount of green belt land in Britain has doubled since 1979—something for which the Conservatives can take credit.
  That move will ensure that the green belt—which, I remind Opposition Members, was introduced by a Labour Government—will fulfil its original purpose of preventing the coalescence of towns.
  Mr. John Randall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Barbara Follett: No, I have given way fairly already.
  Although I welcome the "predict and provide" philosophy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I should point out that Hertfordshire county council is already following that policy in Stevenage west. Contrary to the scaremongering by Opposition Members—especially the chronically misinformed Member for Mid-Sussex—the council is to

  187
  build only 5,000 houses on the site by 2011. If 5,000 more houses are needed after that, they will be built, but the council is hopeful that they will not be needed.
  I commend Hertfordshire county council and Stevenage borough council for their courage in tackling the difficult problem of marrying two demands: first, the demand for more housing and more social housing; and secondly, the demand to preserve the countryside of England. They have done the impossible, and they are to be congratulated.
  6 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) more than insinuated that the fear in constituencies about the potential loss of the green belt was being stoked by the Conservative party. In my constituency, that is completely untrue—we do not need to stoke such fears.
  My constituency is just south of the M25, and close to London; the A3, A24 and A25 run through it, and it has good public transport links. The population are acutely aware of any shifts and changes that they fear will threaten their green belt, because it is precious to them. Over the past few months, the confusion and the actions of the Government have brought that concern to the fore in the minds of most of my constituents, and it is clear from the local press and from my mailbag that they are desperately concerned. Let me touch on some of those actions—only a few, as I have but a few minutes.
  There have been some constructive speeches from Labour Members, and especially constructive speeches from Conservative Members—in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We have mentioned that the big four giveaways with which the press are running are the ones that have caused greatest concern. Mole Valley is part of Surrey and is therefore right next door to West Sussex, and the big jump in the figures, which is one of the big four giveaways, has frightened the people in my area. I hope that the Minister will give us considerable reassurance on that point.
  A variety of articles, either apparently stimulated by comments from Ministers or supposedly written by Ministers, have added to the confusion. There have been indications that PPG2 and PPG6, both of which were tightened up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, are being eased back. That can be seen in the press and from comments by builders and supermarket chains.
  Mention was made of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill and of the fact that £800 million was being released. In fact, not a single penny from capital receipts, but only borrowing capacity, is being released; but that, seen in combination with regional development agencies, is an item of concern to people in my area.
  Many of them use the A3 and, as they approach Tibbet's corner in London, those with longer memories recognise and remember that those were once green-field sites, until the Greater London council and the London county council got hold of them. There are now
  188
  15,000 dwellings on those former green-field sites—hence the desperate concern. The compulsory purchase order powers of the regional development agencies are frightening, especially when combined with the changes in the capital rules affecting local authorities, which may want to duplicate the build-out policy operated under the GLC and the Labour party in London.
  The review has been mentioned and waved at us in the Chamber. I have read the review documents—twice—and they do not help to calm anyone's fears. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said that he had read them and found them bland, but he was being polite; they are so bland and so broad that anyone with half a degree of cynicism would recognise that they could be perceived as giving an opportunity to change the planning system surreptitiously in such a way as to threaten the green belt. That is how the review is seen by my constituents, and we need reassurance.
  There have been a few red herrings: the one that amuses me is that of putting on a tax—not taking a tax off one area, but putting on another tax. That might suit those who wish to build on green-belt and green-field sites in my patch, because they may be able afford to buy there and pay the tax, but it certainly will not help those who cannot afford to do that. If there are to be tax changes, it should be take off, not put on.
  I am being especially succinct and looking at only one aspect of this issue—the reason for the fears. The speech by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning did not help—it was belligerent and abusive. We want to know that the green belt is secure. We also want to know that inner-city regeneration is to be implemented. Sneers and criticisms were made about recent Conservative Governments and the way in which they have changed inner-city areas. I implore those Ministers who now have responsibility for that area to go back and look at the many successes. Those successes built on a learning curve, and it would do Ministers a lot of good to go and look at them.
  Ministers should start with the development corporations and, for example, London docklands, where the GLC failed, and where an innovative approach changed the whole system and brought housing with a variety of tenures to a dilapidated, appalling area in the centre of London. The system progressed as local authorities joined in and recognised that it was moving forward positively.
  The result has been dramatic changes in places such as Manchester, Liverpool, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich and so on. Change is progressive: I hope that Ministers can learn that, at the end of the day, we must turn brown-field sites in our inner cities back into positive places that are attractive to live in. That is success, and part of it is keeping our green belt sacrosanct.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Brian White: Before entering the House, I was chair of the Local Government Association's planning committee and, as such, I was one of the people who challenged the previous Government to justify the methodology behind the figures for household projections announced by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I represent a partly rural constituency and I regret that what should have been a serious debate on a serious topic has been trivialised by some hon. Members who spoke earlier.

  189
  I was somewhat perplexed when examining the record of the previous Secretary of State, who said that he believed that laissez-faire planning was the right way to proceed; that local planning authorities were an obstacle to growth; and that he wanted there to be a massive increase in out-of-town shopping centres, because that was the right way to regenerate the economy. That record is at odds with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) when introducing the debate. It is also strange that a record number of sites of special scientific interest disappeared under the Conservative Government. I make one exception in my criticism, in that I recognise that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal did make significant changes in some of the planning policy guidance notes that he issued. PPG6 was a major improvement, as was PPG13.
  As I have said, I challenge the methodology involved in the household projections. Other hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), mentioned the need to change the top-down approach to a bottom-up approach. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that different social factors had not been taken into account in the figure of 4.4 million. Our policy on regional development agencies, and the changes in environmental and social policy—especially social changes relating to crime and our welfare-to-work initiative—will have a major impact on where people want to live, and on the regeneration of our inner cities.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that, after he had taken into account all the issues raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, the lowest figure that he could recommend was 4.4 million. We should also not forget that every calculation in the past has been an underestimate rather than an overestimate.
  We cannot separate today's debate from the debate about regeneration, and we must recognise that there will be different solutions for different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke about the needs of inner cities, but rural areas also have needs. Some farming constituents to whom I spoke recently pointed out that the villages were no longer rural, by which they meant that they had become dormitory villages from which people commuted into the local town.
  We need to ask what the role of villages will be in the next century—and, indeed, what the role of towns will be. We should have a rational debate about that. The projection relating to increased car use stimulated a public debate about how our transport system should be changed. Similarly, the 4.4 million projection has at least generated a serious public discussion about ways of dealing with housing stock.
  We are not just talking about 4.4 million homes. The projection refers to an increase in the number of elderly single women, and also to the substantial number of single young men. Those, apparently, are the groups which most need extra housing—although there is no suggestion that they should be put together. They require housing other than the standard housing that has been provided over the past 10 or 15 years. The executive-type housing that is most profitable will not be right for the people about whom we are talking.
  Mr. Drew: We are now dealing with either a negligible increase or no increase in population size. That makes a
  190
  significant difference to the type of property required, and to where it needs to be. Migration forces are the biggest single influence.
  Mr. White: I entirely agree.
  A tremendous amount can be done for cities and towns. The regeneration of our run-down inner cities is a great challenge, which many local authorities have already taken up. I should point out to Ministers that the previous Government's Treasury rules hindered many developments. I am thinking here of development corporations. The clawbacks that are imposed if local authorities develop land hamper growth and regeneration.
  The House Builders Federation has said:
  "The social and economic consequences of not building enough houses are being ignored by many commentators. Many people will not be able to afford their own home, or will live in unacceptably crowded conditions, if we fail to build enough homes in the right places."
  That is another key point which is often missed. We are not just talking about building the right number of houses; we are talking about quality. One of the mistakes that we made in the 1960s was to build tower blocks and other kinds of massive housing far too quickly. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past 18 years, but it is also important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s. We should build quality into our inner cities—and, as I said, many local authorities are doing that.
  The current planning policies are causing houses and jobs to be planned in different areas, thus exacerbating transport problems and increasing growth on the edge of towns. Other factors, such as housing subsidies, have an impact on the quality of build, and such support needs to be directed toward brown-field sites. We should also recognise that brown-field sites are not all the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the problem of contaminated land. We must deal with that problem if we are to achieve the target of 75 or 80 per cent. on brown-field sites.
  Other hon. Members raised the key issue of finance. While it remains cheaper to build on green-field sites, developers will concentrate on such sites. Brown-field sites must be made economically attractive. Various solutions have been suggested, from taxation to strengthening the planning powers of local authorities; but there are other possibilities. In the 1940s, when a Labour Government introduced planning powers, they also created new towns, which have proved a successful way of diverting pressures from other towns and accommodating growth. The role of new towns should not be forgotten. By carefully selecting the green-field sites that can accommodate growth, we can relieve much of the pressure on other sites. I commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done in Stevenage, which will help many parts of the south-east.
  We have heard a good deal of rhetoric, and a good many cheap political attacks, but there is a real debate to be had. There are no easy solutions, and we must make serious choices about how we are to live in the 21st century. The real debate is about what type of towns we should have in that century—what the quality of urban living should be, and what our life style should be. If we tackle those issues seriously, I suspect that there will be a great deal of consensus across the parties, but cheap political attacks such as we have heard today do everyone

  191
  a disservice. I hope that, following today's debate and following the Government's announcement of changes in planning and household projection policy in three or four weeks' time, we can engage in a sensible debate and start to create the necessary consensus.
  6.17 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I support the motion. I hope to show why I reject the Government amendment, and to expose the way in which the Government have failed to protect the countryside, especially the green belt.
  My constituents can judge the Labour party only by its actions. I invite the House to consider its decisions in national and, more particularly, local government, and I hope to expose its intrusive policy with regard to the green belt. In the Vale of York, there is a proposal for an incinerator site in Rufforth, on a green-belt site within a mile of three centres of population—Rufforth, Knapton and the city of York. A park-and-ride scheme is also proposed at Rawcliffe. The proposal ignores residents' views, despite a hugely expensive consultation exercise. There are rumours of a new town of possibly 25,000 homes between Thirsk and Ripon. I ask the Government to consider the infrastructure that would be required to accommodate those new houses. Access to all facilities would be necessary—to roads, schools, and hospitals, and especially to water and sewerage.
  I was elected to represent the Vale of York by a sizeable majority on a platform that supported filling in brown-field sites before we touch green-field or green-belt sites. I urge the Government to examine options for accommodating a projected 4.4 million new households in England by 2016. I query the basis for such projections. The household projection process is at best an inexact science. Those targets must remain subject to continuous review, with the aim of achieving the best possible fit between projected housing demand and land allocation.
  In meeting housing demand, priority must be given to affordable housing in villages and rural locations for those engaged in less well-paid rural employment. There is a specific lack of planning mechanisms to safeguard land for affordable homes. The Government must redress that gap.
  There is a singular lack of clear commitment to green-belt policy, as evidenced by decisions to allow local authorities to proceed with major green-belt releases around Newcastle and Stevenage. There should be stronger justification for altering green-belt boundaries. At the very least, the Government's policy shows that Stevenage and Newcastle have more in common than a football draw: they are both victims of that negative Government policy.
  My main concern in the Vale of York is that planning decisions by the City of York council have involved various irregularities. I refer to the incinerator that it is proposed to build on a green-belt site in Rufforth. The proposal is currently subject to review by the local government ombudsman. A highly irregular procedure was followed, which does not show the Labour party in its best light. The City of York planning committee overturned North Yorkshire county council's local development plan, by which the City of York remains
  192
  bound. In addition, the City of York rejected its own local development guidelines and its chief planning officer's recommendations.
  What assurances will be given tonight to those living in the Vale of York, that the green belt will be protected from Labour party policy in national or local government? I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will give my constituents some reassurance that the green belt will be preserved.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. The future of our cities is closely linked to our treatment of the green belt, green-field sites and the countryside. One of the characteristics of the United Kingdom is its urban life. It has a higher density of cities than any other country in Europe. Since the second world war, Governments of all political colours have been cavalier in their attitude to our cities as assets.
  It was extraordinary to hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) attack the Government in his speech. He forgot about the damage done to cities by his Government in the late 1980s. He forgot about the out-of-town shopping centres, the latest of which will open outside Manchester in Dumplington later this year and put people in my constituency out of work. He forgot about the removal of billions of pounds' worth of rates and revenue support grant. In short, he forgot about the attack on the inner cities.
  It would be better if hon. Members on both sides remembered that and considered the other side of the equation. Having been involved in leading a city council for many years, I know that not everything that city councils have done in terms of urban regeneration has been perfect.
  I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said that the Government would get rid of the "predict and provide" model. That is a mathematical system which is consistent in its own terms, but there is great uncertainty about whether it relates to anything in the real world. If that model is to be rejected, I urge my hon. Friend to examine in detail what happens in cities. People who have developed the model say that it works less well as the amount of detail increases.
  I refer to my experience in helping to redevelop Hulme, with the support of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and the hon. Members for South Suffolk and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Those hon. Members helped and, I believe, learnt from trying to redevelop Hulme. When we looked at Hulme, we found the mistakes of the Labour Government in the 1960s, a Conservative Government immediately afterwards, a Conservative council and a Labour council that had provided industrially built housing.
  The most striking feature, which helps us to understand what has been happening in the cities, was that that area had previously had about 180 dwellings per acre. The industrially built monstrosities hastily provided by parties of both political persuasions represented fewer than 12 dwellings per acre. It is not surprising that all the community facilities that glue a city together—the churches, the public houses, the transport system—started to fall apart. There were simply not enough people, and the situation was designed to encourage crime.

  193
  When we considered what we wanted to develop instead, we found that under a Labour-controlled council, many of the policies coming out of our engineers department and planning department were not helpful in designing the sort of houses that people wanted to live in. We had to turn round a series of policies to ensure that we achieved housing densities of 30 to 40 dwellings per acre. That is not extraordinary in the history of cities elsewhere.
  Engineers want turning circles at the end of roads and extra parking spaces. In one of the poorest parts of the city of Manchester, the planning department suggested one and a half to two parking spaces per dwelling. The actual car ownership in that area was less than one in three. It is not surprising in those circumstances that low-density development results.
  We turned that round. Hulme, in the constituency of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is now an attractive place for people to buy houses or to live in social housing. Further development is still needed, but it is working.
  If we return to the numbers game, when one looks at the figures and the number of brown sites, it is difficult to know what densities people are talking about. I suspect that if we consider the supply of land available in the cities and multiply it by densities of 30 or 40 dwellings per acre—in city centres, greatly increased densities are possible—the balance between what can be provided in urban areas and in the countryside switches to a much higher figure than exists at present.
  Building up those densities not only protects the countryside for the benefit of all of us; it helps to make the city work again. It helps to make transport work. If 1,000 dwellings were created in warehouses and office blocks in the city centre, over a year, 4 million car journeys would be saved, assuming that people commuted on average 10 miles into the city centre. That is an incredible saving. It is a matter not of better transport, but of no transport, because people are near their place of work. Because of the way in which cities have developed, some of the most attractive sites next to the city centre have become some of the least desirable. We need to improve that and get the density right, so that public transport works and makes a profit—or balances the books, depending on who owns the transport system.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the figures. Development is bound to be more difficult in the city. It has a bad image, but that is being improved by cities such as Newcastle, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. We are all trying to improve its image, but it will never be an even playing field when it is easier to develop out of town. Certainly until they work properly again, cities need grants—whether from taxation on green-field sites, via the council process or special development grants—to make developers realise how they can make a profit and provide houses within the city in which people want to live.
  The time it takes for planning applications to go through came up several times in the debate. I have been involved in a number of major planning applications, some of which were connected with housing. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that the planning process must speed
  194
  up. We have to get the balance between the country and the city right, but we must also ensure that people are given decisions quickly, so that there is certainty.
  We all agree, across the House, on the problems that face our country: unemployment, poverty, crime, drugs, the environment, pollution, education and how to make it better. Cities are often seen as a problem. I believe that cities are the centre of creativity. Much of the intellectual capital and the gross domestic product of this country have been developed in cities. We shall all be the poorer if we do not make them work. We have an opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, to combine dealing with the problems of the city with the protection of the countryside, to make our cities work better. We shall all benefit from that.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the House listened with interest to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and his case study of what he did in a particular part of the city while leader of the council. As I have two children who study at what I call "Boddington's university" in Manchester, I have more than a passing interest in that city being safe and successful.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) not only on introducing the debate but on the manner in which he did so. He performed a singular service to the House and to the country. Not only did he articulate the concerns in the country about the real threat to the countryside but he chose Opposition time in which to do so. He also exposed the great uncertainty in Government policy in this critical area.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed, but the terms of the Prime Minister's motion reflect almost exactly the terms of early-day motion 681. That says quite a lot about the Government's response to the debate. They know that the concerns on these matters are not confined simply to the Opposition Benches but are reflected on the Government Benches as well, among the newly elected hon. Members who are temporarily representing Conservative parts of the country, who found it necessary to respond to these concerns.
  I am sorry that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is not in his place to listen to the rest of the debate. No doubt he will listen to the wind-up speeches. He does not seem to understand why his speech went down so badly with Opposition Members and why it failed to ignite with Labour Members. He is a decent chap, but he did not perform at all well. If I may, I shall take just one point.
  The Minister invited us all to be reassured that the Government plan to safeguard the green belt, and reassured us that concerns expressed by Opposition Members are wholly without foundation. We are not at all unreasonable in finding those reassurances unacceptable.
  Two examples were given by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to which the Minister made no reply whatever. It is a material consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has had a decision overturned, so that green-belt land will now be concreted over in Sutton Coldfield. The Minister had the opportunity to explain how that complied with his new policy, and failed signally to answer it.

  195
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) challenged the Minister on the decision to allow a further 12,000 houses in Sussex, the Minister failed to respond to that as well. I remind the Minister for London and Construction, who is present, that a joint statement from the leaders representing all three parties on West Sussex county council said:
  "This is the starkest possible illustration that Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of the 4 million new homes said to be required by 2016 on brown-field sites rather than on green fields in the countryside."
  We do not understand, nor do we accept, the Government's assurances, because they are at variance with their practice hitherto. If they are saying, in the light of the meeting last week and the early-day motion, that they have changed their policy, so be it.
  In my constituency, development pressures have long been apparent in the northern part of Aldershot. It is now a matter of great concern to us. Before the boundary changes at the last election, the Aldershot constituency included a large rural hinterland, which is now part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the shadow Chief Whip. The area lies beyond the metropolitan green belt west of London and thus was targeted for growth early on. The temptation for developers to leapfrog the green belt was far too great, so the whole of the Blackwater valley has become part of the fast-growing sub-region under the south-east plan of 1970.
  Although the growth policy is now defunct, development pressure continues, and may well intensify. Already, much of the area has been suburbanised, with peripheral expansion and the replacement of perfectly good old houses with dense infill. That has led to a serious loss of character and identity. The infrastructure is simply not there to accommodate such extensive infill, the pushing of houses into what were formerly the gardens of larger houses, and the bolting on of estates. These are villages. They have village facilities and village roads. They do not have the benefit of the infrastructure to cope.
  Our remaining green-field sites are under threat of options from developers, who promote them as so-called omission sites at local planning inquiries. An inquiry is under way at present with developers queuing up to stake their claim in the planning lottery. One of the reasons for that flurry is the stranglehold of housing land availability. Planning policy guidance note 3, of March 1992, effectively said that local authorities should provide a forward plan of five years of housing stock. That may sound reasonable, but it has effectively become the developers' gravy train.
  The requirement for a continuous supply of land for housing usually refers to green-field sites. Sites within settlement boundaries are not normally counted towards the total, which is calculated on a five-year basis. Sometimes, sites fail to come forward as planned and a shortfall occurs. As a result, developers can appeal and argue for their site to be released so that the five-year supply is maintained. Local planning authorities cannot plan properly because of the constant fear of appeals to the Secretary of State in the event of a land supply shortfall.
  196
  To some extent, PPGI has changed that. The February 1997 guidance provided for local authorities to
  "allocate the maximum amount of housing to previously-developed sites within existing larger urban areas, which have access to a range of transport and other facilities, while protecting open space, playing fields and green spaces in cities and towns."
  All political parties welcome that policy.
  I shall conclude, as I know that others wish to participate in the debate. I believe that the Conservative Opposition have touched a raw nerve in the Government, exposing the inconsistency of their policy. However, I hope that the Government will learn from that and live up to the assurances that they have sought to give the House today about protecting the green belt. I hope that they will be serious about urban regeneration, which affects not only the inner cities to which the hon. Member Blackley referred, but towns such as Aldershot, which could do with some regeneration. The urban regeneration programme which is under way will be helpful to such towns. I share the view that it is not a matter of country versus town; the town and the country have a common interest in safeguarding the green belt and realising the regeneration of our towns.
  6.40 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: One of the advantages of being called to speak late in the debate is that one has the chance to listen to the full range of arguments. However, the disadvantage is that many of the points that I wished to make have already been raised.
  We have heard various arguments from Opposition Members about the number of houses that will be required in the next 20 years and where they should be built and many sound reasons why they should not be built in their constituencies. We have heard hard-luck stories about why certain planning decisions have been wrong. However, Opposition Members have made no attempt to find a solution.
  We need a significant increase in the number of houses in Britain in the next 20 years. No hon. Member has seriously challenged that assumption. We have heard nothing but moans and groans from Opposition Members about why there should be no new development in their constituencies. They have made no attempt to solve the problem.
  We need more houses because people need decent homes. If we do not build more houses, there will be house inflation, rent increases and a shortage of rented accommodation leading to homelessness, social division and poverty. That cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, someone has to face up to it. At least the Government have the guts to make a stand on the issue.
  My constituency of Dartford in Kent Thameside has been grappling with the problem for some time and is close to reaching a solution. The planning framework for the Thames Gateway envisages up to 30,000 new homes in Kent Thameside in the next 30 years. At least 22,500, or 75 per cent. of them, will be built in my constituency. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the new housing will be built on brown-field sites. That will help to protect the green belt elsewhere in Kent and the south-east. Kent Thameside offers a solution in terms of finding space for new housing.

  197
  The new housing envisaged will serve all the needs of the community. It will include executive housing, affordable housing and low-energy housing. However, development on brown-field sites has abnormal costs. Local planning experts inform me that between £150,000 and £200,000 per acre is required to regenerate brown-field sites into a usable state. The additional costs inevitably affect the economics of development. For example, developers are currently being asked to provide land for new school buildings. To date, Dartford has been the most successful Kent authority in respect of extracting contributions towards building new schools.
  Developers are also being asked to provide 20 per cent. of social housing in new housing areas, and we are working on that. Kent cannot possibly fund all the necessary transport infrastructure, so developers are also being asked to help fund a comprehensive public transport network.
  There are added planning complications from developing constrained urban sites. There was a need to tackle the barriers to development on brown-field sites in Kent Thameside. That will remove considerable pressure from other green-belt sites in Kent. It will also enable the Government to make progress towards economic development, integrated transport and sustainable development in the Thames Gateway.
  We have a vision of how a brown-field site can be returned to productive use. The Kent Thameside partnership has brought together three local authorities—Dartford, Gravesham and Kent county council—the university of Greenwich and the private developer Whitecliff, which is an amalgamation of the land holdings of Blue Circle Industries and the finance and development expertise of Lend Lease, an Australian company. That has led to the creation of one of Europe's largest shopping centres—Bluewater—in a disused quarry. So far, it has attracted £1 billion in inward investment and there will be 7,000 new jobs when it opens next year. It has all been achieved without Government funding.
  In order for any development to be sustainable, it must have a proper infrastructure. It can succeed only if it is an attractive place to live, if it is accompanied by employment opportunities, if it has proper leisure facilities and, above all, if it has environmentally sound and workable public transport links.
  As I have pointed out, regeneration is not a cheap option. The cost of regenerating brown-field sites significantly reduces the planning gain that can be obtained by selling land to the private sector. However, the private sector cannot do everything, given the abnormal costs of developing brown-field sites and the significant infrastructure costs. Similarly, local authorities are not in a position to pick up the bill. Increases in population do not show until the next 10-year census, thus having no effect on standard spending assessments or rate support grants, while demands for services increase relentlessly. Business rates are passed over to central Government. Even a boost to local jobs through the creation of new industries ends up costing local authorities much more than they ever reap in return.
  We can deliver sustainable development in Kent Thameside almost entirely on brown-field sites, thus easing pressure on the green belt, but it is neither cheap nor fully self-funding. However, it offers the opportunity
  198
  to bring together large parts of Government policy to act as a magnet for inward investment and an engine room for the economy of the south-east. We need the opportunity to become truly a blueprint for the nation.
  6.46 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I have been an hon. Member for only nine months, but I was appalled by the Minister's speech. He completely failed to address the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and by the motion. He failed to address the genuine concerns of members of the public.
  People are worried. Ministers can talk about having a modernised, integrated, sustainable, co-ordinated, co-operative regional development partnership, but that cuts no ice with people when, week after week, the Secretary of State takes decisions to concrete over vast sections of the green belt. It is not Conservative words that are causing concern among people who are worried about the countryside; it is Labour actions and the Government's decisions to destroy the green belt in Sussex, the midlands, Hertfordshire or Newcastle.
  The debate is important as it enables us to raise those concerns. It is clear from the Minister's speech that he does not understand what the problem is or people's genuine worries about the decisions that the Government are taking.
  People are worried about the future of the green belt, green wedges, open spaces and the countryside generally. They are also interested in the future of our towns and cities. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) was absolutely ŕight to refer to the need for a balance between the countryside and the towns and cities. Perhaps he should look closely at the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. We seek a balance between regenerating and renewing our towns and cities, and ensuring that planning decisions such as those taken by the Secretary of State do not destroy our countryside and our green belt.
  The Minister must acknowledge the importance of Government decisions—not just those on whether a housing development or an industrial development is allowed on green-belt land. If the Government are to achieve the regeneration of towns and cities, they will have to consider carefully decisions on out-of-town stores, for example. They must put PPG6 into practice and not allow the development of out-of-town stores that would destroy the retail heart of many of our towns and cities. That is essential if we are to achieve the balance of which a number of Labour Members and many Opposition Members have spoken.
  There are many exciting ideas for regenerating our towns and cities. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of discussing with members of Maidenhead chamber of commerce their exciting ideas for preserving, developing and regenerating the town centre to include not just retail but some residential development, so as to bring people back into the heart of the town. Such schemes would take the pressure off green-belt development to some extent. People in my constituency are concerned that the Government are not preserving and protecting the green belt, and they are not comforted by the statements of our Liberal Democrat-controlled local council.

  199
  I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister for London and Construction will address people's concerns about the Government's actions, and that he will recognise the need to balance life in our towns and cities with life in our countryside. He should be committed to encouraging the renewal of our town centres, and accept the need to ensure that other planning decisions, such as those on out-of-town stores, are taken in the light of that commitment.
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning did not recognise people's fears about the Government's plans for the green belt and for our countryside. The Minister for London and Construction should give us comfort, and should reassure us that the Government intend to protect the green belt, because we cannot take comfort from any of the Secretary of State's actions or from the Minister's statement this afternoon.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I shall keep my remarks short and to the point. The debate has proved that this particular dog will not bark, and it certainly will not bite. The Conservative Government own many of the problems that are coming home to roost. It is important that we understand who is to blame.
  However, I want to begin on a positive note. I welcome the many good speeches that have been made in the debate. It is easy for some of us who have been involved in these matters for a long time to score cheap party political points, but what is required is a serious, national debate. We have added to that debate today. I had feared that we would undo much of the good work done at the all-party meeting last week, but we have not. Many hon. Members made excellent points that I hope will be listened to not just in the House but in the wider world, and I hope that their constituents will take note of what they are trying to do.
  I have consistently argued that the housing numbers are excessive. Others argue that 4.4 million houses will be insufficient. They allege that we are failing to provide enough social housing. Those of us who have attended a public inquiry or examination in public will know that the housing numbers can be used to defend the plans being submitted. They can also be used against a council if sufficient allocation is not made. I have been accused by developers of failing to provide sufficient allocation. Whether we like it or not, under the present system the numbers can be crucial.
  I welcome a return to a plan-led, bottom-up, localised system. Local authorities should decide their own destiny, and should take responsibility. I am sure that all hon. Members have case histories of local planning decisions that were so sensitive that the council was willing to pass them to the Secretary of State. That is just as unacceptable as a central diktat overruling a council when the local feeling is that the council was right.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has tweaked my tail. Having done his research over the telephone, he knows a lot about Stroud. One day, I shall invite him to Stroud. In my part of the world, we do not have green belt: we have areas of
  200
  outstanding natural beauty. However, the same logic applies. In protecting some land, we make other parts of the countryside more vulnerable.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways for the Government to protect land is to address the problem of empty properties? In Holland, they achieve a 2.3 per cent. vacancy rate, whereas our rate is 4 per cent. If we were to achieve 2.3 per cent., we would create 340,000 homes without the need to build any of them.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. There is not one solution, but a series of different ideas, all of which must be tried. We owe that to our present and future constituents. We must not shut the door and pretend that people cannot come in. We cannot ignore the fact that migration is the major driving force. We must see whether societal changes can help us over this difficulty.
  I support a plan-led, bottom-up system. Local communities can determine their own destiny, and can participate carefully and thoroughly in the planning process. One of the disappointments of the past 18 years was that the planning system was abused and came into disrepute. Many people feel passionately about these issues, because the system has let them down. We know that the best way to pack a hall is to talk about development issues. The difficulty is that we must move beyond the protest movement to come up with solutions. That is beginning to happen, and a national debate has now started.
  I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) to make a point about the brown-land solution, which we all want. An increase in the level of brown-land development to 50 per cent., let alone to 60 or 75 per cent., can be achieved only if it is recognised that in parts of the country it is difficult to find any brown land. That is the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. It is easy to say that there will be no development in areas that have no brown land, but that is as unfair as saying all development should be dumped on the cities. There should be a balance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said so eloquently, we must revitalise the cities if we are to protect the countryside. We can redevelop our cities by using creative thinking and by applying the sequential principle of encouraging developers who use green-field sites also to redevelop brown land. I hope that Ministers will consider that type of idea.
  The House has had a good debate—which we can now take onwards and upwards.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: In this debate, Conservative Members have struck a chord with the people. That has been demonstrated by the great interest shown in the debate by my right hon. and hon. Friends, by the quality of their speeches and by the fact that the original 7 o'clock end of the debate has been extended by half an hour to allow fuller debate on an all-important subject. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends

  201
  the Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for putting pressure most effectively on the Government.
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear the Opposition's reply to the debate—is not a good listener. Today, he was certainly a bad-mood bear. He started at rock bottom and he never recovered. He refused to answer any of the challenges or questions, and he even refused to answer a most reasonable question, asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—whether he thought that it was a good idea to establish an all-party group to discuss those all-important issues.
  In making a ludicrous personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the Minister showed only his ignorance about the general and regulatory role of the National House Building Council.
  The Minister said on many occasions that he did not want to anticipate the Deputy Prime Minister's forthcoming announcement. Could it perhaps be that he did not want to contradict the forthcoming announcement, as he has done in the past? Was his bad humour perhaps a cover for his confusion?
  The debate has therefore achieved the Opposition's purpose of bringing the Government to account on a critical policy sphere affecting the quality of life of so many of our citizens. Opposition Members have been alarmed by Ministers' statements about the green belt and by some of the decisions on appeal—particularly those in which Ministers have overruled planning inspectors to allow green-belt development or have refused to intervene to prevent it.
  In a debate on the subject on 12 November 1997, the Minister said:
  "I should make clear the fact that the target for reusing previously developed land remains at 50 per cent., the same as the previous Government's official target. Although the Green Paper floated a figure of 60 per cent as an aspirational target, and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development even suggested 75 per cent., we have not changed the target."
  He went on to say:
  "I can set targets, but if targets are not realistic, it is stupid for Governments to set them. I have set a target of 50 per cent"—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 867–68.]
  In this debate, Opposition Members have harried and put pressure on the Government. Although we have not succeeded in bringing the Deputy Prime Minister to the House to reply to the debate, we received a signed article from him in Monday's edition of The Times. The article repeatedly states that the green belt is safe with the Government. However, it also becomes clear in the article that the Deputy Prime Minister is overruling his own Minister's statement of 12 November 1997 to the House. We do not congratulate and thank the Deputy Prime Minister for much, but we congratulate and thank him for that.
  We saw that the Deputy Prime Minister's article in The Times began with the amazing statement that
  "When we say as a Labour Government that we won't run away from difficult decisions we mean it."
  202
  That came as a bit of a surprise to those of us who had read the revelations in the previous Friday's Local Government Chronicle about the Government's plans for local government.
  In a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government and Housing apparently said,
  "We need to be particularly careful in how we present the issues in the consultation papers … We should avoid boxing ourselves in too soon … but we will need to make it clear that more extreme options are ruled out."
  The Minister went on to say that her plans
  "may be presented as conflicting with expectations created by the announcement of the review, coverage in the local government press and the approach we have taken so far. There is a danger that … our new partnership approach to local government which we have proclaimed loudly to considerable acclaim from our own Backbenchers and local government would quickly break down".
  The Government's review of local government finance is all about running away from difficult decisions—on capping and council tax, and on business rates and central control. Why should we believe that the Government are not running away from the difficult decisions on the issue of household growth and development in the countryside?
  In the article to which so many hon. Members have referred in this debate, the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say that
  "People need decent homes to live in and they want to choose where to live … The number of households is growing faster than the number of people … If we fail to provide for household growth we risk making homes unaffordable and increasing homelessness."
  No right-thinking person would disagree with any of those platitudes. However, the key soundbite, which was developed by the spin doctors and led to a headline article in The Times was about moving
  "away from the old predict and provide philosophy in housing just as we have done in road building".
  I was sorry that it seemed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was almost taken in by the Deputy Prime Minister's statements. I submit to the House that, on close analysis, the Deputy Prime Minister was not really moving away from a "predict and provide" policy so much as engaging in transferring blame to the people. Later in the article, he said that he wants to involve the people and local authorities in discussing the issues of new household formation. However, unlike the Government's approach to traffic—in which they talk about addressing the causes of traffic growth—there is nothing in anything that the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister has said that addresses the issue of the causes of new household formation.
  More serious is the humbug of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that the Government want a system that is
  "less rigid, more democratic and more sustainable".
  That expression of good intention is totally at odds with the Government's decision to overrule the conclusion of the regional panel of experts that West Sussex county council should accommodate 37,900 more homes by 2011. The Secretary of State decided that the county must provide an additional one third. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal so succinctly said, that was an amazing intervention by a Minister. The House has not heard any justification of that decision or any

  203
  explanation of how the decision will fit in with the Government's stated policy. We wish to hear those explanations in the Minister's reply.
  If the Deputy Prime Minister means by "less rigid" more unpredictable, we can anticipate where it will get us, because the extraordinary decision in West Sussex was unpredictable. However, I am at a loss to comprehend how he thinks that the decision was "more democratic" or "more sustainable". What could be more democratic than a clear policy argued out at a public inquiry with an independent panel sitting in judgment? What could be more sustainable than a policy that recognises not only the need for more housing but the environmental impact of having too much housing? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, serious people go to panel inquiries, contribute to the debate and examine the evidence—as he did in the Somerset inquiry. It is beyond belief that, after all that process, the Government should come along and completely tear up the inquiry's decision.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater made a number of excellent points. I hope that Ministers will respond to his suggestion that there should be a shorter time frame for green-field allocations, perhaps coupled with a longer time frame for brown-field site developments. The current system is causing green-field allocations to be gobbled up more quickly by developers than the more difficult brown-field sites. His suggestion certainly merits further consideration.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal drew attention to all the contradictions in Government policy and reminded us of the outstanding way in which he developed a truly sustainable policy. It is a matter of great regret that the Government have not been following that same policy.
  Judging from the terms of the Government's amendment, there seems to be confusion among Ministers about the difference between green belt and green field. We saw during exchanges in the debate that Ministers do not seem to understand that there is a difference. The amendment refers to the Government's
  "continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts".
  What about the green belt that is not open countryside? Under Governments of both parties, it was a cardinal principle that the green belt should be protected in its own right because it is a break in continuous development. Issues relating to it are separate from those relating to the countryside. As soon as the Government say, "We shall not protect the green belt which is not countryside", people will despoil the land, and use it for storage and car parks. Over time, people will say that the land is such an eyesore that it must be built on. Previous Conservative Governments had a consistent policy to oppose such development.
  Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said that, to distinguish between the green belt and green-field sites was a mere scruple, a matter of no importance? Has not our defence of the green belt been fundamental? I remember only one occasion on which I gave permission—in very specific circumstances, due to jobs—for the green belt. The green field is different, and there
  204
  are different arguments about it. Was not the hon. Lady entirely wrong to allow her own constituency to be raped in such a way?
  Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If he had still been Secretary of State for the Environment, he would not have allowed the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) to get away with it. It is sad that her Government refused to intervene to protect the people of Hertfordshire. The Labour party was not the only party to be involved in the decision; the Liberal Democrats were right up to their necks in it as well.
  It has become apparent during the debate that Ministers have been listening too much to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). It is clear from his comments that he has captured the ear of the Government. He says that there is no space for any more development in Hove and that Hove needs to develop more in rural West Sussex. The attitude that he demonstrated in his remarks is indicative of the way in which the Government are pandering to anti-countryside feeling. The consequences of that for more enlightened Government Members, such as the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), and for the inner cities and urban areas are dire. I hope that Ministers will not listen to the hon. Member for Hove again. The way in which he attacked his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was incredible.
  The debate has highlighted once again the yawning gap between what Ministers say now and what they said in the past; between the new green rhetoric and the actuality; and between the picture that the Government paint with phrases such as
  "The green belt is safe with us"
  and the reality of their actions on the ground, where they override their own inspector to allow green-belt development. Is it any wonder that speculators are driving around our countryside seeking out landowners and paying them handsomely for options to buy land on which they expect to be able to obtain planning permission for development, as my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said?
  Both the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and the Minister for London and Construction have spoken publicly against 60 per cent. of development or more going on brown land. The Minister for London and Construction described that proposal, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, as a recipe for disaster. The Minister spoke out against the creation of residential densities exceeding those during the 1960s and 1970s, and said that there is a serious mismatch between where the brown-field sites are and where the housing demand is. That is totally compatible with the Government's decision on land in the green belt outside Newcastle.
  In replying to the debate, the junior Minister must say whether he still stands by his opinion that putting 60 per cent. of new development on brown-field sites is a recipe for disaster. Will he explain and justify the decisions concerning West Sussex and the green belt outside Newcastle, and the amazing decision to overrule the inspector in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield? Will the Government admit the errors of their ways, and make the green belt sacrosanct and development in open countryside development of last resort?
  7.15 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I very much welcome this debate. [Laughter.] I do, indeed. The subject of household requirements and how they are to be met is hugely serious and deserves the fullest and most careful consideration, which the Government are giving it. It is not a matter for scaremongering or sloganising, which is what we have heard from too many—although not all—Conservative Members. We are talking about people's need for homes, how we should protect the countryside and regenerate our towns and cities. We are discussing how we can achieve more sustainable development and improve the quality of people's homes and surroundings—whether they live in towns and cities or in the country. We are talking about how we can reconcile people's freedom of choice with responsibility for the environment.
  Mr. Richard Page rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: Many speeches in the debate have recognised the complexity of many of the issues. There were several thoughtful speeches. I would single out those of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who grappled with the considerable difficulties in reconciling often conflicting objectives in achieving a valid planning policy. This is a serious matter and deserves serious consideration.
  Other Opposition Members questioned the validity of the projections of 4.4 million households. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) all did so. I remind them that those projections were published by the previous Government and have been supported by two independent inquiries. Most previous projections have been underestimates. Evidence available to us—already seven years into the 25-year time frame—shows that there is no rational basis for amending the estimates.
  Some hon. Members highlighted the importance of social housing provision and the real need for more effective regeneration policies in the inner cities. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for City of Chester (Ms Russell) all focused on their areas and the need for more housing and for regeneration—and quite right too. There was a focus on the need for more devolution of decision making, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) of their care for achieving properly integrated and well-planned developments that will meet the needs of their areas.
  We heard a certain amount of scaremongering about the green belt from Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) also veered into that territory. He made the rather extraordinary claim that he had never sacrificed the green belt when in office. In a moment, we shall see the veracity of that claim.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister suggested that the estimate of 4.4 million homes was backed by independent reports and that all previous figures were underestimates. When rural planning is rationed and there is never as much building as developers would like, would not almost any figure be self-fulfilling? Builders will take up whatever opportunities they are given. The price may be affected, but the quantity of building will not.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation considered that in detail in its inquiry into planning for housing in the early 1990s, shortly after the projections were made. It concluded that there was no real basis for challenging the figures. Those who have looked at the issue most carefully do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Page rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: The Government are committed to maximising the opportunities for reusing brown-field sites. There are many things that we can and will do. We shall try to ensure a more level playing field for building on brown-field or green-field sites. That is why we have said that we want to open up a discussion on whether economic instruments can play a part in that. Secondly, we must encourage local authorities—
  Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a tradition of the House that the Minister who initially answers Opposition day debates attends for the wind-up? It is fully five minutes since the Minister started his speech. The Opposition wind-up started at 7 pm. There is no sign of the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. That is particularly irritating, because he has refused to see Conservative Members on issues such as the development of considerable amounts of green-belt land in Hertfordshire to the west of Stevenage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Who is on the Government Front Bench at the end of a debate is not a matter for me. It is entirely a matter for the Government.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has a commitment in Amsterdam, as part of our European presidency. He would have been here had the debate not been extended at the request of the Opposition.
  Mr. Page rose—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: The Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and private developers to use more imagination in the development of brown-field sites. The report from the round table on sustainable development—
  Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister who introduced the debate had an appointment abroad before the end of the debate—an extraordinary state of affairs demonstrating extraordinary priorities—would it not at least have been

  207
  reasonable for him to have presented his apologies when he spoke, rather than leaving his hon. Friend to pick up the pieces at the end?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that that is not a matter for me. We are only taking more time out of this debate and the next.
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall now have difficulty in responding as fully as I should like. Conservative Members will have to accept that I shall not be able to take interventions from them because of their abuse of the procedures of the House to score points.
  The Government must encourage local authorities and private developers to be more imaginative in using brown-field sites. The report from the round table on sustainable development suggested that many authorities could do more to assess the suitability of brown-field sites in their areas and make better use of them. They should explore the scope for raising densities or reducing car parking provision in appropriate cases, particularly near town centres.
  We also believe that the regional planning conferences and local authorities may be able to play a bigger part in achieving the best use of brown-field sites. The previous Government were the great centralisers. We want to decentralise decision-making whenever possible. We have already announced our proposals to extend the scope of regional planning guidance. Greater regional involvement in handling the household figures is an attractive option which we are seriously considering. There must also be greater regional input on how much recycling is feasible.
  However much brown-field development we achieve, some new homes will need to be built in the countryside. Even with a target of 75 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites, as Conservative Members have sometimes argued, there would still be—
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) tried to intervene three times on the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. He has tried to intervene four times now, but has not been allowed to do so. What is the point of having a debate if Ministers will not reply to reasonable questions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether Ministers give way is entirely a matter for them.
  Mr. Raynsford: As Conservative Members well know, I am only too willing to give way when there are no time pressures. When confronted with deliberate abuses of the procedures of the House by hon. Members who have raised spurious points of order, it is right that I should try to complete my speech and do justice to those—unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate.
  208
  Even if we opted for a target of 75 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites, as Conservative Members have sometimes argued, there would still be around 1 million new homes to be built in the countryside.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Raynsford: This is an abuse.
  Mr. Nicholls: I think that this may be a proper point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When responding to the debate, are not Ministers supposed to sum up the contributions made from both sides of the House? How can the Minister pretend that he is doing that when he is reading—albeit badly—from a typewritten script?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Raynsford: That most recent intervention—from someone who has not had the decency to attend the debate—was typical of the hon. Gentleman.
  As I was saying, there would still be 1 million homes to be built in the countryside. Are the Opposition willing to face that fact? Do they accept the projection of 4.4 million households? If they do not, they should explain why their Secretary of State published the figure and supported it. What target do they want for new homes on brown-field sites? Their figures go up and down like a yo-yo. Two years ago, in their housing White Paper, they suggested 50 per cent. That figure was repeated in the Green Paper issued by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, although he hinted that he might wish to raise it to 60 per cent. The Conservatives then talked about 75 per cent. Today we are told that they propose two thirds-66 per cent.
  Mr. Yeo rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall not give way. Sit down. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Raynsford: What has happened in the past nine months to change the previous policy? What is the basis for all the different figures?
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister, who has finally given way, after an extraordinary display of discourtesy from him, and one from the absent Minister. Our policy was to achieve a steady increase in the proportion of houses built on previously developed sites—up from 38 per cent. in 1985 to 50 per cent. when we left office. We campaigned on a manifesto commitment of more than 60 per cent. Today, we have confirmed that our figure is two thirds. What is the Government's figure?
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, we shall make our policy clear in a paper to be published in the near future. The Conservatives may change their figures on a whim simply to provide a convenient soundbite, but there is no serious research behind their figures and no authoritative justification for them. We have heard no sensible proposals tonight that would enable them to get near to the figures that they are plucking out of the air.
  Presumably, even the Conservatives recognise that, whatever target is chosen, some green-field development will be necessary. It does not take great feats of mental arithmetic—although the hon. Gentleman probably cannot manage work it out—to realise that even 66 per cent. leaves 34 per cent. still to be provided on green-field sites. Where would Conservative Members want that development to go? The answer from the Tories, sadly, has become all too obvious—the old selfish Tory attitude, "Anywhere, but not in my back yard." That is their policy.
  If we are to have a sensible debate on the issue, we must recognise that not all development in the countryside is necessarily bad. Many rural communities are crying out for additional housing and other developments so that they can stay alive. It could provide their residents, especially those on low incomes, with affordable housing, better facilities and more jobs.
  Of course, the development must be good quality. Developers and councils must work together to produce plans that enhance a sense of local identity that improves the sense of local community. Furthermore, some towns and large villages are especially suitable for sensible development—if, for example, they are located in good public transport corridors, and residents are therefore not dependent on the motor car to get to work—on the grounds that that is what sustainable development may mean.
  A key factor—
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here for most of the debate.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister talked about—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 297.

  Division No. 140]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Allan, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Amess, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  210

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Breed, Colin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burstow, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chidgey, David

  Luff, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dafis, Cynog

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moore, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Faber, David

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gorrie, Donald

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

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

  Greenway, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tyler, Paul

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wallace, James

  Keetch, Paul

  Wardle, Charles

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  211

  Webb, Steve

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that it was a Labour Government that created the planning system which has done so much to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and to regenerating towns and cities; recognises that the Government is shortly to announce its decisions on the way forward on planning for housing; is confident that the interests of all citizens, both the 80 per cent. and more who live in towns and cities, and those living in the countryside, will be considered; welcomes the importance that the Government attaches to revitalising towns and cities and making the best possible use of brownfield sites and existing buildings to meet housing demand; and believes that the regional planning conferences should be given greater say in reaching decisions on the most sustainable solutions for providing decent homes in line with the Government's recently announced policy for modernising the planning system and using regional planning to find integrated solutions to the problems of economic development, housing and transport.

London Underground
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Although there is no 10-minutes rule on this debate, I appeal for short speeches, so that as many hon. Members as possible can get into the debate.
7.46 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the delay of the Government in bringing forward proposals for private investment to develop London Underground; believes that such delay is against the interests of both those working for London Underground and the travelling public; and calls on the Government to bring forward urgently plans that will both sustain adequate investment in the system and improve operation.
We last raised the issue of London Underground more than seven months ago, in June. We did so because we wanted some clarity about the Government's position. In government, we set out our policies for bringing private investment to the underground. We did that in 1996 and, especially, in the statement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), in February 1997.
Those policies were rejected by the Labour party, and when it came to power it committed itself to what it termed a public-private partnership. The heads of London Underground were summoned to an urgent meeting with Ministers, literally within days of the Labour Government taking over, and the message went out from the Deputy Prime Minister that immediate action was wanted.
The Government's amendment to our Supply day motion in June asked the House to applaud
"the Government's swift action on options for public-private partnerships to improve the Underground".—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 866.]
The phrase "swift action" does not appear in the Government's amendment today. A lot of words appear, but not those; and for very good reason.
Seven months later, in January 1998, we have a better criterion for judging the Government's swift action on the London underground: nothing has happened; the Government train is lost in a tunnel; and, far from there being a sense of urgency, we know neither what their policy is or even what their concept of public-private partnership is. We know that there has been an argument between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury.
We know that the Paymaster General has resisted some of the wackier ideas coming from Transport Ministers about private investment; but while he sits contemplating his offshore trusts, the management of London Underground and, above all, the passengers, wait and wait for some glimmer of policy from Ministers.
That is not the only transport project held up by Ministers; others have similarly disappeared, as the Department has become the Bermuda triangle of Whitehall.
If we take National Air Traffic Services, for example, there is a clear need for investment. It is self-financing and part of a growth business. It would make complete sense to take it out of the public sector borrowing requirement and enable it to make use of commercial

215
sources of finance. But the Government continue to delay, prevented by the statements that they made in opposition from pursuing common-sense solutions in government. The same is true of the Government's policy on the underground. The policy has been brought to a halt on political grounds and not for any sound reason of transport policy.
No one doubts the importance of the London underground system. There are almost 800 million passenger journeys a year on the system. It is central to any policy to make public transport in London more attractive. No one doubts the potential of the system. If the regularity, reliability and quality can be improved—as they can—even more passengers can be attracted to the underground, with environmental and other benefits. The system is central to any policy to persuade more commuters to switch from car to public transport.
There is one other fact. We all know that only private investment can achieve the full potential of the system—that has been established beyond any doubt. It is the way forward, set out by the last Conservative Government. It is the way forward which Labour Ministers are reluctantly seeking to come to terms with.
Over the past 35 years, there has been substantial public investment in the underground system. In February 1997, the Transport Select Committee printed the evidence from London Transport on underground investment. This showed that since 1960, core investment—including renewals—has averaged £250 million a year at 1997–98 prices. That average was not brought down by the last Conservative Government—it was brought up. At no period during previous Labour Governments did their investment programme come up to £250 million—not once in the years that they were in power.
What brought the average up was the investment programme of the last Conservative Government—particularly from the mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s, we invested £3 billion in the underground. Even earlier than that—at the time I took over as Secretary of State for Transport—we managed substantially to improve the investment programme left by the previous Labour Government. We take no lessons from the Labour party on capital investment. Anyone who can remember anything about politics will remember the capital cuts imposed by the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) would like to correct any of the figures that I have given, I will gladly give way.
Ms Oona King indicated dissent.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Lady will take part in the debate with her usual skill.
As virtually every commentator now agrees, the future lies with private investment. What is more, given the right plan, there is no reason why private investment cannot be attracted to London Underground for the infrastructure and the rolling stock. Given the right policies, we could be standing on the verge of the most exciting modernisation programme for London Underground since the war.
What are the Government waiting for? We all know one reason for the delay. They know that private investment is the only way forward, but they cannot bring
216
themselves to set out a policy which could be called privatisation. Their heart is not in private investment. Let us take the voyage of discovery of the Deputy Prime Minister as an example. Back in 1981—when I was Secretary of State for Transport—when we were denationalising the ports of the British Transport Docks Board and some of the subsidiaries of British Rail, such as the hotels, in the Transport Bill of that year, no one could have been more hostile than the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Prime Minister wound up for the Opposition and said:
"Nationalised industries have been disadvantaged by successive Governments over the past few years. They have not received sufficient money for investment. That is the unpalatable fact. That was because of Treasury rules on the amount of investment …
It should be made clear to all who seek to buy shares in these companies that they will not benefit from their action. As soon as the Labour Opposition are returned to power, they will take the quickest means possible to regain control of these sectors and to withdraw the obstacles that have prevented their development in the past."—[Official Report, 13 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 932.]
We are still waiting for that action. That shows the authentic voice of the Deputy Prime Minister. He wants to see the Treasury rules relaxed, the continuation of public ownership and the expansion of public investment. That is a perfectly legitimate position. It was, after all, the position of the Labour party for most of its period in opposition. There was nothing about private investment in Labour's speeches—that came very late on the scene.
The only trouble with that traditional Labour party view is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with it. As the Chancellor is, according to his own account, the real Prime Minister—with only a vague President figure above him—the Chancellor's will prevails. The result is that Transport Ministers have been desperately trying to find some half-way house between privatisation and the present public ownership system. That is a fact. Yet as they work, examples of successful private investment come in to mock their efforts.
On Friday, I was at Heathrow airport, looking at the transport infrastructure there. The British Airports Authority—itself privatised—is now on the verge of opening the brand new Heathrow Express service all the way into the airport. The cost of £440 million will be borne by the company—that is the investment. A privatised company setting up and financing an entirely new railways service; that would never have happened in the public sector. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. John McDonnell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman was on the inaugural journey, when the train broke down.
Sir Norman Fowler: I wish I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to get him to concentrate on this point. It is true that customers have to be taken on by coach, but, over the next month, we will have a service which goes right through to the terminal. I would have thought that anyone interested in transport, London and the travelling public would welcome that. Yet a trivial point is raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. The intervention was so trivial the first time that I cannot bear to hear it the second time.

217
Railtrack plans to spend more than £10 billion over the next 10 years renewing and developing the rail network. Let us take the joint investment programme to transform the west coast main line—my local line back to Birmingham, about which the Minister conceivably knows a little. Some £2.1 billion has been invested by Railtrack and £750 million by the Virgin rail group for new trains. That would not have been achieved in the public sector. There is no doubt about that. Local Members of Parliament pressed British Rail to do that year after year, but it was not done.
More frequent and reliable trains will result in the journey time to Manchester being cut eventually to one hour 45 minutes, and the journey time to Birmingham being cut to under one hour 15 minutes. By any standards, those are dramatic improvements. However, rather than taking the obvious course of privatisation, Labour Ministers go round and round the course again, seeking other options.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and much of what he says about the past investment record is true. Just to ensure that the record is clear for this debate, does the Conservative party now argue that London Underground should in future have no public investment—that it should be entirely privatised and all its funding raised by the private sector in the private market?
Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come to that point and to our proposed solution; it is integral to the argument that I am developing. First, however, let me draw attention to the fact that, by any standards, the privatisation of the railway system has led to tremendous gains for investment in the system. Of course we have not seen the full product yet. It would be unrealistic to say that we had done so or that we could do so in the next year or two, but I do not doubt that in the next three, four or five years it will become obvious that the system is in the process of being transformed.
With that evidence, and with that proof, I find it curious that Labour Ministers, instead of taking the obvious course of privatisation—the obvious course of private investment—seek other options, which become progressively more complex and which, in the end, in my view, are unlikely to serve the interests of the public. For the purposes of this transport debate, we must decide whose side we are on. We are not on the side of the providers. We are not on the side of the unions. The criterion is the interests of the travelling public.
Mr. Roger Casale: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the obvious course of privatisation. If it is such an obvious course, I wonder whether he can name a single major city in the European Union with an underground system that has seen the light and followed the course of privatisation.
Sir Norman Fowler: One could have said that about any of the privatisations that successive Conservative Governments initiated from 1979 onwards. I can remember it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall tell him that his intervention was very similar to the argument used by the present Deputy Prime Minister when he opposed the denationalisation of the British Transport Docks Board. "How many ports have
218
been in private ownership?" asked Labour Members at the time. Well, we denationalised the ports and it has been a remarkable success. That does not constitute an argument.
An option that the Government are now examining—many say their favourite—is to divide the infrastructure company from the operating company and to keep the operating company in public ownership while giving, say, 30-year leases to two or three infrastructure companies. By any standards, that is a fairly complex proposal, but basically, the objections to it are twofold. First, it is obviously fundamentally different from the Railtrack solution, because in that case both infrastructure provider and operator are in the private sector and have similar interests in developing the business.
It is no secret that the management of London Underground does not want the system to be broken up; it has made that clear. However, I can think of few worse ways of dividing the system than to keep the operator in the public sector and divide the infrastructure by granting three private leases. There is unlimited potential for dispute in such a system. That option might please one or two unions, but it will not benefit the travelling public in London.
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, we object to the idea that the operating company stays in so-called public ownership. Experience has shown that the advantages of privatisation go far beyond giving companies investment freedom. That is only part of the case for privatisation. The other part is that it gives management more freedom to manage. All too often, public ownership means management interference from civil servants and Ministers—people who have never experienced running a business. That is the management case for privatisation.
The most remarkable feature of successful privatisation has been that the success of privatised companies has been achieved, not by importing shoals of new managers into the company, but by empowering existing management. I mentioned the British Transport Docks Board. Its success as Associated British Ports and as one of the top 200 British companies has been achieved by many of the managers and staff who worked for it before privatisation—the vast majority.
I shall now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In my view, the real options for London Underground are the three options that were set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire when he was Transport Secretary in February 1997. The three options were the sale of London Underground as a single business; the sale or franchising of, let us say, three vertically integrated lines or groups of lines, under which a single operator would also be responsible for track and the stations; or a structure, like the national railway, with a private sector track authority and private sector operator.
I would prefer three vertically integrated companies. However, whatever form such a privatisation took, the 10 commitments that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire gave to passengers under the previous Government would obviously continue—commitments such as safety, through-ticketing and concessionary fares.
I emphasise two other commitments. In my view, employee ownership would be much preferable to so-called public ownership; it would be much better

219
to give those working for the underground a real stake in its success. Secondly, the proceeds of such a privatisation should be ploughed back into the system, not into the Treasury, as we said before the general election.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has only partly answered my question. Can he confirm that none of the options that he described would require extra public investment—that the only public investment, so to speak, would be the recycled profit on the private operation, which would be ring-fenced and put back into the system?
Sir Norman Fowler: The proceeds would obviously go back into the system. One can visualise—just as one can in the case of the railways—that a service or part of the system might be uneconomic at some time, but obviously the aim would be to make it self-sufficient. It would be foolish to close all doors.
The Conservatives have consistently proposed a way forward for the underground—a way which benefits passengers, involves staff and gives freedom to management. The Labour party has criticised that, but has come up with precisely nothing in the way of policy in its place. We wait, as do underground passengers, until the issue reaches the top of the Deputy Prime Minister's in-tray.
Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He said that in February 1997, the Transport Secretary was left with little option but to privatise the London underground system. Surely that was because the November Budget of 1996 had drastically cut public investment to London Transport. I received a letter in February 1997 from Denis Tunnicliffe, managing director of London Underground Ltd, who spoke of the "crushing blow" dealt to London Underground's investment plans as a result of the overall London Transport funding settlement in the last Tory Budget of November 1996. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that? The Transport Secretary in 1997 had few other options open to him.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a speech in the middle of mine, and I shall seek to respond to it. I did not say that our Transport Secretary was forced into a position where he had to choose privatisation; that is not my argument. I have already covered the investment situation, and I emphasise again that Conservative Governments' record on investing in London Underground is infinitely better than that of any Labour Government that we have had since 1960. That is the position and the Minister knows it. Everyone knows that that is the position.
The advantage of privatisation is not to do with one year's public spending or another year's public spending, it is that we can bring the underground to the position where it can be developed and realise its full potential. That is the case that I am putting. We have consistently said that that is the way forward. The Government have consistently opposed and criticised that, but have come up with no policy. We wait and underground passengers wait until that issue arrives at the top of the Deputy Prime Minister's in-tray.
220
Let us make no mistake. I have to say in all courtesy that no one speaking from the Treasury Bench this evening is in any position to make a decision. Even the sparkling good humour of the Minister for Transport in London cannot disguise the fact that the organ grinder is employed elsewhere trying to sort out another problem of Government, and, without the organ grinder, we are left with the assistants.
There is a fundamental point here which goes to the heart of the new giant Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which the Government have created. I am old enough to remember that the last time Labour was in power, it took credit for doing exactly the opposite of what this Government have done. At that stage, the Labour Government separated transport and the environment into two Departments, saying that it showed the importance that they placed on transport. That was their case. They set it out and took credit for it. They went round the country saying how clever they had been in separating out environment and transport matters. Now they have put them together again and, in an altogether typical way, have gone round the country claiming credit for yet another U-turn of policy.
The Conservative Government continued with the previous model—the separation of the two Departments—I believe correctly. Under the present structure in Whitehall, decision making is a slow and cumbersome process. The issues pile up, but no one, apart from the Deputy Prime Minister, has the power to act. That is no way to run transport matters, and it is certainly no way to develop the underground.
The people who matter most in the debate are the travelling public. They have been badly served by the Government's undoubted delay. No one can seriously deny the delay that has taken place. Even worse, they now face the prospect that the Government will produce a half-baked scheme that will satisfy no one. The tragedy is that the Government are set to miss an outstanding opportunity to develop the underground to its full potential, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to support our motion.
8.12 pm
The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"wants to see a modern, efficient, affordable and reliable Underground system, worthy of the people of London, and accountable to the people of London; deplores the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which this Government inherited from the previous administration; applauds the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and welcomes the Government's action to explore options for a public-private partnership for the London Underground, which will safeguard its commitment to the public interest, guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers, and secure the resources necessary to ensure Londoners and visitors to the capital city have the modern Underground system they deserve.".
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for again raising the important issue of the future of London Underground. It is seven months since we last debated this important issue in the House. Contrary to the picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman, we have been far from idle during those seven months. I am happy to report that we have made good progress, and I expect that we shall be in a position soon to set out our proposals.

221
The challenge facing us, which I fully recognise, is to get on with finding a solution to London Underground's funding problems, and to make sure that we find the right solution. We know that the underground is crucial to London's success. It is far too important and valuable an asset for us to take chances or to rush into a snap decision. Nor are we approaching this from an ideological standpoint which says that all that is public is good and all that is private is bad. That distinguishes our approach to the matter and other major transport issues from that of the previous Administration.
Labour Members know full well that both the public and private sectors have a part to play in Britain's success. That is why we talk of the need to develop a public-private partnership for the underground—a new model that will see us harness the best that the public and private sectors have to offer.
I am happy to say again that wholesale privatisation is simply not an option for us. For decades, investment in the underground has been below that needed properly to maintain the system. For 18 years, the Conservative Government failed to tackle the problem. It is preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to present that wholly fictional, rosy account of investment in the underground under the Conservative Government. He knows perfectly well of the failure to make provision for the overrun in the Jubilee line and the huge investment backlog which the Government have inherited from the previous Administration.
After years of neglect, the previous Government, in their last few months in office, effectively attempted to abdicate their responsibility by taking an axe to the underground's grant in the 1996 Budget, as has been pointed out, and also announcing their discredited and rightly unpopular plans for wholesale privatisation.
That was the Labour Government's inheritance. The right hon. Gentleman now has the effrontery to criticise the Government for not yet having brought forward their modernising plan. I remind him that, under the previous Government's ill-prepared scheme for wholesale privatisation, action on the investment backlog would not have begun until 2001. The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that.
Many hon. Members are familiar with the leaked memorandum which I have in my hand from the then Secretary of State for Transport to the Prime Minister, clearly showing that their plans for wholesale privatisation had not been worked out in any substance, and confirming that there would be no question of the privatisation leading to any addressing of the huge investment backlog until 2001 at the earliest.
It ill becomes the Conservative party to tell the Government that, after nine months, we are somehow letting Londoners down because we have not yet produced our detailed plans, which we shall produce shortly for rescuing London Underground from years of neglect.
Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman said several times that he is against the wholesale privatisation of London Underground. What exactly does he mean by that? Does he mean that the operating company will remain in public hands? Can he confirm that that is the position?
Dr. Strang: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what I mean by wholesale privatisation. I mean what was
222
referred to in the memorandum. After a cursory discussion of what might be received from the privatisation of London Underground, which was about £600 million—it goes on to suggest that people might have to be paid to take it away—it states:
"This is a very basic analysis, undertaken before we have chosen a structural option for the privatised underground, before we have fully considered restructuring costs, before we have discussed the details with London Underground and several years in advance of privatisation."
That is wholesale privatisation. That is what the Government had in mind for the underground. Of course we reject that absolutely.
Sir Norman Fowler: But what does the hon. Gentleman mean by it?
Dr. Strang: I shall come to that.
There have been three main strands to our work on the issue, all of which are now coming together. Let me dispose first of all the hearsay that the right hon. Gentleman peddled yet-again that there is some sort of disagreement between the Treasury and Transport Ministers on the issue. On the contrary, I can tell him that there is tremendous expertise in the Treasury on the issue of public-private partnerships. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I value very much the help and advice that we are receiving from the Treasury on public-private partnership. That is the position and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise it, rather than just quote some tittle-tattle and hearsay from the newspapers.
Let me outline the work that we are doing. On the underground, last July we appointed Price Waterhouse to advise us on the structural options most likely to meet our objectives. The terms of reference that we set for that exercise, in accordance with our manifesto policy, were, first, to safeguard and improve London Underground's service to passengers, with agreed safety standards; secondly, to ensure that London Underground contributes towards an integrated transport strategy for London; thirdly, quickly to reduce or eliminate the underground's investment backlog; fourthly, to provide value for money for the taxpayer; and, fifthly, to attract private sector investment. We encouraged Price Waterhouse to explore any option or permutation it thought would meet those objectives.
We have already set out the various approaches that Price Waterhouse considered. Those included debt funding, with continued public ownership; various partnership structures, including full and partial concessions and joint ventures; and new operational structures, including various ways of dividing London Underground into separate businesses. Price Waterhouse reported back to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last October.
I stress that in all our considerations safety must be our top priority. It is impossible to think about safety without remembering the terrible tragedy at King's Cross 10 years ago.
Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has quoted from the Price

223
Waterhouse report at some length. Does not that mean that the report must now be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for Ministers to decide whether to place in the Library documents on which they comment at the Dispatch Box, unless they are official documents.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The document is an official study, sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Minister is relying on it for his arguments to the House. The custom has always been that such documentation should be available to the whole House, so that it may judge whether the Minister's interpretation of it has been selective or bowdlerised. We need to have access to the document. I insist that that has been our practice.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that it is an external report, which has been provided for the Minister's benefit. If it is not and it is an official document, the Minister will have heard the comments that have been made.
Dr. Strang: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I show a little hesitation, it is because I resent those wholly bogus points of order, particularly from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield knows perfectly well the rules of the House. I did not quote from the document, but simply set out the criteria. You and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the point of order is bogus, and it ill behoves the right hon. Gentleman to waste the time of the House in such a short debate.
Much has been done to improve safety on the underground since the King's Cross tragedy, and valuable lessons have been learnt. We are very clear in our commitment that safety will be an integral part of the public-private partnership that we are developing. We consulted the Health and Safety Commission as part of the process of developing our proposals. The commission will continue to be fully involved in ensuring that passengers and workers have adequate protection.
Price Waterhouse's analysis has been most valuable, and has been central to our deliberations. However, we have sought to bring London Transport and London Underground into the process, drawing on their considerable expertise and knowledge. I am extremely grateful for their helpful and co-operative attitude, from board level downwards. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work that London Underground staff put into running services every day, in the face of crumbling infrastructure. This year, London Underground is set to run a record number of train kilometres—more than 62 million—and passenger numbers have risen by 7 per cent. this year.
Thus, we have Price Waterhouse's work and London Transport's analysis, and we have received a number of useful submissions and representations from other sources: the trade unions, the London Passenger Watchdog Committee and London First, to name but
224
a few. We are now close to reaching decisions on the way forward. In reaching those decisions, we want to take account of all the views we have heard.
We have in mind the two other initiatives to which I referred earlier: our plans for the governance of London; and our development of an integrated transport policy.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened to what the Minister has said and dissent from none of it. The report has been with the Government for three months, and wholesale privatisation has been ruled out. Will there be a majority public sector stake in London Underground, or is it still the case, even after nine months, that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out?
Dr. Strang: I cannot pre-empt our announcement to the extent that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I understand his wish for that, but, at this stage, while we can rule out wholesale privatisation—we did so in our manifesto and continue to do so—the nature of the public-private partnership is yet to be decided. There are several permutations. To be fair to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, he referred to several theoretical options, some of which could be wholly in the private sector and some of which could be partially in the private sector.
We set out our proposals for an elected mayor and an assembly for London in a Green Paper last July, since when we have received a great many responses. One of the key messages to come through—this will come as no surprise to London Members of Parliament—is the importance of transport for London. London Transport and London Underground provide many of the services that are the lifeblood of London.
Last year, for the third year running, Healey and Baker's annual survey of European cities rated London the best city in which to locate a business. Communications and access to markets are cited as the dominant factors in determining where to locate. London is regarded as offering excellent access to markets, and ranks first in terms of external and internal transport services.
Let me state unequivocally that we know London's importance as a world city, and we are committed to safeguarding and promoting that role, because the whole country benefits from London's pre-eminent position. We also know that, for many people—probably for many of us in this Chamber—London is defined in terms of Frank Pick's famous tube map. It is a symbol of London, which is known throughout the world. London is the capital of the United Kingdom. Modernising its transport system is a London priority, but it is also a UK priority.
We have been working hard, since the consultation period on our London Green Paper ended in October, on the details of our proposals. The Green Paper posed more than 60 questions, and we have considered carefully all the views that we received. We will publish a White Paper in March, in good time for hon. Members and the people of London to digest before the referendum in May.
That does not mean that we shall leave Londoners waiting for the next two years and more before the underground's problems are addressed. London deserves better than that. Subject to the outcome of the referendum, we shall introduce a Bill in the autumn to establish a

225
Greater London authority. The Bill will make London Transport more accountable to the people of London. It is surely right that London Transport should be accountable to Londoners. The Bill will also include the provisions necessary to enable a public-private partnership for London Underground to be implemented.
In the meantime, given all the options that we are considering, London Underground will be able to make substantial progress in implementing a public-private partnership before the Greater London Authority Bill is enacted. That could start immediately after we announce our plans to the House. One of the main elements of the White Paper will be our proposals for establishing a better approach to the delivery of transport services for London.
The new London assembly will have responsibility for buses and the tube. It will have influence over the development of rail services and responsibility for roads, strategic planning and land use. For all those reasons, London will have the opportunity to develop fully integrated transport systems for the benefit of Londoners.
Last August, we published a consultation document on developing an integrated transport policy for the whole country. Around 6,500 people took the time and trouble to respond. Around two thirds of the responses were from individuals, the rest from businesses, lobby groups and transport academics. We have been impressed by the effort that has obviously been put into them.
Many responses highlighted the need to improve public transport, in particular by ensuring more reliable services, better timetabling information and better interchange facilities with other modes. Our work on a public-private partnership for London Underground must address those concerns. We are working towards publication of a White Paper on an integrated transport policy this spring. We are determined to develop an integrated approach to transport planning and investment that enables us to make the best use of the infrastructure we already have and to plan our investment strategy to target resources where they are most needed.
Good communications are central to our overall aim of a lasting improvement in everyone's quality of life. London already has a higher than average proportion of public transport trips, but we cannot sustain and build on that with a crumbling infrastructure. As we have been debating these matters, many Londoners have had to make their way home through shabby stations and walk-down escalators and waited too long for overcrowded trains. That must end. Londoners deserve a modern transport system of which they can be proud. This Government are determined to provide them with just that.
8.30 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: What a pleasure it was to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Unlike any Labour Member, he is a former Transport Minister with a successful record. He was a notable moderniser in his day. He has come back refreshed from his sabbatical term with his family to give a magisterial critique as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of the Government's rambling and vacuous amendment to our motion.
We heard no concrete substantive proposals from Labour. All we know is that the Labour party had 18 long years to think how to run the London Transport underground system better, but, at the end of all that time,
226
it has had to go to Price Waterhouse. We are not vouchsafed a glimpse or a genuine quote, let alone the document itself, to study. Perhaps it is a good thing we cannot see it, because I suspect that Labour will ignore any sensible advice when its predilection has always been to follow its ideological predispositions.
My constituents, as the Minister described when he was trying to tug at our heart strings, genuinely suffer considerable inconvenience in getting to work. They are reliant on three lines: the Metropolitan, Piccadilly and Central lines. The London Transport underground system is crucial to many of them in getting to and from their work. Since the Labour Government came to power—one must remember that they came to power on effusive promises to improve the London transport system—nothing has happened, except a substantial increase, way above inflation, in underground rail fares.
One should in justice record the background. My constituents at the same time have to pay considerable extra mortgage payments. Mortgage interest rates have gone up five times. If they take to their cars, traffic jams are as bad as ever they were, but fuel duty has gone up. Their pensions will probably be less good at the end of their working lives, because of the abolition of dividend interest tax relief.
In every way, their living standards and quality of life are being squeezed. They are getting more and more resentful, because, as with health, so in transport, they see with every day that passes that all the rhetoric of the Labour party at the general election was no more than that: pure rhetoric. Labour has yet to come up with any satisfactory, concrete proposals for improving the system.
The Labour party is effusive in its criticism of our proposals, but privatisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly said, has worked in transport as in so many other areas. We all have our own model, but I prefer privatisation of the whole system. Like him, I think that the key to privatisation success for the underground would be not only a public subscription of shares but a share issue on very preferential terms for those who work in the London Transport underground.
Mr. Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the benefits of privatisation. Last evening, a young east European tourist was raped and left for dead in the lavatory of a Connex South Eastern train. She was not found until the train was on its way back to the south coast. Does he consider that a glowing example of the benefits of privatisation?
Mr. Wilkinson: No. That has nothing to do with privatisation. Anti-social, criminal behaviour has taken place on British Rail rolling stock as it did in the tragic incident last night. The hon. Gentleman is letting his understandable emotion at that heinous crime get the better of his political judgment.
It is crucial that there should be additional investment, and fast. The model proposed by the Labour party is a recipe for confusion, even more delay and uncertain delivery of service. I do not understand how Labour can believe that leaving the running of the rolling stock and the operation of the system in the public sector, with some of the track networks hived off on shortish leases to the private sector, could work. The Minister would have done the House a service had he explained his view of those

227
suggestions, because, from what we read in the press, they appear to be the ones most favoured by the Labour Government at present.
The manifesto for London that the Labour party produced at the general election says that, in privatisation,
"public assets would be sold off cheap. Much-needed investment would be delayed."
The delay in investment is clear from the indecision of the Labour party in government.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: My constituents and commuters who live in Harwich and Clacton are suffering the consequences of rail privatisation on their lines: delays, derailments and all sorts of other things. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that they need advice from someone who wrecked not only the railways, but, through deregulation, bus services? They need no lessons from Conservative Members.
Mr. Wilkinson: No one is seeking to deliver lessons. Serious-minded Members are trying to come up with solutions that will meet the vexatious problem of public transport in London. London's transport infrastructure has been in need of further investment for far too long. The Treasury is clearly unable to provide adequate funding. It certainly did not in the Labour party's period in office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not here. He was perhaps the most interested in the London transport system. The hon. Member was a pioneer of low fares, but he found that low fares, if discounted to an excessive degree, only produced a further deficit, and gravely damaged the financial strength of London Transport Underground. It is only since LTU introduced more realistic pricing that its finances have been restored to a semblance of order and balance.
LTU cannot always be reliant on the Treasury, and, in current circumstances, it is plain that even the Labour Government recognise it. What is required is an incentive for everybody in LTU to perform to the best of their ability and to have an opportunity thereby to build up profits for themselves and for the system. I can see no model other than privatisation which would be able to achieve it.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: I wish to make one final point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Any model, be it a public-private partnership or wholesale privatisation, will require a regulator, but I do not believe that the mayor of London and his authority are the people to provide that function. We shall need a regulator set up with the very strictest statutory obligation to be independent of politics. The worst thing for LTU's future would be for the management of the system to be second-guessed or interfered with by the Greater London authority and/or the mayor.
It is also instructive to note that the Labour Government do not even propose that constituency representatives should sit on the GLA. My constituents and those of my
228
hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who are so dependent on the efficiency of the system for their commuting, will have no certainty that sitting on that authority will be a representative with those interests in mind, because there will be no geographical connection between constituencies and representation on the authority.
Mr. McDonnell: I rise in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), whose name has been mentioned. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the critical issue relating to London Transport in the 1980s was the lack of infrastructure investment? Such investment was controlled by the House through a money Bill procedure, whereby the GLC submitted an annual money Bill to be voted on by the House. Each year, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against that money Bill, and so started the erosion of infrastructure investment, against the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and others of us who served on the GLC.
Mr. Wilkinson: The facts speak for themselves and are vividly displayed in the pillargram on page 2 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Transport's study of London transport, which was produced in the last Session of Parliament. It can easily be seen that investment shot up in the latter years of the Conservative Administration, and that Labour' s performance during its term in office was never even remotely comparable. Those are the facts.
I do have some sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Brent, East in that I believe that LTU could be more imaginative in its fares structure. I would advocate, for example, an early-bird discounted fare to encourage people to get on the tube before the rush hour. At present, the travelcard comes in at 9.30 am, but people should be encouraged to get on the tube really early with a tempting discounted fare.
There should also be a night-owl travelcard to discourage people from using their cars to go to the theatre in the evening, just as the early-bird fare might discourage people from taking to their cars and making the morning rush hour worse. There is a great deal to be done in fares policy, but that is the sort of thing which a privatised LTU system would have all the commercial incentive to do.
I was struck by the Minister's claim to be a moderniser as, in the current Administration, it has little credibility—he has many qualities, but I do not regard him as a moderniser. I had hoped—perhaps vainly and wholly futilely—that the Minister would come up with some ideas for how the LTU network could be improved and extended in future. He cannot do so, because, even with public-private partnerships, the system would continue to be heavily reliant on funding from the Exchequer, and he cannot surmise what would be available. If the network were in private hands, there would be much more chance that some of the exciting projects we need would come off.
Those projects include the Croxley link, which would extend the Metropolitan line through Watford high street to Watford Junction railway station, where it would join up with the west coast railway line to the north-west. It could be built at relatively small cost. The Jubilee line

229
extension could be accelerated. Last but not least, a project that has been on ice for far too long for lack of funding—crossrail—could get off the ground. It genuinely is the high-speed rail link we need for the next century.
8.46 pm
Ms Linda Perham: I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I welcome the debate and I am pleased that the Opposition are so concerned about the future of the London underground that they have chosen it again as the subject of one of their precious Opposition day debates, seven months after the first on 25 June 1997.
Mr. Geraint Davies: They have no imagination.
Ms Perham: It demonstrates to me, to other hon. Members and to the public at large that, as my hon. Friend says, they have no imagination or no shame—perhaps neither. Perhaps they think that the Labour Government are doing so well that there is nothing else worth talking about.
I have travelled on the underground for many years, and my constituency contains eight Central line stations. The underground has always been my preferred mode of travel to work and, when I lived in south-east London, where I was born, I often envied the residents of other parts of London with easier access to the underground. When I moved to live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), in 1969 under a Labour Government, the Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines that conveyed me to County hall, where I worked in the Greater London council research library, provided an invariably reliable service.
When I married, several years later, my husband and I decided that we wanted to live not more than five minutes' walk from an underground station, which is how we came to settle in Hainault in the Ilford, North constituency at the eastern end of the Central line. Unfortunately, in the 25 years we have lived in the constituency, we have seen that once excellent service deteriorate. In the November 1996 Budget, the Conservative Government demonstrated in an obvious and cynical way their lack of commitment to that vital public transport service, by slashing London Transport's core funding grant and landing London Underground with an estimated £480 million overspend on the Jubilee line extension. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) drew attention to that in his intervention.
That happened despite the document "A Transport Strategy for London", which the Department of Transport published in April 1996. It stated:
"The Government would hope to maintain London Underground investment at broadly the current level until the investment backlog has been eliminated."
Opposition Members may try in vain to defend the Conservative Government's investment record, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London said in her reply to the debate on 25 June, the Tory planned investment was
"set to fall from £312 million this year to £197 million next year … the same level of investment as in 1976."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 898.]
230
For my constituents, fares have risen steadily since the great "fares fair" initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in the early 1980s, and the service has declined. When I chaired the highways committee of the London borough of Redbridge in 1995–96, I also chaired the London Transport liaison group, whose meetings—then, as now—were regularly attended by the general manager of the Central line, Geoff Thackwray. That long-suffering, honest individual bravely defended his service, listened to complaints and made improvements where possible. His patience and helpfulness are much appreciated by elected representatives and residents alike.
Because of the provision of so many Central line stations in Ilford, North, many working people choose employment in the City, central London and even west London, as my husband and I have over the years. In fact, more than 60 per cent. of Redbridge residents travel to work outside the borough, the majority using the underground. I am convinced from the feedback that we received before and after the general election in May that the problems of London Underground, and dissatisfaction with Conservative policies on London's public transport, played a significant part in the determination of the people of Ilford, North and other London constituencies to rid themselves of the previous Government. North-east London saw huge swings to Labour in May; apart from my swing of 17.3 per cent., my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)— representing users of the Victoria and District lines—achieved swings of 17.9, 16 and 15.4 per cent. respectively.
A month before the general election, on 2 April 1997, the Evening Standard—which is hardly a consistent supporter of Labour, old or new—featured a full-page editorial entitled, "Our tube system—the Tory shame". It stated:
"Over the last five years, this vital public service has been betrayed and short-changed by a Government which has often seemed resentful of its very existence. The result is that the Tube, despite the best efforts of London Underground management, is gradually breaking down."
That editorial went on to cite massive power failures, signalling problems—Central line commuters like me know all about those—mechanical and infrastructure problems, an increase in crime and reductions in staff. All those problems stemmed from a single cause, said the Evening Standard:
"this Government's gradual withdrawal of funding from London Underground."
The editorial concluded:
"As the Tories seek London's votes on 1 May, the first charge they should be asked to answer on their record of the past 18 years is that of betraying the vital services of Britain's capital. And what minister will lack the shame to blush and hide his face when the question is put?"
People in London delivered their verdict and voted in their thousands, because they wanted action to be taken to provide Londoners with a proper transport service: a service to get them to work on time, to take them for their leisure to our great theatres, museums and other sights of London—buildings such as this very place—and to send visitors away at the end of their stay with a good impression of travelling in the capital. Those people did not want a service with ever rising fares, struggling to

231
survive, its investment programme savaged, consigned to being run down and sold off. The new Labour Government came to office pledged to a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system for London, promising a new public-private partnership to improve the underground, run in the public interest and providing value for money.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—the Deputy Prime Minister and organ grinder—and his team have been working hard in the months since the election to find the right solution for the funding of the underground. Opposition Members could not get that right in 18 years, but they accuse us of delay in the short time for which we have been in office. In the end, pathetically, they offered up only wholesale privatisation. This Government will deliver a London underground service with an integrated transport system for a London returned to democratic accountability: a capital service for the greatest city in the world.
8.54 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the debate, but I am surprised—as I was on 25 June, when the Tories last tabled the subject for debate—that they have chosen to highlight the sorry state of the tube system, thereby drawing attention to their own poor record in their last year of office.
I know that a week is a long time in politics. Eight months is obviously long enough for collective amnesia and, perhaps, for DOR syndrome—denial of responsibility syndrome—to set in on the Tory Benches. The first signs of that syndrome emerged in the earlier debate about developments in the countryside, during which members of the official Opposition came out as born-again Swampys. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.
Let no one forget that it was the Tories who tried to flog off the tube for the paltry sum of £600 million—a plan which they hastily dropped when it was leaked to Londoners—when it had property assets valued at up to £13 billion. The Tories must take the lion's share of the blame for leaving the tube with a backlog of repairs equivalent to no less than £170 per Londoner, a delayed Tory tax bombshell which will hit Londoners sooner or later. That is the legacy of the previous Government's "heavy investment programme".
The business community supports the view that the previous Government failed London. London First has said that
"the last Government cut public funding for the existing system below the level needed even to sustain it in its present condition, in spite of the fact that they accepted that there was a £1.2 billion backlog"—
a backlog of repairs, that is. The Confederation of British Industry has said that
"there has been serious under-investment for a long time".
With a record such as theirs on the tube, Conservative Members should mind the credibility gap. They praise railway privatisation to the heavens, but conveniently forget the increased subsidy that has gone to the privatised railways—a subsidy of £2 billion—and the declining services provided by the train operating companies. Conservative Members should be a little more
232
circumspect in their praise of railway privatisation. Moreover, they have completely fallen down the credibility gap by attacking this Government's proposals on the basis of their complexity, and the communication difficulties that might arise if the system were split. That is rich, coming from a Government who introduced a host of communication difficulties by privatising the railways.
What of the new Government's record? We know that before the election and since, they have ruled out wholesale privatisation. In July, they commissioned a report on the future of the tube. In late September or early October, Price Waterhouse delivered its findings. Since then, not much has happened. A series of leaks have appeared in various papers, and extracts from the Price Waterhouse report have been read to us tonight.
The Times reported on 24 September:
"Tony Blair is to back controversial recommendations to privatise London Underground by splitting it into as many as four parts and selling up to 51 per cent. of the businesses".
The Financial Times stated on 16 January:
"Ministers were yesterday moving close to a deal…
under which the infrastructure would be split from train operations and leased to the private sector in two or three parts".
Those two options are not entirely consistent, and there seems to be a difference of opinion within the Government about which way to go forward. It is certain that neither of those positions is consistent with the stance taken by the Minister for Transport in London before the election. I understand, although I did not see it myself, that she appeared on television with a pair of scissors and a map of the tube, saying that she would not allow the tube to be cut in half through privatisation. However, what she did not make clear at the time was that she proposed cutting the tube four ways, not just in half.
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs grows. We are now eight months into the new Government. What does London First say about the new Government's performance?
"Eight months on from the Election… we still await the outlines of a solution."
The Minister's speech has not added to my understanding of the Government's proposals. It has merely reinforced the confusion that there was about Government proposals in June. I feel sorry that the Minister has not clarified the Government's plans. I look forward to his announcement soon, as he put it—in due course.
The Liberal Democrat position is that the Government must have in mind some objectives, although not necessarily a structure. We want the tube to be an integrated system with through-ticketing. Fare structures will need to be regulated. We want responsibility for running the tube to be clearly identified with a particular person or organisation. We want the financial means to deal with the backlog of repairs and to build new lines. Changes should not delay investment.
Tube passengers have suffered enough stop-go on the Central line and overcrowding at Oxford Circus station. They do not need another reorganisation. They want a tube that runs on time, not trains that stop unannounced in tunnels.
Our proposal for a public interest company with public sector objectives and ethos would meet those objectives. It would ensure that the tube remained an integrated

233
transport system with through-ticketing. The fare structures would be regulated, probably through the Greater London authority, and there would be clear responsibility for running the tube. It is not an untested model: similar models operate in New York and San Francisco.
We shall will the means. Whatever model is adopted and however it is dressed up, the investment programme will cost money. Whether it comes as a subsidy to the private sector or through any other route, more money is needed for that programme. We have offered three concrete proposals—so far in the debate, we have heard few of those.
Our proposals are, first, a charge on non-residential car parking spaces, which London First estimates would raise about £150 million a year; secondly, road congestion charges which, it was suggested by the London congestion charging research programme in 1995, could raise anything from £95 million to £795 million a year; and thirdly, a temporary increase in business rates for London's largest businesses, which could raise £150 million—a view supported by some, but not all, London First members. Incidentally, those measures would also help the Secretary of State to meet his targets for CO2 reduction.
Our proposals would give Londoners a transport system to match that of any of our European partners. They would get cleaner air, less congestion, fewer pollution-related illnesses such as asthma and the possibility of cheaper fares.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: And a Conservative Government.
Mr. Brake: I doubt whether they will get a Conservative Government for a very long time. The Tory Opposition have no solution. Over the past eight months, they have been getting rid of facts with relief, to adapt a quotation from Sir James Barrie—facts such as their responsibility for the daily delays that passengers experience on the tube.
We shall not support the Conservative motion, but we should have liked to modify the Government's amendment, because it is full of promises but rather silent on solutions. Our proposal for a public interest company backed by earmarked revenues—the key is the source of the revenue—would take the tube into the 21st century. I urge the Government to take on board our proposal.
9.4 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate.
I represent Upminster, which is at the start of the District line. As well as being the eastern terminus of the District line, it is the easternmost point of the underground system. Upminster station serves both the underground and the London, Tilbury and Southend line. Many of my constituents who commute into London use the London underground system. A large number of my constituents are employees of London Transport and do a fine job, working at the Cranham depot, which is also in my constituency.
I use the underground myself most days when Parliament is sitting, commuting to Westminster from my home. The underground is an essential part of London
234
life. It has contributed so much to our great capital city, yet, instead of nurturing it, we have consistently under-invested in it, particularly in recent years, putting at risk that important transport infrastructure.
Transport is essential to London's competitiveness as a world city. It is crucial to the efficiency of business. London needs a safe, affordable and reliable underground as part of an integrated public transport system. It is of critical importance to those who live, work and invest in the capital, as well as for our visitors. Some 2.5 million journeys are made by tube every working day, about half of them by commuters; the others are made by people going to school, shopping or visiting London.
It is not surprising to me that our communities are becoming impatient at the delay in delivering the investment that is so essential. Business groups, such as London First, as well as passenger user groups, such as the London regional passenger committee, recognise the dangers of continual delay.
Most of the criticism is properly directed at the Opposition, who had the audacity to table their critical motion, for it is the Conservatives who are chiefly to blame for the current crisis. The previous Government failed to invest adequately. They failed miserably during their terms in office and left a £1.2 billion investment backlog. They have a deplorable record, particularly if one takes into consideration the investment that was forced on them by the King's Cross disaster in 1987, and the funding of the Jubilee line.
It is not as if the Opposition, when in government, failed to acknowledge by their statements and words what was needed. In a document entitled, "A Transport Strategy for London", published by the Department of Transport in April 1996, the previous Government stated:
"Improving the existing London Underground service contributes most directly to our primary goal of promoting the competitiveness of London as a World City."
In the same document, they said:
"The priority for London Underground is to improve the quality of the existing network through investment."
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman considers that more money should have gone into the underground over the past 10 years or so, where would he have obtained the funds—from the education budget, the health budget? Or would he have raised taxes?
Mr. Darvill: The Government's proposals, which I shall deal with in the rest of my speech, are quite clear. We have our priorities. Indeed, we have priorities for London Transport, as will be seen.
As I said, the previous Government stated:
"The priority for London Underground is to improve the quality of the existing network through investment."
That was true in 1996, and it is true today, for investment is at the heart of the problem. Because of its age, size and intensive use, the underground needs a minimum level of investment year in, year out, to keep pace with wear and tear and to prevent the service from deteriorating.
Under successive Governments, the minimum recognised level of investment has not been reached. Investment is required not only for the future of the London economy but to shift the emphasis away from the car towards a more integrated transport system,

235
with greater use of public transport. That is, of course, consistent with the Government's approach as detailed in the Green Paper, "New Leadership for London" and the consultation paper, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". It is also consistent with the Government's aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposal to create a London Transport authority to deliver the new citywide authority's sustainable transport strategy will flow from the creation of the Greater London authority. Since the abolition of the GLC in 1986, transport planning in London has been carried out by a number of organisations, in the absence of an effective co-ordinating body. Strategic planning has been haphazard and almost non-existent. Transport is increasingly recognised as an acute socio-economic and environmental problem. New organisations have been formed on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to find solutions, resulting in a collection of organisations with no apparent strategic or co-ordinating role.
Integrated transport can be developed and planned effectively only if there is a single co-ordinating body. The multitude of organisations that the Opposition helped to create and sustain could not in a month of Sundays deliver an integrated transport policy. The Government's policies for London, for transport and for the environment are widely welcomed. The Opposition's failure in that respect during their long—many would say too long—administration let down the people and businesses of London and might have been one factor in their punishment by the electorate last May.
Those of us who use the underground regularly witness its underfunding. In many ways, its deterioration is a testament to the previous Government. The new Labour Government must find a way of retaining a publicly owned and accountable underground system, and work in partnership with the private sector to raise the additional investment that is required. We made a manifesto commitment to reject wholesale privatisation and develop a partnership with the private sector.
Progress has been made and I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will soon be able to make an announcement about the precise nature of the public-private partnership that the Government propose, to bring in the resources necessary to provide a modern underground system for 2000 and beyond, which will benefit all Londoners, including my constituents and visitors to London. It follows that the House should reject the Opposition's motion.
9.11 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). We have heard plenty of speeches by hon. Members representing outer London constituencies. I am the first central London Member to speak. I shall be extremely brief.
More underground trains pass under my constituency than under any other in Greater London. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was very tough on transport Ministers, and I understand his exacerbation. Personally, I feel sympathy for them. The Secretary of State has seen
236
his Department downsized in standing and the Minister for Transport in London has been given more jobs than is fair, even for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of her talents. I realise that the decisions were taken elsewhere in Government. I am sorry, too, for the civil servants who have been transferred to the Government office for London, who show some evidence of being overwhelmed by the number of transport initiatives in London with which they are being asked to cope.
The downsizing of the Department and its London interests reflects the Government's attitude towards London, which was also apparent in the recent rate support grant announcements. The consequences, however, fall on Londoners. For example, those in my constituency affected by blight by the projected Chelsea-Hackney line were given to believe a year ago by London Transport that early decisions would be taken to resolve that blight. A year later they are still waiting. The argument for crossrail, which was sharpened by the steadily approaching imminence of the Heathrow express, has been revisited by the crossrail team and transformed by the City corporation's business case for crossrail into a wholly privately funded operation, but the Government office for London still rests on the Montagu report of March 1996.
The Minister of Transport for London is familiar with the problems inherent in Railtrack's tactical plans for Thameslink 2000 in the heart of the capital, involving the closure of the Thameslink Moorgate branch and the diversion of passengers from Blackfriars to Victoria and Elephant and Castle.
The idea that there could be 24 trains per hour, which has never been tested anywhere in Britain for heavy rail, has invited scepticism, and 12-coach trains will be too long for suburban platforms. I gather that it is all part of an integrated policy, but the separate parts must interact.
Seven months ago, in a debate to which other hon. Members have referred, we agreed on the parameters of the problem. The ingredients of the solution were clear, once the Government had gone back on their arteriosclerotic pre-election prejudice against privatisation and shown their willingness to contemplate a private element in London Transport's future.
Seven months ago, in that same debate, I said that London Back Benchers on both sides of the House were willing to work together in the new circumstances to find a solution that Londoners could applaud. I was followed by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has carried some responsibility for the leadership of London Labour Members. She is not present tonight, and I make no complaint about that. I do not think that, if she were here, she would disagree with my analysis of her speech in that debate as not wholly embracing my invitation. If, on behalf of Londoners, she has faith that the Government will deliver without help from Opposition Members, I only hope that they will get a move on.
Like other hon. Members, I have sensed the impatience of London First, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred. London First can, in the eyes of the Government, claim some neutral objectivity after their contribution to the swing towards Labour in the general election by their activity in underground stations during that contest. In the Evening Standard last week, that considerable Londoner, Simon Jenkins, made remarks about the Government's

237
plans for the London underground that filled me with foreboding. Despite Labour's disclaimer, the Evening Standard has latterly been friendly to the Government.
I recall a Sherlock Holmes story about the underground that involved a corpse and some very complicated technical plans. The name Bruce Partington comes to mind. I shall regard the present vacuum as Operation Bruce Partington until the Government pull themselves together, make some decisions that do not earn the scorn of the Evening Standard, and take action to implement them. I do not currently blame Londoners for losing faith and patience.
9.16 pm
Mr. Geraint Davies: The Opposition are scraping the barrel with this dreary motion. What a cheek! After 18 years, we are confronted with this proposition. There was not enough funding for the underground until the horror of the King's Cross fire. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) tore the heart out of the funding for London Transport, and did not provide a strategic framework for the future. This proposition has been cobbled together to fill in time because the Opposition have nothing better to think about.
The future of the London underground should be included in an integrated transport plan for London, and for the economic sustainability of Britain in a global marketplace. That context has been set in the consultation document on an integrated transport plan, which will later emerge as a White Paper. It is important to set London's needs in that wider context.
It is a bit rich that, after 18 years of drift and decay, we have this sudden demand for action. People in the business community, in the Confederation of British Industry, and in London First are getting slightly hot under the collar, but we must get it right. We must bridge the funding gap, and establish a strategically secure footing for the future. That is what the Government are in the midst of doing.
We do not need the fiscal foresight of Old Mother Hubbard showed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, who generated this crisis. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the accounts of London Underground knows that it needs £400 million a year to stand still on repairs and maintenance, and that there is a £1.25 billion backlog of repairs. The right hon. and learned Member reduced external funding from £373 million to £250 million next year, and to £130 million the year after, while charging to that budget £250 million of Jubilee line costs that should have been outside revenue costs.
All I can say is that it is a good thing that, unlike other transport and underground systems elsewhere in the world, London Transport and London Underground are making positive gross margins—of £225 million this year and next year, and probably £260 million in the following year. The Paris system, for example, makes absolutely no contribution towards overheads.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, in London, passenger volumes are up 7 per cent., to about 860 million passengers. He mentioned also that, this year, annual train kilometres will total 62 million—compared to 52 million in 1993–94—and that, at the turn of the century, they will reach 70 million. Over seven years, therefore—because
238
of more journeys and a more extensive system—London Underground will have had a 40 per cent. increase in train kilometres. Satisfaction levels also have increased.
Those increases have been achieved despite drains on funding and an unfortunate repair backlog accumulated during the previous Government's time in office. Those matters are set within the wider context of the £420 billion public sector deficit, which is the previous incompetent Government's unfortunate legacy.
Labour Members have listened to the demands of Conservative Members—who studied in the Arthur Daley school of management—for immediate action, although, in 18 years, they did nothing. The Government know which strategic route they must take in achieving a public-private partnership—but the matter is not as simple as saying, "Let's get on with it and let's do it." There must be some caution.
I tell Ministers that we need contract flexibility if we are to guard against unforeseen circumstances. If we have guided buses and a new light rail system, they will have to be integrated into the underground system. Moreover, if we have new technology for road pricing, for example, we will have to ensure that London Underground can absorb the extra volume. Therefore, contracts cannot be over-specified. We must also resist pressure to rush recklessly forwards.
Before the May referendum on a Greater London authority—which will take command of the London underground strategy—the Government will deliver proposals on an accountable modernised and funded system. The Government will deliver those proposals and will make it crystal clear how we will deliver that system. The Opposition will simply have to wait for the good news.
9.21 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I apologise to the House if I am not as audible as I usually am. When I previously asked the Minister for Transport in London a parliamentary question on the underground, she suggested that I might be suffering from a fever to the brain, but I was not. Today, however, if she were to suggest that I am suffering from a fever to the throat, she would be absolutely right.
A point on which the Minister and I agree concerns a small part of the underground network that is about to be privatised—the Epping-Ongar branch of the Central line. I will not ask her to comment on her decision on that matter, because I fully appreciate that it has yet to be finalised. However, I should like to ask her for an assurance that, whatever decision she takes on the Epping-Ongar line, the land on which that railway lies will be preserved in perpetuity as railway land. I agree with her in wanting to ensure that, should we wish to do so, the opportunity will be available on the Epping-Ongar line to expand the underground system after it has been privatised.
It is becoming obvious that the Government are snookered by a language problem in the controversial underground privatisation. Ministers have said that they do not want to privatise, but they know that it has to be done. The problem is what Ministers will call privatisation when they do it.
The Deputy Prime Minister—for all his life, so far as we know—has opposed privatisation. He opposed every action that the previous Conservative Government took

239
on privatisation, but he was wrong to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) eloquently explained earlier, there have been a series of very successful privatisations. The problem that the Government are facing is that the Deputy Prime Minister is simply too stubborn to privatise the underground—when we all know that that must be done. He is stuck in the old socialist dogma of state ownership of means of transport. The Government have tacitly admitted that rail privatisation was right. If they are not admitting that it was right, why are they not reversing it, now that they have the power to do so?
Not only was rail privatisation right, but it was brought in speedily and efficiently by the previous Government. The Railways Bill was published within seven months of the 1992 general election. It was a far more complicated piece of legislation than we could expect from the present Government, who are simply delaying and prevaricating. What is right for British Airways, what was right for British Rail, what has brought success and new investment to many companies in the transport sector has been privatisation. If it was right for all those companies, why is not it right for London Underground?
We know that the underground has to be privatised. In the end, it does not really matter what the Government call the privatisation. My constituents simply want them to get on with it.
9.25 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I shall be brief—because I have no choice.
The performance of the London underground system over the past few years has been one of the most remarkable of any rail system in the world. Cuts implemented by the previous Government, plus the sheer inconsistency of Government funding, have caused immense problems.
In 1995–96 for instance, core funding to the tube was £350 million. In the following year, it was £359 million, and for 1997–98, it was cut drastically by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—who had half an eye on the Maastricht criteria—to £323 million. That is against the background of a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1991, which put the standard level of funding at—probably£750 million. As a result, there have been unprecedented cuts in staff, for instance. Over the past six years, 25 per cent. of staff have lost their jobs. Funding cuts have led to the abandonment of major and necessary schemes. In my constituency, there are three District line stations. Along with many other projects, the new District line control room, which was desperately needed, has been axed.
The combined pressures have led, as my constituents know very well, to almost daily cancellations and delays, which are inevitable during the downward spiral that the previous Government introduced. During the general election campaign, complaints about public transport—complaints about the tube were most prominent among them—were raised frequently on the doorstep. I suspect that other hon. Members experienced that, too. Many people from Hornchurch who work in the City or the west end, for instance, have to leave for work half an hour or 40 minutes earlier than they should because they have to allow for delays and cancellations.
240
London Transport's 1996–97 annual report showed a 37 per cent. increase in profits, which were attributed in the report to cost cutting, rising passenger volumes and increases in ticket fares. The tube requires not only higher levels of funding but consistently higher levels of funding. Any senior London Underground manager will tell anybody who asks that one of the big problems is not the cuts but the inconsistency in the previous Government's funding.
Privatisation of the London underground would have meant—and will always mean—a pattern similar to that followed by the railways: worse services, cuts in staffing and services, and demands from private operators for more subsidies. For instance, South West Trains sacked drivers, and then had to cut services, for which it was subsequently fined by the regulator. Connex SouthCentral, which—sadly—I use a lot, tore away layers of managers and supervisors who made the network work. As a result, it started to grind to a halt and was fined for its abysmal record in the final three months of 1977.
The idea that privatisation would provide the required investment in the underground is entirely illusory. The required investment is huge, amounting to probably £7 billion. Any railway system is best and most efficiently run as an integrated network under public ownership. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out on 3 December, the Greater London council ran the tube much better than the Tory Government, which had no belief in—indeed, a considerable contempt for—public services. I look forward to the underground coming under the control of the new Greater London authority and being run with an efficiency and a devotion to public services that were absent from the Conservatives.
9.29 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: This has been a timely debate, which has, as expected, exposed the Government's uncertainty. They have been in office for nine entertaining months. What have they decided to do about London's underground? Nothing. The delay is becoming an embarrassment.
The Minister of Transport made a remarkable speech. I thought that it was the privilege of the Opposition not to make policy statements. He did not make any. He told us that he would make a statement on the underground, but it came out rather slowly. First, he said that he would set out a solution soon. As he warmed up, he said that he was close to making a decision. Finally, he said that there would be an announcement in March.
In an excellent and thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that London Underground cannot rely on the Treasury for funding. The hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Eltham (Mr. Efford) drew attention to the lack of core investment in the underground in the 1980s.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way at the moment.

241
I have a graph showing the investment made by the Conservative Government in the 1980s.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I am replying to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) said that the debate was a waste of time. She made me wonder why she was here.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) gave us the usual Liberal coalition speech—or at least I thought that he was starting off down that route. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gallantly declined to describe the Minister for Transport in London as a monkey. I felt that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was a cloned monkey, although I could not come up with a better name for him than a Dolly monkey.
Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way. I am replying to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He displayed his—
Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to refuse to give way to another hon. Member whom he has named?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Regardless of whether it is appropriate, it is not a matter of order.
Mr. Ottaway: We can show our usual contempt for bogus points of order.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said in June that the Liberal Democrats were showing their anti-car credentials by proposing congestion charges and parking charges. I am sure that that will reinforce support for them in outer London.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) urged the Government to get a move on and spoke about Thameslink 2000, which is an important project. It has led to dispute between the Corporation of London and Railtrack, which he and I ought to stay out of.
My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who seems to have left the Chamber already, said that we had to get it right, and that secure funding was needed. He also implied that the Labour Government would introduce road pricing. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly drew attention to the success of privatisation.
The Deputy Prime Minister has been described as the Pooh-Bah of the Blair Government. He is in charge of everything. When not abolishing the green belt or setting up regional commissars, he is responsible for London Transport. That is precisely the problem that his Department faces. He is simply too busy deciding which
242
bit of green belt to carve up next, when he should be channelling all his formidable talents into taking a firm decision on the future of London's underground.
It is a sad reflection on the Government's sense of priorities that they will not put the issue higher up the political agenda. They cannot do that, because the Deputy Prime Minister is at loggerheads over privatisation not only with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but with the Prime Minister. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are also at loggerheads with each other. After all, why should the Deputy Prime Minister work with someone whom No. 10 has described as "psychologically flawed"?
Instead, the proposal that the Minister of Transport says will come out in March, when the Government eventually announce it, will be a compromise—a compromise to keep the peace between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, a compromise designed not to rock the boat. It will be a compromise for short-term expediency, designed to keep the Cabinet and the rest of the Labour party quiet. It will have nothing to do with the long-term needs of the underground.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster drew the attention of the House to an article in Friday's Evening Standard by the excellent columnist Simon Jenkins, who has sometimes been rather critical of the Conservative party. Mr. Jenkins wrote:
"they should privatise by simply floating the Tube, lock, stop and barrel, on the Stock Market … flotation as a single business is better than hacking the Tube system up, down and sideways merely to appease some slaves to outdated ideology".
He was absolutely right.
Our case is that privatisation of the underground is the best way to raise the necessary funds for investment. There is now no argument about the fact that privatisation is a fundamental philosophy accepted by all political parties not only in this country but in the rest of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, privatisation is the only way to ensure that the underground gets the money that it so badly needs.
We should plough the proceeds raised by the sale back into the tube system and give London Underground the early injection of cash that it so badly needs. We should also keep through-ticketing and travel cards.
There is no question raised, even by the Labour party, about the possibility of either party reversing any of the privatisations that have taken place since 1979. Gone are the days when the present Secretary of State for Scotland predicted, for example, that British Airways would be the "pantomime horse of capitalism", if it was anything at all. Even the right hon. Gentleman would now concede that he was wrong, and if anyone looks like the pantomime horse of capitalism now, it is him. British Airways is a world beater and the whole House will admit that the right hon. Gentleman's approach was wrong.
Mr. Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way.
Despite having been wrong before, the Government have made it emphatically clear that they oppose wholesale privatisation. In the run-up to the general election, the Labour party rejected outright any suggestion of privatisation and argued that public-private

243
partnerships were the way forward. The approach has evolved piecemeal, and shows a strong commitment to the public part of the public-private partnerships.
Back in March 1996, the then Opposition were busy attacking private finance initiatives. The present Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who was then Labour transport spokesman, said:
"All the experience of the PFI so far shows that public-private partnerships happen only when the ultimate commitment to the project remains in the public sector".
The present Minister for Transport in London, later in the same debate, said:
"The PFI, as devised and structured by the Government, is the Government's way of opening the back door to privatising a service which I believe must remain in the public sector".—[Official Report, 13 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1013–48.]
There we have the PFI eliminated and a strong commitment to public-private partnership in the public sector; but what on earth does it mean? Can anyone in the House give me a clear definition of a public-private partnership in the public sector? The Treasury website says that PPPs are all about negotiating deals that are good for both sides. On that definition, contracting out a hospital's laundry service is a public-private partnership. Would hiring a private security firm to protect Government property be a public-private partnership?
There is nothing wrong with those views except that, in defining a specific policy for the future of the underground, it is fairly meaningless to those of us who are trying to understand the implications. So confident were Ministers in their quotations and remarks that it was safe to assume that they knew what they meant.
In February 1997, in response to our proposals to privatise London Underground, the then shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), said:
"Would it not be far better to get moving straight away with public-private partnerships as Labour has proposed?"—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 153.]
Nothing could be clearer than the words, "get moving straight away". Labour knew what it was doing, where it wanted to go and how it intended to achieve its objectives.
Full of conviction, the Labour manifesto said:
"Labour plans a new public-private partnership to improve the Underground."
Now we know the truth: Labour had no more idea of what a public-private partnership was than we did. The situation is now becoming a farce.
Ministers met the chairman of London Transport only three days after the general election, which suggested that the issue was being taken seriously, and in July management consultants were commissioned to consider the future of the network; but then the hesitation set in. The Deputy Prime Minister left some documents lying around the "Panorama" studio that made it clear that privatisation was under consideration.
Then Treasury stuck its oar in: in October, the Financial Times reported:
"A senior Government Minister has said that Mr Brown has refused the use of public funds for the investment programme. But as Labour's manifesto precludes only 'wholesale privatisation', the Chancellor is believed to favour a majority stake."
244
Then the Prime Minister joined in: again the Financial Times reported the leaks coming out of No. 10. It said:
"close associates of the Prime Minister and Chancellor are convinced a majority stake in LU's network or infrastructure has to be sold to the private sector if the investment is to be made."
Then the Deputy Prime Minister struck back: his spin doctors went to work and a further report in the Financial Times said:
"ministers were yesterday talking about the infrastructure business as a private/public partnership, with the private sector having the upper hand".
That is interesting. Whatever happened to the line from the Minister and from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that the service must stay in the public sector?
Then we had the ultimate spin. The arbiter of the dispute, the Paymaster General, who is responsible for public-private partnerships, among other things, has been advised, according to The Independent, to
"split the Underground infrastructure into three companies and franchise them and the train operators—such as the Victoria line—to the private sector."
Unbelievably, the Paymaster General's compromise seems to have the upper hand. The latest leaks were reported in the Evening Standard at the end of last week. It said:
"The plan is likely to see the Underground's infrastructure—tracks, tunnels and stations—split into two or three parts and auctioned off on leases of up to 30 years … The operation of the services, however, would remain in public sector hands with heavily unionised staff likely to remain as public employees."
If that is true, it at least explains one thing: at last October's Labour party conference in Brighton, the Deputy Prime Minister saw off moves to renationalise Railtrack, but the price was to concede a motion to the transport unions that stated:
"the conference is totally opposed to the introduction of private capital which would lead to private companies owning and/or operating parts of London Underground."
The problem with that proposal is that the money needed to overhaul the underground network would absorb most of the income from tickets, leaving nothing for profits. As the Evening Standard said:
"This is the fundamental problem which we always return to in terms of getting private investors involved to fund investment in an operation which barely breaks even."
That says it all. The Government do not know whom to upset—the public or the trade unions. The Deputy Prime Minister began his article in The Times yesterday boldly, saying
"when we say as a Labour Government that we won't run away from difficult decisions, we mean it."
Some of us would be only too pleased if he made any decision—even if he did not mean it—to progress the debate and to get things rolling.
The Government were elected on a promise that
"things can only get better."
For London Underground, things have only got worse. All the Government have offered tube users since the election are inflationary fare rises and delay, delay, delay. I believe that London deserves better than that, and I commend the motion to the House.
9.44 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Leader of the Opposition will be deeply depressed if he takes the trouble to read this evening's debate. Despite the energy that he has reportedly put into castigating his party and highlighting, for its benefit, the reasons why it was so lamentable in government, why it was so crushingly defeated at the most recent general election and why it has signally failed to organise itself into any form of effective Opposition—based on overweening arrogance and a failure to listen—his message clearly has not penetrated to those Opposition Members in the Chamber tonight.
The Opposition's contribution ended as it began. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—like, indeed, all Tory Members—based his speech on two simple arguments. The first was that this Government have lamentably failed to deal with the difficulties facing London Underground in the nine months that we have been in government. The previous 18 years, when the Conservative party had stewardship of London Underground—which saw the Conservatives' total failure to take the needs of London and Londoners seriously and their failure to invest in the core funding of London Underground— were dismissed and sidelined.
The second argument is that our apparent inaction has been highlighted by the fact that we have not produced what the Conservatives believe is still the only answer to the problems of the underground—privatisation. They have made much play of underlining the value of privatisation, but did not mention the damage that they inflicted on the integrated railway system in this country by that very process.
If one had listened closely to some Opposition speeches—it was, on occasion, extremely difficult so to do, because of the paucity of the contributions from Opposition Members—one might have believed that rail privatisation was up and running and effective in a period infinitely less than the nine months that this party has been in government, during which time Opposition Members believe that we should have brought into being a policy which we have consistently stated—publicly, privately and in our manifestos—is not the way we believe that the problems of the underground can be tackled and solved—the policy of privatisation.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield underlined his accusation of inaction on the part of the present Government by referring to the incorporation of the Department of Transport into the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I should point out to the House that, when the Conservative party was in government, the only sign of action from the Department of Transport was the annual changing of the Secretary of State. It was not pass the parcel, but pass the brief. As is to be expected, there were some excellent contributions by my hon. Friends, not least because so many of them are lifelong users of the underground.
In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) said that she and her husband chose their domicile because of its close proximity to an underground station. She highlighted her experience, during the 18 years of Conservative misrule, of the deterioration of a service that is so important to London and to Londoners. That argument was made—in their individual ways—by the hon. Member for
246
Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).
I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), regarding the line that she mentioned, that, as yet, my consent has not been sought for the proposed sale. I am delighted that she is as keen as we are to ensure that railway land is preserved. She obviously believes, as do Labour Members, that the expansion of the railways is vital for a properly integrated public transport system, which the Government intend to introduce.
However, we must not forget why the underground is in its current position, which made it necessary for the House to debate its future tonight. As I have said, and as many hon. Members have said, it is due in no small part to the underfunding that characterised the years when the Conservatives were in government.
The 1996 Budget, combined with cost overruns on the Jubilee line extension, was a disaster for the underground's finances. It meant that about half the money that London Underground was planning to invest in the existing network during the next three years was no longer available to them. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said, the amount of core funding in London Underground when the Conservative party left office was precisely the same as it had been when it took office, almost 20 years earlier.
London Transport has actually managed to increase its operating surplus for each of the past seven years, so that more than £200 million a year of its resources now goes towards investment in the underground. Therefore, obviously we need look no further than the Conservative party for the underground's current funding crisis—and the Conservatives have the temerity to say that we are being too slow in finding a solution to the problem that they created.
The Government believe that there is no alternative to a well-funded, efficient underground system for London. About 800 million underground journeys are made each year, more than 700,000 of which take place during the morning peak on each working day. The underground is vital to the economic well-being of London and to the quality of life of people who live in and around London. One of the interesting trends in recent years has been the growth in the use of the underground during the inter-peak periods, in the evenings and at weekends, and we want that trend to continue. Surface rail, despite the depredations of privatisation, is vital.
South of the river, London is very poorly served by the tube. The bus is often unfairly regarded as the Cinderella of public transport, but the number of bus journeys made in London each year easily exceeds the number of tube journeys—by about half as much again—and we believe that it is vital that more people are attracted to using that mode of transport, because it is cheap and especially flexible.
However, despite investment with the aim of providing one of the most comprehensive and efficient metropolitan bus networks in the world, bus travel will always have limitations, especially for commuter journeys into central London, and even with the best bus network, an efficient, reliable tube network is essential for existing users and for future growth in patronage.

247
Therefore, the Government recognise the importance of the underground for London, and we are determined to address its investment needs so that it can play its full part in a properly integrated public transport network for this great capital city. We are determined to improve the quality of the underground as quickly as possible by a public-private partnership.
We want to find practical solutions to the underground's problems, and to modernise its key assets such as track, signalling, bridges and embankments. Because of the links between those assets, the network may be improved significantly only by tackling them all together.
The aim is to secure an affordable, reliable, clean and modern network. We are making progress on that work as a matter of urgency, given the level of funding available to London Underground, which we inherited from the previous Government.
I cannot tell the House today our detailed plans for the future of the London Underground, but I can say something about the principles that are guiding our thinking.
First, it should go without saying that safety is of paramount concern. In the 10 years since the tragedy of the King's Cross fire, when 31 people died, safety on the underground has improved dramatically. The risk of fires and flooding in particular are now greatly reduced, and a number of projects are currently aimed at improving other areas of safety, most notably trying to reduce the risk of accidents when people are getting on and off trains. It is right that we should pay tribute to London Underground's management and staff who deserve a great deal of credit for those improvements.
I can assure the House that safety will remain the top priority under a public-private partnership. The Health and Safety Commission is being fully consulted as we develop our plans. The option we choose will ensure that safety standards on the underground are maintained, and the commission's advice will be sought on the safety regime that will be required to ensure that that commitment is put into practice.
We also want to safeguard the core public responsibilities of the underground. We are not in the business of wholesale privatisation—that was the dogmatic approach of the Conservative party, and much good it did it, the tube and London. As our manifesto said:
"The Conservative plan for the wholesale privatisation of London Underground is not the answer. It would be a poor deal for passenger and taxpayer alike … Labour plans a new public-private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers."
A public-private partnership for the underground is particularly appropriate. The first underground railway in the world started operating when the Metropolitan Railway opened a line between Paddington and Farringdon in 1863. That line, and much of the current London underground network, was developed by private enterprise. But in 1933, the underground came under public ownership, with the creation of the London Passenger Transport Board, popularly known as London Transport. The network then enjoyed another period of expansion, and it was under public ownership that many of the features of the underground that
248
passengers value were first developed—the underground map, the logo, the fully integrated ticketing system and the travelcard.
We want to build on the best elements of private sector enterprise and the public sector service ethos. The way to do that is through a public-private partnership.
I have already referred to the investment backlog on the existing underground network which London Underground estimates at £1.2 billion and rising rapidly. London Underground also estimates that, simply to stop the network deteriorating further, it needs to spend on average more than £350 million a year. Quite simply, there is no way in which the public sector can afford those sums and modernise the network in anything like a reasonable period, so we must consider ways of bringing in private sector money.
If we can bring private sector ideas and innovation as well, without cutting corners or compromising quality of service, we will do that, too. London underground is already one of the most efficient public transport systems in the world. I acknowledge the efforts of the management and staff in achieving that. But if we can promote even greater efficiency in the underground, and ensure even better value for money, we shall do so.
However, we must never forget that the London underground is a public service and must be publicly accountable. We are mindful of the need to safeguard a real role for the mayor of London and assembly which, subject to the referendum which should take place in May, we hope will be elected in 2000.
That does not mean that we shall leave Londoners waiting for the next two years and more before the underground's problems are addressed. London deserves better than that. Subject to the outcome of the referendum, we shall introduce a Bill in the autumn to establish the Greater London authority. That Bill will make London Transport more accountable to the people of London and will include the provisions necessary to enable a public-private partnership for London Underground to be implemented.
In the meantime, we believe that, for all the options that we are now considering, it would be possible for London Underground to make substantial progress in implementing a public-private partnership.
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 345.

Division No. 140]

[7.30 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Allan, Richard

Beggs, Roy

Amess, David

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bercow, John

Arbuthnot, James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Body, Sir Richard

Baker, Norman

Boswell, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

210

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Brady, Graham

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brake, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Brand, Dr Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brazier, Julian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Breed, Colin

Lansley, Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, Oliver

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lidington, David

Burns, Simon

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Burstow, Paul

Livsey, Richard

Cable, Dr Vincent

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cash, William

Loughton, Tim

Chidgey, David

Luff, Peter

Chope, Christopher

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Clappison, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

MacKay, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Madel, Sir David

Collins, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Cotter, Brian

Maples, John

Cran, James

Mates, Michael

Curry, Rt Hon David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Dafis, Cynog

May, Mrs Theresa

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Moore, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan, Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Duncan Smith, Iain

Norman, Archie

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Öpik, Lembit

Evans, Nigel

Ottaway, Richard

Faber, David

Page, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Prior, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Randall, John

Flight, Howard

Rendel, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robathan, Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Fox, Dr Liam

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fraser, Christopher

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gale, Roger

Ruffley, David

Garnier, Edward

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

St Aubyn, Nick

Gibb, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Sayeed, Jonathan

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Shepherd, Richard

Gorrie, Donald

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Green, Damian

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

Greenway, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Grieve, Dominic

Soames, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Spring, Richard

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hammond, Philip

Steen, Anthony

Harris, Dr Evan

Streeter, Gary

Hawkins, Nick

Stunell, Andrew

Hayes, John

Swayne, Desmond

Heald, Oliver

Syms, Robert

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Horam, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Thompson, William

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Tredinnick, David

Hunter, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Tyler, Paul

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tyrie, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Wallace, James

Keetch, Paul

Wardle, Charles

Key, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

211

Webb, Steve

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Wells, Bowen

Woodward, Shaun

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Yeo, Tim

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Willis, Phil

Mr. Stephen Day and

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Mr. John Whittingdale.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Douglas

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Allen, Graham

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Darvill, Keith

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Atkins, Charlotte

Dawson, Hilton

Austin, John

Denham, John

Barron, Kevin

Dismore, Andrew

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dobbin, Jim

Begg, Miss Anne

Donohoe, Brian H

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Doran, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Drew, David

Benton, Joe

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bermingham, Gerald

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Berry, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Best, Harold

Edwards, Huw

Betts, Clive

Efford, Clive

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blizzard, Bob

Ennis, Jeff

Boateng, Paul

Fatchett, Derek

Borrow, David

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Fisher, Mark

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Follett, Barbara

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Foulkes, George

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Galloway, George

Browne, Desmond

Gardiner, Barry

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burgon, Colin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Butler, Mrs Christine

Godman, Norman A

Byers, Stephen

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Grant, Bernie

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Casale, Roger

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Caton, Martin

Grocott, Bruce

Cawsey, Ian

Grogan, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hain, Peter

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clapham, Michael

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Healey, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann

Hill, Keith

Coaker, Vernon

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoey, Kate

Cooper, Yvette

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corston, Ms Jean

Hope, Phil

Cousins, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cranston, Ross

Howells, Dr Kim

Crausby, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Humble, Mrs Joan

212

Hurst, Alan

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hutton, John

Palmer, Dr Nick

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pearson, Ian

Illsley, Eric

Perham, Ms Linda

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Jenkins, Brian

Plaskitt, James

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pond, Chris

Pope, Greg

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Primarolo, Dawn

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Purchase, Ken

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Khabra, Piara S

Quinn, Lawrie

Kidney, David

Radice, Giles

Kilfoyle, Peter

Raynsford, Nick

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Laxton, Bob

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lepper, David

Rogers, Allan

Leslie, Christopher

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rooney, Terry

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ruane, Chris

Lock, David

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Love, Andrew

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ryan, Ms Joan

McCabe, Steve

Salter, Martin

McDonagh, Siobhain

Savidge, Malcolm

Macdonald, Calum

Sedgemore, Brian

McDonnell, John

Sheerman, Barry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McIsaac, Shona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Singh, Marsha

McLeish, Henry

Skinner, Dennis

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mallaber, Judy

Soley, Clive

Mandelson, Peter

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marek, Dr John

Spellar, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Stevenson, George

Maxton, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Meale, Alan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Merron, Gillian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michael, Alun

Stoate, Dr Howard

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Milburn, Alan

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Miller, Andrew

Stringer, Graham

Mitchell, Austin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mountford, Kali

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mudie, George

Timms, Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Trickett, Jon

Norris, Dan

Truswell, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

O'Neill, Martin

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

213

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wilson, Brian

Walley, Ms Joan

Winnick, David

Ward, Ms Claire

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wareing, Robert N

Wise, Audrey

Watts, David

Wood, Mike

White, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Worthington, Tony

Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Wyatt, Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Mr. David Clelland.

Division No. 141]

[10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Body, Sir Richard

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brady, Graham

Baldry, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Beggs, Roy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Bercow, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Beresford, Sir Paul

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

249

Burns, Simon

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Madel, Sir David

Clappison, James

Maginnis, Ken

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Malins, Humfrey

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Maples, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Mates, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

May, Mrs Theresa

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Cran, James

Norman, Archie

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Page, Richard

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Prior, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Randall, John

Duncan, Alan

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Robathan, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Evans, Nigel

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Faber, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fallon, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Flight, Howard

Ruffley, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

St Aubyn, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Sayeed, Jonathan

Fox, Dr Liam

Shepherd, Richard

Fraser, Christopher

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gale, Roger

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Garnier, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Gibb, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spring, Richard

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Green, Damian

Steen, Anthony

Greenway, John

Streeter, Gary

Grieve, Dominic

Swayne, Desmond

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Syms, Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Thompson, William

Horam, John

Tredinnick, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Trend, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Jenkin, Bernard

Tyrie, Andrew

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Wardle, Charles

Key, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Wells, Bowen

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Whittingdale, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Lansley, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Leigh, Edward

Willetts, David

Letwin, Oliver

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lidington, David

Woodward, Shaun

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Yeo, Tim

Loughton, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Luff, Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mr. Oliver Heald and

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mr. Stephen Day.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Baker, Norman

Ainger, Nick

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Banks, Tony

Alexander, Douglas

Barnes, Harry

Allan, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Beard, Nigel

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Begg, Miss Anne

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ashton, Joe

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Atkins, Charlotte

Benton, Joe

Austin, John

Bermingham, Gerald

250

Berry, Roger

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Best, Harold

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Edwards, Huw

Blizzard, Bob

Efford, Clive

Boateng, Paul

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Borrow, David

Ennis, Jeff

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Fatchett, Derek

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fearn, Ronnie

Bradshaw, Ben

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Brake, Tom

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Follett, Barbara

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Buck, Ms Karen

Foulkes, George

Burden, Richard

Galloway, George

Burgon, Colin

Gardiner, Barry

Burnett, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burstow, Paul

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Butler, Mrs Christine

Godman, Norman A

Byers, Stephen

Godsiff, Roger

Cable, Dr Vincent

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gorrie, Donald

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Grant, Bernie

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Casale, Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Caton, Martin

Grogan, John

Cawsey, Ian

Hain, Peter

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chidgey, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Church, Ms Judith

Hanson, David

Clapham, Michael

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Harris, Dr Evan

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Harvey, Nick

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Healey, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Clelland, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clwyd, Ann

Heppell, John

Coaker, Vernon

Hill, Keith

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Colman, Tony

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoey, Kate

Cooper, Yvette

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hope, Phil

Corston, Ms Jean

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cotter, Brian

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cranston, Ross

Howells, Dr Kim

Crausby, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hurst, Alan

Dafis, Cynog

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Iddon, Dr Brian

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Illsley, Eric

Darvill, Keith

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davidson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Denham, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Drew, David

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

251

Khabra, Piara S

Pope, Greg

Kidney, David

Pound, Stephen

Kilfoyle, Peter

Powell, Sir Raymond

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Kirkwood, Archy

Primarolo, Dawn

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Purchase, Ken

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Quin, Ms Joyce

Laxton, Bob

Quinn, Lawrie

Lepper, David

Radice, Giles

Leslie, Christopher

Raynsford, Nick

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Livingstone, Ken

Rendel, David

Livsey, Richard

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Lock, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Love, Andrew

Rogers, Allan

McAllion, John

Rooker, Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCabe, Steve

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Rowlands, Ted

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ruane, Chris

Macdonald, Calum

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McFall, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ryan, Ms Joan

McIsaac, Shona

Salter, Martin

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sanders, Adrian

McLeish, Henry

Savidge, Malcolm

McNulty, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sheerman, Barry

McWalter, Tony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mallaber, Judy

Singh, Marsha

Mandelson, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Maxton, John

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

Meale, Alan

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Southworth, Ms Helen

Michael, Alun

Spellar, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Steinberg, Gerry

Milburn, Alan

Stevenson, George

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mitchell, Austin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moore, Michael

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stott, Roger

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Morley, Elliot

Stringer, Graham

Mountford, Kali

Stunell, Andrew

Mudie, George

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Norris, Dan

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Olner, Bill

Timms, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Öpik, Lembit

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Touhig, Don

Palmer, Dr Nick

Trickett, Jon

Pearson, Ian

Truswell, Paul

Perham, Ms Linda

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pike, Peter L

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pollard, Kerry

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pond, Chris

Tyler, Paul

252

Wallace, James

Willis, Phil

Walley, Ms Joan

Wilson, Brian

Ward, Ms Claire

Winnick, David

Wareing, Robert N

Wise, Audrey

Watts, David

Wood, Mike

Webb, Steve

Woolas, Phil

White, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Mr. David Jamieson and

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House wants to see a modern, efficient, affordable and reliable Underground system, worthy of the people of London, and accountable to the people of London; deplores the substantial investment backlog in the London Underground which this Government inherited from the previous administration; applauds the Government's rejection of the wholesale privatisation of the London Underground, as proposed by the previous Government; and welcomes the Government's action to explore options for a public-private partnership for the London Underground, which will safeguard its commitment to the public interest, guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers, and secure the resources necessary to ensure Londoners and visitors to the capital city have the modern Underground system they deserve.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): 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),

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Azerbaijan) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and Georgia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Armenia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Uzbekistan) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Republic of Slovenia) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  School Merger (York)
  10.14 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I wish to present a petition from the parents and supporters of Canon Lee school, concerning a proposed merger with Queen Anne school on a split site. The schools would be a mile and a half from each other. The petition has 1,604 signatures.
  The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment not to approve the proposal to merge Canon Lee school and Queen Anne school on a split site, but instead to recommend that the local education authority look again at the LEA development plan to include a review of all secondary education provision in York.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important issue.
  Insurance premium tax was first introduced in the Finance Act 1994, and is payable on insurance premiums in the United Kingdom. The Finance Act 1997 made a number of changes to IPT—they were claimed at the time to be anti-avoidance measures—which introduced a higher rate of 17.5 per cent. for a range of insurance services where insurance was provided in conjunction with other goods or services.
  The introduction of that higher rate was described by the last Administration as a measure to counter alleged VAT avoidance in the form of "value shifting" on a limited range of insurances sold with goods and services. Tax avoidance was allegedly taking place through the inflation of the value of the insurance element, which was charged at the old IPT rate of 2.5 per cent. rather than being liable to VAT at 17.5 per cent. The three main areas affected by the new higher rate were insurance relating to motor vehicles, insurance relating to domestic appliances and travel insurance.
  Compelling legal evidence suggests that the higher-rate IPT, as currently constituted, is in breach of European law. I should stress that I have no sympathy for the tax dodgers who provoked the over-reaction of an increase in the rate. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will acknowledge that, as many of the arguments that I shall advance were deployed by her when she was an Opposition spokesperson during the Committee stage of last year's Finance Bill. On 6 February 1997, she spoke at some length about the introduction of higher-rate IPT. She asked:
  "Why have the Government taken a broad-brush approach that is likely to catch innocent commercial interests?"
  Is the Financial Secretary still concerned about the fact that innocents have been hit by what she herself described as a broad-brush approach? I hope to show that many of the "innocent commercial interests" to which she referred in her speech last year have been hit. Higher-rate IPT has had a significant impact on the travel industry—the industry which the Financial Secretary herself suggested last year was least guilty, and which to my mind is largely innocent, of the so-called value shifting. Will the Financial Secretary tell us what she has discovered over the past year that persuades her that value shifting has occurred in respect of travel insurance? Will she comment on the following points?
  I understand that, because the travel service is either zero rated or part of the tour operators' margin scheme whereby a profit margin is calculated and subject to VAT according to specific regulations, value shifting is, in effect, not possible. When no VAT is due on travel services, where does the value shifting, or tax loss, arise? As the Financial Secretary said last year:
  "Customs receives VAT on the margin on the holiday from the tour operator—on the full selling value of the holiday—irrespective of the discount given by the travel agent … It is difficult to see how value shifting could take place if the full value of VAT, at 17.5 per cent., was paid on the holiday irrespective of the discount."

  255
  What is the Financial Secretary's view on that now, given that last year she described the examples used by the previous Government to justify the imposition of higher rate IPT on the travel industry as
  "not a description of value shifting in the travel industry, but of over-priced insurance"?
  That analysis has also been justified by the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on package holidays, which suggested that heavy discounts for holidays and the low cost of package deals was to do with the highly competitive nature of the travel sector, and nothing to do with a surreptitious attempt at value shifting. Is the Minister aware of those MMC findings? I suggest that they blow a hole in the Government's argument.
  In the run-up to this evening's debate, I spoke to a number of ordinary travel agents and travel operators, who were clear about the impact of the policy on their business. With respect to travel insurance, the introduction of IPT has resulted in a distortion of the market. Over the past few years, travel agents have been steadily losing market share in this area. Since the introduction of higher rate IPT, that decline has trebled. Last year alone, there was a 33 per cent. fall in market share for travel agents.
  Not all that lost business, however, is going to competitors. A significant number of people are now simply not taking out travel insurance. It has been reliably assessed that before the introduction of IPT, about one in 25 holiday-makers travelled abroad without travel insurance. Now that figure is nearer to one in 10. That information comes from a survey of holiday-makers and is compelling evidence of an IPT-related problem that the Minister herself raised last year.
  The present Financial Secretary said:
  "I am worried that in trying to raise revenue from an ill-targeted piece of legislation towards the travel agents, the Government may lose money elsewhere. There is a danger that people may start travelling abroad without adequate insurance cover …
  At present, it costs British consuls £200 million a year to underwrite drivers who get into difficulty while on holiday and who are not adequately insured. If more tourists slip through the insurance net, that is likely to affect the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which will have to bail out uninsured tourists."
  The Minister will also be aware that travel agencies, particularly small independents, operate with tiny profit margins of between 1 and 2 per cent. Holiday insurance was always one of the most profitable elements of their business. That insurance business has now been cut by about a third in the past year alone, with a devastating impact on general profitability.
  I have received representations from travel agents who point out that the only reason that their businesses survived this year was the increased spending on holidays as a result of the windfall payments from building society share issues. That factor will not be in place next year, and they predict confidently but without any pleasure that many small travel agents will go to the wall.
  Clearly, the impact does not fall solely on the travel sector. In terms of lost contracts, bankruptcies and job losses, the clearest indications so far have come from electrical retailers.
  256
  During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year, the Tory Government insisted that there was clear evidence of value shifting from the rental sector, among others. The present Financial Secretary queried that assertion. She said:
  "A television or video's rental cost comprises two parts: the rental of the appliance and a maintenance charge. The charge is usually split, and it is explained to the customer that the total charge is made up of two parts. The Minister read out a letter written in … 1994, which showed that the companies reversed the rental and insurance proportions. He said that that was value shifting …
  The companies' argument is that first, in 1992, they successfully won a VAT tribunal on the issue. Following that tribunal, they reassessed their business. The cost of buying appliances such as videos or televisions is becoming relatively cheaper because of competition and technology, and so, therefore, is rental. But the cost of labour … has increased and it is included in the insurance part of the rental charge."
  The companies would regard that as a legitimate business reassessment, and the Minister made the point for them in last year's debate.
  The strength of that argument has been confirmed by another Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of domestic electrical goods. The findings debunk the Government's claims of tax avoidance in both the rental and sales sectors. The MMC's findings have been accepted in their entirety by the President of the Board of Trade.
  The MMC report claimed that the price of electrical goods was being kept artificially high and that real costs had fallen dramatically. Therefore, the decision of the rental companies to keep the commodity rental element of their packages low is in line with what the MMC said should be the position.
  With regard to sale warranties, the Government's argument, in contrast, for the introduction of higher rate IPT was that transfer pricing was taking place from lowly priced but high-taxed goods to high-priced but low-taxed warranties. They were stating that retail prices for electrical goods were being kept artificially low, in direct contrast to the MMC and the Department of Trade and Industry, which now state that they are being kept artificially high.
  The MMC further found that there was little price difference between suppliers selling their own warranties and those who were not, so what evidence is there for price shifting? What justification is there for higher rate IPT on this sector in the light of the MMC report? I suggest that there is none. While IPT remains in place, businesses are suffering enormous losses and jobs are once again being lost.
  Thorn and Granada were the examples given by the Financial Secretary last year. Between them, they have lost in the region of £20 million in business and around 800 jobs across the country. They are subject to aggressive marketing from direct insurers, who point out the tax disadvantage of purchasing a warranty through either of those companies. Their market share has fallen.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. Electrical retailers cannot be guilty of both price shifting and artificially raising prices. Has the Financial Secretary spoken to the DTI about the MMC's findings? Surely that report invalidates the Government's justification for higher rate IPT.
  The Minister will also be aware of the impact of IPT on motor vehicle traders. The discriminatory tax applies to maintenance insurance, which has all the accompanying

  257
  benefits of statutory regulation and policing that go with any insurance policy, while vendors' warranties are not taxed and have no backup should the vendor go out of business. There is now a trend towards the use of less-reliably backed but tax-free warranties, with the result that more and more costs are being borne by vehicle purchasers when they find that they are without adequate cover. The consumer is losing out as a result of the tax.
  If the Minister remains unmoved by the personal and business impact of the higher rate IPT, perhaps the Government's mind will be focused by some of the legal arguments that strongly suggest that the current structure of IPT is in breach of European law in a number of areas. I am grateful to Messrs. Waelbroeck and Malherbe, who are European tax law experts, for their advice in this complex area. I believe the Minister has had an opportunity to review their opinion.
  On reading the Waelbroeck report, hon. Members will see that higher rate IPT offends European law in relation to VAT, competition law and the freedom to provide services. I urge the Minister to review the full detail of that report on these points.
  There are some solutions to these problems. My first suggestion to the Minister would be a meeting between herself and key figures in the industries affected. This morning, I met some senior representatives of a number of leading companies and trade bodies. I will be happy bring a delegation of representatives, not just from the travel sector but from all the sectors affected, to meet her.
  My second suggestion concerns extra-statutory concessions. I believe that such concessions have already been agreed with a small number of insurers. Will the Minister consider extending these concessions at least to cover groups where there is no evidence of value shifting? If not, will she explain why concessions are being offered in what appears to be a fairly makeshift manner?
  Ideally, this matter should be resolved through primary legislation, not piecemeal concessions. In that regard, my third suggestion to the Minister would be a general tax avoidance measure in the forthcoming Budget. All along the Government have assured us that higher rate IPT was designed to catch the tax cheats. I have made it clear in my speech that the method chosen has had a wider effect in terms of distortion of the market, and a direct effect on ordinary people, through redundancies and closures.
  Tax avoidance measures can be introduced without these unpalatable side effects. I urge the Minister to follow that route rather than continuing to penalise a limited number of sectors through IPT.
  My final suggestion to the Minister is the most important, and again it is one that she suggested last year. She asked:
  "Why did the Government choose to tackle the problem with a two-rate IPT? Why did they not use other routes, such as a flat-rate"?—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 6 February 1997; c. 177–82.]
  At that time, the Minister argued for an increased flat rate. She should—and indeed must—introduce a level playing field in the insurance market.
  Higher rate insurance premium tax is a tax gone wrong. I hope that the Government will take note of my representations and return to a flat, non-punitive rate of insurance premium tax for all sections of the insurance industry. How can it be right that a customer can go into
  258
  a travel agent, a television rental shop or a garage and be offered insurance at 17.5 per cent. tax and then go next door to an insurance broker and get the same cover at 4 per cent. tax?
  Higher rate IPT is a barrier to fair competition; it causes hardship and job losses and I urge the Minister to act now.
  10.29 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on his speech, particularly the excellent parts where he quoted me. Never has an Adjournment debate included so many excellent quotations from a Minister when in opposition, so I congratulate myself on that.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important points. As his speech demonstrated—when he repeated my words back to me—I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that he expressed. In addressing those concerns, I should like to explain the Government's approach to the issue, on which there is a continuing debate.
  First, the central issue is tax avoidance, on which the hon. Gentleman expressed his view clearly. The term tax avoidance does not necessarily imply that the gaining of a tax advantage was the prime motive for the way in which the travel industry, for example, chose to arrange its business, although that is undoubtedly the case in some respects. There may well be commercial, non-tax reasons for the emphasis on insurance sales. However, the Government have the right to address the adverse effect of those trading arrangements. The higher rate of insurance premium tax does just that. It does not prevent any trader from undertaking what may be a common commercial practice. It simply removes the tax incentive and ensures that the Exchequer does not suffer.
  Secondly, the common practice by travel agents of offering discounted holidays conditional on the sale of their own travel insurance is often cited as a reason for applying the higher rate of IPT to the travel industry. That is not so. Discounting of holidays has no effect on the tax take, as tour operators account for the tax on the undiscounted price of the holiday.
  As in the other sectors affected, the issue behind the introduction of the higher rate is simply one of disproportionate margins. Even the travel industry accepts that the margins earned from insurance sales are far higher than those from the sale of the holiday. Typically, a travel agent will earn 10 per cent. on a holiday and 50 per cent. plus on the insurance. Even before the introduction of the tax measure, one would normally pay considerably more for travel insurance purchased from a travel agent than one would for that bought from a specialist travel insurance broker. The Government's concern in respect of IPT is the adverse effect on the Revenue.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: First, I shall finish the point. The hon. Gentleman presented me with a series of challenges. He is right that it is an important issue, and those studying tonight's debate will be interested in the Government's response.
  Dependence on the high margins earned from insurance means that commission rates on holiday sales are kept low. That benefits tour operators, for which that

  259
  commission is a significant overhead, and it helps to keep holiday prices down. It is the tax take from those holidays which is affected.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the higher rate of tax does not apply to sales of insurance from other, non-travel outlets. That tax structure reflects two key points. Those other insurance providers do not sell taxable goods and services, so they cannot shift their margins to avoid tax. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made on that. We would have to consider that carefully before we included them in any anti-tax avoidance measure. Furthermore, the price differential in the marketplace suggests that travel insurance is not a price-sensitive product. How can it be, when a travel agent can charge £20 more per policy and, even without the incentive of discounted holidays, can still manage to sell travel insurance to 90 per cent. of its customers?
  Given those factors, the previous Government decided to apply the higher rate to travel insurance sold by the travel industry. They apparently anticipated no significant impact on the marketplace. Clearly, we cannot rest on that assumption.
  I have asked customs officials to continue to monitor the impact of the measure. They have done that in the travel sector in conjunction with the Association of British Travel Agents, which I have met and corresponded with about its concerns. Discussions continue, but, despite the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, many of which were in ABTA's recent letter to me on this subject, it has not so far been shown conclusively that travel agents have suffered a loss of market share in travel insurance that can be attributed to the price effect of the higher rate of insurance premium tax.
  It is relevant to note that the 1996 survey conducted by Mintel before the advent of the tax change showed that travel agents were losing market share even then. However, I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall study the representations that I am currently receiving on this subject. I shall certainly give the matter my attention in the run-up to the Budget, and I shall try to deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The hon. Lady mentioned that she had spoken to ABTA and that it had written to her. Does she agree that the two surveys that it carried out show a loss of commission of 34 per cent? That commission will be lost by the small, independent business person, rather than by the big boys: and we know who the big boys are. If that happens, we shall lose the small travel agent with two, three or up to six staff, which we have had for many years. Those findings are pretty
  260
  direct, and I do not know where she will find a more convincing survey. Can she assure us that there will be no job losses?
  Dawn Primarolo: The letter from ABTA quoting 34 per cent., which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has literally only just been received in my office. I should caution him that one should determine how surveys are conducted and whether they can withstand the rigours of proper investigation. When I met those at ABTA, they were very happy with the proposal that they should discuss the proposed points with Customs and Excise officials. They said that they were conducting further work, and I presume that the letter is a result of that further work.
  I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, before taking a decision on the issue, the Government should continue to examine carefully the information that is being produced. The Government's first action must be to defend the Revenue. However, if there is an issue that must be addressed, it will be addressed. I have told the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that, in the run-up to the Budget, I shall very carefully consider the issues that have been raised by the industry. I shall not, however, be making any announcements in this debate.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In the earlier part of her reply, the Minister mentioned the necessity of taxing excessive margins—which seems to be a new principle in taxation. I thought that profit margins were properly taxed by corporation tax, and that big tax was taken off firms that made big profits. The idea that we have a tax to attack different margins on different goods sold by the same person is a bit bizarre. Will that principle be applied to supermarkets, for example? Is the same profit margin possible in selling a pineapple as in selling a Kit Kat? I think not. How far is the Minister proposing to take that new concept?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is not doing his case any good. I have explained to the House why the previous Government included specific measures in primary legislation. If he scrutinises Hansard a little more carefully, he will see exactly what happened in that Committee. I have told him in this debate that those matters are being carefully considered, and I have explained the Government's current position.
  Our willingness to continue to review—which has constantly been expressed to the industry—shows that we are prepared to take action, if evidence substantiates that action is necessary. To date, however, that evidence has not been supplied. The Government continue to examine the matter in this important time before the Budget.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Remuneration (Deans and Chapters)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the level of remuneration to the Dean and Chapter of(a) St. Paul's, (b) Westminster Abbey and (c) St. George's Windsor for each year from 1993 to 1997 inclusive. [25612]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The total costs (excluding National Insurance) of the stipend paid to the Dean and Chapter at St. Paul's for the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are shown in the table:

  1993–94: £129,350

  1994–95: £135,298

  1995–96: £136,778

  1996–97: £138,460

  1997–98: £143,570.

  Westminster Abbey and St. George's Windsor are "Royal Peculiars" and outside the clergy payroll administered by the Commissioners.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the total cost of closing four coastguard stations and merging two stations; [22843]

  (2) what is the cost of implementation of new digital technology for Her Majesty's Coastguard throughout the United Kingdom stations; and if he will list each station separately and the total costs involved. [22848]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Coastguard Agency, Mr. Chris Harris, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 27 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the Coastguard service.
  The proposed five-year strategy announced by Glenda Jackson on 17 November included a statement proposing the closure of four Coastguard stations, (Oban, Pentland, Tyne Tees and Liverpool) and the co-location of Solent and Portland. The total cost of the proposed closures is estimated to be in the order of £3.5 million subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise and the subsequent Ministerial decisions on the implementation of the strategy. On completion of the strategy in 2002, the year on year running cost savings are likely to be in the region of £2.7million. The total cost of co-locating the
  124
  Solent and Portland Coastguard stations is difficult to determine at this stage as decisions remain to be taken about the siting of these two centres.
  The estimated cost of the Integrated Coastguard Communication System (ICCS) is commercially sensitive. We have yet to invite tenders and to disclose the cost at this time would distort the process of competitive tendering.

  Housing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of empty housing units in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 (i) in total and (ii) by housing sector. [24659]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The numbers of vacant local authority and housing associations dwellings in Newcastle upon Tyne on 1 April are set out in the table, alongside the local authority's estimates of private and other public sector vacant dwellings.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Local authority1

  1,634

  1,726

  1,674

  Housing association2

  327

  569

  607

  Other public sector1

  498

  369

  287

  Private sector1

  4,339

  4,191

  4,385

  Total

  6,798

  6,855

  6,953

  1 Source: Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  2 Source: Annual HAR10/1 returns.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlay his assessment that a possible five million new homes are required for the next century's housing needs. [24867]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has made no such assessment. The 1992-based household projections, published in March 1995, indicate a 4.4 million increase in the number of households in England in the 25 year period from 1991 to 2016. However, these household projections are not an estimate of the number of additional houses which have to be built. Rather, they represent just one of the factors to be taken into account by local planning authorities when arriving at figures for housing provision to be included in regional guidance and development plans.

  These projections remain the latest official estimates of household formation until the 1996-based household projections are compiled around the end of this year.

  Manual Handling
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions the Health and Safety Executive has carried out under the Manual Handling Regulations since they came into force; and of these how many were against(a) health care employers, (b) local government employers and (c) private residential homes. [25006]

  Angela Eagle
  The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 January 1993. Between then and 31 March 1997, the Health and Safety Executive has taken eight cases, involving the laying of 15 information's. Ten of the resulting charges produced successful convictions.
  125
  One case was taken against a local government employer. This case resulted in two convictions. No cases were taken against health care employers.

  Local authorities enforce the Manual Handling Operations Regulations in private residential homes; HSE has therefore taken no prosecutions against private residential homes.

  Green Field Site Development, Bradford
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the allocation of a large green field site at Silsden for housing development in the Bradford Unitary Development Plan. [24969]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since Bradford City Council published their proposed modifications to the Unitary Development Plan, and their notice of intention to adopt it, we have received my hon. Friend's representations and others on behalf of the Silsden Town Action Group. Officials have also received telephone calls about the proposals for Silsden.

  We have been aware of the public controversy about the Plan and have taken full account of the representations before concluding that intervention by the Secretary of State would not be warranted.

  Street Trees
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 110, what guidance is given to local authorities to develop strategies for the preservation of mature street trees; and what monitoring takes place as to the effectiveness of the delivery of these strategies. [25018]

  Angela Eagle
  Various guidance has been given to local authorities, in Circulars, research reports and other documents, on the scope and content of strategies to guide the planting, maintenance, protection and replacement of trees in their area. In particular, the 1994 report 'Urban Tree Strategies' illustrated, through a number of case studies, a range of different approaches to help other local authorities when preparing their own strategies.

  Monitoring its effectiveness in achieving objectives should be an important element of any such strategy and should be undertaken at the local level.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his consultation document for the promotion of greater access to the countryside. [24816]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 614.

  Green Belt
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many hectares in England are currently zoned as Green Belt. [24981]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest information available centrally relates to September 1993; it is estimated that there were 1,555,700 hectares of Green Belt in England. More up-to-date information will be available later this year.

  A419
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has carried out into the impact of the completion of the A419 in Gloucestershire on traffic flows. [24866]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Traffic studies were carried out in accordance with the Department's Traffic Appraisal Manual for the schemes on the A419 in Wiltshire and A417 in Gloucestershire which have recently been completed. The studies covered the effects of the Latton Bypass, the Cirencester and Stratton Bypass, the North of Stratton to Nettleton Improvement and the Brockworth Bypass on traffic flows in that corridor. We are monitoring traffic on the new road but it will be some time before we are able to draw any conclusions as to traffic patterns.

  East Midlands Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities about the location of the Regional Development Agency for the East Midlands; what consideration he has given to these; on the basis of what criteria; and when he intends to make a decision. [24946]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 2 September 1997, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallesey (Angela Eagle), met members of Leicester City Council and others wishing to promote the case for the East Midlands Development Agency to be located in Leicester. However, it is not for Government to decide where the Agency will be located. The Agency itself will be best placed to decide where its offices should be.

  Regional Railways North East
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from(a) the Office of the Rail Regulator and (b) the Franchising Director on the performance of Regional Railways North East since privatisation. [25258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No reports on the performance of Regional Railways North East have been received from the Rail Regulator or the Franchising Director. The Franchising Director is responsible for monitoring train operators' performance and publishes performance details in quarterly Bulletins. A copy of OPRAF' s Bulletin is available in the House Library.

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a regional analysis of moneys disbursed through the operation of the landfill tax environmental grant fund. [25257]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not available by regions; however the UK figures for funds notified to Entrust at 31 December 1997 are:

  £

  England

  51,527,135.30

  Scotland

  4,948,679.58

  Northern Ireland

  1,415,247.21

  Wales

  2,157,707.15

  HGVs (Spray Suppression)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to improve spray suppression from HGVs; and if he will make a statement. [25273]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The problem of spray from lorries is one that we would like to reduce. We had commissioned research in the hope of finding a better method of testing spray suppression equipment to ensure it is effective, but this has not led to useful results.

  However, there is a meeting of EU Member States experts later this month at which we will be discussing what others are proposing and we hope that this will lead to proposals for improvements in the Directive which sets standards in this area.

  BAA
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent discussions the Minister of Transport has had with BAA regarding its policy for London's airports; and if he will make a statement; [25521]

  (2) how often the Minister of Transport has had talks with BAA since 2 May. [25522]

  Dr. Strang
  I have had three meetings with BAA since 2 May 1997. None of the meetings was arranged specifically to discuss London airports. Discussions covered a range of issues.

  The Government are carrying out a fundamental review of transport policy leading to the publication of a White Paper later this year. Our aim in the White Paper is to establish the overall framework of an integrated transport policy within which policies relevant to specific modes, including aviation, can be developed. We believe that UK aviation and airports have an essential role to play within a fully integrated transport system.

  Derbyshire Report
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the Second Report on the sinking of the Derbyshire. [25744]
  128
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Assessors have submitted their report to Ministers for consideration. We expect to publish the report in March.

  Walton Bridge Shepperton
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to hold the public inquiry into the plan to replace Walton Bridge at Shepperton. [25469]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]:Surrey County Council have advised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they are reviewing the scheme. The arrangements for the inquiry into the called in planning application are being held in abeyance until such time as the Council have decided whether or not they wish to pursue the scheme in its present form.

  Allotments
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) of 24 July 1997,Official Report, column 699, if he will update his list of (a) consents and (b) refusals of consent since 2 May under the Allotments Act 1925 for the disposal of allotment land or its use for other purposes. [25610]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has given his consent, under section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, for the disposal of the following statutory allotments sites since 2 May 1997;

  7 May: Peel Street, Carlisle

  9 May: Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council training Centre Wolverhampton

  19 May: Firtree Lane, Bristol

  19 May: Troopers Hill, Bristol

  19 May: 32 Nicholas Lane, Bristol

  23 May: Burton Road, Overseal, Derbyshire

  28 May: Washbrook Allotments, Leicester

  3 June: Roundwood Glen, Greengates, Bradford

  9 June: Langham Allotments, Rutland

  11 June: Bridge Street, Lodden, South Norfolk

  24 June: Lee Lane, Langley, Amber Valley, Derbyshire

  24 June: Ridgeway Allotments and Manor Hall Allotments, Southwick, West Sussex

  25 June: Broadwater Gardens Allotments, Harefield, Middlesex

  25 June: The Bartons, Much Marcle, Ledbury, Herefordshire

  26 June: Harewood Allotments, Cornfield Road, Thornaby

  26 June: Harewood Allotments, Thornaby Road, Thornaby

  26 June: Colston Avenue, Carshalton, Surrey

  10 July: Cannock Road, Cannock

  11 July: Barnsfield Place Allotments, Uxbridge, Middlesex

  14 July: Primrose Hill, Stockton on Thames

  15 July: Dodmire Allotments, Darlington

  17 July: Britten Road, Redditch

  22 July: Scotchman Road, Bradford

  4 August: Land adjacent to Merrilea, Dowlands Lane, Copthorne

  4 August: Glassworks Fields, Leeds

  5 August: London Road Allotments, Newport Pagnell

  18 August: Ranmore Road, Dorking

  18 August: Albany Road, Chatham

  129

  18 August: Florence Road, Chichester

  20 August: Southbury Road, Enfield

  23 August: School Place, Corby

  12 September: Bury Lane Allotments, Codicote, Befordshire

  16 October: Pickford Hill and Westfield Road Allotments, Harpenden

  20 October: Church Knapp, Wyke Regis, Weymouth

  20 October: Lenthay Road, Sherborne, Dorset

  30 October: Church Way, Basingstoke

  31 October: Bradshaw Close Allotments, Bozeat, Northamptonshire

  19 November: Quarry Foot, Levens, Kendal

  20 November: Stanley Avenue, Prestwich

  21 November: Daws Field, Lipson, Plymouth

  4 December: Upper Fant Road Allotments, Maidstone

  4 December: Glebew Lane, Maidstone

  8 December: Deweys Lane, Ledgershall, Marlborough, Wiltshire

  10 December: Littlecoates Allotments, Macaulay Lane, Scunthorpe

  12 December: Lapford Crescent, Northwood, Kirby

  9 January: Lodsworth Village Hall Allotments, Lodsworth

  13 January: Benhill Road, Sutton.

  There have been no refusals of consent under section 8 of the 1925 Act since 2 May.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by his Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25615]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions disposes of its surplus information technology equipment through either departmental contracts or the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Sales Agency. These contractors have not been informed by the Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant.

  Category C Prison, Morecambe
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce his decision on the public inquiry into the establishment of a Category C prison at Middleton Sands, Morecambe; and if he will make a statement. [25099]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State will endeavour to issue a decision as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Contingencies Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the membership of the Civil Contingencies Unit. [15692]

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 November 1997, c. 16–17]: The following Departments should be added to the list of Departments represented on the Civil Contingencies Committee:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Scottish Office.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 21 January 1998,Official Report, column 1009, what assessment he has made of the impact of a bomb/missile attack on Iraq in the absence of ground troops; and what support he has received for possible military action against Iraq from (a) the other permanent members of the Security Council, (b) Arab states and (c) Iran. [25299]

  The Prime Minister
  It would not be sensible to speculate about the possible use of military force against. Iraq at this stage. But it cannot be ruled out.

  We, and other members of the Security Council, continue to pursue by diplomatic means the objective of total Iraqi compliance with the Council's demands.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what monitoring he is undertaking to ensure ministers follow the guidance in the Ministerial Code of Conduct; how many instances of non-compliance he has identified; and what steps he intends to take when non-compliance is identified. [24831]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Ministerial Code makes clear that I expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code; that it is for individual Ministers to judge how best to act in order to uphold the highest standards; and that they are accountable to Parliament for their conduct.

  Iraq (Weapons Inspections)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the(a) Chinese, (b) French, and (c) Russian governments whether they have available for service in Iraq technical experts with equivalent qualifications to survey chemical and biological weapons to those of Mr. Scott Ritter. [25611]

  The Prime Minister
  The choice of personnel for the UN Special Commission is a matter for the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission. A large number of nations have provided staff. France and Russia have regularly made personnel available. China is now also contributing.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total value of ticket sales in(a) the constituency of Erewash and (b) the constituency of Westminster since the establishment of the National Lottery. [24855]

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of ticket sales has been in the constituency of Basildon since the establishment of the National Lottery. [24538]

  Mr. Banks
  Figures on ticket sales are not held by the Department and are an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked the Director General of
  131
  the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the Lottery, to write to my hon. Friends, and copies of his responses will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Lottery Grants
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentages of lottery grants have been awarded to voluntary and commercial organisations in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. [24722]

  Mr. Banks
  To date £4,214.085 has been awarded to 33 lottery projects in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. The information available to the Department suggests that the recipients of all of these awards are either charitable or voluntary organisations, or local government. A full list has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on successful Lottery applicants can be found on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for lottery grants have been made from Warrington, North constituency; how many of these were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful; and what is the total value of grants approved so far. [24825]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: To date, organisations in the Warrington, North constituency have made 82 formal applications to the Lottery distributing bodies, of which 23 have been successful, 47 unsuccessful and 12 are awaiting a final decision. The following table shows the breakdown of applications by distributing body. The 23 successful awards have a total value of £2,587,361.

  Information on unsuccessful applications is not kept by the Department. Information on successful Lottery applicants can be found on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Body

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Pending

  Total applications

  Arts Council

  5

  4

  6

  15

  Sports Council

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Millennium Commission

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  Charities Board

  12

  42

  5

  59

  Totals

  23

  47

  12

  82

  1 It has not been possible for the Millennium Commission to provide the information on unsuccessful applications, due to the way in which its records have been compiled.

  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the value of Arts Council administered Lottery Capital Grant awarded to(a) the London region and (b) the Yorkshire and Humber region (i) in total and (ii) broken down (1) by national award, (2) by regional award, (3) by local project award and (4) by head of population in each region. [23379]
  132
  Mr. Fisher
  The most recent figures available (1 December 1997)are:

  £

  London

  Total

  336.521 million

  National projects

  166.846 million

  Regional and local projects1

  169.675 million

  Regional and local projects per capita

  12.28

  Total per capita

  24.35

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Total

  46.646 million

  National projects

  2.879 million

  Regional and local projects1

  43.767 million

  Regional and local projects per capita

  8.15

  Total per capita

  8.71

  1 Breakdown not available.

  "TV Dinners"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will discuss with the Chairman of Channel 4 the contents of the episode of "TV Dinners" relating to the cooking and eating of human placenta puree. [25223]

  Mr. Fisher
  I understand that this programme is to be shown next month. Programme content on Channel Four is regulated by the Channel itself in the first instance, and by the Independent Television Commission which licenses it. The Commission does not preview programmes, but lays down guidelines for its licensees on the standards to be maintained in respect of taste and decency, which they are bound by the terms of their licences to observe. I know that my hon. Friend has made his concerns known to the ITC and I am confident that it, and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, will give careful consideration to any complaints made by him or other viewers once the programme has been broadcast.

  It is a long standing principle that Government do not intervene directly in matters of programme content and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not propose to intervene in this case.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which specific sporting events the Sports Council is campaigning to bring to the United Kingdom. [24788]

  Mr. Banks
  Like the Government, the UK Sports Council fully supports England's campaign for the 2006 World Cup and all top quality UK bids to host major international sports events. It has been supportive of a number of successful bids for events to be held in the UK later this year, which include:

  the World Disabled Athletics Championships (England, August);

  the European Showjumping Championships (England, August);

  the World Orienteering Championships (Scotland, August); and

  the IAAF World Cross Country Championships (Northern Ireland, March).

  The UK Sports Council is also in the final stages of developing a national strategy to ensure that there is a coherent and co-ordinated UK policy in the bidding for and staging of major international events in this country.
  133
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the events included in the World Class Events Programme. [24787]

  Mr. Banks
  The Lottery Sports Fund World Class Events Programme has so far awarded grants totalling £4,361,981 to assist with the bidding for, and staging of, nine international events. The events are:

  Junior Hockey World Cup (1997);

  European Disabled Sailing Championships (1997);

  Sports Acrobatics World Championships (1997);

  Soccer World Cup (2006);

  European Short Course Swimming Championships (1998);

  World Disability Athletics Championships (1998);

  European Show Jumping Championships (1999);

  World Cup in Orienteering—Events 3 and 4 (1998);

  Soccer World Cup for Players with Learning Disabilities (1998).

  Heritage Lotteries Foundation Awards
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total value of awards made by the Heritage Lotteries Foundation to the borough council areas of Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Darlington and Hartlepool. [24814]

  Mr. Banks
  The Heritage Lottery Fund do not hold information on grants awarded on a borough council basis. However, awards totalling £94,100 have so far been made for projects within my hon. Friend's constituency. The total value of awards for projects in the North East is £29.8 million.

  RAF Marston Moor
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Defence of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 408, what steps he is taking to assess the historic significance of the surviving structures at RAF Marston Moor. [25122]

  Mr. Banks
  The former RAF airfield at Marston Moor is included in English Heritage's thematic study of military airfields, to which I referred in the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 19 January 1998,Official Report, columns 424–25. Its initial view is that the control tower is likely to be the only building on the site that may merit consideration as being of special architectural or historic interest.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by her Department that such equipment may not be millennium complaint. [25653]

  Clare Short
  We have not specifically done so. All our redundant IT equipment over the last three years has been bought back by the companies providing the replacement equipment. Such companies are well able to make their own judgment on the question of millennium compliance.

  Great Lakes Region
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on the nature of humanitarian relief in the Great Lakes region. [25445]

  Clare Short
  We expect to receive the UN 1998 Great Lakes humanitarian appeal in February. We have provided over £69 million emergency assistance to the region since October 1993, but 640,00 refugees and 875,00 displaced people remain to be helped. Those in Burundi and north west Rwanda are difficult to reach because of the security situation. We remain ready to respond to new emergency needs as they emerge.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on the nature of development in the Great Lakes region. [25446]

  Clare Short
  The development needs of the region are enormous. A major international effort is needed to assist the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to implement sustainable development policies which benefit the poor. Britain has not traditionally been a major bilateral donor to the region. But we are working with the International Financial Institutions and the European Commission to whom we are major contributors to try to deliver effective assistance. The EC has already committed £149 million (UK share £10 million) to the region in rehabilitation assistance since November 1994. Further funding is available from the European Development Fund.

  Cambodia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amounts of development aid given to Cambodia in the last year for which figures are available. [25303]

  Clare Short
  The latest published information relates to the financial year 1996–97 and is contained in Table 7.3 (page 58) of the 1997 edition of British Aid Statistics, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. British assistance that year totalled nearly £5.5 million.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the cost of media presentations and press conferences which he has given, other than those held at his Department. [25142]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not given any media presentations or press conferences outside my Department's premises.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department how many overseas visits have been made by his Department's political advisers at public expense since 1 May. [25144]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no political advisers in this Department in the period since 1 May.

  Political Advisers (Support Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many secretarial and support staff work full-time in support of his political advisers in his Department. [25190]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently no political advisers in this Department.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many official cars are available for use by Ministers in his Department; and how many new cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in his Department since 1 May. [25146]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two cars are provided for Ministers under the Government Car Scheme: one for the Lord Chancellor and one for the Parliamentary Secretary. No new cars have been acquired.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Dependent Territories
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what audit of the natural resources of the dependent territories has been undertaken; and if he will make a statement. [24970]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have extensive knowledge of the natural resources in the Dependent Territories, although no single comprehensive audit exercise has been undertaken. We place a high priority on working with Dependent Territory Governments to identify, use responsibly and protect their natural resources. We have responsibility in partnership with the Dependent Territories for the further development of the Territories, and for reminding them of their responsibilities under the environmental conventions to which they belong.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent carbon dioxide targets in respect of Kyoto will be applied to dependent territories; and if he will make a statement. [24971]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The United Kingdom's ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has not been extended to the Dependent Territories. It is unlikely that the substantive emissions reductions targets agreed at Kyoto would be appropriate to the small developing economies of the Dependent Territories.

  After the United Kingdom has signed the Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change Convention, we will consider again with the Dependent Territories whether they wish to have the Convention and/or the Kyoto Protocol extended to them.

  Algeria
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to bring to the attention of the Algerian Government its responsibility to protect the lives of its civilians. [25255]
  136
  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear on several occasions our concern for the protection of the Algerian people from terrorist attacks. During the EU Troika mission which I led to Algiers on 19–20 January we made clear the concerns of the British and European people in our talks with the Algerian authorities.

  UK Presidency
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways note-taking procedures used by his Department when chairing European Council meetings differ from those used by the Dutch presidency; and what measures he is taking as a consequence of the letter of the Dutch Permanent Representative of 16 July to ensure clarity of communication between member states and the presidency. [25767]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We expect to use note-taking procedures similar to those used by all recent Presidencies, including the Dutch; but we and other member states keep these procedures under review in the light of experience.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish an investigation during the United Kingdom presidency into the circumstances behind the settlement of the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam relating to the voting procedures for the admission of new Schengen members. [25768]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. We have already addressed the question of voting procedures for participation in the Schengen acquis in response to many previous questions.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures the Government plan to take to assist Cambodia in the development of its democratic institutions; and if he will make a statement. [25351]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We strongly support peace and democracy in Cambodia. We are providing financial assistance through the EU to help the Cambodian authorities prepare their forthcoming elections. We are considering an additional bilateral contribution.

  To explore further opportunities for bilateral co-operation in strengthening democracy in Cambodia, we invited the Deputy Prime Minister of Cambodia to visit Britain on 18–23 January. I met the Deputy Prime Minister and encouraged him to submit specific proposals to help meet Cambodia's needs.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance the Government plan to provide to assist the Cambodian authorities in their efforts to control illegal immigration, and drug trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [25352]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We support projects to combat drugs abuse and trafficking in Cambodia, through the UNDCP. We stand ready to consider specific proposals from the Cambodian authorities for further bilateral co-operation
  137
  on this, and on illegal immigration, following the Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Britain this month.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1997,Official Report, columns 433–34, if all police forces have appointed a management team to deal with year 2000 compliance; and what arrangements have been made by each police force to monitor the implementation of actions to overcome year 2000 problems with particular reference to test facilities. [24725]

  Mr. Michael
  It is the responsibility of each police force to ensure that its information technology systems are Year 2000 compliant. Information about the management structures put in place by each force to address the problem and the arrangement for monitoring the implementation of their action plans is not available centrally. However, we are currently reviewing progress as part of the Government's determination to ensure that Year 2000 problems are identified and dealt with right across the public service. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will also monitor progress as part of its regular inspections.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what current year 2000 problems have been reported to date by police forces. [24726]

  Mr. Michael
  The Police Information Technology Organisation is not aware of any incidences within police forces of system failure because of the millennium problem. Forces' own audits and information provided to them by suppliers have indicated potential problems with a number of information technology systems, including Command and Control, Crime Pattern Analysis and HOLMES I. The difficulties with HOLMES I will be overcome with the introduction of a year 2000 compliant HOLMES II, which will be in place before the end of the century. A Ministerial Group is urgently reviewing within Government and outside to ensure that all other systems are also year 2000 compliant.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by his Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25657]

  Mr. Straw
  Surplus or obsolete information technology equipment is sold to companies, rather than individual consumers. In these instances, the Home Office gives no guarantee or warranty in respect of fitness for use, purpose or merchantable quality.

  Crime and Disorder Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the elements of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] which will be piloted before wider implementation stating how long each pilot scheme is expected to last and the expected date of wider implementation; and if he will make a statement. [25052]
  138
  Mr. Michael
  Details of the measures which the Government intend to pilot, including the expected implementation date (assuming the Bill receives Royal Assent in the summer) and the likely duration of each scheme, are given in the table. On completion, the pilot studies will be evaluated and, subject to the outcome of the evaluation and to resource constraints, full implementation will take place as soon as possible thereafter.

  Measure

  Clause(s)

  Start

  Duration

  Parenting order

  8–10

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Child safety order

  11–13

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Local child curfew schemes

  14, 15

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Local provision of youth justice services/formulation of youth justice plans

  29, 31, 33

  Autumn 1998

  6 months

  Youth offending teams

  30, 33

  Autumn 1998

  6 months

  Statutory time limits

  34–37

  Autumn 1999

  12 months

  Case management: Powers of magistrates' courts exercisable by a single justice

  40, 41

  Autumn 1998

  6 months

  Indictable only cases to start in the Crown Court

  42, 43

  Autumn 1998

  12 months

  Prison/court television links

  45

  Spring 1999

  6 months minimum

  Drug treatment and testing order

  48–51

  Autumn 1998

  12 months minimum

  (Scotland) Drug treatment and testing order

  72–78

  Autumn 1998

  12 months minimum

  Reprimands and warnings

  52, 53

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Reparation order

  54, 55

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Action plan order

  56, 57

  Autumn 1998

  18 months

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the calculations on which the financial effects of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] are based; and if he will make statement. [25053]

  Mr. Straw
  The calculations used to estimate the financial effects of the Crime and Disorder Bill published in the Financial Memorandum are as set out. Taken as a whole, the Bill is intended to address offending behaviour more effectively and to reduce crime and it is therefore expected that this will produce significant savings to the criminal justice system.

  Measures aimed at dealing with youth crime and disorder (child safety orders and parenting orders) will be piloted to enable a detailed assessment of costs. Full year costs are estimated to be £3 million, based on a cost of £180 per order per month and a planning assumption of 5,000 parenting orders per annum typically lasting around three months, and 1,000 child safety orders per annum typically lasting one and a half months.

  The introduction of anti-social behaviour orders is expected to lead to additional costs of £3 million to the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and in legal aid. This is based on an assumption of 5,000 orders annually with the majority of costs falling to magistrates' courts. Additional costs for the police and local authorities are expected to be fully offset by savings arising from the introduction of the new orders.

  The proposals relating to new racially aggravated offences and those concerning increased sentences for those offences are expected to result in some additional costs, but the innovative nature of the offences makes it difficult at this stage to estimate their likely financial impact.
  139
  Proposals relating to the local provision of youth justice services and youth offending teams will be piloted before full implementation to enable a detailed assessment of costs. The establishment of a Youth Justice Board assumes a Board consisting of 10 members working part-time for standard daily rates of remuneration and travel and subsistence; and a small secretariat of 10 staff with a small budget for commissioning research and for developing good practice in work with young offenders. On this basis, full year costs are estimated to be in the region of £1 million.

  Proposals intended to reduce delay in the criminal justice system include the introduction of statutory time limits and increased efficiency, especially in the Youth Court. These are intended to be cost-neutral, since it is expected that any additional costs will be more than outweighed by the benefits of speeding up the progress of cases through the system. The introduction of statutory time limits may have limited resource implications which will be assessed once piloting has determined the level at which limits should be set.

  The final warning scheme, action plan orders and reparation orders will all be piloted to enable detailed costs and savings to be assessed before full implementation. Action plan orders are expected to lead to savings of around £2 million based on 6,000 juveniles per year receiving an order in place of current community penalties. The reparation order is estimated to cost around £1 million if applied to 11,500 juveniles per year.

  Initial estimates of the cost of introducing reprimands and warnings, including the costs of rehabilitation programmes, are in the region of £14 million. Around half of this sum is attributable to Youth Offending Teams running appropriate intervention programmes; these costs will not be incurred in every area as some areas already operate analogous "caution-plus" schemes. The other half reflects the impact of the scheme on the number of court cases and the change in sentencing patterns likely to arise from restricting the use of conditional discharge following final warnings.

  Proposals relating to improvements to supervision orders are expected to result in additional local authority accommodation costs of around £2 million per year. This assumes that, at most, around 160 juveniles a year might be given a residency requirement. The proposals for detention and training orders for young offenders are not expected to have any significant impact on the numbers held in secure facilities. The associated increased levels of supervision are estimated to result in additional costs

  Table A: Number of children aged 10 to under 16 prosecuted for offences1.2 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–96

  England and Wales

  Ages

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Offence description

  Year

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32] 1993

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140
  of around £2 million per year based on an estimated 2,200 young people held under a detention and training order at any one time.

  The extended supervision for sex, violent, recalled and returned prisoners will eventually generate net additional probation service and electronic monitoring costs estimated to be about £20 million per year, assuming that this will require around 600 additional probation service staff to supervise 1,100 offenders on extended supervision with 110 recalls to custody (a breach rate of 10 per cent.).

  Proposals for drug treatment and testing orders will be the subject of local pilot projects, the cost of which are expected to be in the region of £1 million. The findings of the pilot evaluation will inform consideration of the need for resourcing to extend the Treatment and Testing Orders nationwide. Full implementation based on 6,250 orders per year at a cost of £6,400 per order are estimated to be £40 million.

  The cost of introducing powers to release short-term prisoners on licence (home detention curfew) depends upon the extent of take-up and the outcome of a commercial competition but, on the take-up rate assumed for planning purposes, is not expected to exceed £26 million per year. Against this, home detention curfew will avoid the need for expenditure on around 3,000 new prison places at an estimated cost of £90 million per year which would otherwise be necessary to accommodate the rising prison population.

  Police
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) legislation and (b) other procedures apply to the disclosure of internal reports commissioned by police authorities into their police forces. 24856]

  Mr. Michael
  With regard to legislation, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, columns 525–26. There are no other procedures applicable to the disclosure of internal reports commissioned by police authorities into their police forces.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under the age of 16 years have been prosecuted for offences related to prostitution, by age, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [25050]

  Mr. Michael
  Information for prosecutions and cautions is given in the tables.
  141

  Table A: Number of children aged 10 to under 16 prosecuted for offences1.2 relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–96

  England and Wales

  Ages

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Offence description

  Year

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Kerb-crawling

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  10

  [Street Offences Act 1956 S1]

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  8

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  5

  —

  14

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  8

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1 Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself, though in certain cases it can be a separate offence.

  2 There were no court proceedings against children aged 10 to under 16 for offences of 'Persistent soliciting of women for the purposes of prostitution' Sexual Offences Act 1985 s2); and 'Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place' (Vagrancy Act 1824 s3 and pt s4).

  Table B: Number of children aged 10 to under 16 cautioned for offences relating to prostitution by age and sex, 1992–1996

  England and Wales

  Ages

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Offence description

  Year

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  Soliciting by a man

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  [Sexual Offences Act 1956 S32]

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerb-crawling

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S1]

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  prostitution

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  [Sexual Offences Act 1985 S2]

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the

  1992

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  1

  41

  purposes of prostitution

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  32

  —

  32

  [Street Offences Act 1959 S1]

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  19

  —

  25

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  11

  1

  27

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  16

  —

  31

  1 Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself, though in certain cases it can be a separate offence.

  2 There were no cautions given to children aged 10 to under 16 for the offence of 'Common prostitute behaving in a riotous and indecent manner in a public place' (Vagrancy Act 1824 S3 and pt S4).

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the proportion of his Department's budget spent directly on targeted crime prevention work; and if he will make a statement. [25046]

  Mr. Michael
  Our manifesto made clear the Government's commitment to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We also gave an undertaking that, for the first two years, the Government would work within the Departmental spending limits already announced.
  142
  Plans and priorities for spending after the 1998–99 financial year are being examined in the Comprehensive Review of all public expenditure, with a view to ensuring that taxpayers' money is being spent effectively in order to meet the Government's manifesto commitments.

  Air Rifles
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the controls governing air rifles. [24854]

  Mr. Michael
  There are already laws in place to control the use and possession of air rifles. It is illegal to carry a loaded air weapon in a public place, to discharge an air
  143
  weapon within fifty feet of a road or to use one to shoot birds or other protected animals. We have said that, once the total ban on handguns is in place, we will look at all firearms controls to see whether other measures are needed to safeguard the public. The law relating to air weapons will be included as part of that exercise. We propose to consult widely with all interested parties if further steps are considered necessary.

  Asylum applications1received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2on applications, January to December 1997

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Month

  Applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of exceptional leave

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave3

  January

  2,715

  3,260

  265

  415

  2,580

  February

  2,475

  3,090

  305

  375

  2,410

  March

  2,160

  2,845

  295

  140

  2,410

  April

  2,665

  3,390

  265

  185

  2,945

  May

  2,590

  2,880

  235

  155

  2,490

  June

  2,585

  2,930

  235

  175

  2,520

  July

  3,070

  3,480

  280

  330

  2,875

  August

  2,930

  2,980

  265

  355

  2,360

  September

  2,850

  2,800

  310

  265

  2,225

  October

  2,990

  3,035

  330

  260

  2,445

  November

  2,345

  2,990

  595

  305

  2,090

  December

  3,120

  2,355

  605

  155

  1,595

  Total

  32,500

  36,045

  3,985

  3,115

  28,945

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

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1997.

  3 Includes those cases refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country and under Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. (For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview).

  Police (Civilian Staff)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's guidance to the Metropolitan Police Service on the use of civilians within police stations; and in what circumstances civilians may be given responsibility for the supervision of detainees within police stations. [25230]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police's civil staff are employed in a wide range of roles in support of operational police duties. There are currently 4,835 civil staff employed at divisional police stations within the Metropolitan Police District. Guidance on the use of civilians in the custody area of police stations was issued to all police forces on 6 July 1993. The guidance provided a list of tasks which were considered suitable for trained civilian staff working under the direct supervision of the custody officer.

  The Commissioner tells me that civilian gaolers were formally introduced in the Metropolitan Police via a pilot scheme in May 1993. Since then, it has been acknowledged that, despite having no special powers, they can make a useful contribution in assisting the custody officer in the management of detained persons. Their main role is to deal with a wide range of important routine matters on behalf of the custody officer concerning general welfare, housekeeping and detention conditions.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were made to and determined by his Department in each month of 1997; and with what result. [25135]

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

  Fires (London)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the role of the Metropolitan Police Service in dealing with fires on or close to the Thames. [25229]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that fire fighting is not a primary objective of Thames Division. However, when they come across incidents of fire in the course of their duties, the Division respond and call on other resources as appropriate to preserve life and property.

  Cannibalism
  Mr. NcNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make cannibalism a criminal offence. [25221]

  Mr. Michael
  No. If anyone were to attack or kill a person with the intention of eating any part of the victim's body, it would already involve the commission of a criminal offence.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he passed ministerial responsibility for matters relating to on-line lotteries to another minister. [24993]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: 17 November 1997.
  145
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of his correspondence with the Deputy Prime Minister on the subject of on-line lotteries. [24994]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: It is not normal practice for correspondence between Cabinet Ministers to be placed in the Library and I see no reason to depart from that practice on this occasion.

  Film Classification
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the British Board of Film Classification's Annual Report for 1996–97 will be published; and if he will make a statement. [26222]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before the House copies of the Annual Report of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) for 1996–97, which gives details of the Board's financial accounts and activities over the past eighteen months. Copies of the report have also been placed in the Library.

  Under section 6 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, the designated authority for the classification of video works (in practice, the President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC) is required to produce a report as soon as is reasonably practicable after 31 December. The production of the report for 1996–97 has been greatly delayed and I have expressed my concern about this very strongly to the new President, Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith. Mr. Whittam Smith has made it clear that he shares my concern and has assured me that he will be establishing a timetable for the production of the 1997–98 report to ensure that it is produced as soon as possible after the audited accounts are available.

  I have also made clear to Mr. Whittam Smith my serious concern at the unilateral action taken by the BBFC last year to relax the guidelines for the classification of videos in the R18 category (that is, videos which can lawfully be sold only in licensed sex shops). The BBFC's change of policy was brought to my attention by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which was concerned that material had been classified which might have been liable to forfeiture under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1959 and the subject of forfeiture proceedings under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. It was entirely unacceptable that the Board should have acted in this way. As a consequence of my concern, Mr. Whittam Smith has inquired into the handling of this matter and is putting in place procedures to ensure proper controls on the formulation of policy. He is also taking steps to improve management accountability at the Board.

  On taking up his post, Mr. Whittam Smith outlined his proposals for reviewing the Board's classification policy and his intention to consult widely on this issue. I welcome these positive steps towards greater openness and accountability at the Board.

  Crime Rate (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the crime rate in the centre of Chelmsford since January 1996. [25667]
  146
  Mr. Michael
  Information collected centrally on recorded crime is broken down only as far as police force area. More localised data can be obtained direct from the Force Statistics Officer for Essex Police.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the introduction of CCTV on the crime level in the centre of Chelmsford; and how many arrests have been made as a result of CCTV. [25785]

  Mr. Michael
  The police in Chelmsford report that there has been a 21 per cent. overall reduction in recorded crime in the Chelmsford town beat area since the closed circuit television system became operational in January 1996; and that 426 arrests were directly attributable to incidents being caught on camera.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 1998,Official Report, column 165, for what reasons the average turn round time between receipt of claims from the police and processing of options A and B was 19 weeks. [25926]

  Mr. Michael
  With over 116,000 handguns and associated equipment surrendered over a short period, an initial build-up of claims was inevitable. Processing rates were initially held up by computer problems, now resolved, and are currently determined by a combination of factors, including: the nature and complexity of the claims that are being examined; the numbers of staff available at any given point; and the time that can be spent on processing claims, as opposed to non-productive work such as dealing with inquiries. We are doing all we can to keep the length of time that claimants must await payment to a minimum. This includes weekend working; the use of casual staff and of data processors on short term contract to input the claimant details; allowing the examiners more time on processing the payments; and increasing the number of trained examiners available. A recorded telephone mailbox message giving current processing times has been introduced to reduce the distractions to staff.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 1998,Official Report, column 165, on the Firearms Compensation Scheme, what was the reason for the delay in returning Mr. Fowles's incorrectly completed firearms compensation application; and if he will make a statement. [25350]

  Mr. Michael
  Errors in the completion of compensation claims are normally identified when the claim is examined prior to payment. Having been lodged on 23 September 1997, towards the end of the hand-in period, Mr. Fowles's claim has not yet reached that stage, and the error in his claim has come to light as a result of the previous Question. The form has been returned to
  147
  Mr. Fowles for correction. There has been no delay in notifying him of the error, and the processing time for the case will be unaffected, so long as Mr. Fowles completes the form correctly and returns it promptly.

  Immigration
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the conditions that have to be met by the partner of someone seeking permission to live in the United Kingdom before they may be admitted. [25865]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The term "partner" is not defined in immigration legislation or rules. Different descriptions are used and so it is not possible to give a precise answer to this Question. Someone seeking permission to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as a spouse or fiancé(e) must show that he or she is present and settled in the United Kingdom and that, as a couple, they intend to live together permanently and are able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. The parties to the marriage, or proposed marriage, must have met. If the overseas partner is seeking permission to enter under the concession for unmarried partners, introduced on 13 October 1997, the couple must additionally show that they have been living together in a relationship akin to marriage which has subsisted for four years or more; that they are legally unable to marry (other than by reason of consanguineous relationships or age); and that any previous marriage, or similar relationship, has permanently broken down. In all cases, the overseas partner must be in possession of a valid entry clearance for entry in the appropriate capacity.

TREASURY

  Unemployment
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of unemployment of(a)(i) Catholics and (ii) Protestants in Northern Ireland and (b) (1) Afro-Caribbeans and (2) Asians in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23020]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 27 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question asking about the unemployment rates of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and Afro-Caribbeans and Asians in England and Wales.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have
  148
  either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. The ILO unemployment rate is defined as the number ILO employed as a proportion of all those either in employment or ILO unemployed.
  The requested figures based on the average of the four latest quarterly LFS estimates are shown below:

  ILO unemployment rates

  Average of four quarters autumn 1996 to summer 1997

  Northern Ireland

  Catholics

  12.0

  Protestants

  6.6

  England and Wales

  Black1

  20.4

  Asian2

  14.5

  1 Black-African, Black-Caribbean and Black-other (excluding Black-mixed).

  2 Indian and Pakistani/Bangladeshi.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue from restricting the rate of tax relief on(a) employee pension contributions and (b) employer pension contributions to (i) the standard rate of income tax and (ii) to 20 per cent. [23109]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the full year yield for 1998–99 of restricting income tax relief for employees' and employers' contributions to occupational and personal pensions are given in the table. They do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from such changes.

  £ million

  Relief for

  Yield from restricting income tax relief to

  23 per cent.

  20 per cent.

  Employees' pension contributions1

  700

  1,100

  Employers' pension contributions2

  950

  1,600

  1 Based on a projection of the 1995–96 survey of personal incomes and other survey and administrative data.

  2 Based on a projection of figures compiled by the Office for National Statistics from a variety of sources.

  Pensioners (Tax Self-assessment)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Inland Revenue has taken to ensure that pensioners are made aware of the need to return their self-assessment forms in time; and what proposals he has to allow an extension of time for such people. [23458]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Only a small minority of pensioners are required to complete self assessment tax returns. The Inland Revenue has produced written guidance about people who receive pensions, explaining the time limit for completing their returns, and the Inland Revenue's publicity campaign has included a significant amount of advertisement on national television and radio, designed to raise awareness of the filing date amongst all sections of the population affected by self assessment. As I explained to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on 14 January, there are no plans to extend the filing date of 31 January 1998.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each benefit paid by(a) central and (b) local government (i) whether it is taxable and for what reasons and (ii) his estimate of the amount of income tax raised in the last year for which figures are available. [23456]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A list of the most readily identifiable non-taxable benefits is as follows:

  Central Government

  Attendance Allowance

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Exceptionally Severe Disablement Allowance

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit payable for first 28 weeks of incapacity

  Incapacity Benefit paid to existing claimants at April 1995

  Back to work Bonus

  Earnings Top-up

  Jobfinder's Grant

  Jobmatch

  Jobseeker's Grant

  Parent Plus

  Project Work

  Independent Living (1993) Fund

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  Retirement Allowance

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Vaccine Damage Payments

  War Disablement Pension

  Training for Work

  Travel to Interview

  Income Support

  Social Fund payments—Community Care Grants, Budgeting Loans, Crisis Loans, Cold Weather Payments, Maternity Payments, Funeral Payments

  Free NHS Dental Treatment and Check-Ups

  Child Benefit

  Child Benefit (Lone Parent)

  Family Credit

  Guardians Allowance

  Maternity Allowance

  Maternity Payment from the Social Fund

  Child Maintenance Bonus

  Refunds on NHS Sight Tests and Spectacle Vouchers

  Wigs and Fabric Supports

  Hospital Travel Costs

  Assisted Prison Visits

  Milk Tokens and Vitamins

  Widows Payment and War Widows Pension

  Christmas Bonus

  Local Government

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes.

  150
  A list of the taxable benefits paid by central government is given in the following table, along with the forecast tax yield from each benefit in 1998–99.

  Benefit

  Yield in a full year from taxing benefit (£ million)

  Retirement Pension (including SERPS and over 80s additions)

  2,200

  Widow's Pension and Widowed Mother's Allowance

  150

  Invalid Care Allowance

  20

  Contributory Jobseekers Allowance

  60

  Income Based Jobseekers Allowance

  100

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  90

  Incapacity Benefit received for more than 28 weeks of incapacity

  130

  Industrial Death Benefit

  5

  Statutory Sick Pay is a taxable benefit which is mainly paid by employers. It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the tax yield from the benefit.

  A complete list of benefits could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Debts
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of outstanding debts to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were recovered by his Department over the most recent period for which figures are available; what methods were employed; and in what percentage of cases litigation was pursued. [23504]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise's debt management objective in 1996–97 was to ensure that month end arrears did not exceed 2.3 per cent. of 12 months payment trader liability. This was achieved with a figure of 2.21 per cent. Approximately 5 million separate debts were referred to Inland Revenue local offices in the year ending 31 October 1996, of which approximately 50 per cent. (2.5 million) were paid in that period.

  In the first instance, both Departments will issue a letter to the taxpayer. Inland Revenue may also telephone or visit the taxpayer's home or business premises before recovery action is taken.

  The method of recovery adopted will depend on the circumstances and nature of any particular case. Inland Revenue local offices will consider granting a period of time in which to pay, taking distraint action, commencing summary proceedings or instigating county court proceedings or similar actions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. If necessary, cases will be referred to the Inland Revenue's special enforcement offices for further action, including winding up or bankruptcy proceedings. Customs, in addition to granting a period of time in which to pay, would levy distress by certificated bailiffs (or sheriff officers in Scotland), or the use of court process which may lead to bankruptcy or winding up. In addition, Customs may, in appropriate cases, support voluntary arrangement proposals received from debtors.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the expenditure incurred by the Inland Revenue and by Customs and
  151
  Excise in the recovery of debts for the most recent period for which figures are available; and what was the total amount recovered as a result. [23503]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the financial year 1996–97, the expenditure incurred by Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue in the recovery of debt was £37 million and £165 million respectively.

  It is not possible to quantify the amount recovered as a direct result of that expenditure. In the financial year 1996–97, Customs discharged £2.5 billion of debt, which included tax collected, tax written off as irrecoverable at the time and accounting adjustments. The Inland Revenue does not separately measure the total amount of overdue tax that is collected as a direct result of action taken to pursue it during the year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total value of debts outstanding to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; what resources are being devoted by his Department to their recovery; and what is the average age of such debts. [23502]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise estimates that, on average, some £1,400 million of unpaid liability is in the system at any one time. The total value of debts outstanding to the Inland Revenue at 31 October 1996—the latest date for which figures are available—was approximately £4.4 billion.

  During the financial year 1996–97, Customs and Excise allocated £37 million to debt recovery, and the cost involved in Inland Revenue recovering debt was £165 million.

  At the end of the financial year 1996–97, Customs and Excise estimates that approximately 68 per cent. of unpaid liability was less than six months old. The Inland Revenue estimates that £2.5 billion had been outstanding for more than three months at 31 October 1996.

  EMU Preparation Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the establishment of the EMU preparation unit in his Department, with particular reference to the terms of reference for the unit, and its membership. [24118]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The euro preparations unit in HM Treasury has been established to help preparations for EMU. Its aims are to ensure UK business and public authorities are ready for the introduction of the euro in other EU countries on 1 January 1999 and to complete the necessary planning and preparation to enable UK entry early in the next Parliament, if this is what the Government, Parliament and people decide. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses in the United Kingdom are ready for the introduction of the euro in other countries in 1999. The Unit will comprise around 15 members of staff drawn from the Treasury, DTI, other Government Departments, and business. As part of its work, it will support the Standing Committee on preparations for EMU and other similar bodies.

  MIRAS
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of mortgage interest relief at source in Scotland for (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and what is his provisional estimate for MIRAS in Scotland for 1997–98. [24393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland was estimated to be £200 million in 1995–96 and £180 million in 1996–97. The amount of relief given through MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source scheme—was estimated to be £190 million in 1995–96 and £170 million in 1996–97.

  These estimates are based on the regional distribution of the cost of mortgage interest relief from analyses of family expenditure surveys up to 1995–96. The estimates for 1996–97 are projections based on applying the same regional distribution as in 1995–96 to the total figure for 1996–97. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates below United Kingdom level for 1997–98.

  VAT (School Uniforms)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on revenue of zero rating for VAT purposes if applied to items of clothing and footwear for use only as part of an approved school uniform, for schoolchildren under the age of 16 years. [24435]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenue derived in(a) the current year and (b) the two previous financial years from the taxation of child benefit (i) on the present individual tax base and (ii) on the basis of a household tax assessment system. [24009]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: Child benefit is not liable to income tax. If it had been taxed over the past three financial years (including the current year), the estimates of the tax yield are given in following table.

  Yield in a full year (£millon)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Child Benefit taxed as:

  Father's or lone mother's income

  1,300

  1,300

  1,400

  Mother's or lone father's income

  700

  700

  700

  These estimates are given on the basis of the system of independent taxation.

  Fuel Poverty
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the reduced rate of VAT on energy efficient products used in Government-sponsored schemes for people in fuel poverty, proposed in his pre-budget paper, to all products manufactured for the purposes of energy efficiency. [24505]
  153
  Dawn Primarolo
  EC VAT law does not at present permit an unrestricted reduced rate for energy efficient products. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement on 25 November 1997,Official Report, colums 773–98, we shall be raising the matter with our European partners to explore the possibility of change.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in the real and nominal exchange rate of sterling against deutschmark(a) for each quarter of the last three years and (b) in total; and what assessment he has made of the impact of these changes on (i) German exports to the United Kingdom and (ii) the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Germany. [24732]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The real and nominal exchange rate movements of sterling against the deutschmark from 1994Q4 until 1997Q4 are given in the table. The effects of exchange rate movements on the balance of payments are difficult to isolate. However, recently the UK's deficit on trade in goods with Germany has been similar to its level three years earlier.

  Period

  Nominal exchange rate change percentage, DM/£1

  Real exchange rate change percentage, DM/£2

  1994Q4–1995Q1

  -4.4

  -3.3

  1995Q1–1995Q2

  -4.7

  -3

  1995Q2–1995Q3

  0.9

  2.7

  1995Q3–1995Q4

  -1.3

  0

  1995Q4–1996Q1

  1.3

  2.7

  1996Q1–1996Q2

  3.1

  4

  1996Q2–1996Q3

  0.4

  0.9

  1996Q3–1996Q4

  7.2

  8.7

  1996Q4–1997Q1

  8

  9.3

  1997Q1–1997Q2

  3.7

  4.9

  1997Q2–1997Q3

  4.6

  5.8

  1997Q3–1997Q4

  -0.7

  1

  Total exchange rate change

  18.8

  24.3

  1 A minus sign denotes depreciation of sterling.

  2 Nominal exchange rate changes adjusted for changes in relative consumer prices.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to his counterparts in Germany and France about(a) their monetary and exchange rate policies and (b) the impact of those policies on the exchange rate of the deutschmark and franc against sterling. [24734]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor meets his German and French counterparts on a regular basis, including at ECOFIN, where monetary policy and exchange rate issues are regularly discussed.

  Unemployment Figures
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchange if he will calculate the current level of unemployment on(a) a claimant basis and (b) labour force survey basis rebased to the methodology used for calculating unemployment in (i) 1980, (ii) methodology used for calculating unemployment in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1990. [25233]
  154
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 27 January 1998:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question on calculating the current level of unemployment on (a) claimant basis and (b) labour force survey basis rebased to the methodology used for calculating unemployment in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1990.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  ONS also published figures on the number of people who are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance Credits. This is published monthly and is known as the Claimant Count.

  Labour Force Survey
  The ILO definition of unemployment has been used for the LFS since 1984. Prior to this a slightly different definition was used. Data on both definitions is published for 1984. The ILO definition produced slightly higher estimates. The ILO definition was adopted in order to be consistent with international practice. The information required to calculate unemployment according to the old definition is no longer collected and any estimation would be speculative.

  Claimant Count
  It is not possible to calculate the current claimant count under any previous coverage as it is impossible to know how many people would be registered unemployed now, on the basis of old procedures which no longer exist. The effect of changes in the coverage of the monthly count vary over time. Attempting to calculate their effects today would involve speculative estimates about economic, demographic and other factors.

  Sterling (Trade-weighted Value)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of a 10 per cent. rise in the trade-weighted value of sterling on(a) real GDP, (b) manufacturing output, (c) manufacturing employment, (d) export volumes and (e) import volumes. [25232]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The effects of a rise in the exchange rate are difficult to isolate and estimate with confidence. Generally, a sterling appreciation in the short term will tend to lead to lower GDP, manufacturing output, employment, and exports, and to higher imports, all compared to what they otherwise would have been. But such effects may be masked by other factors such as the relative strength of demand in the UK compared with the rest of the world and policy responses.

  Economic Crisis (East and South-East Asia)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the East and South-East Asian financial and economic crisis on British GDP growth in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and on the volumes of United Kingdom exports and imports in those years. [25225]
  155
  Mrs. Liddell
  Financial difficulties to date in Asia are not expected to have a major direct impact on the UK economy, but the situation is still evolving and is being kept under close scrutiny.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects to be the effect in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 on Inland Revenue manpower of the move to self-assessment; and if he will estimate the effect of the change on the running costs of the Inland Revenue. [24714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The move to self-assessment will reduce Inland Revenue manpower by nil in 1997–98, by 1,400 man years in 1998–99 and by a further 1,600 man years in 1999–2000. Once the transitional costs of introducing the system have disappeared, self-assessment is expected to reduce Inland Revenue running costs by around £70 million per annum.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue he expects the Government to receive from £100 fines on taxpayers who file their return after the 31 January deadline. [24715]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The Government have not included any specific amount for these penalties in their forecast receipts. These penalties exist solely to deter late filing, and the Government would much prefer that taxpayers file their returns on time than incur penalties for late filing. The normal penalty charge will be £100, but where the tax payable is less than this, the penalty will be reduced to an amount equal to the tax liability.

  House Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards the proposal of the EU Commission that there should be a three-year trial period during which member states of the EU can impose a 5 per cent. rate of VAT on repairs to domestic housing; and if he will make a statement. [24770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The Commission's suggestion that member states should be able to opt to apply a reduced rate experimentally to certain labour-intensive services has yet to be discussed by the ECOFIN Council, or indeed to be presented as a formal legislative proposal. The Government are carefully considering this proposal. There is, though, little evidence yet to convince us of the usefulness of reduced rates of VAT as a means of increasing employment or assisting small businesses.

  The UK has a £49,000 registration threshold for VAT, which already allows a small labour-intensive business, such as a builder doing house repairs, to trade legitimately without charging VAT.

  Personal Pension Plans
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personal pension plans were terminated in 1994–95 by individuals below the minimum pension age 156
  of the scheme; and how much had been paid into those schemes by the Exchequer in the form of income tax relief on contributions. [25523]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We do not collect this information.

  Economic Indicators
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage increase in the(a) GDP deflator and (b) headline retail prices index in each year from 1986–87 to 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [24742]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding reply 23 January 1998]: Annual average inflation rates for the GDP deflator and the headline retail price index (RPI) are shown in the table. The table also shows figures for the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (RPI ex MIPs), which is the Government's target measure.

  Annual average inflation rates for financial years

  Percentage change on previous financial year

  Financial year

  GDP deflator

  Headline RPI

  RPI ex MIPs

  1986–87

  3.0

  3.2

  3.4

  1987–88

  5.3

  4.0

  3.7

  1988–89

  6.7

  6.0

  5.1

  1989–90

  7.0

  7.8

  6.0

  1990–91

  8.0

  9.7

  8.7

  1991–92

  6.4

  4.8

  6.1

  1992–93

  4.2

  3.1

  4.1

  1993–94

  2.9

  1.7

  28.8

  1994–95

  1.5

  2.7

  2.4

  1995–96

  2.7

  3.3

  2.8

  1996–97

  2.8

  2.4

  3.0

  Forecast 1997–98

  12.75

  23.6

  2.75

  1 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  2 Calendar year 1997. The Government do not publish forecast for the headline RPI.

  For the Pre-Budget Report, the National Audit Office audited the consistency of the assumptions for a range of price indices, including the GDP deflator and the headline RPI, with the projected path for RPI ex MIPs. The Auditory General and Comptroller concluded:
  "There is a reasonable consistency between the assumed trends in the indices, subject to the inevitable uncertainty of projecting relative price movements."

  Tax (Advance Clearance Procedures)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the level of staff required to run an advance clearance department at the Inland Revenue in the event of a general tax anti-avoidance provision being implemented; and what estimate he has made of the annual operating costs of such a department; [24848]

  (2) how many applications there were under each of the advance clearance procedures in tax legislation for each year since 1990; [24876]

  (3) what representations his Department has received (a) in favour and (b) against a general tax anti-avoidance provision; [24849]

  (4) if he will list those provisions in tax legislation which currently provide for an advance clearance procedure; [24847]
  157
  (5) how many staff at the Inland Revenue work on advance clearance procedures; and what was the cost of employing such staff in each of the last three years. [24877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 23 January 1998]: The statutory advance clearance procedures for which details are available of the number of applications, are as follows:

  s. 138 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992

  s. 215 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

  s. 225 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

  s. 707 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 19881

  1990

  2,686

  209

  1,206

  4,164

  1991

  2,285

  190

  1,224

  3,700

  1992

  2,054

  160

  1,348

  3,470

  1993

  2,077

  185

  1,216

  3,567

  1994

  2,254

  191

  1,399

  3,903

  1995

  2,458

  227

  1,565

  4,232

  1996

  2,744

  227

  1,756

  4,642

  1997

  3,036

  273

  1,958

  5,500

  1 These figures include repeat applications and letters supplying information in support of previous applications.

  It is not possible to give precise staff and cost figures for these clearances, as some of the staff involved have other duties, but approximately 15 staff units are presently employed on this clearance work at an approximate pay-bill cost of £500,000 per annum.

  In response to the hon. Gentlemen's questions about representations received concerning a general anti-avoidance rule, I would refer him to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 15 January 1998, Official Report, column 305.

  It is too early for an assessment to be made of the staffing needs and operating costs of any unit dealing with advance clearances.

  VAT
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value added tax income generated from value added tax registered(a) artists, (b) sculptors, (c) designers, (d) authors, (e) journalists and (f) composers for each year since 1993. [24744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The information requested is not available.

  IT Equipment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the use of framework contracts for the purchase of IT equipment and services by the public sector. [25457]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Departments and other public bodies are individually responsible for the procurement of goods and services. The Government's policy is that they should achieve value for money, normally through competition. One of the options open to them in the field of IT equipment and services is to make use of framework contracts entered into by CCTA following competitive procurement.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the argument advanced by the Bank of England in the papers circulated at the symposium on 20 January 1998 on the application of regulations stemming from article 109I of the Maastricht treaty to the United Kingdom and their treatment by English courts; and if he will make a statement. [25036]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Bank of England advanced no such amendment.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has come to a decision on the issue, relating to article 109L of the Maastricht treaty raised in paragraph 4, page 86 of the paper circulated by the Bank of England at the symposium on 20 January 1998, and if he will make a statement. [25037]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Given the views of the financial sector, the Government do not believe that there is a need to introduce any additional national legislation in this area.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the receipts from inheritance tax; and what were the costs of collection in each year since 1990. [25040]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 19 December 1997,Official Report, column 337.

  Export Licences (Turkey)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under which military list headings of an export licence the export by a UK company of ammunition production equipment to Turkey would fall. [25237]

  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The export to any destination of specially designed or modified production equipment for the production of ammunition is controlled under entry ML18 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1991). The text of Part III of Schedule 1 is now set out in Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996–2663).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of Palace of Westminster staff are registered disabled. [25662]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Following the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (which came into effect in December 1996) the concept of registered disabled was discontinued. The House, therefore, no longer records the information requested.
  159
  However, the House of Commons Disabled Persons' Officer has recently conducted a review and her recommendations include inviting jobholders to say on revised annual appraisal forms whether they consider themselves to have a disability and if so to discuss either with their line manager or with their Departmental Disabled Persons Officer any adjustments which might be needed to help them. The recommendations of the review are currently being considered.

  The House of Commons Commission does not have responsibility for other staff in the Palace (e.g. Members' staff, the Metropolitan Police or House of Lords staff).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports (Kenya)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any private companies have been licensed to provide training in riot control to the Kenyan police, military or security units. [24333]

  Mrs. Roche
  The provision of such training would not require a licence.

  Channel Islands (Exports)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what military list and police and paramilitary list items designated ML and PL on the Export of Goods Control Order (1994) have been licensed to the Channel Islands for the periods(a) between June 1996 and April 1997 and (b) since 1 May 1997; what records her Department holds of subsequent exports from the Channel Islands of these items; and whether they are included in her Department's export licensing statistics under the ECLIPS System. [23585]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows.

  Between 1 June 1996 and 1 May 1997, 72 standard individual licences and 10 Open Individual Licences were issued for the export to the Channel Islands of goods controlled by Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"). Between 2 May and 24 December 1997, 44 standard individual licences and 1 Open Individual Licence were issued for such exports.

  This answer should be read in the context of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is not the licensing authority for exports from the Channel Islands, although it is generally consulted on individual cases by their officials. A paper record of such consultations is retained by the Department, but details are not entered on the ECLIPS computer database.

  Official Engagements
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the official engagements by the Minister with responsibility for Science and Technology
  160
  between 1 December 1997 and 15 January 1998, and (b) the number of days he has been in the Department between 1 December 1997 and 12 January 1998. [24373]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: During the period in question, I undertook an extensive programme of official engagements.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 1998,Official Report, column 671, what equipment (a) the one arms export licence to Turkey refused and (b) the 71 licences granted, covered. [23047]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained.

  Between 2 May and 5 November inclusive, decisions were taken on 73 applications for standard or open individual licences to export to Turkey goods controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the so-called "Military List"): 71 standard individual export licences were granted, and one application for such a licence refused; and one open individual export licence was issued. At 5 November, 105 applications were awaiting a decision.

  Decisions on applications for standard individual export licences during the period

  Rating

  Number of licences granted covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications refused covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  11

  1

  ML2

  9

  0

  ML3

  5

  0

  ML4

  2

  0

  ML5

  3

  0

  ML6

  2

  0

  ML7

  1

  0

  ML9

  4

  0

  ML10

  7

  0

  ML11

  26

  0

  ML14

  2

  0

  ML16

  1

  0

  ML18

  1

  0

  Decisions on applications for open individual export licences (OIELs) during the period

  Rating

  Number of licences granted covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications refused covering goods with this rating

  ML5

  1

  0

  However, this information should be considered in the light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 256–58.

  As regards the additional information requested, it would entail disproportionate cost to make the inquiries necessary under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the value was of the export credits extended to support the supply of Alvis armoured vehicles to Indonesia in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [24581]

  Mrs. Roche
  The values were as follows:

  1995: US$108.2 million

  1996: £65 million

  1997: Zero.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the law of bankruptcy with particular reference to the implications of the Landau case on the sequestration of the pensions of bankrupt people; and if she will make a statement. [25059]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is currently undertaking a wide ranging review of pensions. The review will encompass all relevant legislative provisions and bankruptcy case law impacting on the rights to a bankrupt's pension. It would not be appropriate to make a statement until the outcome of that review is known.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to permit employers to submit written testimony to industrial tribunals. [25304]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Parties already submit written representations for consideration by an industrial tribunal at a hearing. However the Government recognise that there may be occasions when parties may wish not to attend a hearing and would prefer that their case is dealt with on written evidence alone.

  The Government are, therefore, supporting the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill, a Private Peer's Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords by the right hon. Lord Archer of Sandwell QC on 9 July 1997. This Bill will permit regulations to be made to allow a tribunal to determine cases on written evidence alone—that is, without a hearing—where both parties have given their consent.

  Research and Development (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance her Department is giving to research and development in the north-west. [25411]

  Mrs. Roche
  The DTI is assisting research and development in the north-west primarily through the new SMART initiative, aimed at helping small and medium sized enterprises (SME) to improve their competitiveness by developing new products and processes to the benefit of the national economy. £3.98 million has been offered since 1 April 1997 in the north-west alone (excluding Merseyside). Nationally, DTI provides assistance under the LINK scheme. Since 1988 the Government have spent over £13 million supporting LINK projects in the north-west out of their total commitment of over £18 million.

  Other indirect assistance includes joint working with the North West Partnership to produce a Regional Innovation and Technology Action Plan; funding for the North West Regional Industrialist; support for Faraday/Foresight NW; the Teaching Company Scheme; the Post Graduate Training Partnership and College Business Partnerships.

  Export Licences (Firearms)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of small arms included in each of the ML1 category export licences granted by her Department in 1995 for the export of small arms to the Channel Islands. [25329]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  G. S. W. Stewart Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the winding up of the affairs of G. S. W. Stewart Ltd. entered into liquidation in 1991 is now complete. [25038]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The conclusion of the winding up of G. S. W. Stewart Ltd., is a matter for the liquidator, but my officials understand that, subject to the agreement of the creditors which will be sought at a meeting to be held in February, the liquidator proposes to conclude his administration as soon as possible by payment of a substantial dividend to unsecured creditors.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people resident within the boroughs of Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough are currently in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) mobility allowance, (c) attendance allowance and (d) incapacity benefit. [24513]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 26 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people resident within the boroughs of Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough are currently in receipt of (a) Disability Living Allowance (DLA), (b) Mobility Allowance (MobA), (c) Attendance Allowance (AA) and (d) Incapacity Benefit (IB).
  The information is not available in the format requested. MobA and AA for customers aged under 65 were replaced by Disability Living Allowance in April 1992.
  The available information is shown in the attached table.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Number of people in receipt of benefit at the date shown, by Parliamentary Constituency

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Disability Living Allowance (i)

  Attendance Allowance (ii)

  Incapacity Benefit (iii)

  Redcar

  4,836

  1,685

  5,280

  Middlesbrough

  5,992

  2,063

  4,300

  Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East

  4,850

  1,822

  4,280

  Hartlepool

  5,156

  1,863

  5,560

  Stockton North

  4,502

  1,653

  4,360

  Stockton South

  3,161

  1,253

  2,740

  1. The boroughs of Redcar and Middlesbrough and the former borough of Cleveland encompass the residents of the Parliamentary constituencies of Redcar; Middlesbrough; Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; Hartlepool; Stockton, North; and Stockton, South.

  2. Disability Living Allowance consists of two components, these include a mobility and a care component, which replaced and extended the former Mobility and Attendance Allowance for customers aged under 65.

  3. Figures current at (i) 30 November 1997, (ii) 31 August 1997, (iii) 31 August 1997.

  4. The figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system. The Incapacity Benefit figures exclude a small number of clerically processed cases.

  5. Data are provisional and subject to change.

  Claimant Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the numbers of claimants of each of the disability-related non means-tested benefits in each of the regions of the United Kingdom; indicating the percentage of total claimants in each region and the percentage of the population in each region who receive each benefit. [23665]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in tables, copies of which have been placed in the library. Figures for people currently overseas are not listed separately, but are included in the figures for the United Kingdom.

  Compensation Payments (CSA)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number of compensation payments made by the CSA in each £50 band in the last year for which figures are available. [25463]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide an efficient and effective service to all its clients.

  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 Mr. Graham Stringer, dated 26 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency compensation payments. These are referred to as special payments.
  Information is collected in broader bands than requested. The table below shows the number of payments made to customers during the 1996/97 year, compared with the Agency's live and assessed caseload of over half a million in February 1997.

  Number of Special Payments made in 1996–97

  Band

  Number of payments

  Under £100

  257

  Between £100 and £499

  334

  Between £500 and £999

  180

  Over £1,000

  212

  Child Support Agency Live and assessed caseload at 28 February 1997–579,200.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in receipt of disability living allowance have, in the last year for which figures are available, been re-assessed under the provisions of the Disability Integrity Project; and what percentage this represents of the total number to be re-assessed; [23650]

  (2) how many Benefits Agency staff have received additional training for the re-assessment of those in receipt of disability living allowance; and how many of these staff have medical qualifications. [23651]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent.
  165
  Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with the Benefits Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 26 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).
  The number of people in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) that have been re-assessed as part of the BIP is 33,490. This figure covers the period from 6 May 1997, when the first questionnaires were sent out, to 30 November 1997. It represents 8.12% of the total number due to be looked at as part of this project and refers to cases where the process has been completed.
  The training of Benefits Agency Staff for the BIP consists of two strands, procedural and visiting. All staff, approx 240, engaged with the operational processing of BIP cases received procedural training. Those staff undertaking visiting officer duties, approx 130, attended a specially designed training course covering all aspect of visiting techniques, including a session prepared and delivered by members of the Disablement Income Group. Training courses are ongoing for replacement staff.
  The determination of awards of DLA is undertaken by an independent Adjudication Officer (AO) who will consider the effects of a disability on a person's every day life rather than the nature of the disability itself. Whilst all AOs receive extensive training on the effects of illness, there is no requirement for officers to have any formal medical qualifications.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by her Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25616]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department has a contract with a third party for the disposal of information technology equipment. The third party is made aware of any equipment that is not Year 2000 compliant.

  SERPS
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of the uprating of the National Insurance rebate for Serps in each of the next five years. [25924]

  Mr. Denham
  The existing rebates are not specified beyond the 2000–01 tax year, so it is not possible to make precise estimates of the cost to the National Insurance Fund beyond that year. For information on the three years up to and including 2000–01 I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 116.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the planned date of publication for the Minister for Welfare Reform's Green Paper on welfare reform. [25921]
  166
  Mr. Field
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 26 January 1998,Official Report, column 104.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the running costs of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate were in the last year for which figures are available. [25922]

  Mr. Denham
  The running costs for the initial set up of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, which commenced in October 1996 were £404,458.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to change the entitlement to child benefit for 16 to 18 year olds. [25108]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on Monday 26 January 1998,Official Report, columns
  103–04.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals receiving child benefit are estimated to be paying income tax at the higher rate; and how many live in families where their partner is estimated to be paying tax at the higher rate. [25104]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  An estimate for 1997–98 from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey based Policy Simulation Model (PSM) suggests there are around 120,000 individuals receiving child benefit and paying income tax at the higher rate. The PSM also estimates that there are around 855,000 individuals receiving child benefit where their partner is paying tax at the higher rate. The estimates should be treated with some caution as they are based on survey data which use current weekly income which may not accurately represent current annual tax liabilities. Estimates may also be influenced by sampling error and response rates.

  Note:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment her Department has made of the costs of introducing a winter payment system for fuel instead of the cold weather payment; and if she will make a statement. [17366]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 1997]: Average expenditure on the Cold Weather Payment scheme over the last three winters was £35 million per year. If the scheme were replaced and everyone eligible for a Cold Weather Payment (around three million people) was given an automatic payment without the recorded or forecast temperature provision needing to be satisfied, the cost would depend on the level of the payment made. For example, for every £10 paid to each eligible person, the cost would be in the region of £30 million.

  On 25 November 1997, Official Report, column 780, the Chancellor announced additional help of £400 million over this winter and next to provide extra help to almost

  167
  10 million pensioners towards their winter fuel bills (further details were announced on 5 January). This help is in addition to the existing help with fuel bills to pensioners, such as Cold Weather Payments and action the Government have already taken to cut fuel costs and make homes easier to heat.

WALES

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Union he has attended. [23604]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None to date. In line with long established practice, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes the lead in European Community discussions and negotiations with a Senior Welsh Office Agriculture Department Official normally attending Agriculture Council meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales met Commissioner Fischler, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, on 11 July 1997 and 8 January 1998 and he proposes to attend a Council meeting when the items on the agenda are particularly relevant to Welsh agriculture.

  Referendum
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the source of his information that the 6,000 majority in favour of the yes campaign at the Caerphilly count came from the Caerphilly constituency; and if he will make a statement. [23606]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Like all other local counts in Wales, the 6,000 majority is ascribable only to the whole borough. I have no information, beyond the opinion of local party workers, that could substantiate the right hon. Member's claim.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanisms he proposes to tackle inequalities in health in Wales. [25309]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We will shortly be publishing a consultation document which will provide the basis for a new public health strategy for Wales. This will be followed by an Action Plan in the Autumn. The strategy is intended to tackle the inequalities in health status in Wales. Collaboration between the NHS, local government, commerce, voluntary agencies and individuals will be essential, with partners sharing the responsibility for promoting better health.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Service Reorganisation
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to announce changes to the structure of the Health Service; when she intends to reorganise the health and social services boards and trusts; and if she will make a statement. [22739]
  168
  Mr. Worthington
  My Department expects to publish a major consultation paper on new arrangements to replace the internal market for health and social services in Northern Ireland in February. The paper will set out broad policy aims and objectives which parallel those in the White Paper "The New NHS, Modern and Dependable", and will seek views on how the policy should be taken forward in Northern Ireland. Following the consultation process, the Government will announce specific proposals for changes to the health and social services later in the year. We have recently produced a policy paper "well into 2000" which sets out our vision of the health service which a new structure must serve.

  Castle Buildings Talks (Costs)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the total costs of the talks at Castle Buildings to date; how much(a) has been paid by and (b) is outstanding from the Irish Government; and how much has been paid to or on behalf of the three independent chairmen, broken down between expenses and taxable remuneration. [22805]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested, up to 30 November 1997, is as follows:

  £

  Payments to Elected Delegates

  675,057.40

  Payments to Party Support Staff

  108,341.85

  Party Allowance and Research Grants

  621,249.80

  Independent Chairmen and Aides—Expenses

  26,506.88

  Remuneration

  319,711.20

  Accommodation

  254,630.54

  Travel

  418,091.92

  Subsistence

  36,878.32

  Block B, Castle Buildings:

  (a) Initial set-up costs

  266,000.00

  (b) Operational costs

  955,553.03

  Additional NIO staff costs:

  589,311.43

  The Irish Government are bearing an equal share of the running costs of the multi party negotiations, excluding any in respect of Strand One.

  During the period 10 June 1996 to 30 November 1997, under this agreement, the Irish Government have been invoiced for, and have paid, a total of £1,359.701.52 sterling.

  Chiropody and Podiatry
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 27, when it became her policy to have priority groups for the provision of NHS chiropody services; how this policy was communicated to boards and trusts; and what notification she has received regarding (a) increases and (b) reductions in services for the priority groups in the present year or next year. [22563]

  Mr. Worthington
  This policy originated prior to the reorganisation of the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in 1973, when chiropody services were limited mainly due to a shortage of professional staff. It was in this context that Boards were advised of the priority groups in a Departmental Circular issued in 1974, but these continue to apply where services have to be
  169
  targeted on those in greatest need within available resources. As I indicated in response to a question from my hon. Friend on 17 November 1997, Official Report, column 26, Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts are not required to notify the Department of reductions or increases in particular services and, for the present or next year, none has.

  Tree, Catherine Street, Limarady
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she intends to take to replace the tree removed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in Catherine Street, Limarady on 13 January. [23496]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As part of the ongoing Environment Scheme a semi-mature tree will be planted as close as possible to the site of the original tree. This tree will be replaced in about two years' time by a lime tree with grafting from the original tree.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons her Department removed the mature tree on Catherine Street, Limarady on 13 January which was a gift from the Right hon. Wm. F. Massey P. C., former Prime Minister of New Zealand. [23495]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The position of the tree has long been a problem regarding access to the fire station and businesses located off an adjoining entry. The basalt surround to the tree was damaged by vehicles on numerous occasions and each time it had to be rebuilt.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the differences between Northern Ireland Road Traffic law and that in Great Britain; and what steps are being taken to ensure uniformity. [23695]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Northern Ireland's road traffic law is broadly similar to that in Great Britain. Notable differences include:

  1. Provisions requiring drivers after passing their driving test to display "R" (restricted) plates on any vehicle they are driving and not to exceed 45 mph have been in Northern Ireland's road traffic law since 1968. Learner drivers are also restricted to 45 mph. These provisions have not been replicated in Great Britain;

  2. Northern Ireland's driving licences have a maximum duration of 10 years, whereas driving licences in Great Britain can remain valid up to age 70 before renewal. This difference exists because Northern Ireland licences also have photographic counterparts which have to be renewed at 10-year intervals to update the currency of the photographs as true likenesses;

  3. provisions have not yet been enacted to enable drivers with certain disabilities to be authorised, in certain circumstances, to give paid driving instruction;

  4. in Northern Ireland taxis are licensed under road traffic law rather than local government legislation as in Great Britain. It is envisaged that in future the taxi licensing provisions will be incorporated in a new Public Passenger Vehicles Order which apart from the taxi provisions, will largely replicate the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;

  5. there is no power in Northern Ireland to wheelclamp illegally parked vehicles;

  170

  6. enforcement of parking restrictions in Northern Ireland is carried out by police and traffic wardens, whereas in Great Britain they may be enforced by local authorities;

  7. Northern Ireland does not have the same degree of provision in relation to the regulation of heavy commercial traffic.

  Steps taken to introduce (where relevant) closer harmony with the law in Great Britain have resulted in three Orders in Council since 1995.

  (a) The Road Traffic (NI) Order 1995 reviewed the road safety and construction and use of vehicles provisions and generally brought them into line with their GB counterparts.

  (b) The Road Traffic Offenders (NI) Order 1996 amended the prosecution and punishment provisions of road traffic law and introduced a penalty points scheme and extended driving tests for the most serious driving offences.

  (c) The Road Traffic Regulations (NI) Order 1997 dealt with regulating the movement on roads and the parking of vehicles and took account of current road traffic law in Great Britain.

  A draft Road Traffic (New Drivers) (NI) Order was laid before Parliament on 11 December 1997. That Order proposes to introduce new road safety measures relating to new inexperienced drivers similar to those in place in Great Britain.

  GB provisions on road traffic matters are not usually extended directly to Northern Ireland because of the difference in the responsibilities of local government in the two areas and certain differences in local conditions, such as the nature and extent of traffic problems encountered.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 1 December 1997,Official Report, columns 8–9, if she will make a statement on the rates of growth in Catholic and Protestant representation in the Northern Ireland Civil Service; and what steps she is taking in regard to future trends in representation. [23692]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) aims to create a position where Protestants and Roman Catholics are fairly represented at all levels in the organisation. There is a strong evidence of compositional change in the NICS-workforce since monitoring was introduced in 1985. At a macro level Protestants now represent 59.2 per cent. of the Non-Industrial Service and Roman Catholics 40.8 per cent. compared with 64.3 per cent. and 35.7 per cent. in 1985. Protestants and Roman Catholics are now fairly represented among a significant proportion of the Services' occupational groups and at most grade levels up to around Staff Officer and equivalent levels, which account for some 87 per cent. of the total workforce. Roman Catholic under-representation remains evident among the senior levels of the various occupational groups and is most apparent at Grade 5 level and above (i.e. the Senior Civil Service).

  The Service has taken a number of steps within the law designed to achieve a more balanced workforce at the more senior levels, whilst adhering strictly to the merit principle in both its recruitment and internal promotion practices. These include the use of positive action advertising in appropriate circumstances and the removal of various internal barriers to promotion to encourage a better flow of staff from lower to higher grades within and between Departments.
  171
  Further detailed information on significant equal opportunity developments, trends in composition, affirmative action measures and goals and timetables can be found in the Department of Finance and Personnel's "Sixth Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit" which was published on 31 October 1997, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in each Northern Ireland Civil Service Department on(a) writing legislation and (b) writing procedural guidance consequent upon legislation; and what are the total and average staff costs for each department. [24169]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the occasions since 1980 when nuclear reactors have been shut down for safety reasons, indicating in each case the date of shut down, the reason for the shut down and the date on which power generation recommenced. [24753]

  Mr. Ingram
  Nuclear reactors have never been used for power generation purposes in Northern Ireland.

  Fluoridation
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which Government buildings in Northern Ireland have had their water supplies artificially fluoridated; [25115]

  (2) in what quantities the fluoride used to artificially fluoridate Tandragee contains (a) arsenic, (b) lead, (c) aluminium and (d) radioactive particles. [25113]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its chief executive, Mr. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. K. Sutton to Rev. Ian Paisley, dated 27 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive, Mr Plester, to reply to your recent parliamentary questions asking if any Government buildings in Northern Ireland such as prisons, military camps, schools, etc, have been artificially fluoridated and in what quantities the fluoride used to artificially fluoridate Tandragee contains arsenic, lead, aluminium and radioactive particles. Mr Pester is out of the office on business and has asked me to respond.
  The fluoride content of the public water supply is increased only in water supplied to Tandragee and Holywood (although fluoride of the water supplied to Holywood has ceased temporarily pending replacement of the fluoridation plant).
  All schools, libraries, police stations, a military base and other public buildings in Tandragee and Holywood normally receive fluoridated water.
  The hexafluorosilicic acid used for fluoridation is an approved water treatment chemical, specified in regulations, for use by the United Kingdom water industry. It is listed by the national `Committee on Chemicals and Materials of Construction for use in Public Water Supply'. This treatment compound does not contain
  172
  radioactive particles. Neither is aluminium a recognised constituent of it. Arsenic and lead are present at very low levels in hexafluorosilic acid which is used in the treatment process at the rate of approximately 1 part per million in accordance with regulatory controls. Because of the very high dilution factor these 2 substances pass into supply at concentrations of less than 1 part in billions, which have no impact on Water Service's compliance with EC and national drinking water compliance.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to pay the fourth year of tuition fees for eligible Northern Irish students beginning degrees at Scottish universities from 1998 onwards; and if he will make a statement. [25417]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The issue remains the subject of ministerial discussion.

  Tourism Promotion
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the recent commission to Lord Lichfield by the British Tourist Authority to take promotional photographs around Britain includes Northern Ireland. [25762]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Tourist Authority is responsible for the promotion of England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, therefore, its commission to Lord Lichfield did not include Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board works closely with the BTA in a number of overseas markets and BTA distributes Northern Ireland literature on a commercial basis in certain markets.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extend the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's marketing links with Bord Failte in the Irish Republic restrict it from participation in British Tourist Authority promotions. [25761]

  Mr Ingram
  Joint marketing to promote the island of Ireland between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Failte does not restrict additional joint activity with the British Tourist Authority. The NTB will continue to promote with both organisations to optimise tourism to Northern Ireland.

SCOTLAND

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Government spent in each of the last 10 years on(a) new social housing stock and (b) maintenance of social housing stock, in (i) Glasgow and (ii) Scotland. [22750]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Social housing for rent during the period specified has been provided by local authorities, the New Town Development Corporations, Scottish Homes and Housing Associations. The available information on expenditure by these bodies is set out in the tables. For local authorities and New Towns, the Government granted consent to incur expenditure through borrowing and use of receipts. The expenditure contained in the tables for Scottish Homes' own stock and Housing
  173
  Associations came from Government grant-in-aid and receipts. In addition, Housing Associations attracted private finance, which is not included in the tables.

  Table 1: Public expenditure on construction of new social housing stock

  £ million

  Scotland

  Glasgow

  1991–92

  165.521

  20.074

  1992–93

  184.936

  26.615

  1993–94

  192.678

  30.774

  1994–95

  214.695

  33.306

  1995–96

  209.535

  38.918

  1996–97

  189.939

  43.997

  Table 2: Public expenditure on maintenance of social housing stock

  £ million

  Scotland

  Glasgow

  1991–92

  498.158

  140.910

  1992–93

  471.855

  131.776

  1993–94

  471.786

  136.364

  1994–95

  456.140

  131.636

  1995–96

  421.163

  117.625

  1996–97

  329.183

  85.818

  1. Amounts shown are at cash prices.

  2. The local authority figures for 1996–97 are provisional and may be subject to change. The local authority figures for Glasgow are for Glasgow District Council up to 1995–96 and Glasgow City Council for 1996–97.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 109, on PFI schemes, what is the capital cost of each scheme; and what agreements for payment have been entered into by each procuring agency. [23493]

  Mr. Dewar
  The capital value of each project is set out in the table. Payment arrangements vary from project to project. The service payment made in each of the Health PFI deals is a unitary payment based on the availability of the facility (or the acceptance of the IT modules) and the performance of the service. Payments would therefore be reduced if part of the facility (e.g. a ward or an operating theatre) were unavailable for any reason, or if the level of service were to fall below the minimum level stated in the contract.

  For the Stirling Further Education Centre, Falkirk College will pay a monthly charge for occupying a fully serviced and maintained facility, the charge being subject to adjustment based on performance by the operator. The College has an option to reduce the space that they occupy with a consequent adjustment in their payments.

  Payment arrangements for the M6 DBFO are based on a shadow toll structure under which payments to the operator will be related to the volume of traffic using the road over the project period. Provisions are in place to reduce payments in relation to the economic cost of delays and disruption associated with the operation and maintenance of the road.
  174
  For HM Prison Kilmarnock, the prison operator will be paid on the basis of the number of available prisoner places. Payments are subject to deductions for failure to meet agreed levels of performance.

  The tariff payment arrangements for the Inverness main drainage and Fort William sewage treatment scheme are based on a banded payment structure which relates payment to the quantity of effluent passed into the sewage works for treatment. The PFI concessionaire will also receive payment for the treatment of additional sewage sludge imported by the water authority.

  Revenue to the joint venture consortium for the Baldovie waste to energy plant project will be based on volume based payments for the waste treated and the value of electricity sales. Further details can be obtained from Dundee City Council.

  PFI projects in Scotland

  Procuring agency

  Project description

  Capital value £millon

  (a) construction/work underway

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of a hospital information system

  2.5

  Grampian Health Board

  Provision and operation of a community hospital in Kincardineshire (Stonehaven)

  3.8

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Provision and operation of an integrated healthcare information system

  2.3

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Provision of elderly care beds, Mearnskirk Hospital

  2.4

  Falkirk College

  Stirling Further Education Center

  3.6

  M6 DBFO

  Upgrading and maintenance of A74(M) (M6) between Millbank and Border

  160.0

  Scottish Prison Service

  Bowhouse Prison, Kilmarnock

  32.0

  (b) legal and financial work completed but construction yet to commence

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  Inverness main drainage and Fort William sewage treatment

  45.0

  Dundee City Council

  Baldovie waste to energy plant

  43.0

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the option to house the Scottish Parliament in a separate new building in the Calton Hill, Regent Road area of Edinburgh was rejected. [24947]

  Mr. McLeish
  Housing the entire Parliament in a separate new building in the Regent Road area was not considered to be a realistic option. A proposal was put forward which would have involved the construction of a new debating chamber on Regent Road, but it was considered to be less suitable in terms of operational efficiency and less acceptable in terms of visual impact than housing the entire Parliament complex within the curtilage of St. Andrews House.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration was given to the area around New Street, Edinburgh, as a possible site for the Scottish Parliament. [24949]
  175
  Mr. McLeish
  The area around New Street, in particular the former bus garage, was considered but rejected as being less suitable than the sites which were subsequently shortlisted.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Scottish Office was informed by Scottish and Newcastle that the Holyrood site would be available for the Scottish Parliament. [24950]

  Mr. McLeish
  Agents acting for Scottish and Newcastle PLC first approached The Scottish Office in October 1997 about the possibility of the Holyrood site being considered. Following detailed discussions with the agents and the company to establish, in particular, when the site was likely to become available my right hon. Friend announced in December that Holyrood had been added to the shortlist of sites under consideration.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the plans for the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood involve the closure to vehicular traffic of(a) Holyrood Road and (b) Horse Wynd. [24948]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office and The City of Edinburgh Council are committed to developing arrangements for improving traffic management around the Holyrood site to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. Proposals will be developed and implemented in time for the completion of the Parliament building.

  Land Law Reform
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made so far by his Land Reform Unit; what meetings this unit has held; from which bodies or individuals it has (i) sought and (ii) received evidence on land reform; and when he expects to publish the unit's interim findings. [24568]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Land Reform Policy Group is making excellent progress and has held three meetings so far. It will be consulting widely: next month about what the most significant problems and issues are; and then in the summer on the best solutions.

  The group is also drawing on the large body of literature produced on land matters, including the Scottish Land Commission report which has been sent to me.

  I expect the group's final report by the end of this year.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a Scottish land convention to prepare legislation for the Scottish Parliament for the reform of Scotland's land laws; what is his policy on the creation of a Scottish land convention; and if he will make a statement. [24566]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: None.

  In fulfilment of our Manifesto commitment, the Land Reform Policy Group, chaired by my noble Friend, the Minster of Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries, has been established to identify and assess proposals for land reform in rural Scotland taking account of their cost,
  176
  legislative and administrative implications and their likely impact on the social and economic development of rural communities and on the natural heritage.

  Land Registration Data Base
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional resources that would be required to allow the completion of the Scottish land registration data base by 2000; if it is his policy to provide additional resources for the Scottish land registration data base; what plans he has for extending the range of material and information contained in the land data base; and if he will make a statement. [24567]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Information on land in Scotland has been available from the deed-base Register of Sasines since the 17th century. The computerised and map-based Land Register has been gradually replacing it since 1981 and currently covers 14 counties accounting for 60 per cent. of the housing stock in Scotland. It will extend to the whole of Scotland by 1 April 2003. If the extension programme were to be brought forward to 1 April 2000, additional costs of at least £25 million would be required. This sum would cover the costs of registering properties transferring for value in terms of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. The Registers of Scotland Executive Agency which operates the Land Register is currently involved in piloting the Scottish Land Information System which will provide integrated information services with easy and affordable access to all sources of land and property information in Scotland.

  The Land Reform Policy Group is currently considering these issues.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if an applicant to a Scottish university, who is eligible to pay tuition fees, will be liable to pay fourth-year tuition fees if he/she moves their permanent address(a) from England to Scotland and (b) from Scotland to England on 29 June of the year in which he/she applies. [25334]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The residence eligibility criteria under the new student support arrangements will remain the same as under the existing schemes. The responsible award making body is determined primarily by a student's place of ordinary residence on 30 June of the year in which he or she starts the course. A period of residence wholly or mainly for the purpose of full-time education is not regarded as ordinary residence.

  Beef
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the loss of income sustained by the Scottish beef sector as a result of(a) the continuation of the BSE export ban, (b) increased cost relating to public health measures in response to the BSE outbreak and (c) fluctuations in market prices for livestock in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [25238]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: It is difficult to isolate the impact of BSE from other factors affecting the beef sector. However, the results of

  177
  the Annual Survey of Farm Accounts show that sales revenue of a specialist beef farm in Scotland's Less-Favoured Area in 1996–97 was down by an average of £4,000 on the previous year. Projections for 1997–98 will be published on January 30.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to discuss mechanisms for the early return of Scottish beef to world export markets with European agriculture ministers. [25206]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State maintains a keen interest in BSE matters and the European Commission have been made well aware of the interests of the Scottish beef industry. My noble Friend, Lord Sewel, discusses the lifting of the beef export ban with other European agriculture ministers when he attends EU Agriculture Councils. He discussed the Scottish position with Commissioners Fischler and Bonino when they visited London on 8 January and takes every available opportunity to press Scotland's case.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will invite European Union agriculture ministers to meet representatives of the Scottish farming industry to discuss the Scottish beef industry; and if he will make a statement. [25207]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to invite European Union Agriculture Ministers to meet representatives of the Scottish farming industry to discuss the Scottish beef industry.

  Road Bridges
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) operating costs, (b) maintenance costs and (c) revenue from tolls in respect of (i) Erskine, (ii) Skye, (iii) Forth and (iv) Tay road bridges in the last year for which figures are available. [25280]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Information on operating costs, maintenance costs and toll revenue for Erskine, Forth and Tay bridges is set out in the table. The Skye Bridge is operated by Skye Bridge Limited, a private company, and the information requested is not available in this format. I will arrange for a copy of Skye Bridge Limited's published accounts for the year ending 31 December 1996 to be sent to the hon. Member.

  £

  Operating costs

  Maintenance costs3

  Toll Revenue

  Erskine

  Bridge1

  1,395,344

  266,022

  3,753,777

  Forth Bridge1

  2,231,903

  1,131,870

  8,807,024

  Tay Bridge2

  944,000

  289,000

  3,070,000

  1 Figures for the Erskine and Forth bridges are from the 1996–97 accounts.

  2 Figures for the Tay Bridge are from the 1995–96 accounts.

  3 Maintenance figures cover routine maintenance only.

  Duty Free
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Treasury concerning the impact on Scottish airports of the loss of intra-European Union duty free. [25213]
  178
  Mr. McLeish
  The Government are aware of the concerns of Scottish industry about the impact of the abolition of duty and tax free sales within the European Union.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the economic impact of the loss of intra-European Union duty free on Scottish airports. [25211]

  Mr. McLeish
  A representation has been received from one company.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with BAA concerning the impact on Scottish airports of the loss of intra-European Union duty free; and if he will make a statement. [25212]

  Mr. McLeish
  Ministers meet BAA Scottish Airports from time to time. At the most recent meeting a number of topics were discussed including the proposals to abolish duty and tax free sales within the European Union.

  Airports (Passengers and Flights)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) passengers and (b) flights to (i) United Kingdom, (ii) other European Union and (iii) other international destinations from (1) Glasgow, (2) Prestwick, (3) Edinburgh and (4) Aberdeen airports in the last year for which figures are available. [25214]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information for the 12 months ended October 1997 is set out in the table.

  Departing airport

  Destination of the flight

  Terminal Passengers

  Passenger flights

  Glasgow

  United Kingdom

  1,592,317

  28,300

  Glasgow

  European Union

  989,779

  8,604

  Glasgow

  Other International

  391,131

  2,549

  Prestwick

  United Kingdom

  155,077

  2,981

  Prestwick

  European Union

  111,828

  1,127

  Prestwick

  Other International

  10,458

  66

  Edinburgh

  United Kingdom

  1,597,547

  24,086

  Edinburgh

  European Union

  412,360

  6,859

  Edinburgh

  Other International

  35,771

  504

  Aberdeen

  United Kingdom

  855,179

  19,780

  Aberdeen

  European Union

  121,757

  1,948

  Aberdeen

  Other International

  295,027

  19,612

  1. Source CAA Airport Statistics.

  2. Includes scheduled and non-scheduled flights.

  3. Terminal passengers only.

  4. Includes non-revenue passengers.

  5. Includes air taxi operations.

  6. Does not include cargo only services.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by his Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25617]

  Mr. Dewar
  Obsolete information technology equipment sold by my Department is sold as seen, without any form of guarantee about millennium compliance. The standard terms and conditions of contract employed by my Department make it clear that the equipment comes without warranty.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department was informed of the acquisition of the Skye Bridge Company by the Bank of America; from what date such acquisition became effective; what plans he has, arising therefrom, to reconsider the basis upon which his Department supplies information in response to enquiries from the National Audit Office; and if he will make a statement. [24835]

  Mr. Dewar
  Skye Bridge Ltd. has not been acquired by the Bank of America. The publicly available records at Companies House, Edinburgh, show that, since 23 January 1992,997 £1 ordinary shares of Skye Bridge Ltd. (formerly known as Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd.) have been registered in the name of Bank of America International Ltd. and a further three in the name of BankAmerica Nominees Ltd. These transfers were in accordance with the funding arrangements agreed at the outset by the companies involved in procuring the Skye Bridge.

  The arrangements require Miller Civil Engineering Ltd., which held 405 £1 ordinary shares in Skye Bridge Ltd., Dywidag Systems International Ltd. (formerly known as Dywidag Systems (UK) Ltd.), which held 405 £1 ordinary shares, and BankAmerica International Financial Corporation, which held 190 £1 ordinary shares, to transfer their shares in security to a Trustee (or its designated nominee) acting on behalf of the secured creditors of Skye Bridge Ltd. The Trustee is the Bank of America International Ltd. and its designated nominee is BankAmerica Nominees Ltd., to whom 997 and three ordinary shares were transferred respectively. Such a grant of security required, as a matter of Scots law, that the title to the shares be transferred to the Trustee, subject to the terms of the security arrangement.

  During the currency of the arrangement, the companies granting the security retain the power in respect of their shares to direct the Trustee regarding the exercise of certain important rights under the shares, including voting rights. Once Skye Bridge Ltd. has fulfilled its obligations to the secured creditors, the Trustee is obliged to transfer back the shareholdings.

  The then Secretary of State was aware of, but not party to, all aspects of the funding arrangements when the Concession Agreement was signed on 16 December 1991. Under the terms of the Concession Agreement, the agreed funding arrangements may not subsequently be amended without the approval of the Secretary of State. The granting of the security did not constitute an amendment and, therefore, did not require the Secretary of State's approval.

  Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right of access to documents he may reasonably require for carrying out any examination into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which any department has used its resources in discharging its functions, and is entitled to require such information and explanation as are reasonably necessary. The information on the shareholding arrangement described above was available to the National Audit Office in the course of the Skye Bridge examination. The Department will continue to provide access in accordance with the requirements of the 1983 Act.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on agriculture support and service industries in rural areas of current problems in the agricultural sector; what plans he has to provide additional economic assistance to small businesses in rural Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [25205]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Office monitors business performance on a regular basis through its links with representative bodies, by monitoring trends in employment, production and income, and commissioning research. No specific support measures are planned for small businesses in rural Scotland but many of them are likely to benefit from the steps the Government have taken to support the farming industry.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual production of nuclear waste at(a) Rosyth dockyard, (b) Devonport dockyard and (c) the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, for each year from 1986 to date, broken down by category of waste; and how much of each category of waste is presently held at each site. [19783]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1997, c. 161–63]: I regret that it is necessary to correct the information given and to amplify answers given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence at defence questions on 12 January 1998, Official Report, column 14.

  Three nuclear submarines await defuelling, Renown and Repulse at Rosyth and Valiant at Devonport. The nuclear reactors in these submarines have been completely shut down and are in a benign condition. Specific Royal Navy personnel will remain on board until the process is complete. Once the spent fuel has been removed, these submarines will be stored afloat with appropriate maintenance pending final disposal. The spent fuel will be consigned to long term storage at BNFL Sellafield.

  In accordance with IAEA and Euratom definitions, spent fuel is not categorised as waste while the option of reprocessing remains open and a possible future use for the fuel can be foreseen. A decision has yet to be made on whether this and other spent fuel held by the Department is to be reprocessed. If it is reprocessed, some High Level Waste will be generated. If the decision is not to reprocess the spent fuel, it will be recategorised as High Level Waste. Accordingly my Department holds no material categorised as high level waste at this time.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of Brazilian mahogany has been(a) acquired and (b) specified by his Department in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997, and for what purpose. [23519]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence purchases some Brazilian Mahogany for use in Royal Navy ships, primarily for refurbishment or repair work to match
  181
  timber already installed in those vessels. No Brazilian Mahogany was acquired or specified by the MOD Ships Support Agency in 1996. An order was placed in 1997 for approximately 204 cubic metres and delivery is expected to be complete in 1998. This together with current stocks is expected to meet requirements for the next two years. It is the Ministry's policy that purchases of tropical timber, including mahogany, are made from reputable suppliers who are required to confirm that supplies are from sustainable sources.

  NATO Joint Sub-regional Command
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of NATO Joint Sub-regional Command (Madrid) in the control of the(a) waters and (b) airspace around Gibraltar currently under the operational command of the United Kingdom. [24474]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO's Joint Sub-regional Commands, once implemented, will have no permanently established boundaries or areas of responsibility. Regional Commanders will be able to propose the establishment of areas of responsibility for particular Joint Sub-regional Commands in specific contingencies or missions. Such proposals will require the approval of all NATO nations. The defence and security of Gibraltar, its associated territorial waters and airspace are, and will remain, the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will break down by nationality the staff assigned to NATO Joint Sub-regional Command (Madrid). [24476]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Work is currently under way to determine the number and type of posts to be established in each HQ in NATO's future command structure; this will lead to agreement to the allocation of posts to nations. In common with all headquarters, the Joint Sub-regional Command at Madrid will be multinationally manned.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions in respect of (i) air access to Gibraltar by(a) civilian and (b) military aviation and (ii) access to Spanish naval bases by Royal Navy vessels visiting Gibraltar have been included in the agreement for Spanish accession to full membership of NATO. [24472]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK, together with other Allies, has welcomed Spain's announcement of its intention to join the Alliance's integrated military structure. The detailed arrangements have still to be established. We are addressing military air access to Gibraltar and naval movements bilaterally and in the context of Spain's entry into NATO's future Command Structure. We will deal separately with the question of civilian air access to Gibraltar.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if decisions on the future role of the NATO Joint Sub-regional Command (Madrid) undertaken by the Military Committee have to be reached by unanimity; and what is the time scale for a final resolution. [24473]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Military Committee decisions are taken by consensus. A detailed implementation plan for the new NATO command structure will be developed 182
  for consideration and endorsement by the Military Committee and North Atlantic Council at the end of this year.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the NATO Joint Sub-regional Command (Madrid) in stability operations in North Africa involving Gibraltar. [24475]

  Mr. George Robertson
  For specific operations, Regional Commanders may propose particular roles and responsibilities for their subordinate commands. These subordinate commands will include Joint Sub-regional Command South West, to be based at Madrid, once it has been implemented as part of NATO's future command structure. Such proposals will require the approval of all NATO nations.

  Nautical Almanac Office
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the future of Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac office. [24310]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the future of Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office. I understand, however, that officials of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council are exploring options for the continuation of the work of the Nautical Almanac Office.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) reports and (b) other publications issued by the DERA Radiation Protection Services since 28 February 1997. [24539]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 January 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question asking for a list of reports and other publications issued by Radiation Protection Services as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  A list of unclassified reports and publications which have been issued by the RPS since 28 February 1997 is attached.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Report number

  Title

  Classification

  37/96

  RAF Carlisle—No. 4 Site Land Quality Assessment Radioactive Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  1/97

  Radiological Survey of Base Vehicle Depot Ludgershall

  Unclassified

  2/97

  RAF Carlisle—No. 8 Site Land Quality Assessment Radioactive Contamination issues

  Unclassified

  3/97

  RAF Carlisle—DRPS Lab Support

  Unclassified

  4/97

  HMS Collingwood—RF Survey

  Unclassified

  183

  Report number

  Title

  Classification

  5/97

  DTEO Eskmeals—1996 Environmental Depleted Uranium Baseline Survey Report

  Unclassified

  6/97

  DTEO Kirkcudbright—1996 Environmental Depleted Uranium Baseline Survey Report

  Unclassified

  7/97

  RAF Collyweston—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  8/97

  RAF Wyton—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  9/97

  DTEO Eskmeals—1996 Marine Environment Survey Report

  Unclassified

  10/97

  DTEO Kirkcudbright—1996 Marine Environment Survey Report

  Unclassified

  11/97

  RAF Hendon—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  12/97

  ABRO Warminster—Land Quality Assessment Radiological Survey

  Unclassified

  13/97

  HMNB Portsmouth—DS(S) 79 Radioactive Storehouse

  Unclassified

  14/97

  DTEO Eskmeals—High Volume Air Results 1995– 96

  Unclassified

  15/97

  Classification of Laser Projection system 1

  Unclassified

  16/97

  Classification of Laser Projection system 2

  Unclassified

  17/97

  DTEO Kirkcudbright—Study of Passive Air Shades used during 1996

  Unclassified

  18/97

  RAF Stornoway—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  19/97

  RAF Machrihanish—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  20/97

  RAF Noctoon Hall—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  21/97

  RAF Norton Disney (Spalford Site)— Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  22/97

  RAF Norton Disney (Swinderby)—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  23/97

  RAF Burtonwood—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  24/97

  RAF Riseley—Land Quality Assessment Radiological Survey

  Unclassified

  25/97

  RF Survey Met office, Clee Hill Site

  Unclassified

  26/97

  Generic Hazard Assessment for the Release of Radio Nuclides during a Fire

  Unclassified

  27/97

  RAF Bawdsey—Land Quality Assessment Radiological Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  28/97

  RAF Martlesham Heath—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  29/97

  ABRO Colchester—Radiological survey

  Unclassified

  30/97

  ABRO Catterick—Radiological survey

  Unclassified

  31/97

  RAF Finningley—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  32/97

  RAF Alconbury—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  33/97

  RAF Shotley Gate—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  34/97

  Ordnance Road, Aldershot— Radiological Survey

  Unclassified

  35/97

  RAF Carlisle—DRPS Laboratory Support

  Unclassified

  36/97

  Not Issued

  Unclassified

  37/97

  Forthside Depot, Stirling—Land Quality Survey

  Unclassified

  38/97

  RAF Kemble—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  184

  Report number

  Title

  Classification

  39/97

  Golden 300—Radiation Safety Assessment

  Unclassified

  40/97

  RAF Upper Heyford—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  41/97

  RAF Caerwent—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  42/97

  RAF Predannack—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  43/97

  Dosimetry Statistics 1996

  Unclassified

  44/97

  RAF Ash—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  45/97

  OSU Burscough—Radiological Investigation

  Unclassified

  46/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 5 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  47/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 7 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  48/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 2 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  49/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 1 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  50/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 3 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  51/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 6 Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  53/97

  RAF Brawdy—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  54/97

  RAF Carlisle No. 8E Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Surveys

  Unclassified

  55/97

  RAF Burtonwood—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  56/97

  RNSD Eaglescliffe—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  57/97

  RAF North Luffenham, Officers Mess—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  58/97

  RAF North Luffenham, Technical Site—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  59/97

  RAF North Luffenham, AEOD Enclave—Land Quality Assessment

  Unclassified

  60/97

  RAF Woodvale—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  61/97

  RAF Marham—Radiological Survey

  Unclassified

  62/97

  RAF Tain, Former Admin. Site—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  63/97

  RAF Kelvin House (CME)—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  64/97

  RAF Kenley—Land Quality Assessment, Radiation Contamination Issues

  Unclassified

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police published a force order on 29 March 1995 to withhold the transfer of terms applicable to officers' postings; and if he intends to review this practice. [24517]
  185
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP). I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Walter Boreham to Mr. David Kidney, dated 27 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the publication of the transfer terms of Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) officers, as this falls into my area of responsibility, as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  In March 1995 my Personnel Department concluded that the transfer terms of individual officers were a private matter between the officer and the Personnel Department. Accordingly, with effect from 29 March 1995, details of such transfer terms ceased to be published in my weekly Force Orders. In resource terms the practice of no longer publishing individual officers' transfer terms resulted in reduced staff effort and a minor reduction in the cost of publishing Force Orders.
  I have no plans to review the current arrangements concerning the publication of the transfer terms of MDP officers' postings.

  Land Command
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to restructure the Army's United Kingdom Land Command ahead of the Strategic Defence Review. [24793]

  Dr. Reid
  The possible restructuring of Land Command, to which I referred in my reply of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 349, is one of many issues being considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review; and there are no plans, therefore, to restructure the Command ahead of the Review.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated values of the sites of United Kingdom Land Command's(a) brigade headquarters at Perth and (b) divisional headquarters at Edinburgh. [24794]

  Dr. Reid
  There are no up-to-date disposal values available for the brigade headquarters site at Perth. On present known factors, the value of the divisional headquarters site at Craigiehall, near Edinburgh is estimated to be up to £750,000 were it to be sold.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 66, how many technical papers and reports were produced by the Project Director Facilities Division between 1986 and 1991; and how many of them are currently unclassified. [24655]

  Mr. Spellar
  The purpose of the Project Director Facilities Division was to oversee the major programme of building and refurbishment projects then under way at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston. As such it did not produce technical papers. Details of reports and internal documents produced by the division are not held centrally and a census would require unreasonable diversion of resources. I am, therefore, withholding this information in accordance with exemption 9 of the Code of Practice for Open Government.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the overseas offices of the Defence Export Services Organisation are situated; if he will list for each office(a) the date it was established, (b) the number of staff currently employed there and (c) the running cost in the last year for which figures are available. [24837]

  Mr. Spellar
  DESO offices are located overseas are as follows:

  Date established

  Number of staff

  Budget 1997–98 (£000)

  Australia

  1989

  2

  106

  Brunei

  1995

  2

  104

  Germany

  1991

  16

  340

  India

  1984

  5

  49.5

  Indonesia

  1991

  3

  190

  Kuwait1

  1988

  9

  149

  Malaysia

  1986

  4.5

  172

  Philippines

  1997

  3

  213

  Saudi Arabia2

  1985

  99.5

  104

  South Korea

  1988

  2

  108.8

  Thailand

  1992

  2.5

  110

  Turkey

  1988

  1

  74

  1 Six staff are employed in the Kuwait Programme Office and are funded by the Customer.

  2 97 staff are employed on the A1 Yamamah programme and are funded by the customer.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the total administrative cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1996–97. [24839]

  Mr. Spellar
  The net running cost of operating the Defence Export Services Organisation in my Department was £10.94 million in Financial Year 1994–95 and £16.61 million in Financial Year 1996–97.

  During this latter year, the organisation generated some £84.4 million from sales of surplus military equipment. Additionally, as a result of overseas orders, the Department annually secures around £50 million in Commercial Exploitation Levies and saves around £344 million on its own procurement costs by spreading overheads over higher levels of production. DESO therefore earns benefits for the taxpayer that far outweigh these costs.

  Pilot Training (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training programmes for Indonesian pilots have been established in the United Kingdom; what United Kingdom military personnel are in Indonesia training pilots; how many Indonesians are currently being trained by how many United Kingdom armed forces personnel; and where this training is taking place. [25254]

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

  Food Procurement
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the procurement of(a) food in general and (b) beef. [25009]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 415. This policy applies to beef.

  Overseas Students (Shrivenham)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the past five years the number of overseas students attending the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, indicating the name of the country and the number of students concerned. [25449]

  Dr. Reid
  The total numbers of overseas students who have attended the Royal Military College of Science (RMCS), Shrivenham for each of the past five years are as follows:

  1993–94: 93

  1994–95: 73

  1995–96: 58

  1996–97: 82

  1997–98: 94.

  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to release specific details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information has been considered confidential between governments, and that disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. However, this practice is being reviewed against the background of the Government's commitment to openness, and I will write to my hon. Friend once the review is complete.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals bred at Porton Down were sold for scientific use at other establishments for each year from 1990 to date, giving the species of animals and the establishments concerned. [24829]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 27 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of animals bred at Porton Down and sold for scientific use at other establishments in each year since 1990.
  The number of animals bred at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down which were sold for
  188
  scientific use at other establishments since 1990 are listed by species in the table below.

  Financial year

  Porton mice

  Porton rats

  Common marmosets

  Rhesus

  1990–91

  620

  230

  156

  17

  1991–92

  403

  0

  52

  33

  1992–93

  450

  0

  18

  28

  1993–94

  235

  0

  198

  56

  1994–95

  200

  0

  0

  60

  1995–96

  40

  2

  148

  15

  1996–97

  0

  0

  95

  21

  1997–98

  0

  0

  0

  42

  Animals are only supplied to UK establishments designated for scientific procedures under section 6 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to non-UK users who can provide evidence that they meet welfare standards that match or exceed those of the UK, and for approved purposes.
  Under exemptions 4e and 4f of the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I am not prepared to reveal the names of scientific establishments to which DERA has sold animals.
  I hope this is helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the total number of young people unemployed for more than six months whom the Government expect to participate in their welfare-to-work scheme in 1998–99, broken down between those who will be eligible in April 1998 and those expected to become eligible in each successive month; [25102]

  (2) what are the Government's estimates for the number of young people unemployed for over six months participating in their New Deal scheme in each of the next four years, separately identifying those who do not go beyond the Gateway. [25110]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the numbers of young people aged 18–24 who will take part in the New Deal. In 1998–99, the programme will benefit all young people who have been unemployed for more than six months and who remain unemployed, and all those who reach six months' unemployment. In addition, some young people will choose to join the New Deal early.

  By convention, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment. In October 1997, some 120,000 18–24 year olds were recorded as having claimed Jobseeker' s Allowance for six months or more. Each month, about 15–20,000 18–24 year olds reach six months' claimant unemployment.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the legal status of the agreement to which employers must subscribe when they participate in the welfare-to-work scheme; and what penalties will be imposed on employers who breach it. [25107]
  189
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employer Agreement enshrines legally binding terms and conditions designed to secure the quality of those jobs to which the subsidy may be applied. It also includes a pledge, signed by the Employer, by which they commit to working with the Employment Service and its partners to make a success of the New Deal. Where the employer is in breach of these terms and conditions, the Employment Service can take any or all of the following actions, depending on the circumstances:

  rescind the agreement

  stop future payments

  cease further client referrals

  make recovery, if possible against other or future payments

  take the employer to court.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will give a break-down by(a) ethnic origin and (b) gender of the young people unemployed for more than six months expected to participate in their welfare-to-work scheme in 1998–99. [25103]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the numbers of young people who will require help from the New Deal. The programme will help young people who are, or who become, unemployed for six months or more, irrespective of ethnic origin or gender. The latest published data show that, in October 1997, around three quarters of those aged 18–24 who had been claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for six months or more were men. The claimant count does not provide information on the ethnic origin of JSA claimants. The summer 1997 Labour Force Survey suggests that around 10 per cent. of all 18–24 year olds who had been unemployed according to the ILO definition for six months or more were members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, following the Chancellor's announcement of 12 January 1998 of the extension of the Government's New Deal programme to those aged 25 to 34, if benefit claimants in that age group will be obliged to join the scheme with no fifth option of claiming benefits. [25111]

  Claimant unemployment1

  ILO unemployment1

  October 1992

  October 1997

  Average change per year (per cent.)

  Autumn 1992

  Autumn 1997

  Average change per year (per cent.)

  All ages

  Number

  2,814,400

  1,432,900

  9.8

  2,847,000

  1,852,000

  7

  Rate (per cent.)

  9.9

  5.1

  1

  10.2

  6.6

  0.7

  18–24s

  Number

  819,700

  371,400

  10.9

  739,000

  423,000

  8.6

  Rate (per cent.)

  17.5

  9.3

  1.6

  16.8

  11.8

  1

  6 month+

  355,200

  122,100

  13.1

  393,000

  200,0002

  9.8

  25 and over

  Number

  1,980,500

  1,045,900

  9.4

  1,970,000

  1,259,000

  7.2

  Rate (per cent.)

  8.5

  4.5

  0.8

  8.6

  5.3

  0.7

  2year+

  348,800

  243,700

  6

  416,000

  2365,000

  2.5

  1 All figures are seasonally unadjusted.

  2 ILO figures for the two New Deal groups cover the period summer 1992 to summer 1997, as summer 1997 is the latest period for which data are currently available.

  190
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are currently finalising the details of the extension and will announce them as soon as possible.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many small and medium businesses, broken down by size of workforce, the Government expect to participate in their welfare-to-work programme. [25101]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is too early to make an estimate; but we are seeking extensive participation by small and medium businesses, and are encouraged by preliminary indicating such as the support expressed by the Federation of Small Businesses.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State of State for Education and Employment if the Government will publish the agreement to which employers must subscribe when they participate in the welfare-to-work scheme. [25106]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employer Agreement is already in the public domain. It has been circulated throughout the pathfinder districts as part of the New Deal literature, and I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many ex-offenders are taking part in the(a) employment, (b) education, (c) environment and (d) voluntary option of the Welfare-to-Work Scheme. [25923]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information will not be available until later in the year.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government estimate to be the trend rate of fall in total unemployment over the past five years; and what are the trend rates specifically for young people unemployed over six months and the long-term unemployed participating in the New Deal. [25109]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The trend in unemployment has not been constant over the last five years. However, the average change over this period is as follows:

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the start-up and continuing costs of the new central unit being established to administer means tests for foreign students applying for places in British universities; and how many staff will be employed. [25105]

  Dr. Howells
  The central unit recently announced will handle applications from nationals of the other EU member states who are new entrants to higher education courses in England and Wales in the academic year 1999–2000 and who are seeking means tested support with their contribution to fees.

  We are consulting the local education authorities on our proposal to undertake on their behalf the means testing of EU applicants in 1998–99. The costs of doing so will be determined in the light of the outcome of those consultations.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if work trials will be continued as part of the new deal for the long-term unemployed. [25100]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes.

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  £

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96

  Reserves 1995–96

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1996–97

  Reserves 1996–97

  Northern

  County Durham and Darlington

  (646,364)

  6,413,585

  1,650,636

  8,064,221

  Northumberland

  475,842

  6,511.028

  1,151,765

  7,662,793

  Teesside

  437,000

  7,234,000

  1,096,000

  8,330,000

  Tyneside

  2,101,000

  4,407,000

  581,000

  4,988,000

  Sunderland

  1,590,984

  4,725,925

  799,054

  5,524,979

  3,958,462

  29,291,538

  5,278,455

  34,569,993

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  897,592

  3,424,783

  (396,435)

  3,028,348

  Merseyside

  (2,867,096)

  4,455,012

  2,697,054

  6,871,012

  QUALITEC

  (293,520)

  839,294

  109,383

  941,677

  (2,263,024)

  8,712,089

  2,410,002

  10,841,037

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  (238,453)

  3,867,289

  519,857

  4,387,146

  Manchester

  560,301

  5,155,404

  4,634,130

  9,789,534

  METRO

  213,325

  971,827

  231,793

  1,203,619

  Oldham

  102,240

  1,240,279

  648,248

  1,888,527

  Rochdale

  138,448

  1,932,813

  1,225

  1,934,038

  South and East Cheshire

  1,322,376

  3,808,389

  1,332,678

  5,141,067

  Stockport and High Peak

  (48,248)

  2,715,158

  150,661

  2,865,819

  Cumbria

  422,291

  3,121,591

  353,458

  3,475,049

  ELTEC

  (74,614)

  3,259,567

  (1,123,059)

  2,136,508

  LAWTEC

  (337,754)

  5,626,129

  591,040

  6,217,169

  NORMID

  539,256

  2,996,717

  1,403,563

  4,400,280

  2,599,168

  34,695,163

  8,743,594

  43,438,756

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,552,000

  5,948,000

  1,258,000

  7,234,000

  Bradford

  (436,245)

  2,311,416

  914,263

  3,225,679

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  97,846

  1,986,121

  197,675

  2,183,796

  Humberside

  419,280

  6,229,229

  (1,525,646)

  4,703,583

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total level of reserves held by each training and enterprise council; and what was the post-tax surplus or deficit for each TEC in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [24834]

  Dr. Howells
  A list of Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)/Chambers of Commerce, Training and Enterprise (CCTEs) and their accumulated reserves is shown in the following table. This information is drawn from each TEC' s annual statutory accounts at the end of the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97. Where TECs/CCTEs have subsidiary companies, the consolidated group position is shown.

  TECs/CCTEs are allowed to generate surpluses and create reserves by subcontracting training at a lower unit price than that negotiated with the Department. Surpluses are used by TECs/CCTEs to provide working capital and on activities in support of their corporate and business plan objectives which are agreed with the Government. Examples of the use of these funds include the provision of additional opportunities within existing DfEE programmes; matching funding for European-funded projects; and other training, enterprise or economic development initiatives designed to meet identified local needs. Staff in Government Offices are currently discussing with each TEC how they can best use their reserves to support the Government's priorities.
  193

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  £

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96

  Reserves 1995–96

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1996–96

  Reserves 1996–97

  Leeds

  207,287

  4,228,110

  1,999,915

  5,768,719

  North Yorks

  (132,000)

  5,535,000

  404,000

  5,939,000

  Rotherham

  1,074,660

  4,419,256

  (969,557)

  3,449,699

  Sheffield

  788,000

  5,717,000

  167,000

  3,683,000

  Wakefield

  500,611

  4,107,933

  501,765

  4,011,189

  5,071,439

  40,482,065

  2,947,415

  40,198,665

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  392,006

  1,347,628

  726,422

  2,074,050

  Cambridgeshire

  378,209

  1,286,849

  496,072

  1,782,921

  Essex

  2,459,798

  7,066,397

  (964,000)

  6,102,000

  Greater Peterborough

  (75,628)

  1,408,067

  134,743

  1,542,810

  Hertfordshire

  520,000

  3,770,000

  516,000

  4,286,000

  Norfolk and Waveney

  1,372,000

  4,260,000

  (1,373,000)

  2,887,000

  Suffolk

  1,158,123

  2,290,854

  (468,509)

  1,822,345

  6,204,508

  21,429,795

  (932,272)

  20,497,126

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  817,000

  2,394,000

  830,000

  3,224,000

  Leicestershire

  1,252,154

  6,472,807

  (1,623,7050

  4,849,102

  Lincolnshire

  652,071

  2,295,863

  898,959

  3,194,822

  Northamptonshire

  443,441

  1,991,332

  1,511,680

  3,503,012

  North Derbyshire

  138,008

  1,238,306

  135,247

  1,373,553

  North Nottinghamshire

  280,867

  3,111,550

  134,456

  3,246,006

  South Derbyshire

  642,000

  3,961,000

  1,236,000

  5,197,000

  4,225,541

  21,464,858

  3,122,637

  24,587,495

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,013,000

  3,987,000

  698,000

  4,685,000

  Central England

  255,810

  1,798,394

  (426,515)

  1,371,879

  Coventry/Warwick

  976,966

  2,835,271

  (263,464)

  3,812,803

  Dudley

  (277,643)

  940,007

  (14,551)

  979,553

  HAWTEC

  309,857

  1,164,866

  877,518

  2,435,735

  Sandwell

  385,104

  1,691,913

  136,041

  1,827,954

  Shropshire

  497,489

  2,273,100

  681,163

  3,362,209

  Staffordshire

  385,000

  5,629,000

  1,548,000

  7,177,000

  Walsall

  563,982

  1,254,626

  712,669

  1,967,295

  Wolverhampton

  161,000

  1,700,000

  300,000

  2,054,000

  4,270,565

  23,274,177

  5,357,772

  29,673,428

  South West

  WESTEC

  341,000

  4,316,000

  (1,993,000)

  2,323,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  (620,000)

  3,465,000

  1,672,000

  5,123,000

  Dorset

  (264,911)

  2,626,165

  514,099

  3,140,264

  Gloucester

  980,410

  3,619,487

  367,056

  3,986,543

  Somerset

  (48,000)

  2,003,935

  423,266

  2,427,201

  Wiltshire

  28,106

  1,551,212

  503,617

  2,054,829

  416,605

  17,581,799

  1,487,038

  19,054,837

  London

  AZTEC

  884,679

  4,397,861

  524,103

  4,921,964

  CENTEC3

  (22,482)

  2,701,498

  (870,081)

  1,831,417

  CILNTEC3

  54,123

  2,405,603

  (2,405,602)

  2,896,906

  LETEC

  2,505,452

  8,530,616

  (1,079,570)

  7,451,046

  North London

  802,634

  7,066,973

  (4,254,678)

  2,812,295

  North West London

  1,051,535

  2,581,550

  343,946

  2,925,496

  SOLOTEC

  2,575,000

  6,249,000

  1n/a

  1n/a

  West London

  1,383,308

  2,608,221

  140,775

  2,748,996

  9,234,249

  36,541,322

  (7,601,1070

  25,588,120

  South East

  Hampshire

  (1,077,933)

  3,758,587

  1,272,000

  5,030,000

  Isle of White

  140,565

  921,777

  (202,382)

  719,395

  Kent

  1,385,448

  6,189,635

  1,726,101

  7,915,736

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  222,758

  1,151,259

  733,596

  1,884,855

  Heart of England

  (352,446)

  2,340,596

  (183,474)

  2,157,122

  194

  195

  TECs/CCTEs by region

  £

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1995–96

  Reserves 1995-96

  Post tax surplus/deficit 1996–97

  Reserves 1996–97

  Surrey

  (56,808)

  2,043,823

  (30,266)

  2,013,557

  Sussex

  (960,000)

  4,595,000

  272,000

  4,896,000

  Thames Valley Ent.

  333,309

  5,332,077

  (488,556)

  5,027,201

  (365,107)

  26,332,754

  3,099,019

  29,643,866

  Grand Total

  33,352,406

  259,805,560

  27,548,646

  2,4278,093,323

  1 Information for SOLOTEC not yet available.

  2 Totals for 1996–97 exclude surpluses and reserves for SOLOTEC.

  3 CENTEC and CILNTEC merged in April 1997 to become Focus Central London.

  4 Figures are as shown in the respective annual audited accounts for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  In some cases TECs, in their accounts for 1996–97, have restated figures for earlier years. This means that the reserves for 1996–97 may differ from the sum of reserves for 1995–96 and surpluses for 1996–97.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 May 1997,Official Report, columns 825–26, what was the form of the consultation process into age discrimination in employment; if he will make a statement on the meetings that have taken place as part of the consultation process indicating the individuals and organisations met and the date when such meetings occurred; and if he will make a statement on (a) visits to and (b) other contact with individuals and organisations under the consultation process to date. [25658]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The consultation on age discrimination in employment has not been restricted to visits and meetings solely concerned with older workers. It has been, and continues to be, broad-based in order to gain a wide variety of views so that a consensus may be established on how best to tackle the problems of age discrimination in employment. In addition, I have met with, and visited, a variety of organisations concerned with age discrimination and groups of older workers. These include Age Concern, the Third Age Challenge Trust and the Employers Forum on Age. On 27 October 1997, I held a meeting with a range of key figures from business, the lobby and other interested parties. The consultation is continuing into the Spring and I intend to hold another consultation meeting in the near future.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 492, (1) when discussion began in his Department concerning the non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive; on what dates discussions took place; and who was present at such meetings; [25576]

  (2) if he will publish the most recent drafts of non-statutory agreements with the Scottish Executive; when he proposes to publish the final document; and if the agreement will operate in the first instance for a trial period; [25578]

  (3) in what areas a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive will give the lead role in policy formation to his Department; to what extent
  196
  it will include mechanisms to harmonise policy between Scotland and his Department on devolved matters; and if he will make a statement; [25579]

  (4) what representation he has received from other government departments concerning the format and aims of a non-statutory agreement between his department and the Scottish Executive; if he will list the number of representations from each Department; and if he will make a statement. [25580]

  Dr. Howells
  Discussions are being held between departments, both at official level and at Ministerial level, on all matters relating to non-statutory agreements between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. In most cases, these discussions are in their early stages in the light of the fact that such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters.

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Greater London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the conclusions of his review of hospital facilities in Greater London. [23430]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be publishing the report of the independent review panel, and the Government's response, shortly.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of negotiations on the European Community tobacco advertising directive. [23432]

  Ms Jowell
  I attended the Health Council on 4 December, where a common position was agreed on the proposed tobacco advertising Directive. This text will now be considered by the European Parliament and the Government will continue to work hard to achieve final adoption of this very important piece of European legislation.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for operations for over 18 months at the latest available date. [23433]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting time information collected centrally does not show separately those patients waiting for operations. The latest published figures show that, on 30 September 1997, 794 patients were waiting 18 months or more for admission to hospital. We are determined that by the end of March no patients will be required to wait that long.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff his Department anticipates will be made redundant as a result of the ending of general practitioner fundholding. [23435]

  Mr. Milburn
  In our White Paper "The New NHS" we said we would discuss transitional arrangements with those concerned. This includes arrangements for fundholding staff to enable those skilled in primary care commissioning to be retained wherever possible at the practice, Primary Care Group or health authority level.

  Liverpool Blood Centre
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Cash report on services at the Liverpool blood centre will be published. [23436]

  Mr. Boateng
  Professor Cash is currently finalising his Report. We will publish the report and our response to it as soon as we have considered his recommendations.

  Additional Support (Winter)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the additional support to the health service to meet winter pressures for the current year. [23437]

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many on the schemes funded through the extra money made available to the NHS for winter pressures promote greater co-operation between health and social services. [23440]

  Mr. Milburn
  The additional £300 million made available across the Untied Kingdom in the current financial year has helped achieve better joint working between the National Health Service and Social Services Departments. In England alone, there are almost 1,500 initiatives and some £35 to £40 million of the additional money is being transferred to social services. Over the Christmas and New Year period, joint working arrangements between health and social services were greatly improved on previous years.

  Reference Costs
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take to introduce a national schedule of reference costs in the NHS. [23438]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive has developed a work programme to deliver an initial reference cost schedule, by August 1998. This will cover 198
  all surgical, and limited medical, inpatient and day case activity. It is intended to extend the services included within the shortest practical timescale.

  NHS (Innovation)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote innovation in the NHS. [23439]

  Mr. Milburn
  Specific measures outlined in "The New National Health Service" to promote innovation include ensuring the NHS locally no longer treats its best ideas as commercially confidential; a National Institute for Clinical Excellence to give new coherence to the clinical effectiveness programme; and a new database to improve access to research findings.

  Funding (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding available to the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority for 1998–99. [23441]

  Mr. Milburn
  The 1998–99 Hospital and Community Health Services general revenue allocation for East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority is £372.5 million, which represents a cash increase of £16.6 million (4.67 per cent.), or £6.6 million (1.86 per cent.) in real terms.

  Health Care (Rationing)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rationing of health care in the NHS. [23442]

  Mr. Milburn
  For most people, most services are available in most places now. There are, however, unacceptable variations in access to some services and to the most effective treatments. Our aim is to improve this. We will take action to ensure that the most effective services are available across the country. We will work with the professions to produce national clinical guidelines and service frameworks to improve national consistency.

  Social Services
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote better co-operation between health authorities and social services. [23443]

  Mr. Boateng
  Promoting partnership and cooperation is one of the key priorities we have identified in the National Health Service Priorities and Planning Guidance. We continue to pursue a number of initiatives to assist authorities to develop practical collaboration, for example through formal guidance and locality workshops.

  Most importantly, partnership is integral to our broader development agenda. It is an essential theme within the White Paper, "The New NHS", which includes proposals for a new statutory duty of partnership between the NHS and social services. We have set in train a number of specific initiatives relevant to better co-operation between

  199
  health and local authorities: for example Health Action Zones, Better Services for Vulnerable People and our Primary Care Act pilot schemes.

  Staff Morale
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for improving staff morale in the NHS. [23444]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) today.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the impact on the NHS budget of the abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance for over-60-year-olds. [23445]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Referral Invoicing
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will be made to fund patient treatment currently covered by extra-contractual referral invoicing. [23446]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government's proposals for funding patient treatment currently covered by extra contractual referral invoicing are set out in paragraph 9.17 of the White Paper, "The New NHS", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  More detailed advice will be issued by summer 1998.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of community hospitals. [23447]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) today.

  Tobacco-related Illness
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends taking to reduce the incidence of tobacco-related illnesses and deaths. [23448]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government regard banning tobacco advertising as the essential first step in building an effective strategy to deal with smoking. However, smoking is too complex an issue and too serious a threat to health for us to rely on a single measure. Controlling tobacco consumption, and ultimately tobacco-related illnesses and deaths, requires a wide range of measures as part of a well thought out overall strategy if we are to have a real impact and see a significant and lasting reduction. A White Paper setting out the Government's tobacco control strategy will be published this year.

  Clinical Governance
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to develop clinical governance in NHS trusts. [23449]
  200
  Mr. Milburn
  The New National Health Service White Paper, published last December, outlines our proposals for developing clinical governance in NHS trusts. These proposals will be the subject of consultation later in the year.

  Primary Care (Nurses)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for boosting the role of nurses in commissioning primary care. [23450]

  Mr. Milburn
  From April 1999, teams of local general practitioners and community nurses will work together in new Primary Care Groups to shape services to patients. Primary Care Groups will open up a new leadership and decision making role for community nurses, working in partnership with GPs and others locally to improve health and health care.

  Specialist Services
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for improving access to specialist services provided from hospitals. [23451]

  Mr. Boateng
  As we said in the White Paper "The New National Health Service", improved arrangements for commissioning specialised services will be in place by 1 April 1999. Regional offices will be held accountable for ensuring that these arrangements are able to deal with the particular needs of the patients who use each service, including the question of access.

  Locality Commissioning
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives the Government intend to give general practitioners to participate in locality commissioning, with particular reference to existing fundholders. [23452]

  Mr. Milburn
  In England, primary care-led commissioning will be undertaken by Primary Care Groups, which will allow better co-ordination of primary care and community services, and better healthcare provision to patients in the locality. National Health Service trusts and Primary Care Groups will be able to use savings from longer term agreements to improve services to patients. In addition, there can be practice-level incentive arrangements associated with the groups' budgets, approved by the health authority.

  Redeployment of the general practitioner fundholding Practice Fund Management Allowance will provide about £3 per head of population to support the groups' running costs. GPs who take on key responsibilities within Primary Care Groups will have their time appropriately reimbursed from within the group's management support.

  Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed national institute for clinical excellence will be responsible for(a) assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of all technologies and (b) producing guidelines for the NHS. [23422]
  201
  Ms Jowell
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will give a new coherence and prominence to information about clinical and cost-effectiveness. It will develop and disseminate clinical guidelines based on relevant evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness. We will be consulting on the Institute's role and responsibilities over the coming months.

  Waste Reduction
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce waste in the national health service. [23431]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to ensuring that the new National Health Service uses its resources both efficiently and effectively to deliver high quality services. The White Paper sets out a programme of action to sweep away the bureaucracy of the internal market. Over the lifetime of this parliament, £1 billion that would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy will be released for patient care.

  Last October we announced that the NHS Efficiency Task Force, set up to consider the scope for making short-term savings, would become a permanent body examining the scope for savings through systems and processes in the NHS, and sharing best practice with the health service.

  BSE-linked Deaths
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have been scientifically established to have been caused by the consumption of beef contaminated by BSE. [24706]

  Ms Jowell
  There is convincing scientific evidence that the agent which causes new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) in humans is the same as that which causes Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in cattle. However, research so far has been unable to shed any light on the mechanism through which patients have contracted the disease.

  So far, there have been 23 deaths from nvCJD in the United Kingdom. In 22 of these cases, the diagnosis has been definitely established by the examination of brain tissue.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of money that has been spent in the Greater London area on care in the community in each of the last three years. [24529]

  Mr. Boateng
  Gross expenditure on care in the community(a) by London Health Authorities on National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services
  202
  (HCHS) and (b) by London boroughs and the Corporation of the City of London, for the last three years, is given in the table.

  £ millon

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  (a) Hospital and Community Health Services

  63,033

  74,594

  95,745

  (b) Personal Social Services (PSS):

  non-residential services

  475

  511

  n/a

  residential services

  472

  557

  n/a

  PSS expenditure for 1996–97 is not yet available.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation the Government have carried out on the proposal that the nursing costs of long-term care should be met by the NHS. [25918]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have noted this issue in our initial evidence to the Royal Commission, which will no doubt be considering it in the wider context of its considerations on the funding of long-term care.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on dental registration and the availability of NHS dentistry. [23426]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are committed to improving access to National Health Service dentistry and tackling oral health inequalities. We have recently announced a further £10 million to expand our Investing in Dentistry initiative in 1998–99. The registration period for both adult continuing care and child capitation has been harmonised at fifteen months following each course of treatment. This will improve value for money by focusing resources on those patients receiving active care. We shall redeploy any savings to target improvements in oral health.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area have been waiting for treatment for more than(a) 18 months and (b) 12 months at the latest available date; and what were the figures on (i) 30 September 1997 and (ii) 31 March 1997. [25663]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on patients awaiting admission to Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust on 31 March 1997 and on 30 September 1997, the latest published figures available, is given in the table.

  Number waiting

  At 31 March 1997

  At 30 September 1997

  For 12 months or more

  104

  1441

  For 18 months or more

  0

  3

  1 Figure is final one and differs from provisional figure supplied in the reply given to the hon. Gentleman on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 429.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area have been waiting to see a consultant for
  203
  more than (a) 18 months, (b) 12 months and (c) 6 months at the latest available date; and what were the figures on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) 30 September 1997. [25664]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information collected centrally shows the numbers of patients waiting for their first outpatient appointment with a consultant, following written referral by their general practitioner, who were still waiting after 13 to 26 weeks and after more than 26 weeks. Figures giving the position on 31 March 1997 and 30 September 1997, the latest available, are in the table.

  Patients still waiting for a first outpatient appointment with a consultant, following GP written referral, at Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Number of patients waiting:

  as at 31 March 1997

  as at 30 September 1997

  13 to less than 26 weeks

  481

  972

  26 weeks and over

  74

  122

  Drug Injection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the methods of injecting drugs or insulin which(a) are and (b) are not prescribable; when these decisions were made; and if they are under review. [25039]

  Mr. Milburn
  Injection devices which may be prescribed by general practitioners on the National Health Service are listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff and include a variety of hypodermic syringes and syringe needles. Disposable injection pens which come prefilled with insulin are regarded as a container for the insulin and because of that may also be prescribed. Reusable injection pens, and pen needles, may not be prescribed though we are considering whether they should be. Listing decisions have been made at different times over a period of several years.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a new medical school in the United kingdom. [23434]

  Mr. Milburn
  One of the main recommendations in the Third Report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee (MWSAC) is a 20 per cent. increase in the annual intake to United Kingdom medical schools. This recommendation has very significant implications, and needs careful examination. The Government will announce their decisions on all of MWSAC's recommendations in a few months' time, in the light of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by his Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25655]

  Mr. Milburn
  When it is decided to sell redundant computer equipment that no longer meets the Department's business requirements, companies are invited to bid. The letter of invitation gives the companies the opportunity to inspect the equipment beforehand and 204
  makes it clear that it is sold "as seen" with no guarantee that it is fit for any particular purpose. The same approach is adopted within the Department's agencies.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 Janaury 1998,Official Report, column 368, how many (a) kidney dialysis machines, (b) intensive care cots for premature babies and (c) intensive care units cannot be repaired or replaced before 31 December 1999. [25659]

  Mr. Milburn
  An indication of those devices that are potentially affected by the Year 2000 problem will become available in April 1998 when individual site inventories are complete. Information as to which devices are not actually compliant will come mainly from the device manufacturers and in many cases this will not be available until after April 1998.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to issue new guidelines on the treatment of head lice. [25429]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department's poster and leaflet campaign launched in April 1996—The Prevention and Treatment of Head Lice—gives parents and teachers advice on the options for dealing with head lice. It has been well received by community health workers who mount local campaigns as the need arises. We also continue to work with the Department for Education and Employment to promote best practice, focusing on a "whole school approach", where action is taken at the same time to detect and treat every case of head lice within the school thus minimising opportunities for re-infestation. In addition consultants in communicable disease control, who have local responsibility for public health programmes, are currently working on a review document on head lice.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 Janaury 1998,Official Report, column 502, (1) in what areas a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive will give the lead role in policy formation to his Department; to what extent it will include mechanisms to harmonise policy between Scotland and his Department on devolved matters; and if he will make a statement; [25574]

  (2) if he will publish the most recent drafts of non-statutory agreements with the Scottish Executive; when he proposes to publish the final document; and if the agreement will operate in the first instance for a trial period; [25573]

  (3) what representations he has received from other Government Departments concerning the format and aims of non-statutory agreements between his Department and the Scottish Executive; if he will list the number of representations from each Department; and if he will make a statement; [25575]

  (4) when discussions began in his Department concerning the non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive; on what dates discussions took place; and who was present at such meetings. [25572]
  205
  Mr. Milburn
  Discussions are being held between departments, both at official level and at Ministerial level, on all matters relating to non-statutory agreements between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive. These discussions are in their early stages because such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed on progress on these matters.

  Vitamins and Minerals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the percentage of United Kingdom adults who consume less than the recommended daily allowance of(a) vitamin A, (b) thiamin,

  Table 1: Proportion of adults with intakes below the RNI, 1986–87

  Per cent

  Nutrient

  Men

  Women

  16–18 years

  19–50 years

  51–64 years

  16–18 years

  19–50 years

  51–64 years

  Vitamin A

  44

  27

  18

  44

  31

  21

  Thiamin

  10

  8

  4

  10

  12

  7

  Riboflavin

  19

  12

  9

  37

  21

  17

  Vitamin C

  21

  26

  22

  29

  34

  29

  Iron

  36

  12

  12

  93

  89

  34

  Calcium

  64

  25

  16

  71

  48

  43

  Data on trends are not available in the same format. However, data since 1989 on trends in the estimated average intake of nutrients for the whole population,

  Table 2: Intake per person per day as a percentage of RNI, 1989–96

  Nutrient

  Intake as percentage RNI

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Vitamin A

  199

  179

  181

  185

  179

  165

  164

  139

  Thiamin

  159

  154

  153

  150

  149

  153

  161

  173

  Riboflavin

  146

  144

  144

  142

  139

  140

  139

  141

  Vitamin C

  142

  138

  144

  131

  134

  139

  136

  143

  Iron

  102

  101

  97

  96

  95

  93

  92

  97

  Calcium

  123

  120

  118

  120

  118

  118

  118

  120

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations, companies, individuals, European or overseas ministers and representative bodies he has agreed to meet during the remainder of 1997–98; and when those meetings are scheduled to take place. [16349]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  My diary for the remainder of 1997–98 is, of necessity, incomplete and provisional. It would serve no purpose to provide details of meetings which might or might not take place.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings with farmers' organisations that Ministers had agreed to address they have subsequently declined to attend since 1 May. [22665]
  206
  (c) riboflavin, (d) vitamin C, (e) vitamin D, (f) iron and (g) calcium; and if he will make a statement on the trend for these figures over the last 10 years. [24460]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Recommended daily allowances have been replaced by reference nutrient intakes (RNI). The RNIs and their scientific basis are set out in the Department of Health Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy's 1991 report on dietary reference values.

  If average intakes are at or above the RNI, the likelihood of deficiency in any group is small. Therefore, up to 50 per cent. of individuals in any group with adequate dietary intakes may consume less than the RNI. Table 1 gives information on the proportion of adults found in a survey in 1986–87 to have intakes below the RNI for the named nutrients. Vitamin D is not included in the table as there is no RNI for this nutrient in adults under 65 years of age.

  expressed as a percentage of the relevant RNIs, are available from MAFF's National Food Survey (Table 2).

  Dr. John Cunningham
  It has been necessary for me and my Ministerial team to cancel 10 meetings with farmers' organisations since 1 May.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Union he has attended [23605]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have attended nine meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Union.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22928]
  207
  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer on 15 January 1998]: I last used a train in the course of my official duties on 13 January.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what resources he plans to make available to inspect imported off the bone beef to ensure it meets the same standards as domestically produced meat; and how many people will be employed in this work; [23271]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce spot checks on beef imported to the United Kingdom to ensure it meets the same standards as United Kingdom produced beef. [23272]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: All fresh meat produced in the UK, and imported into the UK from other EU Member States, must be produced in accordance with harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Fresh meat imported from third countries must come only from approved establishments in countries which are authorised by the European Commission to export to the Community. These controls are designed to ensure that the meat satisfies production requirements equivalent to those applying within the Community.

  The Government's new unilateral controls to ensure that certain food and feed products do not contain and were not derived from specified risk material (SRM) require products to be certified as such in their country of origin by national veterinary services. Products produced before 1 January and products derived from animals born, reared and slaughtered in Australia or New Zealand, provided they are certified as such, are not subject to the SRM-freedom requirements. All consignments imported into the UK from third countries are checked at designated Border Inspection Posts. EU Single Market rules permit only random spot-checks at destination for imports from member states. Consistent with those rules, a daily sample of randomly selected consignments from EU member states is checked for conformity with the new unilateral controls.

  Other checks carried out at places of destination are made by authorised officers from a number of different bodies, including local authorities. It is not, therefore, possible to state precisely how many people are involved in this work at any one time, except at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those visits made within the United Kingdom since 1 May on which(a) he and (b) other Ministers within his Department have been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code indicating (i) those persons accompanying and (ii) the cost to public funds. [23745]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: I can confirm that, under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, Mrs. Cunningham has not accompanied me on any official visit within the United Kingdom. Of the Ministers
  208
  within my Department, only my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code: Mrs. Morley attended the opening of the Sheepgate Equestrian Centre on Saturday 27 September 1997. Her attendance did not involve any additional public expenditure.

  Beef (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if beef on the bone supplied from certified herds in Northern Ireland will be permitted to be sold throughout Europe following the removal of European Union prohibitions on the export of beef in respect of those herds. [23846]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The proposal for an Export Certified Herds Scheme in Northern Ireland currently under consideration by the Standing Veterinary Committee permits only the export of de-boned beef from Northern Ireland.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the measures taken by the European Union in respect of animal welfare in each of the last three years. [24525]

  Mr. Morley
  The measures adopted by the European Union in respect of animal welfare over the three years 1995–1997 in my Department's area of responsibility have been:Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the welfare of animals during transport.
  Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 amending Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves.
  Commission Decision 97/182/EC of 24 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves.
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community criteria for staging points and amending the route plan referred to in the Annex to Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the welfare of animals during transport.
  The Protocol to the Treaty of Rome agreed at the 1997 Inter Governmental Conference in Amsterdam recognising that animals are sentient beings and placing on EU institutions a formal obligation to pay full regard to animal welfare when developing Community policies on agriculture, transport, the internal market and research.

  Meat Export Licences
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average time currently taken to process red and white meat export licences by regional centre. [24489]

  Mr. Rooker
  The State Veterinary Service's Service Standard for processing routine export health certification is five working days from date of receipt of a fully completed application. The Ministry's records show that,
  209
  in December, the average time from receipt of an application to dispatch of certificates to Local Veterinary Inspectors for red meat and poultry meat certificates was as follows:

  Veterinary Field Service region

  Average time for processing of red meat certificates (Calendar days)

  Average time for processing of red meat certificates (calendar days

  East

  0.96

  0.71

  West

  0.60

  1.47

  North

  1.30

  2.47

  Scotland

  0.02

  2.03

  Wales

  0.42

  10

  HQ

  0.16

  2.18

  Note:

  1 0 means all certificates dispatched on day of receipt.

  All of the above figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the name and professional qualifications of those nutritionists who have written to him to support his proposed new restrictions on the retail sale of vitamin B6 supplements. [24819]

  Mr. Rooker
  No assessment has been made of the professional status or qualifications of those who have written to the Government about the proposed controls on food supplements containing vitamin B6.

  Agrimonetary Regime
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement describing the workings of the agrimonetary regime for EU member states who do not join its single currency in the first wave. [25246]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The European Commission will need to make proposals to the Agriculture Council this year for agrimonetary arrangements to apply after the start of the Single Currency. They have indicated their intention to make proposals in May or June. We intend to discuss the options with all interested organisations. A key aim for the UK in the negotiations will be ensuring equitable treatment of the different groups of Member States involved.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to public funds of each package of agrimonetary compensations claimed by other member states of the EU under the terms of the current agrimonetary regime. [25248]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Other EU Member States have paid around 650 MECU in agrimonetary compensation so far, of which 460 MECU has been reimbursed from the CAP budget. The UK's net contribution to this spending, as to all new EU spending in other Member State, will be around 5 per cent.

  Rendering Industry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost per tonne for the collection, transport, administration and processing of high-risk material by the rendering industry for the next three years when the current scheme is phased out. [25096]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 Janaury 1998]: This is a commercial matter for the rendering industry. However, it has been estimated that the average cost of rendering, including the collection, transport, administration costs, is £80/tonne.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if SEAC has investigated possible links between(a) Phosmet and (b) other organophosphate compounds and BSE; and if he will make a statement. [24696]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: At a meeting on 24 October 1997, SEAC considered further papers relevant to the hypothesis that the organophosphate (OP), Phosmet, is in some way causally linked to the BSE epidemic. It was noted that the epidemiological evidence is better accounted for by the view that the BSE epidemic is due to the widespread use of animal feed contaminated with the transmissible agent of BSE than by the organophosphate theory. The Committee concluded that experimental evidence would be required to justify further consideration of a role for organophosphates in the epidemiology of BSE.

  Specified Risk Material
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the actions planned by the EU Commission to adopt the decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the exclusion of specified risk material. [25249]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I understand that the Commission intend to table an amended Decision to replace 97/534 before its planned coming into force date on 1 April 1998. As part of this process, the Commission have asked the Scientific Steering Committee for advice on a number of issues by the end of January. On the basis of past practice, I would expect the Commission to consider that advice and put proposals for an amended Decision to the Standing Veterinary Committee.

  Green Pound Compensation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the levels of green pound compensation claimed for production of (i) beef, (ii) cereals, (iii) milk and (iv) sugar by each of the other EU states, showing what percentage is nationally funded and indicating where appropriate which payments are subject to the Fontainebleau mechanism. [25241]
  211
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Full figures are available for notifications made up to 1 July 1997. At this date, agrimonetary compensation notified by each of the other EU Member States was as follows:

  MECU

  Beef

  Cereals

  Milk

  Sugar

  National funding (per cent.)

  Belgium

  15.1

  3.2

  16.8

  4.1

  34

  Luxembourg

  1.8

  0.6

  2.8

  —

  50

  Netherlands

  18.3

  3.1

  52.5

  5.3

  Nil

  Austria

  12.9

  —

  16.8

  1.5

  Nil

  Ireland

  39.1

  4.8

  39.6

  1.9

  Nil

  Sweden

  6.5

  6.3

  19.1

  2.2

  Nil

  Germany and Denmark both paid aid for general measures beneficial to the agricultural industry.

  The Fontainebleau mechanism affects the UK's contribution to the EU budget and will therefore reduce the UK's share of the cost of these measures.

  High-risk Material (Disposal)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of fallen stock, animal waste and other tissue categorised as high risk by EU directive 90/667 has been produced in the United Kingdom over the last three years for which figures are available. [25083]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Figures are not available for the tonnage of high risk material produced in the United Kingdom although the Licensed Animal Slaughterers' and Salvage Association has estimated that around 300,000 tonnes are produced annually.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce interim financial support to enable those engaged in the collection and disposal of fallen stock in the United Kingdom to continue to operate on a nation-wide basis in the period before the implementation of United Kingdom legislation consistent with EU environmental health and commercial objectives. [25093]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: There is already UK legislation implementing EU legislation in this area. The livestock industry has a great deal to gain from maintaining public confidence in its ability to dispose of its waste in a sustainable manner. I expect it to meet the costs of disposing of fallen stock.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to legislate to control or proscribe on-farm burial. [25085]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: There is already legislation to control on-farm burial. The Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, permits the burial of fallen stock only in certain circumstances and requires burial to be at a depth beyond the reach of carnivorous animals. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit a discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or solid waste matter into any controlled waters without the proper authority. The European Commission is reviewing the disposal options for fallen stock and may come forward with proposals for further EU legisation.
  212
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current requirements to charge for processing high-risk material; and what estimate he has made of the value of dead stock which will in future be buried in-farm when the charges commence. [25084]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998): It is a commercial matter for renderers whether to charge for processing high risk material. State Veterinary Service staff have been asked to report incidents of unlawful disposal of dead stock on farm.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost per tonne of the disposal of high-risk material via landfill in each of the next three years. [25097]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Since 1 January 1998, the Animal By-Products (Amendment) Order 1997 has restricted the use of landfill for the disposal of unprocessed animal by-products. Where landfill is permitted, the cost of disposal is a commercial matter for individual waste suppliers to negotiate with the landfill sites concerned.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about the potential increased use of dead animal pits on United Kingdom farms. [25088]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No such discussions have taken place.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the Code of Good Animal Practice as it relates to on-farm burial. [25086]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water, which provides advice on burial on-farm, has recently been reviewed and it will be issued soon.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the likely effect on the negotiations currently under way to lift the EU export ban on beef of increased use of dead pits on UK farms as a route of disposal for fallen stock. [25091]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: EU Directive 90/667, which permits the burial on-farm of fallen stock only in certain circumstances, applies to all Member States. GB legislation reflects the provisions in the Directive. This subject is also addressed by the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water. This issue of fallen stock has not been raised in the course of negotiations on our proposals for lifting the beef export ban.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those EU countries which currently allow an on-farm disposal route for fallen stock. [25090]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: An accurate list is not available but it is believed that most Member States permit on-farm burial of fallen stock, although in a number of countries it is allowed only in limited circumstances.
  213
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will review the effectiveness of the Rendering Industry Support Scheme as a means of allowing the knacker/fallen stock trade to provide a low-cost disposal service to the farmer and livestock producers; [25095]

  (2) if he will (a) authorise an immediate review of the costs to the UK economy of the externality and direct costs of the disposal of animal waste and (b) continue the support available via the Rendering Industry Support Scheme currently being phased out until such a review is completed; [25092]

  (3) what levels of financial support have been made available for the last three years and will be available over the next two years to businesses offering a fallen stock collection service to the livestock sectors in each county within the United Kingdom; [25082]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The objective of the support to the rendering industry was to avoid the disorderly collapse of the meat chain in the immediate aftermath of the BSE crisis. This was achieved. Support of £97 million was first paid under the rendering industry support arrangements in 1996–97 and up to £59 million has been available in 1997–98. The conditions in the spring of 1996 which gave rise to the threat of collapse of the meat chain no longer exist and there are no plans to continue to support for the disposal of animal waste in 1998–99.

  Following the election, the Government carefully considered representations made by a wide range of interested bodies before confirming the phasing out of support in 1997–98. There are no plans to review the position again. The livestock industry has a great deal to gain from maintaining public confidence in its ability to dispose of its waste in a sustainable manner. I therefore expect it to meet the cost of disposing of fallen stock.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact black-market disposal of fallen stock on-farm would have on the traceability measures currently planned to enable the EU to sanction the lifting of the beef export ban. [25089]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 December 1998]: Fallen stock must be disposed of so that they do not enter the human foodchain and there are already measures to prevent such entry from taking place. The computerised database which will be introduced later this year will improve tracing of cattle, including those which die on farm.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of a dead pit disposal route for fallen stock on the authorities charged with monitoring the quality of private water supplies in rural areas; [25094]

  (2) if he will estimate the risks to (i) environmental, (ii) human and (iii) animal health from uncontrolled on-farm burial schemes of fallen stock; [25087]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the public health and environmental consequences of dead animals being buried on-farm in future. [25080]
  214
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I would expect local authorities to continue monitoring private water supplies in areas where burial pits are used to dispose of fallen stock. The use of burial pits, and other methods of on-farm burial, is controlled by legislation and reinforced by the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of the Water to avoid contaminating the environment or posing a disease risk.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many businesses operating in the United Kingdom currently offer a fallen stock collection service to the livestock sectors in each country. [25081]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Many knackers' yards and hunt kennels offer a collection service for fallen stock. The total number of these businesses in counties where they exist is as follows:

  Number

  Borders\Lothian

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  Cardiff

  17

  Carmarthenshire

  26

  Cheshire

  2

  Co. Antrim

  5

  Co. Down

  1

  Co. Londonderry

  2

  Cornwall

  24

  Cumbria

  16

  Devon

  32

  Dorset

  9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4

  Essex

  12

  Gloucestershire

  11

  Grampian

  1

  Gwynedd

  11

  Hampshire

  14

  Kent

  11

  Lancashire

  7

  Humberside

  3

  Lincolnshire

  10

  Norfolk

  8

  Nottingham

  12

  Oxfordshire

  17

  Powys

  8

  Shropshire

  10

  Somerset

  21

  Staffordshire

  4

  Suffolk

  12

  Surrey

  10

  Tayside

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  15

  Wiltshire

  6

  Worcester

  11

  Yorkshire

  31

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received on the proposed arrangements for the collection, treatment and disposal of fallen stock and other high-risk animal waste; [25079]

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining policy on the future arrangements for the collection, treatment and disposal of fallen stock and other high-risk animal waste. [25078]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The Government consider that it is the responsibility of the livestock industry to ensure that there are suitable

  215
  arrangements for the collection and disposal of fallen stock. I have discussed the current position with the Licensed Animal Slaughterers' and Salvage Association (LASSA) and my officials are discussing future arrangements with LASSA, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the farming industry.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the principles he proposes to apply in restructuring the beef-producing sector in the United Kingdom; and if producers in less favoured areas will continue to be the prime recipients of longer-term support payments; [25245]

  (2) what account he will take of the position of the quality specialist suckler producer in the hill areas in his proposals to restructure the beef industry. [25243]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The aim of our restructuring plan, which will be drawn up in full consultation with the industry, is to help the sector become more efficient, and thus less dependent on subsidies and other support.

  Our initial thoughts are that it would be appropriate to devise such a plan for both beef and sheep producers. If the plan is successful, it is possible that overall levels of production may decline. The extent to which this happens will reflect producers' decisions rather than those of Government. It is not an objective of the plan deliberately to alter the balance of production as between the less favoured areas (LFA) and non-LFA or as between the dairy herd and the suckler herd.

  It is no part of our thinking that, by putting such a plan in place, the Government will reduce the need to provide some form of continuing long-term support to hill farmers that recognises the natural handicaps which they face. But, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 22 December 1997, Official Report, columns 677–79, we do need to look carefully at the way in which such support is provided and to devise ways of enabling that support to achieve positive environmental goals. This too will be the subject of full consultation with the industry.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce compulsory segregation of genetically modified crops. [25458]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 17 July 1997, Official Report, column 504.

  Livestock Producers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to consult livestock interests about the need to restructure; and if he will make special arrangements to consider the needs of livestock producers in less favoured areas. [25242]
  216
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Detailed plans for this initiative are under consideration, but livestock interests will be fully consulted as soon as possible. As always, we will take due account of the interests of less favoured area producers.

  Specialist Beef Herd
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the reduction in size necessary in the United Kingdom specialist beef herd to make it economically sustainable in the long term; and if he will make a statement indicating the period of time over which the restructuring is to be achieved. [25244]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No. Adjustment is a continuing process and it is for individual farmers to assess their ability to compete within the single market of the European Union. However, our officials are discussing with farming organisations in what way the Government might be able to assist farmers to adjust.

  BSE
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 22 December 1997,Official Report, columns 677–79, if he will give a breakdown of the £2 billion provided in 1996–97 and the £1.4 billion in 1997–98 to support the beef sector, identifying what the money was spent on, and what proportion of the money was used in each year for Government food safety or public health measures. [25253]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: For the requested breakdown of 1996–97 expenditure, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) on 22 December 1997, Official Report, columns 488–89. The latest estimates of the equivalent figures for 1997–98 are as follows (not including the measures announced in the package, of which the beef industry's share is £72.5 million):

  £ million

  Non-BSE related

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  222

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  219

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  52

  Total (Non-BSE related)

  493

  BSE related

  Intervention

  180

  Export refunds

  -2

  Over Thirty Month Scheme

  395

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme

  54

  Rendering Industry Support

  69

  Animal Feed Disposal Service

  2

  Suckler Cow Special Payments

  8

  Specified Risk Material Controls

  23

  Selective Cull

  119

  MLC/LMC Promotion Payments

  2

  Other Measures

  21

  Total BSE related

  871

  All the above expenditure relates to measures which support the beef industry, whether through direct payments, market intervention, rebuilding consumer

  217
  confidence or in meeting the terms of the Florence Agreement in order to get the export ban lifted. Expenditure listed under Specified Risk Material Controls is principally concerned with increased controls in slaughterhouses and other meat plants and can properly be regarded as necessary to safeguard public health. The exclusion of meat from animals over thirty months of age from the food chain is a public health measure, but the market support provided in respect of such animals is not, properly speaking, public health expenditure.

  Veterinary Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay tuition fees for veterinary students in the fifth and subsequent years of their courses; and if he will make a statement. [25342]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Matters relating to the funding of tuition fees for veterinary students are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Disabled Civil Servants
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of Civil Service staff are registered disabled. [25661]

  Dr. Clark
  On 1 April 1996, 2.9 per cent. of staff (13,900) employed in the non-industrial Civil Service were disabled, of whom 1.6 per cent. (7,680) were registered as disabled.

  The provisions under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which provided for disabled people to register their disability, were repealed in December 1996 by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his definition of British for the purposes of exhibiting in the Millennium Experience. [23713]

  Mr. Mandelson
  All the design companies with which the New Millennium Experience Company is working on the content of the Millennium Dome are registered in the United Kingdom.

  The Millennium Experience at Greenwich will demonstrate to the world the very best of this country's rich and diverse talent and creativity.

  Disney World
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what lessons he is drawing from Disney World for the Millennium Experience. [23919]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 352.

  Millennium Dome (Contracts)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what steps were taken to ensure that the tendering process for the contract awarded to Brand Union conformed with European law; [25548]

  (2) what is the lower limit for contracts regarding logo design or corporate identity to be placed in the European Journal. [25546]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company's legal advice is that there is no requirement for contracts for corporate brand and identity (including logo design) to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Such contracts fall within Part B of the Public Services Contracts Regulations (SI 1993/3228), the obligations of which, in contracts of this nature, concern technical specifications and post-contract award information. The New Millennium Experience Company has complied with the relevant obligations and, in the case of post-contract award information, will comply when negotiations on contract details are finalised. In the circumstances, the issue of lower limits of contract value and the European Journal do not apply.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the tendering process used for the corporate identity and logo design contract awarded to Brand Union Ltd. [25547]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is required to achieve some £359 million of income from private sponsors, visitors and other commercial income. NMEC's aim, therefore, is to develop a brand and identity, of which a logo is an integral part, which will assist the delivery of that income target.

  After initial concept work in July and August, the NMEC Board's Executive Committee agreed in September that three companies would be invited to submit logo designs, on the basis that the status, experience and competence of those invited to tender were sufficiently similar to enable proper competition, and that no conflicts of interest arose for the Board or Executive of the NMEC.

  Two of the three companies invited to do so submitted logo proposals. NMEC's Board decided that those from Brand Union Ltd., which included a comprehensive package of design support, were superior and held the prospect of providing the quality and profile considered essential to assist the achievement of sponsorship and other income targets.

  However, it was clear that, whichever of the two bidders was chosen, further development work would be needed, both on logo and on overall brand and identity. In November, the Board's Executive Committee agreed that discussions with Brand Union Ltd. should be undertaken with the aim of refining the logo concepts and of establishing favourable contract terms. At this stage, Brand Union's work was shown to me, as Shareholder.

  Subsequent discussions and negotiations between the company and Brand Union Ltd. concluded with a proposal that NMEC would pay Brand Union £50,000 to finalise

  219
  the logo design, for copyright of the logo, and for work on wider brand and identity. In addition, the company is in discussion with Martin Lambie-Nairn of Brand Union Ltd. over provision of design services to NMEC on all aspects of brand and identity.
  220
  On 13 January, NMEC's Chief Executive informed the Millennium Commission, in accordance with the provisions of their Grant Agreement, of its proposed contract arrangements. The Commission confirmed on 16 January that they were content with the decision.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Christopher John, Lord Bishop of Manchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ripon and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Academic GPs: Remuneration
2.43 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Richards report on the problems facing clinical academic medicine, they will make distinction awards available to teachers in general practice employed by the universities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Richards report was commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals which, I understand, is considering at present its recommendations. The report has not been formally presented to the Government for a response and it would be premature for me to offer a view on any specific recommendation at this stage, including the recommendation regarding the remuneration of academic GPs, which raises complex issues as the report itself recognises, and about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is well aware.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that since the introduction of mandatory vocational training for general practice, the clinical academics who teach general practice and primary care are accepted as being in a specialty like any other clinical specialty; and that this is the only clinical specialty in which teachers in the universities are not at present eligible for distinction awards?
Is the Minister aware that there is at present a major recruitment problem in this field? If, as the Government wish, we are to have a primary care-led NHS, is it not important that incentives should be introduced to improve recruitment, in particular, since these are the people who will be teaching primary care to our medical students and doctors in the future and the BMA General Services Committee, while opposed to distinction awards for general practitioners who are independent contractors, now supports their availability to this group of clinical academics?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Government accept the importance of academic general practice given our commitment to a primary care-led
96
National Health Service. We would not wish to see disincentives to able individuals entering academic general practice. However, pay is only part of the picture and access to the NHS consultants' distinction awards is only one option which could be looked at in addressing any perceived disparities in pay.
Introducing distinction awards for university employed general practitioners raises complex and difficult issues. Sir Rex Richards acknowledged this in November in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, chairs. It is not new, but a longstanding issue to which there is no simple solution. However, we shall ensure that these issues are fully considered and possible solutions addressed. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment look forward to working with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to address the issues raised in the Richards report. We shall seek to ensure that there are no disincentives to entering academic general practice. We shall take careful note of the points made in both the Richards report and by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box and to wish her well as one of the members of the health team on the Government Front Bench.
Is not the difficulty at the heart of the Question the fact that there are simply not enough medical graduates choosing to enter general practice? Does the Minister also agree that because of the shortage of GP trainees, the GP trainers often cannot be retained in the academic loop?
The noble Lord has proposed one answer to the problem. But what plans do the Government have for eliminating the shortage of trainee GPs?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Earl for his kind and courteous comments to me.
The Government very much recognise the importance of teaching general practice best practices to medical undergraduates and young doctors. However, as I understand it, Richards recommended that there should be discussions about the need to ensure that the terms of academic general practitioners match those of their academic colleagues in hospital practice. I accept that in the report there is acceptance of the fact that hospital colleagues with honorary NHS consultant contracts are eligible for distinction awards. But no other group of GPs receives distinction awards. We need to be clear about whether there is a disparity and, if so, how that might be addressed. We cannot assume that the issue is simply one of distinction awards. For example, a separate scheme could be more closely tailored to clinical academic GPs; or other changes could be made to the remuneration of clinical academic GPs which could also address the problem. We are planning detailed discussions with the Committee of

97
Vice-Chancellors and Principals about all the implications and options arising from the report, and possible options for any necessary funding.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, while we cannot look to the Treasury for a monopoly of all wisdom on matters concerning the NHS, its evidence to the Royal Commission on Doctors' Remuneration of 40 years ago still stands? It argued that distinction awards should be abolished as a blot on the landscape of public finance. Will my noble friend further agree that, while we must do everything we can to ensure that GPs who take part in academic medicine do not suffer financially, we should not seek to extend the range and scale of distinction awards?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Treasury may well have said that, but I could not possibly comment!
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, in the light of recent evidence based on research by Dr. Hetherington and his colleagues about the perceived difficulties of ethnic minorities in consultant practice, that this is an issue the Government might wish to re-examine?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, this is indeed an important issue for the Government. Department of Health officials have recently held discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality regarding the number of awards granted to consultants from ethnic minorities. A number of measures are being introduced in the 1998 awards round to secure better data, monitoring of outcomes and representation of ethnic minority consultants on awards committees. Some changes to the criteria for awards were also suggested by the commission and accepted for implementation in the 1998 awards round. Those measures were welcomed by the commission. We are considering what further action might be taken to assist in addressing this issue.

House of Lords:Reform
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask a committee of the Privy Council to consider substantial questions of constitutional reform, including the reform of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, no.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I find it somewhat difficult to thank the noble Lord the Lord President for that reply although that is the customary courtesy. Does the Lord President recall that
98
the Falklands Islands Review of 1982 was conducted by a committee of distinguished Privy Counsellors, who were especially chosen, in the words of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in order that the review should be seen to be conducted with integrity and independence, and that it should command widespread confidence? Do not precisely the same criteria apply to any review of the House of Lords? Will the noble Lord at least accept that the results of such a review would be far more credible were they to be conducted by a committee which drew on the wisdom and talents of all political parties? After all, constitutional change is not the whim of a five-year Parliament. It must last for generations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I cannot avoid welcoming the conversion of the noble Lord—with which I hope the party opposite agrees—to the reform of your Lordships' House. I cannot also help but observe that over the past 18 years, when the noble Lord occupied a very prominent position in the previous administration, no proposals at all for the reform of this House were brought forward. We were elected on a manifesto which was quite clear: as a first stage in the reform of this House, we will remove the right of Peers by succession to sit and vote in this House. That remains our policy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, when the first Bill comes before this House, based quite rightly on the manifesto, as my noble friend said, the House should have some idea as to what the Government propose thereafter? Perhaps my noble friend will tell me whether he agrees.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in principle I have no problems with what my noble friend has just said.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House will help us a little further. Will he give the House an undertaking to consider sympathetically the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? The House will have been pleased to hear that he is open-minded on this question. Does he agree with me that it would be sensible, if reform of the composition of this House is to be undertaken, for a reformed House at least to include a substantial independent element to take the place of the hereditary peerage if that is what the Government wish to abolish?
Furthermore, is the noble Lord prepared to consider whether, in the coming weeks, the time might be right for this House once again to debate the issue of reform? Is the Leader of the House sympathetic to such a suggestion? If so, is he prepared to make government time available for such a debate?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a debate. As the noble Viscount knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. It can no doubt be discussed in that particular forum. Regarding the rest of the noble Viscount's remarks, no, I am not prepared to go further than I have gone this afternoon in relation to the question put by my noble friend Lord Barnett.

99
The noble Viscount asked whether the Government are in favour of an independent element in the House of Lords. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he is in favour of an element in this House which is dissociated from either of the political parties—in other words, that there should be a Cross-Bench element in a reformed House. We have stated that on a number of occasions. I hope it reassures the noble Viscount.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, leaving aside the question as to what ground the legislation might cover, first, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that we may expect a Bill in the Queen's Speech this autumn? Secondly, and more importantly in view of the comments made, I understood that the Government were committed to a joint committee of both Houses to examine the second stage of Lords Reform. Is that still the case? I make clear that on these Benches we are in favour of radical reform at the earliest possible moment so as to remove the hereditary element. But that by itself is not sufficient. It creates some serious problems which would have to be dealt with at the same time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats has expressed the terms of our manifesto very clearly. I confirm that the proposal for a joint committee on which the Labour Party was elected remains our proposal. I am delighted to note that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the early removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. I can also confirm that, after the first stage, there will have to be a second stage.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, when I was Leader of the House of Lords 30 years ago, I was responsible for bringing forward a proposal that would enable hereditary Peers to come and speak in this House but not to vote? That was agreed by the leaders of all the parties, both here and in the Commons. The proposal was sabotaged by Back-Benchers in the Commons. Is that proposal still on the table?
Lord Richard: My Lords, speaking personally, I should not be in favour of a situation in which two Members of this House sat next to each other listening to a debate, one of whom had the right to vote and one of whom did not.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the provisions now being discussed for a Scottish parliament be reasonably consistent with the constitution of the United Kingdom Parliament, since such questions arise as reducing the voting age to 16; the abolition of a revising chamber; and other elements which seem to conflict with existing provisions in the British constitution? Can
100
the noble Lord give the House any assurance that there will be some reasonable consistency in the provisions for a Scottish parliament?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government are committed to reasonable consistency in this, as in all other things. My noble friend asks whether there could be any constitutional division. I trust not.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government have no intention of bringing in an age limit for Peers?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I should be a bold man to say that. This is one of the few places left where I am considered on the relatively young side.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say why Conservative hereditary Peers would not be an independent element in the House and have independent points of view?
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may go this far towards the noble Lord's question. I am quite sure that many Conservative hereditary Peers believe that they are independent. Many of them sit and listen to the debate believing they are exercising independent judgment upon the arguments put before them. The only trouble is that they invariably end up voting with the Conservative party.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that there is time for another supplementary question since there are only three Questions on the Order Paper. Can the noble Lord tell us why he thinks it is necessary to have a revising chamber for English and Welsh legislation and some Scottish legislation, but it is unnecessary to have it for some other Scottish legislation?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am happy to say that my sole responsibility is towards the revising chamber of the United Kingdom; namely, this one. As concerns Scottish constitutional development, if the noble Baroness wishes to put a Question down to my noble friend responsible for the subject, no doubt I can get him to answer it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does not the Minister consider the Scotland Bill to be a United Kingdom Bill?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course it is a United Kingdom Bill. I am saying that my responsibility is in relation to this Chamber, not to any other one nor to any prospective Chamber.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for coming back and I crave your Lordships'

101
indulgence. Does the Leader of the House believe in the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Government?
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, perhaps I may express surprise that the Leader of the House was surprised at the support from these Benches for the reform of the House of Lords. Can I take it that he will implement the pledge given in 1911 by the Liberal Government that they would create a popularly elected second Chamber?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I regard our proposals for the reform of this House as unfinished business from 1911.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Leader of the House give an intellectual response at least to rejecting the argument for considering the future of this House in the context of Parliament as a whole, determining its powers and functions and dealing with its composition at the end of the line, not at the beginning?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has answered her own question. I see that as a process which is capable of infinite delay. I am not prepared to embark upon the process without first dealing with the immediate difficulty of the composition of this House; namely, the existence in it of an overwhelming preponderance of Conservative hereditary Peers.

Asylum Seekers
3.3 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people arrived in the United Kingdom in 1997 seeking asylum; how many of them have so far been granted asylum; how many have been rejected; and how many still await decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, 32,500 applications for asylum were made in the United Kingdom in 1997, of which 16,590 were made on arrival here.
I regret that it is not possible to provide information about whether decisions have been taken on applications made in a given year. However, 36,045 initial decisions were made on asylum applications in 1997. Of those, 3,985 (II per cent.) were to recognise the applicant as a refugee and grant asylum; 3,115 (9 per cent.) were to refuse asylum but grant exceptional leave and 28,945 (80 per cent.) were to refuse both asylum and exceptional leave.
If I may assist the noble Lord further, as at 31st December 1997 there were 51,795 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving those full details which cause great concern. Is
102
he aware that the Geneva Convention of 1951 which governs the matter has failed to prevent a vast increase in oppression in various parts of the world? Since travel facilities are so much easier than they used to be, and since the United Kingdom has now become a haven for illegal immigrants, has not the time come for the Geneva Convention to be renegotiated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously the Geneva Convention remains one of our international obligations. If there is oppression which leads to genuine claims for refuge and political asylum, I for one am glad that this country retains its civilised tradition of many years' standing. As I indicated in answer to the Question a few days ago on a not entirely dissimilar topic, an interdepartmental review was set up on 21st August to deal with, among others, some of the points raised by the noble Lord. We must get a system which is fairer, firmer and faster than the present mish-mash. That is what the Government are intent upon.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the approval of these Benches for what he has just said? It is in the best traditions of this House. Can he give us any idea of the length of time that now obtains between an immediate application for asylum and the settlement of the claim? Finally, can the Minister say whether the Government will reconsider providing assistance for those seeking and awaiting the outcome of their claim and appeal with regard to the position in which local authorities in some parts of the country now find themselves?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give a particular answer to the noble Baroness's first question because each case varies infinitely. As I said the other day in answer to the Question to which I referred, much of the outstanding backlog relates to people who have been awaiting determination of their case since 1993. No one can regard that as a cause for self-satisfaction about our present arrangements.
The noble Baroness's point about local authorities is a good one. The relevant departments are in close contact with affected local authorities to see what additional supplementary assistance should be given to those local authorities.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the delay suffered by genuine asylum seekers is totally unacceptable and unworthy? Can he tell the House what steps he proposes to take to reduce the delay, without waiting for any revision of the law? Surely steps should be taken now, in accordance with the great and honourable traditions of the country towards genuine asylum seekers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I subscribe to those great and honourable traditions, but it is also a sensible tradition to approach general reform on a considered basis. That is the purpose of the interdepartmental review which was set up on 21st August 1997.

103
I echo another point raised by the noble Lord about the proposition that those who seek refugee asylum status ought to have their claims quickly dealt with. Of course, that is our policy—it must be firmer, fairer and faster. In that context—and I am trying to be helpful rather than tedious—the Home Secretary has instituted a review of the evident malpractice in certain parts of our community, namely: bogus asylum advisers, whether or not they are professionally qualified. It is a serious vice because they prey on innocent lost people and distort the system which at present obtains for the hone fide applicants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Lord supply an estimate of another category of asylum seekers not mentioned in the Question? I have in mind those who have already disappeared without trace within the United Kingdom—a category referred to in my Question last week to which the noble Lord has already referred twice today and to which he gave very helpful replies.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: he asked this question just a few days ago. My answer then was that our best approximation was 14,000. Although a few days have passed, my best approximation is still about 14,000.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about local authority support in the absence of social security benefits for asylum seekers. I also welcome his remarks about the discussions between government departments and local authorities. But is he aware that the Refugee Council estimates that not only do many asylum seekers live in distress because they are living at subsistence level as local authorities are not allowed to give cash benefits but only food and accommodation in kind, but also that it is £30 to £65 a week more expensive for local authorities to support them in the way they do than it would be if social security benefits were available? Is this not the worst of all worlds all round?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not disagree that many aspects of our present arrangements encapsulate the worst of all possible worlds. I can assure the House and the noble Baroness that the whole question of support arrangements for asylum seekers is being specifically addressed as part of the interdepartmental study of the asylum process to which I referred a little while ago.
Lord Henley: My Lords, can the noble Lord assist the House by giving the figures for the number of asylum seekers, bogus or otherwise, who appeared in earlier years than the year referred to in this Question? If, as I suspect, the figures indicate that we have seen a decline in the number of those seeking asylum, would he not agree that that seems to indicate that the measures we introduced, particularly in relation to changes to the benefit regime, have had a considerable effect? Will he therefore confirm that the review being conducted by
104
his department and others will not seek to make changes to the benefit regime as set up by the previous government?
Lord Strathclyde: Answer!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am about to, my Lords. I have never myself come across a review which tried to predetermine the conclusions of the review. That may have been the way in the past 18 years. It is not the way we intend to continue. There are differences in intake, with regard to rise and fall in the statistics, which are substantially dependent on political upheaval in other parts of the world. That is inevitable. What we have to do is to get a decent balance between our historical tradition and the Government's responsibilities, first, to those who live in this country and, secondly, to those who are taxpayers in this country. But there is no easy brutalist solution of which I am readily aware.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join in the welcome for what the Minister has said about reducing delays in disposing of asylum applications. But does he agree that in the past such delays have been needlessly prolonged by what has been described as the culture of disbelief inside the Home Office? Does he further agree that that culture would wither faster if it were not as assiduously watered as it was under the previous Administration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the reasons for delays are manifold. One is the present appeal process with the opportunity for judicial review. Judicial review—I say this cautiously in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—is a notoriously slow remedy and it does mean sometimes that unworthy cases are taken to judicial review. There is no culture of disbelief in the Home Office. I hope that there is a culture of decency, as exemplified by the present holder of the Secretary of State's office.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can the Minister say how many applicants for asylum applied more than five years ago and have not yet had any adjudication or any interview on the matter? Is not to wait five years for a response both demoralising and extremely heavy on the national benefits system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is utterly demoralising. As I said in answer to the question a few days ago, no human being should have to be left in doubt and limbo for that period of time. I cannot give the specific statistics to the noble Lord, but I shall research what statistics there are and undertake to write to him as soon as may be.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Beef Bones Regulations 1997
3.15 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government

105
to revoke the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2959), laid before the House on 15th December 1997, to allow further consultation with consumers and consumer organisations, farmers, trade representatives and the relevant enforcement agencies [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first opportunity either House has had to debate the inept measure known as the Beef Bones Regulations 1997. The use of a negative Instrument, which has always struck me as being first cousin to government by decree, cannot be the right way to deal with an issue which had the potential—and has more than fulfilled that potential—to infuriate so many people and make the Government look unusually foolish.
Why has it infuriated so many people? Because there is so much wrong with the reasoning, if it can be so dignified, behind the ban. First, the scientific basis for the ban is questionable. Secondly, even accepting that the scientific basis is sound, the risk involved is so small as to be almost invisible. Thirdly, there are practical difficulties in policing and enforcing a ban which is held in such contempt by the vast majority of people in this country. Finally, there is the suggestion implicit in the ban that none of us is capable of rational risk assessment, so the man in Whitehall must make up our minds for us, and from now on we must all have our meat cut up in small pieces.
Perhaps we could look a little closer at the science and the risk basis on which this beef bones ban has been announced and the sale of beef bones has been criminalised. The advice to Ministers on dorsal root ganglia is based on experiments wherein unrealistically large doses of BSE-infected feed have been given to cattle from the age of four months. These cattle force-fed this infected feed showed clinical signs of infection at 39 months of age. I now quote from paragraph 5 of the SEAC advice to Ministers:
"With the Over Thirty Month Scheme in place the only DRG [dorsal root ganglia] to pose a risk would be from animals which would have developed BSE before the age of 38 months. Using risk management techniques, and taking account of the 90 per cent. decline in the BSE epidemic since 1993. the numbers of such animals with BSE aged 30–38 months are shown to be very small. In 1997 it is estimated that there will be 6 animals in the latter category and 3 in 1998. Thus next year, of the approximately 2.2 million cattle to be slaughtered for human consumption only 3 will he near enough to the end of the incubation period to raise the possibility of infectivity in their DRG. (Note in the worst year in the past the figure was many thousand times greater)."
I remind the House again that this is on the basis of infection discovered in cattle which had been deliberately fed very high doses of BSE-infected material from a very young age, material which has been banned from cattle feed since 1988.
The advice goes on at paragraph 6:
"On the basis of the risk assessment available to us it is estimated that there is a 95 per cent. chance of no cases and a 5 per cent. chance of one case of new variant CJD arising as a result of this exposure in 1998".
But as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out in the debate on agriculture last Wednesday,
"there is no known proven connection between BSE in animals and CJD in humans … No one can say without doubt that new variant CJD can be contracted from BSE in animals".—[Official Report, 21/1/98; col. 1518–9.]
So what we have is a scientific assessment that there is a one in 20 chance that one person out of 58 million may contract CJD from eating beef on the bone; that is a more than one in a billion chance—and that only if you accept the presently scientifically unproven assumption that there is transmission of the disease from animals to humans.
So what was the Government's reaction? Did they pause for reflection? Did they consider the matter deliberately? Did they make the figures and the risks public and allow us to choose whether to eat beef on the bone? No, quicker than you can say dorsal root ganglia, they pushed the panic button. The SEAC advice was given on 3rd December, and by 16th December the Beef Bones Regulations came into force. There has, until now, been no opportunity for proper debate on this subject although there was a rushed and entirely inadequate consultation process. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that the consultees on the matter of the Beef Bones Regulations included some of the following: the British Fur Trade Association; the National Association of Tripe Processors; the European Documentation Centre; the Al Hasaniya Moroccan Womens Centre; the Goat Advisory Bureau, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles; the British Ceramics Confederation—are we at risk from eating off bone china? Perhaps we should be told. The consultees also included the West Indian Standing Conference and finally, and crucially, the Association of Circus Proprietors. But the list did not include any of the beef herd book societies or breeders associations, such as the Aberdeen Angus, Hereford or any of the other principal suppliers of animals to farms.
I understand that all the meat industry bodies who were consulted opposed the ban. Can the Minister tell us which, if any, of the consultees supported this ban? With this valuable consultation under their belt and the odds against infection of more than a billion-to-one, the Government felt it sensible to move to criminalise the sale of beef on the bone with penalties of £2,000 or six months imprisonment or both—the same penalty as applies, as your Lordships are undoubtedly aware, for keeping a brothel.
There are also problems over enforceability of the Beef Bones Regulations. It is the responsibility of local authorities to enforce them through their environmental health officers. I have had an interesting conversation with a senior environmental health officer. He pointed out that no law is enforceable at no cost. The money for information, education and enforcement will have to come out of local authority budgets, which are already spoken for.
He told me that there had been no guidance on how these regulations should be enforced, therefore there would be no consistency throughout the country in application. He also told me that he and his team would hope to inspect the butchers' shops in his area, which is a large area, at most twice a year. Does that inspire

107
confidence in the inspection procedure? I suggest that it does not. Unenforceable law is bad law, and surely effort should be proportional to the risk involved. Is it sensible to spend the time of skilled enforcement officers on a matter of such slender risk when their time should be spent on more immediate threats?
These regulations are really beyond parody. The Government case is based on the risk of contracting new variant CJD from eating beef on the bone, which is more than a billion-to-one against. But everything that we do has a risk factor attached to it. It would be hard to dream up a longer shot than eating beef on the bone. Smoking, driving, reading the latest European Commission directive, are all much higher risks and yet we are still allowed to take them. We are allowed—but for how long?—to decide for ourselves whether to drive to work and to take the risk of being maimed, which is 76,000 times more likely than eating beef on the bone; to play golf and risk a lightning strike, which is 120 times more likely, or to have lunch and to risk choking to death, which is 4,800 more likely or even to lead life on the cutting edge and do all three on the same day.
So although the Government started by pretending that risk to the consumers was the trigger for this legislation and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Office of Public Service stated in another place,
"The Government's first priorities are the protection of the consumer".
and later,
"we will not play fast and loose with public health",
it is now apparent that the risk is now almost non-existent.
No, there must be another reason. What the Minister must tell the House is why the Government are making a special case, giving special treatment to the practically negligible risk from eating beef on the bone, as compared with the million or more cases of food poisoning nationwide from E-coli or salmonella which occur every year and cause hundreds of deaths. There is also the health risk involved from imported meat about whose origins and safety we know very little at all.
Are the Government saying that this is the best way to build consumer confidence in beef? What an odd method to build confidence in the beef sector by banning its flagship product. In any case, consumers have shown their contempt for the government measure by stocking up with ribs of beef, T-bone steaks and oxtail. I understand that there is a brisk trade in beef on the bone dinners in the more sensible type of pub.
The Government seem to have stumbled on a bizarre method of "confidence by ban". Or are the Government playing to the European gallery in the hope that the ban will persuade our European competitors—I shall read that again because I meant our European partners, of course—to lift the worldwide ban which they have slapped on British beef? If that is the rationale, surely the best way of buying their votes would be to go the whole hog and make it illegal to sell any British beef at all. Surely a mere beef on the bone ban hardly serves the case.
I end by reminding your Lordships of the importance of beef in the British way of life. The roast beef of old England is celebrated in our songs,
108
our verse, our stories and our plays. It is part of our historical background. Our French friends have known us for centuries as les roast beef. Are we now to be known as les milk pudding? I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2959), laid before the House on 15th December 1997, to allow further consultation with consumers and consumer organisations, farmers, trade representatives and the relevant enforcement agencies [19th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry that, as on Wednesday of last week, my noble friend is again having to explain government policy to large numbers of disgruntled or, if that is too strong a word, at least not very gruntled, farmers. In fact, beef formed a large part of the agenda last Wednesday as now. I can fully understand the concerns of farmers and why they need to beef about beef. BSE/CJD has been a body blow to the prosperity of thousands of cattle farmers up and down the country and the whole beef industry, let alone the taxpayer. Now these regulations on deboning are seen as adding insult to injury. However, this cloud, as my noble friend will explain, may have a silver lining.
But first it is important to get the health reasons for these regulations into perspective. In the debate last week both the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and no doubt others—and now the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—said that the link between BSE in cattle and new variant CJD was still unproven. Strictly speaking, they are right. But the circumstantial evidence is now so compelling that I believe that the link would be accepted in a court of law. In particular, the microscopic appearances in the brain of BSE in animals and new variant CJD are identical, while those of scrapie—mainly a disease of sheep—or the more common form of human CJD, which preceded the BSE epidemic, are not the same as those of BSE if one looks at them in great detail under a microscope. It is true that so far there were at the last count only 23 cases of the new variant CJD, for which we should be grateful. It could already have been a lot worse if the predictions of some prominent microbiologists had been correct.
But we are not yet out of the wood. The incubation period of this disease is very long and in some cases it may be a decade or more. Unfortunately. like HIV and AIDS, the incubation period—between infection and overt disease—is also very variable. So although, based on present cases, the risk is very small, the potential is still there. But the risk does not come from eating muscle meat. The great bulk of the meat eaten is of course muscle meat. The risk comes from those parts of the animal which are part of the central nervous system or consist of certain types of offal.
It is fairly certain that the small number of cases that we have seen arose from the consumption of meat products containing some of these products before they were banned from sale. The new findings—namely, that

109
the dorsal root ganglia can also carry transmissible BSE prions—are not altogether surprising since these small nodules of nervous tissue lie very close to the spinal cord (a main source of the BSE agent) between the ribs where they join the spine. Bone marrow, also covered in these regulations, is closely allied to the lymphatic system, parts of which, such as the tonsils, count as specified offal which cannot be sold for human consumption under current regulations. So the regulations that we are discussing today are in fact a logical extension of the 1989 bovine offal (prohibition) regulations. The experiments which provide evidence of infection often take many years to show results and, as more evidence becomes available, the regulations lag behind. In fact, it could be held that not to include bone and bone marrow among the products banned from consumption would have been inconsistent and illogical.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am very genuinely a seeker after truth on this matter. Why is it more dangerous to carve meat off the bone at home, having cooked it with the bone in in your oven, than to cook at home meat which has been taken off the bone at the butchers? I simply do not understand. The noble Lord is obviously very well informed and very clever, so he will undoubtedly be able to tell me why that is the case.
Lord Rea: My Lords, if the noble Earl will bear with me, I shall come to that point in a minute.
Decisions often have to be taken in the interests of public health before the scientific evidence is complete. Waiting for the scientific evidence risks allowing an epidemic to get out of control. I agree that in this case we are talking about very small numbers. The most famous example of why it is necessary to take action when the cause is not yet fully understood will be well known to your Lordships. I refer to the case of Dr. John Snow who observed an outbreak of cholera in London's West End in the middle of the last century. He suspected the water pump at Broad Street of being contaminated and the source of the outbreak, but he was puzzled by the outlying death from cholera of a woman in Hampstead—until he found out that she liked the taste of the Broad Street water and had it specially brought to her every day. That clinched the evidence as far as he was concerned, and he removed the handle of the offending pump, much to local people's annoyance. Shortly afterwards, the epidemic subsided. The point of the story is that that action was taken before the microbe causing cholera had been discovered.
The current CJD problem is, as the noble Lord described, much smaller and CJD develops much more slowly than cholera. The risk to any individual is vastly less, but the principle still applies. To answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to leave the deboning of beef to individuals, having given them a warning, was one of the options open to my right honourable friend the Minister, but that would not have protected those who ate out or bought mince, sausages, or other meat products which could have come from carcases which had not been "deboned". Incidentally,
110
the word "deboned" does not appear in the thesaurus on the lap-top which is supplied—or rather, lent—to me by your Lordships' House.
Finally, I come to the silver lining. Noble Lords will be pleased that I shall soon sit down. The silver lining is as much a reason for the regulations as the protection of public health. I am quite clear about that. If we had not brought in these regulations, or something very similar, the prospect of British beef being allowed back into Europe would have receded. The regulations are one more nail in the coffin of BSE as a source of human disease. As my noble friend will explain, they have been acknowledged by the European Commission—that body which all farmers love since it administers that golden egg, the CAP. The Commission's approval will undoubtedly bring forward the end of the export ban on British beef to Europe.
However, it is perfectly possible that there will never again be such a high demand for beef as there was before the BSE epidemic. Demand for beef was already falling previously, so it could be that the cattle farmers who are diversifying to other livestock or other use of their land in response to the present crisis will prove to have been wise. Although it was not an easy decision for my right honourable friend to make, as it puts an extra burden on an already hard-pressed industry, I am sure that it was the right decision. Those noble Lords who intend to oppose the regulations in the Division Lobbies this afternoon will, in fact, be doing the beef industry a disservice, and they should think again.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the House has had the benefit of the expert medical knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but he still has not answered the real question posed by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke which is, quite simply: Why are not the British public allowed to make up their own minds about the risk? The noble Lord's advice is there for all to read and see.
We cannot consider the beef regulations in isolation without also considering what are known as the "Specific Risk Material Orders" which also came into effect on 1st January 1998. They represent an additional burden on the farming community and pose a serious problem for the knacker trade and the collection of fallen stock. What is so annoying about the Specific Risk Material Orders is that they have been brought into force in this country by our excellent Civil Service on the ground that they bring us into line with Europe, but the Europeans do not even have a date for the introduction of their Specific Risk Material Orders although it is rumoured to be at the beginning of April.
Noble Lords will have read in Hansard how my noble friend Lord Vinson has pursued the point about whether BSE occurs in sheep which are over three years old. We all know that scrapie has occurred in sheep for hundreds of years. Many noble Lords will have seen a ewe going round and round in circles. Shepherds used to bore a hole in the wretched animal's head to let out the pressure and then block it up again with Archangel Tar. The sheep would then recover. Scrapie has been a fairly

111
common complaint for some time. It is perfectly clear that there is no connection whatever—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, admitted this—between scrapie and BSE. On 19th January, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, in answer to a Written Question that there is no evidence whatsoever that scrapie is a risk to human health.
The real problem with the beef regulations is that fallen stock can be fed to animals—to dogs and hounds—provided the head, spine and tail have been removed. The head, spine and oxtail go to the renderers. We have a further problem. The unacceptable parts of the animal have to be rendered, but the Government are month by month reducing the amount of money that they give to the renderers. That has put an enormous burden on the knacker trade to carry out its own rendering or, in some cases, where planning permission can be gained, to provide its own equipment for burning the surplus parts. Adding the Specific Risk Material Orders to that problem means that it is impossible to feed to a dog any material other than the legs of a dead sheep.
We are coming up to lambing time and we all know that throughout the countryside very many dead sheep will need to be collected and skinned and will be fed to the hounds. On Exmoor alone last year, 2,232 sheep were collected voluntarily by those responsible for the five packs of hounds on Exmoor. The sheep were skinned, incinerated and fed to the hounds. If all that can be fed to the hounds are the legs of dead sheep, who is going to collect and skin those sheep? Skinning a ewe that has been dead for two days is not a particularly pleasant prospect. It was done because, first, the remaining meat could be fed to the hounds and, secondly, the person who skinned it got an extra three quid for presenting a fleece. Today. the price of that skin has fallen to 50p. That makes it an even more unattractive job. Could we not come to some arrangement such as we had during the war when unclean meat was covered with a dye and all of it could then be fed to the hounds?
My noble friend Lord Willoughby made it perfectly clear that all noble Lords feel that in this case the Government have adopted the wrong option. The right option was to publish as much information as possible about the problem of BSE and let the public make up their own minds.
History always repeats itself. In 1795 Members of both Houses who were enthusiastic about the future of agriculture complained that Mr. Pitt and his government were far too interested in matters European to concentrate on the problems of British agriculture. In 1795 they agreed to dine together regularly and raise money for Smithfield Show and the improvement of agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. They have done so for the past 202 years. One way of helping agriculture was to insist that marrow bones and mutton pies were always on the menu. This has continued for some 202 years, except in 1862 when another cattle plague, rinderpest, swept through the countryside and marrow hones were withdrawn from the menu. It is recorded in the minutes of the Farmers' Club of 1795 that the then secretary was empowered to call upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to pray for deliverance from
112
pestilence. The most reverend Primate succeeded and marrow bones and mutton pies were restored to the menu the following year. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will be as successful.
3.41 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place when my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke first rose to move his Motion. The Motion is a very good and apposite one. I had the temerity to address the House last Wednesday and give my views on BSE and CJD. I do not propose to rehearse all of those points, although frequently I do not remember what I have said and I have no reason to flatter myself that your Lordships should remember what I have said. The fact is that we have had a problem over BSE and CJD and that there is no known proven connection between them. However, both this Government and the previous government have been obliged to take certain measures.
The present Government have taken further measures to try to avoid people getting CJD. It has been pointed out on many occasions that there are only 23 such cases: three cases three years ago, 10 two years ago and 10 last year. The number is not great. But under the regulations now before your Lordships it is proposed to make illegal the sale of beef on the bone because of the prevalence of what is known as dorsal root ganglia. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, knows this but if not perhaps I can impress upon him that this year there are only three animals in the whole of the United Kingdom which could have this problem. Even if they do it does not mean that they will transmit it to human beings. And even if they transmit it it does not mean that human beings will be affected by it. Or, if they are affected, it does not mean that they will die.
As explained last week, by the time one has gone through that gamut, the chance of dying from beef on the bone is about one in 600 million. The regulations have been vilified by the farming community and by those who want to buy and cook beef on the bone. To be told that they should not do so is an absurdity. It is quite undesirable. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory committee never advised the Government to do this. The Government took the decision on their own without consultation. Their action has proved acutely unpopular not only within the farming community but in other circles.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, says that it is in the interests of public health. It is nothing of the kind. There is no public health interest if only three animals are likely to have the disease. The noble Lord also says that the purpose is that beef should be allowed back into Europe. We heard last Wednesday from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. that the intention was to placate Europe. That is a very bad reason for producing a very bad set of regulations. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—bless his heart—in his place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. will be broad-minded and realise that the Government would not lose face if they accepted the Motion. All it suggests

113
is that time should be allowed to consult people before the introduction of regulations on which there has been no consultation at all.
The Government would gain a great deal of credence and respect if they agreed to take away the regulations and consult further. Having consulted, they might consider it necessary to bring them back. I hope that the Government will do as I suggest. If they do not—I realise that that is only a minimal possibility—I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Motion. The Motion does not defeat the regulations but enables them to be taken away in order that more consultation can take place.
This Government of all governments like consultation. At least they say they do. There is no reason therefore why they should not have more consultation about something that is ridiculed throughout the country.
3.47 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for moving the debate in a slightly different direction down the food chain. I wish to speak first about the catering and hospitality industry. I declare an interest, albeit entirely honorary and non-pecuniary, as president of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. Not unnaturally, restaurateurs are concerned about continual food scares. They have experienced many food scares in the past few years. It began with salmonella followed by the drama of irradiation when it was suggested that every menu in every establishment should list every ingredient going into every dish. We managed to annul that absurdity. Now we have BSE, leading to the beef bone ban, which means that we cannot have roast beef and T-bone steaks and chefs are unable to make stock from beef bones. That is an important ingredient in the catering industry.
All of this uncertainty has created a lack of confidence in the minds of the consumer and the industry, which is a huge one. The catering and hospitality industry is the fifth largest consumer industry in the country following food, cars, insurance and clothing. It employs more than 2 million people. Last year alone it generated nearly £2 billion in VAT on the food element alone, not counting drink and other products served to customers. It is a vast industry. Surely, it needs to be consulted much more extensively. Restaurants and the catering industry are not very interested in poisoning their customers. That would be rather bad for business. They need an era of confidence, not continual bans and scares.
Last year consumers bought over 9 billion meals in commercial establishments. That is a large number. These people are not stupid. They must be allowed some choice. The point was made cogently by my noble friend Lord Willoughby in opening the debate and by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. There are so many things that are harmful, for example cigarettes. Crossing the road is much more dangerous than eating beef, and always will be. Surely, the ban must represent one of the ultimate absurdities.
114
It should be left to consumers to decide what they want to eat. As we have heard from all sides, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the health risk is absolutely minimal. I hope that the Government will think again, but I fear that is a triumph of hope over expectation. Let us hope I am proved wrong.
3.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. There is no doubt that this outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy will enter the annals of history as among the worst, if not the worst, disaster to affect the British cattle industry.
I have no desire to pre-empt the outcome of the public inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Phillips, but I am pleased that the Government have called it. I hope that, among the many lines of investigation Lord Justice Phillips will need to take, he will find time to review how the administration of science, and the dramatic changes in the way it has been handled since the mid-1970s, might have contributed to the crisis.
What presently excites my curiosity is outside the remit of Lord Justice Phillips' inquiry, which will investigate events only before 20th March 1996. It is the sequence of events that resulted in Beef Bones Regulations 1997. We know that the research that raised concern was conducted by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, an establishment that has dealt with much of the BSE crisis from the beginning. It is owed thanks for its tireless work. Ray Bradley, the BSE coordinator; John Wilesmith, the epidemiologist; and the pathologists, including Gerald Wells and Martin Jeffreys, have all done heroic work in the hardest of circumstances.
However, while thanking the CVL, we should perhaps also recognise its limits, and in this case its relative inexperience with diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. By force of the epidemic, it has been put on a dramatic learning curve. In the best of all possible worlds, BSE—the most disastrous of the TSEs—would be dealt with by specialist outposts dedicated to them, such as the group based at the Institute for Animal Health at Compton and its world respected satellite, the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh.
We know that, for whatever reason—presumably space—the scientific trials behind the beef bone ban were conducted not at these outposts but at the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The work involved dosing live cattle with BSE, then searching for infectivity in carcasses of varying ages. We are told how its researchers found infectivity in the dorsal root ganglia of an animal of 32 months old, but not in one aged 30 months, the maximum age now legally permitted for beef animals. We are also told that the experimental animals were fed an extremely large amount—I understand three ounces—of infected brain material by mouth at the age of four months.
I appreciate that the researchers wished to accommodate a capacious margin of safety but this is many times more than a cow fed on concentrates which included meat and bone meal would have encountered.

115
We are not told whether this material was left even more infectious by being used raw rather than after cooking at a minimum of 100 degrees Centigrade, as would be the case with meat and bone meal.
It is impossible to be more specific about the scientific evidence on which the bone ban is based. The paper involved has not yet been published. Indeed, at the time of the ban, it was not back from peer reviewers scrutinising the paper for its publisher, the Veterinary Record. Most curiously, the most apt "scrutineers", as the publication calls its expert readers, did not appear to include the researchers at Compton or the Neuropathogenesis Unit. When these establishments were questioned immediately after the announcement, they said that they did not know about the CVL paper.
Yet the paper, unreviewed, did go to a very much more general group, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). This, we accept, was a vital step. It is the committee charged with giving the scientific advice that safeguards the country against the mystifying pathogen behind BSE, and it is a matter of public health that it sees what work is in progress. But what happened to this work in progress after it was discussed at a SEAC meeting on 2nd December 1997?
The committee noted, but appeared to reserve judgment on, reported evidence on infectivity in bone marrow. It is not clear whether the quality of the work is in doubt. Rather, focus was reserved for infectivity detected in dorsal root ganglia of heavily dosed cattle beyond the legal age ban. The committee deduced that there was a conceivable risk of the order of being hit by lightning.
Having identified the risk, or lack of it, the scientists then suggested three conceivable plans of action for the Government. It told the Minister for Agriculture that he had three choices: he could inform the public of a potential risk; meat from older animals could be deboned in special plants; or bones could be banned. Within hours of the Government receiving this advice, there was a leak to the media that the Minister for Agriculture was to take the most severe option, that bones be banned. This on the basis of an interim report of an unreviewed paper in the face of extremely low risk. I am told the choice surprised even members of SEAC.
It became clear days later that forcing Europeans to comply with this perhaps excessively severe regulation was a circuitous way to raise the slaughter standards for imported beef. One can see the logic here, while having reservations about applauding it.
I wonder, my Lords, during those late hours of 2nd December, whether the Minister for Agriculture realised that he had dealt another devastating blow to then UK beef industry? It would seem not, for he blithely announced, almost immediately afterwards, that it was time the stricken sector accepted that it was in need of reform. Does he realise that the main victims, the quality beef producers, are yet again paying for a disease that appears to be a result of the excesses of the dairy industry? His comment about how 95 per cent. of beef was already sold off the bone betrayed dangerous ignorance about the issues and economics involved.
116
At least two noble Lords have said that for a law to be a good law it must be acceptable to the people to whom it applies and it must be enforceable. No honourable farmer wishes to circumvent important safety regulations: no honourable scientist wishes unnecessary ruination on those riding out science in the making; and no honourable Minister wishes to hang his honour on a mistake.
Might not the Government admit that they have made a mistake? Might they not accept and grin at the spot of ridicule to which they have subjected themselves? Almost immediately after the announcement, risk analysts summoned up by the media remarked that it was such a low risk that effectively it was no risk. "Newsnight" erected a "risk-o-meter". The public rushed to stock up on T-bones and ribs of beef while they lasted. I did; I still have two in the freezer. The Government, science, and the issue of safety were made an ass; the beef industry was dealt a devastating blow.
These are serious criticisms. However, there is no condemnation. The Minister for Agriculture is also due congratulations. Without his support. the Phillips inquiry would not be happening. He has handled the formation of the Food Standards Agency with exceptional diplomacy and is convincing as an ambassador for change and growth. He is proving a tough representative in Europe. He is shaping up to be a very good Minister indeed. One can only hope that he will learn that while all Ministers make mistakes, only the very best admit to them.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as you will know. I have been highly critical of the performances of both the previous and present governments in their handling of BSE. I am not going to repeat my arguments in the agricultural debate last week except to say again that it must be accepted that ultimately it is Ministers in both governments—starting with the then Health Minister, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, and now the Agriculture Minister, Dr. John Cunningham—who have been so alarmist in the whole matter, having unequivocally accepted the unquantified advice of their so-called experts. That successive governments should be responsible for such scaremongering is deplorable. It will go down in the annals of bad government. Meanwhile I hope that Lord Justice Phillips, who is today embarking on an inquiry into the whole BSE saga, will take full account of this debate.
My own inclination to vote for the Motion is because I am not satisfied that the cost, both to the taxpayer and the farming industry, is remotely justified by the risk of eating beef on the bone. The reason I say that is that I have not yet seen any figures to support the case for the regulation.
Has the appropriate cost benefit analysis been undertaken? There is nothing new in cost benefit analysis. It was first used in public policy some 40 years ago when the Victoria Line was being planned. In relation to BSE I should like to know whether a newer, but now well-developed, variant of cost benefit known as risk analysis has been used and, if so, with what result?

117
I have consulted a friend of mine, Mr. Gerald Orman of Orman Risk Analysts, who have an international practice in the field. In a letter to me he said that the definition of an "expert" in risk analysis is someone who understands the underlying mechanism of how a risk materialises sufficiently well to express a view on its probability without historical records. If he cannot he is not an expert. Decisions can only be taken based on probabilities, and Stephen Dorrell was most unwise not to have forced his experts to give them. In safety engineering as it is applied to the design of railways, which is a good example because people require a far higher level of safety in a medium over which they have no control compared with, say, motoring where they see themselves as in control, the limit of expenditure on a measure which would save one life is £2 million.
Risk analysis, as some of your Lordships will know, is a branch of mathematical modelling which applies probability theory to qualitative advice so as to quantify it. Once the risk analysis is complete then the decision analysis is used to follow it up so as to balance the costs of different actions against the assessed risk.
I must say that I was amazed to learn that it would appear that those techniques do not seem to have been used in relation to BSE and I have done my best to check that nothing meaningful has been published. First, I understand that in October Professor Lacy addressed the London meeting of the Geneva Association of Risk Management and produced none of the figures which his professional audience would have expected to hear. Secondly, I spoke to the Institute of Risk Management, which was unable to point to any published work. Thirdly, I spoke to AIRMIC (the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers) and it, too, was unaware of the existence of any proper analysis. I hope that if any proper risk analysis has been done the Minister will be able to give us details and will undertake that it will be published forthwith.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that public health has to be protected before the scientific evidence is available. I was most unimpressed by his cholera example. It was obviously a good idea to clean up London drinking water whatever the reason. The cost of the decision made to turn off that tap was negligible in comparison with the particular benefit.
Let us be clear that this measure will not affect, one way or the other, the attitude of the Europeans. They are keeping British beef out of world markets for quite different reasons. Indeed, some of them might even feel that the more Brits who go mad the better. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will have the courage to ask the Government to think again. If they did so, it would strike a strong echo with the British people who, not for the first time, would see the House of Lords as their protector against unwise and ill-considered measures proposed in another place. The Government might even be pleased to be saved from themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should certainly welcome the annulment of the measure.
118
What, incidentally, has happened to the Treasury? In the days when I was in Whitehall it would never have allowed the Government to get away with such expensive and unjustified decisions.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the few pleasures of opposition is to be on this side of the House in a BSE debate. I do not envy the Minister his position. I have no interests to declare. I have spent most of my life avoiding farming, which occupied my father, brother and cousins extensively. Presumably that is why I was chosen to have Front Bench responsibility for agriculture, and the Minister will know how that goes.
I share the risk assessment of nvCJD put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We clearly do not know the mechanisms, but we know enough to make it sensible to act as if there were a link and to base all our policy on the idea that there is a link between BSE and nvCJD. It is imperative that we see an early and conclusive end to the BSE epidemic as it has involved enormous costs for the UK, and farmers in particular. Any action to eliminate the risk of a continuation of the epidemic must be justified, even at low likelihoods of continuing infection.
If the Government were able to say that that is why they are introducing this beef bones ban I should give them my full support. but there is no truth in that at all. There is no way in which beef bones in a butcher shop or in someone's kitchen will get back into the cattle herd and produce continuing infection. That is not a risk.
We are dealing with something that is supposed to exist just to protect consumers, but, as has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, we are dealing with a risk of one in a billion. which does not appear on anyone's scale of ordinary risks to be taken notice of and avoided. We are dealing with a regulation which is just a bit of flannel for the EU. It is a regulation which is unenforceable and which will not be enforced. It is a regulation which is intended not to be enforced. It is a sad day when we look at such legislation: we are, as it were, seeking to beat the Europeans at their own game of failing to enforce regulations. That is not the right way to go.
I return to my first comment. It is important that we ensure that there is no continuation of the epidemic in this country. I noted in the newspaper yesterday that there have been 12 cases of BSE in cattle imported into this country, principally from France and Belgium. That is more cases than those two countries have themselves declared, as I remember. It is extraordinary that we just happened to import the ones that were infected.
The risk for us is that those cattle will bring back BSE into the system when we have reached the point that only three cattle with that disease are likely to reach the human food chain in this country this year. That is an extraordinary improvement on the worst stages of the epidemic. Our tracking system must be in place to ensure that if a cow goes down with BSE, we know whether it has been imported and from where it has come so that we can demonstrate that our national herd

119
is free of infection, even if we are still bringing in infected animals from European countries which have not implemented the controls that we have.
When we were in Government, with this epidemic we regularly found ourselves walking into the slurry pit. Whether that was due to us not noticing that it was there, or whether it was never pointed out to us that it was there, is a question which I shall leave to the Minister. I am sure that he is aware of the danger: we may not have looked at all of the ways in which infection may continue in the national herd.
I have been having a debate with the Minister. I am grateful for his reply yesterday to the effect that calves are still allowed to drink their mother's blood. One is allowed to put cow's blood into milk replacer for calves. We know that calves are much more likely to pick up the infection than adult cows. If there is some material which will come from cows to calves it will be that, because MBM is banned. It is extraordinary that we continue to accept that risk.
We have gone as far as banning all pig products in pig feed, although we have never demonstrated the existence of BSE in those animals. However, we are allowing that element of feedback among cattle. Might not other lacunae exist in our defences? Will it not be ridiculous to discover that one or two animals born this year or last suddenly develop BSE, putting back the whole eradication programme for six years? That would be another six years of slaughtering our old dairy cattle at the cost of £1 billion a year. That is unthinkable. Surely, a proper examination of the remaining risks is required. Would not that be an issue for Lord Justice Phillips to incorporate in his studies?
I turn to the subject of the debate. It is wonderful that we have reduced the risk of contracting nvCJD to one in a billion. Generally, food risks are much higher than that. As the Government have recently stated, fresh meat should generally be treated as though it were infected. Many samples of fresh meat will contain salmonella or E.coli. The Government's arguments about restaurants are ridiculous. The additional risk that would be posed if every restaurant in the land used beef bones is so small in relation to the volume of food poisoning and other risks associated with restaurants as to be insignificant. There is no argument for trying to protect the public against a risk which they do not know exists, even if it were one hundred times the supposed level.
When we discover better methods of detecting the prion proteins which are at the heart of the problem, what will happen when we follow on the work that is already being undertaken into the reproduction of prion protein in muscles? Let us suppose that it is established that there are low levels of prion in ordinary meat and that there is a one in 10 billion chance of contracting nvCJD if you happen to eat a steak. Would that cause the Government to ban the entire beef industry, which would be the only way of avoiding the risk? Would they close down the entire beef industry for a one in 10 billion risk? I hope that they would not. If they would not. why are they trying to avoid this one in a billion risk related to beef on the bone, which is only 5 per cent. of the beef that is eaten? I do not understand the Government's logic in going down that road.
120
I hope that they will not seek to impose that logic on the food safety standards agency when it is set up. Do they intend to impose the one in a billion risk on all food-related risks? If so, we will see a doubling or trebling of the price of every single meat product. Is that the Government's intention? Do they not believe that the correct way of dealing with such risks is by supplying information and allowing individuals to make their own decisions? If we achieve nothing else from the debate, I shall be delighted to have the Minister's reaffirmation that common sense will prevail when dealing with other risk-related food.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to debate the beef bone regulations. I have no interest to declare. My ambition is to cover my farm with combinable crops and I find two dogs and two children quite enough to handle. I admire those who are seriously in the cattle business.
The sorry saga of BSE rolls on. I have yet to find anything creditable in the story. It will be interesting to see what the Government's committee of inquiry under Lord Justice Phillips comes up with. It will find the same problems. What is certain is that the subject continues to inflict damage not only on cattlemen hut also on reputations. As others have said and as I have found, no one, except for one or two Members opposite, supports the Government in this matter.
How far the BSE crisis has influenced the suicide rate in farming, which is currently about 50 farmers a year—that is almost one a week—we will probably never know. However, it is likely that suicide as a result of the BSE crisis accounts for more deaths than the new CJD. I accept that the strongly suspected link between BSE and CJD is the reason for the crisis. The question of whether the link can be absolutely proved to exist may continue for a long time. That is because of the long incubation period of the disease and also the long time required for the passing of each generation of both cattle and humans. We cannot accelerate that process.
However, it is certain that if it were not for a suspected link, the handling of the BSE crisis would have been different. It is probable that we would not have had the enormous expenditure on the present cull and the epidemic would have been allowed to run a more natural course. I accept the need for the cattle industry to get rid of the disease, but we do not need the accelerated panic.
With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that each nvCJD fatality has cost the Exchequer between £160 million and £170 million. That figure is the result of dividing the cost of the BSE eradication programme by the number of nvCJD fatalities. I may be accused of abusing statistics, but, to anyone involved in human health, that is a remarkable figure to play with.
The regulations we are debating prevent the retail sale of beef on the bone because those undertaking research on BSE have discovered the disease in two new parts of the beef carcass. Naturally, given the suspected link, that is cause for anxiety. The relevant committee, having considered matters carefully, duly contacted the

121
Ministry. Its report makes interesting reading. If it were not wholly inappropriate, it would be tempting to read verbatim the report which I have received from the Library.
Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—perhaps I may be forgiven the pun—covered the bones of the report extremely well. We understand that there might be one additional case of nvCJD as a result of recently acquired knowledge. To that can be added the possibility of cases already in incubation for which we will pay the annual cost of the over-30-months slaughter scheme. The life insurance industry and the courts, which are used to assessing the value of a life—it may be grisly, but they are—would be shocked by any suggestion that that is a sensible valuation. In a perverse way, I am pleased that the cost is so high because at least it is a strong indication of the relatively small number of cases of nvCJD.
The standing advisory committee on encephalopathy recommended that its findings, based on risk assessment, be made public. It said that the Government might consider two further actions: a soft option to remove all bones from carcasses of animals slaughtered over the age of 24 months; or, a harder option, to remove all bones from carcasses of those slaughtered over the age of six months. But the wording is instructive:
"We recommend that the information be made available to the public".
It goes on to say:
"If the Government decides that action is necessary to reduce this small risk further we recommend either".
I am quite clear that the standing advisory committee did not recommend the action taken.
I raise one separate issue. It is a small but important point of detail. I declare an interest as it affects my culinary wishes. I spoke to a Mr. John Brewster of Smithfield Market, one of the senior market people, who is very puzzled as to why oxtail has been included in the regulations. As all noble Lords will know, oxtail is an extension of the base of the spine but it begins way beyond the point where the spinal cord ceases. Therefore, there is no chance of there being dorsal root ganglia in the tail.
Paradoxically, too, the centre of the oxtail bone does not consist of marrow but of a form of light gristle. So there is no marrow in the oxtail either. We have a situation therefore in which the regulations ban a perfectly palatable aspect of the beef carcass from the market when there is no possibility of there being any infected material in it.
I must assume that the Minister will argue that the new regulations are necessary if the European Community ban on British beef exports is to be lifted. That may or may not be so. But I ask him to bear in mind in his negotiations over the water that the German and continental meat markets were collapsing rapidly before the beef crisis broke. The BSE crisis gave the mainland an excuse, for that is what it was, to ban a large volume of competing meat. The German market has made a less good recovery than ours. It is still in its
122
interests to prevent additional sources of meat reaching that market. We can be confident that as a result of everything that has happened British meat is almost certainly vastly safer than anything which is slaughtered and cut up on the continent.
There is one final point I should like to introduce which arises from an article I read in the Financial Times today. The European Commission seems to be having to alter its attitude towards the whole question of BSE. It is in trouble with the United States because it has not given meat from that country the same BSE risk assessment—if the matter can be expressed in that way—as it has beef from Australia and New Zealand. If that is so and the European Commission is having to look at the issue in relation to the risk of BSE from other countries, it gives the lie to the fact that it is an exclusively British problem, a fact which farmers and others have tried to make on many occasions but one which falls on singularly deaf ears when one crosses the Channel. I await the outcome of the debate with great interest.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before 1st May and before his elevation to the Ministry of Agriculture, I shared a room with my noble friend Lord Donoughue. He will have heard me denounce the hysteria of the previous government in relation to BSE and the ban on beef and so on in far less measured terms than I shall be able to use today. But he can be certain, because I have already told him, that I shall speak against this Government's policy, as I spoke against the previous government's policy. Therefore, he is in no doubt as to what is my attitude today.
This is the first opportunity that the House of Lords has had to discuss specifically this matter. The Statement on 3rd December was refused—which means that it was not repeated here—so unlike the House of Commons, we were unable to question the Minister when that decision was made. That was altogether unfortunate since noble Lords in this House have very great expertise in farming and related matters. Therefore, the Government and the country were denied the opportunity of having those views expressed and the benefit of advice given at an early stage.
Indeed, there has been no full-scale debate yet in the House of Commons about this ban, although that may still happen. It is right, therefore, that there should be a proper debate here and we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for tabling this Motion. Indeed, had he not done so, I would have done so. I should have tabled a Motion because I believe that it is completely unacceptable that a Minister, without warning or proper consultation, should be able to ban a product on the flimsiest of evidence and after rejecting less extreme measures which were available on the advice of his experts. I had expected a Labour Minister to be more robust in defence of people's freedom and livelihoods than previous spineless Tory Ministers; and to exercise common sense rather than blindly follow official advice.

123
If Ministers are not prepared to exercise their own judgment on behalf of the great mass of people, what are they there for? Why do we have them? Let us just leave the experts to make the decision without any control. Ministers should have taken note of the fact that symptoms showed only after animals had been fed large doses of BSE-infected meat. We are not going to feed humans with large artificial doses of infected meat. That is one of the points that I should have taken into account when making a decision.
Even so, the Secretary of State, in his Statement, stated that British beef is safe but nevertheless he was instituting the ban as a precautionary measure and to maintain consumer confidence. That is what he said on 3rd December. But by 14th January, the story had changed somewhat, as we have heard recently. In a reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said something quite different. I shall quote what she said because it is worth having it on the record on this debate. She said:
"I would say to him",
that is, to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe,
"that one of the factors has not so much to do with the area of concern with which I am primarily involved in public health, hut more to do with those delicate negotiations that my right honourable and noble friends arc undertaking in Europe. Had we allowed the sale of beef which was technically described as unsafe, it is unlikely that we would have made any progress in Brussels towards lifting the beef ban".—[Officia1 Report, 14/1/98; col. 1054.]
So between 3rd December and 14th January there was a different story. I think we should take due note of that. What is the real story'? Was the decision made on food safety grounds or as yet another grovelling sop to our real political masters in Europe? The health risk is not just small—as we have heard—but infinitesimal: one in about 600 million. That really is no risk at all.
As we have heard so many times, there are huge risks from other activities. Those risks are enormous compared with eating beef on the bone, or beef of any sort for that matter. So far there have been only 22 cases of CJD/BSE deaths since the beginning of the scare, yet every year 3,600 people are killed on the roads and 50,000 are seriously injured. There are 140 deaths every year from swimming, from jumping in the sea or a pool. There are 18 deaths from childbirth every year. There are 500 deaths every year from AIDS/HIV. There are 65 deaths from E.coli and salmonella poisoning. That is three times as many in one year as the total number of deaths so far from CJD/BSE. That puts the matter into perspective. Many of those E.coli and salmonella deaths may well be due to the unhygienic practices of officials of the Meat Hygiene Service at abattoirs. Indeed it seems to me under those circumstances that there is a better case for banning meat inspectors than beef on the bone!
The ban has been badly received not only by farmers and the meat trade but also by the general public, as was shown by the rush to buy beef on the bone, including oxtails,—people were trampled in the rush—before the ban was imposed. We have seen the flouting of the law by traders, aided and abetted by their customers who refuse to be intimidated by overweening Ministers. This sort of ban brings government into disrepute and induces
124
the contempt of the electorate for laws which they see as ridiculous, unnecessary and harmful to large sections of people. They are simply fed up with knee-jerk reactions by Ministers and MPs to events, and the imposing of new laws, bans and other actions, without time being given for consultation, proper reflection and consideration of the wider implications of their actions which impinge on personal freedom and on people's livelihoods.
We hear a lot about the people so it is all right for me to talk about them. People are increasingly concerned about the growing arrogance and intolerance of the state. It is often described as a nanny state and that seems to me to be an apt term bearing in mind recent revelations about nannies' treatment of their charges. They beat them up and do other such things. I fear that the electorate is being beaten up by governments introducing legislation which is unnecessary, ill thought out and which should never reach the statute book. I have to say in conclusion that if the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, presses this amendment, I shall—and indeed not in fear and trembling of my Front Bench or the Whips—he pleased to join him in the Lobby.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in his speech my noble friend Lord Kimball went back some 200 years when he described how marrow bones were preserved for the members of London clubs. 1 wish to go back just 20 years or so to the time when I took part in an evaluation visit to the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh to assess the funding of scrapie, a disease which is related to BSE. At that time it was a model for the human disease of CJD or Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease.
At that meeting two important developments occurred. First, the members of the Medical Research Council felt that it was not worth carrying on with research into scrapie as a model of CJD because the number of cases of CJD that occurred in this country was low, and they felt that the money could be better spent elsewhere. However, the advice that prevailed was that the work should go on, and indeed it did. Thank heavens that it did because that sort of work is important now because of our CJD problem.
Those were the days when spongiform encephalopathies were of a low order of interest and only a few people in this country were working on them. It is long-term, chronic research that is difficult to fund and it takes a long time to obtain any research results. Secondly, however, everything changed when there was a report of a scrapie-like condition occurring in cattle in southern England. That was BSE. Since the mid-80s there have been 165,000 cases of BSE in the United Kingdom and more than 1.2 million cattle have been slaughtered in a control—and ultimately eradication—programme. The cause has been the feeding of animal waste, specific bovine offals—or specific bovine materials as they are now known—to cattle as a source of protein. That was prohibited in 1988. Over the succeeding years that prohibition and other regulation and control policies eventually led to a dramatic fall in the number of cases of BSE to the level of around 100 new infections in cattle in this country at the present

125
time, as estimated by the Oxford epidemiological group, and some 300 animals under 30 months of age remaining in the whole country which are infected with BSE.
So shortly there will be fewer cases of BSE in the United Kingdom than there are in some other countries of the European Union. Whereas we are taking extraordinarily drastic measures as regards the control and slaughter of cattle and the treatment of meat and carcasses, as many noble Lords have said, these other countries with BSE in their herds—some of whom have admitted the problem and others of whom have not—are not taking similar measures.
Despite the criticism that this Government and the previous government have received, what we have done in this country is quite remarkable. It has rid the country of a pestilence which is slow to develop, difficult to understand and which we are still not entirely sure about in terms of the causal agent. That could have been done much more quickly. We are well aware that the ban on the feeding of specific bovine offals has not been as rigorously enforced as it might have been due to a shortage of manpower and certainly a shortage of funds to support that manpower. We admit that there has been contamination of animal feeds from other animal feeds, the use of material that is already in the pipeline, and, worst of all, the illegal production of animal feeds by knacker men and the use of that animal protein in dairy herds. Nevertheless, successful control, possibly leading to eradication, is near. It has been at great cost: £150 million as compensation for the destruction of animals; £52 million on research; and another £35 million on administration.
A circumstantial association between BSE and CJD is now accepted, although many would say that it is not absolutely proven. Although the prevalence internationally of CJD is as high in other countries without BSE as in this country, the incidence of BSE in this country, and in other countries without BSE, is rising. So in the United Kingdom we are making regulations, such as the Beef Bones Regulations, to prevent human infection with BSE.
However, I believe that there is a degree of confusion between hazard and risk. There is clearly a difference between the two. The hazard of getting new variant CJD from beef is, I think, accepted now by many people. The risk of doing so is an entirely different matter. If the Oxford figures are accepted, we shall have few animals that constitute the hazard. Is it realistic to apply the meat-off-the-bone regulations to all cattle slaughtered in this country to obviate the risk that that hazard will materialise? I believe that it is not.
I hope that the Minister will comment on this point. If the meat-off-the-bone regulations are to prevail, some consideration must be given to those herds where BSE has been absent for a number of years. In certain parts of the country herds are ready for certification that they are BSE free. Why should a herd where BSE has been absent for, say, five or more years suffer the same plight as a herd where recent cases of BSE have been identified?
126
Finally, I believe that there is an urgent need for a diagnostic test to identify freedom from BSE in a carcass at slaughter. Various proteins have been identified in affected animals and their use as possible indicator proteins may be useful markers that BSE and its byproducts are either present or absent in brain and spinal cord material. A confirmatory test that a carcass is free from BSE would greatly help our export efforts and would give that assurance to the consumer buying the beef. It would be especially welcome. I hope that the Minister will advise what progress is being made in developing such a test either in the laboratories at Weybridge, or elsewhere.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I fear that he will think me a spineless Tory, because I have only some simple technical questions which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will answer. They arise from some remarks made by the noble Lord in last Wednesday's debate. He supported the beef bone order by saying:
"It was made clear to us that without action to demonstrate publicly that our beef is completely safe … there would he no prospect of getting the beef ban lifted".—[Official Report; 21/1/98; col. 1579.]
Today those remarks were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and destroyed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I find those remarks extremely confusing, even worrying. Why does taking beef off the bone in the butcher's shop, not the abattoir, make British beef any safer for the consumer in Europe? Is the noble Lord saying that the Government expect to have the beef export ban lifted on pre-packaged meat only? If so, when, and by whom, has this been suggested? Can the noble Lord assure me that such packaged beef will be acceptable in export markets, in particular to the French housewife and chef; or, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, intimated, is there a commercial element or an element of cowardice in that decision?
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also said:
"Consumers continue to be given the highest protection against risks from BSE".—[Official Report; 21/1/98; col. 1579.]
Who are those consumers? For instance, I and my neighbour often kill one of our bullocks to consume ourselves. As I interpret the regulation, and I have taken advice, it will still be permissible for us to consume our own beef on the bone. Why are we allowed to take that enormous risk while the chefs, housewives, and so on, cannot? Are we expendable, second-class citizens? Are. too, all our friends and relations whom we offer our home-killed beef on the bone second-class citizens? Moreover, my neighbour is this year's president of the Royal Welsh Show. Is it legal for us to have, as he will make me have, I know, an ox roast in aid of the show when we do not charge for the ox roast? My neighbour and I would like an answer.
I was also intrigued by the answer of the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, to my Question for Written Answer which stated that only sterilised bones should be given to dogs. As your Lordships know, I have a particular affinity to dogs. I have to tell the Minister that my

127
terrier, Gerty, does not like sterilised bones. Moreover, she is no snob dog; she was a homeless mongrel. So is she, like the farmer with his home kill, a second-class citizen who should be allowed the exemption I have mentioned?
Moreover, as I interpret the noble Lord's written reply to me on 8th January, at col. 1394 of the Official Report, I can spread bonemeal on the garden. What happens if Gerty, my dog, eats it? Has she committed an offence, as suggested by the noble Lord in his written reply of 8th January?
I am sorry that this is the third time within a week that I have had to draw the Government's attention to the damage, which they say is supported by urban morality, that they are doing to farming and rural traditions and practices. When the order was made I thought it was yet another unnecessary blow directed against us. But, as has been said, I was wrong, for to my relief and surprise the screams of protest came not so much from farmers but from butchers, chefs, and, most importantly of all, the public and the housewife, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
I hope therefore that with the support of the public we may be able to encourage the Government to listen to the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wrote to the Minister before Christmas on the subject that I am about to address briefly. However, I have not received a reply, so I expect that he has not had a chance to read my letter.
All through 1996 and the early part of last year, I was aware of the fact that in the great BSE disaster there was something missing. During the Summer Recess I gave the matter a lot of thought. I remembered an occasion when I had a chat with my brother-in-law, who was a distinguished professor of medicine, Charles Fletcher, who might be known to some noble Lords; sadly, he is no longer with us. He told me how he had become a member of ASH, the organisation set up to persuade us not to smoke cigarettes. The members of ASH had spent a lot of time trying to see how they could persuade the public not to smoke, particularly cigarettes. They had come to the conclusion that the best way of doing it was to show the ordinary citizen the odds against an early death, or against some nasty disease of the lungs. They thought that the best way of getting through to the public was to inform them of the odds. Incidentally—and this has only occurred to me since—there was no question about convincing the Government. The Government were somehow a step behind. They came into the picture regarding the prevention of smoking much later, when regulations were introduced relating to warnings on cigarette packets and such like.
Ever since the late 1950s, all through the 1960s and 1970s and onwards, each time ASH has entered the battle there has always been a reference to the odds. Furthermore, it has worked. There are enormous numbers of your Lordships who do not smoke now, but
128
who did smoke 30 years ago. The same goes for all our contemporaries. That is because we have been persuaded by the odds.
As several noble Lords have remarked. the important feature of this particular argument regarding beef on the bone is that the decision so obviously works against freedom of choice for the ordinary individual. Surely freedom of choice is a matter of great importance to this country. We are proud of our freedoms. What is more, the present Government, given their record over the past 50 years or so, would claim to be among those who are most enthusiastic about freedom for the individual. Certainly on this side of the House we have always been keen on individual freedom. I do not think there is any Briton who would not feel that this was important.
Therefore, I strongly suggest to the Minister that, whenever particulars are announced of some threat to people from what they may eat, it should be obligatory within all government circles and departments that the odds, as they affect the average individual, are automatically included. They do not necessarily have to be promoted; nor do they have to be part of the argument as to why the Government are doing what they are doing. But if the odds are made available, people will know what they need to do to meet their own needs for living as ordinary and civilised a life as possible, without the threat of being prevented from eating this or that. They are then able to draw comparisons with other odds, such as those of being run over, and so on. If that information became a serious inclusion in every single report, the matter would be brought into balance; Ministers might hesitate and take what might turn out to be more sensible action.
In conclusion, I am pleased to see from the White Paper that the food standards agency is to have a risk assessment department. Risk assessments undertaken by scientists are not necessarily presented in terms that are understood by the ordinary betting public. I suggest that, in that agency, the Government should have on call an experienced, practising bookmaker, who could be called in to present the odds when any such events occur so that the best advice is available as to how to present the matter to the public.
4.55 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a partner in a family farm which has some minor connection with beef production. Recently, I asked the Government to explain why they had taken the drastic action of banning the sale of beef on the bone rather than giving the public proper information and allowing individuals to make up their own mind—as is done, for example, in relation to the risk from smoking. I found the Government's answer so unconvincing and unsatisfactory that I am moved to return to the matter and take part in this debate.
One thing is plain. Nothing in life is entirely safe. Throughout life, people make up their own mind as to whether they wish to run a certain risk. I note that today's Times tells us that every one of us has a 1:125 chance of dying in a road accident. Yet we all leap into our motor cars and make pointless journeys

129
in every direction, taking that very much greater risk. Smoking is a classic example of people taking risks of which they are aware. Governments have spent vast sums informing people of the dire consequences of smoking; yet people still choose to run those risks for the pleasures they are afforded. My personal view is that they are foolish to do so; but it is absolutely right that they should make their own decisions and not have those decisions made for them.
However, while the Government appear to accept that proposition, when an infinitely smaller risk is thought to exist from beef on the bone, all of us—except the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, on his own farm—are deprived of our right to choose. A nanny state says that the public is too silly to make up its own mind; they, the Government, know best.
What is the Government's explanation for this illogical attitude? They say that more is known about smoking, so people can make up their own mind. People can decide for themselves whether they wish to take the undoubted, proven risks of lung cancer and so on. But, say the Government, less is known about beef and CJD.
All that is uncertain on this topic is whether there is now any causal connection risk at all. But people know perfectly well what CJD is. It is Alice-in-Wonderland-speak to say that if the risk is certain and considerable you can decide for yourselves but if the risk is speculative and dubious the Government will decide for you.
The other reason advanced by the government spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as to why they treat smoking and beef eating differently is that, in relation to smoking, tobacco has been around for a very long time. But surely even this Government realise that beef eating has been around for a great deal longer. It is much more an integral part of British life than smoking. Do the Government not realise that the yeoman warders of the Tower are called the Beefeaters, and not the "Woodbine-whiffers" or something of that kind? To many people the Sunday joint of beef is one of the established parts of life. The public deeply resent Ministers deciding for them whether or not they should be allowed to eat it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I deplore the fact that Ministers of every government seem to think that they are so much more intelligent and sensible than the public and that they should make up our minds. The opposition of the public to this theory is demonstrated by the rush to buy beef on the bone, even though many of those who bought it said that they did not regularly eat it, did not normally buy it, but were damned if they were going to be told by the Government what they could or could not eat.
The public are not less intelligent and sensible than Ministers. Ministers should stop playing Big Brother. Quite apart from the fact that it is all wrong that they should do so, surely by now the Government realise that telling other people what is best for them is not only arrogant but very rapidly becomes counter-productive. Surely the right course for the Government is to realise that they have totally misread public opinion and
130
withdraw the regulations. The Motion today gives them an opportunity to do so. If they wish, they can replace them with rules which require clear labelling in shops, restaurants and so on as to the origins of the beef and whether it was cooked on the bone. People can then decide for themselves whether they do not want to eat beef at all, whether they want to risk some dubious foreign product or whether they want to eat British beef with its theoretical risk in one in a billion cases.
A law which most people regard as a silly interference with their lives is by definition bad law. If enacted as a sop to Europe, it is much worse unless it is made plain to the public that they are being subjected to unnecessary rules merely as a diplomatic ploy.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for moving the Motion. If he takes it to a Division. I have already told him that I shall support him.
I start by quoting the old saying:
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
I add to that, "and research findings". That is not necessarily to impute dishonesty to research scientists in general. That is not my intention. But it is true that frequently scientists, like doctors and theologians, contradict each other. Also, the results of research are often incomplete and a year later the same scientists will come up with something that is absolutely different from, and indeed the opposite of, what they were saying before.
A fact to which attention has already been drawn is that food poisoning scares are often media-driven and are becoming too frequent. I do not accept that the public are as afraid of being poisoned as some politicians and some of the media suggest. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, that was borne out in the 10 days following the announcement of the ban on beef on the bone when, according to reports, the public rushed to buy before it was too late. I bought some oxtail myself.
There are well known risks associated with certain kinds of food. Quite recently my wife became ill through eating shellfish. We all know that that is possible in the case of oysters, lobster and prawns and that in certain cases shellfish poisoning can be fatal. We eat the foods, understanding the risks involved, because we like them. Heaven forbid that I should suggest a ban on shellfish because they are dangerous. We know that, and we are prepared to take the risk. So why can we not be allowed to take the much lesser risk associated with eating beef on the bone?
Her Majesty's Government and some noble Lords say that a lifting of the export ban by the European Union will be helped by the imposition of a ban on beef on the bone. I wonder. I may be wrong, but I think there is misapprehension about the reasons for the world-wide export ban. For climatic and other reasons, British beef is known to be the best in the world. None of our European partners produces anything approaching its

131
quality. They obviously do not like that as it damages their own livestock industries. So although BSE is common in many European countries, they use the fact that we are more open in these matters to institute a ban on our world-wide exports. It is extraordinary to me and to many other people that they are even able to do that. How is it possible that the late government could have signed away such a vital right—the right to sell one's produce to willing buyers? Shortly after the ban was announced, I passed one of Garfunkel's restaurants. In the window was a notice:
"Only imported beef served here".
There's patriotism for you.
At that time I believed, and I still believe, that sheep will be next. After all, our hills and pastures produce the best lamb in the world and Europe does not like it, as we saw when the French farmers attacked our sheep transports. The brutality of those attacks on innocent animals makes fox hunting a humanitarian exercise. But few animal lovers seemed to care or notice, any more than they care or notice that hundreds and thousands, indeed millions, of cattle have been slaughtered on the flimsiest of pretexts in order to satisfy continental vets. Some people are now apparently cooking up a dossier to enable them to do the same to our sheep as they did to our cattle.
Reverting to the way in which we have treated and are treating our cattle herds. I should like, for the first time in my life, to quote Gandhi. I do so not because I always agreed with him nor because I am a Hindu. This is what he said:
"The cow is the mother of the whole human race!"
There is some truth in that. The cow and all cattle should be treated with respect. We use them and they deserve something better in return than wholesale massacre without good reason. There is an understanding between all good stockmen and their animals that they should be given the best care possible in return for the fact that they are milked and ultimately killed. Crucial to their care is that they should not be killed unnecessarily.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate is present to hear what I shall say now. I believe strongly that by the slaughter of nearly 2 million cattle, we have broken that compact. I believe that God will judge us for what we have done.
How long have we got to wait before the Government and our Euro enthusiasts wake up to what is happening? Our livestock industry is being comprehensively destroyed and with it much of our traditional farming community. Neither this Government nor the last one are or were prepared to say to our European partners, "Enough is enough".
I have no interest to declare except to say that 25 years ago I was a livestock farmer. I thank God that I am spared from being one now. My sympathy is with the farmers and their families and their animals. To a lesser extent I sympathise with butchers and the public, including myself, who are now banned from eating T-bone steak and oxtail for no good reason and look like being banned from eating many other things and from doing many other things like smoking and fox hunting.
132
Finally, I ask one question of the noble Lord who is to reply. I thought it was to be the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but he is not in his place. Are we allowed to buy foreign T-bone steak or oxtail, Dutch, French or wherever it comes from? If so, I hope that no one and certainly none of your Lordships will buy it.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, first I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for calling for this debate on the Motion. I would also like to declare an interest in so far as I am a landowner in Scotland and my farm tenant has around 100 prime beef cattle which have never suffered from BSE, as they have only been fed on grass or silage in the winter.
One of the things that puzzles me about the current legislation on the sale of beef on the bone is that imported bones can be used not only for soap, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals but also for bouillon, stock cubes and gravy granules. How do we know that they are from BSE-free herds? We in the British Isles now have the toughest rules in the world to eradicate BSE. No beef is sold to consumers that is over 30 months old.
In 1998, of the 2.2 million cattle to be slaughtered for human food only three beasts will be near enough to the end of the incubation period for there to be the possibility of infectivity in their dorsal root ganglia. The statistical risk to humans from eating meat on the bone is so infinitesimal as to be negligible.
Furthermore, "bone in beef" represents only 5 per cent. of home beef consumption. This tiny risk is not a basis for prescriptive legislation and is overcautious. Consumers should be able to make their own judgment, having been acquainted with all the facts.
This latest ban goes far beyond the advice given by SEAC. I see here a parallel with the Cullen Report on handguns, when an expert was appointed by the Government and then his advice was totally ignored. The result of this ban is further to damage confidence in the British beef industry, which has already been brought to its knees. It is my opinion, having read the findings of the various scientific bodies, that meat on the bone from cattle of six months old or less is totally safe and that meat on the bone from cattle up to 30 months old is for all practical purposes safe although there is in theory an infinitesimal risk.
This latest piece of legislation has brought us no nearer to getting the export ban lifted. We all know that other EU countries are affected by BSE, but they keep quiet about it while we in the British Isles have come clean and have used our best endeavours to eradicate it. Yet still the export ban persists.
In conclusion, the most vocal of the EU countries is of course Germany, seconded by its old ally Austria. Perhaps I am being oversensitive but I cannot help detecting an element of revenge in their current implacable attitude to British beef. This applies in particular to the case of Northern Ireland, where the tracing scheme can actually prove that individual animals are BSE free.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is now some 22 months since the government announcement of the possible link between BSE and the new variant CJD. The announcement had an immediate and devastating impact on the entire UK beef industry. Despite some recent encouraging signs of a recovery in beef consumption, due largely to the successful marketing campaign run by the Meat and Livestock Commission, the industry remains in crisis. Producer prices remain depressed, imports are being sucked in due to the strength of the pound, the beef export ban remains in place and the industry is faced with increasing costs which producers in other EU member states do not face. On top of all this came the announcement on 3rd December by the Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Jack Cunningham, that he had taken the decision to ban sales of beef on the bone. While no government can take chances when it comes to food safety, decisions which can have a massive financial impact on an industry must surely be based on risk assessment and not be governed by what will best suit our European partners.
SEAC's advice to the Minister on dorsal root ganglia clearly indicated that there was only an extremely remote risk of a case of nvCJD arising from exposure to infectivity in these ganglia in an animal entering the human food chain. In percentage terms there is only a one in 6 million chance of someone dying from eating beef on the bone. Faced with that minuscule risk, the Minister's decision to ban the sale of beef on the bone was not justified. If in future we abide by this principle without paying proper attention to risk assessment, we would stop many aspects of our industrial production on health grounds. Oysters, which have been mentioned, would certainly go; the processing of shell fish would stop; smoking certainly should finish because that definitely accounts for a great many deaths; motor cycles must be off the road; bicycles should not be allowed; and motor cars certainly should not be allowed. That is clearly not an acceptable position.
Although we understand the precautionary principle that the Ministry is trying to adopt, in future such action must take risks more seriously into account. Surely a more appropriate response would have been for consumers to have been provided with the facts and be allowed to make their own purchasing decisions. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that consumers resent being dictated to by the Government and wish to make their own decisions.
On a more positive note, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the launch of Assured British Meat. This independent body, funded jointly by MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission, will provide independent assurance of basic standards for British meat. Assured British Meat will certify only those who adhere to specific standards, which cover food safety. animal welfare and environmental criteria. This new initiative is surely the best way of reassuring customers that British beef is of the highest quality and safe to eat.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I am somewhat saddened that the Minister is still not in his place and has missed so many speeches. Will the Minister be able to answer my questions, I wonder? I have a few interests to declare. First, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Secondly, as a consumer, there is nothing better than a good joint—of beef, my Lords! Thirdly, I have farmed extensively in arable dairy and beef production in Lincolnshire and have reared many hundreds of calves.
In the 1970s, farmers like me were supported in improving our farming systems with the aid of farm capital grant schemes. With that aid I built up a herd of 250 milking Friesians. On joining the Common Market, we, the farmers of Great Britain, were asked to "produce more food from our own resources". Following Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advice, I built another dairy unit, and by the late 1970s was milking over 500 cows. Beef were finished at varying ages, with bullocks, late finishers at 12 hundredweight, going down to London for the kosher trade, having been fed on vegetable byproducts such as stock feed potatoes, carrots, Brussels sprouts, pea haulm, with urea and straw as protein and fibre. Fishmeal, at that time, was going through the roof in price and compounders were looking for cheaper sources of protein. My Lords, we all know the story from there.
In last Wednesday's debate on agriculture, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, there were many notable remarks made regarding BSE. The noble Lord the Minister, who is now in his place, said:
"On health grounds it would have been irresponsible for any government to act differently and to ignore the clear advice of its Chief Medical Officer on an important public health issue".—[Official Report, 21/1/98: col. 1579.]
The fact of the matter is that we were not given the opportunity to debate the other options offered by the Chief Medical Officer, one option being to give the public the choice. Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I was struck dumb by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who said:
"The BSE issue is not one of risk but one of confidence within Europe about our ability to act sensibly and responsibly and to move forward cautiously. The rigorous approach of the beef-on-the-hone decision was necessitated by the need to build confidence in Europe and not based on the issue of risk".—[Official Report, 21/1/98: col. 1552.]
The Minister, in responding to the debate, made only one reference to his noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, saying that he particularly wanted to thank her for being uniquely cheerful. By this, do we presume that the noble Baroness was not incorrect in her assumptions?
This morning I pondered a choice of two ties—the one given to me by my younger daughter, emblazoned with dairy cows; or a tie covered with ostriches whose heads were buried in the sand. My Lords, the cows have it!
Returning to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, we exist to scrutinise delegated legislation. The JCSI is the only body which scrutinises all delegated legislation. It is therefore vital that every

135
Instrument placed before the committee is considered carefully. We are assisted by the Speaker's Counsel from the Commons and Counsel to the Chairmen of Committees from the Lords. The committee does not have the power to question the principle of an Instrument. The committee may report an Instrument to both Houses if, for example, it is defectively drafted or requires elucidation, or makes an unexpected use of powers contained in the parent Act, or even goes beyond the provisions of the parent Act.
I am therefore grateful to my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for highlighting the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 for debate today. I was very much concerned about the drafting of these regulations and would have preferred a different drafting approach. Besides the Beef Bones Regulations, there are the Specified Risk Material Regulations, the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) Regulations and the Specified Risk Material Order, a raft of complexity, all mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kimball.
In Regulation 2 of the Beef Bones Regulations 1997, a "bovine animal" is any bovine animal over six months at slaughter unless the context otherwise requires. Why do not the regulations specify exactly where the definition applies and where it does not? Bones can still be left in calves under six months, such as veal calves. Does that not itself make a mockery of the regulations? Why is it that bone is safe up to six months and then suddenly—mysteriously almost—when removed from a seven month old bovine it has to be regarded as contaminated, with inherent storage and disposal problems? That applies across the board with no exceptions.
As it stands this Instrument is a nonsense. We have all heard of the more likely risks that we face each day of our lives. We all share deep sympathy for those who have lost a loved one through disease or affliction of any kind. When I first saw the letters CJD-BSE together I thought, "Could just die—Buy something else"; "Could just die by sniffing exhausts", and so on. We could just die from so many different causes. But we must look after ourselves and make our own decisions, be democratic in our decision-making and not be nannied by the state.
I have no doubt that there will be other scares equally harshly fuelled. There is a great case for saying that British beef is best, is safe, is healthy to eat, and I support the director-general of the Meat and Livestock Commission in his promotion of British beef. The fact that nearly three-quarters of consumers would prefer to eat British beef rather than imported beef speaks volumes.
For the benefit of the consumer, however, there is a greater need to declare war on misrepresentation within the meats industry and produce clear legislation demanding clear definitions of cuts of meat and ingredients, of processed meats and meat products and their origins.
How many of us noticed the unprecedented amount of Aberdeen Angus steaks being offered during the early days of BSE? Personally, I do not believe that there
136
were that many Aberdeen Angus on the hoof to provide so much steak. Then it all became "Scottish beef". How often is lamb really mutton? When is lamb really lamb? Do hamburgers contain only pork? Do beefburgers contain only beef? What is prime beef, as mentioned by certain beefburger manufacturers? It is certainly not first quality cuts of sirloin or rump.
It is vital that Instruments brought before us have been properly thought through. For example. fridges, freezers, washing machines and tumble dryers have to be classified with an energy efficiency rating so that a buyer can ascertain which manufacture and which model will give him the lowest costs in energy consumption. In itself that is fine, but new houses do not have to have double glazing. Think of the long-term waste of energy involved in extra heating bills. Again, legislation must be properly thought through. The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 have not been properly thought through. More time must be given to every aspect of the legislation.
I fear that the Government will not annul the regulations and so I must support my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, as I have done before, I should like, first, to declare an interest in that I own a dairy herd in Cheshire. The BSE debacle has been like a recurring nightmare to the livestock industry. Each development has sapped at the public's confidence and undermined the industry's prosperity. Finally, the announcements on 20th March 1996 isolated this country's beef products from world markets.
The new Minister and his team should be congratulated on the progress that has been made since the election in restoring confidence in our industry's ability to produce safe and wholesome food. In Europe the Council of Ministers has agreed to apply stringent controls on specified risk materials, to the same standards as apply in the United Kingdom.
The prospect of a relaxation of the beef ban is in sight with the tabling of a revised export certified herds scheme and date-based export scheme. The British cattle movement service is being set up and is on course to begin work in May this year. Hygiene standards in abattoirs are being driven up by the publication of hazard assessment system (HAS) scores. The food standards agency is soon to come into being. McDonalds and Burger King—the UK's biggest burger chains—have been persuaded to return to British beef.
Indeed, farmers have given the supermarket Tesco a clean bill of health following their mission to the Republic of Ireland to check the supermarket's beef supply controls after accusations that British supermarkets were sourcing beef products, which were of an inferior quality and standard to UK produced beef. All these and many other initiatives taken by this Government are helping to bring this nightmare to an end. The focus on health issues is the hallmark of this Government's approach to the food industry. This order to ban the sale of boned beef is consistent with that approach.

137
I will not reiterate the full reasoning behind this order. The findings of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) indicate that there is a risk, albeit theoretical, to human health. It was the previous government's failure to recognise that there was a problem and deal with it which put the beef industry in such a parlous state.
I applaud the Minister's bold decision to ban beef on the bone. It would have been ridiculous and irresponsible to issue a health warning about a food product and then just leave it to people to decide whether or not to eat it. Further, the political realities of persuading our European colleagues to lift the beef ban underline that we must be able to demonstrate that all steps have been taken to ensure British food is entirely safe. This is no small point.
The position on the lifting of the beef ban has been summed up best by Professor Philip James. He chairs a Brussels committee which is investigating whether the European Union should import life-saving medicines from the United States which use gelatine or tallow as binding agents. Professor James said he was struck by the almost irrational, political intensity of concern in Europe on BSE. He remarked that in these circumstances, the UK Government faced a series of almost paranoid arguments, in which they would have to prove every step of the way, that each minute detail of control was being implemented. EU inspectors' initial rejection of Northern Ireland's computer-based certified herd scheme is just such a case in point. They seem to be implying that Britain has to prove, well beyond reasonable doubt, that all its anti-BSE measures and controls have been effective.
As regards the precise details of this order, I understand from the Meat and Livestock Commission that there is concern regarding the inclusion of oxtail in the ban. Apparently none of the tissues associated with oxtail has been shown to have the BSE prion and there is no dorsal root ganglia in oxtail. I would be glad if the Minister can explain why it is included in the order. I also understand that soups, broths, stock cubes and gravy granules made from bones from animals reared outside the UK are still allowed to be consumed. I return to the point made last week in your Lordships' House during the debate on agriculture that strict controls must be applied even-handedly. Yes, the element of risk must be eliminated from all food, but BSE is not unknown outside the UK. The UK cannot compete effectively if it alone has to bear higher costs. Until the whole question of bovine material in products for human consumption, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals can be looked at, can the Minister confirm that all food products from bones, whatever their source, will be banned?
It is imperative that the scourge of BSE is eliminated from the national herd. While BSE is still present, food must be demonstrably safe. The plethora of control measures now in place is testament to that imperative. But to restore fully public confidence, we must begin to return to normality. This will, in turn, help us to get the beef ban lifted. In that regard, I should like to raise questions regarding the over thirty months, or OTM,
138
scheme. This classifies, at great cost to the taxpayer, all cattle over 30 months old as waste and unfit for consumption.
Your Lordships will remember that fateful day, 20th March 1996, when trade stopped following the then Minister's statement on a link between BSE and new variant CJD. Following consultations with the supermarket trade during the days that followed, it was thought that the market would collapse if an order was to be made allowing only deboned beef to be sold for human consumption. Thus, the suggestion to ban all sales of boned beef was rejected.
Instead, the OTM scheme was born, eliminating all animals over 30 months old from the food chain. Notwithstanding that all heads, spinal columns and other parts that are collectively known as "specified risk material" are removed from all beef already, beef from animals of over 30 months is banned. There is no suggestion that beef itself carries any risk of the BSE agent. Well, we now have that ban on all boned beef. The question arises: why the continuation of the OTM scheme? Where is the risk to human health from older animals when every conceivable and theoretical risk has been eliminated?
The question is particularly relevant, as the total number of cattle killed under the scheme topped 2 million by the time of the 11th January announcement. The total cost of BSE to the nation is around £3.5 billion. Can the Minister state what is the total cost of this scheme, including cold-store storage, slaughtering and rendering, as well as compensation to the farmer? If the compensation cost to the farmer averages £500 per head of cattle—a not unreasonable assumption, since it was only recently that a lower cap was placed on the monetary value—a figure of £1 billion is arrived at for that element alone. What is the annual cost of this scheme? Can the Minister say what is the continuing need for this scheme and when it is going to end?
It is now time to examine the dismantling of the scheme, to signal the return to normality and to rebuild confidence in the United Kingdom's beef among our European neighbours. The process could begin by identifying herds with no history of BSE and which have pedigree records confirming traceability and that particular animals have not been present in any herd affected by BSE. At the very least, the rolling nature of the scheme could be halted by the announcement that animals born after 1st August 1996 will no longer be subject to its provisions. Can the Minister say what are his department's intentions? I fully support the order but does not the Minister agree that the OTM scheme should, as a consequence, be withdrawn?
The debate over this scheme must begin so that consumers can appreciate the full extent of safety procedures and have confidence in this country's livestock. This may seem ambitious, but the industry has been suffering long enough from this scourge and the cost to the Exchequer has been enormous. I have no doubt that the improvements brought about by this Government will continue, that consumers can have confidence that the safety of foodstuffs is paramount,

139
and that the future of British agriculture is assured. These regulations are part of the process of restoring confidence in the British livestock industry and I urge the House to oppose the Motion.
5.33 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, let me at the outset declare my interest as a dairy farmer and thus as someone who approaches this debate with a certain bias. The debate centres around two issues: first, the extent to which a perceived risk should be regarded as significant; and, secondly, the manner in which government—responsible government—should react to that risk.
My noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke and many other noble Lords have argued, with considerable persuasiveness, that these regulations are not a measured response to the advice given by SEAC, but rather an unthinking response—unthinking, in that it rests on an unbalanced two-legged stool, one leg of which says that if there is a risk to the public from eating a particular food, no matter how small that risk may be, it is the duty of government to eliminate it, while the other leg of the stool says that consumer confidence must he protected at all costs. In this case, the Government have banned the sale of beef on the bone not only, as they maintain, to protect the public, but also to ensure that there is absolutely no obstacle to the lifting of the European ban on British beef exports.
I believe that the Government's action is misconceived on both counts. The SEAC advice defines quite clearly what the risk is from dorsal root ganglia in beef entering the food chain in 1998; namely, that there is a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant CJD and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising as a result of such exposure. That is the risk from which the Government are seeking to protect us. Examples have been given throughout the debate of other risks that we encounter in our daily lives, but this poses less of a risk than selling paracetamol freely over the counter and far less of a risk than allowing unpasteurised "green top" milk to be sold to the public. These are risks about which the public expect to make up their own mind. The advice given to the Government by SEAC was to inform the public of the extent of the risk, such as it is, and to let the public decide. However, the Government felt compelled to regulate—and at very great cost to British industry.
One argument in defence of the Government, which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, prayed in aid during last week's agriculture debate, was that the last government went beyond the advice given by SEAC in 1994. That is perfectly true. We did—and I own up to being one of the Ministers in MAFF at the time. But what was that decision in 1994 all about? It was about whether or not to include within the scope of the ban on the sale of specific bovine offals certain organs of calves under six months of age. We decided to adopt a cautious approach and to ban those organs. That was, indeed, a more restrictive policy than the wait-and-see approach favoured by SEAC.
However, that was in mid-1994—at a time when confirmed cases of BSE were running at 1,700 per month and when, with great respect to my noble friend
140
Lord Marlesford, a counsel of caution was the inevitable response to what amounted to a vacuum in scientific and statistical knowledge. Although the risk as presented was theoretical and minuscule, we were only too aware that if Ministers maintained the status quo—and, in doing so, got it wrong—that might result in very serious consequences for the health of this nation and, indeed, of other nations because at that time we were still exporting our beef.
The present situation is not like that at all. The risk—if one can call it that—of BSE entering the food chain is known to be infinitesimal. There is no question of Ministers getting it wrong in the same sense as they might have got it wrong in 1994. If consumers are informed of the facts, they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what action they wish to take in response.
Further, one has to question whether the regulations will have any effect whatever on the attitude adopted by the European Commission and other member states. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said. the regulations look suspiciously like a diplomatic ploy—and a fruitless one at that. I do not believe that they will make any difference at all to the export ban. I cannot help recalling that, before that ban, much of the British beef consumed on the continent was deboned in any case. With other noble Lords, I regard the regulations as being of the worst possible kind: ill founded, extremely difficult to enforce, and held in contempt by the general public. I do not believe that they are worthy of support.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too must declare an interest, being a dairy farmer, a beef farmer and a sheep farmer in Scotland. We have had many food safety scares over the years. In Scotland particularly, Professor Hugh Pennington has been involved in many, mostly relating to E.coli (which unfortunately killed an awful lot of people) and to BSE and CJD. When I was young we were told that butter was bad for us, so everybody changed to margarine. We now learn that margarine is worse for you than butter. When I was a little older we had troubles with salmonella in chickens, and eggs with salmonella. There was the case of milk being terribly good for you, and then, suddenly, it was not so good for you. It is peculiar that in Scotland unpasteurised milk is now completely banned and yet in England it is still allowed. Now, of course, we have moved on to consider the situation relating to bones.
In his speech in the agricultural debate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that, if we had not taken the action that we did to demonstrate that our beef is completely safe, there would be no prospect of getting the beef ban lifted. I find myself continually asking why it is that this country suffers all the time from its efficiency, whereas the rest the Europe seems to manage to run roughshod over us through its own inefficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, came up with an interesting fact in his speech: he said that the Cheshire farmers are happy. If they are, they must be the only ones in the country who are happy because, for the first time in my lifetime, which is now 51 years, I have seen

141
farmers rioting at Stranraer and at Holyhead. I am fairly certain there would have been a lot of Cheshire farmers there. The farming community is not happy with the situation in which this Government have placed the beef industry.
In a further answer to the Starred Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said, first, that less than one gram of infected meat may be fatal; secondly, eating in a restaurant or preparing in one's kitchen one's own stew or sauce out of bones might be a source of the infection; and, thirdly, if we are successful in eliminating BSE … Those are all "ifs", "mights" and "maybes".
Diseases, according to Professor Pennington, are mostly found not at the stage when farmers are in control but at the slaughterhouse, at the butcher's shop and in the kitchen. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, informed the House on 14th January that it is not known how these new prions are transmitted or in which part of the dorsal ganglia they are found. It is still to be proved that CJD has any connection with BSE, let alone that it is the human version. There is only a one in 20 chance of one person catching, not dying, from BSE and a one in 600 million chance of dying as a result of eating meat on the bone. Yet we find ourselves unable to make a choice about what we eat.
We are controlling diseases that we do not know enough about, but are allowing activities whose dangers we recognise. Many noble Lords have mentioned this: we know that smoking is extremely dangerous. It also increases one's chances of suffering systemic heart disease as a result of passive smoking by 25 per cent. In fact, there is more likelihood of winning the lottery twice than of catching anything from eating beef on the bone. As everybody knows, winning the lottery is not the easiest thing in the world, hard as I try each week.
The whole case, surely, is flawed. We are told that the ban might be removed if the situation can be proved to be satisfactory after further tests. We are told that it might increase confidence in British beef in the EU. but we, the consumers, in Britain, are not being given much choice. We only have one chance at this life. Sometimes we make very bad decisions, but they are as a result of our choice. We have human rights, freedom of choice, freedom of the individual. Those are all planks that this Government hold very dear. Then we have data protection, food safety agencies, etc.—or do we? In this case we certainly do not seem to have them. We are not told the reason for all this; it is just a hunch that there might be a connection. It is a minuscule possibility, but it is not a probability. There is a big difference.
Also, the regulations are not enforceable. Beef under six months of age is exempt. Is the Minister going to tell me that the average housewife in the country can tell whether a slab of meat is six months old? She cannot. Does the butcher know? He will probably have an inkling if he knows his job, purely from the size of the carcass. Does the restaurateur know? It depends on how the meat is packaged when it arrives at his restaurant. All every butcher has to do is claim that he is selling meat under the age of six months. Yes, he will
142
have lots of hassle and lots of red tape. but the food industry is full of that. Yes, he will incur the wrath of the "anti" brigade, but they are everywhere: it does not matter whether the cause is good or bad, they are still against it. However, he will receive the blessing of the local population, as newspaper after newspaper has delighted in telling us. We have weekly stories of restaurants and butchers defying the rules with signs beckoning the passing motorist to pull in and buy beef on the bone.
Some say that all laws are made to be broken. But if the law is being made into an ass, if it is openly being flouted, it has to be a bad law, a very poor piece of legislation. I beg that we scrap it and save face. Return the decision to the people. If they are capable of voting a new government in every five years or so, then surely they are capable of deciding whether they want to eat meat on the bone or whether they do not. It tastes better, has a better flavour and also makes good side products, such as soup. It also keeps man's best friend, the dog, happy. Let us scrap this ban today. It was a knee-jerk reaction, in any event.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating discussion on the legitimacy of these regulations and whether they may or may not hold water. It is not a coincidence that in less than five days of parliamentary time we have had three debates closely associated with this matter.
Under the present Government's standards, one in five slaughter houses fail the current standards required by Brussels. What they are going to do about that and whether the public purse will initiate the payment of their upgrading it will be very interesting to know. This, however, says nothing of meat imported, the inspection of it and the system that then comes into effect. About 28 per cent. of our meat input is from overseas producers who have different standards, as we know. Of course, by the time it is frozen and has spent three weeks at sea, there is a very different form of inspection than occurs in an abattoir. I sense some double standards here.
A serious risk to health? While it is within the Government's gift of administration, and it is, it is an administration of proportionality. In other words, are the Government representing the first of the three devices on which they took advice? Yes, they had three. And they took one of the three, the scientific one. The scientific one said that it was dangerous. There was a possible chance that it was dangerous. So, from the three, they chose one. Again, I refer to proportionality.
Is this a populist decision, or is this a decision by government for the majority against the minority? One should be very wary when one defeats the minority. To make an educational association, educating people from a very young age as to how they prepare food, how they buy food, how they judge food and how they cook food is a critical part of how one explains to those who will be adults tomorrow what it is that one buys from a shop. Simply giving a diktat as a result of a populist rather than a political opinion is very important.

143
I am not sure that there is legal certainty behind the regulations.
One does not just cripple British beef producers but everybody. It affects people who make diesel engines or tyres; it affects women whose daughters have just left school working all night in a cheese-packing factory. One must be very careful about the 3 per cent. of the voting public who are farmers. This is not just an issue concerning farmers.
As to the link with CJD, we have heard that so far only 20 people have died. I believe that I take a higher risk walking out of this House to catch a tube train. I may get a knife in my back. Tests have been referred to. Supermarkets have announced that if 5p per kilo is added to the price of meat tests can be carried out to determine whether or not it is safe from BSE or CJD. That will add to the cost to the shopper.
Since December local authorities have charged a high street butcher between £60 and £170 per week to collect his bones. This means that people are disfranchised and put out of work because they must regularise their business by selling meat only off the bone and paying the environmental health authority to take away the bones. I should be delighted to hear the Government Front Bench explain where those bones go. Is the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, aware of what happens to the hones collected from every butcher up and down the land? What happens to them when they are processed?
My noble friend Lord Ferrers made an interesting speech in the debate last week. I noted that when my noble friend Lord Jopling, who was Minister of Agriculture for some time, had a similar problem on his hands in relation to TB in milk the advice was that all dairy cows might be affected. A survey was carried out to see whether it was possible for the Exchequer to pay for the elimination of that risk. It was not possible. The risk was so low that milk continued to flow and the public continued to buy it because they accepted that risk.
A £2 million campaign has been announced today. We hope that that will support farmers. It will have a minute effect. Are we to pay farmers to be gardeners? We may as well pay them to be gardeners and buy postcards. This is unrealistic. If this is populist politics and damage to millions is created by an attitude that is not well thought out—if, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, there is a vacuum of real knowledge—the regulations are not worthy of support. I do not support them.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, we all share the common aim of protecting human health and reassuring consumers as to the safety and quality of the food that they purchase. In this context BSE has caused governments a great dilemma. It is natural to have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in dealing with this dilemma. However, the Government have acted with caution in the extreme over the beef-on-the-bone ban, bearing in mind that the chance of a person catching CJD from eating beef on the bone is 600 million to one, even though there is no positive
144
proof that new-variant CJD is caused by BSE. I could give many more statistics, as have many other noble Lords, but it is now late and I shall not go down that route, but I shall proceed to ask questions similar to those raised by other noble Lords. For example, why have the Government treated beef food products so harshly when many other foodstuffs that regularly create health hazards are not treated in the same way?
There are some oddities. We are not allowed to use bones from British beef in our foodstuffs for human consumption but we are allowed to import bones from other European countries that have BSE. Why are their bones free from risk whereas ours are not? One also questions the speed with which these regulations have been brought forward. They came into force on 16th December 1997. Surely, more time could have been given to considering the matter before a decision was taken so that the opinion of the general public could be measured. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, Europe has taken nearly a year to conform to the requirement to take out specific risk material. They have taken the time to think through these difficult matters. Why could we not have taken more time? Europe appears to be a law unto itself, with the bizarre situation that Germany claims to be in a BSE-free zone and thus should not be required to comply with the regulations, even though BSE has been identified in that country.
If the banning of beef bones had resulted in the dropping of the UK beef export ban one suspects that there would have been more sympathy for it, but we have heard little to suggest that the beef on the bone regulations have had any effect. Surely, it comes down to choice. Should the consumer be given the choice or should he be nannied by the state? The best government is the one that governs the least. Surely, a bone in beef is pretty obvious and a consumer should have little difficulty in making his or her own choice.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, I must first declare that I am very fond of oxtail. Further, my wife is very good at cooking it. Those two facts by themselves do not constitute an overwhelming argument for revoking these regulations. However, when noble Lords take those matters in conjunction with the facts and arguments in this debate, I believe they will agree that they make a very strong case. The risk to consumers is so minute that I can scarcely imagine any rational person taking that risk as being the inspiration for these regulations. Perhaps understandably, I am not able to say what inspired the regulations, but if the object was to impress governments on mainland Europe, as has been suggested, it is difficult to entertain the idea that preventing people in this country from buying and eating beef on the bone is likely to diminish or eliminate BSE in herds of cattle in this country. I support the Motion.
6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I intervene to raise one general question about our meat hygiene regulations which has not been mentioned. There has been a thread of consensus running through the debate

145
to the effect that the bulk of our meat hygiene regulations are a good thing; that, on the whole, they protect the public from food poisoning of one kind or another. Only the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has taken the opposite view, to the effect that he would ban the meat inspectors instead because their poor standards of hygiene are now known to cause much of the food poisoning that they are supposed to prevent. Many of us would agree, not least because so many of the smaller slaughter houses have been forced to close with the result that animals have to travel much further to slaughter in larger and more slipshod premises.
My intervention is inspired by something said at a conference on venison in Scotland five years ago. A leading regional environmental health officer—no names, no pack-drill—publicly announced that food poisoning from meat had gone up by 47 per cent. in his region since the meat hygiene regulations had been introduced. He concluded that it was the regulations which had caused the poisoning. He said that the new hygiene regime was preventing the ancient organisms with which our digestive systems are familiar from entering and developing in the meat. Instead, other, more virulent organisms were doing so, against which our digestive systems had no defence, with the result that food poisoning was increasing sharply.
I hope that that is the kind of professional opinion which the new foods standards agency and Lord Justice Phillips's inquiry will examine carefully. If so, we may come nearer to knowing what the risks are in the way we treat and eat our meat instead of being forced to put up with such mind-boggling, idiotic and destructive regulations as those before us this evening.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there are at least two brave men in the House tonight; they are those who intervened in the gap after 25 other speakers. I cannot say that I have enjoyed the whole debate, but I have enjoyed some of it. The Minister can be proud of having behind him the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Grantchester, who have endeavoured to support him. Those were noble efforts. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Rea, actually found a silver lining. I do not know where, but it was nice of him to try. Loyalty is a thing that the Tory party always go on about; so there should be satisfaction over that.
However, the best speech from the other side came from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He spoke with a passion which made me think at one point that he was speaking against the European Union. However, a number of the remainder of the speeches were terribly repetitive. People do not seem to be able to stop repeating what they have on their paper. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, did a good job and talked a lot of sense, except when he spoke about the roast beef of old England which everyone knows is an inferior article to that of Scotland.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, made very informed speeches. I was tickled pink by the noble Lord,
146
Lord Marlesford. He must have been studying the chances of infection with close attention. Perhaps he will tell us how to use this risk assessment in order to place bets in a more favourable way.
The history of the BSE crisis is very sad. All the mistakes have been delineated. It has had a curious effect on the habitants of the Ministry of Agriculture. I remember hearing the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hogg, say on television that he would slaughter every cow in Great Britain if necessary. He terrified me. He obviously terrified the Germans because the reaction there has been one of the main causes of the trouble we have experienced. Why he and Mr. Dorrell needed to go to such lengths nobody will ever know.
It must be something in the air; something about the Ministry. Dr. Cunningham, while in opposition, gave every sign of being a sensible, level-headed chap. There is something wrong in the Ministry of Agriculture; there is some evil spirit there that upsets all judgment. I appeal to the right reverend Prelate to get along there and exorcise.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I feel I have no more success with cattle than I have in my own cathedral.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right but it is worth a try.
The history of this matter is ridiculous. We all know that the decision is wrong; we know that the effect on the Continent must have been entirely the opposite. A sensible position would have been to say that there is a minute risk, so minute that we are simply leaving it for people in this country to judge. That would have been far less harmful than slapping a ban on meat on the bone. It is stupid, ridiculous and has been very good for the sale of sirloins in certain quarters. Quite seriously, though, it has not been good for the beef trade; it has been another severe blow.
I have a great deal of time for the Minister and this Government. They should take the chance to go back and talk to their friends and say "Right, we accept the fact that we have perhaps made a mistake. On the other hand we have been careful." There are all sorts of things he can say but this stupid ban of beef on the bone has to be lifted. That is a chance he should take.
The Minister has done great harm by sticking to his position because he will force me into the Lobby with the Tory party, which I am not very fond of doing.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Willoughby de Broke for giving us the opportunity to discuss these regulations in detail. I apologise for the sound of my voice. Obviously the evil aura that hangs over the Ministry of Agriculture has managed to spread over the Opposition Benches and got into my throat. We on these Benches have always supported measures to ensure the safety of public health where we believe them to be warranted. This country now has the toughest food safety regulations in the world.

147
When the Minister of Agriculture made his statement in another place on the 3rd December, my right honourable friend Michael Jack stated that it was essential that discussions were held on the impact of the Government's decision,
"before casting the measures absolutely in stone".—[Official Report Commons. 3/12/97; col. 3731.]
If the Minister of Agriculture had in fact taken my right honourable friend's advice and had a more extensive consultation, many of the questions raised in the debate tonight would have been resolved.
The Government should have followed the principal advice given by SEAC in paragraph 7: to inform the public of the risk posed by eating beef on the bone, and to allow individuals to make their own decision about whether or not to eat it.
We reached that conclusion only after giving due consideration to the impact that the ban on beef on the bone would have on the beef industry in Britain and confidence in beef in general, against the minute risk of infection. Details of that were given authoritatively by my noble friends Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and Lord Willoughby de Broke.
The Government's position is fraught with inconsistencies and anomalies. Many of my noble friends have proved that beyond doubt today. I am grateful to MAFF for its website which is honest because it tells the world:
"SEAC concluded that the risk is very small and did not say that the Government needed to act at all other than to make the results public. On this basis the action proposed by the Government is precautionary in the extreme and there is no need to clear existing stocks. The Government has spelled out the risks to consumers so they can make up their own minds about stocks in the kitchen or in the freezer".
If the ban were so essential, why was there a delay in imposing it until 16th December during which time consumers were given the chance to exercise choice? Why do the regulations allow a transitional period until 15th March for manufactured goods such as stock cubes and soups, and full choice about food already in the consumer's store cupboard and freezer? Why are consumers being allowed to make up their own minds about some products associated with beef on the bone but not about others?
Why did the Government ignore the results of the consultation exercise which was carried out hurriedly during the few days after the beef bones ban had already been announced? The vast majority of those who responded to the consultation would have preferred the Government to follow the SEAC's main recommendation—publish the information and let the people decide.
There are oddities about that consultation exercise which give rise to questions that I should like to put to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke referred to some aspects of that consultation. Like my noble friend, I have read through the responses to the exercise which MAFF placed in the Library of the House. My mathematics may not be too great but I think that 334 organisations and individuals were on the consultation list. I say "think", because one person was in brackets, and I am not too sure what that says about
148
that person. Of those 334 organisations and individuals, 39 replied. I make no criticism of the others for not taking the action that they should have taken, because they would have received that consultation document, at best, by first post on Monday morning, and they had to get their replies hack by 4 p.m. on the Friday. I am sure that noble Lords, as I have, have taken part in consultation exercises and know that it is difficult within such a short space of time for an organisation to be able to gather together effective information.
There were a further 56 organisations and individuals who were not on the original list who sent in their comments. Taking them all together, at best, and being generous to the Government—I am sure that the Minister recognises that I am being as generous as I can be—of those, six were in favour of the regulations; 56 were against; and 33 expressed what I would term a neutral or technical view about the matter. They did not say whether they believed the regulations to be right or wrong; they were explaining to the Government how difficult it would be to implement the regulations or what impact those regulations would have upon them, whether they be a butcher or someone involved in the beef trade.
Common themes run through those responses—from real people responding to a real crisis. Consumers say that they want to be given the choice to buy beef on the bone—or not. The National Housewives Association said that such reactions from members as it had been able to obtain in the time were, "hardly printable". It was essential for consumers to be given information and the chance to make their own decision. The National Federation of Women's Institutes said:
"We are seriously concerned that the public should he denied the freedom of informed choice in this matter. The public needs access to all scientific evidence and information in order that they can make their own decisions based on known facts".
Many individuals wrote in expressing their view that it was vital for consumers to be able to make a choice. They included Mrs. Diana Smith, and Mr. John Atkins who stated:
"[Aged 60.] I am as capable of making sensible decisions as to whether to buy a T-bone steak…as I am of whether to buy a packet of cigarettes, take my car on the M.25 or go on a boat in a Force 6, all of which, if the Minister is to be believed, carry risks several orders of magnitudes greater than those involved in choosing to eat bone in beef".
The Government say that it is a matter of risk assessment. That is correct. But this afternoon my noble friends have proved that the Government have got their risk assessment wrong. Expert organisations which responded to the consultation exercise also believe that the Government have got their risk assessment wrong. The responses are littered with comments such as:
"The Government reacted with panic, MAFF acted with insufficient judgment; they over-reacted, and with poor judgment in risk assessment".
Many questions were raised about the enforceability of the ban. The Chartered Institute on Environmental Health pointed out:
"It may be prudent to consider re-drafting this legislation to ensure the measures required by the Government can actually he achieved and enforced by the authorities".

149
Have the Government taken any action to redraft the regulations? Are they legal? Like other noble Lords, I noticed an article in the newspapers last week in which a Member of the other place claimed that the regulations were illegal because of the poor way in which they are drafted. Will the Minister reassure us about that?
There is also what I would call the "Scottish question". Under the terms of the Scotland Bill, could a Scottish parliament revoke this legislation? If so, what arrangements will be made to stop illegal imports across the Border? I hold no brief for Scotland, of course, but I recognise that many noble Lords on both Benches reflect the intellectual acuity of the Scots. So I am surprised that few Scottish organisations appeared on MAFF's original consultation list. But the Scots were not to be denied. Even if they were not asked to respond, many of them did.
I take just one example which reflects the response from all the Scottish organisations about which I read in the Library. The BMA Scottish office states:
"It would be sensible to let the public choose whether they are prepared to take what appears a minuscule risk".
That must be the right course of action.
The Motion gives the Government the opportunity to consult widely and more effectively than they did the first time around. Noble Lords have today proved that that would be the best course of action for the Government to take. The debate is an example of the House of Lords working constructively to assist the Government to think again. I support the Motion.
6.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, I feel that I have been here before. 1, too, thank the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Kimball, for so entertainingly and pungently opening the debate. They have given us all the opportunity to raise questions, and they have given me the opportunity to answer them, on an issue which, we all know, has excited some interest, as reflected by the exhausting list of speakers today. It shows how well represented some interests are in this House, although perhaps concentrated on one side. I welcome that because it makes my life so interesting.
The issue goes much wider than Sunday lunch. Many speakers touched on the broader BSE crisis and its terrible cost, including specifics ranging from the scientific basis and the BSE/CJD link to the tragic number of farming suicides. I cannot respond to all the points made. However, looking back over a long debate, I believe that it is possible to condense my reply into half a dozen main areas of concern. Among them are the nature of the scientific advice on BSE/CJD; the nature of the health risk to consumers; the decision to ban (I shall begin with that); the so-called "nanny state" and whether the consumer decides; and enforcement. Several misunderstandings have been revealed and I shall try to deal with the main issues together with some other points that have been raised.
150
The first issue is the recurring suggestion that the decision was rushed and ill-considered. That is denied by the facts. The suggestion was made by the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Rotherwick. It was as long ago as 1st July that the Minister was advised of the initial SEAC results. By the autumn, the preliminary results were confirmed to Ministers. In late November Ministers from MAFF and the Department of Health met to consider the likely recommendations and our reaction to them. On 1st December, Dr. Cunningham reported SEAC's findings to the Prime Minister and discussed what we had been considering—that beef should be boned out. He received the Prime Minister's full support. On 3rd December, Dr. Cunningham received the final recommendations. The ministerial position had already been well considered and the Minister made his Statement to Parliament. Therefore, there was no rushed decision.
Your Lordships will be aware that SEAC reported the results from its ongoing research; that BSE infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia of bovine animals and that there were indications, still being evaluated, that infectivity may also be found in bone marrow. SEAC advised that consumers should be warned of the risk and that the research findings should be published. That was done immediately. SEAC also recommended that if the Government decided that further action was necessary in order to reduce the small risk further—and the Government did so decide—either no beef with the bone should be sold from cattle over six months old or a more complex alternative should be adopted, which we rejected.
As regards the further action of de-boning, I point out that, ever since the introduction in 1989 of the ban on specified bovine offal, governments—that is we and our Conservative predecessors—have always excluded from the human food chain any tissue in which BSE infectivity has been identified. I appreciated the points made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The only way to ensure that that was done in the light of the new SEAC findings was to prevent hone in beef from cattle more than six months old being sold to consumers. That was one of the options SEAC recommended. We did not take the other option.
In deciding to take that further action, consistent with the actions of the previous government, we were particularly and properly influenced by the views of the Chief Medical Officer responsible for public health. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, confused the advice of the CMO with that of SEAC. His advice was:
"We have a responsibility to take into account new information which emerges from research, especially when it has a direct bearing on public health. This must apply even when any risk involved k very small. That is why, in our efforts to protect public health, all tissues"—
I repeat "all tissues"—
"in which BSE infectivity has been detected have been excluded from the human food chain. Infectivity has now been detected in the dorsal root ganglia, a tissue which is not currently covered by the Specified Bovine Materials Regulations. It is, therefore, right that this tissue should be excluded as well. I would be very concerned if any tissues that have been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain".

151
Therefore, our action was fully in line with previous practice and with the firm views of the Chief Medical Officer. It has always been our policy, and that of our predecessors, to act to remove tissues where infection is detected.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer's comments are relevant, but, surely, the number of beasts in which BSE will be present should have influenced the Government.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that fact was clearly taken into account.
To reply to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we are applying the principles of deep caution which she rightly asks us to apply in respect of pesticides. I fully support her in that.
Many experts on the theory of risk probability have emerged in this House. I should also tell the noble Countess that I have known of two people who have been killed by lightning
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he supports me. Why does he not show that support by action in respect of pesticides? The Government do one thing for one problem and something else for another.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the noble Countess knows, I say, "Give us time".
I acknowledge important points made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is true that all of us—those of us who buy lottery tickets and those of us in government—take decisions according to an assessment of risk, which is often erratic. I agree with the noble Lord that often there is no uniformity in the way in which we apply risk. Sometimes there is an insufficient statistical basis. Governments and their advisers could well read that and think about it. However, on this issue, sadly. I must disappoint noble Lords opposite by informing them that a risk analysis was carried out. An assessment of risk from possible BSE infectivity in dorsal root ganglia was carried out by an independent autonomous foundation called Det Norske Veritas. The assessment was commissioned by MAFF at SEAC's request and has been published by the company. SEAC considered the report before formulating its advice.
As regards the risks, it struck me that, in general, noble Lords opposite seemed more optimistic than Members on this side of the House. I recall the famous Hungarian saying, which my noble friend Lord Parry quoted, that the only difference between an optimist and a pessimist is that the pessimist is usually better informed. We admit that the risk to consumers is small: the numbers have been pointed out. However, our scientific advice was clear. It was expanded on by my noble friend Lord Rea, who is a distinguished practising doctor. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that no one has recovered from CID. We believe that risky infective tissue should be removed. Do noble Lords opposite seriously believe and advise that this
152
Government, unlike our predecessors, should ignore the advice of both SEAC and the Chief Medical Officer? I cannot believe that. What confidence would the public then have in our food and in the Government's responsibility as regards protecting public health?
To fully protect public health, all material which may be BSE infective must be removed from the human food chain. That applies to dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow and thus affects all beef bones from animals over six months old. A key point is that, with BSE, the risk is hidden; and that is the answer to a number of questions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a point that I made in my speech. Does what the Minister has just said mean logically that if infectivity, at however low a level, were discovered in muscle—however few cattle still had BSE and were likely to enter the food chain—this Government would ban all beef from United Kingdom origins?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is clearly a hypothetical question and so far no infectivity has been discovered in muscle or blood. But all beef meat or bone looks exactly the same whether or not it is BSE infective. It would be impossible to identify reliably meat and meat products from BSE-free herds, whether of UK origin or imports, once it has entered the human food chain.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked why we do not exclude BSE-free herds. The food uses to which meat and bones are put are diverse. Sometimes there is no way in which consumers can know whether a food ingredient contains something which originates from beef; for example, food served in restaurants and beef origin substances included in composite ingredients used in manufactured foods. It is not possible to identify bones from one herd as opposed to another. That is very different from the Government not seeking further regulation in other areas of consumption where the risks are well known and where the risky activity or substance is clear so that individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept that risk; for example, as mentioned at Question Time, whether or not to smoke. People will know when they light up a Woodbine. But one cannot always recognise the presence or origins of beef and bones in, for example, manufactured foods. That is why we cannot leave the matter to the consumer.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, who eats bones? I have never eaten a bone. Who does?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bones are frequently used in the stock for soup so the noble Lord may have eaten them without realising it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, waxed eloquent on the nanny state, which is a very easy phrase to throw around, or the freedom of the individual, as did my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who expressed his support for the Government in his characteristic way. As my noble friend knows from our long period of living together—I do not know whether we were considered designated partners or something—he and I share

153
similar views on this broad subject. We happily created an anti-politically correct oasis in the bowels of the Palace. Neither of us shared the youthful experience of nannying which many noble Lords opposite enjoyed and which seems to have turned most of them against it. I start from a more primitive position. As I stated in this House, in principle the only ban that I could support enthusiastically would be a ban on bans. But that is not real life. Responsible government must intervene to protect the public, however reluctantly. I accept that this ban is in the public interest. That is not the nanny state but responsible government. Although the risk to consumers is small, the Chief Medical Officer's advice was firm and there were very good reasons to take precautionary action.
That is broadly the public health reason for our action. But it is not only a question of health. There are other reasons for taking action. The first reason that I mention in passing is the legal reason. The Government might have laid themselves open to legal challenge that they had been irresponsible or negligent if action had not been taken. To have ignored the advice of the Chief Medical Officer might have appeared to be both politically and legally irresponsible.
Even more important to Ministers is their priority of seeking the lifting of the beef ban, to which reference has often been made. In that regard I say especially to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that the European Union has made it clear that the beef ban will be lifted only when we have met the Florence obligations and that our beef must be seen to be completely safe. SEAC and the CMO have concluded that beef on the bone is not completely safe. Therefore, in my view, we have no option if we wish, as we certainly do, to achieve a lifting of the beef ban other than to ban beef on the bone.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that he seems as optimistic about the reactions of our European partners as he is about the powers of Anglican bishops. That action was taken in the interests of British farmers. I trust in time that they will appreciate that. I must ask whether noble Lords opposite wish to be identified as willing to jeopardise the lifting of the ban. I agree that it is irritating to appear to be in the position of a supplicant in Brussels. But that is a position which we inherited.
The issue of allowing consumers to decide was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Viscounts, Lord Montgomery of Alamein and Lord Bledisloe, and pressed particularly hard by the noble Baroness opposite. I should say to her that she was wrong to say that that is the main SEAC recommendation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, at paragraph 7, SEAC starts by recommending that the information should be published so that people can decide. At the end of that paragraph it gives options (a) and (b). Therefore, I read those options as being subordinate, and it is those subordinate paragraphs
154
which the Government adopted. That is why I make that statement, which is of course borne out by MAFF's own Internet site, from which I quoted earlier.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I was referring to the actual SEAC advice. It is not true that that was the main recommendation. It offered what it believed to be some logical options. I thought that that point was well answered by my noble friend Lord Grantchester.
But the answer to this matter is clear. As regards letting consumers decide, as I said, consumers often do not and cannot have the necessary information to make informed decisions on the origins of the meat which they may be eating. It is often impossible to know whether the meat, processed food or soup contains beef and whether that beef is on the bone or not. Therefore, in my view, that argument falls at the first base. The consumer does not have the information necessary to decide.
But secondly, as I said, to have allowed unsafe beef, however small the risk—and nobody questions that the risk is there—would have destroyed our crusade to achieve the lifting of the ban on British beef. If those two arguments are taken together, in our view they make an overwhelming case for the action we have taken.
Enforcement was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned it. I thought that I detected some scepticism about the powers of enforcement. In licensed slaughterhouses and cutting plants, enforcement is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service. In all other premises, including retail butchers, pubs and restaurants it falls to local authorities. Normal levels of supervision will apply, although enforcement officers will be required additionally to check that boning requirements are being met.
It has been suggested that the controls are unenforceable. However, we do not accept that: that is wrong. They are as enforceable as other public health and consumer protection measures. Guidance is being issued to local authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service to help them in this task. Some breaches of the regulations have been reported but the vast majority of food manufacturing, distributing and retailing businesses are complying willingly. Equally most consumers seem to have accepted the controls.
I stress that any businesses that are found to be acting illegally will be advised of their obligations and warned to stop. The normal process is to give a warning before taking action. But thereafter court action may follow. I understand that already the Procurator Fiscal is considering whether a case should be brought in Scotland.
The noble Lord who opened the debate and the noble Baroness opposite criticised our process of consultation. More than 300 representative bodies and individuals were consulted. They constitute the normal list of those consulted on BSE. Some 104 responded and their responses were considered before the regulations were drawn up. The noble Lord who

155
opened the debate referred to some rather amusing examples. Those bodies were included at their request. In our view the response to the consultation did not provide sufficient grounds to change the scope of the regulations, although of course many vested interests expressed reservations.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked why it was more risky to cook beef on the bone than to remove the bone before cooking. The cooking process could allow infectivity to leach out and contaminate the meat or other food, such as gravy made with the cooking juices. Once cooked, dorsal root ganglia cannot be distinguished from meat and could be eaten in error. The subject of oxtail seemed to agitate many. Our measure on oxtail was basically a practical measure because had it been excluded it would not be possible to distinguish one bovine bone from another in cuts of meat. However, it is not true to suggest that it cannot contain bone marrow; it can and that is a potential source of infectivity.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred, I believe, to diagnostic testing. I can assure him that a great deal of effort is being put into developing a diagnostic test for BSE. It appears that the key is to develop a test which can detect subclinical infection; that is, before the symptoms appear. So far no test has been developed which has been shown to do that. It is likely to be some time before that is achieved. As regards the OTMS, I must stress to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that that scheme plays an important role in the protection of human health. The number of animals incubating BSE and going into the food chain would be significantly increased without it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, surprised us a little by suggesting, I believe, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was somehow not in agreement with us as regards this debate or the regulations. The regulations were made in accordance with the powers available to Ministers to make regulations in the interests of public health. They were considered by the Joint Committee, which made only one comment about drafting style. It did not make any criticism of the regulations to be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. In no way was I trying to say that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was doing anything but its job. We discussed between ourselves the problems within the Statutory Instrument, but in no way were we criticising—as I said in my speech; perhaps that was while the Minister was outside the Chamber—legislation because that is not our remit.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for those comments. I am sorry that I was missing from the Chamber for a while owing to reasons of nature. I have spoken for rather a long time but I have tried to deal with many of the points that have been raised.
156
I refer again to the words of my noble friend Lord Parry, who reminded me that the South African Marquess of Salisbury stated that, if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe; and if you believe the physicians, nothing is healthy. I add that if you believe the Opposition, nothing done in government is right, including when they were in government.
Our latest action was deeply precautionary and was fully in line with the need to protect public health and maintain the confidence of beef consumers. We believe that the controls are fully justified to protect public health and enhance consumer confidence. In doing so they help the farming industry and support strongly the Government's efforts to get the beef export ban lifted in the European Union. They will be kept under regular review, as is the case with all BSE control measures. I hope that before too long we shall revisit that happy experience of 1795 which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, so vividly remembers.
Any future decision to lift the ban will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE. I urge the House to support the regulations and not to support any vote against them which would, in my view, suggest that this House is careless of public health and content to delay the lifting of the beef ban. I am bound to point out that although I did—and always do—listen to the many points that were made today, and learnt much from them, because of the priority we attach to public health and to lifting the beef ban, these regulations will remain in force, how ever the Opposition may use their built-in majority tonight.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I was overwhelmed by the number of speakers and the great support that the Motion received. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to give a compendious or portmanteau thank you to everyone who took part and to the many noble Lords who listened to the arguments without taking part.
I believe that it was an informed, rational debate. The Government's rationale for the regulations was, I believe, comprehensively demolished. In spite of the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I do not think that he managed to put them together again. I am, however, grateful to him for all the effort he put into giving answers to a large number of points and questions raised during the debate. When he left the Chamber for a few minutes I thought that he might be undergoing some sort of Pauline conversion on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie; namely, that he might have reconsidered the position. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord say that the regulations would remain in force regardless. In view of the overwhelming support the Motion has received, I now wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 207; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Abinger, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Ackner, L.

Geddes, L.

Addington, L.

Geraint, L.

Addison, V.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Alport, L.

Grey, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Haddington, E.

Ampthill, L.

Haig, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Halsbury, E.

Annaly, L.

Hampton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hamwee, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Harlech, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Berners, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blaker, L.

Harrowby, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Higgins, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Burnham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Calverley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Carew, L.

Jacobs, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Camock, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jopling, L.

Chesham, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Kintore, E.

Colwyn. L.

Kitchener, E.

Congleton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Leigh, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lincoln, Bp.

Cranbome, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Davidson, V.

Liverpool, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Long, V.

Deedes, L.

Lowry, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lucas, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lyell, L.

Donegall, M.

Macclesfield, E.

Dundonald, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

McConnell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

McNair, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar, C.

Exmouth, V.

Marlesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Fookes, B.

Mersey, V.

Freyberg, L.

Middleton, L.

Gage. V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

158

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shuttleworth, L.

Moran, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Newton of Braintree. L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northesk, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Onslow, E.

Strange, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Quinton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Radnor, E.

Taverne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Teviot, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Razzall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rees, L.

Thurso, V.

Rennell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Vivian, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Wharton, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rowallan, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amos, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Barnett, L.

Grantchester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gregson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hardie, L.

Blease, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Healey, L.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollic, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Chandos, V.

Hoyle, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt of Kings Health, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Desai, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dixon, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Donoughue, L.

kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

[Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Glenamara, L.

159

Molloy, L.

Sewel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd.L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Simon, V.

Moms of Manchester, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Nicol, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Orme, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Parry, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Randall of St.Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Varley, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Whitty, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before we proceed to the next Business, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he remembers the last occasion when a government were defeated on what I think is technically a non-fatal Motion. Since the noble Lord's memory is, I know, extremely good, perhaps I may refer him to col. 575 of the Official Report dated 8th March 1996, when the then government suffered a defeat on a non-fatal Motion.
The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, made a request that,
"in view of the vote that has just taken place and the firm expression of the view of this House, will the Government now consider whether this matter should be referred to a Select Committee either of this House or of Parliament?"—[Official Report, 8/3/96; col. 575.]
I am not wedded to that device, but since the noble Lord is clearly a fair man, and since he feels strongly that the expressions of opinion of this House, fatal or otherwise, should be taken careful note of, I wonder whether he will allow me to ask him how the Government intend to react to this vote.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it was said of Abraham Lincoln that, as an advocate in the courts of Illinois, he once appeared in the morning and argued one point; when he appeared in the afternoon he tried to advance the precise opposite of what he had argued in the morning. The judge said to him: "But Mr. Lincoln, you said this this morning, you are now trying to argue this this afternoon". He replied: "Well, Judge, I was convinced by the arguments against me this morning".
Since we are into the realm of precedent, I am sure the noble Viscount will remember that on 6th July 1992 a Motion was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in relation to the Income Support (General Regulations) 1987. There was a Motion on Hong Kong on 15th July 1993. There was one on the sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quota regulations in 1993. We will be behaving precisely as the previous government did.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Education (Student Loans) Act.

Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Experimental decision-snaking arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines I7 to 19.
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 grouped with this amendment. Also grouped with this amendment is Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Tanworth.
Without wishing to make a Second Reading speech at this point—but it should at least occupy a minute or two until those concerned with the Bill are able to hear the arguments on these amendments—perhaps I may say a word or two about the attitude of these Benches. As I said at Second Reading, we are not against innovation in the powers of local authorities, in the electoral arrangements applying to local authorities and in democracy, as well as efficiency, with which the Bill is concerned.
We are most concerned that any new administrative arrangements should not overshadow innovations that are possible without new legislation, such as "localisation", if I may use that term to encompass many different mechanisms; nor indeed the varied responses to the new challenges that have faced local government over the past few years.
I was struck by a comment on comparisons between local government in different countries. It is striking that much of the language of reform is universal. Elsewhere, as in Britain, the phrases that recur are against monopoly and bureaucratic uniformity and in favour of deregulation, accessibility, responsiveness, choice and efficiency—in other words, a much wider agenda than this Bill purports to set.
I was also struck by the comment in paragraph 5.11 of the Widdicombe Report dealing with proportionality that the current model of government is one which has

161
proved itself sufficiently adaptable to accommodate all the various circumstances to which the report referred in relation to the composition of authorities.
Having made that general point, I turn to the group of amendments. My amendments are concerned with the establishment of an executive ordinary member. We do not seek to wreck the Bill; and it is partly in regard to that that my amendments do not concern themselves with the powers of a directly elected mayor—another of the models proposed in the Bill.
I believe that the public probably has some understanding of the concept of an elected mayor. I am much less sure that the public understands what might be undertaken by an ordinary member in whom executive authority has been vested. I may betray my age when I say that, as a councillor, I was one of the generation brought up on the concept that governance and management are, and should be, separate.
Voters elect the council; in many cases they elect individuals and they will vote not on a party ticket. But I do not believe that they expect to elect someone who may turn out to have considerable executive powers, with little check on them. Voters expect leaders of authorities to lead but I do not believe that the public expect leaders to be vested after an election with executive powers. By and large they elect councillors for a range of attributes such as political values, priorities, and, of course, the efficiency that they demonstrate, but not primarily for their managerial skills.
I know that there are some residents who expect that if those of us who are councillors are not at home to answer our phones it is because we are out picking up refuse or possibly even constructing multi-million pound budgets with little help from our officers.
I still see the distinction between strategy and politics and the executive role of local government. Therefore, I have put down a range of amendments to delete the references to vesting powers in executive ordinary members. In re-reading the Bill last night, it occurred to me to wonder, particularly seeing an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, dealing with social services, whether an ordinary member to whom powers have been delegated might be reluctant to exercise the serious and complex powers involved with social services. Therefore, in moving the amendment, I take the opportunity to ask whether an ordinary member in that situation can refuse to exercise any of the powers that the authority attempts to vest in him or her. I can see also that an ordinary member might not want to have the responsibility, for example, of taking planning decisions. The whole planning area is only too vulnerable to corruption. I put it in that way. I do not believe that there is as much corruption as some cynics believe. But it is an area where members must be absolutely scrupulous.
One slightly different amendment is Amendment No. 7. It appears to allow delegation to be passed on to another stage, to go down another tier. I was also brought up on delegatus non potest delegare: if you have power delegated to you, you may not delegate it on to another.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will deal with his amendment, Amendment No. 12, with regard to scrutiny. My comment on it at this stage is that the amendment is not one with which I seek to argue. I observe that it does not require a scrutiny committee. The mechanisms would operate only if there is a committee. Therefore, I do not take issue with it. I do not believe it is necessarily a complete solution to my concerns in that area, but we shall return to the question of scrutiny later. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government welcome and support this Bill. We do so because the Bill is not prescriptive but enables those authorities who volunteer to find a better way of doing things, one which suits their own particular needs. Equally we do so because we believe that the opportunities which the Bill opens up are opportunities which, in the right circumstances, will be well worth trying out.
I am bound to say therefore that the Government view the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with some regret. Their intended effect is to rule out some of the opportunities for experiments which the Bill currently provides. There would no longer be any ability for an authority experimenting under the Bill to give any of its functions to a single member of the council except for an executive mayor. The effect would be to cut out of the Bill a whole swathe of options for experiment which are currently attracting considerable interest in local government.
Our regret is not primarily because the amendments would simply reduce the range of options open to authorities but rather because the amendments would remove the opportunity for authorities to experiment with arrangements which we, as government, believe could prove to be immensely worthwhile. They would be worthwhile in terms of modernising local government and helping councils more effectively to engage with, and be accountable to, their communities.
I share many of the noble Baroness's concerns about the need for councils to be open, to promote rather than prevent public participation, to open up decision making, and to allow local people a real say in the governance of their communities. But we believe, as do many others, that perhaps part of the problem in the past has been the traditional committee structures. In these structures the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles of councillors are easily confused. By separating out these functions it will be possible to make clear just who has taken decisions and to allow sharper scrutiny of those decisions. That in turn should lead to improved decision making, greater openness and accountability: aims, I believe, which are shared on all sides of the House.
The kind of experiments which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out are exactly some of those which are centred on achieving this separation of the executive, scrutiny, and representational roles. I am not saying that we are certain that any one of these models

163
is necessarily right. But we are saying that councils should be given the opportunity of adopting, say, the cabinet system, or to have a system of lead members.
As the noble Baroness said, these are not new ideas. Like her, I can remember the changes in local government, having started my local government career at the time of the innovations of the Bains Report and the proposals that followed. For example, the ideas were identified in the 1993 report of the joint local government/central government working party, established by the right honourable Member for Henley, which looked at the internal management of local authorities. That working party's membership was drawn from the local authority associations—in which I declare an interest as a member—and the Audit Commission; and it had among its members Professor George Jones, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics.
In its report the working party examined a number of models, including the cabinet system, the lead member system, and the single party executive committee. It identified the safeguards each system would require, the benefits of each and the legal implications. The Bill before us tonight will give councils the opportunity to try out such models for decision taking. The Bill reflects the work and study of that expert working party. Yet these are the decision taking arrangements which the noble Baroness's amendments would rule out as an option for local authorities.
These models are now being actively explored by local authorities. That is not because of some cynical judgment that they will allow them to take decisions without any interference from the public or the opposition, whether inside or outside their own party. Rather the reverse. It is because they see the benefits which might accrue for the quality of local democracy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will wish to consider whether it is possible to take away these possibilities—to put this particular genie back in its bottle—without disappointing many responsible, forward-looking and democratic councils and councillors. Perhaps more importantly, do we wish to shut off an opportunity which could lead to real improvements in local democracy?
I understand the concerns about safeguarding the position of minority parties. But I believe that having a clear executive, drawn from the majority party, open to public criticism and review by members from all parties represented on the council, strengthens minorities as compared with their position in the traditional committee structure. This model is used widely throughout the world, both in the constitutions of central government and at the local level.
The models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen executive responsibilities equally sharpen scrutiny. Amendment No. 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would write on to the face of the Bill an essential element of the scrutiny framework; namely, that a scrutiny committee must reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We have included in the draft guidance which we placed in the Library of the House this requirement for scrutiny committees to
164
reflect the council's political balance. But the Government have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment and would commend it to all. Equally, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness, particularly in the light of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not wish to pursue her amendments.
We support the principle of the opportunity for local authorities to pursue a variety of models. My personal experience of local government is that for many years there has been a tendency for someone to base a particular model and proposal on the basis of his experience as a Member of Parliament with regard to the local authority or local authorities within his locality. What is right for a small village in the middle of Yorkshire may not be right for Brighton and Hove or for Kingston. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity that the Bill gives to local authorities to make those local decisions under full public scrutiny and with the opportunity to consult the people most closely involved at local level.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: As I think your Lordships are aware, I chaired the all-party Select Committee on relations between central and local government and in doing that had the honour and pleasure of working alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. One of the conclusions of our report on which we were unanimous was that local authorities should be empowered to experiment with innovative ways of taking their decisions. The question we are now facing is: which ways?
In the course of our consideration we took evidence from a large number of people and bodies and we paid particular attention to the models for decision-taking which had been considered and set out in the 1993 report of the joint working party between the Department of the Environment, as it then was, and representatives of local government. While we did not firmly recommend any one of those models ourselves, we did float them as possibilities and recommended that authorities should be empowered to try them out. That is precisely what the Bill as currently framed seeks to achieve.
The noble Baroness's amendments to Clause 1 would, I believe, prevent any individual member of an authority except a directly elected mayor from having any ability to take decisions on behalf of the authority acting alone. This would take away a range of options described in the 1993 joint working party report and in which there is already significant interest in the local government world. For example, it would not be possible to adopt what is loosely called the cabinet system, where a committee collectively would have executive functions in addition to other functions given to individual members of the committee. It would not be possible to have a lead member either within such a cabinet system or otherwise. It would not be possible for an elected mayor to delegate some of his or her functions to another member of the council forming part of the mayor's cabinet. Surely, in the context of a mayor with a wide range of functions, such an arrangement would make perfect sense. But I do want to make it clear that

165
a fundamental principle behind the Bill is that any separate executive would be held publicly to account, perhaps most importantly through scrutiny by members of all parties elected to the council.
It is worth saying a few words about what we mean by scrutiny. Typically, scrutiny would not merely mean criticism of decisions already taken. A scrutiny committee would have full access to information; it would be able to review general strategy as well as discuss the effect or sagacity of decisions already taken; and it would make recommendations on future policy or criticise what had been done. All of that would be done in public, and all by the council or a committee or committees whose membership would reflect the political balance of the council as a whole. We gave that assurance at Second Reading, but it is such an important point that I decided to table an amendment, which we shall be discussing later, to this clause to guarantee that scrutiny committees would be politically balanced in this way.
Such scrutiny could give all non-executive councillors, even the back-bench members of the majority group. a much greater say in the direction and decisions of the authority on which they serve. As I have said, it would lead to greater accountability and better decision-making, but it all relies upon clarity about who is taking the decisions in the first place.
To return to the noble Baroness's amendments, their effect would be severely to limit the scope for experimentation under my Bill, experimentation which I believe could result in the very improvements to decision taking in terms of accountability and openness which I believe the noble Baroness wishes to see. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, in the light of this discussion, not to pursue the amendment, which would shut off a major range of experiments provided for under the Bill and truncate the Bill very considerably. For my part, I am persuaded that, if the Bill is to give local authorities the opportunities they need and should have, it must allow a full range of experiments. But at the heart of many of these is all-party scrutiny. That is why I commend Amendment No. 12 to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Lord deal with my question as to whether a lead member—an individual member—to whom functions are delegated or loosely transferred by the local authority may say, "That is too big for one member to decide upon. That is inappropriate. I do not think I will exercise that area of authority". I mentioned social services and planning. I am not clear whether the executive member has to carry out all the functions which the local authority might, under this model. load upon her or him.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: We shall come shortly to an amendment dealing with a social services committee. On the particular question which the noble Baroness put to me, I might have to take advice, unless the noble Baroness. Lady Farrington, can provide the answer. I would personally—and subject very much to
166
correction—find it very difficult to believe that one could delegate to someone something which he or she was unwilling to have.
Baroness Hamwee: I asked that question out of curiosity but also because I wanted to highlight how serious I regard this point.
Perhaps I may make it clear that I am not seeking by this group of amendments to rule out all the models that are proposed. Both the noble Lord and the Minister suggested that the amendments would mean ruling out the model of a cabinet committee. I am not seeking to do that and I do not believe that the amendments would achieve that end.
The Minister talked about separating out the functions—separating executive scrutiny and the representational role—and suggested that that would lead to greater clarity. She also said—I hope I have written it down correctly—that the proposals could lead to real improvements in democracy. I accept that they could affect efficiency, and I have doubts about their beneficial effect on democracy. However, that is not a matter we need to pursue today other than by making clear our concern on this point. I do not think, either, that the proposals will necessarily lead to clarity in the minds of the public. That is why I chose this model on which to concentrate.
We shall return to the question of scrutiny. I very much welcome the comments made by the noble Lord. He said that scrutiny is not just a question of looking backwards. That is something which a number of noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading. I am glad to hear that. I am concerned to understand how it can work. If one has a committee of members who can look forward, in the words of the amendment,
"to scrutinise the exercise of any functions … to be determined",
will that not lead to the sort of logjam which these amendments are seeking to overcome? If a decision has not been taken, but members can scrutinise it in advance, that means that there has to be some mechanism whereby proposals can be tabled for the members to consider. That of itself could be a recipe for slowing everything down and having completely the opposite effect to the one intended. I do not know whether the noble Lord might wish to make some comment on that as we are in Committee and, indeed, an extremely select committee, if I may put it that way.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: As I understand it, there is no intention that scrutiny need work in a way which slows things down because not everything needs to go through the two stages. There is the crucial question—and there is an amendment later which bears on this—as regards the availability of information, of agendas and minutes. The scrutiny committee should be able to grip something at any stage and question the executive and make its views clear.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall try to be helpful. I seek to reassure Members of the Committee that all the models envisaged by the Bill which sharpen

167
executive responsibilities do equally sharpen scrutiny. Any exercise of an executive function will be subject to scrutiny by a politically balanced committee. That is not necessarily something that happens in authorities where decisions are taken by leading members of the majority political group, either at what is called a party meeting or an executive meeting of some sort where there may not be any officers present and where the individual members, even of the majority group, let alone any minority opposition groups, have no opportunity to question and acquire information.
To facilitate that, the schedule to the Bill ensures that there is a requirement placed on any individual councillor empowered to take decisions alone to keep a record of the decisions taken and to make that available to the council. Furthermore, the guidance which the Government are required to issue to local authorities under the Bill, should it be enacted, will set out checks and balances that are required to make such models work and to ensure effective and proper local government.
It may also stipulate that certain regulatory functions may not be undertaken by an individual member. Many Members of the Committee have seen the first draft of that guidance, which the Government have placed in the Library of the House. That is being written in discussion with prominent academics in the field and with the Local Government Association. We are likely to cast the net still wider to ensure that the guidance results in applications which are acceptable to all and provide for the democratic and open local government. I do not know if this has been helpful.
A scheme of delegation will be set up in the arrangements to be approved by the Secretary of State. I believe that that will be helpful. It could allow onward delegation by an executive member to another of his or her political party. The degree of scrutiny would continue. It is an important issue that the opportunity to scrutinise the powers is there on a politically balanced committee level.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. Some of the comments which the Minister has just made provide something of a lead into the next group of amendments. I am not proposing to push the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, 1 shall also speak to Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with it. These amendments are about proportionality and political balance. As regards the last group of amendments the Minister commented on decisions now being taken by leading members in small groups in private without the opportunity for scrutiny. I entirely accept that that is the way in which many council groups operate. However, having taken a decision in private, there have to be public meetings. Members of the public and the local press can attend such meetings. At those meetings there is a chance for opposition councillors
168
and, as the Minister has suggested, for back-bench members of the majority group to question the decisions.
It was said to me by one of my colleagues in local government that the only good thing that the Conservatives did for local government was to introduce proportionality on committees. The Widdicombe recommendations were enacted in 1989. It has occurred to me that that period is less than the aggregate of the eight years plus four years proposed in this Bill for experiments. In other words, we have not had 12 years in which to assess practice under the Widdicombe arrangements although I regard them as important and successful.
I will he the first to say that there are huge dangers of complacency in a large council group or in a group which has no opposition at all. The chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham, went on record quite early after the formation of the LGA in lamenting the virtual absence of Conservative councillors in the big cities. I share the concern about our system not reflecting voting patterns and producing overwhelming, imbalanced councils. What use would there be in a better political spread of councillors if the minorities are excluded from decision-taking?
I believe that the rights of minority parties are the rights of the electors. They are expressing concerns of a group of electors. As we see ourselves on these Benches, they provide at the very least constructive opposition, which sometimes might be outright opposition. However, very often it is constructive opposition. That is especially the case under electoral arrangements which are based on the first-past-the-post system. That means that the number of councillors elected, as we all know, is not an accurate reflection of the political preferences of the voters—certainly not of the political preferences that might be expressed—if there were a system which allowed them to express their preferences. The current system means the opposition councillors and voters are locked out. Opposition councillors have a role in contributing to decision-making and to hold the majority administration to account.
We shall talk later about access to information. I accept what has been said about record-keeping and about the ability of members, and indeed the public, to have access to local authority records. However, the question of access is more than just a matter of being able to look at the papers after the event. It is a matter of how one can use one's position effectively. It is about, for instance, the opportunity to question officers of the authority through the chair of the committee; the opportunity to have real freedom of information and, as I have said, the opportunity to play a full part in the decision-making process.
In the mid-1980s, a colleague, Councillor Chadwick in Sheffield, was involved in a case following his exclusion from certain of Sheffield Council's operations. His need to know was supported by Mr. Justice Woolf, as he then was, who said:
"The fact that the information was refused and attendance was not permitted underlines the dangers that can follow from allowing a sub-committee of the council to be used as the forum of a particular party group".

169
That perfectly expresses my concerns. That is why I have tabled these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken ably about Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. Unfortunately, I have been suffering terribly today with nosebleeds so, rather than stand here and risk an accident, I shall be very brief and say simply that we support the noble Baroness in these amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is soon well. We shall all understand if she suddenly leaves the Chamber and we shall not take offence. Perhaps I can be of some comfort to her. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was most unkind and unfair when referring to the previous government's record with regard to local government. They did many things of great benefit. I cite as an example the abolition of the poll tax.
In speaking to these amendments, it may be helpful if I refer to the fact (in the interests of getting it on the record) that already in local government there is the opportunity for delegation to a committee, from a committee to a sub-committee, and from either the main committee or the sub-committee to an officer. The process of onward delegation is already being practised in local government.
There may be many arrangements in local government that can be allowed under the current legislative framework which could turn out to be more effective than the existing arrangements within a particular local authority, both in terms of accountability and the quality of the decision-making which results. I stress that we are talking about "enabling" as opposed to "imposing" an opportunity for innovation.
One model would be where there is a clear executive body drawn from the majority party which is subject to open criticism and review both by the other members of the authority in the same party group and by those from the opposition parties. It is a model used throughout the world in both central and local government, not least our own parliamentary system. I am aware that the use of the "cabinet system" by majority parties has not always been supported by opposition or minority parties. It would be a shame if we got to a point where a particular concern being expressed by those who happen at a particular time and in certain authorities to be the minority ruled out experimentation with the system altogether. I can think of authorities which are controlled by the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which have an executive committee model which, I understand, is a single-party executive committee. I may be wrong. If I am, I shall be interested to know and am open to correction.
I stress the importance of having a range of opportunities for innovation. Both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have already made it abundantly clear, both this evening and in the draft guidance produced by the Government and placed in the Library of the House, that it will not be acceptable for
170
a scrutiny committee to be other than in line with the political balance of the authority. That guidance also makes it clear that the scrutiny committee should meet in public, wherever local authority meetings are currently required to do so. I know that the noble Baroness will agree that the rules about openness to the press and public in local government are extremely valuable. There is therefore no question of sidelining minority parties. They will have a crucial role to play in any of these models for decision-taking. I would argue that there is therefore no justification for amendments, which, if carried, would also take a broad range of worthwhile experimental arrangements out of the scope of the Bill. For these reasons I ask the noble Baroness not to seek to pursue these amendments.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I have already stressed that the purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities to experiment with a wide variety of arrangements for taking their decisions, but not at the expense of proper, effective or open government—indeed, the intent is quite the opposite. I am as keen as the next person to ensure that there is the appropriate political balance in a committee where this is necessary. But there is a wide body of opinion from all areas of the political spectrum which would wish to allow local authorities the option of taking decisions within structures where the executive arm was not necessarily in line with the political balance of the membership of the authority.
At one level, a model such as a single-party executive committee is just reflecting the reality of what currently goes on in local government in authorities of every political colour. The majority group will typically come to a decision and then it will be debated by the full council. Sometimes the line can be agreed by unofficial meetings of the few leading players within the majority group. A number of the majority party may have had little or no influence in the decision, but would still be required to vote for and defend it.
However, a model which brought such unofficial meetings within the formal decision-making structure of the authority and provided for access to the necessary information and scrutiny of the decisions taken would enable officers to advise the policy-making process within the formal structure of the authority and could lead to an enhancement of local democracy and to better decisions being taken. A requirement that the membership of all committees of the authority should reflect the political balance of that authority would, in my view, work against the opening-up of the decision-making process. The real decisions would still be taken behind closed doors, outside the authority's committee structure.
I do not argue for this particular experimental model as my preferred option. I merely point out that many authorities would like to adopt such an experiment and that, if implemented correctly, it could improve local democracy. I stress that all the experiments possible under this Bill must be most carefully designed and implemented. In particular, it must be right that the

171
function of scrutinising the decisions taken by any executive arm, be that an individual or committee, should reflect the political balance of the authority.
However, I do not accept that there are sufficient grounds for concern for experiments which include committees which do not reflect the overall balance of the authority to be excluded from the options available for temporary experiments under this Bill. It may be that some authorities, particularly (but not exclusively) those with no overall political control, would wish to experiment with executive committees which do reflect the political balance of the authority as a whole. I would welcome such experiments. But experiments with single party executives could be perfectly valid in other authorities. I therefore believe that the amendments moved by the noble Baroness would overtly constrain the room for experiment which this Bill seeks to give to local authorities, and I cannot support them.
Baroness Hamwee: I like the concept of winning Brownie points by abolishing a tax which achieved so little support in the first place.
The noble Lord says that many authorities want this sort of model. I have to say that I wonder at their motives. Of everything which is in this Bill, this causes me the most concern. The temporary experiments to which reference has been made could last as long as 12 years. Yes, they are temporary in the great scheme of things, but it is still quite a long time.
I do not believe that committees which do not reflect proportionality and do not reflect the political make-up—I am repeating words which have been used within the answer—will enhance local democracy or open up local authority. Formal meetings involving members of the opposition and back benchers allow the opportunity for interaction between those members and the officers, even if the majority group has decided what it wants to do and is going to go ahead and do it. I have been a member of committees where, very properly, the proposals of the majority group have been put to the test. Quite often, of course, it helps the majority group. I am not suggesting that one should not allow them to undertake experiments or different arrangements because I know better than they do, but the fact is that if proposals are put to the test publicly by the opposition and talked through, then they are better decisions for that.
The Minister suggested that there are committees in authorities run by my own party which operate on this basis. I am not aware of any, but that is not to say that I know how every Liberal Democrat-run authority, of which I am happy to say there are now many, conducts itself. However, if they conduct themselves in this way they will be subject to the current rules. If they are subject to the current rules and they do conduct themselves in this way, there is no need for change, so I am a little perplexed by that. It may be that the operation is not quite the same as is now being proposed.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate the strength of my concern. I will want to consider very carefully what both the noble Lord and the Minister said
172
in their responses to what I regard as fundamentally the most difficult point within the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("some or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These are relatively small amendments, designed to seek from the noble Lord further explanation as to how the committees will work.
The first pair of amendments suggest that where there is to be a cabinet committee it would require a majority of its members to discharge the functions of the authority, not, as I believe could be the case, some of its members. I may be technically wrong in saying that because, of course, it might require the majority of the committee to take a decision on behalf of that committee but, if that is so, then I wonder why the words "some of the members" are used here.
The third of the amendments seeks to understand the limits on the functions delegated to the committee. The wording of the Bill would allow the committee to discharge any of the functions of the authority. I assume that there has to be specific delegation by the authority in a full council meeting, but I may not be correct. This is a probing amendment to understand how the machinery would work and to seek to understand what the criteria are in designing how that delegation should be expressed in a committee resolution. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that these amendments are still intended to prevent authorities adopting cabinet forms of decision-making. By that I mean models where individual members have responsibility for discharging functions of the authority acting alone, but who also meet together in the committee to take decisions corporately. At the risk of repeating myself I believe that such models could be very valuable as a response to the current committee structures which do not always serve authorities and their communities well. We do not want to see this whole family of models eliminated from the options available to authorities and we cannot therefore support the amendments.
As I believe that this is an important area, I hope I shall be forgiven if I go into more detail. The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 5, either with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 or without them. It may be that the functions of an individual acting alone were given to him or her by dint of the proposals approved by the Secretary of State or by some subsequent delegation either from a committee or another member—the mayor, for example—if the approved arrangements permitted such further delegation. An individual acting alone would be discharging functions which had been given to him or her by some route or another, not necessarily merely those which had been first delegated to the committee of which he or she is a member.

173
I have spoken so far as to what I believe is the intent of these amendments. However, their actual effect would be that Clause 1(2)(d)(ii) would state that one or more ordinary committees of the authority or a majority of the members of which are able, acting alone, could discharge any of the functions of the authority delegated to that committee. This suggests that the actual effect of the amendments would be that the authority could give responsibilities to the individuals so long as they totalled more than the other members of the relevant committee without such responsibilities. This seems at variance with the intent of the other amendments, and the noble Baroness may wish to reconsider whether this is her desired result. However, even if it is, the Government would still feel constrained to oppose Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
It seems to us to be unduly restrictive to prevent an authority creating a committee of nine, four or whom were also able to take defined decisions acting alone, for example. The authority's proposals under the cabinet system would set out who would be responsible for discharging functions. A cabinet would have functions which it could exercise as a committee, but it could also contain members who would be able to discharge some functions acting alone, no doubt in practice after discussion with the cabinet.
I am sorry for the length of my answer but I believe that it is helpful to have it on the record. This is clearly an area in which both the Conservative Opposition and Liberal Opposition groups have expressed concern.
8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I can add little to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said. I believe that the same arguments apply to the discussion that we had on some of the other models. The models which these amendments would prevent seem to me to be perfectly valid. They are used in central and local government across the world and should be available in this country to local government for experimentation as and when they fit local circumstances. I regret that I cannot accept these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I end the debate on this group of amendments more concerned than when I began. I do not believe that my amendments would have the effect which the Minister has suggested. Leaving that aside, as I understand it arrangements can be made for the appointment of a committee some of whose members can discharge functions. This is not dissimilar from the point that I made in the Committee earlier in relation to levels of delegation. It may be appropriate to delegate to a delegate, but for that delegate then to delegate on is a matter that should be viewed with some concern. I believe that that obscures the way in which the authority will operate.
I am somewhat confused by the arguments on my amendments. I shall read the responses to see whether I
174
can tie them up with the points that I have made. I do not believe that the points have been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 22, after ("committee") insert ("or an officer").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 47. These are technical amendments which are intended to make explicit that authorities may design social services committee, both to other committees and to officers of the authority. The need for these amendments arises only from the fact that there is specific legislation on the discharge of the social services functions in local government which differs from the general framework in the Local Government Act 1972, to which the schedule otherwise refers, and a desire to give local authorities scope to experiment in this area similar to that which they have in relation to all their other functions. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support these amendments. They clarify that the starting position should be that similar scope for experiment applies in principle to each function of a local authority, including social services. In practice, it is possible that particular structures would not be appropriate for some services or functions. But we do not wish to see the room for manoeuvre in designing experiments unduly constrained by the initial legislation where this is avoidable, as we cannot at this stage predict the ideas for experiments that authorities may put forward should the Bill be enacted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert
("(4A) Experimental decision-making arrangements may not include arrangements for the membership of any ordinary committee of a local authority which is appointed to scrutinise the exercise of any functions of the authority to be determined otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 12 when the Committee debated Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", effective").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and speak also to Amendment No. 14. I believe that Clause 1(5), the subject of these amendments, is pivotal to the Bill. It requires that the proposed arrangements are likely to improve the decision-making process and that regard is to be had to effects in certain areas, one of which is that the arrangements are likely to lead to the authority's decisions being taken in a more efficient and accountable way.
One would not quarrel with efficiency or accountability. I have sought to add another two adjectives to deal with effectiveness and openness. I believe that "effectiveness" is about the outcome of an action and "efficiency" describes the means. I dare say that all noble Lords involved in this Committee stage are well aware of the Audit Commission's strictures about efficiency and effectiveness. One is told by the commission that these are different aspects. A lack of efficiency may not be caused by administrative arrangements; indeed, there may be other reasons. For example, because local authorities are large in population and in budget terms compared with councils elsewhere, or because of the average number of councillors per council. There are lots of reasons for lack of efficiency. I believe that "effectiveness" more closely describes what I should like to see in a local authority.
To mix all of the words up, one can be efficient in a democracy only if one is sufficiently open and accountable. It may be that accountability includes openness. I table these amendments, in particular the second one, to ask both the noble Lord and the Minister to expand on the operation of Clause 1(5)(a). Like other noble Lords, over the years I have had experience of differing views of those from different backgrounds which have been brought to bear on the decision-making process. After the abolition of the GLC I remember very well the early meetings of the business-led organisation London First, which involved representatives of local government. For me it was characterised by the very different approaches of the two sectors. Those who came from a business background when presented with what they believed to be a good idea said, "That's great. Let's do it"; those who came from local government said. "That's great. Let's consult on it". There is something to be said for both approaches, but openness and taking the matter outside the council chamber is a matter of which we should not lose sight. An executive mayor or cabinet committee must have a particular task to meet levels of openness that may not need to be expressed in the case of committees which are, in any event, required to be open. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: When I chaired the education committee in an authority, which necessarily has the largest budget, the Audit Commission's use of the terms "efficiency" and "effectiveness" were always linked with the heavily-stressed "economy" when people spoke to me.
The Government will be content for the words in Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to be inserted and become part of the Bill. They are clearly in line with the benefits which we anticipate will arise out of the experimentation under the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I too am happy to accept these amendments, which reflect the aims of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving them.
Baroness Hamwee: I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2. line 39, after ("efficient") insert (", open").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendment but I did not say thank you on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("for members of the authority") and insert ("to call for the attendance of and reports from any executive mayor. executive elected mayor, executive ordinary member, the Chairman of any ordinary committee and any officer entitled to discharge any functions pursuant to subsection (3) and ").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
I apologise to the Committee for the fact that on Amendment No. 15 the words "for members of the authority", which it is proposed to remove, should not be removed, even though the clause would still read comprehensibly with those words taken out.
What I seek to do by these amendments is to understand a little more fully—the point has, to some extent, been dealt with by Amendment No. 12—the powers of the scrutiny committee; its powers to call for the attendance of individuals and for reports from them. If the powers are not specifically provided by the Bill. will the committee have those powers? I come from the school of hard knocks, and have often been told that if the power of a local authority is not expressed. then it does not have it.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to widen the activity a little by assessing and reporting on the proposed exercise of any such function. This may have been overtaken to some extent by Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 17 arises from a report of a recent conference on this subject at which Professor Stewart, who is noted for his energy in looking at ways of doing things locally and his support for local government. suggested that there might be a connection between the scrutiny function and decentralised committees working on a localised neighbourhood basis.
As was said on Second Reading, many authorities—particularly those run by members of my party, but not only so—have put into place new administrative arrangements which include neighbourhood localised area committees. Are those committees to have any sort of role in the scrutiny procedure?
It would be a great shame if the advances made in this area—the innovations which have been so successful—were in any way held back by such committees not being properly involved in the scrutiny of the executive. I look forward to comments on this matter. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Although the Government may share the concern which appears to have prompted Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17, we cannot support them.

177
Amendment No. 15 goes into some detail about the powers that may accompany the exercise of the scrutiny function. We would expect scrutiny committees to operate in very much this way in a number of authorities but we do not believe that it is helpful to set all this out in legislation. The detail set out in this amendment may not be appropriate to each authority; for example, it may be that most chairs of an authority are non-executive members who would be responsible for the scrutiny function, rather than subject to it as they would be under this amendment.
Furthermore, this amendment is constrained to only those functions discharged by a person acting under arrangements made under Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Might not an authority want to set up similar processes for scrutiny of decisions made through structures which are currently possible under existing legislation? I am not sure, because we do not know what sorts of experiments local authorities may propose. I do not know, therefore, whether this amendment would cause any difficulties in such circumstances. It does seem likely that it might.
It would also be curious to define in a rather precise way one particular process which will then form part of the criteria for assessing whether an authority's application should be approved. An authority which produced proposals that included different but equally effective procedures for scrutiny and that suited its own circumstances might well have less chance of approval than if it adopted the set format in this amendment, even if it were unsuited to that authority. This would be an unfortunate result from such a well-meaning amendment—one with which many of us could sympathise but not, therefore, support.
Much the same argument applies, in our view, to Amendment No. 17. 1 do not argue here either for or against the presence of area committees in any structure a local authority might adopt. But, again, it is perfectly conceivable that an authority could define arrangements which brought decision making closer to the people without necessarily adopting a formal area committee structure. So why use this as a criterion for judging whether a particular proposal would improve matters? We find this amendment also too prescriptive.
Turning to Amendment No. 16 the arrangements suggested by this amendment would be a recipe for a hamstrung authority, particularly when taken with Amendment No. 15. The structure these amendments would create is one where any decision which is to be taken by any means other than that which would be permissible under the current legislative framework would be held up if the scrutiny committee so wished, until such time as it had called for evidence from various quarters, including the executive, and reported on the proposal. Such arrangements, if applied in a general way, could make it very difficult for any separate executive, be it a committee or an individual, to operate effectively. They do not seem appropriate in a Bill which seeks to promote more effective decision taking.
Some of the ideas underlying these amendments may be seen in many applications from authorities—and the Government may often welcome the arrangements
178
where this is so—but scrutiny arrangements will not always take the form described in these amendments. We therefore do not believe that they should appear as part of the criteria for judging whether a proposal is likely to improve the decision-making process. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
The powers that an authority will have will be established by the arrangements approved by the Secretary of State, and the legislative modifications made by order under the Bill. One would expect that in any particular experimental set of arrangements. the scrutiny committee may perform the processes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not seek to negate them as possible, or even probable, arrangements within particular processes; rather we seek to prevent their becoming prescriptive or part of the automatic criteria.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord speaks, will the Minister assist the Committee as to whether, as seems to be implicit in her answer, scrutiny committees will have those detailed powers without legislation providing for them? That was the objective of some of the amendments in the group. I am interested to know whether it is necessary to specify the powers in the primary legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that part of the process of submitting an application will be to ensure that there has been wide consultation and that there is support for the proposed system. It appears to me—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—that a scrutiny process would inevitably form part of the application if it is to meet the criteria laid down in the legislation to be taken into account by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hamwee: I fear that I am not making myself clear. I accept of course that a scrutiny arrangement is to be required. My concern is to know whether the detailed powers to call for reports, for instance, should be specified in the primary legislation, or whether the power of scrutiny encompasses such a power. I accept that the point may be too detailed for the Minister to respond to now. It is not a frivolous point, but I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that it is.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, of course, recognise that it is not a frivolous point. My understanding is that the noble Baroness's fears are groundless, but should that prove not to be the case I shall ensure that she is informed.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: The Committee will remember that on Second Reading some Members argued that a Bill which was designed to free up things and allow local authorities to experiment was already itself too prescriptive. We must be careful about loading more and more into the Bill to tell local authorities how they should go about these experiments. Neither they, we, nor the Government know the answers, though we should expect to learn a good deal as a result of the experiments which may be of more general application later.

179
For those reasons, and those the Minister gave, I am reluctant to accept the amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue them. I should like to offer one suggestion entirely without commitment; that is, the Government might consider whether this is the sort of issue where, in a sense, we are all saying that we want the same thing, but it is a question of whether it is spelled out in legislation or whether it is something that could be dealt with in the guidance for local authorities, which has been placed in the Library. I hope that at this stage the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be that the point can be covered in secondary legislation applying to the particular authority and to the particular arrangements. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help the Committee were I to say that the scrutiny committees could have powers to call for reports, and so forth. How a scrutiny committee will work will be established in the approved arrangements. Paragraph 3 on page 4 of the draft guidance refers to that. I hope that that makes the position clearer.
Baroness Hamwee: We are all interested to make this matter work. In connection with Amendment No. 16, the Minister has confirmed that the scrutiny committee will be required to make assessments. I was a little surprised by her description of the amendment as too prescriptive.
With regard to Amendment No. 17, it is a shame not to allow that direct relationship with neighbourhood committees. Again, I shall not seek to take the matter further now. I do not intend to restrict the exercise of executive powers, merely to see, if they are to be given to a cabinet model or an individual, how they would fit in with the effective neighbourhood committees which are now in operation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that the Committee will forgive me. The noble Baroness referred to "not allowing". My understanding is that the existing arrangements could be continued and allowed. There is obviously wide acceptance that such committees have worked well in many authorities. We wish to avoid prescription, not to cease to allow.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not mean to indicate that I thought that the provision sought to stop neighbourhood committees. I should like them to be allowed to fulfil the scrutiny role rather than that the scrutiny be undertaken by a central committee. If an authority has devolved powers to neighbourhood committees in a way which does not follow the old conventional models, the "shame" to which I was referring is the shame that those committees with the devolved powers do not have a direct opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing. That may be another point to which we can return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause I, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hunt of King's Heath Lord Hunt of King's Heath moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause I. insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

(" .—(1) Every local authority shall not less than once every four years after the commencement of this Act consider and review the efficiency and effectiveness of its decision-making processes.

(2)Every local authority shall as part of a review under subsection (1) consult the community interests in its area.

(3)The conclusions of a review under subsection (1) shall he reported to a full meeting of the council of the local authority.").

The noble Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to require a local authority, at least once in a four-year period, to undertake a review of its decision-making structure, and to report to full council. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it is permissive: it does not seek to be prescriptive. That must surely be right in our endeavour to develop the role and confidence of local government.
I wish to see an approach to local government which tries to widen its discretion rather than to require it just to react to the diktats and circulars of central government. It is clear that many local authorities will wish to take advantage of the Bill, if enacted, as soon as possible. Yet more will wish to reflect on the success, or otherwise, of those local authorities which will be in the first wave of experimentation.
I suspect that a third group of local authorities will say no to begin with and will bury their heads in the sand, not wishing to return to reviewing their decision-making structure. The amendment refers to that group of authorities. If local government is to be the dynamic, innovative source of government at local level which the 21st century requires, it is important that local authorities examine their decision-making structure and ensure that it is as up to date as possible
Many of us have been influenced by the Audit Commission's report of 1997. It stated that too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductively, by committee meetings which focus on detailed issues. The Audit Commission stated:
"Such committees can assume large amounts of management time, slow down decisions and duplicate each other's work".
We must take that comment seriously. We must encourage those local authorities which may be reluctant in the first instance to undertake a review to consider whether their traditional approach to decision making is up to the needs of local government today and tomorrow. This is a modest amendment which seeks to encourage that without being prescriptive.
I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. Many authorities will review the efficiency and effectiveness of their processes more frequently than every four years, but it is good to require them to do so in a formal

181
manner. I recognise instantly the example of a committee which focuses on spending £500 but fails properly to debate spending £5 million.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath and to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for tabling the amendment. The Government fully support the permissive structure of this Bill, but we want to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the opportunity it affords them. We do not want to ask for volunteers in the manner of some army sergeant major. We want authorities themselves to come to the view that they need to address their decision-making processes and the way in which they engage more widely with those they serve.
The Government therefore welcome the thrust of this amendment, which would require authorities to review periodically their own decision-making arrangements and, in the course of that review, to consult those they serve. This is clearly good practice. We often hear of cases where an organisation seeks views from its customers on what it does and how it might be done better and comes away from the experience wiser, humbler and with a determination to improve. Even the best of us can always benefit from a little constructive feedback. A number of authorities are already doing something like this; for example, producing and maintaining democracy plans.
However, this amendment places no compulsion upon any authority to experiment under this Bill should it become law. It merely ensures that every so often an authority should think about these issues and take a view on whether it is operating as it would wish. The Government believe that this would be a very useful discipline. We are therefore content for this amendment to be made. But I would mention to the Committee that on studying the detail of the text the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may see a need for certain further amendments to take this new clause fully into the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I have listened with interest to this short debate and I, too, have sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I should be content to accept it. However, as the Minister said, we would like the opportunity to consider the text and its possible relationship to other amendments. If further amendments are required they can be brought forward at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 34, after ("resolve") insert ("in accordance with subsection (1A)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 19 is a paving amendment for one of the amendments in the next group. It may be convenient if I speak to both groups together. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 44 during the Committee stage. Amendment No. 19 deals in part with the mechanisms for resolution. I suggest that resolutions should be taken by at least a
182
majority of two-thirds of the local authority membership and with the agreement of the leaders of all the political groups of the authority. Leaders are normally designated. Although the term may sound loose it reflects practice.
When considering the constitution of an organisation, it is conventional to seek more than a bare majority. I do not suggest that a local authority should be run in the same way as a local golf club, but there may be lessons to be learnt. Decisions for such fundamental administrative change should be made on the basis of more than a bare majority or even a resolution passed on the casting vote of the chairman or the mayor. It would also be possible for a large group to force through such changes, but I do not believe that it could healthily be done without a consensus across the authority. Many authorities have no overall political control. Members of those authorities will have to have a debate as to the benefits of any arrangements which may come from any side of the authority.
The second group of amendments relates to information and consultation. Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 deal with the mechanisms for consultation. They refer to publication in local newspapers. I have suggested that because that is increasingly required in legislation dealing with the dissemination of information by local authorities; for instance, league tables and so forth. That is not to say that local newspapers necessarily have enormous readerships, but at least they have a role in alerting residents to what is happening.
Amendment No. 26 deals with similar issues and I support it. Amendment No. 24 proposes more than information. It proposes that there should be a local referendum. That was something floated on Second Reading and it is well worth pausing to consider it. It moves away from a traditional approach to local government and is something on which local groups of residents, the community, should have the opportunity to have their say.
The proposals, which are increasingly being discussed, for directly elected mayors are of course controversial. I do not seek to argue now against directly elected mayors. I shall perhaps do so on other occasions. But it is a considerable constitutional move.
On 7th May we are to have a referendum when Londoners can express their views on a new form of constitutional settlement. I believe that local people should be given the opportunity not just to express their concern about an elected mayor with executive powers, if they have such concerns, by perhaps abstaining in the election for mayor when that comes, but by having a full involvement in the process. A referendum will mean a full debate in a way which general consultation will not achieve because people's minds will be focused.
I strongly advocate reliance on the good sense of local people, of local electors. If a local authority believes it can win an argument for a model which involves a directly elected executive mayor, it should take that argument to local people. It should not take to them a

183
decision made, I admit, not behind closed doors but within a council chamber. It should use the opportunity for a local constructive debate. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of King's Heath: I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 26 and also to Amendment No. 23. One of the key purposes of the Bill must be to enhance accountability of local authorities to the public and their local community. An implication of that is that there should be greater public participation in the work of local government and being able to feed into the decisions which local authorities make.
Therefore, it seems sensible that one of the criteria under which the Secretary of State may make a judgment in relation to an application is the extent to which the local authority has consulted about the proposals with its local communities. Indeed, a local authority which has had the confidence to consult and take note of that consultation is much more likely to implement successfully the proposed experimentation.
Amendment No. 26 does not specify how that consultation should be undertaken, and I think that is right. But we know from the practice of a considerable number of local authorities that they are using innovative techniques, including citizen's juries, focus groups and centralised committees to get a feel of what the local community thinks.
Therefore, it seems to me that while not being prescriptive about the technique to be used, a local authority should have to show that it has used some of those participatory techniques. The advantage is that in seeking to propose experimentation, it will have much wider community debate and support. It will also give the Secretary of State more confidence in agreeing to the proposal.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I would have some difficulty in supporting Amendments Nos. 19, 20 or 22. Unless I have misunderstood, I am concerned about the wording in subsection (1A) which provides that the leaders of all political parties must vote in favour of the resolution. One can envisage a situation in which perhaps there is one political group with only one, two or three members. It seems to me that even if you have 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. in favour of the resolution, it could still be vetoed and that could be quite dangerous.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I very much support what my noble friend said and I support also the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, as regards the need for consultation on these matters. While we are on the subject of elections of mayors and how that should be accomplished, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, will explain to the Committee what will happen to the ceremonial role associated traditionally with ordinary mayors or chairs of local authorities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I regret to say that the Government are concerned that the cumulative effect of the amendments might be to strangle experimentation at birth. In a way it is helpful that the
184
noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of King's Heath have managed to bring together this group of amendments.
First, the authority would have to resolve to pursue a particular experiment by a two-thirds majority including each leader of a political group. Such a veto for a political group leader is, we believe, unprecedented and it is certainly not something with which the Government feel comfortable. It could allow very small groups to exert undue influence over the decision on whether to experiment and, if the authority does experiment, the shape of that experiment. Furthermore, there are very few matters in local government which require a two-thirds majority.
Next, it would have to consult widely and then win a referendum. I regret to say that this would all look like a set of expensive obstacles to many in local government. Our fear is that this whole process might be seen as so tortuous that some authorities may be put off from embarking upon it, in particular, those which are less committed to change than some others but which were prepared to look at the possibility of experimenting. I think many in the House this evening would agree that that would be counter-productive. I am afraid therefore that the Government could not support Amendment No. 19.
I also regret that we cannot support Amendment No. 24. The authority would have to publicise the proposed amendments and conduct a referendum, only putting forward the proposal for approval by the Secretary of State if there is a positive vote in the referendum. But there are many major questions which are not answered by this amendment. Who would draft the question? Who would be the returning officer? What campaigning would be allowed by whom and who would pay for it? And so on.
I do not mean to suggest that it is not desirable for authorities to consult the community they serve as part of the process of framing an application to operate experimental arrangements. Indeed, our view is very much the opposite. As the Committee will be aware, this Government are committed to modernising local government to make it more open, responsive and consultative in its operation and outlook. They do not want to achieve this result through compulsion, but through exhortation, encouragement and leadership.
The Government would not therefore wish to be prescriptive about how any consultation might take place, or when, or how much of it there ought to be. These are matters which are properly local decisions. However, we do sympathise with the objective of ensuring public consultation in this area. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friends Lord Hunt of King's Heath and Lord Bassam may be able to bring forward on Report a suitable amendment which meets the spirit of Amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 34, and which could incorporate both the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and also the essence of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness,

185
Lady Hamwee, which deal with informing as well as consulting the public. I hope that response is helpful and that suitable amendments will be tabled on Report.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I, too, have doubts about making this Bill more prescriptive, as I have said many times before. For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I would be reluctant to accept these amendments. However, I very much sympathise with what she said about consultation. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Hunt of King's Heath, will take up that suggestion and bring forward something at a later stage which will meet the objective which I think we all share.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that suggestion. For my part—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, nods his head—I should be happy to undertake some collaborative venture. The Minister commented on the cumulative effect of these amendments. She will not be surprised to hear that if I cannot have all of them, I shall of course settle for some of them. There are not sufficient stages in the legislative process to deal with such amendments one by one. The noble Baroness said that the amendment regarding the referendum left unanswered many questions such as who would draft the questions and who would be the returning officer. I wonder whether I should say, "Don't tempt me". However, I shall not be tempted tonight.
More seriously, the response from the Government highlights the fact that a group with a tiny majority—as I have said, that may result only from a casting vote—will be able to entrench its position through such an experiment. Such a group could, through the use of a casting vote, propose new administrative arrangements which would, frankly, give it a much more comfortable time. I do not think that we should easily accept that. However, for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Before the Question is put, I realise that I did not give the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, an answer to her question. That is partly because I do not know the answer. I am afraid I shall have to write to her in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3. line 36, leave out ("eight") and insert ("four").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 concerns the period during which experimental arrangements can exist. Clause 2 allows for experimental decision-making arrangements for a period not exceeding eight years. I am proposing four instead of eight. The period of eight years seems to me to be a considerable time in the life of a local authority. That constitutes two terms of election for a councillor. That period also covers a local authority's own elections, whether they are all out elections or annual elections in the case of those which have annual elections.
I am unclear how a new administration coming into office during the middle of the period—I accept that my four-year suggestion does not wholly meet this point because the four-year period might straddle an election; but an eight-year period is bound to do so—even one of the same colour as the previous administration, can be expected to respond to arrangements such as those we are discussing which will have been put in place by its predecessor.
However, more importantly, experiments are experiments. If you want to have an experimental road closure, you do not close the road for eight years and wait for responses. If you want an interim response to a planning application—I appreciate that these are service functions and narrow points—you would give permission for a period of, say, a year. You are told that if it does not work properly within that year, it does not have much chance of being continued; but, if it does work properly, you ought not to continue with the experiment.
I have tabled this amendment to probe as much as anything and to find out what is in the minds of the noble Lord and, indeed, of the Government in proposing such a long period because I do not think I have yet heard any argument to support the proposed length of the period. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As has already been said this evening, the purpose of this Bill is to enable experiments to take place. The purpose of any experiment is to learn something. It may be that a whole new rich seam of practice emerges as a result of the experiments under this Bill which would justify variety in decision-making arrangements in the longer term. On the other hand, it may become clear that there are one or two models which are clearly more beneficial in our culture and society than others that have been tried. No one knows yet, or could know, until the experiments had run for a number of years.
Either way, it is likely that there will be the need for some legislation towards the end of the period in which these experiments will take place to provide for the longer term. I suggest that it is placing a rather awkward timetable upon the Government to expect them to learn all there is to learn from these experiments in only four or five years, prepare and agree draft legislation and bring it forward to enactment when there might be other pressing legislative priorities, all within a maximum of eight years.
It is not as if there is a lack of safeguards in the arrangements proposed which should cause us to worry about conducting an experiment over a longer period. Authorities will not be allowed to experiment unless they have had their proposals approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He will not approve any proposal which does not conform with the guidance he will issue, a very early draft of which has been placed in the Library of this place.
An authority could apply to the Secretary of State for permission to cease operating an experiment if it felt it was not working well. In extremis, if an experiment had, by some chance, disintegrated and the authority did not

187
appear capable of resolving the situation itself, the Secretary of State could end the experiment by revoking the order which gave effect to it. That would have the effect of requiring the authority to return to operating under the current legislative framework.
The Government do not see any benefit in reducing the period in which experiments can be pursued. Neither do we accept that there are any particular problems with the eight-year period currently envisaged. Indeed, we would argue that there are positive advantages and therefore urge the Committee to oppose this amendment.
In speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the history of local government. She spoke of a period in which the relationship between central and local government was perhaps not good. One of the concepts that marked that period was a Monday morning launch of a pilot project, then an assumed evaluation the following Monday in favour of its working well. Thereafter, the following Monday, it was extended through legislation which usually involved orders which could not be voted against in this Chamber. I hope that the noble Baroness will do nothing to erode the eight-year period which enables full and adequate evaluation.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: How long is temporary? It is a difficult question to answer. But the objective of experiment is to learn. There may be cases where a period of up to eight years will prove desirable. For example, where an authority has adopted a model with a directly elected mayor, it is likely that the dynamics of the situation and the relationships between the different parties will still be developing after four years, as such a model would be a considerable departure from existing practice. Moreover, if the experiment with an elected mayor were to last for two terms rather than just one, it would be more likely to involve cohabitation between a mayor and a leading group on the council of different political complexions. Experience of these circumstances would be very important in assessing how models with executive mayors could best be introduced in this country more permanently, if at all.
There is another point which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, mentioned. When these temporary experiments come to an end, they either cease or have to be replaced by primary legislation. There is the problem of assessing the experiment, deciding whether it should be a matter of primary legislation, achieving a place in the programme and getting the legislation through. It is difficult to contemplate a period of less than eight years. I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is most beguiling in reminding us of former bad practices. I am not necessarily persuaded that in order not to put something in place by a week on Wednesday one must have it in place as a temporary arrangement for eight years. However, I shall not pursue the matter at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert?
("( ) must describe the electoral arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 32.
Amendment No. 25 relates to electoral arrangements. It provides that the information in the application will include a description of the arrangements for the election of any executive elected mayor. I hope that I may tempt the Minister to offer some encouragement to those of us who support a move to more modern and fairer methods of election. I refer to the preferential model by the alternative vote; or—I do not think that it is such a good model—the supplementary vote, which does not allow the expression of preferences through the list, instead of the first past the post system.
I do not simply bang the old Liberal Democrat drum that we are in support of proportional representation by single transferable vote. We are. But we are most concerned not about the detailed mechanism but about the need to include the electorate in order to help it feel that it is part of the process and has a real opportunity to influence the outcome, and in order to make elections more inviting.
A preferential system avoids the dangers of the imposition of an elected mayor with. for instance, 20 per cent. of the vote. I am sure we can all imagine how that might come about: with a long list of candidates, the vote is split and a person comes top of the poll but with a small majority and unable to demonstrate majority support across the electorate.
The country appears to be moving towards more proportional systems. I do not have great expectations that the Minister will be able to say that the Secretary of State will not permit such an election unless there is to be a preferential system. However, I hope that she will be encouraging about the need to include the electorate in the process.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to find out the expectations of the Minister as regards the arrangements in respect of a power of recall of an executive, elected mayor, and a power of veto. In other words, apart from scrutiny, are any constraints to be written into the arrangements? I should like to have on the record the expectations in that connection.
Amendment No. 28 provides that the information includes an estimate of the costs of the new arrangements. Among the electorate, cost can be controversial. The electorate wants the services to be provided; it is a little less happy about paying for them; and it is much less happy about paying for what are regarded as the fripperies of local government—although many of us would regard them as the support systems. An executive elected mayor, or a lead member. perhaps a cabinet committee (but it is most starkly demonstrated in connection with individuals), will need considerable support to carry out his or her functions: There will be the overall costs of the mayor's or

189
member's office; and the staff required to assist in the exercise of the functions. The question of political officers is addressed either in the Bill or in one of the later amendments. Government increasingly have support from political advisers. I do not seek to argue against that. I merely use the debate to highlight that it will be an on-cost of such a new arrangement.
As regards allowances for council members, I do not have much sympathy with many of the criticisms made by the public. Members of local authorities are expected to do jobs which require them to be paid allowances in order to concentrate on those jobs. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public concern and I seek to suggest that information regarding these should be part of the application.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 32, is concerned with any modifications. The Secretary of State can come back to a local authority and say: "Your application is by and large OK, but I should like you to modify it in the following ways". The Bill appears to allow the Secretary of State to impose arrangements modified by him without consultation with the local authority. I hope that consultation with the local authority on amendments would be automatic; however, in Amendment No. 32 I seek to ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, flags up some important and legitimate areas of concern such as the relationship between the elected mayor and the rest of the council; electoral arrangements; and the system of allowances proposed by the council. They are, nonetheless, detailed matters compared to the general formulation of other parts of Clause 2(2) and therefore sit rather oddly here.
That does not mean that these matters are not important to the Government. Clearly, the relationship between the mayor and the rest of the council is crucial. But, as a number of Members present will have seen, most of these issues are already covered by the draft guidance placed in the Library. We shall continue to develop that guidance in further consultation with the local government associations, academics and others. I believe that is the proper way to address these issues, rather than by amendment tonight.
Amendment No. 32 would require the Secretary of State to consult an authority before making any order which includes modifications to legislation for that authority which do not appear in the schedule to the Bill. That is precisely what the Government would intend in such circumstances. We believe, therefore, that the amendment is not necessary, but equally we would not want to stand in its way should the Committee wish to see it as part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Amendment No. 32 seems very sensible and in line with what I hope would always be the practice. If the Government are content to be placed under such a requirement, for my part I see no difficulty at all with the proposal. However, I am not attracted to laying down a requirement in the Bill for
190
local authorities to set out what their allowance structures, etc., are intended to be. It seems to me that this and some of the other matters mentioned are more properly dealt with outside legislation. Under the Bill, if the Secretary of State states a requirement in his guidance that a particular issue should be covered in an application to experiment, he may not then approve an application unless he is satisfied that the authority has had regard to that guidance in framing its application. I should therefore not be willing to support those amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The assurances given with regard to a number of the matters I mentioned are very welcome, and I shall move Amendment No. 32 at the appropriate point. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 25.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: This is merely a technical amendment intended to insert the correct internal reference into the clause and to clarify its purpose; namely, to ensure that local authorities shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in describing the arrangements which are the subject of their application. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("after consultation with the Local Government Association and such other representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. In these amendments, perhaps rather cheekily, I suggest that there should be consultation with the Local Government Association or other representatives of local government in connection with the guidance. I have every expectation of being told that that is what is happening. But we used to make this request when the Conservatives were in control. I see no reason not to put down the same point now. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would expect, the amendments are exactly in line with the Government's approach. As I have already said, we have made available in the Library of the House a very early draft of the guidance the Secretary of State would be required to issue if this Bill were enacted. The Government are committed to an open consultative approach to the drafting of this guidance as it is clearly very important that we get it right. We have therefore already consulted the LGA and the department's panel of prominent

191
academics on the drafting of this guidance and fully intend to continue doing so. The Government would therefore be happy to support these amendments in principle, though we might wish to see the amendments elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: With regard to these amendments I have to declare an interest because, as the Committee is aware, I am the honorary president of the LGA. Members of the Committee will not be surprised, therefore, that I, too, shall be content to make explicit the LGA's rightful place in determining the guidance to he issued to local authorities.
I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said about the possibility of there being a more acceptable way of working the provision into the Bill. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, might be prevailed upon to withdraw the amendment at this stage, on the understanding that I will take advice and bring back similar provisions at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I wish to take the opportunity to question the noble Lord, or perhaps the noble Baroness would like to answer for him, as to how it is intended that the powers under this clause should operate after the Welsh assembly becomes fully functional.
My understanding, which may well be erroneous, is that the powers under Clause 2 will pass in their entirety to the Welsh assembly and that no residual right will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. But perhaps I am mistaken and everything will stay with the Secretary of State for Wales, or the powers may even in some way be divided. I should be fascinated to know how the division will work and what exactly it is envisaged should happen under the Bill. I am sure that everything is known and planned and it is only my ignorance that needs to be satisfied. However, I should be delighted if either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness were able to do that.
While I am on the subject, presumably if we were to insert the words of the amendment we have just discussed into the Bill there would need to be separate provision for whatever the equivalent of the Local Government Association in Wales is or will be.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I rise after careful thought and with some trepidation, as I have to declare a past interest as chair of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales, before its demise, and leader of the Labour Group of members of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales.
192
The power of the Secretary of State in Clause 2 is no different from the powers of the Secretary of State in other legislation to approve or direct. In so far as the power would relate to Welsh authorities, it would need to be considered alongside all other similar powers in the legislation for the Welsh assembly. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: I do not find it at all helpful. I am sure that the Government must know how they intend to deal with the matter and whether these are powers which will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or powers that will go to the Welsh assembly. I wish to know the Government's intention. I shall be content for the noble Baroness to promise that she will write to me a detailed, informative letter on the subject, but I shall not be content to let the matter pass with less than that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It would be discourteous of me to refuse to write but I am sure it would be equally discourteous for me to indicate that the letter would contain all the information that the noble Lord wishes to have. I feel there is little else to add, except to tell him that, of course, the Welsh Local Government Association is part of the LGA and is therefore being consulted on all the proposals.
Lord Lucas: Yes. I shall refer to the second matter first. It may be part of the LGA now, but it will not be by the time the Bill is operational. Presumably the Welsh Local Government Association does not envisage continuing in subservience to the English association when Wales has its own local government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Lord that at no time in my long experience over many years with colleagues, authorities and officers in Wales, have they ever accepted that they are subservient. They are equal partners, and where it appears appropriate and beneficial to them to join in concert with English local authorities they do so, as they do with associations in other parts of the United Kingdom when appropriate. But please let it not be said in your Lordships' Chamber that the Welsh are subservient.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted with that, but I hope that when it comes to the noble Lord drafting whatever clauses he does draft, he will bear in mind the necessity to mention the Welsh separately and to give them due place in the Bill, which, as I understand it, will result in them operating the powers of the Secretary of State, and, presumably, having a separate interest in consulting the Welsh, whereas our Secretary of State will have no interest in consulting the Welsh. It will be a parallel consultation rather than a cross-consultation.
I await with interest the noble Baroness's letter. I shall be fascinated if it contains as little as she has been able to say to me this evening because I had presumed that the Government had thought out what they intend to do rather than leaving it to the last minute. However, in anticipation that the letter will contain everything I need to know, I am content to leave the matter there for now.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Approval of applications under section 2]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and
( ) he has considered the implications for freedom of information").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These amendments are concerned with freedom of information. Clause 3 deals with the Secretary of State's actions on receipt of an application and with the matters to which he must have regard. We are in a period when freedom of information is firmly on the legislative agenda. I welcome that. I would have hoped to be able to propose an amendment which provided for consultation with the information commissioner, which I believe is the term given in the White Paper to the officer who will be charged with overseeing the application of freedom of information regulations. However, we do not yet have legislation.
My amendment, which is a rather poor relation of that suggestion, proposes that the Secretary of State must have,
"considered the implications for freedom of information".
I hope that, with this probing amendment, I will be able to obtain from the Minister assurances that those implications will be seriously considered.
I mention them because of the concern about the opportunities for doing things in smoke-filled rooms—that is the way anything about which one is suspicious is often characterised—and actions being taken where scrutiny will not be wholly adequate because the best type of scrutiny may fall down. We talked earlier about the need to look at actions before decisions are taken. I remain concerned that scrutiny will be a backward looking process and that information surrounding an authority's decisions, whoever takes those decisions, may not be as free as one would like it to be. I have therefore put down the amendment in the hope that the Minister can give assurances that the implications for freedom of information will be very much in the Secretary of State's mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Heaven forfend that I should ever hanker after smoke-filled rooms for decision making! The Government are committed to the principles of freedom of information. We have proposed that there should be a freedom of information Act applying right across the public sector, including local government. The Government therefore fully support the sentiments behind the amendments.
As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explained in another place when announcing our White Paper on freedom of information, we have now embarked on an extensive and open consultation on our FOI proposals. This will continue through much of this year. First, we will be consulting on the proposals in the White Paper. That will be followed by draft legislation, again for consultation.
194
Our intention is that when considering applications from local authorities to operate experimental arrangements, my right honourable friend will have regard to the developing FOI regime and the detail of its application to local government. In the draft guidance, which we have placed in the Library of the House, we state that proposals put forward by local authorities should,
"be consistent with statutory requirements for access to information, and will need to take account of moves towards 'Freedom of Information'".
The point raised by the noble Baroness is an important one. We do, however, need to be careful that any reference to freedom of information introduced now into legislation will not cut across any wider developments as we, in our consultations, work up our wide and robust FOI regime. I would suggest, therefore, that if it would be helpful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would be happy to discuss with them what might be the most appropriate form of an amendment, encapsulating the concept of the noble Baroness's currently proposed amendments on FOI, which could be brought forward at Report.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has correctly identified an important area which local authorities will need to address in their applications to operate experimental arrangements. If she is willing to take up the suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made, I shall be happy to do so. It should then be possible to prepare an appropriate amendment on freedom of information for Report, which I shall be happy to see brought forward, if that is the wish of the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course I am willing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 4, after ("State") insert (", after consultation with the local authority,").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment earlier and an indication was given that it would be accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Applications for extension or variation of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: With my last group of amendments I shall be even quicker than I have been on previous groups. I tabled these amendments because, as I read the Bill, any extension or, more particularly, variation of the arrangements requires the consent of any executive member or executive mayor who may be in

195
place. It seems a very dangerous proposition to give that individual an in-built right of veto of any variation. I do not believe that I need expand on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 33 and 45 would remove the duty on a local authority with an executive mayor to obtain the written consent of their mayor before applying to the Secretary of State to extend, vary or terminate the operation of experimental arrangements.
If this duty were to be removed and the application successful, it would allow the council to discharge some of the functions, which by virtue of the arrangements the mayor may discharge, or even remove the mayor without his or her consent. In extreme cases it would be possible for the council to seek to use this power as a means of conflict resolution. Clearly, this represents an inappropriate way of resolving a conflict between the mayor and the council. It would appear particularly inappropriate for a council to be able to remove the powers of a directly elected mayor with his or her own mandate from across the authority.
We, the Government, would much prefer that local authorities should operate within the framework for conflict resolution they set out in their original proposal. As noble Lords may be aware, the need for such a framework is highlighted in the draft guidance which has been placed in the Library of the House. It is our belief that both local authorities and the Government are likely to learn far more from the operation of experimental arrangements if conflicts are resolved through a predetermined set of procedures rather than the removal of an element of that experiment. I therefore ask the Committee to oppose Amendments Nos. 33 and 45.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I, too, am reluctant to accept these amendments. I have little to add to what has been said, but I should like to expand a little on the area of consent, which I believe is central to this Bill.
Before making any application to the Secretary of State, an authority is required to pass a resolution of the full council. In doing so, consent is rightly sought from the council to undertake an experiment. When an authority undertakes an experiment with an executive mayor, it is equally important that consent is sought from the mayor before his or her role is changed or even abolished. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, pointed out, this is particularly relevant where the mayor has been given a direct mandate from the electorate of the authority to exercise certain powers. The removal of the principle of consent in this case would appear to undermine the basis for experimentation under this Bill. It is on those grounds that I must oppose these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am unpersuaded but, as there is pressure on time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 39. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 46. These are further technical amendments which ensure that the provisions of the Bill recognise that mayoral consent will not always be required for applications to the Secretary of State made under Clauses 5 and 11, because not all experiments will have executive mayors. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support these amendments, which help to clarify the purpose of these clauses.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.36 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Approval of applications under section 5]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9. line 1 leave out ("approves") and insert ("has approved").
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the provision that the Secretary of State may approve only one application by a local authority to extend the experimental period. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Extension of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(4)]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 32, after ("above") insert ("(taking references to the arrangements there mentioned as references to the existing arrangements)").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are technical amendments which will help to avoid any possible confusion over the effect of this clause by clarifying the requirements for publicising and the decision to extend or vary experimental arrangements. These amendments ensure that the correct documents are available for public inspection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Variation of arrangements etc: orders under section 6(5)]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert ("(taking references to the arrangements and the order there mentioned as references, respectively, to the varied arrangements and the order under section 6(5) above)").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Monitoring of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11. leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 41,I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These amendments are intended to allow the reporting period for reports, by the monitoring officer and the head of the paid service of an authority, upon the operation of experimental arrangements to begin from the date on which the arrangements themselves begin.
The need for Amendment No. 41 arises from the fact that, as the Bill stands at the moment, the first monitoring report may cover only a few months, or even less, of actual experimentation. The amendment will enable local authorities to report on whole year periods, a move which I believe will allow them to gain the maximum possible information from their experiments. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("experimental period begins") and insert ("authority begin to operate experimental decision-making arrangements").
Page 12. line 8, leave out from ("which") to end of line 10 and insert ("ends on or before the date on which the authority terminate the operation of experimental decision-making arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Termination of experimental decision-making arrangements]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 33. leave out ("the written consent referred to in") and insert ("any written consent required by").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
The Schedule [Modifications of enactments which may be specified in an order under section 3 or 6]:
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 3, at end insert—
("Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970

.—(1) Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (joint committees and sub-committees) shall be amended as follows.

(2) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an elected mayor any of the functions of the committee."

(3) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2B) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an ordinary member of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(4) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection—"(2C) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to an officer of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(5) At the appropriate place there shall be inserted the following subsection?—
"(2D) A social services committee of a single local authority may delegate to another ordinary committee of the authority any of the functions of the committee."

(6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Subsection (7) of section 1 of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998 (interpretation) shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972
8A.—(1) Section 100G of the Local Government Act 1972 (principal councils to publish additional information) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) So much of any written record kept by a single member of a principal council under paragraph 45A of Schedule 12 to this Act as does not disclose exempt information shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council until the expiration of the period of six years beginning with the date on which the function to which the record relates is discharged."
Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972
8B.—(1) Section 100H of the Local Government Act 1972 (supplemental provisions and offences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) (offence in connection with document required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) to be open to inspection by public) for "or 100C(1)" there shall be substituted "1(H)C(1) or 100G(2A)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 48, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 to 55.
It is a key element of each experiment made possible by my Bill that the fullest possible access to information ought to be afforded to both the councillors of the authority and the public, to support both the scrutiny function and open government more generally. These amendments ensure that this is the case.
Paragraph 13(3) of the schedule provides for a councillor (including an elected mayor) who is able to discharge functions of the authority acting alone by virtue of Section 101 of the 1972 Act as modified for the particular authority in question by the Schedule to my Bill to keep a record of how he has discharged those functions. As the provision currently stands, it is incomplete, in that functions discharged by an individual councillor as a result of Section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 as modified by the schedule are not caught. Amendment No. 53 remedies this.
This record is then to be the mechanism for ensuring that both councillors and the public can find out easily what decisions have been made by an individual councillor acting alone. Paragraph 8 of the schedule to my Bill provides for the record to be open to councillors. Amendment No. 48 ensures that the public will also have access to the record for six years, as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. It also backs up this right by bringing failure to make this record available to the public within the scope of the offence in Section 100H of the 1972 Act again. just as would be the case for the minutes of a meeting. These are important amendments which will underpin the openness of many of the models made possible by the Bill.
Amendment No. 51 is designed to make similar provision in the case of social services functions in respect of all those bodies within an authority that might have delegated responsibility for those functions. Section 101 of the 1972 Act prevents an authority from delegating to a committee or sub-committee those functions which stand referred and are delegated to the social services committee. This amendment extends that provision to mayors and other councillors who are able to take decisions acting alone, both for consistency's sake and to avoid legislating by omission.
Amendment No. 54 is a technical but important amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983. It ensures that the election for a mayor who is a councillor can be held at the same time as those of the other councillors for the authority and of other authorities. Thus, the elections of all councillors for the same authority which are due on the same day can be combined and those can also be combined with the election of any local parish councillors, for example. This is important if the nonsense of voters forming separate queues at different ballot boxes in the same polling station is to be avoided.
Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52 and 55 are minor technical amendments intended to assist the Secretary of State when making an order to allow the operation of experimental arrangements. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are intended to ensure that the drafting of the modifications to the Local Government Act 1972 is consistent with the rest of that Act. Further, Amendment No. 52 is intended to insert the definition of an "ordinary member" into that Act. Similarly, Amendment No. 55 is intended to insert the definition of an elected mayor into the correct part of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling these
200
amendments this evening. The Government's agenda for local government is founded on a desire to see open, responsive, democratic and effective local authorities. An important part of achieving this vision is the ability of local authorities to experiment under this Bill with structures which give them both more streamlined decision-making arrangements and greater public scrutiny of the resulting policies and decisions. Amendments Nos. 48 and 53 are crucial to the openness of authorities experimenting under this Bill and the Government therefore welcome and support them. I urge noble Lords to do likewise.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendment No. 54. It would clearly be a nonsense to force local government elections normally held on the same day to be held either separately in the same place or to shift one of them to a different date. The former could cause difficulties for polling in many areas and the latter could significantly affect turnout in the election which was moved to a different date. It therefore clearly makes sense to combine these elections, and the Government support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55 are merely technical and are tabled for the sake of clarity and consistency. The Government are happy to support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agree to.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 55:
Page 16, line 44, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he"). Page 17. line 6, leave out ("that individual") and insert ("he").
Page 17, line 39, at end insert—

("(12) In subsection (10) (section shall not authorise local authority to arrange for discharge by any committee, sub-committee or local authority of any functions required to he discharged by specified committee) after "discharge by any" there shall he inserted "elected mayor".

(13) In subsection (10) before "committee, sub-committee" there shall he inserted "ordinary member-.").

Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(c) after the definition of "open space" there shall he inserted?—
""ordinary member" has the meaning given by section I of the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Act 1998;".").
Page 19, line 5, after ("above") insert ("or section 4 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970").
Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
("Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983

.—(1) Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local elections in England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3AC) there shall be inserted"—

"(3AD) Where the polls at

(a) the ordinary election of councillors for any electoral area falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of "electoral area" in section 203(1) below, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such a councillor, and

(b) the ordinary election of an elected mayor for any electoral area falling within paragraph (a) of that definition, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of such an elected mayor,

201
are to be taken on the same day and the elections are for related electoral areas, the polls at those elections shall be taken together…").

Page 19. line 22, leave out ("after the definition of "local government election" there shall be inserted") and insert ("the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place").
The noble Lord said: As the remaining amendments are technical and have already been explained, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Zimbabwe: Land Acquisition Policy
9.45 p.m.
Lord Vivian Lord Vivian rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the Zimbabwean Government's current policy on land acquisition.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have recently returned from a visit to Zimbabwe, where I met many farmers, area representatives of the Commercial Farmers Union, the Farmers Development Trust and the Farmers Association. I was shown vast tracts of unused government acquired land, communal lands, indigenous resettled land and commercial farming land. I was taken to an agricultural college, and I had lengthy discussions with the president of the Commercial Farmers Union and the British High Commissioner, who were both most helpful. I have a clear understanding of the chronic need for irrigation for crops in Zimbabwe.
One of the reasons for my visit was that President Mugabe had announced that he would compulsorily acquire some 1,471 farms, the majority of which were owned by farmers who possessed only one farm. The statement was soon followed by a list of owners and farms published in the Zimbabwean Gazette dated 28th November of last year. It was also announced that the Zimbabwean Government would not give any compensation for land but only for improvements to farm buildings. There are some 15,000 United Kingdom citizens and a further 30,000 with dual nationality living in Zimbabwe.
When I left Zimbabwe on 10th January the position was that the Zimbabwean Government's approach to their land acquisition policy was softening. The Commercial Farmers Union had formed Team Zimbabwe, which consists of the four sectors providing the main input into the economy. These are agriculture, which contributes about 44 per cent. of the total export earnings; mining; tourism; and the banking and financial sectors, which make up the other 56 per cent. Team Zimbabwe is influential. All four sectors speaking as Team Zimbabwe clearly understand and have made it well known that if the agriculture sector fails the others would also fail, thereby destroying the economy.
All sectors of the community, including the white farmers, agree that there is an urgent need for land reform and the Commercial Farmers Union has good relations with the Government, but the process of land acquisition must be carried out in a logical, fair and
202
transparent way. It must be in accordance with existing criteria agreed after the Land Act 1992, which was that land should only be acquired if it was derelict, vacant and underutilised; owned by absentee landlords and foreigners; held under multiple ownership, and for social and political reasons under which alternative land would be offered to the farmers concerned. The perception that acquiring land without fair compensation would satisfy the demands of the electorate in general and the so-called war veterans is very wide of the mark and the majority of the electorate is against it.
These farms represent Zimbabwe's greatest employer of labour, its largest contributor to the gross domestic product (the principal measure of economic performance), the biggest single source of vital foreign exchange resources and the primary stimulant of economic activity in the industrial, commercial and financial sectors. The proposed method of land acquisition would alienate international support and totally destroy all incentive on the part of foreign and domestic investors to provide the country with the investment so essential to provide the economic growth for Zimbabwe's survival. Without economic growth there can be no possibility of poverty alleviation, which should be the overall aim of this country.
Prior to my return to London, President Mugabe had given welcome assurances to the CFU that genuine grievances in the land acquisition programme would be considered and provincial committees, including farmers, would be set up as part of the consultative process, in addition to other current consultations as the land acquisition exercise progresses. The CFU's policy states that the political imperative of land reform, land acquisition and redistribution of land should not be regarded only as an end in itself, but as a means to improve agricultural efficiency and contribute to increasing farm incomes, the eradication of poverty and the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally stable path for economic development within the context of the current liberalisation of the economy. The acquisition of commercial farms by their government for whatever reason, including social and political interests, must be judged in terms of human rights, its contribution to economic growth, greater food security, job creation and stability, reinforcing balanced development of rural areas and facilitating trade in primary and processed agricultural products. Compulsory acquisition of land in the national interests for resettlement in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1992 was accepted by the CFU, farmers and government as a means, in addition to negotiated land sales, of acquiring land within existing criteria. It will serve to underpin more equitable patterns of development to ensure economic growth and greater integration of the rural and urban economies with the main aim of enhancing the welfare and livelihood of all farmers in a peaceful Zimbabwe. In 1996–97 large-scale farming production was over 14 billion Zimbabwe dollars and the value of exports over 10 billion dollars. If the proposed land acquisition goes ahead, after taking only 1 million hectares commercial production will drop to

203
some 8.8 billion dollars, and exports will decrease to about 6.6 billion dollars. Employment will be reduced from 327,000 to about 180,000.
Those figures stress the absolutely vital necessity for land acquisition and resettlement to be carried out within the existing criteria if resettled farms are to be productively utilised and employment maintained. It is essential that single owner farms should remain outside the criteria otherwise the economy, without any shadow of doubt, will be ruined. As a primary industry in Zimbabwe, agricultural output and earnings, and farm workers' output and earnings are a massive multiplier in the whole economy.
In that connection, I spoke to a number of resettled farmers who had been trained at the Farmers' Development Trust agricultural colleges. During my conversation with them, I discovered that it was government policy not to release title deed to them. Those farmers will assist the economy with productive farming, provided that they have title deed to secure bank loans for seed, fertiliser, and agricultural equipment. Without title deed, the land cannot be used for farming and will become derelict.
In conclusion, the Zimbabwean Government should be encouraged to provide irrigation for farms; to give title deed to resettled farmers; and to accept the Team Zimbabwe policy on land reform. Furthermore, the international financial and banking institutions, the UK, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union should not advance one single penny of aid without a clear mandate from President Mugabe that he will conform to their laid-down conditions, and that he will stick to the established land reform criteria and withdraw his policy of compulsory acquisition of single-owner farms.
The United Kingdom Government are to be congratulated on the firm line they have taken on the Zimbabwean land acquisition policy. The British High Commissioner, Martin Williams, is also to be congratulated on the determined lead he has taken to ensure that land policy matters are conducted in a fair, open and logical way. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for all her advice and help on this somewhat sensitive and delicate Question. I am very much looking forward to her reply.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, at the outset, I must say that the farm of a Zimbabwean nephew of mine has been listed for compulsory acquisition and currently he awaits the result of his appeal. I was brought up on a Southern Rhodesian farm and after independence I worked for the new government from 1981 to 1985. I speak tonight not so much as an uncle, but as one who has an enormous affection for Zimbabwe and for all its people, black and white.
On 28th November 1997, the Zimbabwe Government listed 1,503 commercial farms, amounting to some 5 million hectares, for compulsory acquisition. Compensation would be paid only for improvements and not for the land itself, as the noble Lord,
204
Lord Vivian, said. The land is meant to be redistributed after the 1998 harvest mainly among war veterans and subsistence black farmers.
Since the listing, in Zimbabwe there has been a deep plunge in confidence in the Zimbabwe dollar and stock market. The Commercial Farmers' Union, which represents 4,000 mainly white, large-scale farmers, has calculated that there will be steep declines in farm production and exports if the land is taken. Moreover, the CFU stresses that 147,000 jobs are at risk. In a country where the average family is 6.4 people, nearly 1 million black people are directly threatened. Small wonder that the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union of Zimbabwe has expressed serious concern.
Moreover, 200 of the 1,503 farmers who were listed are members of the Indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, representing small and large-scale black commercial farmers. Thus, huge numbers of black people could be affected as well as the core white landowners.
Two shafts of light shone on to that bleak picture last week. The CFU presented to ministers a paper entitled Land Reform Programme, brimming with ideas of how it could help the government. I mention some of its suggestions. The CFU believes that a maximum of 1.5 million hectares of commercial farmland could be identified for settling the landless. It plans capital structures for war veterans on commercial and communal lands. The CFU believes that it could help black would-be commercial farmers by arranging concessionary loans from banks and also by offering advice and training. Furthermore, the CFU stresses that it can be of great help to the government in attracting international donor support.
The central suggestion of the CFU is the preparation of an overall land reform plan by the government, together with the CFU, the African Farmers' Union, which represents subsistence farmers, the indigenous Commercial Farmers' Union, which I have mentioned, donor agencies and others. The ideas cover seven pages and the minister of agriculture, Mr. Kangai, was fully briefed on them last week. The CFU tells me that he is supportive of its suggestions. So much for the first shaft of light.
The second shaft of light shone last Thursday, 22nd January, when President Mugabe spoke at a national economic consultative forum. He said that farmers, banks and donors should all be involved in land acquisition and the land reform programme. The mention of donors is of special interest for that is the first time President Mugabe has spoken of them being involved directly.
That statement brings to mind a meeting on 7th January of this year in Brussels between President Mugabe and the European Development Commissioner, Professor Pinheiro. At that meeting, the Commissioner suggested a donor conference where the Government of Zimbabwe and all the "stakeholders" concerned, including the donor community, could discuss the implementation of land reform. The European Union proposal of a donors' conference is only three weeks

205
old. President Mugabe's statement last week and the Zimbabwe minister of agriculture's reaction to the CFU's paper provide some hope that the donors' conference might, at length, come to pass. Certainly, Her Majesty's Government should and no doubt will make every effort to encourage all concerned to get together under European Union auspices to discuss a further plan about Zimbabwean land acquisition.
10.1 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vivian for enabling us to discuss this important issue. From 1960 onwards, I visited Zimbabwe where I have friends and connections among the farmers who have farmed the land there for three generations. They have stayed there through good times and bad. They are Zimbabwe citizens wholly committed to their country.
I was brought up in Tanganyika, then a mandated territory, and later served as a diplomat both in the Congo before and after independence and in Zambia from 1964 to 1967, before and after Ian Smith declared UDI. At that time I had friends in both ZANU, President Mugabe's party, and ZAPU. Indeed, I was denounced on Salisbury Radio as a friend of terrorists and not infrequently threatened. Therefore, I am not ill-placed to understand and feel concerned for both white and black citizens of Zimbabwe, as well as for the stability of Southern Africa as a whole.
This is a delicate moment in the discussions which must be taking place behind the scenes between the farmers' union and Zimbabwean ministers. I believe that there is good will on both sides at the working level and a real wish to find a solution to a political problem which seems to have got out of control.
It was reassuring to read in the press last week that during the negotiations with the European Union and the World Bank, the Zimbabwe finance minister gave a written undertaking, said to be cleared by the president, that land reform would be carried out,
"in a transparent way, in accordance with the rule of law and the terms of the constitution".
However, the IMF, which has not yet agreed to a loan, proved to be right in making a condition of the first tranche that President Mugabe should make a public statement in Zimbabwe that his government would not only carry out land reform transparently but would pay for the land as well as for the improvements made by white farmers. It would also be essential for him publicly to confirm his commitment to the rule of law and thus allow appeals to the courts, which he has hitherto refused to permit.
Unfortunately, President Mugabe's most recent public statement last week was that he had no intention of abandoning his stated policy of seizing farms without compensation and that he will not turn back on the issue of land sequestration. That can only create major problems not only in relation to his hopes of support from the EU, the World Bank and the IMF, whose normal practice it is the world over to set conditions for economic policy once it is dispensing international
206
funds, but also for the stability of Zimbabwe and the whole area. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether the more hopeful view of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, as regards President Mugabe's most recent commitment is the right one. President Mugabe evidently assessed the political risks and concluded that he could best solve his internal problems by renewing his commitment to proceed against the farmers, although it is doubtful whether he even has the money to meet the scale of compensation which he has envisaged.
President Mugabe showed both magnanimity and statesmanship in his relations with the former Ministers of the Smith regime in the aftermath of independence. He has over many years retained a particular ideological respect for the Chinese. He is an African leader of standing and most of them are, like the Chinese, pragmatic and practical in their approach to political problems.
Zimbabwe has until recently been a successful country. What happens there has repercussions for all its neighbours. The president must be well aware that in a world where everything financial interlocks, no man and no country is an island. He will know that his people look to him to show wisdom, tense though the situation has become. He recently bowed to the party congress on another issue. He made a decision last week to stand by his original intention on the farms. Because he is the president and that was a presidential decision, he and he alone can change his mind and be seen to do so. It takes a big man to do that.
His Ministers, speaking with his sanction to the EU, promised that the process of land reform would not affect agricultural production or workers' security. That needs to be said publicly, together with the statement that the IMF asked for. It is indispensable to restore the morale not just of the farmers, the investors, the banks, tourism and all the other sectors of the country's economy upon which economic stability and viability depend, but above all of the black citizens of Zimbabwe. An unstable economy and widespread unemployment, not only in the agricultural sector, are something that no responsible head of state could contemplate, and must be far from President Mugabe's true intentions.
It is in his power to be seen to be both wise and strong enough to afford to change his mind, not only for the good of Zimbabwe but in the interests of the whole of southern Africa. Economic collapse and general unemployment will have serious consequences for Zimbabwe's neighbours and could destabilise the whole area, and especially South Africa at a critical time. The president can change all this and create confidence in the future at a stroke by saying that he now abandons the policy of sequestration in favour of a plan of land reform to be worked out with the farmers on the lines suggested by the IMF, which would then be coupled with a major sustainable development programme of roads, dams, better public transport and schools, and above all training for young African farmers. Such a programme is already being financed by the commercial farmers' union and many farmers already do this individually. The farmers have constructive ideas and the will to make them work once they have a guarantee of stability.

207
There are many Zimbabwean citizens, white and black, who are committed to their country and want to make things work. Of course there is a recognised need for land reform, but not at the terrible cost of the present plans for arbitrary confiscation and the mass unemployment which must follow, to say nothing of the waste of farms which will turn merely into land. Zimbabwe is potentially a hugely successful country. This is the president's chance to be remembered as the man strong enough to change his mind and wise enough to harness the good will of both white and black. The decision is his. It could mean life not death for his country and, politically speaking, for him too.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Plunket: My Lords, as I have lived and worked in Zimbabwe for over 40 years I must declare that interest. I am not a Zimbabwean citizen. If I were, I should not be able to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and thus stand here and address your Lordships. However, the merits of that of course your Lordships can judge for yourselves.
When the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about land reform and acquisition was tabled on the Order Paper, Zimbabweans were voicing their general disgruntlement but the civil unrest had not begun. The rioting was the result of the government's inept handling of the economy and unpopular measures to deal with the effects of rising inflation and the hike in the price of basic foodstuffs. It was not about land reform.
The economy and well being of the population depend on the Zimbabwean Government finding solutions to both problems. Proof of that is that only last Thursday there was a new initiative and the national economic forum—my noble friend Lord Acton mentioned it—was formed and had its first meeting attended by President Mugabe, his three cabinet ministers most involved, the leaders of industry and the president of the Commercial Farmers Union of which I am an ordinary member. At that meeting the CFU put forward a plan for land reform. It was well received and is at this moment the only structured proposal on the table. It is important that the emotional concept and the constitutional and legal position of land reform do not become confused.
The war, our war, as we call the senseless fighting in the late 70s, was about land inequitably distributed between black and white. Much has already been redressed. Where 100 white families lived between Chimanimani on the borders of Mozambique, where I grow trees, and Mutare, our nearest town 100 miles away, there is not one single white farmer left. No trouble, no fuss, my Lords. Then there are areas where thousands of hectares have been bought for resettlement which are lying derelict for lack of infrastructure, know-how and wherewithal.
That causes frustration and fosters the myth that the land was stolen and the people have the right to take it back. But it is not like that. Of the farms listed, 70 per cent.—it is important to get it straight that the 1,500 farms have been listed under the Land Acquisition Act: none of them has been designated to
208
be taken over—were bought by their present owners after independence and were conveyed to them under Zimbabwean law. The other 30 per cent. were all purchased.
The past, the present and the future were all given recognition in the new constitution, so patiently and successfully negotiated by my noble friend Lord Carrington. This has been amended in the meanwhile but it still remains and in the context of land reform gives internationally understood protection of property rights. The Land Acquisition Act lays down the procedure by which the landowners receive full compensation for the land and the improvements.
Today I believe that President Mugabe has a greater crisis on his hands than at any time since independence. How is he to close the gap between the expectations of the people who put him into power and the reality of rising inflation, dwindling foreign reserves, balance of payments problems and a budget deficit level which, if exceeded, would put off the IMF and donor countries?
However, the crisis has brought about a meeting of minds in the national economic forum. On the face of it one might be surprised that there is a problem. When one goes about one's daily business in Harare or elsewhere, in a bank for instance, the tellers are black and the bank manager is black, but there are few of them in the board room. The land reform question is not just about the resettlement of landless peasants. It is also about educated and ambitious blacks resenting that they are poorly represented in the corridors of commercial and industrial power, and in commercial farming. Land reform has been left too long; but I say as an optimist—I am still, at my age, planting trees—that it is not too late.
President Mugabe has to be persuaded that land acquisition is part of a clear strategy for the development of the country as a whole, and not a separate issue. He has to be persuaded that the support of the British Government, the IMF and other foreign governments and donors depends on that. Thus it is necessary that his ministers and their permanent secretaries responsible for land and agriculture are given a properly thought-out programme to achieve resettlement and the continuation of profitable commercial farming, and that they are allowed, without interference, to get on with what they want, and have, to do.
There is a lull at this moment in the rhetoric and the unrest. No one must be allowed to fritter away the goodwill that still remains. This opportunity to plan and carry out comprehensive land reform beneficial to all Zimbabweans, as part of an overall development strategy, must not be allowed to slip away.
10.16 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, we owe gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for this timely debate. I wish to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord for this opportunity.
This debate on land redistribution in Zimbabwe is indeed timely. Many societies wonder about amelioration of past wrongs. President Mugabe is surely

209
neither alone nor unjustified in responding to such pressures. However, expropriation and dictated, abrupt revolution will not help Zimbabwe. While understanding land ownership problems in the post-colonial world, we need to encourage other solutions which will be in line with democracy, the rule of law and the preservation and enhancement of wealth producing activities. That is an historic task that we have already shouldered but not fulfilled.
I turn to the Supplement to Annex C, an extract from the chairman's statement to the plenary session of the conference on 11th October 1979 concerning the question of land. The chairman spoke as follows:
"We recognise that the future Government of Zimbabwe, whatever its political complexion, will wish to extend land ownership … the Independence Constitution will make it possible to acquire under-utilised land compulsorily provided that adequate compensation is paid.
"Any resettlement scheme would … have to be carefully prepared and implemented to avoid adverse effects on production.
"The Zimbabwe Government might well wish to draw in outside donors such as the World Bank in preparing and implementing a full-scale agricultural development plan.
"The British Government … will be prepared … to help … would be prepared to contribute to the initial capital … We should … be ready to support the efforts of the Government of independent Zimbabwe to obtain international assistance for these purposes".
The reply of the Patriotic Front delegation to the chairman's statement talked about such major issues as land, and reserved its position. However, a few days later, in a further reply on 18th October, the Patriotic Front declared:
"When the Conference adjourned we stated that we required clarification on the fund relating to the land question to which the Chairman had made reference. We have now obtained assurances that, depending on a successful outcome of the Conference, Britain, the United States of America and other countries will participate in a multinational financial donor effort to assist in land, agricultural and economic development programmes.
"These assurances go a long way in allaying the great concern we have over the whole land question arising from the great need our people have for land and our commitment to satisfy that need when in government".
Well, it never seemed to happen. That is perhaps why President Mugabe claimed the other day that it was immoral for 4,500 people to occupy 70 per cent. of prime farmland and talked about taking back the black birthright. Against this backdrop of social problems and apparent economic mismanagement since 1980, there were the 70 per cent. drop of the Zimbabwe dollar against the US dollar last year alone, inflation above 20 per cent. since 1991 every year, high interest rates, the civil servants' strikes which meant that President Mugabe gave them an increase of 35 per cent. in wages last July with an inflation rate of 22 per cent., the war veterans' demands, which had to be given in to. A 50,000 Zimbabwe dollar payment each was promised, with a 2,000 Zimbabwe dollar monthly pension. There was a union strike over the new tax to pay the veterans and the taxes were then scrapped, although the payments had been guaranteed. There was the new petrol subsidy. All those were combined with a rise in the cost of basic commodities of between 17 per cent. and 45 per cent. due to the fall of the Zimbabwe dollar, the increased
210
input costs in the last quarter of 1997 and the cost of maize meal—a basic staple which had a price rise not once but twice in January this year, first by 25 per cent. and then by a further 21 per cent. The government forced millers to withdraw the second rise.
The fact is that there are insufficient government funds to meet those stated obligations. The local currency has not been replenished as outside investors keep profits in external currencies. There is heavy reliance on overseas donors, but still no coming forward by the donor countries, particularly the United Kingdom, in the scale and manner described and accepted on 11th and 18th October 1979.
I turn to a Written Answer of 11th December 1997 by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It mentions a total of about £40 million which the United Kingdom has given to Zimbabwe recently. However, the Answer states clearly and understandably this Government's policy of depending upon the Zimbabwe Government's commitment to the reduction of poverty as the basis for consideration of the possibility of establishing a partnership for further funding. So land reform is still not on the agenda in the way we earlier promised.
Of course, President Mugabe's recent land ownership pronouncements have had a debilitating effect on investor confidence, on capital values and on the economy, and abrupt actions in agriculture particularly can jeopardise 44 per cent. of the country's export earnings. We have heard already how productive Zimbabwe's farmers have been. Capital investment has now, I believe, stopped. Next year's fertiliser has not been ordered by many farmers and the consequent effects on long and short term production will be highly negative.
But Zimbabwe has many high value assets, much management expertise and a substantial skilled labour force. Surely the United Kingdom has to be cautious in intervening in another country's domestic affairs. We must not seem to be defending white interests against black interests. I believe we must remember our historic involvement in, and our responsibility for, past injustices by the state and the British people. To be blunt, land ownership moved under duress into white hands.
The International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the other external donor bodies in which we are active members can assist now in safeguarding the value of agricultural production and restoring investor confidence in partnership with government. That must be within the rule of law and with the resumption of democratic principles as an imperative.
Even at this late stage, 18 years on, I suggest that the United Kingdom should pick up its stated and accepted responsibility to act as catalyst and limited guarantor for international funding of Zimbabwe's land redistribution—but on a willing seller/buyer farm development basis.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since 1980 I have been lucky enough to visit Zimbabwe once every two or three years. I have enjoyed visiting that lovely

211
country. When I occupied the position that the Minister now occupies I used to ask myself on these occasions what business it was of ours to discuss such matters. In this instance there are three interests which affect this country. First, President Mugabe has said on the land acquisition problem that it is for the British Government and the British taxpayer to compensate white farmers for the loss of their land. The second interest is that 20,000 or 30,000 Zimbabwean residents are British citizens. The third interest is the overseas aid budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, referred to a Written Answer, which I was given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, before Christmas, saying that our overseas aid to Zimbabwe is still quite considerable. One of the reasons it is being reviewed at the moment, as the noble Lord said in his Answer, is to alleviate poverty. I wonder what the land acquisition policy will do for the alleviation of poverty. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication as to how the policy will alleviate poverty.
The commercial farmers of Zimbabwe are responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the country's gross national product. If one goes to supermarkets one sees on the shelves Zimbabwe beans, Zimbabwe baby sweet corn, and so on. That is marvellous and it is something we would not have seen in earlier years. I wonder whether we will still see that happening under Mugabe's policy.
I said earlier that I first went to Zimbabwe in 1980. At that time the Zimbabwe dollar was worth 75p. There are now 33 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound. That is not good. I understand that, along with the land acquisition policy, the Zimbabwe authorities are threatening to confiscate foreign currency accounts, whereby if you earn money in foreign currency you can keep it. Farmers could spend it on parts for their tractor or Land Rover. If that is to be stopped—I do not know whether the Minister has any information on this—it will be a serious matter. If farmers do not have the ability to replace those spare parts, the business will go.
In recent days we have seen conflicting press statements. Some have said that Mugabe will accept the strictures of the EU and the IMF and that everything will be all right. Others have said that he does not like to take the advice of the EU and the IMF and that the land acquisition policy will go ahead. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the latest situation is.
I should like to thank the Minister for the help that she has been able to give to those of us who are interested in this issue. This should not be a confrontational debate but, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are serious British interests involved.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I join this debate with sadness; sadness for the Zimbabweans, sadness for its wildlife and sadness for the country. On 31st March last year, £1 sterling bought 18.4 Zim dollars. Last Friday, at the close of business, it bought 31.5. That is nearly 100 per cent. devaluation in less than a year. Businessmen are already buying forward in order to protect themselves. Inflation is running at 24 per cent. and rising. The IMF suspended multilateral credits, the
212
population growth is exceeding economic growth, and over 50 per cent. of the population is under 25 years of age. Sadly, it is a country with problems.
But thank goodness for democracy.
"The December issue of the First Merchant Bank's quarterly guide to the economy stated that the combined bill for the servicing of Zimbabwe's debt, public service and defence salaries, and the payouts to former Zanla and Zipra combatants will absorb the government's entire revenue from taxes and duties. All other expenditure will have to be financed by further local and international borrowings, which will, in turn, increase the debt service burden in future years. This means that every litre of petrol put into government vehicles, every bandage used in hospitals, every chair and desk bought this year, will he purchased with borrowed money. [President Mugabe] will go down in history as the man who halved the nation's wealth in a matter of weeks—and he cannot put the blame on anyone else this time. The land issue (over which there is no longer any opposition. in principle), has been handled with all the viciousness of a spoilt child".
Those are not my words but appeared in the leader in the Zimbabwean Sunday Standard of 18th January.
Who is going to suffer in all of this? Clearly, the African himself is going to suffer. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there is going to be considerable local unemployment. When the farms are taken away and resettled there will be a permanent addition to the unemployment roll of something like 88,000 people who are earning wages at the moment.
But that is not the end of the story. In addition there is a large amount of fringe benefits that the commercial farms pay for in the way of free transport, schools and education, help with hospital facilities, and roads. All of that will immediately cease. That will not be good for the local economies, particularly in rural areas.
One of the reasons that President Mugabe has given for this new or revised attack on the white farmers—and when senior leaders find themselves in difficulties they often turn to a minority as a whipping boy—is that the whites have taken the land from the blacks. If one goes back 100 years it is estimated that there were only 250,000 blacks in Zimbabwe. Most of the land which is now subject to the commercial farms was virgin bush. If anyone should get that land back it is the bushmen who were pushed out by the tribes from the north and the Zulus from the south a little earlier. They were the people who originally belonged to Zimbabwe.
The white farmers will also suffer. For many it is their only livelihood and only means of existence which they have either bought or had handed down. They have no other form of income except for farming. But they are facing quite a serious problem because, as I understand it, the compensation that has been promised will not be paid in respect of any improvements after the date of the listing. So what is the point of any farmer spending more on his farm and security and trying to improve and upgrade his farm if there is to be no compensation? As my noble friend Lord Plunket said, at the moment it is only a listing and not a designation. So we have a crisis of limbo among the farming community who do not know where they stand and who are not buying equipment that is needed. As a result, businesses are suffering, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said. The whole agricultural industry is taking a breather at the present time.

213
It is more than that because the manufacturing industries in Zimbabwe, which also bring in foreign currency, depend very much on local agricultural produce. But if that is going to decline—it has done so where resettlement has taken place—then that, too, will suffer and there will be a lack of foreign currency coming into the country. That cannot be good for those in the country or for the country itself.
I turn briefly to the wildlife. For them, resettlement poses dangers as it has wherever it has occurred throughout the world on such a scale. If Model A, the current scheme, is used, every five hectares will be given to someone and the wildlife will suffer. I shall consider the plight of just one animal that has been brought back from the brink of extinction in Zimbabwe. I refer to the black rhino. At the moment, there are 324 black rhinos in Zimbabwe, half in national parks and half in private conservancies. Most of the farms in these private conservancies are on the listing, so the black rhino's future is again under threat. What a detrimental state of affairs! I am sure that President Mugabe would not want to leave that as his legacy. I am sure that he would want to take the opportunity in the name of conservation alone—if for no other reason—to rescind his current instructions on this matter and to negotiate with the IMF and the EU, of which Britain is president for the next six months. We therefore have a perfect opportunity to point out not only the fatal flaws in the policy, but also the potential, and the willingness of all of us to try to help that country in its land reform and to give further aid to try to alleviate the poverty which is only getting worse at the moment.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Vivian on raising this important question. As he said, there is a strong case for land reform in Zimbabwe. Half the country's arable acreage is owned by 4,500 whites and the need to provide land for the landless has been central to the Zimbabwean Government's efforts to raise the standard of living of those in overcrowded, overstocked and overused communal areas.
The Zimbabwean Government's support policies have been successful in that the small-scale farmer has moved from virtual subsistence and independence to the current position where his or her maize, cotton and groundnut output accounts for over 70 per cent. of national output. That is why Britain has spent £30 million since 1980 to help Zimbabwean families to buy land.
It is vital that the British Government and the international community continue to aid Zimbabwe in supporting land reform as part of the partnership to eradicate poverty. However, it would not help the poor if land was acquired in a way which undermined agriculture or foreign investors' confidence. Clearly, the process of land redistribution must be carried out in a carefully planned, open and orderly fashion with a land register, consultation and fair compensation.
214
I fully supported the Written Answer given last week by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in which he stated that the land acquisition must proceed in accordance with Zimbabwe's laws, its constitution and international obligations. Zimbabwe's 1992 Land Acquisition Act requires the government to pay compensation and provides access to the courts if the amount of compensation is disputed. It follows that any programme which Britain might support would need to be phased over time and should include support from other donors. Failure to carry out undertakings to donors will make further funding for Zimbabwe almost impossible. The IMF abandoned the country because promises made for loans were not met.
I discussed this programme at some length this morning with Zimbabwe's High Commissioner. He confirmed that the land acquisition programme will go ahead "openly and transparently", but fair price compensation for displaced farmers would depend on discussions with the EU and the World Bank. He said that land would be passed on only to those who have an agricultural background, and no ministers or war veterans without this experience would benefit.
As the Zimbabwean Government have no funds for this exercise, they are looking to the international community to finance the project. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton said, I understand that a conference with EU governments will take place soon to discuss the land acquisition programme.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I did not actually say that. With great respect to the noble Lord. I said that it had been suggested and that I, crossing my fingers, lived in hope that it might take place. I wish that I could say: "Yes, it will happen."
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the High Commissioner told me this morning that it is definitely going to happen. Those were his words. It was agreed in Brussels the other day when President Mugabe was there.
I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. I apologise for the fact that I have not given her warning of these. First, if Her Majesty's Government do support this programme and the EU and the World Bank come up with the finance, will they make it crystal clear to the Zimbabwean Government that unequivocal undertakings must be given to compensate farmers in full for the land and the infrastructure they have lost? This is essential to prevent thousands of white farmers facing ruin.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government confirm that any aid package would be dependent on agricultural production not being hindered?
Thirdly, the Zimbabwean Government have already acquired 2 million acres of land under the willing seller/willing buyer system but, as my noble friend Lord Plunket said, there is concern in the farming community that much of this is standing idle. Will the British Government bring pressure on the Zimbabwean Government to address this problem before they acquire more farms?

215
Finally, the Commercial Farmers' Union has proposed to sell 740,000 acres for resettlement, as well as planning a low interest fund to finance the gradual acquisition of land by black farmers. Indeed, many farmers have offered to train would-be farmers. This initiative has received the support of other potential aid-donor countries who have been concerned with the process of compulsory land acquisition. In the event that international finance is not forthcoming for the acquisition programme, will Her Majesty's Government support the plan of the Commercial Farmers' Union?
10.42 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, as has already been alluded to in this debate, further land redistribution is unnecessary because the Zimbabwean Government already have 2 million acres of unoccupied land. However, we may need to be careful about cutting off aid to President Mugabe for fear of making him more intransigent and, therefore, inflicting fresh sufferings on the white population.
The whites do not occupy the best land. They are on the higher altitudes, where it is cooler and there is less disease. Uncertainty over the future of white farmland may mean less willingness to plant crops. We must have regard to the plight of British families who, if dispossessed, will be without British passports and only able to leave the country with approximately £50 in their pockets.
The Foreign Office Minister from another place wrote to me explaining that, where land is acquired compulsorily, the Zimbabwean Government will give compensation for improvements but not for the land itself. The legal basis here is the Land Acquisition Act 1992. However, we understand that the Minister said that landowners can contest these actions under the Act, and possibly under the constitution.
The outcome here in the courts may raise very interesting questions about the independence of the judiciary. If the legal challenges are successful, the compensation bill will probably cause a currency crisis. We need to ask whether the confiscated land will go, not as President Mugabe claims to the landless blacks, but to his Ministers and government officials. We must note that few farms so far bought under resettlement programmes have shown any success. There has been a reversion here to a primitive subsistence slash and burn agriculture.
We also need to look back to the years 1980 and 1992. Under the white government, food was stockpiled against the event of drought. However, in 1980, the stocks were sold off as an easy means of raising foreign exchange. When drought arrived in 1992–93 £2 billion was provided by the west by way of relief but very little of it reached the black population.
I should like to end my brief remarks by putting two questions to the Minister which I hope she will answer when she replies to the debate. First, can the Minister provide any information on the offer made by the previous Conservative government of financial support for the purchase of white-owned farms for the resettlement of black farmers, which I understand was
216
turned down by the Government of Zimbabwe on 17th December 1996? Secondly, when the Prime Minister had discussions with President Mugabe at the Commonwealth Conference did he reaffirm that Britain's stand is only to provide grant money if, where farms are acquired, full respect is shown for the owners' rights and the land is not seized?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Vivian for initiating this debate. The debate has been of extraordinarily high quality. Not for the first time I find myself the least well informed person on the speakers' list.
Zimbabwe is a country which commands great affection among most people in this country. We have a long association with it. President Mugabe is a man widely held in great respect, particularly by those who remember him in the years immediately following independence, for all that he has achieved for his country. I hope that both Zimbabwe and the president regard themselves as friends of this country and that we in turn regard them as good friends.
But both the country and the president have fallen on hard times economically and politically. Government spending is clearly out of control. and the president appears not to have the control over his government that he once had. He has had to make promises and commitments to expenditure that he does not have the means to meet. This has resulted in a considerable economic crisis.
The particular aspect that concerns the House this evening is the land redistribution proposal. That in itself is not something to which we can have any objection. The idea that past history has provided patterns of land ownership that do not fit with the way a country is now and have to be changed by government action is entirely familiar to us. We refer to it as leasehold enfranchisement. That Zimbabwe should wish to do something along the same hoes cannot be a matter to which we object. But I believe that we can have reasonable concerns about the details of the proposal: the way the farms have been chosen; to whom they are to be passed; the payment or non-payment of compensation; the access or lack of it of those affected to the courts; and general concerns about human rights, legality and constitutionality. The word used by my noble friend Lady Park that sums it up for me was "transparency."
We also have a right to be concerned about the effects that the proposals will have on the economy of Zimbabwe. Agriculture is enormously important to the country. Even if the current proposals were carried through carefully, as they stand now in the name of benefiting the poor they would create a great deal of additional poverty in Zimbabwe.
I await with great interest what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will confirm what I sense is the Government's policy; namely, that they agree that where Britain gives aid it has a right and duty to see that it is well spent. Further, we should concern

217
ourselves with the way that the whole country is run. If the country is rotten it does not matter how well an individual project is run because the government always have the ability to siphon off money in different ways and misdirect it into other parts of the economy. Therefore, the way in which the whole country and a particular project is run must concern us.
In looking at Zimbabwe as a friend—I hope the Minister will say that Britain is willing to make a substantial commitment to Zimbabwe to help it out of the hole in which it finds itself—we must recognise that to give money without any conditions is to help Zimbabwe dig itself deeper into the hole. If we promise money but make it conditional we will strengthen President Mugabe's hand to deal with Zimbabwe's problems properly. To ensure that money is available only if he does that gives him power to deal with his domestic political problems and so achieve a much better outcome to the problems of that country than seemed likely perhaps even a week ago. I await the Minister's reply with great interest.
10.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for giving us the opportunity to debate the question of land acquisition in Zimbabwe, and to other noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
The British and Zimbabwean people and their Governments have enjoyed a long and enduring friendship and the situation in Zimbabwe is a matter of particular concern to us. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, need have no worries about the depth of our concern about Zimbabwe. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, that our worries and concerns are for all Zimbabweans irrespective of their race or ethnicity.
I begin by saying that the Government recognise that land ownership in Zimbabwe is very unequal and that most Zimbabweans still live on communal lands in conditions of poverty. The Government have a clear interest in Zimbabwe's political, economic and social development. We are committed to the elimination of poverty worldwide. We have offered to assist the Government of Zimbabwe to find an acceptable solution to these issues.
As this is a short debate, your Lordships will not want me to go through the detailed history of this issue, which many of you are familiar with. I shall concentrate on the present situation but I hope the House will bear with me if I recall that land was an important issue for the liberation movement and for the Lancaster House Conference in 1980, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, has reminded us. It was important to the British Government of the day, who
218
promised to help, and did so. I would remind the noble Baroness that Britain provided almost £40 million in a combination of project aid and programme aid for land purchase and resettlement in Zimbabwe. Britain offered more assistance in 1989 and again in 1996. Those offers were not taken up. However, we remain willing to provide further assistance.
The schemes we have supported have allowed the resettlement of more than 70,000 families. The Government of Zimbabwe have also bought land with their own resources, some of which could now be used for resettlement if they wanted to do so, as the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Sudeley reminded us.
Turning to the present situation, we have heard from many noble Lords that in October 1997 President Mugabe announced that his government intended to acquire 5 million hectares of land by the end of that year. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has told us, in November 1997 the Zimbabwean Government officially gazetted a list of some 1,470 farms and sent the owners preliminary notices of compulsory acquisition in accordance with the law. Some 1,400 owners have since submitted appeals. The Zimbabwean Government have admitted that there are, what they term, "mistakes" in the list.
President Mugabe has said that his government will not compensate owners for the value of their land. This is one of the grounds on which many of the appeals have been based. As the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness have told us, President Mugabe has argued that the farms were stolen from the indigenous population. Whatever the basis for the original settlement, in practice most of the present owners bought their farms after independence and the farms are rightfully owned by Zimbabweans and others under the laws of Zimbabwe.
Her Majesty's Government have a number of other concerns about the programme announced by President Mugabe. It is taking place against the background of a serious economic and financial crisis. The value of the currency has fallen by around 60 per cent. in the past 10 weeks. We understand that the government have now agreed tight budgetary limits with the IMF and World Bank, and that there is very limited financial provision for the programme within their expenditure plans: the government appear to need to cut back on expenditure in other areas in order to accommodate the land programme. We therefore find it difficult to understand how the Government of Zimbabwe can successfully implement this programme. It is not clear who will acquire the farms or under what terms. Nor is it clear what plans the government have made for those currently employed on the farms and their families who will lose their jobs, as the noble Lords, Lord Acton and Lord Vivian, reminded us. We are not aware that the government have made any assessment of the social or environmental impact of the programme, the impact on agricultural production, or the cost-effectiveness of the programme.

219
President Mugabe's government have asked Britain to support this programme. I have to say that, in the light of the concerns I have just outlined, Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to support those proposals. Those concerns are shared by other countries, the international financial institutions, and by many Zimbabweans. We are concerned that the proposed programme is already having an adverse effect on the economy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in a recent letter to the Zimbabwean Minister for Lands and Agriculture, warned that the present land acquisition programme would adversely affect agriculture and investor confidence. She went on to say that our future aid relationship with Zimbabwe, including the possibility of programme aid, would be considered in the context of the Zimbabwe Government's progress in their economic and transformation programme, and wider plans for the elimination of poverty in Zimbabwe. The current financial crisis, recently prompted by the impact on investor confidence by government statements on land, has increased the need for early agreements with the IMF about economic reform programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, challenged the answer to a Question given by my noble friend Lord Whitty. She said what was being promised was aid for the alleviation of poverty, but not for land reform. We believe that aid for poverty can be achieved through land reform. That was part of the point of the letter written by my right honourable friend who said that she believed that land reform would be an important component of a Zimbabwean programme designed to eliminate poverty. She also said that we were prepared to support such a programme. I hope that that answers unequivocally the point drawn to our attention by the noble Baroness.
Many noble Lords have asked what is the way forward. The Government welcome President Mugabe's commitment last week to consult Zimbabwean stakeholders. We hope that that will lead to an agreed programme that we and other donors can support. We recognise the need for major land reforms in Zimbabwe, as have many noble Lords this evening, which will allow poor people to share the benefits from rural investment and agricultural prosperity—a point forcefully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. We believe that President Mugabe now needs to confirm in public that the programme will be transparent, legal, and will not jeopardise the Government of Zimbabwe's budget deficit targets, and will aim to alleviate the problem of poverty. Zimbabweans need to know what is going to happen to the farms. President Mugabe is well known to us as a man of courage who is not afraid to take difficult decisions. The British Government hope that he will quickly bring this crisis to an end, so that we and other donors can move forward with the government and people of Zimbabwe to address the urgent problems of poverty and land.
The noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Acton, raised the issue of the Commercial Farmers' Union. The CFU has offered to help develop a planned programme of resettlement. Her Majesty's Government would encourage the Zimbabwean Government to work with
220
the CFU and with the other farmers' organisations and with the financial and other qualified bodies to produce the land reform programme which would command the widespread confidence of those within Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe's many friends outside.
The question was also raised about a possible EU conference. Her Majesty's Government would welcome a proposal for a donor conference. The United Kingdom would be willing to take part in discussions on land reform in Zimbabwe along the lines I have already outlined tonight.
Several noble Lords raised the question about the IMF. Zimbabwe and the IMF agreed in 1991 an economic structural adjustment programme. It ended in 1995 primarily because the Zimbabwean Government were slow to implement public sector reform and failed to control budget expenditure. We understand that the IMF is presently considering a new standby agreement to help Zimbabwe through its current economic difficulties, which need to be submitted to the IMF board. We have encouraged the IMF to take account of the adverse effect of the present land acquisition policy on agriculture, the economy and investor confidence. Given what has been said tonight, I believe that such a line would have the support of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the fact that the government took over privately held foreign currency accounts in December. We believe that this has clearly damaged business confidence. We understand that the IMF team is currently in Zimbabwe—it was there last week—having discussions about how best to restore confidence in the value of the dollar. We hope that agreement can be reached on that important question.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, raised questions about the way forward and the attitude of the British Government to the issue of illegally acquired land. We must be clear about this. It is for the Zimbabwean Government to decide what to do in their own country. The constitution since 1980 has recognised that powers of compulsory purchase for land resettlement are necessary on the basis of fair, prompt and adequate compensation. Successive British governments have recognised that the powers of compulsory purchase may be needed to carry out successful land reform, but we have told the Zimbabwean Government that we are willing to consider a new programme of assistance for land reform which is transparent, which is affordable and which is set in the context of reducing poverty and accelerating growth.
We have had a thorough debate on this important issue. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I repeat that Her Majesty's Government believe that President Mugabe is a man of courage. Zimbabwe faces a very difficult and worrying situation. Last week, the country witnessed some of the worst street riots and demonstrations since independence. And this is a country which was considered until recently one of the most stable countries in its region.
I am heartened by the words of many noble Lords tonight, but in particular the words of the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, who, after all, has vivid and current

221
experiences of life in Zimbabwe. We hope, as he does, that President Mugabe will act quickly and decisively to solve these problems and address out concerns and those of the Zimbabwean people. And we hope that, in so doing, he will again be able to end this present crisis and lead his country to the increased prosperity for which I am sure all your Lordships hope.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in her very helpful reply she mentioned a number of factors that the Government would bear in mind. Will she also bring to the attention
222
of the Zimbabwean authorities the point which I raised about the conservation of animals, because that will be critical in relation to any resettlement programme?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lord, I believe, when the noble Earl reads what I said in Hansard, he will find that I made a reference to the importance of land and conservation in my address but, if that was not clear to the noble Earl, then I give him that undertaking now. Of course it is a matter of importance.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Industrial Disputes: Arbitration
  Industrial Disputes: Arbitration
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  British Board of Film Classification
  British Board of Film Classification
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Salisbury Bypass Study Team: Membership
  Salisbury Bypass Study Team: Membership
  Transport Directives Awaiting Implementation
  Transport Directives Awaiting Implementation
  Customs and Immigration Staff at Waterloo International Station
  Customs and Immigration Staff at Waterloo International Station
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Asthma in Children
  Asthma in Children
  Central School for Speech and Drama Speech Therapy Course: Closure
  Central School for Speech and Drama Speech Therapy Course: Closure
  Deaths from Various Causes: NHS Costs
  Deaths from Various Causes: NHS Costs
  Erroneous Refusal of Asylum: Restoration of Benefits
  Erroneous Refusal of Asylum: Restoration of Benefits
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Legal Aid Board
  Legal Aid Board
  Civil Legal Aid
  Civil Legal Aid