Sitting of 4 November 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

PRAYERS

  Health and Safety
  9.34 am
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I have been fortunate in securing a debate on an important subject. However, I should begin by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on his recent promotion.
  Because of the nature of their work, some people are more vulnerable than others; nevertheless, occupational health and safety affects everyone in the world of employment. I therefore welcome the priority that the Government have given to occupational health and safety.
  This year, the Health and Safety Executive will receive a £4.45 million increase, reversing cuts agreed by the previous Administration. That increase also signals an end to government hostility towards, and neglect of, occupational health and safety, which were all too apparent during the previous Administration's 18 years in office. The previous Administration were particularly hostile towards trade unions' role in occupational health and safety. They were also preoccupied with deregulation, and that distracted them from considering health and safety issues. It is good that that situation has ended.
  Other Departments in the new Government are complementing the action being taken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Department of Health's Green Paper on public health, for example, will address the issue of occupational health and safety. I am pleased that the new Government are making health and safety a much higher priority.
  I should say that not all of my suggestions and questions in this debate will fall within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister. Some may be dealt with only by a joint approach, which is already under way, among Departments and others.
  Earlier this year, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Health sponsored a conference to focus on the health and safety needs of those working in small and medium enterprises. The Government's "Public Health" Green Paper was started after the conference. Before the conference, the Health and Safety Executive circulated a document entitled, "Developing an Occupational Health Strategy for Great Britain". The closing date for submissions on the document to the Health and Safety Executive is 11 December 1998, and I urge all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to make their submissions on developing an occupational health strategy before that date.
  788
  I shall deal first with stress. It is estimated that approximately 19.5 million working days are lost annually because of ill health. Statistics provided by the Health and Safety Executive show that, of those lost days, about 7 million working days are lost because of stress-related illness. Stress is increasing annually, and is very much related to changes in employment structures. Flexible working, for example, has been introduced as a response to globalisation, creating uncertainty that causes unease, discomfort and stress. A second factor contributing to increased stress is the quest for ever-greater productivity, to ensure our competitiveness. Inadequate investment in British industry is a contributing factor to such stress.
  I wish to elaborate on that a little because it is clearly related to the problem of stress in British industry. Some hon. Members may have seen an article in The Sunday Times of 11 October written by Andrew Lorenz and David Smith. It was based on the McKinsey studies carried out for the Treasury, and some of the figures were astonishing. For example, it showed that our main competitors—Germany, Japan, America and France—invest far more per worker than the UK. Germany invests a massive 67 per cent. more; Japan invests 55 per cent. more; America invests 52 per cent. more and France invests 46 per cent. more. If those figures show anything, it is that workers are as good as the tools provided for them to work with. As less is invested in British workers, enormous pressure is put on them to produce more to meet that competitive agenda.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks on investment—they would be echoed throughout industry—but is it not also true that, at the point of production, the greatest problem on the shop floor is stress and the drive for greater productivity? Does it not lead to that well-known syndrome of the "tear arser", who puts other people's safety in danger, as well as his or her own? Should not my hon. Friend now deal with that matter, given that so many injuries are caused to people on the shop floor as a result?
  Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As a result of those pressures on the shop floor, supervisory staff and managers often resort to bullying. That feature is clearly shown in a recent study by the Trade Union Congress, which showed that bullying is one of the main characteristics that leads to stress. We must also bear in mind that, in the teaching, social work and nursing professions, society's demand for greater accountability, which is quite right, has led to more administration. When that is added to all the other pressures, it leads to stress.
  Will the Minister consult the Health and Safety Commission, which has been looking at this issue for some time, to see what action it has taken? We require stress management strategies, perhaps embraced within an approved code of practice. If that were applied in industry, we could start to deal with stress. Unless we take action, more and more working days will be lost.
  The cost of work-related ill health is immense. An estimated 2 million people a year suffer from work-related illness and 250 to 300 people a year die from work-related injuries. The figure for 1997–98 was 268 and for the previous year it was 287. Thus, there is still an enormous death toll. Moreover, of the estimated 10,000 deaths

  789
  related to ill health, 3,000 to 4,000 are caused by exposure to asbestos. The human suffering caused by that carnage is immeasurable, and the cost to the economy is enormous. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, who spoke at an all-party group on occupational health and safety earlier this year, estimated that the cost to the economy was between £16 billion and £18 billion—a huge sum by anyone's reckoning. If we are to reduce that figure, we must develop strategies that can be used in industry to prevent the development of stress.
  Last week, the National Association of Occupational Health Projects held a seminar in the House. It was addressed by Professor Malcolm Harrington of the occupational health department at Birmingham university, by the Minister for Public Health, by a representative of the Health and Safety Executive and by various speakers from occupational health projects throughout the country. The seminar drew attention to the enormous amount of work that occupational health projects have done in the past 20 years. Those involved work in the community and help to identify the causes of work-related illnesses. They also work with trade unions and management to create preventative strategies. Their work in the past 20 years is enormously valuable.
  A few of the occupational health projects are funded by the Department of Health, but the vast majority depend on an assortment of funding. Many spend much of their energy raising funding in order merely to survive. I should like the health improvement plans drawn up by area health authorities to embrace the work done by the occupational health projects. The health projects could then engage with local primary care groups, which would add to their valuable contribution and extend it to improving the health of the nation.
  Thus, occupational health projects play a valuable part in protecting the health of the community. Some years ago, they came up against the problem of the increasing number of people diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis or mesothelioma cancer caused by asbestos. We know from statistics that have been provided that, every year, between 3,000 and 4,000 people will die in the UK as a result of exposure to asbestos. Government estimates suggest that that figure will continue to increase, and could reach 10,000 deaths by 2020.
  Since 1985, blue and brown asbestos have been banned in the UK, but large amounts of white asbestos are still entering the country. Much of it is contained in materials used in the construction industry. May I suggest that the Minister's Department send a memorandum to other Departments that are involved in large construction programmes, such as the Departments of Health and of Education and Employment, advising them to tell contractors working on those construction programmes not to use materials that contain white asbestos? It is not always easy to discern materials that contain white asbestos because they are badly labelled and often come from eastern Europe. Contractors do not always know that some roof tiles, floor tiles and piping contain white asbestos. It is therefore important that the two Departments with major construction programmes are made aware that many of the materials used in construction contain white asbestos.
  790
  The evidence that white asbestos is dangerous to health is overwhelming. The Health and Safety Executive accepts that there is no safe threshold for working with white asbestos. In most areas where it is used, safe and adequate substitutes exist.
  Earlier this year, the Health and Safety Commission commissioned research by Leicester university after a bizarre decision had been made in one of the European technical committees that asbestos substitutes may be more dangerous than white asbestos. That research has now been completed and published and it shows that white asbestos is more of a hazard than the substitutes used to replace it. In addition, the Department of Health's committee on carcinogenicity stresses that, wherever possible, alternatives to asbestos should be used. Finally, if that were not sufficient evidence, nine EU countries have implemented their own unilateral bans on white asbestos.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is president of the Council of Europe's Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee has steered through a report calling for a ban on white asbestos. I pay tribute to his work in processing that report.
  Had it not been for the Canadian producers keeping Europe at bay, we might have already imposed a ban, but the Canadian producers would have us believe that white asbestos is so safe that we could pour it on our cornflakes in the morning. They do not realise the problem, or will not accept the evidence that it is a dangerous material. However, Europe is not their real target. Their target is the third world, where there are no controls. They know full well that it offers a limitless market. At the same time, through the World Trade Organisation, they can obstruct a European ban. There is a tendency for such matters to become caught up in interminable bureaucracy.
  If it appears to my hon. Friend the Minister that the move towards a European ban is becoming bogged down and there seems to be little progress, will he consider pressing ahead with a unilateral United Kingdom ban to protect future generations? In my view, that should be done as soon as possible.
  Even when we have dealt with white asbestos by prohibition, there are still problems to be faced. One is enforcement. Although stringent regulations have been in place since 1983, there are still difficulties with enforcement. I note that the Health and Safety Executive has become more vigorous, but resources are limited and inspections and fines are inadequate. The record shows that 768 companies are licensed to work removing asbestos in demolishing buildings yet, between 1990 and 1993, the average fine for violation of the regulations was £1,570. During that three-year period, no company had its licence revoked.
  I am aware that there has been a more vigorous approach recently and, in 1996, a contractor was imprisoned for exposing his workers to asbestos while demolishing an old factory in Bristol. So there are signs that the Health and Safety Executive has started to take a more robust approach to breaches of the regulations. Nevertheless, I want to press my hon. Friend the Minister to take the matter up with the Health and Safety Executive and ensure that the regulations are stringently applied and the level of fines is significantly increased. That would

  791
  send a clear signal that the Health and Safety Executive and people at large were not prepared to accept violation of the regulations.
  Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend addresses the matter with great knowledge. Does he accept that the conditions under which people go to work are such that a worker complaining about such a situation and ultimately refusing to work in those conditions would probably be sacked? If he had been employed for less than 12 months, he would have no redress whatever. Is it not a simple matter of giving individual workers more power to take responsibility for their own health and safety at work without the fear of instant retribution and sacking?
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I accept his point. I shall deal with that issue when I discuss safety representatives. I have some proposals for my hon. Friend the Minister, but it is quite true that, at present, anyone who raises an objection in the workplace faces the threat of dismissal, and that needs to be addressed.
  Let me return to the problem of asbestos. Even with rigid enforcement, there are still difficulties because there is an enormous amount of the stuff in public buildings. The TUC has suggested that there should be a responsibility and a duty on the owners of buildings to audit their buildings, identify the asbestos and label it. That might improve maintenance. The fact that asbestos has been identified does not mean that it has immediately to be whipped out of a building. Provided that it is managed properly, it can be maintained safely until such time as it can be removed. An audit would certainly result in better maintenance. Such an audit would make it possible to have a public register of such buildings for the purposes of compensation.
  When people are found at postmortem to have died from asbestosis, it is difficult to trace the workplace where they were in contact with asbestos. One of the security men who works in this place told me that his father-in-law was found to have died from mesothelioma cancer. As he had been a clockmaker all his life, it became extremely difficult for him to establish a claim for benefit because he had to prove that he had been in a workplace where there had been asbestos. It took 18 months to get the appeal board to accept that he had worked somewhere where he had been exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that he died from mesothelioma cancer. Under those circumstances, setting a common law damage claim on its feet is almost impossible.
  I am aware that there has been a consultation document on the subject. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ask the Health and Safety Executive to expedite the matter to give people access to a register? More importantly, I note that, last year, something like 1,350 postmortems reported mesothelioma as the cause of death. There must be an accessible register of workplaces that have asbestos in their structure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) referred to the pressures brought to bear on workers. October this year saw the 21st anniversary of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977. The TUC estimates that there are more than 200,000 workers, safety representatives. They are appointed wherever there are
  792
  recognised trade unions. That is important for the package of rights that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is steering through. The extension of trade union recognition will give an opportunity for the appointment of safety representatives in more workplaces, which is a very important step.
  The enormous amount of work done by workers' safety representatives is one of the major reasons for the reduction in accidents over the past 20 years. The TUC's survey of the statistics shows that companies that have appointed safety representatives and have joint union-management safety committees have 50 per cent. fewer accidents than those which do not have the same procedures. That shows the benefit of having safety representatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, increasing the number of safety representatives would remove some of the pressure and fear for their jobs that people feel if they raise safety issues, because the worker would be able to raise the point with the safety representative, who could then take it up with management and ensure, through the safety committee, that positive action was taken.
  I accept that the structure of British industry has changed in the past 20 years. Gone are the larger units of production. There are more small and medium enterprises, employing an increasing proportion of the population. There is often no trade union organisation and management has little access to information about health and safety. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to direct the Health and Safety Commission to work with the TUC and industry to devise a system of roving safety representatives who could be on hand to provide advice to small and medium enterprises. I should also like him to ask the Health and Safety Commission to carry out a study on the impact of extending the rights of safety representatives. If we gave safety representatives the right to stop the job and serve enforcement notices, as safety representatives in Sweden and Australia can, management would not have the opportunity to sack a worker who dared to raise a problem about safety on the shop floor.
  Although we have stringent regulations on the issue, the reporting of accidents in the mining industry has caused the mining unions a great deal of concern. They have long argued that there has been massive under-reporting. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which is the safety union in the industry, says that there is clear evidence that there was massive under-reporting from 1988 until recently. The Health and Safety Executive has taken that on board. I raised the matter in June during business questions, when the HSE had issued a document that showed clearly that there had been under-reporting in the mining industry. The frequent failure to include accidents that cause an absence of three days or those that occur during weekend working has skewed the statistics.
  The constant pressure brought by NACODS on the issue resulted in the publication in June of details of the Health and Safety Executive's audit, which showed that there had been 52 per cent. under-reporting. NACODS contends that the figure is greater—as high as 300 per cent. NACODS rejects the HSE's excuse. I understand that the general secretary of NACODS was told by the chief executive of the HSE that 52 per cent. under-reporting of accidents is normal. The unions do not accept that, and neither do I. I accept that there is bound to be some under-reporting, but for a figure of 52 per cent. to be accepted as normal is excessive.

  793
  When accidents are not reported, there is no follow-up, which means further accidents that could have been avoided. It is very important that we ensure rigorous reporting of accidents. Last week, the HSC, perhaps as a result of the pressure that I have referred to, issued a consultation document, "A Duty to Report Accidents". I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will impress on the HSE the need for an overhaul of accident reporting in a framework that will allow the creation of prevention strategies. The HSE should be reminded of that, because we must have follow-up procedures from which further strategies can be developed that will prevent further accidents.
  I want to finish where I started, by welcoming the higher priority given by this Government to health and safety. There is still much to be done. The 18 years of Toryism worsened health and safety provision. The Minister could signal a new determination, in the context of the higher priority given by the Government, by making it clear to industry that he will be pressing for higher fines and sentences for health and safety offences.
  10.9 am
  Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate. As he has demonstrated, health and safety at work is a very wide and diverse issue. I shall concentrate on just three areas in order to allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
  Far too many people are killed or injured in the workplace. Greater effort must be made to improve health in the working environment. Let us take the construction industry as a case in point. Hon. Members will know that I spent much of my working life as a consulting engineer in that industry, so I speak with some experience when I say that it still has one of the highest fatality rates.
  The Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, may be aware—these may be cross-departmental concerns—of the important progress of the introduction of roll-over protection structures regulations. The fitting of ROPS make construction plants safer. I welcome the measure; they will save lives and reduce injuries. The Minister may, however, be aware that, although industry welcomes the measure, too, it has concerns. That is particularly so in my constituency, which has a high concentration of plant-hire firms.
  The industry has raised concerns about the timing and implementation of the new regulations. There is no question but that they are important. Not a single life should be lost through unnecessary delay in their implementation. The Minister may be aware of industry claims that equipment manufacturers have nowhere near enough capacity to supply the conversion kits that are necessary to modify all plants in time to meet the new standards when the regulations come into force. I am in no position to give a view on whether that is so.
  The Minister may argue that the introduction of the new regulations has been signalled for some time. The key issue is when the United Kingdom regulations were drafted. What guidance was industry given on the UK version of the European regulations so that it could make precise arrangements to meet them? What assessment
  794
  have Government officials made of the industry's capacity to meet the demand for conversion kits? What assessment was made of the lead time to supply the kits in order for the industry to be able to comply with the regulations? The Minister may not be able to reply today; perhaps he will later. We need answers to those important questions.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of all concerns in the industry. In fact, next week—I think—I am meeting another hon. Member and representatives of the industry in my office. I invite the hon. Gentleman, too. I am aware of the serious concern, but I think that there are ways in which we can get round the difficulties.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am very grateful to the Minister for replying so promptly. I very much hope to be able to join the delegation in his office. I should like to establish whether he is satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation, assessment and planning. We need to consider such practice for future models. We must ensure that new regulations can be introduced sensibly and effectively. If the Minister is satisfied, it could be argued that the industry is being disingenuous, which I hardly think is the case. There is a genuine will by all parties to improve safety in construction.
  Health and safety at work has come a long way since we began introducing kicker boards on construction sites and insisting that hard hats were worn. Health and safety science extends well beyond immediate concerns, such as accident investigation and reporting, on which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone commented. It has gone well beyond the compilation of exposure limits for hazardous chemicals. Long-term research is essential in order to anticipate potential risks of changing work practices.
  In the past—even today—we have been concerned with accidents in mines and on construction sites. Now, new risks are associated with working practices in the electronic office, such as the rise in the number of upper-limb disorders. A new area of risk in the workplace, and to the public at large, is associated with emerging technologies, such as genetic modification. The Minister will be aware of public concern over the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, and perhaps of calls for a total ban on them—or, at the very least, a moratorium on their introduction into the food chain.
  The Minister may also be aware that, in 1995, the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on genetic modification published a report entitled, "Genetic Modification—Risks and Safeguards". What action are the Government taking in the light of that report? I appreciate that the Minister has not had notice of the question, but I would like an answer. What progress is being made on a rational assessment of the risks to the public of introducing GMOs into the food chain? When do the Government expect to be able to introduce sensible, pragmatic, and above all, risk-free regulations to protect and preserve public safety?
  Several key areas must be addressed across this wide-ranging issue. I hope that I have made it clear that everything from the implementation of improved safety measures in the construction industry, to better understanding of risk assessment, the duty of care in the

  795
  workplace and electronic office, and scientific developments in food needs to be addressed within the remit of health and safety.
  I conclude by reinforcing, to a degree, some of the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. It is especially important that companies which breach health and safety law face penalties that recognise the gravity of the offence—indeed, imprisonment, where the offence is serious enough to warrant it. Far more needs to be done to impress on employers their responsibilities in the workplace. Employees should be empowered by having responsibility for monitoring and improving working conditions. They should be able to refuse to undertake unsafe work without suffering social security penalties, such as the withdrawal of benefit. The Health and Safety Executive must be properly staffed and funded in both a policing and advisory role. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of those points.
  10.17 am
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: The subject of this important debate could have a profound effect on the lives of very many of our constituents. I shall concentrate my comments on the dangers of asbestos.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned that, in April, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), as rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, compiled a report, "Dangers of asbestos for workers and the environment". I should like to quote from the summary of his recommendations.
  "Ever since the health dangers of asbestos were discovered in the 1960s and there was widespread concern, many countries have introduced regulations on asbestos use, disposal and removal. However, these measures, though sometimes stringent, are not enough to eliminate all risks.
  The report therefore advocates that legislative action for a total ban would be the only effective solution to this problem in the medium-term."
  The summary also encourages further research into asbestos substitutes, and finishes by saying:
  "Even if the use of asbestos were to be eliminated in Europe, the problem remains … in other countries, especially within the Third World, and this requires special measures on the export of asbestos-containing products."
  The report was eventually approved after a long and heated debate for which many amendments—22, I believe—were tabled by the Russian delegation because of their vested interest in the production of chrysotile, or white asbestos, and in the teeth of a great deal of lobbying behind the scenes by the Québecois members of the Canadian Parliament, who hold observer status at the Council of Europe. Again, their opposition was due to vested interests in the production of chrysotile.
  I put on the record my appreciation of the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting did on the report, and of the enormous help that the GMB union gave with the research. I hope that our Government will take the recommendations on board.
  I was unaware of the dangers posed by asbestos until, in the early 1970s, I saw a moving television documentary called "Alice—A fight for life", which told the story of Alice, who was brought up in a terraced house in Hebden Bridge in the west riding of Yorkshire. As a child she had
  796
  played in the streets with asbestos, making "snowballs". The asbestos had been emitted by Acre mill, nearby, and after a long and vitriolic legal struggle, Turner Newall—or Turners Asbestos, as it had been—eventually paid her compensation related to the asbestosis from which she died shortly afterwards.
  In my constituency of Keighley, money is spent year after year by Bradford metropolitan district council, our education authority, on treating and removing asbestos from school buildings because it has become unstable, or because roof replacements, rewiring, refurbishment or other necessary repairs have exposed the substance. We have many children who enter school without English, and many more from extremely poor homes, so our education budget is constantly under pressure, and we would much prefer the money to be spent on the education of our children.
  However, we do not have the luxury of choice, especially since the death of Shirley Gibson, a teacher who worked for the London borough of Greenwich. Shirley was 37 years old, and the coroner's inquest concluded that her death, from mesothelioma, was caused by being in contact with asbestos in her classroom.
  Another story to hit the headlines in West Yorkshire, similar to Alice's story but very recent. is the tragic case of June Hancock. She died on 19 July last year, having won her claim for compensation against Turner Newall because she suffered from mesothelioma, also caused by playing in the streets with asbestos, this time near the company's factory in Armley, Leeds.
  The campaign against asbestos waged by June and her supporters, together with other groups, including trade unions, may have saved the lives of children in the Birmingham area. Heightened public awareness led to the discovery of children playing with illegally dumped asbestos, and it was rapidly removed.
  The cases that I have mentioned are those of women and children, who did not work in the asbestos industry or related industries, such as construction or car repairs, where the vast majority of cases of asbestos-related diseases are found. I have used those cases to bring the personal individual tragedies into the debate, rather than depending on exchanges of statistics.
  I hope that, before too long, we shall see improved methods of detection and treatment for existing asbestos in buildings, and improved detection, treatment and care of those suffering from asbestos-related diseases, including those whose disease is as yet undetected or latent. I also hope for an eventual total ban on the use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, because all forms of asbestos can cause asbestosis and lung cancer.
  A Québecois representative at the Council of Europe said that white asbestos is safe if used correctly. Unfortunately, both the building industry and car repair workshops are notoriously difficult to monitor, not least because of low trade union membership.
  Almost half of the European Union countries already ban all new asbestos, and I trust that we will soon follow them. To push the argument further, I will bore hon. Members with just a few statistics. In France, 2,000 people died from asbestos-related diseases in 1996; in the United Kingdom in the same year, 3,000 died from the same cause—there were 30 deaths in Sheffield alone—while in the whole of Austria, after a 20-year ban on all forms of new asbestos, the figure was 30, the same as Sheffield's, for the same period.

  797
  We already have alternatives to asbestos, and there may be room for improvements. If so, what better way to celebrate the millennium—which would conform to both Christian and Jewish teachings—than to convert some of our too many swords into the proverbial ploughshares? We could use a fraction of the enormous sums spent on research and development for means of destroying life, through weapons technology and methods of delivery, to find a means of saving millions of lives through the development of safe, efficient and affordable alternatives to deadly asbestos.
  Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for calling for the debate, for his excellent contribution—especially what he said about whistleblowers—and for the sterling work that he has devoted to the subject over many years. With his help, and with that of others in this place and of the trade unions, health and safety at work has been, and will be, kept where it belongs, high on our political agenda.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. I practised as a personal injury solicitor for 20 years, and coincidentally, I started in practice two weeks before the safety representative regulations came into force. I believe that I dealt with the first fatal accident under the regulations; tragically, it occurred during the small hours of the morning that the regulations came into force.
  In my 20 years in practice, I investigated thousands of accidents, from the horrors of the tragedies of King's Cross and Zeebrugge to the more commonplace slipping, tripping and lifting accidents—including the bizarre, such as the accident in which the fire station where a firefighter worked burnt down. The vast majority of those accidents were avoidable with foresight, and would not have occured if the precautions eventually recommended had been undertaken at the time.
  My hon. Friend described the cost of accidents to the country. I am concerned by recent press coverage, which has become judgmental, and tries to separate out deserving and undeserving accident victims, often on the basis of ill-informed and unfair comment. That does not help to instil the safety culture that we need in our workplace.
  The best example is the apocryphal McDonald's coffee case in America, in which people criticised the lady concerned for claiming compensation. In fact, McDonald's had super-heated the coffee way beyond the temperature that would be expected in an ordinary kettle, and the lady suffered terrible third-degree burns. Those facts are rarely reported.
  More recently, we have heard attacks on public sector workers for bringing compensation claims—yet we hear little comment on the health and safety record of the public sector in the fire service, the police service and the health service. There is much room for improvement there, but it gets little press coverage.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) have described the new challenge for health and safety posed by the drive
  798
  for greater productivity. Speeding up outdated machinery and processes often results in accidents. I recently dealt with the case of a young man aged 16 who lost his fingers in a press. The machine was old and badly maintained, and the guard was faulty. The boy was under pressure to improve his productivity, and he lost his fingers. That illustrates the need for proper investment. When we talk about higher productivity, we must consider the consequences—consequences such as those that my hon. Friends have described.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) talked about the risks associated with new processes. Thirty years ago, some of the risks of asbestos were known, but they were little publicised. The risk of industrial deafness was unknown, yet the thousands of claims now coming through show what tragedies took place, especially in shipbuilding and heavy engineering. The insurers may pay the financial price, but the real price is paid by the workers in their quality of life, and sometimes with their very lives.
  Now we have new risks. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned some of them. There is repetitive strain injury and eyestrain caused by keyboards and screens, and all sorts of additional stresses that we are starting to notice. The increasing use of chemicals will have unknown consequences. We must be on our guard against such future risks.
  The new safety challenges have brought new safety regulations, through the European Union directives of a few years ago—the so-called six-pack. That introduced the new concept of risk assessments. Much lip service is paid to risk assessments, but they may not be done properly. Perhaps the best example is in the manual handling regulations, where the first step in the risk assessment should be to determine whether the lifting operation is necessary or could be avoided. That often becomes the last question, rather than the first.
  Mr. Chidgey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the concept of duty of care and risk assessment is a major step forward, little has yet been done to monitor the effectiveness of risk assessments?
  Mr. Dismore: I agree with the broad thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I would be sorry if the only way in which we could monitor effectiveness was through court cases involving people who had been injured through risk assessments not being done properly.
  We in this House could also set a good example. I recently had an independent safety audit carried out on my constituency office, which produced a few things that I need to have done. We must also ensure that we comply with health and safety regulations when visiting factories or construction sites in our constituencies and more widely. I regret that a Conservative Member, whom I accompanied on a recent site visit to Portcullis house, was not complying with safety regulations because he refused to wear a safety helmet. I brought that to his attention at the time, and have done so subsequently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned problems concerning safety regulations and the need for better enforcement. The regulations work by consent, and generally work well, but there are problems when they do not work. The big problem is enforcement, because regulations can be enforced only through the Health and Safety Executive or by the Attorney-General.

  799
  I dealt with a case involving the fire service a few years ago. It wanted to hold an exercise off-site in a derelict building of the sort that is torched for dramatic effect in "London's Burning". The union wanted to inspect the building to make sure that it was safe for the drills that were to be conducted, but it was refused access by the employers. We investigated the position and there was no possible way for the union to bring enforcement action to make sure that its legal rights were respected.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether we can have independent enforcement—perhaps by the trade unions, which would act responsibly—in cases where the HSE will not act, often because pressure of work means that it cannot conduct the vast bulk of the tasks that it needs to carry out.
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 contained major advances in health and safety in this country, and they were built on by regulations. Again, part of the problem—due to pressure of work on the HSE which is not alleviated, and no matter how much extra we put into it—is enforcement. There are new employment law rights to walk off the job if it is dangerous, and for safety representatives to stop work if it is dangerous, but they are difficult to enforce because there is always the fear of victimisation. I would like a system where not only the HSE, but workers and trade unions, could bring private prosecutions for breaches of the regulations in the most serious cases. That would plug the big gap in health and safety enforcement.
  We also need to consider the definition of "worker", because a lot of the dodging of health and safety regulations has revolved around saying, "This person is not a worker; he is a self-employed contractor." Work practices are changing, so we must consider the definition of "worker" in respect of health and safety enforcement activities.
  Accidents will inevitably happen, but we need to make sure that we are able to find out why. The victim is entitled to know why that accident happened, and to an apology from his employers, if it was their fault. A lack of such explanations and such information, including information released by the HSE, encourages claims. Injured workers want to find out what happened, and many of my clients have said to me, "I don't want this sort of accident to happen to someone else, and that's why I am bringing the claim." If action had been taken, and if explanations had been given, those claims may have been avoided.
  We have problems of uninsured employers, and we should consider schemes to overcome them. We also need a register of insurers to enable employees who bring claims—for example, for asbestosis—to track down the insurers concerned and the records so that they can find out what happened.
  With a Labour Government we have, as my hon. Friends have said, a greater commitment to health and safety. We have come a long way, but there is a long way to go. There is no room for complacency—the risks to health and safety are ever-present, and enforcement action is always expensive. We need to build on the great experience of trade unions and safety representatives in trying to tackle those problems.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Ian Stewart: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone
  800
  (Mr. Clapham) on securing it. He is an assiduous and committed chair of the all-party group on occupational health and safety, of which I am a member. I also congratulate the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and look forward to discussing a number of health and safety issues with him directly.
  Earlier this year, I was lucky to secure a half-hour Adjournment debate on health and safety representatives, and I should like to make a few follow-up points later.
  Hon. Members have referred to the cost to industry of days lost through ill-health—£5 billion a year. In the recent debate on the working time directive, my north-west colleague, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, reminded the House that the Confederation of British Industry estimated that £25 billion was lost to the economy in the last year of the Conservative Government due to unregulated absenteeism. The Health and Safety Executive's figures show that 500,000 workers suffer from stress and anxiety caused, or aggravated, by work.
  I am proud that Labour's employment and industrial reforms will improve the benefits and rights of millions of workers in relation to wage levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement. I look forward to employee rights to representation being improved in legislation to implement the White Paper, "Fairness at Work". I believe that those measures will improve employees' financial and emotional well-being, but improved occupational health and safety provisions are essential, too.
  Measures to improve the identification of work-related health problems, and to treat them effectively, are important. Stress management and counselling have gained vogue in recent years, but the HSE's own research shows that stress counselling is of little value. Jogging in the lunch break or line dancing after work may reduce stress, but will not tackle the cause.
  As has been flagged up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), most Members of Parliament are employers of one or more full-time staff, or the equivalent. We must take responsibility for ensuring that we have regard to the occupational health and safety needs of our staff.
  The HSE issues guidance on stress reduction, but a joint Transport and General Workers Union-university of Manchester institute of science and technology survey a few years ago sadly found it to be totally ineffective. The Trades Union Congress, trade unions and many other organisations want a specific workplace stress law that is enforced. I understand that the CBI is not in favour of that proposal, or even of a weaker HSE-approved code of practice on workplace stress. I hope that the Government will end that deadlock, legislate and make progress with all interested parties so that we can have measures that will be effective in reducing workplace stress. That would not only reduce human suffering, but cut national health service costs and improve United Kingdom productivity.
  Earlier, I flagged up the issue of health and safety representatives. As a full-time trade union officer for 20 years, one of my key objectives was to raise employee awareness of health and safety issues. I believe that trade union-appointed safety representatives have a crucial role in that regard, and in taking up concerns with employers.

  801
  Many employees on short-term contracts—who are part-time and in small workplaces, or who may be getting older and are simply too frightened of losing their jobs—will not complain to their employer about hazardous workplaces. There are now 200,000 trade union-appointed safety representatives under the auspices of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, but only 50 per cent. of the work force is covered by such representatives.
  In my Adjournment debate in May, I asked the Government to consider the introduction of roving safety representatives, as there are in Sweden. The Minister gave me no commitment on that point, but said that the arrangements for health and safety consultation should be reviewed, and that that review should also consider how the role of such representatives could be strengthened. It was suggested that the Health and Safety Commission would carry out the review. I am concerned because I have heard through the grapevine that the commission and the Health and Safety Executive are still awaiting a referral from the Minister before they start the review. I hope that the new Minister will be able to confirm that such a referral is in hand.
  Finally, I understand that, at the climate change conference initiated by the Trade Union Congress last week, a related question was put to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was asked to extend the health and safety responsibilities of trade union representatives to include the environment. I have heard through my efficient grapevine that he has agreed that that should be considered as part of the general review. I hope that the Minister agrees with him and I look forward to the review being established. I also hope that it will produce early proposals for improvement.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, I join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on obtaining this debate. He spoke with knowledge and passion on his subject and raised a number of questions and we look forward to hearing answers from the Minister—questions about consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in the workplace, the future of asbestos and the HSE's role with regard to safety representatives in small and medium enterprises. The hon. Gentleman also wanted the Minister to impress on the HSE the need for a complete overhaul of accident reporting and follow-up procedures. I trust that the Minister will deal with those points and I shall not use this occasion to ask him about the health and safety of planning offices in north London, but will congratulate him on his appointment.
  The debate has been extraordinarily one-sided. Of course, health and safety in the workplace are important, indeed, vital issues. The record of both the main political parties on health and safety is good and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 represented a consolidation of measures that had hitherto been adopted under Governments of both parties. Health and safety legislation has developed considerably since that date—many of the developments took place under the previous Conservative Government.
  This Government inherited a Health and Safety Executive with 4,000 employees, which is about one for every 15,000 employees in the workplace and compares
  802
  favourably with the situation in most of our European competitor countries. One reason why the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so favoured the Single European Act was because she thought that similar health and safety provisions to those that we were imposing on our industry should be imposed in other European Community member states.
  The Labour Government inherited a good record. In the last 10 years of Conservative Government, the number of deaths in the workplace halved. In 1997, there were 249 fatalities, compared with 1,310 in Germany in the same period. So, we have a good record and a good Conservative tradition on health and safety. In debates, when Conservatives object to a health and safety measure, Labour Members often argue that we would still be sending children up chimneys, but it was a Conservative Government who introduced the law to stop that in the first place. Let us hope that we can consider this matter on an all-party basis rather than in such a one-sided way.
  The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) mentioned stress in the workplace and how it causes absenteeism. Stress can be caused by low morale, low productivity and poor management, which are all concerns with which we want to deal as well as health and safety. However, nothing causes greater stress and unhappiness than being unemployed. People without jobs are generally much more stressed than those with them. The great danger of becoming over-enthusiastic about health and safety legislation is that we can create over-regulation. We can all think of wonderful new contexts for creating rules, but all parties must understand that there are limits to their reasonableness and that it is far more difficult to undo unnecessary burdens on business than to impose them.
  We have had our share of ludicrous extremes; for example, the general thrust of regulations to control substances hazardous to health in the workplace was good, but we ended up with office workers having to keep a register of Tippex supplies as it was classed as a hazardous substance. That is a case of taking health and safety regulations to extremes.
  The gold plating of European Community directives is an ever-present problem. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned the manual handling directive, which gives no guidelines for the weights that it is safe for people to lift, so our civil servants had to invent some. One effect of the directive was to reduce the maximum size of a bag of plaster from 40 kg to 25 kg. Most people were capable of lifting 40 kg, but 25 kg is now deemed to be the safe weight and as a result many workers now carry two bags at once, which makes 50 kg. The regulation has not only been costly to the industry, which had to re-tool to enable it to fill the different size bag with plaster, but has turned out to be counter-productive, as it has encouraged people to carry heavier weights.
  The health and safety at work regulations of 1993 were intended to reflect an EC directive and require written risk assessments. There has been much talk of such assessments, but the bureaucracy of every business having to undertake them, when they might not obviously and instantly be necessary, underlines how we have added bureaucracy and burden to industry. The deregulation task force was designed to deal with such

  803
  excesses, but had hardly begun its work before the new Government were elected and decided to change it for a better regulatory task force.
  There are plenty of examples of absurd regulation and of matters being taken to an extreme. One case concerned a boy who used to earn £20 a week helping a milkman. That was stopped when the milkman received a warning letter from the local authority telling him that he would be fined £1,000 if he did not stop employing the boy. In another case a man was refused a job because he was too tall. The basis of the decision was concern for his back because of the health and safety regulations, but he won his case of unreasonable dismissal on the basis that men are taller than women and therefore it was sexual discrimination. The danger of over-regulation is that it is a feast for the lawyers, such as the hon. Member for Hendon, but costs everyone else a great deal of money.
  The sick leave bill for the public sector, which is about £3 billion a year is not helped by the fact the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau has one of the worst records.
  The working time directive, which we debated earlier this session, is another example of excessive regulation. It is completely alien to the British traditions of freedom and voluntarism in the workplace and will add up to £2.3 billion to business costs. Once again, the regulation has been gold plated. As is inevitable, United Kingdom officials and courts will fill in the gaps in its drafting. The regulations are complex, imposing a huge administrative burden, which will affect some industries much more than others, in particular temporary and seasonal industries.
  Will the Minister tell us how the case law of the working time regulations can be prevented from spreading to industries for which they were not intended? At the moment, the transport industry is excluded. The train driver is certainly excluded under the regulations, but what about catering staff on a train? Are they covered if they are employed by the railway company and do they remain covered if they are employed by a sub-contractor? Where is the certainty in regulations that are vaguely drafted?
  The directive does nothing for the United Kingdom's competitiveness. It imposes huge costs and will curtail flexible working and harm job creation; it is bureaucratic and will encourage the black economy. Moreover, there was no real demand for it.
  Do the Government recognise that the sheer volume and detail of much health and safety regulation represents an unreasonable burden on many businesses, particularly small businesses? What procedures do the Government have for assessing risk in the workplace, as the costs of regulation are so often out of all proportion to the risk? What will the Government do about the gold-plating of EC regulations and directives? Now that the Government have given up the United Kingdom's veto in social chapter matters, which are subject to qualified majority voting, how will they prevent the imposition of costly so-called health and safety regulations, such as the extension of works councils to small businesses?
  The Conservative party is in favour of proper health and safety regulation. However, excessive regulation has rightly been described as a form of hidden taxation. Everyone wants a safe workplace—safe workplaces are in the interests of the economy as a whole—but a balance is needed, and that is far from being achieved.
  10.50 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing this debate and I thank him for his kind remarks. I listened with considerable interest to his thoughtful contribution and to those of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). I also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who had to leave the Chamber to attend another meeting. I share my hon. Friends' concerns, which reflect many of my priorities.
  The Government are firmly committed to high standards of health and safety in the workplace. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may have claimed that the Conservatives stopped people putting children up chimneys, but it is fair to say that the Government are prepared to give health and safety a higher priority than our predecessors did.
  The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, which were established under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, have stood the test of time over the past 25 years. They have played a pivotal role in improving standards of health and safety in the United Kingdom, whose record is among the best in Europe.
  The Government are far from complacent, not least because, in recent years, the UK's health and safety performance seems to have reached a statistical plateau. We need to put that across, if only as a way in which to achieve even better standards. We want the HSC and the HSE to be strengthened and given the resources that they need to be even more effective.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, the most important issue is that of resources. In the current financial year, we provided an extra £4.5 million, restoring the cuts inflicted by the previous Government. Those resources have been targeted on inspection and enforcement by the executive, which is particularly important, as 75 per cent. of health and safety inspectors are on site during their working week. We have recruited 58 new inspectors and are in the process of recruiting a further 126. I shall also shortly be announcing a further and significant increase in resources for the commission and executive under the comprehensive spending review. I cannot yet give the exact figures, but the increase will be good news for health and safety.
  I am keen to focus the health and safety agenda on areas that matter to people. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned genetically modified organisms. The Government have announced the formation of a Cabinet Committee on biotechnology, to be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concerns on this complex subject, which the Government are dealing with through that Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned violence against staff. The Government made it clear in their human resources strategy for the national health service that violence and

  805
  aggression against staff will not be tolerated. That strategy is essential, as recent figures show that NHS staff are three times more likely to be attacked than members of the public. In June 1997, the NHS executive issued guidance to NHS trusts on dealing with violence as any other health and safety risk.
  In December 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission launched the Health Services Advisory Committee guidance on the assessment and management of the risk of violence to staff in the health service. The guidance sets out a framework for action covering a range of control measures, including hardware and physical aspects of the premises, working patterns and practices, staffing levels and competence, training and the means to deal with accidents. It applies not only to hospitals, but to primary and community care, nursing homes, mental health and ambulance services.
  The national plan of work for HSE inspectors identifies violence to staff as a key issue to be dealt with during in-depth inspections at hospitals and NHS trusts. HSE inspectors are prepared to enforce the necessary standards, as is shown by the fact that more than 30 notices on violence have been served in the health services since April 1996.
  The health of people at work is a key element in the Government's strategy for public health. Far too many people suffer from ill health caused, or made worse, by their work. A recent survey suggested that 2 million people were affected, so an improvement in occupational health standards needs to be a top priority.
  The HSE recently issued a discussion document on an occupational health strategy for the next 10 years. As hon. Members know, the Government are already addressing specific occupational health risks, including work-related stress and violence. We recognise that such problems are very distressing to those affected.
  We are determined to ensure that work-related violence is tackled effectively. I am seeking advice from the Health and Safety Commission on what can be done on that
  806
  issue, about which I feel particularly strongly. The HSE is exploring how best to tackle the matter through a committee involving Departments, the TUC, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, Victim Support and, of course, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. The Cabinet Office women's unit is also developing a strategy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone chose an appropriate day to mention stress, as today is international stress awareness day. It is estimated that 500,000 people suffer from work-related stress, anxiety and depression. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the scale of the problem, which the CBI estimates to cost between £7 billion and £9 billion a year; it is also estimated that businesses pay out about £300 million a year in compensation claims. I recently launched HSE guidance on work-related stress aimed specifically at small firms. Moreover, the HSE will campaign to ensure that work-related stress is regarded as a legitimate health and safety issue. The HSC will shortly be considering the feasibility of an approved code of practice.
  Of particular concern to many people are the stresses of bullying and harassment.
  Bullying is totally unacceptable and is strongly condemned by the Government. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that we are consulting further on the problem and that I will keep him informed of developments.
  Many hon. Members have expressed concern about asbestos. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has been deeply involved in trying to find a solution. The Government's desire is to tackle new occupational health risks, and we have given a clear commitment on that, but we are also determined to tackle the appalling legacy of asbestos. The Health and Safety Commission has recently held consultations on a package of tougher measures to provide better protection for those who may be exposed to asbestos at work.
  I will continue to keep hon. Members informed of developments, and especially my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Tooting.

  Police (Community Relations)
  11 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: A great deal has happened since our annual debate on the Metropolitan police: notably, the Lawrence inquiry and the Government's response last month concerning ethnic minority balance in the police. It is extremely important for Parliament to have an opportunity to review the issues. The fact that we are having this debate reveals the lack of suitable accountability for police matters, especially in London. I hope that that will be remedied in due course by the new structure of London government.
  Events surrounding the Lawrence inquiry are in many ways the starting point. We await the findings, but what has already happened has been immensely powerful. Those of us who attended the inquiry found it very moving and influential. There was an enormous emotional impact on the audience and on the police. I congratulate the Home Office on moving quickly, but, unfortunately, other cases, such as the Menson case, are now coming into view.
  The issue of racism and the police has been around for a long time—the Scarman inquiry occurred nearly two decades ago—and there is a danger of our relapsing into weary cynicism and saying that the problems will always be with us. Racially motivated whites and more cynical blacks will say that nothing can or will be done, but that is quite wrong.
  It is important that we note how much the context has changed. Anyone from an ethnic minority or with a racially mixed family background will know that there has been a big change over the past two decades. There was a tremendous climate of fear in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the Powell speeches, the marches and their aftermath. There was a fear of riots after every Notting Hill carnival, but the atmosphere at the carnival has now changed: there is great self-restraint on the part of the police and the participants, and the management is much more professional. Many people from ethnic minorities are doing well in the education system and the professions. But we also now have a second or third generation of people who will not in any circumstances accept second-class treatment, humiliation, discrimination and insult. The police, too, have moved on, but not as fast. Many who joined the police two decades ago did so in an environment with a different culture and much lower expectations.
  The police are criticised for sins of omission and of commission. Sins of omission include the failure adequately to understand the extent to which ethnic minorities are victims of racially motivated crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is my party's spokesman on these issues, will develop the subject in more detail, but it is worth while sketching the key point that Home Office statistics show that, in any one year in Britain, 4 per cent. of black people, 8 per cent. of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis and only 0.5 per cent. of white people are likely to have been victims racially motivated attacks.
  Those may seem low figures, but over 10 years they mean that roughly half the ethnic minority population will have been on the receiving end of a racially motivated attack. I have been trying through parliamentary questions to establish the underlying trend. I had a helpful answer
  808
  from the Home Office in April, suggesting that racially motivated incidents—which are not the same as assaults, but comparable—have increased by about 40 per cent. in the past five years. That may be partly because of improved recording or greater openness about disclosure, but it suggests a worrying rising trend. Surprisingly, the increase in incidents is most marked not in inner cities—apart from the east end of London—but in outer suburbs, such as the one that I represent. Black and Asian people in London feel that they are the victims of racial attacks and that the police are not sufficiently sensitive, aware or willing to react quickly. That is the origin of the Lawrence and Menson cases.
  Bias is one of the sins of commission of which the police are accused. The statistic that is always cited is that young black Londoners are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites. I know that that is a headline figure, that glosses could be put on it, that academic research shows that the story is complex and that the police are monitoring the situation carefully, but it is a striking figure.
  Most of us will have heard from friends or constituents about the experiences of perfectly law-abiding black and Asian members of the community. One often sees black drivers of flash cars surrounded by police who have stopped them to look at their particulars. My noble Friend Lord Dholakia has a rather generously endowed saloon car. He reports being stopped on several occasions, culminating in being stopped by the police when he was on his way to address chief constables at a conference on the police and race. After several hours of embarrassment, he had to be given a motor cycle outrider escort to get him there in reasonable time. The police themselves are increasingly aware of such problems, but those problems continue to create enormous discord and resentment.
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and other chief constables have had to consider whether they should acknowledge a phenomenon known as institutional racism. I have thought about the matter at some length, and I do not think that it is merely a semantic quibble. I think that the Commissioner is right not to go down the route, followed by the chief constable of Manchester, of accepting that institutional racism is endemic in the police. He is right to acknowledge that there are severe shortcomings, but to admit institutional racism is to send a signal that all police are racist, which cannot be helpful either for the integrity and morale of the police or for public confidence; nor is it correct.
  The police have acknowledged that there are unacceptable practices. One of those is stereotyping, which not only is bad in itself, as a manifestation of prejudice, but leads to serious misjudgments. One of the clear lessons that has already emerged from the Lawrence inquiry is that the police were completely thrown when confronted with a middle-class black family with professional aspirations and a son who was academically gifted and wanted to go to university. They made all the wrong assumptions when initiating their inquiry.
  The police must also acknowledge, and stop, the practice of supervising officers turning a blind eye to racist language, expressions of prejudice and the so-called canteen culture. It is widely known to exist in the police force as it does in all sections of the community, but supervising officers must ensure that it is not tolerated.

  809
  Whether it is called institutional racism or something else is not central to the issue, but it is important that the deficiencies are acknowledged and dealt with.
  I shall deal now with solutions and the way forward. There is clearly a time and a place for retrospective inquiry, but the key test is what is now done. The first issue to address is whether any advantage is served by demanding that senior heads roll in the police force. Some people argue that it would help to alleviate the present situation if the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were to step down. As in the case of institutional racism, I do not believe that such a token gesture would be appropriate. I do not know the gentleman concerned well enough to judge his professional abilities, but a token PR gesture would not be helpful. The Lawrence inquiry will produce recommendations as to who is ultimately responsible, but resignation is not the way forward. The Commissioner has made some significant improvements in police practice and should be given an opportunity to see them through.
  The key to the problem is recruitment, and the Government have recently made a strong statement on that matter. We start from a striking disparity, certainly in London, between the ethnic minority population, of some 20 per cent., and its representation in the police, which is about 3 per cent. The situation is changing at the margin, because some 6 per cent. of recruits are from ethnic minorities, which is a sign of improvement. It is right that the number of ethnic minority policemen should not mechanically reflect their share of the population, but it should approximate to it and be seen to do so. The ethnic minorities should also be represented at all levels in the police, although I recognise that the issue is not a straightforward numbers game. It is important that ethnic minority police officers are seen to be promoted on grounds of ability and merit, and not simply for token reasons.
  It is also important that we consider the context in which police recruitment takes place. I get a sense from talking to police officers and the Police Federation in London that the police face a severe recruitment crisis. The problems surrounding pay and conditions, especially housing, greatly affect the context in which recruitment takes place. It matters whether ethnic minority policemen are recruited into a force with high morale and where there is competition for places, or into a force that is demoralised and relatively easy to enter. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the context is correct.
  A further area for change must be training. It is an old issue, which was raised by Scarman, but not much has happened since. I am told that training in London has been subject to economy cuts. Indeed, one of the most shocking facts to emerge from the Lawrence inquiry is that senior police officers did not get training in ethnic minority issues or even in murder inquiries. Corners have been cut in training, and that is causing considerable damage. I notice that the guidelines recently issued on training in the magistracy are sophisticated, useful and more advanced than those for the police. Perhaps lessons could be learned from that.
  Changes are needed in disciplinary proceedings. Over past decades, there have been arguments about where the balance should lie in police complaints and disciplinary action. In the past, the assumption has always been that
  810
  one should lean in the direction of the police officer who faces an accusation because of the double jeopardy problem, but the present context, especially in London, means that a different approach is required. Indeed, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has already demonstrated a willingness to take a much tougher and more open approach to complaints and subsequent disciplinary action.
  My final point brings us back to the role of Parliament and the difficulties of establishing proper political accountability for the police, especially in London. It is striking that the Metropolitan Police Committee, which was established as a watchdog for the Metropolitan police, has been silent during the recent controversy. We have not heard a peep from it. Why does it exist? It should be acting as a shock absorber between the Metropolitan police and the public and politicians. Until the new structure of London government is established, that committee should undertake a much more active and politically aware role.
  I thank the House for its indulgence and I look forward to the contributions of other hon. Members and the Minister's reply.
  11.14 am
  Mr. Clive Efford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating this debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue, although we will need a more detailed discussion once the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and its aftermath has published its report. As hon. Members are aware, I represent the constituency in which Rohit Dugahl and Stephen Lawrence were murdered. I was not the local Member of Parliament at the time, but I was a resident and represented the council ward where the murders took place.
  It is fitting to start by paying tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, who have conducted themselves with exemplary dignity throughout the time since the murder of their son. Many of us, faced with similar circumstances, would not have been able to remain as composed as they have been, especially while being forced to watch the murderers of their son go free.
  The effect of the murders on my constituency has been dramatic. In the years that followed Stephen's brutal murder, numerous reports have depicted Eltham as an area where black people exist in constant fear and racial attacks are an everyday occurrence. I would not wish to suggest that there are no racial attacks in Eltham or that no racists live in the community, but much of the criticism was caused by the myth of a wall of silence which thwarted police in their inquiries.
  All those involved in the case of Stephen's murder, including those who were well informed, assumed that the investigation failed because of a wall of silence in the local community. That has been proved to be inaccurate and the report of the Police Complaints Authority, published last December, clearly demonstrated that the police were in possession of evidence that should have allowed them to make arrests within the first 24 hours following Stephen's murder. Evidence given to the inquiry—I shall not elaborate on it now, because we will have opportunities to do so once the report is published—also clearly shows that the police could have made arrests in that time. Unfortunately, the media continue to focus on Eltham based on that myth and are no longer interested in the facts.

  811
  The effect is to create an image that black people living in other areas do not have a problem with racism. No consideration is given to the effect on black people in Eltham. Many of the problems that they now face arise from the notoriety of the case, and racists in the area even feel empowered by it. Many local people are greatly concerned and I have initiated discussions among community groups to try to tackle the problem and examine the problems that black people face living in a predominantly white community. We must challenge the feeding frenzy that the media has had on race relations in Eltham.
  In spite of the encouragement given to the racists by the manner of some of the media reporting, racial incidents are at a relatively low level in my constituency. I hope that this debate will begin to help people to understand that racism must be challenged everywhere, not only in Eltham. We must also recognise the crucial role to be played by the police in that process. We live in a multicultural, multiracial society and we have to strive for more awareness and greater understanding, so that people can appreciate another person's racial background instead of fearing it as a threat. Do we want to live in a society in which every parent fears that his or her children might be isolated and confronted by a group of people who just happen to have a different-coloured skin? Black or white, we all have a duty to address that issue. To fail to do so would be to gloss over the problem. We must accept that the problem is not just in the police, but in the whole of society. The police force merely reflects the community from which serving officers are drawn.
  I do not accept Sir Paul Condon's statement that there is no institutional racism in the police. Most black people would say that that accusation can be made accurately against virtually every institution that is almost exclusively white. It would be remarkable if there were no racism in the police. Racism, in whatever form, exists in the police force because it exists in our society. The minority of police officers who are racist harboured those feelings when they went in; it was not a matter of their becoming racist because they had joined the police. Sir Paul Condon should not regard recognition of that fact as a personal failing on his part. Nor should it be seen as an attack on each individual police officer. Only when we recognise the symptoms can we begin to address the problem.
  Some may ask whether there is a problem. I believe that there is. The 1997–98 report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis includes figures on the use of police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, giving the number of people searched and the number arrested as a result. Of the total of 336,692 searches, 41 per cent. were non-white. Non-whites make up 20 per cent. of London's population. Of those searched, 26 per cent. were black and 9 per cent. Asian. The arrest rates do not justify the disproportionate attention paid to those sections of the community. The arrest rate among the white community was 11.26 per cent. Among the black community, it was 11.65 per cent. and among the Asian community, 9.14 per cent.
  Similarly, under the powers of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—an Act used in anticipation of serious violence—a total of 3,992 people and vehicles were searched, of which a staggering 2,681 were Asian, while 653 were black and 554 white. Some 83.52 per cent. of persons arrested in anticipation of serious violent crime
  812
  were black or Asian. The Metropolitan police were kind enough to try to explain the figures, giving me an area-by-area breakdown. I shall not give the detailed figures, but they pointed to serious problems with policing in specific areas, and to the unjustified use of powers to intimidate one section of the community.
  Scotland Yard commissioned a working group, including representatives of the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Home Office, which concluded that there was wide variation in the application of powers between ethnic minorities. The group concluded that only 10 per cent. of searches resulted in arrests, and that black people were four times more likely than whites to be stopped. Those are national figures; I accept that the hon. Member for Twickenham has figures suggesting that black people are eight times more likely to be stopped in London, but nationally an innocent black person is four times more likely to be stopped by the police than an innocent white person.
  A recent report by Statewatch—"Stop and Search and Racism"—strongly supports the allegation that black people are subject to discrimination in the use of those powers. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry has demonstrated the crucial role of the police in race and community relations. It is up to hon. Members, and others, to ensure that institutions such as the police set standards for others to follow. To achieve that, we must have transparency, and complete statistics for effective monitoring.
  Police forces have done a lot to increase racial awareness among officers, and that must be applauded. The racial incident unit at Woolwich police station is an example of best practice. There is great determination in the police to tackle racism, and that must be encouraged. However, those who seek to drag their feet over any of the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry should know that that will not be tolerated. Action must be taken.
  A strategic review of national police training is due to report early next year, and I hope that it will be able to consider the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry before it does so. Can the Minister confirm that it will? Police racial awareness training needs to be thoroughly reviewed so that its effectiveness can be assessed. Vetting of candidates to become police officers also needs to be introduced. I have been unable to find a single example of a police recruit being dismissed by the Metropolitan police because of inappropriate opinions regarding race. We all know that racist police officers exist, and those officers who are determined to serve the whole community have their jobs made more difficult by our failure to protect them from such individuals, and from the canteen culture.
  The community has a right to demand that the police exhibit exemplary behaviour and attitudes towards racial awareness. We all grew up in an era in which the police were held in high esteem. A police officer was someone whom young people were encouraged to look up to. Few people would put the police in that category today. We must begin to restore the confidence of the whole community in the police if we are to begin to eradicate racism from our society.
  11.24 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The debate has so far been about the Metropolitan police, and I well understand the concentration on the Lawrence inquiry.

  813
  However, I wish to speak about Leicestershire police. I have just completed the police parliamentary scheme, as has the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I did mine with the Leicestershire police, and I found it extremely illuminating. The scheme would offer a valuable opportunity for members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to experience what happens in the police—both good and ill. I worked with a large number of officers in Leicestershire, some of whom were Asian or black, although the majority were white. My overriding impression is that they were employed because they were good police officers. They were there on merit.
  Recruitment is much remarked on. In Leicestershire, more than 4 per cent. of the force comes from the black or Asian communities. Approximately 9 per cent. of the population of Leicestershire as a whole come from ethnic minorities. The county has, I believe, one of the highest proportions of black and Asian recruits, although this year, sadly, not one ethnic recruit has passed through the training. Some joined, but they did not succeed. I asked the chief constable on Friday what could be done about that. He told me that there was a recruiting department and a recruiting officer who specifically tries to encourage ethnic minorities to join the police force. The officer goes two steps further with ethnic minorities than would be gone with other groups. He promotes the force as a good career, using Asian radio stations, local ethnic minority magazines and visits to colleges. There is a recruiting stand at functions at which there are large gatherings of ethnic minorities, particularly employment fairs. The officer goes as far as he can to encourage people, but he cannot compel them to come in off the highways and byways to join the police.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) spoke about a canteen culture which deters good people from ethnic minorities from joining the police. There has certainly been such a culture among the police. I remember working with the Royal Ulster Constabulary 10 years ago, and some of what I heard made my hair stand on end, despite the fact that no one has ever accused me of being lily-livered or liberal. The same was true of the Metropolitan police 12 years ago. I hope that things have changed there, and in the RUC, as they have in Leicestershire.
  Let me tell one story about Leicestershire that suggests that there is no canteen culture there to deter good people. In about 1993, the chairman of the police authority in Leicestershire, Baljit Singh—presumably of Sikh extraction—was a Labour councillor. He resigned as chairman and as a councillor. He then joined the Leicestershire police, where he is now a sergeant. From his position as chairman, he certainly did not see a culture that deterred him from joining the force.
  I worked with officers at all levels during my four weeks at Leicestershire, and I learned the interesting lesson that racism was not an issue. I worked in Highfields, predominantly an Asian area in which the few white people are the minority. We talked to Rastafarians who had convictions for pushing drugs. There were suspicions that one or two might have been pimps. They had not been convicted for that, but it seemed that way. We talked to whites who were criminals. We dealt with the victims of crime—both Asian and white people. It seemed to me that the police officers made no
  814
  distinction—they really did not in what I saw of them—between people of different races. Certainly, the Asians with whom I dealt seemed to have total confidence in the police; they turned to the police when they wanted help.
  Leicestershire makes great play of community relations. I visited a large school in Leicester called Moat community college, where the white people are the minority ethnic group. The headmistress is an Asian—Freda Hussain. I was very impressed by everything that she said. She certainly was not anti-police. She had her criticisms, but she was very much on the side of the police. The police inspector with whom I went to school was very much on her side, as he tried to run a good relationship with the school and the large number of young people there.
  The Leicestershire police are working at race relations. They make a tremendous effort and, from what I saw, their strategy seems to be working. They set up the first—it may still be unique—police advisory group on race issues, or PAGRI. The group includes members of the local Commission for Racial Equality, community leaders and others involved in race relations. A steady and sensible policy has been produced. I pay tribute to all involved in that. Race seems to have been deflated as an issue both among the police and within communities.
  I found decent people of whatever colour working as police officers and trying to do the best job that they could in difficult circumstances. Of course there are problems of race relations, as there are in other sectors, but the last thing that Leicestershire or any other force need is a quota. I have to say that targets are very close to being the first cousin of quotas. The hon. Member for Twickenham said much the same thing. He said that we did not want mechanically to reflect the exact make-up of a community. It may be that the proportion of police officers from the ethnic minorities could be higher than that in the community, but that is to be encouraged.
  I was disturbed to hear the Home Secretary say that heads would roll if improvements were not made. As the chief constable of the Leicestershire police said to me, what is he to do if he cannot compel people to join the force? Quotas would be insulting to the excellent officers of all ethnic backgrounds. As the hon. Member for Twickenham, with whom I might disagree on one or two things, said, suspicion would inevitably arise that someone had been promoted because of his or her colour. That would be a terrible thing and it would be an insult to the good black and Asian officers in Leicestershire and elsewhere.
  What I saw in Leicestershire sets an example to other police forces. Certainly the Met has its problems. I learned something about good race relations, and I congratulate all officers in that force on their sensible and positive attitude.
  11.32 am
  Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in securing today's debate on an extremely important subject. It is timely for me because the Lawrence inquiry is sitting in Bristol this week. One of the purposes of that is to learn from some of the pioneering work that has been done in Bristol to further the interests of community relations in our city, which has a troubled history. The riots that led to the Scarman report happened in Brixton,

  815
  but also in St. Paul's in Bristol, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). My constituency of Bristol, East has the highest number of black and Asian residents of any city in the south-west.
  I am pleased to say that the evidence is that the police force in Avon and Somerset, focused on the central police district and Trinity road police station, which is in my constituency, has learnt some very important lessons arising out of the Scarman report and the challenges of policing a multicultural area.
  The establishment of the Lawrence inquiry does great credit to our Home Secretary. Many people like me were utterly appalled that many people in the police forces seemed to be in denial about what had happened. The hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) referred to the fact that here was a young man who wanted to be an architect and, on the face of it, had every chance of doing so, who came from a stable, secure, middle-class home, and who was murdered on the street. Apparently, his family were initially treated by the police as "another black family". We have to acknowledge the roots of this terrible conflict and tragedy. That is what I hope and believe that the Lawrence inquiry will do.
  Trinity road police station and the central policing district under Superintendent David Warren have produced guidance for the police about policing a multicultural community. They have recently published a booklet. That may sound a small thing, but it is invaluable in training people to deal with those who come from different family and cultural backgrounds. For example, it says that an officer wanting to arrest an Afro-Caribbean man should not lay a hand on his arm in order to do so because, culturally, that is one of the most threatening things that someone can do. It says that, if people do not look you in the eye when they are talking to you, it does not mean that they are shifty, but often means that they come from a cultural background in which to look someone in the eye is disrespectful and rude. If a woman has had an arranged marriage, that does not mean that she is stupid or backward, but that she comes from a different type of family structure. The booklet is full of useful and practical advice for policing in a multicultural area. I have conveyed that advice to my colleagues in the Home Office and I commend it to other police forces in similar areas.
  Other hon. Members have referred this morning to institutional racism. It is difficult for any organisation or individual to acknowledge thoughts or actions that betray a feeling or belief that another person is in some way inferior. Institutional racism has a mirror image in institutional sexism, which is also difficult for any organisation to confront.
  After 20 years or more of saying that we wanted more women Members of Parliament, the Labour party was brave enough during the previous Parliament to confront the fact that, while the party did not intend to be sexist, many of the things that we did at local and national level discriminated against women in the selection procedure. The evidence is here most days of the week in that we now have more than 100 women Members of Parliament. It is not an easy task to eradicate sexism. I notice that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the
  816
  deputy chairman of the Conservative party, is beginning to examine such matters in that party. Similarly, the police cannot escape that process.
  Institutional racism does not mean that police officers are plodding the streets with racist thoughts or intentions, but it can mean that a culture has developed within which assumptions that lie behind the way in which an officer deals with people betray a racist attitude. Often, it is not intentional. One of the definitions of discrimination in the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is indirect discrimination—something that is not intended to discriminate, but in practice does.
  There are lots of ways in which institutional racism can work. One of the most obvious is for people to see a 21 year-old black man driving around in a BMW and not to assume that he nicked it—an assumption that can be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) recounted to an audience in the Grand Committee Room several years ago during a lobby on the Asylum Bill how during his first year as a Member of Parliament, he was stopped not far from here by a police officer and called "sonny".
  We have to acknowledge that such things happen. It is pointless for people to say that institutional racism means that every single police officer is racist, or, if the chief constable of Greater Manchester police acknowledges that that is a fact, but the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis says that it is not, for one to be set against the other. The best service that we can provide to society is to say that we have to examine the roots of the problem and try to deal with the consequences.
  One thing that we have to do is accept the racial nature of certain crimes. That is obviously relevant to the Lawrence case, but all of us who represent multicultural areas can tell of crimes that appeared to be racist in nature, but were not accepted as such. Such cases can reinforce the sense of racism and make the policing of multicultural areas even more difficult. They can also deter recruitment to the police force among ethnic minorities, because people do not want to spend their working lives as "tokens"—there to be the exception to what appears to be a universally accepted rule.
  In Bristol, there is an organisation called Support Against Racist Incidents—SARI—whose office is in my constituency and which has been praised by many individuals and organisations. It works closely with the police, as do all the community and voluntary groups in the central Bristol policing district. Through its work, SARI spreads public information about the nature and the effects of racism. In parts of my constituency, there have been the most appalling racist crimes and incidents. At every event or open day—for example, those run by the local housing services—SARI has a display highlighting the sorts of racist graffiti, violence and criminal damage that occur in Bristol.
  SARI offers practical support to victims of racist crime and its role now extends beyond Bristol to Yeovil and Devon; however, its ability to provide such a service is at breaking point. I have told Ministers how important it is that SARI's work and that of similar bodies should be centrally funded, not only because local funding puts a great strain on local authority resources, but because such work is needed nationally. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to a similar organisation in Leicester. Such bodies not only command the enthusiasm,

  817
  support and confidence of the black and Asian communities, but do a great deal to support the work of the police.
  We should look for ways in which to eradicate the barriers to the recruitment of black and Asian officers, who could do a great deal to strengthen our police forces and increase public confidence in them. It is in our long-term interests to confront racism and to point out to white people who are racist that they are claiming to be superior to people such as Nelson Mandela or Jessye Norman. I often recall the words of R. H. Tawney, that there will be equality only when high jinks in Mayfair are treated in the same way as drunk and disorderly in the east end of London. We have to take the same attitude toward racism. If a young black man is driving a BMW, perhaps we should assume that it belongs to him.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), as our debate has gained from having been extended beyond the Metropolitan police district. It was kind of the hon. Lady to refer to Mayfair, which is in my constituency, in the closing paragraph of her speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having given us the opportunity to debate this important subject. Finally, I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey); it is happy for us that she is a fellow London Member of Parliament.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), one of my cousins once served in the Met. I should briefly declare a few interests. When I served on Camden council, I was chairman of the Camden committee for community relations. In the aftermath of Lord Scarman's report, police-community consultative groups were set up in the City of Westminster, as elsewhere. There are three groups: one in south Westminster, one in the central and west end area and one in Paddington. In addition, there are two sub-committees: one on homelessness and one on licensing.
  I gather that there is a widespread opinion in the Met that those groups work well. That was corroborated when I appeared before Chris Patten's commission on the future of policing in Northern Ireland, which considered the use of community committees there. I met the Patten commission because the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, of which I am Chairman, published a report earlier this year on the recruitment, composition and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There are obvious parallels between the question of minority recruitment to the RUC and the issues that we are debating this morning.
  When he was a silk, my brother, who is now a lord justice of appeal, was briefed to appear for the coroner on a rerun of the Deptford inquiry. There had been a motion that the first findings of the coroner's court be quashed and the case heard again. My brother says that it was one of the most difficult cases he ever had to take in court because, although he had to win the case for the coroner, who was his client, and ensure that there was no rerun of the case, he was conscious that the parents of those who
  818
  died in that infamous fire in Deptford were troubled that they might not have received justice at the earlier stage. He had to tread a very narrow line—to win the case, but to make sure that, by its end, the parents felt that it had been properly conducted and that the circumstances of their children's deaths had been properly explained.
  My brother was well chosen for that role by central casting. In the 1960s, he had been unexpectedly recruited by a combination of Lord Denning and Lord Constantine—better known as the electrifying West Indian cricketer Learie Constantine—to improve opportunities for ethnic minorities at the Bar. He has latterly been involved in the arrangements for training judges to deal with ethnic matters.
  I did not get hot and bothered when the Commissioner, in publishing the crime statistics not for this year but for a previous one, drew attention to the fact that there were a considerable number of convictions among members of ethnic minorities. The Commissioner's role was descriptive, not evaluative; he was simply indicating one of the issues with which the police have to deal.
  Westminster's crime rate is much higher than that of the rest of the Metropolitan police district because of the enormous number of people who come into Westminster every day and who constitute a target for criminals. In my constituency, if I shake the hand of someone on the street during a general election campaign, I have a one in 12 chance of shaking the hand of someone who has the right to vote for me. However, anyone whose handbag or wallet is taken on Oxford street, in Soho, or anywhere in the west end, will be quite clear as to who committed the robbery, so I do not think that Sir Paul Condon erred in drawing attention to that.
  I agree with those hon. Members who spoke about the sense of outrage that totally innocent people feel when they are stopped by the police while going about their lawful business. On one occasion when driving around Ashley gardens, where we used to live, looking for a residential parking space, my first wife was stopped by the police. They clearly believed that she was a prostitute cruising for business, and she was spreadeagled against a wall. It is ironic that all this happened in my own constituency. Neither she nor I made any public or private reference to that, but 15 years later, it is worth mentioning the event because such incidents do happen and those to whom they happen feel considerable outrage. I share the sympathy that has been expressed for ethnic minorities.
  One of the experiences of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which in this Parliament has set its face to controversial issues, is that, as soon as we set up an inquiry, the body that we are investigating sets up a matching internal committee, often independently staffed, to consider the same issue. I welcome that, and I am delighted that the Metropolitan police are carrying out their own research, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the importance of recruitment. I shall not dwell on the parallels with the Territorial Army, which we have been discussing over the past fortnight, but, because this is a separate debate, I shall record again the statistics for the Royal Green Jackets volunteer arm in London. Twenty per cent. of its members are from ethnic minorities, against 1 per cent. in the Army as a whole. In Mayfair, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, East, 43 per cent. of the cadets at the

  819
  Royal Green Jackets' depot and drill hall are from ethnic minorities, and 53 per cent. of the cadet contingent have single parents or are from broken homes. There is a moral there for the police and for the Regular Army, who should learn how it has been possible for the TA to effect that recruitment, which has not been occurring elsewhere.
  I hope that an error will not be made about the TA, certainly in central London, but present Members are prone to blaming every ill that occurs in this country on the previous Government. The moment will come when that will no longer be intellectually possible. I am one of the two dozen or so—my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who is present, is another—who sat in the Chamber for the Conservatives between 1974 and 1979. In that period, in the run-up to the Edmund Davies report, there was a haemorrhage of sergeants from the Met aged 35 and above who got out because of the manner in which police pay was handled.
  There was a crisis from the loss of police officers in the period after the Edmund Davies report; the new Government in 1979 were prepared to spend considerable money not only to meet the Davies recommendations on pay, but on further recruitment into the Met, yet there was not sufficient operational middle management of the quality required to train officers. That is a "What if?" question and we cannot tell how the course of history would have been changed if circumstances had been different. The report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Royal Ulster Constabulary referred to a canteen culture, and there is no question that operational middle management plays a part in that.
  I conclude as I began by thanking the hon. Member for Twickenham for initiating the debate. I am delighted to have been able to make a small contribution to it.
  11.52 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall speak briefly, because I know that the national spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), wants to speak. I join in appreciation of all that has been said by other hon. Members in this debate, which has been well initiated and conducted.
  I regret only that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will not be able to take part, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), will be able to speak, at least as a Minister. I suspect that she will speak also as a Back Bencher because, in the past, going over Vauxhall bridge to her constituency at night, every person that the police asked to get out of their car was black. That is no longer the case, so some of the apparent wrongdoing, which reflects genuine wrongdoing, is being tackled with determination by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. From the day that he took office, he has been determined to deal with all the problems that the police force faces. He has not been completely successful, as he has said.
  There have been references to the Lawrence inquiry. Like the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), I prefer to keep most of my remarks for when the second part of the inquiry has finished and the report has been published. It is worth noting that, within a day and a half of the tragic killing of Stephen Lawrence, newspapers had reported police sources as saying that they knew that he was a good young man from a good family. The detective work
  820
  went wrong, but it is worth noting also that Superintendent John Philpott responded to the request of the leader of Greenwich council to come to an immediate meeting at Greenwich town hall. That initiative and the exemplary behaviour of Doreen and Neville Lawrence meant that there was no follow-up action on the streets, which could have led to disaster.
  I recommended to the Home Secretary in the previous Government that, instead of having an award to commemorate Philip Lawrence, the white headmaster who was tragically killed, it would be a fine tribute to have Lawrence awards to commemorate Stephen, a fine young black man, and Philip, a fine white headmaster. That would have been an inclusive way of marking their loss but also one that represented the decency in our community.
  In such a debate, it would be easy to go back over the 23 or so years in which I have served in the House and pick out examples of bad behaviour by the police, and perhaps, on occasion, it would be right to do so. However, it is important to recognise the number of times when the police have behaved well or behaved better. Unless we recognise those changes, we shall not encourage those who are trying to effect change.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) rightly pointed out the importance of middle management. When I had the responsibility for measures to cut drink-driving, the canteen culture in various police services was different because not only chief constables but their sergeants imposed their example and standards.
  When a relatively senior detective in the Metropolitan police got into difficulty with the force, it was possible, by agreement with his Member of Parliament, to meet a senior police officer and get the issue at least half resolved, rather than leaving it in the hands of lawyers. When my half-French research assistant was repeatedly stopped and mistreated by the police on his way home from dropping me—for example, at Broadcasting house at midnight—he and I were able to meet a senior police officer and that mistreatment stopped.
  I recommend that, if members of the police are concerned about the possible responses of the Lawrence inquiry, they should ensure that, when a police officer has stopped someone to run a check on a vehicle or driver's licence, that incident is recorded. The worst condemnation that I make of the most recent case that I took up is that the police had no record of inquiries about a named person in a car whose registration number was known. That shows that something is going wrong. If, for audit purposes, the police cannot run a retrospective check on who made an inquiry, when they made it and what it concerned, they cannot be accountable because they cannot count, manage or measure. They should insist on such records. Organisations will change only if good middle managers are recruited and remain in the force.
  I conclude with a point about the Metropolitan police. There has been a recommendation that the starting rates of pay for police in London should be increased. The people who ought to come into the police service are much in demand, whatever their ethnic background. Within the Government, people are asking whether that recommendation should be implemented. It should. Low or relatively low pay in central London is not an excuse for racial attitudes, but increasing pay may be part of the solution.

  821
  In that respect, as in others, the day that we can say that the colour of someone's skin is only as important as the colour of their eyes or of their hair, we shall know that the problem has been solved. We cannot say that yet.
  11.58 am
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) managed to secure this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) for his brevity. I shall try to be equally brief.
  I want to highlight the problems faced by ethnic minorities in being the victims of crime. That aspect is often overlooked because there is a focus on the experience of ethnic minorities as the alleged perpetrators of crime and their subsequent treatment by the police and the criminal justice agencies.
  Statistics unequivocally show that ethnic minorities are more likely to be the victims of all forms of crime. The British crime surveys of 1988 and 1992 and Home Office research study 154 showed that, statistically speaking, ethnic minorities are significantly more likely than whites to be the victims of both household and personal offences. The findings of the latest crime survey, published in Home Office statistical bulletin 6/98, showed that
  "During 1995, ethnic minorities had a statistically higher risk of victimisation than white people."
  Of course, there are sub-categories within that grouping. The bulletin continued:
  "In particular, risks of almost all crimes were higher for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis."
  There is variety within the different groupings and there is a risk of treating all people as the same, but every group of people with colour have a statistically higher risk of being victims of all forms of crime.
  In addition to that experience of general crime, two important aspects must be considered: racially motivated crime and fear of crime. Racially motivated crime has an especially harmful effect on community relations. The crime surveys showed a high under-reporting of such crime. The 1996 survey recorded that
  "Less than half of all racially motivated crime recorded"
  in the survey was
  "reported to the police",
  and that
  "Reporting to the police was less common among ethnic minorities than white people. Only 29 per cent. of racist crimes where the victim was an ethnic minority were reported to the police, compared with 55 per cent. where the victim was white."
  Under-reporting and the feeling that racially motivated crime is not taken seriously may contribute to a lack of confidence in the police in general. We are pleased that improvements are being made in that regard, such as the introduction of legislation on racially aggravated offences, for which we have high hopes, but we believe that there is far more work to be done.
  When I was a member of Avon county council, some time ago, I came into contact with Support Against Racist Incidents; like the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), I can testify to its good work. As a part of the community, it talks to people—sometimes literally in
  822
  their language—and encourages them to report the racially motivated offences that are certainly occurring. I hope that the Government will provide support to enable more similar work to be done.
  Fear of crime is markedly higher among ethnic minorities, and can dramatically affect people's quality of life, regardless of their background. The 1996 survey showed that
  "Ethnic minorities scored higher than white people on all"
  the crime survey
  "measures of fear of crime. They perceive themselves to be at greater risk of crime than whites … To a large extent this is a reflection of their"
  actual
  "higher risks of victimisation and harassment."
  A figure that stuck out for me from the survey's findings was that 10 per cent. of black people fear going to football matches, as against 3 per cent. of white people. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality is doing much work with its "Let's kick racism out of football" campaign, but plenty remains to be done when significant numbers of citizens fear going to a certain type of event purely because they feel that they may be harassed, or worse.
  Under-reporting in general does not appear to be a major problem, in that the figures for reporting of crime are broadly similar for all groups, but there is a high expectation among ethnic minorities that nothing will happen after the crime has been reported. That low expectation of police action is a major problem.
  Some major socio-economic factors are outside the scope of the debate. The fact that people who belong to an ethnic minority often live in poverty and deprivation is linked with their experience of crime, quite apart from the additional factor of their ethnicity.
  One of the cornerstones of any improvement in police action is the ethnic monitoring of all police activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred to the other main issue—recruitment. I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that we believe that targets— not quotas—are important, and that firm action is needed to ensure that officers justify their failure to meet targets. There may be a good reason—recruits may not be presenting themselves—but we believe that someone based centrally must ask chief constables what is happening and demand an explanation.
  Mr. Robathan: I am very happy with that suggestion. Targets have an important role and of course recruitment should be targeted; I was expressing a fear that heads would roll if the targets are not met.
  Mr. Allan: I am grateful for that clarification.
  For ethnic monitoring to be undertaken seriously, and subsequent action to be taken, there must be leadership from the top. The Home Office research study into ethnic monitoring, No. 173, picked up some widely differing attitudes to monitoring. Some police officers were using it defensively; they were saying, "We know that the blacks carry out all the crime and we believe that monitoring will help us prove it". Others responded genuinely and appropriately, saying that monitoring was

  823
  an important tool whose use was in the interests of the police, enabling individual police officers to show that they were not acting in a racially motivated or racist way.
  Monitoring, in and of itself, is not the answer. The attitude to monitoring must be right, and senior management must take note of, and act on, the results. If figures for stop and search reveal a problem, senior management must ask throughout the ranks why that is happening and seek solutions.
  We believe that the challenge is to bring about the right attitude to monitoring and to take action to combat racism throughout police forces in Britain. I have every confidence in chief constables to show the necessary leadership, but we must make it clear that that is a public priority—a political priority.
  I believe that, if we are looking for some good to flow from tragic events such as those that triggered the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, it would be a fitting result for all police forces to place combating racism—in their ranks and in society—high on their agenda. As a Liberal Democrat, working for a tolerant and free society, I believe that there is a moral case for that. I also hope that we shall take seriously the experiences of people from ethnic minorities, in relation to the higher levels of actual crime and fear of crime that they suffer, and their appalling experience of the horrendous effects of racially motivated crime. If that consciousness guides our police priorities, it will single out that aspect as a key area for police action.
  We hope that the new community safety strategies will provide a focus, as they highlight the experience of people from ethnic minorities and allow the police to target resources. I look forward to the development of those community safety strategies, and hope that they will have serious input from all sections of the community. I hope that they result, not in a top-down approach, but in a genuine bottom-up approach, which will allow everyone to talk about their experiences. I look forward to the Minister's response on this important issue.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I take the opportunity—the first that I have had—to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to the Treasury Bench. We are great friends in this place. I suspect that, later today, our minds will turn to a town in Ukraine, because of our support for a certain football club. In the meantime, I am glad to speak with her across the Dispatch Boxes on this important issue.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. Debate on police issues is always welcome, especially to me. Although the House will, in due course, reflect on the report of the Macpherson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence tragedy, there are—as the debate has shown—many matters on which we may usefully express a view while we keenly await its publication. I am sure that the House would wish to thank Sir William Macpherson and his team for their work. I am sure that the House will also wish to share in expressing the admiration of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) for the courageous and temperate way in which Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have conducted themselves in recent months over that tragic affair.
  Central to the deliberations of the Lawrence inquiry has been the question whether there is institutionalised racism in the police service. The debate has shown that the phrase
  824
  means different things to different people. We need to clarify what we mean—what people are trying to allege— by the phrase "institutionalised racism". If it means that the police service as a whole sets out to target and persecute people from black communities solely on the ground of their ethnic background, I do not believe such an allegation to be remotely true. On the other hand, if the intention is to suggest that there is in the police service a tendency among some officers, as a result of their personal racial prejudice or—as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) correctly pointed out—all the assumptions that they make, to fail on occasions to treat every incident that might involve people from ethnic backgrounds with equal fairness or single-mindedness, that allegation may well be true. Nevertheless, such tendencies and behaviour cannot be tolerated. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has just reminded the House, in community and police relations, the problem is more often one of people from ethnic backgrounds being victims of, rather than their indulging in, criminal activity.
  A central issue in the Stephen Lawrence incident has been police response to racially motivated violence. Not that many years ago, when I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, we inquired in depth into the issue of racially motivated attacks. Committee members were struck by the variation in standards of community relations among police forces, even within the Metropolitan police in different parts of London. There is no substitute for strong and good relations between police and communities, and achieving such relations must be an important objective for all police services.
  In recent months, with the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we have debated how racially motivated violence should be prosecuted. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, it is difficult not to conclude that such argument is essentially irrelevant when dealing with the primary fact that a very fine young man has been murdered.
  I have often stated in the House my belief in the need for a multiracial police force. Although only a fool or a racist bigot would argue with the proposition that the United Kingdom's multiracial society needs a multiracial police force, there is still much to do done to build such a force. Only last week, Mr. Fred Broughton of the Police Federation told the Home Affairs Select Committee that, in the fight against crime, "it is essential" to have a far more balanced police force.
  I have been able on several occasions to observe the effectiveness of multiracial policing in major cities in the United States, and argue that such policing is a prize that is well worth striving for. The Home Secretary was right to suggest in his recent speech to the Black Police Association that more needs to be done to foster good relations with all sections of our diverse community, and that the police service should reflect the diversity of the community that it serves.
  The Government must, nevertheless, do more than merely set targets for recruitment, retention and promotion of black and Asian officers, because targets alone will solve nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has dealt with the matter of what happens if targets are not met.

  825
  The House must ask how chief constables are to increase the number of officers from ethnic communities when, as the Home Secretary knows full well, other demands on police budgets—some of which have been imposed by the Home Office—are forcing many chief constables to freeze recruitment.
  The greater flexibility given by the previous Government to chief constables to decide their spending priorities was, and remains, a welcome development. However, it remains Ministers' responsibility to ensure that the demands that they place on the police service are achievable within the resource base that they provide.
  The plain fact is that many police forces will find it extremely difficult to recruit additional officers in the next few years, and that some forces are already making reductions. Progress in reaching the important targets for recruitment of more black and Asian police officers can be met only through the natural process of younger officers replacing retiring officers.
  It is crucial that more is done by senior officers to improve police culture in dealing with ethnic communities. People from ethnic communities need encouragement to believe that they will be made to feel welcome if they join the police service.
  As several hon. Members have said today, people from ethnic communities neither need nor expect positive discrimination in achieving promotion. Many young people from an ethnic background who have been born and brought up in the United Kingdom are highly capable of achieving, entirely on merit, the most senior ranks in our police service.
  The task for chief constables and senior officers is to eradicate any racist elements in their forces. To do so, they will require the full support of both the Government and Parliament. The Stephen Lawrence tragedy, and the case of Michael Menson, demonstrate all too clearly the price of failing to achieve that objective.
  Some have questioned whether some senior police officers, even the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis himself, should resign. I agree with those who say that such tokenism will not address the culture issue, and that a more significant factor may be whether senior officers have the confidence of their own serving officers. Above all, training and internal personnel initiatives are most likely to be effective in addressing the issue. The hon. Member for Bristol, East made telling points on the need for the police service to have a far greater understanding of different cultures, and on the fact that behaviour regarded as unusual by some may be thought of as perfectly normal by others.
  There must be change not only in police culture. As Mr. Broughton told the Select Committee last week, police morale has taken an absolute battering over recent allegations of racism in the service. Although I do not have time to quote at length Mr. Broughton's evidence to the Committee, that evidence will be available to hon. Members. I should say that he mentioned the tremendous anger of police officers. As he said—it is confirmed by my own experience—the fact is that the vast majority of police officers are not racist, corrupt or dishonest. They are doing a difficult job. The House has always taken every opportunity to praise the excellent job done by the vast majority of serving policemen and policewomen in the United Kingdom, and we do so again today.
  826
  I have no doubt that the most pressing need is to address the loss of faith in our police service, which has been generated by recent events, among residents in many communities, particularly in London. However, the situation is not entirely gloomy. Later today, we should be able to see in the Evening Standard a new ICM poll showing that, according to members of ethnic communities, race relations have improved significantly in the past 10 years. We therefore have to view the issue in perspective.
  Suspicion of, and lack of confidence in, the police service is the primary barrier to achieving the Government's objective of increasing the number of officers from West Indian, African, Asian and other ethnic backgrounds. Young people from those communities are being actively discouraged from joining the police service. It will take a monumental effort to repair the damage of recent months. A great many people in the police service relish that challenge, but will need to have confidence that corrupt officers and those guilty of blatant racial discrimination will be disciplined.
  The police service will also need reassurance that Parliament stands ready to provide the support, both moral and material, that it needs. It is my profound wish that the cross-party consensus on the issue that has been so obvious in the debate will encourage the important process of rebuilding and strengthening police and community relations in Britain.
  12.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his kind words. It is a privilege to respond to my first Adjournment debate on this topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is sitting on the Front Bench but cannot speak, and I, as the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, have a great interest in this subject as we both represent the borough of Lambeth.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his good fortune in securing the debate and on his choice of subject. The issues of racism and community relations in the context of the police are both highly topical and extremely important subjects for the House to consider. His thoughtful and forward-looking remarks set the tone for the whole debate. It is good to see that hon. Members on both sides of the House have wanted to contribute to the debate. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, that shows the all-party nature of the subject. If we are to tackle racism, we must all work together.
  There has been a tendency to regard such debates as primarily about the Metropolitan police, but the speeches by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who may think that he is still a London Member—he is not, because my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is sitting behind me—have shown that the debate has been more wide ranging. Although the Met gets huge publicity because it is such a large force, its problems are replicated in police forces throughout the country.

  827
  The Government have made tackling racism a top priority. In the United Kingdom's increasingly diverse society, the police service needs to reflect that priority if it is to continue its tradition of policing by consent. The service relies on the support and active participation of all sections of the community. It must also be seen to be tackling racial and other discrimination so that it can provide a better service to all sections of the community.
  We all want a police service that treats all people fairly, regardless of their race or religion. The experience of ethnic minority communities does not meet that aspiration. We must take that on board. To do its job properly, the police service needs the trust and confidence of every citizen. Police and community relations must be brought into the heart of police policy and practice.
  Our goal is to create a police service that treats people fairly and equally. Central to that is the need to ensure that racially motivated crime is tackled effectively. Part of the answer is to provide the right legislative tools to tackle racial crime. We have made good progress on that in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, with the introduction of new racially aggravated offences. However, legislation is not enough. The way in which the police respond to racial crime is crucial. It is a key test of whether the police are delivering their services fairly to all sections of the community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East mentioned a booklet about the work done under Commander Dave Warren in Bristol. That approach has helped to turn round police-community relations in that area and is to be commended. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West said, much work is being done to improve police performance in that central area. In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have seen changes in my constituency, where some people would hardly talk to the police. That has changed and genuine partnerships now exist.
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has produced a good practice guide for police response to racial incidents. A protocol has also been agreed with the Crime Prosecution Service to ensure consistency in identifying cases with a racial motivation. Those are all steps in the right direction, which we intend to build on to ensure that the mistakes of the past are avoided. The Government welcome the racial and violent crime task force, headed by DAC John Grieve, which the Metropolitan police has set up. It has the challenging task of creating a strategy for tackling that key area in the Met.
  Reference has been made to the Lawrence inquiry. I wish to add my comments on how the Lawrence family has handled the whole terrible tragedy. Part 2 of the inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set up last year into the death of Stephen Lawrence is now well under way and is looking into the lessons to be learnt for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crime. The death of that young man was a tragedy. The challenge will be for the police service to ensure that the results of the inquiry are grasped as an opportunity to make real and lasting changes so that it can gain the confidence of all sections of the community.
  How the police use their powers is another key test of how fairly they serve the community. It can have a significant effect on the lives of members of minority ethnic communities: on their perceptions of the police and their willingness to co-operate with the police in tackling crime and disorder. The results of the first full year of
  828
  ethnic monitoring of police activity, published last December, showed substantial differences in the use the police make of their powers when dealing with different ethnic groups. The statistics showed that police forces consistently stopped, searched and arrested more black people than white or Asian, but were less likely to caution black people. That has been referred to over and again by hon. Members today.
  Although many variables make it difficult to interpret the data perfectly, there can be no escaping the message that black people in particular seem to get disproportionate attention from the police. It is vital that the police service takes account of that, and takes effective action to ensure that the substantial powers that police officers hold are used fairly and effectively. Progress is being made. For example, the Metropolitan police service has reviewed its use of stop and search, and developed a plan to manage that tactic fairly and effectively. The Association of Chief Police Officers has set up a project to develop effective use of ethnic monitoring data, which will inform the development of a good practice guide. We all await the results with interest.
  Appropriate training for the police in community and race relations is essential to enable them to operate effectively and fairly. The Home Office has, for many years, funded a specialist unit to give expert support to the service in race and community relations training. A new strategy to be implemented from next year will see a shift in how that support is provided: support will be provided directly to individual forces to place community and race relations firmly within operational policing activities.
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that the review of national police training is on ice while the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducts an inquiry into police training. However, we intend the results of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry to feed into the review.
  We hope that the new force-based approach, which will include extensive consultation with local communities, will provide the right operational and cultural context in which training can take place. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, corners must not be cut on training.
  Membership of the service must now, more than ever, reflect the diversity of society. The Home Secretary has expressed his personal commitment to that, and to the setting of targets for minority ethnic recruitment, retention and promotion in all services for which the Home Office is responsible. I gently advise the hon. Member for Ryedale that we cannot allow resources to be used as an excuse for not recruiting more ethnic minorities in the police service. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for targets, but make it absolutely clear that targets are not the same as quotas. There is a big difference.
  The Home Office and the Black Police Association have a close working relationship, to which black police officers are well placed to make an important contribution not only operationally but in terms of understanding what goes on in their own community.
  It is the Government's goal to create a society that treats everyone with decency and respect, regardless of their colour. The police service must take a lead in making that vision a reality. The report of the inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's death will have a significant impact on the future of race and community relations within the police

  829
  service, and the service must rise to that challenge. I remind the House of what Lord Scarman said in his 1981 report:
  "A police force which fails to reflect the ethnic diversity of our society will never succeed in securing the full support of all its sections."
  I am confident that there is a strong commitment at all levels of the service to making the necessary changes and that we can move forward and learn from the lessons of the past. I am confident that we shall learn from the Lawrence inquiry and I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the matter this morning, and the interest shown by all hon. Members.

  School Students
  12.29 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: In Birmingham, on average, one in five children will change school each year other than at normal transfer times, but averages hide some salient statistics. In my constituency, the turnover rate is 29.6 per cent. in the Bartley Green ward, 22 per cent. in Edgbaston, 18 per cent. in Harborne and 19 per cent. in Quinton; in other words, the rates in all my wards are above or well above the average for the city.
  Some of the schools in my constituency have significant problems. I shall use four schools in the Bartley Green ward to illustrate the tremendous range. At Ley Hill school, the turnover is 50 per cent.; at Nonsuch school, 45 per cent.; and at Kitwell school, 42 per cent. However, St. Peter's Roman Catholic school, which is 500 yd down the road from Nonsuch school, has a turnover of just 9 per cent. Averages can be deceptive and we must look at the problems faced by individual schools.
  Why is mobility a problem? Children who change school frequently are at greater risk of under-achieving academically. They tend to have a poorer attendance record, poorer concentration and poorer motivation. They are also more likely to have special educational needs. High mobility in any school affects continuity and progression, and children find it difficult to catch up when they change school. That, in turn, tends to lead to low self-esteem, behavioural problems and exclusion. The children who change schools are not the only ones affected; the children who attend a school at a time of high mobility suffer knock-on effects. Those children who are not absent are still affected when new children have to catch up, and that damages their educational experience.
  Some research has been carried out in Birmingham. In March 1997, the Ladywood consortium of schools carried out a survey on pupil mobility. The results were most enlightening. Moving house accounted for some 72 per cent. of children changing schools. However, some 18 per cent. of those in Ladywood remained in the area but still changed schools. In certain parts of Birmingham, there has been a fall in the birth rate, so schools have vacant places. It has become almost a habit that, when children encounter difficulties in one school, they are simply moved to another. Rather than facing up to problems and trying to solve them, moving is seen as a solution, but it tends to aggravate the problems.
  How can we reduce and manage mobility? It is accepted that it is a cross-agency problem and that no one agency can address it. In Birmingham, additional resources have been provided through the local management of schools formula. There are also pilot projects on unique pupil identifiers to ensure that pupils are not lost in the system. There is an increased focus on inclusion, which involves giving schools additional support when children move to ensure that their records and work are passed on.
  Extra funding is not sufficient, however. The extra resources given as a result of mobility tend to have a negative knock-on effect on the funding for free school meals. Therefore, rather than gaining twice as they really should, some schools tend to lose out by the trading off under the formula. It generates some extra funds, but they are not sufficient.

  831
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware that, although the English average for claiming free school meals is 22 per cent., the average for Birmingham is 37 per cent. In some schools in my constituency, entitlement on the basis of drawing income support would suggest figures of 60 to 70 per cent., but the benefit is not claimed. There is still a perceived stigma to claiming free school meals, so official figures underestimate the true problem.
  I should like to draw on the experience of two head teachers in my constituency who described the problem more accurately than I can. Mrs. Pat Cook from Kitwell primary school wrote to me about resources, saying:
  "The trend over the last three years shows a pupil turnover rate of 42.5 per cent. The present system of funding does not fully take into account extra consumable materials the school has to purchase … additional teacher time, secretarial time, Special Needs Co-ordinator time in general administration of records"—
  which change continually—
  "discussions with previous and receiving schools, telephone and postal charges"—
  to communicate with new parents and the
  "additional workload when statemented pupils transfer."
  There is a tendency for pupils who move very frequently to have special educational needs. She also makes this important point:
  "Pupils who join us after form 7 (January) but leave before September bring no funding at all".
  The funding formula is not sufficiently sensitive.
  Other than resources—it could be argued that it is for individual local education authorities to come up with formulae that address their needs—there is also the problem of setting targets. The Government have asked schools to set targets for 2000 in respect of key stage 2 and GCSEs.
  Let me make it clear that none of the head teachers with whom I have spoken is against setting targets or in any way lacks commitment to raising standards. Pat Cook wrote:
  "We are committed to raising standards—we are happy to set targets—but please take into account pupil mobility."
  She said that 30 of her current year 6 will sit an exam by the end of the year, but 10 of them have only just joined the school.
  The second school in my constituency to which I make direct reference is Ley Hill primary school. The head teacher, Roger Cunningham, told me last week that he had 380 pupils on the roll and that, last year, he admitted 174 and lost 154. Although he accepts that the figures include some year 6 students and some reception students, pupil turnover averages 50 per cent. His particular concern is that the Government's system of target setting is, in his words,
  "at best gazing into the crystal ball in a school with a mobility of some 50 per cent."
  He writes:
  "The circular 11/98 'Target Setting in Schools' does not allow for targets to be adjusted for mobility once they have been set. It argues that mobility can be positive as well as negative. While that is true it does seem that Ley Hill is subject to Social Mobility with our better families being rehoused. Since carrying out our annual tests in May, we have lost five children from the 2000 target group. Three of them would have been certain Level 4 children. We have admitted into the year group a child with learning difficulties who has arrived complete with Integration Support."
  832
  Roger Cunningham and other head teachers face the difficulty that committed teachers and head teachers do their level best to deal with a rapidly moving population, but there is a danger that some of the target setting assumes a linear progression in improving standards that schools such as Kitwell will never be able to achieve by the very nature of the communities that they serve. They have a very real fear that the current targeting system is not sufficiently sensitive to their schools, which should be allowed to renew and review their annual targets much more frequently. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reconsider the current system of target setting to take account of mobility.
  12.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke):The Government welcome the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on the strong and clear way in which she has put her case. I should like to mention the similar work of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).
  For a long time, central Government have given insufficient priority to high pupil mobility. Unfortunately, the statistics that my hon. Friend has given are not atypical. She mentioned schools with mobility rates of 42, 45 and 50 per cent. and wards in her constituency with a 29 per cent. mobility rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made an analysis of four schools in his constituency—a very different part of the country—where turnover was 31 per cent. Data obtained from six London local education authorities have verified that this is a major issue in many parts of Greater London. Statistics for one inner-London authority show that more than one third of children taking key stage 2 tests last year had not been in the same school at key stage 1. Manchester local education authority also cited high mobility as a key issue in its evidence to the 1994–95 Education Select Committee inquiry on performance in inner-city schools.
  The whole House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston for raising the issue, because the problem is not just local to her constituency; it has profound implications across the education system, and insufficient attention has been paid to it.
  I agreed with my hon. Friend's points about the implications of high mobility for education and the educational problems that arise when it is difficult to manage and address issues of mobility properly. High pupil mobility is one of the many factors that can affect pupil performance and school management. Much more attention needs to be paid to it. However, there is little hard information on the causes and effects. The issues are complex. I shall mention four factors that affect pupil mobility.
  The first factor is internal migration. People may move locally because of a change in their job, career cycle, life cycle or housing—in that respect, I was interested in the Ladywood survey to which my hon. Friend referred. There are also particular communities such as travellers who move around and for whom specific provision is made in the standards fund. The second important factor is institutional movement—exclusions, voluntary transfers, people moving between special schools and others and people moving between the private

  833
  independent system and the state system. Thirdly, there is individual movement—children in care, families breaking up and circumstances changing that result in children moving around. Fourthly—this is not a trivial issue at all, particularly in our great cities—there is international migration, as people move to and from this country; that can happen as a result of making job changes, seeking refugee status or moving around as a student.
  A complex series of factors play their part in determining what happens, but our information is very patchy. My hon. Friend mentioned the contrast between two neighbouring schools, one with a 9 per cent. level of mobility and the other with 42 per cent. My Department is co-operating with a new research project to be conducted at the migration research unit at University college, London by Dr. Janet Dobson, who wrote an interesting piece on the subject in The Times Educational Supplement two or three weeks ago. With funding from the Nuffield Foundation, the study will look at the nature and causes of pupil mobility and the implications of high mobility for current national strategies to raise educational standards and achievement.
  In particular, the project will review the current state of knowledge on child migration, which is patchy. It will establish what is currently known about the implications of high pupil mobility, developing a better understanding of the incidence of high mobility and the policy issues deriving from it and painting a detailed picture of the scale and nature of pupil mobility in some high mobility schools and the implications for strategies to raise achievement. We are considering additional funding support to accelerate the project, which will begin next year, so that it can be more comprehensive and achieve more accurate results more quickly. We look forward to the results with great interest.
  We would welcome more concrete evidence on mobility, such as that produced by my hon. Friend, to clarify how issues arise between different schools in an area and the implications for educational performance. The subject has not been sufficiently discussed. I hope that the research project with which we are co-operating will provide a focus for proper debate and discussion of the issues.
  The research project will also provide the basis of any policy changes that may be needed to take account of the problems caused by mobility. Many issues are involved, of which my hon. Friend raised several. Record keeping is important. Records are not passed on in a way that assists education as people move from school to school. There is a lot of evidence that the performance advance of children at the beginning of secondary school in particular is not as fast as at other times. One reason is that school records are not passed on as efficiently and rapidly as they should be. As a result, secondary school teachers do not understand their pupils' educational history as well as would be beneficial to them as teachers and to the pupils. That is highlighted by what my hon. Friend has said about mobility between schools, not just at the primary-secondary transfer. My Department will produce new guidance later this year to tighten up on the approach so that our system of records will ensure that past educational achievement is properly understood.
  834
  My hon. Friend also mentioned exclusion and truancy and the general framework of social exclusion that affects some schools more than others. She will know that, at the start of October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a major new programme of £493 million of expenditure over three years.
  Ms Stuart: Some schools in my constituency have pupils with dual registration. A pupil may have been excluded from one school and be then registered in a special school, and a mainstream school is prepared to take that pupil on dual registration. If that student has to be expelled again, the forecast GCSE results will count towards the targets. That provides a disincentive for schools to take the risk of bringing students back into the mainstream.
  Mr. Clarke: That is an excellent and valid point, which I entirely take. I shall comment later on certain reviews; perhaps I may address my hon. Friend's accurate and correct point in that context. As with her other points, it has general applicability across the system.
  Our social exclusion policies seek to achieve a multi-agency approach, in which schools work with the police, the probation service and particularly social services to try to ensure a much more supportive, less professionally segmented, more positive and constructive atmosphere in which to try to address the problems. We are specifically putting resources into the education of children in care, which has been very much neglected over a long period. Although those measures do not directly address the issue of mobility, I hope and believe that the coherent Government programme will reduce the incidence of some of the factors that lead to mobility and problems in schools in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  My hon. Friend referred to target setting, which is an exceptionally important aspect of the subject. As she knows, the Government believe that setting specific, measurable targets for pupil performance is a very powerful lever for raising educational standards. I was very glad that she mentioned the commitment to that approach of head teachers of the schools that she described. Their commitment is shared throughout the teaching profession. People acknowledge the benefit of setting targets to focus attention on how we solve problems.
  Setting pupil performance targets is also an essential tool in school management, as it adds clarity and focus to the school planning process, allowing a school to address issues and problems internally. Higher standards will be achieved only if schools take responsibility for their improvement and feel that they have ownership of the target-setting process. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston rightly pointed out that some head teachers feel that they do not own sufficiently the target-setting process in their school when external factors are hitting them over the head. Just as they need to feel ownership of the process, we need to be able to respond constructively.
  There is no doubt from research and inspection evidence that target setting raises pupil performance. There is no doubt either that our new statutory targets are in line with other targets that the Government are setting, to achieve coherence between schools and LEAs' educational development plans, and nationally, as we seek to move the process of achievement forward.

  835
  It is important that schools set targets based on past trends, benchmark data, national targets, LEA targets and teacher forecasts, which aggregate pupil results. It is therefore entirely reasonable that, in schools where there is high mobility of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred, that factor is taken into account when setting targets and deciding how to move forward.
  High pupil mobility makes it difficult to aggregate school targets on individual pupils. As the schools that are affected are so wide ranging—I have been surprised by it—it is important that we consider detailed research in deciding what guidance to offer on how mobility can be taken into account. I regret that, in past years, there has not been detailed research into the matter. That is why I am glad to be able to announce today our co-operation with the research projects at University college, London.
  Schools with high pupil mobility should certainly seek to make similar progress toward national and LEA targets to other schools, as the head teachers of the schools in Birmingham, Edgbaston have acknowledged. It is obviously highly desirable in so doing to take account of a school's circumstances, including high mobility. We are reviewing the target-setting process for 1999. It would not be appropriate to revisit the arrangements for this year so late in the process, although we shall draw on this year's experience in reviewing the working of regulations governing target setting. We shall obviously take into account a wide variety of issues as well as, to the extent that that is possible, pupil mobility issues.
  I should make one important qualification. We shall not, even this year, properly understand what causes mobility and why its incidence is so selective and partial in schools in the same LEA, constituency or ward. Before we come to firm, long-term views on how we should properly take pupil mobility into account, I am keen to see evidence generated by the research projects to which I referred.
  Ms Stuart: It is interesting that, because of the different reasons behind mobility, the social problems associated with it do not arise in the nearby constituency of Birmingham, Selly Oak, where the university population causes a high turnover. I therefore welcome the detailed research.
  Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that remark. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) tabled a written question on the matter earlier in the year, in which she focused on similar points. The difficulty is that the issue is so complex; there is such an interplay of factors. Before giving clear guidance, we need to establish how such factors relate to each other. One very important thing that we need to do nationally, in schools and through LEA educational development
  836
  plans is to identify the causes of high mobility properly and develop strategies to reduce its adverse effect on pupil performance.
  Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Minister for his positive response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has raised a very important subject. She raised one issue on which he has not touched—the tracking of pupils. Will he comment on the Government's thoughts on the matter? I am sure that he is aware of concern about the fact that we have no idea where some pupils who leave a school go. Such tracking data would have been very helpful, for example, in the appalling and tragic Fred West case. Have the Government any plans to implement a tracking mechanism?
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I mentioned the transfer of records. The awful West case was one of the aspects that informed our approach. We must consider not only educational issues, which I have sought to address, but those concerning lost children, which can be, and have been, deeply tragic. We are taking on board the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are looking at ways in which to introduce unique pupil identifiers—UPIs—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston referred. There are significant information technology issues, too, as schools begin to move forward in that respect. We are conscious of the fact that, as we try to work out the best way to adopt a much more effective system of tracking pupils, which is needed, we must not place additional burdens on teachers. My Department is looking closely at the matter and will provide detailed guidance later this year on record keeping and the transfer of records. More substantially, we shall be making proposals on this very important issue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked how head teachers and schools should explain to local communities the implications of mobility figures for their performance results. I should emphasise that it is entirely appropriate and right for performance tables and results to be published in the proper context in annual reports, so that parents and the local community may understand the circumstances in which the achievements were made, and, should head teachers or governors deem it appropriate, the specific impact of high pupil mobility on examination results is explained.
  I hope that, on the evidence of the research project that I have mentioned, and the steps that we are already taking to review target setting, my hon. Friend will accept that we take the issue seriously. We would also encourage governors and head teachers to explain to parents and the rest of the community the precise impact that high mobility has on exam results. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate, which gives the first real airing to an important subject that is not well understood.

  Newhaven Port
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold the debate, although I wish that it were not necessary. As the Minister will know, I last initiated an Adjournment debate on Government support for Newhaven in June, when I drew attention to the importance of the port not only for Newhaven itself but for a much wider region. I am sure that she accepts that a wider region is affected by the fortunes of Newhaven port.
  Introducing my debate on 3 June, I said:
  "This is a critical time for Newhaven. The port is at a crossroads … It has the potential a major success story of the next century, but it might also slip away, leaving a shell of derelict buildings, rusting metal and high unemployment …The Government, local councils and, crucially, the private sector must all deliver if we are to succeed".—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 324.]
  I am sorry to tell the House that the five months since then have not been kind to Newhaven. The crossroads sign has begun to swing round, away from prosperity and towards the rusting metal and empty shell. In response to my previous debate, the Minister gave me genuinely sympathetic words, and set out the help that has been provided by both the present and the previous Government.
  I acknowledge the help that has been given, and place on record again my thanks for the positive approach and flexibility of the Government office for the south-east. However, let there be no misunderstanding. Today I have to say clearly that that level of help is no longer enough. The situation has deteriorated, and I ask the Government to move up a gear, as the French Government did yesterday.
  The seriousness of the position is reflected by the fact that in the Strangers Gallery today we have a large contingent from Dieppe, including the Deputy and mayor, Christian Cuvilliez, with representatives from the unions and from the Dieppe chamber of commerce. Hon. Members may have seen the coaches outside the House bearing the slogan "Save the Line".
  I am pleased that so many distinguished guests are here today to listen to the debate and to hear the Minister's response. I hope that she will send them away in an optimistic frame of mind, and I am grateful that she has said that she will be able to have a brief few words with the members of the delegation immediately after the debate. I know that her timetable is very tight, and the fact that she has found us a small space is much appreciated both by our friends from Dieppe and by me.
  I am also grateful for the support of other local Members of Parliament, especially the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who is in the Chamber now, and who has initiated an unprecedented statement of support for the ferry from interests on both sides of the channel. All the local Members, from all parties, have contacted me and been supportive. The hon. Members for Pavilion, for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Hove (Mr. Caplin) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), and the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), have all signed my early-day motion 1694 on the subject. I notice that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is also present today, and I encourage him to add his signature.
  838
  Let me outline the present position. It has become clear that the port owner, Sea Containers, is not prepared to build a new outer harbour, despite having signed up, literally, to the town's regeneration programme as established through the Newhaven economic partnership, which clearly included that project.
  The alternative suggestion was for a deepening of the existing harbour—an idea that came from Sea Containers itself. Yet the company now says that it is not prepared to do that, either, despite the fact that the Government office for the south-east was helpful and flexible about altering the plans for the approved port access road, to be funded through capital challenge, and the county council committed yet more public money to redesign the road.
  The county council had done all the work, and was ready to go. Planning permission had been obtained, all the land ownership problems had been sorted out, and extensive landscaping schemes designed. The county then waited almost a year for Sea Containers to deliver its side of the bargain; it waited in vain.
  Now that window of opportunity for funding the road has been lost. Also lost, almost certainly, is the well-respected and key local employer, James Fisher, which has been unable to reach a satisfactory deal with Sea Containers, and, I understand, is now negotiating a surrender of its lease. More jobs are being lost.
  Most serious is the potential loss of the ferry route that has operated between Newhaven and Dieppe for 173 years. Ho Chi Minh once worked on the route, Lord Salisbury travelled on it to reach his home in France, and Lord Lucan allegedly used it to escape from the country. I hope that the ferry does not disappear, as he did.
  Last week, P and O Stena announced the withdrawal of the Elite, the fast craft used on the route. We are now down to one ancient trundling boat, the Cambria, which sails twice a day and is often late. Indeed, it was late this morning. Its timetable is hardly designed to attract extra traffic. The boat used by our French friends this morning left Dieppe at 3.45 am.
  The ferry company is in talks with the unions to discuss a range of options, one of which is to close the line altogether. That would be catastrophic for both Newhaven and Dieppe, and for nearby areas in Normandy and East Sussex, including Brighton and Hove, and Eastbourne.
  Mr. David Lepper: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of us gave our reluctant support to the limited merger between P and O and Stena last year only on the understanding that that would secure substantial new investment in that vital ferry service, and that those of us who did so feel betrayed to some extent by the company?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right. He has hit the nail on the head. People have a right to feel betrayed. They expected a better service from P and O Stena as a result of the merger, and they have not got it. If that service goes, 440 jobs are directly at stake—indeed, some have already gone with the disappearance of the Elite—and the knock-on effect on the wider region would be substantial.
  Closure of the line cannot be allowed to happen. All the local authorities and Members of Parliament, in both Newhaven and Dieppe and in their local areas, stand shoulder to shoulder to fight any such proposal.

  839
  The French Government yesterday added their support, and I hope that our Government will mirror their attitude today.
  I met my opposite number, Mr. Cuvilliez, who is here today, in Dieppe on Monday to discuss the situation. Yesterday he raised the matter in the French Assembly, and I have now provided the Minister's office with a copy of that exchange in advance of today's debate. She will have seen that the French Government have accepted that the matter is
  "une question grave et sérieuse".
  The French Government also suggest that any closure or even diminution of the line might be contrary to the conditions fixed in Brussels at the time of the merger between P and O and Stena. I have already discussed that idea with the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, and her office subsequently advised me that the Government do not believe that the merger conditions have been breached. In the light of the French Government's response, however, may I ask the Minister to look afresh at the question, and be kind enough to drop a line to other Members and to myself?
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I represent a constituency next to the Newhaven area, and Brighton and Hove have a strong interest in the future of the port, which falls within our travel-to-work area. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper); he and both I met the management of Stena Line, and were given the same undertakings, which the company has now breached.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) will agree that many commercial complications are involved, and companies are acting with no regard for the impact of their actions on the communities that the port serves. If the line has lost passengers, which it has, precipitately, that is scarcely surprising. The company cannot justifiably use the opening of the channel tunnel to explain the loss, because, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, the line has been so appallingly managed that, if the company had set out to deter passengers, it could not have done a better job.
  I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman of our support in asking Ministers to do everything that they can to introduce some rationality into the situation so that we can have a future. I am sure that he agrees with me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway, but he must understand that he is making an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Baker: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with his analysis of the Stena problem, and I am grateful for the cross-party support on the issue. In fact, that was to be my next point.
  The level of commitment that Stena showed to the line has waned somewhat since the merger with P and O. The company says that it is experiencing large losses on the line, but there is a strong belief, especially in France, that it is deliberately redirecting freight away from the line and on to its Dover-Calais route. The chambre de commerce believes that £3 million of the alleged £8 million losses is attributable to that alone. P and O Stena has three cross-channel lines. Many people believe that it wants to
  840
  save money by operating only two, and has decided that Newhaven-Dieppe is the one to go. We need a clear statement from P and O Stena of its position.
  There has also been a complete lack of marketing for the line recently, but despite that, despite problems with the boats, despite poor timekeeping and despite the timetable, about 700,000 passengers were carried last year. They used the line in spite of P and O Stena, rather than because of it, because the line would be successful and make a profit if only investment was made in infrastructure, marketing and achieving reliability.
  The problems that Newhaven has at present are largely due to the behaviour of Sea Containers and, to a lesser extent, the ferry company. All aspects of the public sector, in this country and in France, have delivered their parts of the bargain and have consistently shown commitment to, and faith in, Newhaven and the ferry link. I must conclude that we would not be in this situation if the port and the ferry were in public hands. That may sound old Labour, or old Liberal, but it is difficult not to draw that conclusion.
  Sea Containers is interested only in Sea Containers. Its strategy over the past 10 years has been minimum expenditure—just enough to deal with maintenance of statutory obligations—while bleeding as much money as it can out of the port. It will not invest in the port, nor can it find a buyer. That is, at least in part, due to the fact that it has grossly over-valued the port at £18 million, and has, I understand, borrowed against it. If Sea Containers sold the port for its real value, the over-valuing would be revealed, so it sits tight and bleeds it dry instead.
  Sea Containers' latest tactic is to seek planning permission for land it owns in the strategic gap between Newhaven and Seaford. It wants to increase the value of its land to bring it up to the £18 million figure that it has arbitrarily set, should it receive such permission. In such circumstances, it might invest in the port.
  Let me be clear: this is an attempt to blackmail the council into giving planning permission that it would otherwise not countenance. Having said that, the council would of course be prepared to consider any proposals, but they would have to be backed up with legal and enforceable guarantees. Sea Containers must come absolutely clean on its detailed plans for Newhaven, and then stick to what it has said. That has not been the case so far. If those plans are made clear, it will then be for people in Newhaven and Seaford to take a view, and make it known to their elected representatives at all levels.
  Sea Containers has told me that it is prepared for one year to run a fast ferry on the route during the summer months, if P and O Stena withdraws. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it is not in any way enough. It appears that Sea Containers wants to cream off the profitable summer trade with a craft that requires little on-investment in the port—more bleeding of the port. I say to Sea Containers, "If you bleed the port too much, you will destroy your own asset. The longer you fail to invest, the more businesses will pull out, and the real value of the port will fall further from the arbitrary £18 million figure."
  I should like the Government to intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner, and I have six requests for the Minister. First, will she examine the legal position, to which I referred earlier, in respect of the European Commission? Secondly, will the Government

  841
  put pressure on P and O Stena to make its intentions abundantly clear, and to maintain the route at a proper level of boats and investment? Thirdly, will they put pressure on Sea Containers to make its plans clear, and to introduce plans, which it has promised for so long, to invest in Newhaven port?
  Fourthly, will the Government consider areas where they could apply for European Union funding for port infrastructure improvements, and support the plans for rail investment through the trans-European rail network, because Newhaven to London is a trans-European rail line? Fifthly, will they consider reallocating the money in capital challenge for the port access road to other port improvements, which could be discussed with the county council and the district council?
  Lastly, will the Minister, or one of her colleagues, visit Newhaven to meet people and discuss matters on the ground? I want those six questions answered, but my constituents want one question answered: what will the Government do to keep the ferry going and to save Newhaven? We need a clear and decisive answer today.
  1.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) ended his speech with six requests, but there were seven, I think. On the legal position, I will most certainly look into it. On pressure that the Government can bring to bear on the two commercial organisations to which he referred—P and O Stena and Sea Containers—he will be aware that the Government's powers in those areas are limited. I intend to touch on European funding and possible changes to capital challenge later.
  On the kind invitation to visit Newhaven, as I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—I say it now to the hon. Member for Lewes, my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Hove (Mr. Caplin), and the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who sits on the Conservative Benches—I am happy to meet everyone at the earliest opportunity which is convenient to us all.
  The hon. Member for Lewes said that he wished that he did not have to touch on the issues mentioned in the debate. All hon. Members with particular concerns about the port of Newhaven and its surrounding area will share that feeling. Although I am not aware that P and 0 Stena has made any formal public announcement about the future of the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry route, I am aware, as we all are, of the press reports. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport raised that issue with Lord Sterling, the chairman of P and O, because of the high level of public concern. My right hon. Friend was told that the company had not yet reached a final decision.
  The hon. Member for Lewes detailed the important role that Newhaven plays in linking the south-east region and markets in continental Europe. Newhaven-Dieppe is the shortest and most direct of the ferry routes, and, like neighbouring Shoreham, is a key port for marine aggregates for the construction industry. The port handles 1.3 million tonnes of cargo, including fruit, vegetables, fish and forest products; passengers, to the tune of 841,000; and about 160,000 vehicles. Its importance to the area is clear.
  842
  A number of measures have already been put in place to help the regeneration of Newhaven port and Newhaven town, and I thank the hon. Member for Lewes for the warm thanks that he expressed to the Government office for the south-east.
  In December 1996, under the pilot capital challenge scheme, East Sussex county council was awarded credit approval of £6.8 million towards the £7.8 million cost of a port access road, to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. That road was considered to be the key to unlocking Newhaven. However, following discussions between East Sussex county council and its local partners, it has been decided not to proceed with the port access road scheme as originally proposed. I understand that the county council may consider alternative proposals designed to meet the objectives of its capital challenge bid. We will, of course, consider those proposals carefully, but the county council allocation needs to have been used by March 2000.
  The wider regeneration of Newhaven includes £6.5 million of the Government's single regeneration budget challenge funding. That remains available for a range of regeneration projects developed to address strategic objectives in the comprehensive economic regeneration of Newhaven, without regard to the capital challenge project.
  East Sussex county council also secured a bid through Interreg, the European funding programme, for a £1 million grant contribution towards the port access road. The Government office for the south-east will continue to discuss with our French partners ways of ensuring that the proposed Interreg support for the regeneration of Newhaven may proceed, possibly in some other form.
  In addition, Lewes district council has applied to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grant to aid the fisheries aspects of the modernisation of Newhaven port. Grant for a feasibility study has already been made under the PESCA scheme, and Lewes district council has been given approval in principle to grant-aid its proposed west quay scheme at 50 per cent. of £1.35 million.
  The Interreg proposals have already demonstrated the potential value of co-operation between British and French partners on the future of Newhaven. I welcome the contact that the hon. Member for Lewes has made with Dieppe, and the work that he has put in to ensure that not only are our French colleagues present here today but that I will have the opportunity to meet them, albeit briefly.
  I can well understand the disappointment of the hon. Member for Lewes and, indeed, other hon. Members about the possible loss or curtailment of ferry services from the port. However, it would be premature for me to comment on that matter when decisions have not yet been taken by the ferry operator.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on new port development for Newhaven. That could be a matter for the port operator, although the new port access road, which is being publicly funded, could serve such a facility if it meets the original aims of the capital challenge bid. However, any development would require approval from my Department. We have seen no plans and there has been no formal application for such an approval, so I cannot comment on the proposal; nor would I want to say how it might be affected by possible changes to ferry services.

  843
  All hon. Members who have joined in this debate or made representations to me have touched on the P and O Stena merger. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion spoke briefly on that subject this morning. As we know, the European Commission has not yet announced its formal decision on the merger. However, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's findings do not bear out the contention that the joint venture is to blame for the decline of the Newhaven-Dieppe route.
  The report recorded Stena's projections of substantial losses for Dover-Calais and Newhaven-Dieppe if the merger did not proceed. The MMC considered that, in respect of freight, the Newhaven-Dieppe service was more likely to remain competitive within the joint venture than outside it. In respect of passenger services, it considered that the joint venture would improve the potential for the continuation of the existing choice of routes.
  In view of the uncertainties, prohibiting the merger would not have been warranted. My right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade took account of the fact that the adverse effects identified by the MMC were expected to arise only after June 1999, when duty-free sales are due to end. She also took into account the MMC's view that there were benefits from the joint venture, which would be lost if the merger were prohibited, and that adjustments of cross-channel capacity are necessary as a result of the opening of the channel tunnel.
  The MMC's findings suggest that that would not have been an answer to the decline of the Newhaven-Dieppe route. The Secretary of State's powers in respect of mergers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 are limited to remedying the adverse effects specified by the MMC, not other matters, and therefore cannot be used to require continuation of the Newhaven-Dieppe service.
  I well understand that all hon. Members are interested in good accessibility to the port of Newhaven. They are keen to know whether the Government have the power to delay closure until matters have been looked into. There is no power in national shipping legislation that enables the Secretary of State to delay the decision of a private company, taken for commercial reasons, to withdraw from the provision of a ferry service in circumstances such as these. However, I have little doubt that, in the light of the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has held with the chairman of P and O, and also of this debate, which will be read with close attention, the concerns that are being expressed in the House by representatives of the people who live in and around Newhaven and the port will be closely considered.
  Perhaps hon. Members are thinking of circumstances in which a ferry service is provided as an essential lifeline to a remote community, which has no other realistic means of access and where economic life is entirely and exclusively dependent on that service. Those are circumstances that are covered only by legislation specific to Scotland, and limited geographically to the highlands and islands. The Newhaven-Dieppe route, although important to the area, is not the sole means of access or of economic support.
  There have been suggestions that the Government might subsidise the service to assure its survival. However, it is not Government policy to subsidise a service that does not fulfil a vital economic lifeline
  844
  role—there would have to be no alternative route or method of transport. Clearly, there are other sea routes across the channel, and other means of travel to the continent. We would need to consider very carefully whether a subsidy would be compatible with European Community rules, or whether, on the other hand, it would be a distortion of competition in the market. Clearly, the overriding concern this morning is what is perceived to be the removal of a ferry service, but, as I said, Newhaven is a sizeable port as regards handling cargoes and freight.
  Railtrack is investigating the scope to develop several major routes for freight, and, with a group of local authorities, is studying congestion on the south coast rail route from Weymouth to Dover, with the aim of improving services to encourage more use of the route. We are watching that study with close interest. The new freight companies have adopted positive attitudes and ambitious targets, which would quadruple the proportion of freight tonne kilometres by rail in the next 10 years. Rail freight volume has already shown a 5 per cent. growth in tonne kilometres in 1996–97, which is the first such increase in many years.
  More needs to be done. We have made it abundantly clear that we are committed to the creation of a strategic rail authority, so that the sort of issues that have been raised here this morning—how we can be best served by our railway infrastructure, where more investment is needed—can be more strategically directed. Indeed, a shadow strategic rail authority will be in operation by next spring, based on the British Railways Board and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising working closely together under new leadership.
  Strategic planning will be an early priority for the shadow SRA, to fill the void caused by privatisation. That work will develop into the strategic plan of the SRA proper. Therefore, it will deal with key long-term issues such as demand, capacity, service levels and investment.
  Of course, rail is not the only means of taking people and freight into and out of our ports and it would be grossly improper of me to suggest that. Certainly, our roads play a major part in such movements. The inherited roads programme included a scheme to improve the A27 between Southerham and Beddingham, and representations both for and against were received during the public consultation. A scheme to improve the A26 was withdrawn from the roads programme in December 1995. The A27 Southerham-Beddingham scheme has been withdrawn from the trunk road programme. Problems along that stretch of the A27 will now be tackled in the Southampton-Folkestone study.
  We had to examine the environmental impact of all schemes. The Southerham-Beddingham scheme is in a particularly sensitive area environmentally, affecting a site of special scientific interest and the Sussex downs area of outstanding natural beauty, part of which is also designated as an environmentally sensitive area. There was uncertainty about whether the scheme as proposed would have proved the most sustainable solution. For Newhaven and its port, as indeed for the United Kingdom as a whole, the Government believe that we must have sustainable development, and that environmental considerations must always be given the value and importance that they warrant.
  The Government are determined to encourage greater use of the railways for passengers and freight. We want improvements in existing rail services and in other

  845
  transport infrastructures, not least the inland waterways and short-sea shipping. As the topic of debate is in essence a port, I must point out that we will be publishing a daughter document on ports and another on shipping, after the publication of the integrated transport White Paper.
  The Government have made it abundantly clear that our overriding goal is to ensure that we can move more freight not only by rail but by using other modes of transport. On rail, we are examining what further action we can take in the context of our integrated transport policy White Paper. We have already taken major steps by overhauling the freight grants scheme. Shortly after coming to office, we doubled the grant available for moving freight from the roads, and we have increased it by a further £10 million for 1998–99. An initiative to publicise that system has resulted in the take-up of all last year's £30 million. Moreover, £32 million of this year's grant money is already accounted for.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. It is time for the next debate.

  Doctors
  1.30 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: In many professions new discoveries, new evidence, new technologies and new problems require a fresh examination of the skills and knowledge that are needed for training programmes, not only for those who are already in the profession but for those who are about to embark on a career within it.
  That is particularly true for the practice of medicine, which has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. For example, the results of keyhole surgery and its effects on bed occupation have been dramatic. Indeed, the new organisational structures of the health service have meant that a re-examination of the roles of general practitioners and hospital doctors is vital.
  The next 10 years promise to be equally turbulent, as the human genome project unfolds, information technology explodes, new diseases emerge and the public, whose scepticism has been fanned by media scares of incompetence, start to question the adage that the doctor knows best.
  Demands for new approaches to medical education are being made. A modern doctor will, for example, need to understand the human genome project, its relevance to patients and its consequences for health programmes. He or she will have to understand predisposition genes for disease and how patients have an individual genetic profile, which will also be relevant to their offspring. I bet that each profile will, following genetic diagnosis, end up like a passport on a microchip.
  The result will be—if indeed GPs survive—that advice will have to be given about life styles, risk analysis and on-going treatment. The effects will reverberate around our hospitals, as informed patients ask, "Why this treatment and not that one?" Demands will be made, based on public knowledge, for the best treatments available. Individual patients will need to receive advice on what happens if they smoke or eat this or that. The effects of global warming on disease patterns will also require local, national and international programmes of health management.
  As yet, few GPs or consultants are aware of those likelihoods, and I doubt whether they are much considered in medical education in our universities. Past inadequacies—in, for example, occupational health training, toxicology and nutritional studies—will be mirrored in current medical training programmes.
  The new considerations will, of course, involve resource spend—insurance companies are already considering, with eagle eyes, the premium consequences for life policies. Patients will need to be well informed before and after genetic tests are proposed. It is clear that doctors will need education in many new areas.
  Some doctors will also want to go into research, as happens in the United States, where clinical knowledge and scientific research go hand in hand, Nobel prizes are won and new strategies for disease treatment are evolved. Such doctor training has given rise to new therapies and treatments, and it should be encouraged in this country. The fossilised, ghettoised methods and attitudes that persist in our medical training will need to be fundamentally altered.

  847
  Doctors will need to have other understandings and skills. They will need a knowledge of economics to understand the implications of cost analysis and to make decisions about resource allocation. All hon. Members have heard constituents complaining about how difficult it is to get time with the doctor and to understand what the doctor or consultant has said about the treatments that are available. New communication skills and methods of imparting knowledge should be learnt as part of medical training.
  An essential part of training could be a project to follow a patient or family through the medical system, the social services and the benefits system. People who were ill when they went into that process can come out even iller as they try to understand the Child Support Agency, for example—benefit problems and unemployment can impart illnesses. Medics must understand the importance of the effect of social conditions on their patients.
  The basic scientific programmes—the clinical, medical and surgical skills of conventional training—are still essential, as was recognised in the General Medical Council's 1993 report "Tomorrow's Doctors". Although a few medical schools have made changes to their curriculums as a result of that influential document, it can be argued that the changes required to equip doctors to function effectively in the 21st century must be radical rather than additions to the existing formula. There is serious resistance from the medical fraternity to changes in a well-established system.
  I propose the establishment of a new medical structure—let us call it a school—in which we can design a new curriculum and educational process to meet the training needs of the new doctor. That process must be sufficiently flexible to incorporate future changes in training needs.
  Such a training programme would ensure multi-disciplinary educational opportunities, which would enable medical students and other health professionals to share learning and experience. Clinical and theoretical aspects of learning should be integrated throughout the training period, so that reflection and debate are the order of the day. Primary and secondary care experience should be balanced to match the needs of medical employment opportunities.
  Another essential area of training should be problem solving. That would facilitate the development of self-directed adult learning, so that individuals can take advantage of lifelong learning in the medical workplace. A curriculum should, at the outset of training, integrate such subjects as the economics of health care and resource allocation with basic science teaching. Current and future technology should be emphasised, as should the transmission of knowledge, management of systems of care and the direct assessment and treatment of health.
  The global increase in information technology will aid progress and help to disseminate best practice, so that the best treatment and techniques are available to everyone. The new doctor will have science teaching integrated with behavioural sciences, health economics, ethics and public health and will be involved in wide-ranging discussions of disease and health care. He or she will experience clinical and social care settings with professional development built in.
  Such developments will not emerge in current medical schools, so an alternative structure—or school—needs to be established in an environment where there are true
  848
  partnerships between GPs, local trusts and health authorities. An environment is needed in which hospitals and educational research establishments can demonstrate excellence in programmes of science, public health, community health and clinical practice, both in teaching and research, so that clinicians prefer research to private patients.
  Such an environment exists in the Yare valley in Norfolk, where a research science park nestles alongside a new hospital with the school of health at the university nearby—they all interact with one another. Medical students and other professional health service workers should be trained in such an environment. The new staff are young and enthusiastic—they provide us with a great opportunity to develop a new medical school with a new concept of teaching. Indeed, I am arguing for a new concept in medical schools, with a new medicine, new training and true interdisciplinarity—I wonder whether the Government are bold enough to allow it.
  1.38 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for choosing to debate this important subject, and I congratulate him on his constructive and thoughtful speech.
  Medical education is a significant in-service activity for doctors and virtually all national health service employers. It is also a major investment. Centrally, about £1.1 billion of NHS funding has been allocated this year in England to support undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, of which £478 million is spent on undergraduate and £621 million on postgraduate education.
  Further significant resources support continuing professional development. It is right to describe that as an investment: medical education is an investment in the health and care of our population. That is why it is so important, and why it should be valued so highly.
  Let us be clear about the purposes of medical education. They are: to produce doctors who can communicate effectively; make a diagnosis; assess prognosis; recommend or carry out treatment; and work as part of a team. The Government want doctors to continue to learn and develop professionally throughout their careers.
  I would like to explain how the Department of Health, the universities, the professional and regulatory bodies, and of course the NHS itself, can achieve that. This debate is about looking forward to the future training of doctors, so I want to focus on the current developments and initiatives that are aimed at improving the training experience of doctors and that reinforce the need for lifelong learning.
  Medical education is a continuum, from medical student at one end to experienced hospital consultant or general practitioner at the other. Significant reforms to the undergraduate curriculum are being introduced by medical schools as they implement the recommendations in the General Medical Council's report, "Tomorrow's Doctors".
  Those important changes encourage flexibility in curricular design and are intended to ensure that future doctors have an improved capacity to respond to changing patterns of disease and to take advantage of modern

  849
  patterns of health care delivery, taking account of the whole individual and his or her place in the family and in society. They give greater emphasis to the amount of teaching in a general practice or community setting, to communication and problem solving skills, and to disease prevention and health promotion.
  "Tomorrow's Doctors" also drew attention to the need for medical students to develop an understanding of all aspects of human disorder, including the impact of social factors on patterns of disease and disability, and the psychological effect of suffering and disability on patients and their families. As my hon. Friend said, doctors clearly need to understand the roles, responsibilities and skills of the other caring professions. The Government believe that it is important that an understanding of the value of professional partnerships and a capacity for teamwork should be developed during the undergraduate years and beyond.
  All medical schools in the United Kingdom are now in the process of implementing the changes. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that their progress is being closely monitored by the General Medical Council, which has a statutory responsibility to determine the extent of knowledge and skills required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.
  The Government are determined that the NHS will have the doctors needed to meet the health requirements of the new century. That is why, on 22 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an increase of approximately 1,000 in the intake of medical students in the United Kingdom. The Government plan to admit approximately 6,000 medical students each year by 2005: an increase of almost 1,000 over 1997. My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that there are now more doctors in training in the NHS than ever before.
  Ensuring that we have the doctors we need is not only about the numbers trained. The Government want the creation of new student places to act as a driver to ensure that doctors receive the skills that they need to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
  Following graduation from medical school, all doctors spend a year in general clinical training as pre-registration house officers. If that is completed successfully, the doctor is then eligible for full registration with the General Medical Council, which has stimulated an important debate about the nature of general clinical training by publishing its report, "The New Doctor". The report contains important recommendations, which the NHS is working to implement, aimed at improving the educational experience of house officers.
  The Government recently introduced legislative changes to allow house officers to spend part of their pre-registration year in general practice. Allowing young doctors to get a proper feel for general practice early in their careers is an important development, and I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the first placements have now begun on a pilot basis.
  Once they hold full registration, doctors can begin their postgraduate or specialist training by spending two to three years in the senior house officer grade. The beginning of specialist training is a key stage in the continuum that will determine the future direction of a doctor's career.
  850
  It is widely recognised that the educational experience of doctors in the senior house officer grade could be improved. The Government's main advisory group on medical education is currently preparing an implementation plan for introducing a series of changes aimed at doing just that.
  The changes will improve the supervisory arrangements for senior house officers; set targets for increasing the number of posts in educationally approved programmes and rotations; and ensure that the junior doctors receive the careers guidance that they need to assist them in making important career choices. The General Medical Council will shortly publish its own recommendations for improving the training arrangements for senior house officers.
  Following their period in the senior house officer grade, doctors usually complete vocational training for general practice or enter a specialty-specific higher specialist training programme. We all expect a great deal from our GP. Vocational training for general practice is intended to produce doctors who are caring and understanding of patients and their families and committed to keeping up to date with developments in practice and to improving the quality of their professional performance.
  As well as being knowledgeable about clinical general practice, the Government also want general practitioners to build on their undergraduate training to ensure that they have an appropriate understanding of the impact of psychological factors on illness and of illness on patients and their families, as well as the social, cultural and environmental factors that contribute to health and illness.
  We also want GPs who are skilled in communication and have the ability to listen carefully; to explain matters effectively to patients; and to involve patients in decisions about their health. New summative assessment procedures were introduced earlier this year and must be passed by all doctors training for a career in general practice. The procedures test whether a doctor has the required knowledge and skills.
  Significant progress has been made in the past two years in implementing the Caiman reforms of higher specialist training. As a result of those important reforms, for the first time, about 12,000 junior doctors in higher specialist training are now following structured training programmes encompassing flexibility, choice, competition and regular assessments of progress.
  The end point of training is now marked by the award of a certificate of completion of specialist training, which, like the certificates of prescribed and equivalent experience for general practitioners, shows that a doctor has completed a training programme to the required standards. In this case, it means that the doctor is now eligible for appointment as an NHS consultant.
  The next stage in the process of implementing the Caiman reforms is to deliver the full educational benefits of the changes, which will involve ensuring that, in addition to developing effective clinical skills, higher specialist trainees are able to respond to service changes and to develop further a wide range of competencies, including team working, communication skills, and the ability to identify health needs and understand the opportunities for health promotion.

  851
  The pace at which new treatments and clinical techniques are developed, combined with the need to ensure public safety, means that a doctor's education and professional development cannot end with the completion of specialist or vocational training. Independent, fully trained practitioners such as NHS consultants or general practitioners have a duty to maintain and continue to develop their clinical practice. The Government, in turn, have a responsibility, shared with the medical profession and employers, to ensure that appropriate training is available.
  My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of research in enabling doctors to respond to new discoveries, new challenges and new problems. The national need for trained doctors who are able to apply rapidly expanding knowledge in the biological and social sciences to clinical problems remains paramount. Advances in human genetics will, as my hon. Friend suggests, bring a revolution in health care in the next century. The Government recognise the need to strengthen medical education in genetics at all stages of the continuum of training to ensure that tests are used and interpreted appropriately and efficiently. My hon. Friend may also be interested to learn that the Sanger centre at Hinxton in Cambridge is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust and is the most prolific public domain institution in the world dedicated to reading the sequences of the bases that make up the genomes of living species.
  In publishing their White Paper, "The new NHS", and the recent consultation document, "A First Class Service—Quality in the new NHS", the Government have
  852
  set out a new integrated, locally based approach to continuing professional development, which matches the needs of individual health professionals with local service objectives and patient expectations. It has set a target for the majority of health professionals to have personal development plans by April 2000.
  "The new NHS" White Paper also introduced a new concept of clinical governance which embraces a range of quality assurance processes, such as clinical audit, and acknowledges the importance of continuing professional development and lifelong learning to the delivery of quality patient care in the NHS. Ensuring that the principles of clinical governance are properly reflected in medical education across the continuum provides a challenging agenda for everyone involved in the future training of doctors.
  Patients are entitled to expect safe and effective care and treatment by staff who are expert in what they do. I have described a range of important and exciting developments taking place across the continuum of medical education that will ensure that the health service has the medical work force that it needs to respond both to changes in clinical practice and to increasing public expectation. That represents a substantial investment and provides clear further evidence of the Government's commitment to the long-term future of the national health service.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Territorial Army (North Wales)
    Dr. Michael Clark: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding proposed reductions in the Territorial Army in north Wales. [56576]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): With your permission, Madam Speaker, may I first say what a privilege it is to stand here as Secretary of State for Wales, although I wish honestly that it could have been under different circumstances? I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my predecessor and to the tremendous work that he did on several serious and difficult policy issues during the past 18 years.
    We expect an announcement to be made on the Territorial Army in the near future. I have held discussions with both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces during the past few days.
    Dr. Clark: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to high office and wish him well? One of his responsibilities will be to ensure that Wales makes a fair and proper contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom. As the Territorial Army is a cost-effective way in which to provide manpower for the Army, will he do his best to ensure that TA regiments, particularly in north Wales, are preserved rather than reduced in size?
    Mr. Michael: Wales has always made a distinguished contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom, and that will continue. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for the Armed Forces are engaged in ensuring that we have the right pattern for the TA for the future.
    Sir Raymond Powell: May I be the first Labour Member publicly to congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Secretary of State? I am sure both that all hon. Members will share in those congratulations, and that he will do an excellent job.
    Will the Secretary of State tell us what he will do not only for north Wales TA units, but for those in south Wales? The needs remain in Wales for the excellent TA, for its recruitment and for the type of person it recruits. Will my right hon. Friend spend some of his energy on ensuring that it continues its excellent work?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should perhaps remind the Secretary of State that the question refers to north Wales only.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for making sure that I do not overlook that.
    854
    My colleagues at the Ministry of Defence are aware of concerns raised in correspondence in relation to both north Wales and south Wales. They are taking account of those comments as they work to restructure the TA, and they are very much aware of the importance attached to the historic traditions and the ethos of our regiments. I can assure my hon. Friend that they will give every care to the situation in north Wales, but will attend to the needs of south Wales too.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: May we, too, congratulate the Secretary of State and associate ourselves with his remarks on the excellent work of his predecessor, which was much appreciated? May I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), on his debut this afternoon?
    Will the Secretary of State take note of my early-day motion on the future of the Territorial Army in Wales, both north and south? It is an all-party early-day motion, which has the support of Welsh Members of Parliament who do not wish to see both TA battalions go under in the review. Will he also note that Cwrt-y-gollen camp in Crickhowell trained many TA soldiers from north Wales very successfully and is to be closed by Christmas, with the loss of 40 jobs? Will he ensure that the Welsh Development Agency does something about creating employment there, for example, by building new industrial units?
    Mr. Michael: Madam Speaker, as you said that I should not stray outside the boundaries of the question, I will not refer to my experiences going over the assault course in Cwrt-y-gollen. These are matters for Defence Ministers, but, as I have said, we are in contact with them and wish to ensure that the outcome of their decisions is the best possible for Wales. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about my predecessor and myself, as well as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It is some comfort to know that I am not the only person who is new and nervous here today.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his high office, in the knowledge that he has a fine record of public work in Wales. To the business now: will my right hon. Friend make sure that, in my constituency, the drill hall at Queensferry does not close—or else? Will he ensure that the 3rd battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers retains a headquarters in north Wales, on the understanding that our community would not accept anything else? But we still wish him well.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has always been an example to us all in being absolutely specific about the interests of his constituency and his constituents. He serves them with distinction and never allows us to forget them. He is absolutely specific in his question, but I cannot be absolutely specific in my answer. These are matters that have to be dealt with by Defence Ministers, but I am certain that notice will be taken of the comments that my hon. Friend has made today.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I remind him, as he is a native of Colwyn bay, that, if there are any cuts in the 500-strong complement of the

    855
    Royal Welch Fusiliers territorial branch in north Wales, the Colwyn Bay branch will be the first to close. Will he make the strongest possible representations to maintain this fine regiment, which has worked very cost-effectively?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, makes a good point about the traditions of the TA and the contribution that has been made over the years. When I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, he made it clear that he was aware of the different aspects and units of the Territorial Army in north Wales and of their traditions. I am sure that the points that the hon. Gentleman makes will be considered most sympathetically.

    Business Start-ups
    Mr. Damian Green: If he will make a statement about the number of recent business start-ups in Wales. [56577]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): As measured by VAT registrations, there were 6,240 business start-ups in Wales in 1997.
    Mr. Green: The Minister will be aware that business start-ups in Wales have fallen sharply in 1998, as compared with 1997. Given that the Welsh economy is more dependent on manufacturing industry than the United Kingdom economy as a whole and that manufacturing has borne the brunt of the Government's economic mismanagement, which has led to interest rates being higher for longer than they need be, what measures does the Minister hope to take to improve the situation and persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop crucifying Welsh manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Hain: That question comes from a member of a party which presided over record interest rates, record bankruptcies and record job losses, including those in manufacturing in Wales. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific question about what action we are taking, if he took an active interest in Wales, he would know that we have been working closely with businesses throughout Wales to create opportunities for expansion and growth.
    I recently attended the Confederation of British Industry conference as a Welsh Office Minister. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) appeared on the stage there, blinking like a gormless alien, as we in Wales have seen him. All the Labour Ministers on the CBI platform were greeted enthusiastically, because they were preaching partnership with business—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister should withdraw the slur that he has just cast against another Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Hain: I happily withdraw the remark, which was certainly meant not as an insult, but as an example of humour.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister take the opportunity of changes in the Welsh Office to look
    856
    critically at the policy of refusing help and support to indigenous companies, either to start up or to expand, while giving seemingly endless grants to companies to come in from, say, Japan or Korea? Indigenous companies in south Wales provide a great number of jobs and they need the support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the need for indigenous businesses in Wales to receive proper support. It is important that we redress the balance between support for inward investors and support for home-grown businesses. That is precisely why we have given the WDA new targets to achieve exactly that.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, for every one step forward taken after a lot of work by the WDA, the Welsh Office and others, we find ourselves taking two steps backward as a result of the overvalued pound undermining manufacturing industry and leading to the loss of countless hundreds of jobs in every part of Wales and every sector, including agriculture and tourism? Please will he get the message across to the Treasury that, while the pound remains at an unrealistically high level, it will be impossible for us to overcome the economic problems of our country?
    Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with passion about businesses in Wales and I realise that, at the level at which it has been, the pound has caused difficulties for business in Wales. However, the fact is that the pound is coming down: it is now below the level that we inherited from the Conservatives after the last election. The programme of stability set out yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will create conditions in future in which businesses can expand and export with greater vigour and success.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, leading his ministerial team, and I look forward to having a long and constructive dialogue with him over many months to come, without any distractions. Irrespective of where Downing street might wish to send him, I know that he will concentrate on the serious job in hand.
    The Secretary of State will know that Barclays bank has just revealed new figures showing that start-ups in the last quarter are 13 per cent down on last year's figure. He will know that there will be no new start-ups in farming. He will know that unemployment in Wales is rising. He will know that exporters find it difficult to export because of the uncompetitive pound and high interest rates. Therefore, will he use his position at the Cabinet table to persuade his colleagues to reverse their policies, which are doing so much damage to businesses in Wales and to the people of Wales?
    Mr. Hain: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is grateful for the sincere congratulations on achieving his new position, if not for the rest of the question. The Government are presiding over a business climate in Wales that is based on more partnerships between Government and business than ever before. The hon. Member need only talk to small businesses and others throughout Wales to confirm that. The record of the previous Conservative Government—

    857
    there was an average of 7,689 closures per year during that period—will not occur under the Labour Government, because we are determined to support small businesses.

    Farmers (Bankruptcy)
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: What assistance he will offer farmers of smallholdings in Wales who are now technically bankrupt. [56578]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Smallholdings are a responsibility of local authorities, under the Agriculture Act 1970, to help new entrants to the industry. The Government provide support to small farmers for farm diversification and business management in addition to the main common agricultural policy schemes.
    Mr. Öpik: I welcome the Minister to his new role. We have had pestilence, floods, storms and economic collapse, and it seems that the Book of Revelations is a better predictor of events than Welsh Office forecasts. Will the Minister at least consider providing a substantial package of support for smallholders who are facing bankruptcy to prevent what could be a massive exodus from the countryside as fanners abandon their trade and leave the land?
    Mr. Jones: I recognise that the smallholders and farmers whom the hon. Gentleman represents in rural Wales are experiencing problems. I have met many farmers over the past few months and I have close relatives who have suffered gravely. The Welsh Office has invested £200 million in support for Welsh farming this year. Farmers in the uplands of Wales, who were particularly badly hit, have each received an extra £2,000 of support this year. We are concerned; we are trying to do what we can to support Welsh farming and we realise how important that industry is. Unfortunately, there are further difficulties ahead, but we hope to make progress.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the calf processing aid scheme will be replaced when it expires on 30 November? Will he join me in welcoming the news this morning from the European Standing Veterinary Committee that it is recommending the lifting of the European beef ban? If that is done by Christmas, this Government will have lifted a ban that the previous Government caused to be imposed.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the beef ban. We should not be overly optimistic, although there are grounds for optimism with this morning's majority vote in the veterinary committee. However, the final decision must be made by Agriculture Ministers.
    It is useful to note how the constructive dialogue that the Government have pursued in Europe has borne fruit as opposed to the previous Government's approach, which produced nothing but headlines and gave the farming industry no support whatsoever.
    858
    The Government believe that there is good reason for ending the calf processing aid scheme on 30 November, but Ministers are carefully considering representations from throughout the farming community about introducing another scheme in the near future.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Welsh agriculture faces its worst crisis for 50 years. I welcome the Minister to his post and press him for more specific answers about when he will stop playing fast and loose with the expectations of Welsh fanners and tell them whether the calf processing aid scheme will be extended, whether they will receive an increase in their hill livestock compensatory allowance and whether they will receive any help under agrimonetary determination or marketing schemes. Those are all questions that the Welsh National Farmers Union has asked and to which the Minister has so far replied with tea and sympathy. That will not do.
    Mr. Jones: The brass neck of Conservative Members never fails to amaze me. They criticise the Government for our stewardship of agriculture in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, when their almost criminally complacent handling of the BSE problem turned it into a major crisis and gave this Government a legacy of agriculture problems that no other Government have inherited. The Government have the interests of British agriculture at heart and will secure improvements in the near future.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new responsibilities and wish him well in his new job. I understand that his Department, with Ministers from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, is involved in intensive discussions with the Treasury on a package to help agriculture. Will he give us an idea of what may be in that package and of the timing of any forthcoming announcements?
    Mr. Jones: Many people in the farming industry in Wales have asked me that question. The Welsh Office has made strong representations to the Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has listened carefully to those representations. I anticipate that we may hear from him in the near future, but I am afraid that I could not possibly comment on what he may say and when he may say it.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I congratulate the new Minister on his position and wish him well. Will he acknowledge that smallholders and other farmers are suffering seriously as a result of the way in which supermarkets increasingly dominate the position for their own ends? Specifically, will he examine the way in which, in abattoirs, which are increasingly owned by supermarkets, animals are being graded, not according to objective criteria, but according to the specific needs of supermarkets on any one day? Is not that a total perversion of the whole purpose of grading as a method? Is not that also part of a very worrying agenda—a process in which Meat and Livestock Commission officials are involved—which requires strong and effective Government intervention?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation about the influence of supermarkets. There is a

    859
    real problem where, perhaps, a small number of retailers have a powerful hold of the market, and that problem is exacerbated when most of the producers in the market are very small units. There may be a need for producers to exert their power in the market by co-operating to help secure good prices.

    Social Services
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If he will make a statement about the funding of social services by local authorities in Wales. [56579]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): In Wales, local authorities do not have budgets that are specifically ring-fenced for particular services and they can take their own decisions on where priorities lie at a local level and what funding can be afforded for social services within the overall sums available.
    The Welsh Office has recently published a consultation paper, "Comprehensive Spending Review: Modern Public Services for Wales—Spending Plans 1999–2002", and is seeking views on spending allocations for next year and the baselines for the following two years. Spending decisions will be announced later this year, but, in the meantime, participation in the consultation is very much welcomed.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that Powys county council has budgeted expenditure in this financial year of more than 5 per cent. less in cash terms for personal social services than in the year just past, and that, partly as a consequence, it has halved the budget from which the child protection register is to be funded? What action does the Minister propose to take, in discussion with Powys county council, to ensure that that authority has the resources necessary to ensure protection of children in its area?
    Mr. Jones: Last year, local authorities in Wales participated in a process, in consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association, to agree on a formula to allocate resources between them. That formula was agreed by all the local authorities, including Powys, and it is the responsibility of local authorities in Wales to decide how they allocate their resources between their various departments.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend will be fully aware of the tragic consequences of the recent floods, which have left temporarily homeless almost 200 in the Merthyr and Rhymney valleys. Will he, therefore, consider not only what assistance and support the Government might be able to give to those families, but the possibility of appointing an inspector to inquire into why flood defences failed so badly on this occasion?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents, more of whom suffered in the floods than in any other constituency in Wales. Rainfall in Wales last week was greater than at any other time in the past 20 years. Fortunately, flooding was not as great a problem as it was almost 20 years ago, in 1979, because of the investment that has been made in flood protection.
    860
    Nevertheless, I know that people in Merthyr suffered grievously. I shall note very carefully the points that my hon. Friend has made and bring them to the attention of my officials.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What estimate he has made of the costs of establishing the Assembly for Wales. [56580]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The financial memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill stated that the capital cost of establishing the Assembly was not expected to exceed £17 million and estimated the annual running costs of the Assembly at between £15 million and £20 million in addition to current Welsh Office running costs.
    Mrs. Gorman: May I, too, say how nice it is to see a new face in the Cabinet? I hope that the Secretary of State's new appointment does not end up costing him his career in the House. Perhaps, in the budget, he might find some way of commemorating the person who was the driving force behind the concept of an Assembly. However, as only a quarter of the Welsh people supported the idea of an Assembly, and as the Government seem to be having difficulty in selecting a suitable person as their candidate for First Secretary—notwithstanding the qualities of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—does the Secretary of State think that there is an opportunity to think again about spending all that money on an Assembly that, in dealing with the affairs of Wales, will have less power than a Bantustan?
    Mr. Michael: It is very nice that Conservative Members are showing some interest in the Welsh Assembly. However, it is hardly appropriate for Conservative Members to be giving us advice on how to deal with matters in Wales when two of their number are fighting like cats in a sack for leadership of what will be an insignificant Conservative group in the Assembly. We intend to ensure that the Assembly works well for the people of Wales in delivering our promises to them—which have, over the years, led them to give us such massive support. Leadership of the Assembly will be a matter for the party with the greatest representation in Wales, not for the party that has no representation in Wales.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a general expectation in Wales that the National Assembly for Wales will improve democratic accountability, ensure better value for public money and help deliver a proper and effective regional economic policy? Does he agree that, if the Assembly fulfils those expectations, it will pay for itself several times over? Does he agree also that, if the National Assembly for Wales is successful in achieving those objectives, the people of Wales will owe a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the former Secretary of State for Wales, for his vision and determination in ensuring that the National Assembly becomes a reality?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed—my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I paid tribute to that work at the beginning of today's Question Time, and on a number of occasions in the past week. There has certainly been a gap in democratic accountability in Wales, which, over many years, many of us have fought to put right. I look forward to the Assembly being very effective in delivering better standards in public service, health, education and job creation for the people of Wales.
    Dr. Liam Fox: May I be the last, but not the least sincere, to welcome the Secretary of State to his post? On the wider question of costs, what does he believe would be the cost to the standing of the First Secretary in the Welsh Assembly if he were thought to be a conscript and not a volunteer?
    Mr. Michael: It is extremely important that the First Secretary should lead the Welsh Assembly with distinction and vigour. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party will provide that.
    Dr. Fox: We might get an answer from the new Secretary of State if I put the question in a different way. Does the Secretary of State believe that there would be a conflict of interest for an individual serving both as Secretary of State for Wales responsible to the Cabinet and as First Secretary responsible to the Welsh Assembly? Is it possible to serve two masters?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not look carefully at the answers given when those issues were debated in the House before.

    NHS Funding Levels
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the planned funding levels for NHS provision in Wales. [56582]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Following the outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review, we announced in July an indicative additional budget of more than £1 billion for health for the next three years. My right hon. Friend is consulting on spending plans for 1999–2002 and will announce his decisions later this year.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that, according to the British Medical Association, the concentration of health resources on reducing Labour's record hospital waiting lists is producing clinical distortions, so that patients who need urgent operations must wait longer, while simple procedures are carried out in order to massage the figures?
    Mr. Jones: I am pleased to announce that, in the next month in which figures will be published, we anticipate a drop of almost 2,000 in the number of in-patient day cases from August to September and a further drop at the end of October. I am not aware that that has been achieved at the expense of people who are waiting longer.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Donohoe: Although I welcome the commitment given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement yesterday to increased investment in key areas of our economy, may I put a specific question to my right hon. Friend? Can he give a specific date for the signing of the contract for the new air traffic control centre in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this matter and the strength with which he has put it forward because of its importance to his constituency. I cannot give definite commitments as negotiations are continuing, but I understand that final plans are due to be submitted to the Government by the end of November and that, subject to agreeing and finalising the details, the aim is to start construction by mid-1999. That will be good news for Scotland, as much of the construction will be locally sourced.
    Mr. William Hague: The Economist's survey of independent forecasts for next year puts Britain at the bottom of the growth league for the whole western world. Why does the Prime Minister think that that is so?
    The Prime Minister: It is for precisely the same reasons that it puts us ahead for this year and in three years' time—that is, as a result of the economic cycle. All the forecasts put us ahead for this year and in the future. It is for the same reason that forecasts have been downgraded, for example, for the United States of America—people would not call that a weak economy. The single most important thing that we can do is hold firm to the course of economic stability; the worst thing that we could do is follow the Conservative policy of slashing public spending and reversing Bank of England independence.
    Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister not think that the fact that those surveys put us at the bottom of the growth league for the whole western world has something to do with the 17 tax rises by the Chancellor, the failure to tackle welfare spending, the tax on savings and pensions, higher-than-necessary interest rates, and the extra £40 billion of business regulations and taxes loaded on to the businesses of this country? If the Prime Minister wants to repeat what he said about forecasts in three years' time, is he aware that, since the Chancellor announced his policies in the summer, independent forecasters have

    863
    downgraded growth for this country more than for any other country in Europe and America? Is that meant to be a coincidence?
    The Prime Minister: No. It simply is not right either. As a matter of fact, growth forecasts throughout the world have been downgraded. The International Monetary Fund has downgraded world growth. The European Union has downgraded growth forecasts for the EU. Every country is in the same position.
    I could do no better than to quote the words of the director general of the CBI. He said:
    "I don't think this downturn was essentially made in Downing Street. Certainly there is no danger at the moment to believe that we will have recession like in 1991. There are several features of our economic policy which are in a much sounder position than they were in 1990."
    Mr. Hague: Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the west midlands chairman of the CBI, who said— [Interruption.] It is interesting how the Government like to laugh at business people in the front line of our economy and take the word of people who sit in offices instead. The chairman said:
    "We are in for a hard and rocky time."
    Why did the Prime Minister not look at the CBI survey that showed business confidence at the lowest for 18 years, or the Item Club that says that 0.5 million manufacturing jobs will go? In the mean time, the Chancellor says, "Do nothing. Worry about nothing. Publish fantasy forecasts." Has not the Chancellor failed to make the hard choices that would allow the full 1 per cent. cut in interest rates that this country needs?
    Is the Prime Minister going to look at the actual figures for growth forecasts—maybe we will get him to read them—the survey of all independent forecasts, which shows this country's growth going down faster than any other country's? He can have a look at it after Question Time. Was not yesterday a massive missed opportunity to reverse the blunders of the past 18 months and to do something to save people's jobs and businesses?
    The Prime Minister: The short answer to that is no, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman at all. As for his claim that we were laughing at the director general of the CBI in the west midlands, let me tell him that we were actually laughing at the right hon. Gentleman. The reason for that is very simple. Everyone knows, as indeed the Chancellor said yesterday, that there is no denial of short-term difficulty, and no diversion from long-term strength. Of course we are forecasting a slowdown in economic growth and that slowdown is being mirrored literally throughout the world. The question is: what is the best way to get us through this economic slowdown. We say that it is to hold firm to Bank of England independence, the £40 billion spending on health and education and the extra spending on infrastructure. We say that it is to keep in place the new deal and the working families tax credit. The shadow Chancellor yesterday pinned his colours firmly to the mast. The Conservatives are now in favour of scrapping Bank of England independence, cancelling the spending next year and
    864
    cancelling the new deal and working families tax credit. If any of those things are wrong, let the Leader of the Opposition get up and say so now—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are carrying on.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend consider announcing the Government's intention to join the economic and monetary union, without setting a date? Would that not help to underpin the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget? Would that not reduce interest rates, reduce the level of the pound, improve investment and lead to that rarest of economic phenomena—a free lunch?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree that there is a free lunch in this set of circumstances. We have made it clear what the policy is. It was set out by the Chancellor last year. It was repeated both by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor a few days ago.
    That is the right policy for us: to make it clear that the economic circumstances are those of sustainable economic convergence and clear and unambiguous economic benefits. But we would be wise to steer between either saying that we will join irrespective of the economic conditions, or taking the position of the Conservative party, saying that we will never join and we will have a negative, destructive position towards Europe—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I have that Conservative party policy wrong as well, but it is difficult to keep up with it nowadays.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister says that the Government's policy on the single currency is clear, but on Monday the Trade Secretary described when we would join the single currency and on Tuesday the Cabinet enforcer rushed round saying that we should wait and see if we join the single currency. Which is the Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: Both the Trade Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined the position entirely correctly. To join, the circumstances must be right. Those circumstances are that there is sustainable economic convergence and the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. The right hon. Gentleman's policy is to join irrespective of convergence and of whether the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. He shakes his head. He has the chance to ask another question. If his view is that he would join only when the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, he supports our policy.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister must answer for his policy. Let me remind him that one of his Cabinet Ministers has said "when" and another has said "if. They cannot both be right. When will the Government realise that this is the most important decision facing our country? The Government cannot abandon leadership in favour of a policy of nods and winks. For as long as they do, the Cabinet will remain confused, the country will remain without a lead and British industry will continue to suffer.
    The Prime Minister: Let me repeat: to join, the circumstances must be right. We do not believe in joining

    865
    irrespective of the economic circumstances. Those circumstances are that there must be sustainable economic convergence and the economic benefits must be clear and unambiguous. That is a plain and sensible policy. It steers between the extremes of the Liberal Democrats saying that they will join irrespective of the economic circumstances and the Conservatives saying that they will not join irrespective of the economic circumstances. In this case, I think that the third way is right.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is aware that, for years, many hard-working families have been stuck in a poverty trap. Those hard-working families will benefit from the working families tax credit, the disabled persons tax credit and the record increase in child benefit. Will he give a clear undertaking that his Government will continue the search for policies that reward hard-working families and in so doing will ignore the protests of the Conservatives, who, while in government, did so little for the families most in need?
    The Prime Minister: We shall hold firm to the policies on the new deal and the working families tax credit. There could be nothing more crazy or disastrous in economic policy than to cancel both those items at the moment, because we would be withdrawing support in the new deal at the time of an economic slowdown and we would be preventing low-income families from getting the help and incentives that they need to get into work. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall resist Conservative calls to cancel the new deal and the working families tax credit. They make that case not on economic grounds, but for ideological reasons. The Conservative party is moving further and further to the right, but that is not where the British people are.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: With an ailing president, a corrupt economy and an unpaid military, Russia is in dire need of generous international financial assistance. I believe that it is in all our interests to provide it. We fear that terrorists and rogue states may gain access to Russia's weapons of mass destruction—its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons—and use them or threaten to use them against us. Why does not the international community negotiate to purchase some of Russia's weapons of mass destruction, perhaps using the aid budget, and arrange for them to be destroyed under international supervision on Russian soil?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the general anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with his proposals. We have already shown strongly that we are ready to support Russian reform efforts. The International Monetary Fund has made it clear that it will do so, provided the economic reforms that we have asked for are put in place, otherwise there is a danger of simply putting good money after bad.
    We and our partners are already assisting Russian disarmament. The United Kingdom has, for example, supplied specialised equipment for transporting nuclear warheads for destruction. We are leading international efforts to retrain redundant military officers for civilian life. We are encouraging Russia to ratify START 2 and move on with negotiations for START 3—the strategic arms reduction talks. There are many practical difficulties
    866
    in buying up warheads; so, together with Russia and our other international partners, we are exploring ways in which to reduce the potential dangers posed by the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That is a better way to proceed.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no Labour Government would wait 18 years before listening to the people?
    The Prime Minister: We listened to the people very successfully before the election, and we must carry on doing so.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Many extremely able business men in my area are deeply worried. They have many questions because they find the answers that the Prime Minister has given to date to be implausible. I should like to ask just one on their behalf. On one hand, the Prime Minister has downgraded his growth predictions—Treasury predictions are lower, and some of the others that we hear of are lower still—yet on the other hand, the Chancellor is saying that tax revenues for next year will remain the same. At the very least, there is a dichotomy. Will the Prime Minister clarify it?
    The Prime Minister: The growth prediction for this year, on which revenues are based, has not been downgraded. It is the growth prediction for next year that has been downgraded. There is a perfectly simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Most business men, including ones in his constituency, would prefer us to abandon any notion of policies that will lead to boom and bust, such as reversing Bank of England independence. Above all, they want to avoid the 7 per cent. drop in manufacturing output that we had under the Conservatives, and the boom-and-bust policies that gave us double-digit interest rates for four years—four years of interest rates of more than 10 per cent.—and interest rates of 15 per cent. for more than one year. That is the policy that we must avoid.
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's approach to the single currency is good for business and good for Britain? Does he also agree with a constituent of mine, Mr. Neil Bucktin, who wrote:
    "The Conservative Party no longer wishes to face the future … it is hardly surprising if businessmen turn their attention to Labour"?
    Mr. Bucktin is chairman of Worcester Conservative Association.
    The Prime Minister: I am in favour of as broad an alliance as possible, as my hon. Friend knows. I would add that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor emphasised on Monday, it is important to make preparations so that British business is in the position to handle the advent of the euro, because it will be affected by it. When we came into office, we found no serious preparation had been made by the Conservative party when in government. The worst thing that we can do is stick our heads in the sand, ostrich-like, which is the Conservative party's position.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Prime Minister will be aware that, in another place this

    867
    afternoon, there will be a vote on whether next year's European elections will operate under the completely undemocratic closed list system that he prefers, or under a preferable open list system, which gives voters some choice. Indeed, I hear talk that he and his colleagues are so worried about the result that Liberal Democrat peers are being invited to vote against their party's policy and in favour of the Government's. Why does the Prime Minister object so much to giving voters choice and the freedom to express individual views on whom they want to send to the European Parliament? Will he admit that, for him, when it comes to competition between open democracy and central control, democracy loses every time?
    The Prime Minister: One of the great advantages of having the Home Secretary sitting near me is that he can inform me that the closed list system was pioneered by the previous Government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Borrow: Business leaders at the CBI conference in Birmingham this week expressed support for the Government's policy of preparing the economy for possible United Kingdom entry into the single European currency. They also expressed support for the Government's spending plans, and felt that they were sustainable and that cuts in public spending were not required. In view of the policies put forward by the Conservative party on both those issues, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be many years before that party regains the confidence of UK business?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we hold to the plans for the £40 billion investment in our schools and hospitals precisely because it is the right investment for the future of the country, and because, in economic terms, this is the right time to make that investment. As for the social security spending, the vast bulk of the increase is accounted for by uprating pensions in line with prices, and by uprating child benefit; I assume that the Conservatives now oppose doing both. The shadow Secretary of State for Social Security has told us that he opposes the working families tax credit—
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Keep family credit.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that we should keep family credit. The opposition make policy as they go along—[Interruption.] Even if they are not listening to the people, at least they are listening to me. That is an advance, I feel.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: We created family credit.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says he is in favour of family credit, yet the vast bulk of the remainder of social security spending is the old family credit. He says that he opposes the new working families tax credit, which gives better help to low-income families. What a ridiculous economic policy to have.
    Mr. William Hague: Last week, the Prime Minister said that, when the Jenkins report was published, he would be able to say whether he would meet
    868
    his commitment to have a referendum in this Parliament. Now that the report has been published, is the answer yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is as set out by the Home Secretary last week. As for the timing, it has always been envisaged that it would be before the next election. That remains an option, but obviously, in the light of the specific nature of the Jenkins recommendation, as the new system cannot be introduced until the election after next, that remains an option too.
    Mr. Hague: What is wrong with yes or no? Let me remind the Prime Minister what he said last week, when I asked him whether he was still committed to a referendum in this Parliament. He said:
    "We have made it clear that we will state our position when the Jenkins committee reports tomorrow."—[Official Report, 28 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 329.]
    Now he still does not have a position. Is that not because the Jenkins commission served up a dog's breakfast for the voters of this country? As the Prime Minister is fond of quoting the Home Secretary, I remind him that the Home Secretary said last week that the recommendations were much more complicated than the Government had expected. Does he agree with his Home Secretary about that?
    The Prime Minister: What I actually said to the right hon. Gentleman was to wait and see what the specific recommendation was. It could have been for a system that could have been introduced at the next election, but as a matter of fact the report recommended a system that cannot be introduced until after the next election. That is why I have set out the policy. It is perfectly clear. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with it, that is up to him.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister wants the country to have a preferential voting system, but he cannot state a preference between yes and no. He has now avoided two simple questions, one of which was only whether he agreed with the comments that the Home Secretary made last week. He cannot say anything with any meaning on the subject because half his Cabinet and half his party disagree with the proposal. We can understand the attractions for him of a voting system that would get rid of a lot of them, but he has the Chancellor's economic policies to do that; he does not need the Jenkins commission. Why does he not now abandon the ludicrous nonsense of trying to gerrymander our voting system?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is rather happier talking about that than about the economy. The Tories' position is clear: they do not want a discussion, they do not want a debate, they do not want any change—but they are always against constitutional change. They were against devolution in Scotland and Wales; now they are in favour. They were against a freedom of information Act, and against reforming the House of Lords. I am more open minded. I prefer to let a debate happen.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Prime Minister agree that decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland is not the same as surrender?

    869
    It occurred with terrorist groups in El Salvador and in the Lebanon in 1991. Should not there now be a timetable— the sooner, the better—so that we get rid of weapons in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I would like decommissioning to start immediately. That has been the position of the Government all the way through, and remains the position. I hope that we can find a way through the current impasse which ensures that everybody has the confidence of knowing that, when they are engaged in negotiations about the future in Northern Ireland and, in particular, when they are engaged in matters to do with the government of Northern Ireland, they can be sure that those with whom they are negotiating and discussing those issues have given up violence for good.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Prime Minister use his good offices and his friendship with the new German Chancellor, Gerhard—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, order.
    Mr. Livsey: I knew that he was connected with banking—Gerhard Schroder.
    Will the Prime Minister do everything that he can to lift the ban on British beef exports? Did he raise that subject with Mr. Schroder on Monday, when they met? Is he aware that the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee today voted in favour of the date-based scheme, but by an insufficient majority? Will he proceed to ban the beef war and, indeed, sign the armistice soon, before Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is on first-name terms with the German Chancellor. I certainly raised BSE with him. There is not a single Prime Minister, Minister, head of state or Head of Government anywhere in the European Union who does not get the full lecture on BSE, every time that I see any of them. On the BSE position, we had a simple majority of states in favour of lifting the ban. That is important, because it means that, if we hold that majority when we come to the Council of Ministers meeting, the Commission proposal, which, obviously, we support, goes forward.
    We hope to do even better than that, but there is a lot of hard negotiating to do. Today's simple majority in our favour, although not enough to achieve a conclusion today, is a big step forward. We have to do an awful lot now, in terms of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is discussing with the farming industry and within the European Union, to help our farmers through the next few months.
    Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend sort out a mathematical conundrum for me? I have a report from my local newspaper in which the Tories claim that waiting lists at Grimsby hospital have increased, yet the hospital has confirmed that the decrease is more than 1,300. Will he send his congratulations to the hospital on that marvellous achievement, and send the Tories to numeracy classes?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do at least the first of those. Waiting lists are coming down, in my hon.
    870
    Friend's area and in other areas, too. They were rising, year upon year, under the Conservatives. If we had proceeded with the Conservative plans to cancel the extra investment—the £40 billion in schools and hospitals—waiting lists would be even worse. There is only one party in whose hands the national health service is safe, and it is the labour party.
    Mr. Andrew George: Does the Prime Minister agree that the multilateral agreement on investment, if resurrected by the World Trade Organisation, would be nothing more than a solution without a problem? Does he believe that his friend in France, Mr. Jospin, was right or wrong to withdraw French Government support from the MAI?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we support achieving agreement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the MAI is a solution without a problem. All these measures are part of trying to break down barriers to trade between countries. This country is a trading nation, and it is in our interest to have trade that is as free and open as possible. I would have thought that that was in the best traditions of the Liberal party.
    Ms Linda Perham: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the Wye Plantation agreement on the middle east and congratulate all the parties involved? As he knows, the problem with the Oslo accords has been getting the backing of the people for the agreement. Will he and our European Union partners do their best to assist the process and ensure that there is a lasting peace in the region?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate President Clinton and all those who were involved in negotiating the Wye memorandum. We will do all in our power to support the agreement. We will be discussing options for European Union action at the General Affairs Council on 9 November. Certainly, as far as the EU is concerned, we stand ready to play our part. The agreement was a tremendous achievement and it is important that the memorandum gets the support of as many countries as possible. I have already discussed it with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu and I look forward to doing so again.
    Mr. Tim Collins: If global factors were the reason for cutting the growth forecast for 1999, what global factors justify increasing the forecast for 2000?
    The Prime Minister: Precisely because—if the hon. Gentleman had bothered to research his question more closely he would have known-all forecasts are for a slowdown next year and a pick-up in growth later. The reason is that, because of the global financial crisis, there is an effect in Asia and 25 per cent. of the world is in recession, but, in time, recovery will happen. Therefore, it is important to steer the course of stability that we have outlined, and not to engage in the panic-stricken policies of the Conservative party, which would reduce the possibility of lower long-term interest rates by scrapping the independence of the Bank of England and cancel the investment that we have made. At some point in time, it would be interesting to have a coherent economic policy from a coherent Opposition.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House. I see from the number of red poppies in evidence that it has not escaped the attention of hon. Members that next Wednesday the House will be in session at 11 am on 11 November. I regard it as appropriate for the House to join the nation in observing the two minutes' silence at that time to remember those who gave their lives for their country and to preserve our democratic freedom. I shall be in the Chair at that time and I invite hon. Members to join me on that occasion. I hope that similar arrangements will be made in Committees. Instructions will be issued to heads of department that members of staff who are working and who want to observe the silence will be enabled to do so.

Points of Order
3.32pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any intimation that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may make a statement on the implications of the millennium bug for vital services? A letter has come into the public domain today from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Defence. Apart from showing that the former seems to receive the mushroom treatment in the Cabinet—kept in the dark, with all the implications that flow from that—the letter expresses the right hon. Gentleman's fears that vital services such as electricity and telecommunications may be severely interrupted and that the Territorial Army will no longer have sufficient strength to respond to civic emergencies in some parts of the country.
That view is different from the view that the Government have expressed on the implications of the millennium bug. Is that now the Government's position—or is the Secretary of State for Scotland out on a limb again? At the very least, we should have an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to clarify the position.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Secretary of State wants to make a statement today. The hon. Gentleman can seek a statement either through the usual channels or perhaps in a question to the Leader of the House in business questions tomorrow.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, in a question to the Leader of the House, I mentioned the number of questions that the Leader of the Opposition asks at Prime Minister's Question Time and the amount of time taken. Today, that amounted to six minutes in the first half and four minutes in the second—exactly one third of the time was therefore taken up by questions from the Leader of the Opposition. That cannot be right, as all hon. Members have equal status in the electorate's eyes. May I urge you, Madam Speaker, to use your good offices to arrange either for fewer questions to be asked or for someone to give instruction on how to ask short and pertinent questions?
Madam Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to ask six questions at Prime Minister's Questions, but daily I plead with hon. Members to ask brisk questions and with Ministers to give brisk answers. I am afraid that, most of the time, my pleas fall on stony ground. However, I am pleased that some hon. Members are noticing the fact that we are not getting through the Order Paper at Question Time as quickly as we should, not only at Prime Minister's Questions but daily.
I place on record again my plea to all hon. Members—whether they are Front Benchers or Back Benchers—for brisk questions. Surely hon. Members can work out a question before they come into the Chamber, so that they know what they want to say instead of rambling on. I hope

873
that Ministers, too, will take my admonitions to heart, as their answers tend to be far too long—quite unnecessarily so on many occasions.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Yes, Sir Peter—I hope that you are going to support me.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Indeed I am, Madam Speaker. I am going to go even further and suggest that the solution to the widely acknowledged problem of Prime Minister's Questions is that we should revert to the practice of having them on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Will you support the House by making representations to that effect to the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker: I will certainly let the Prime Minister know of the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Housing (Home Repossessions)
3.36 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable and require the Housing Corporation to be joined in all possession proceedings by mortgagees against mortgagors in respect of the principal home of the mortgagor and his family.
The aim of the Bill is to reduce the social and welfare costs of repossessions by enabling people to keep their homes. It explores a way forward to find a more humane and, in the longer term, cheaper method of dealing with repossessions.
The Bill is timely, as the number of actions entered for repossession is rising once more and, given current economic trends, will continue to rise. Although no one expects the numbers to reach the levels of 1991 and 1992, each and every repossession is a human tragedy and a drain on the Exchequer. The Bill is also timely because of the Government's concerns about family breakdown.
Between 1969 and 1980, the number of repossessions a year was, on average, about 3,400. That number rose steadily to 26,390 in 1987 before falling to 15,810 in 1989. Between 1989 and 1991, there was an almost fivefold increase—to 75,000—in the number of repossessions. Since 1991, the number has decreased, although figures for the first half of 1998 show a small increase on those for the first half of 1997. Now, therefore, is the time to act.
People fall into mortgage arrears for a number of reasons, of which loss of income is by far the most common—it is cited in 70 per cent. of cases. A quarter of people in arrears mentioned as a factor household changes such as the loss of a partner, pregnancy or a new baby. A further quarter mentioned increases in mortgage or other regular repayments, although those reasons were rarely given in isolation.
There are added pressures on borrowers who fall into arrears. Government policy has run against the most vulnerable groups of householders. The previous Government cut the availability of income support for mortgage interest; new borrowers who lose their jobs now have to survive for the first nine months of unemployment without such help.
The change was intended to prompt a significant increase in the use of private insurance, which would replace the safety net of income support. Before the October 1995 changes, take-up of private insurance was between 12 and 16 per cent. The highest estimate of current take-up is 21 per cent., but according to the Chartered Institute of Housing that may be overstated.
The critical issue is whether those most at risk are likely to be insured. The evidence shows that they are not. About a third of borrowers would be eligible for income support if they lost all their income; of those, three quarters have no mortgage protection insurance, so at least a quarter of all borrowers have no protection and no means of paying for up to nine months if they lose their income.
A related issue is the effectiveness of private insurance. About 20 per cent. of claims are not met. That may be for legitimate reasons, but in some cases claims are rejected because of pre-existing conditions, which gives cause for concern about mis-selling. Home buyers are less secure than they were before the most recent recession.

875
Mortgage interest rate support has fallen further behind most people's actual repayments. The basket of interest rates used in the calculation for support includes only building societies and not the mutuals that have converted to banks, with their generally higher rates. Add in the delay between interest rate changes and the recalculation of income support, and one does not need a crystal ball to see that mortgagee arrears among welfare-dependent home owners will continue to rise.
The financial cost to those whose homes are repossessed is significant: there are legal expenses; interest payments on arrears; court fees and administration costs involved in fighting possession orders; and of course debt on the property, which the borrower will continue to owe.
The costs to the welfare budget include increased demand for social housing, through people applying directly to registered social landlords or going through the local authority homelessness route; increases in the housing benefit bill; the cost to local authorities of housing families in temporary accommodation; and the administrative costs of letting properties. It has been estimated that between 1990 and 1994 25 per cent. of households were initially rehoused in the social housing sector following repossession. Repossessions currently account for about 10,000 social housing units.
The personal cost should also be considered. Repossession leads to increased stress, which can lead to relationship breakdown and greater demand for health services. Children may have to change schools through having to move, and the emotional impact can lead to disruption in educational progress.
876
When courts make repossession orders, a social renting option is not considered, but for some people a conversion to rent, or even partial rent and shared ownership, could be the answer that allows them to stay in their home until financial circumstances improve. The Bill proposes that the court be allowed to consider the option of the lender's interest in the home being bought out by the Housing Corporation or another appropriate body, which would then rent the house back to the family or even grant a mortgage.
The Bill's requirements are not onerous. The court already has at its disposal the relevant evidence and an expert witness. District judges have a lot of experience in repossession matters. The Bill would allow the court to consider more options, and could result in a practical and humane resolution. It could hold out to families the hope that they could become home owners once again.
If we are to avoid a repetition of the misery experienced by thousands of households in the early 1990s, the time to act is now.
Question put and agreed to
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Steve Webb, Mr. Martin Bell, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Stephen Twigg, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Barry Gardiner and Mr. Paul Burstow.

HOUSING (HOME REPOSSESSIONS)
Mr. Adrian Sanders accordingly presented a Bill to enable and require the Housing Corporation to be joined in all possession proceedings by mortgagees against mortgagors in respect of the principal home of the mortgagor and his family: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 254].
Opposition Day
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  The Economy
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that there is now a black hole in the public finances; that the increased burdens on business since the General Election now account for £1,500 more per employee; that the UK will be the first major European economy to suffer a serious downturn and the worst affected; further notes that the Government is squandering the last Government's golden economic legacy by its four basic blunders of increased taxes, attacks on savings, particularly pensions, excessive regulation of business and irresponsible public spending; and deplores the Government's complacent attitude to the handling of the economy and public finances.
  The highest responsibility of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is to tell the truth about the British economy and to set out for Parliament and the people the real prospects, the real problems and some real answers. Yesterday, the Chancellor casually abandoned that responsibility. He thought he could carry on for ever spinning a web of words that would protect him from reality. Yesterday, he had a duty to tell the truth, but we got a fairy tale.
  The responses of economists and commentators to the Chancellor's forecasts have spanned a wide range, from scepticism to outright disbelief. What has caused most disbelief is that he not only downgraded his forecast for next year by much less than the consensus, but he—almost alone—has upgraded his forecast for future years. What has happened between June, when he made his last forecast, and now to encourage him to upgrade his forecast for future years? The clear answer is that he was becoming aware that, with growth on a downward path, a black hole was appearing in the Government's public finances.
  The analyses that have been done by outside commentators, by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, by Goldman Sachs and by many others show that the Chancellor is seriously at risk of failing to meet his supposed golden rule. The growth forecasts were crucial to his analysis and it was crucial for his credibility with Labour Members that he produced figures that showed that a black hole did not threaten the economy. So what did he do? He performed a classic bit of results-driven analysis. Instead of the usual process of rubbish in, rubbish out, Ministers got the rubbish out first and decided separately how to put the rubbish in.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall continue to outline my argument for a little while longer, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. That process is why we have had that incredible upgrade of future forecasts and why the responses range from scepticism to disbelief. Bronwyn Curtis of Nomura says:
  "Clearly his growth forecasts are much more optimistic than the market's … forward looking surveys suggest output has fallen off a cliff."
  878
  The National Association of Pension Funds says:
  "The growth forecasts are a hostage to fortune"
  Paribas says:
  "Our central forecast is for 0.9 per cent. growth and we think all the risks"—
  not the balance of risks, but all the risks—
  "are on the downside. The chancellor's central forecast is for 1.25 per cent. growth. I hope he is right, but I believe he is wrong."
  HSBC says:
  "There's not a case for growth turning round in the following years."
  However, that is the central assertion the Chancellor makes and on which he bases his optimistic outlook. Anthony Hilton, the city editor of the Evening Standard writes today:
  "What is going to happen to put the British economy back on to its sustainable growth path? Why should it bounce back so soon and so conveniently when the rest of the world economy may be going to hell in a handcart… it was 'Crisis? What crisis?' all over again."
  Philip Stephens writes, in that well known Labour-supporting newspaper the Financial Times:
  "We shall know soon enough whether Mr Brown's gamble on optimism pays off. I hope so, but I fear not. The danger is he will become trapped in his own rhetoric."
  Mr. Barry Jones: When I first came to the House, the right hon. Gentleman's father was a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman who displayed great courtesy and was always unflappable. He demonstrated his mordant wit both in the Chamber and at his party conference. The son is not as good as his father.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to his face that he welcomes the £250 million for our national health service?
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoilt what I took to be an affectionate tribute to my late father, which I appreciated.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether I supported the extra money for the health service. Contrary to what the Chancellor has repeatedly asserted—I heard him do so again on the radio this morning although he knows that it is not true—and contrary to what the Prime Minister said at Question Time, we have welcomed the increases in spending for health and education. We did so at the outset, and we have done so again. Let there be no doubt about it: that is what we say, and we shall say it again. The Chancellor can carry on, but Adlai Stevenson's old phrase applies: if he stops telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about him.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: The Opposition's motion refers to "irresponsible public spending". What would the right hon. Gentleman cut from the £40 billion allocated to schools and hospitals?
  Mr. Maude: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman re-read his election manifesto, and the words of his Prime Minister. I can well understand that many other people do not believe what the Prime Minister says, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would believe it.

  879
  The Prime Minister said that Labour would increase spending on health and education by cutting social security bills. The Treasury engaged in a fierce argument over social security spending for a year with the then Secretary of State who, against all the odds, defeated it, a feat for which she was dismissed.
  Mr. Twigg: Answer.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has his answer.
  The Chancellor has made a reckless three-year commitment on money that our economy has not earned. Problems are coming down the track as a result.
  Mr. Twigg: Answer me.
  Mr. Maude: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer. We do not believe that family credit—a good system that has worked well—should be abolished to be replaced by a system that will, for example, entitle some families who are higher rate taxpayers earning up to £39,000 a year to receive tax credits and welfare benefits. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that a system that takes money from people at 40 per cent. on the one hand and gives them a welfare benefit with the other is a good use of taxpayers' money, let him stand up and do so.
  Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he say specifically what he would cut from the £40 billion allocated to schools and hospitals?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should simply read his election manifesto. I assume that he stood on the same manifesto as his colleagues. It contained a clear commitment, which the Labour party has broken.
  I was encouraging the Chancellor by referring him to some of the comments that have been made about yesterday's statement. No one believes that his downgrade of the economic forecasts to a mid-point of 1.25 per cent. is at all credible. The poll of forecasts in The Economist—a serious piece of work, regularly done among independent forecasters in the UK and other countries—finds a mid-point of 0.8 per cent. The most recent Treasury consensus of outside forecasters shows a mid-point of 0.9 per cent. How the Chancellor can justify making a forecast for the economy that is above all of those no one in the outside world can understand or believe—and I hope that the next intervention will be a little more sensible.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that same independent group of forecasters was forecasting a growth rate of 1.4 per cent. when, in fact, the revised projection for 1998–99 is 2.25 per cent?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should look at what the forecast says. The consensus group suggests that the most recent forecasts—those made during October, which is the most up to date—come out at a mid-point of 0.9 per cent. How does the Chancellor reconcile that with his mid-point forecast of 1.25 per cent? It just does not add up, and he knows it.
  880
  The reality is that the Chancellor has made these numbers up to justify his public spending figures. There is one league that the Chancellor has come out top of. He has come out top of the fantasy forecast league.
  To sum up the response, there is none better than Bridget Rosewell, the director of Business Strategies, who said:
  "A combination of nice words signifying little, with an attack on business … set against forecasts nobody believes."
  What coloured the Chancellor's statement and all his pronouncements, and those of his team since, has been arrogant complacency. He thinks that it is all right just to use the language. It was interesting to run a word count on yesterday's statement. Poor old "prudence" is down to only 10 mentions now. She is on the way out—bit out of favour now, as if we did not know. She has been replaced by the Chancellor's new best friend "stability". She rated 14 mentions in the course of his speech. The clear winner of the word count race was "long term", with a record 18 mentions. Well, that is pretty rich from a Chancellor whose idea of the long term is what is in next week's headlines.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: In a moment. I shall just point out something else that will interest the hon. Gentleman.
  We searched and searched for one word that I thought must feature in the Chancellor's statement. It is high in the minds of countless people up and down the land. He knows the word pretty well; he used to use it a great deal. That word is "unemployment". That is what he left out. There was not a single mention of unemployment, not a single mention of job losses, not a single mention of redundancies; and even more shamefully, not a single measure to prevent unemployment.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: In a moment, once I have given way to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). What a slap in the face for people facing day by day, thanks to the Chancellor's policies, the prospect of losing their job and their livelihood! They will have been disgusted by his complacency.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a useful use of a shadow Chancellor's time to count words—and then only three?
  Mr. Maude: I will let the hon. Gentleman into a carefully guarded secret. One can do a word count on a computer very easily now. The Chancellor spent half his time yesterday prating on about information technology, about which he seems to know a little. At least he has heard of it. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have heard of it
  Yvette Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about unemployment, why does he want to cut the new deal and the working families tax credit, which make work pay for working families?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady has' learnt the soundbites very well. I commend her. She is very new Labour—learn

  881
  the soundbite and forget about the substance. The reason is that the new deal pilots have not worked. That is why we think that it is a waste of public money and a fraud perpetrated upon a great many people.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Will the right hon. Gentleman get his abacus out and, instead of counting words, count the 300,000 people who by next year will have been assisted by the new deal? That is about employment, not unemployment, on which the Conservative Government had such a poor record.
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady thinks it matters so much, when she goes back to her constituency this weekend and people talk to her about job losses and the threat of redundancy and say, "Hang on, I didn't hear the Chancellor say much about that in his statement on Wednesday," what is she going to tell them? Is she going to say, "It's all right—he just doesn't care about it"? She is going to have to defend the Chancellor, whose policies are creating unemployment and job losses every day of the week. He did not think it mattered; he did not bother to mention it.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): First, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that welfare to work and the new deal are tackling unemployment? Secondly, will he recognise that there has been a 30 per cent. fall in unemployment in his own constituency over the past 18 months? Will he now give us straight answers to the following questions? Is he saying that the Conservative party is going to go into the next election to scrap the new deal? Will he confirm that he will go into the election to scrap Bank of England independence? It is about time we had some answers.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman comes here crawling for advice on how to get out of the mess he got himself into. If he is so interested in Bank of England independence, why does he not ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether he believes in it? Why does he not stop the Chief Secretary making gaffe after gaffe, when he stands at the Dispatch Box or goes on the radio telling the Bank of England that it should cut interest rates? If he cares so much about Bank of England independence why does he not do what the Bundesbank or the American Fed do—have people appointed for eight years or 14 years? He knows that members of the Monetary Policy Committee were appointed for three years by him and that their appointments will come up for renewal before the next election. Is that independence?
  Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions? Will he scrap the new deal and will he scrap Bank of England independence? The Leader of the Opposition did not answer those questions, so will the shadow Chancellor have the courage to tell us?
  Mr. Maude: What I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman about Bank of England independence is that he has made a botched job of it. He has bungled it. He does not believe that it works and nor does the Chief Secretary, which is why his adviser spent his time in Washington briefing, behind his hand, against the Bank of England; and why
  882
  the Chief Secretary goes on television and stands in this Chamber putting pressure on the Bank to change its policy and cut interest rates. They do not believe in Bank of England independence, that is for sure.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of Marks and Spencer does not agree with the Chancellor either? He has announced that the company will have to transfer much of its manufacturing to other countries because the current Government have imposed so many regulations and extra costs on the company that it can no longer afford to buy British. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the chairman of Marks and Spencer yesterday reported a fall of a quarter in the company's profitability and said that we were in for a rocky ride? Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to give his opinion on whether the Chancellor or the chairman of Marks and Spencer is better at predicting the future.
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point that, week by week, many companies for which Britain used to be the best location for manufacturing and doing business are deciding that they do not want to do business in Labour's Britain. That is sad, because it means that the businesses on which people's jobs depend are failing.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No. I want to make some progress and I have already given way many times.
  The Government's arrogant complacency continues. As late as this morning, the Secretary of State for Trade and industry said that business was "upbeat". He said that on the same day as the latest survey by the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply showed the slowdown spreading from manufacturing to the service sector. The CIPS director general said that
  "growth in the service sector continues to decline as the level of new business has fallen. Both business and consumer confidence are deteriorating."
  That is not the only such survey—the Institute of Directors survey tells a similar story.
  Labour Members might not like it and they might prefer to rest on the warm words that flow endlessly from the Chancellor, but that is the real world in which people have to live, work and do business. It would be helpful if they recognised that.
  Mr. Michael Wills: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I want to make progress, and this is a short debate.
  The Institute of Directors survey revealed a fall in company optimism over the past quarter. Not a week goes by without another survey showing a downturn. The CBI industrial trends survey demonstrates that confidence is at its lowest level for 18 years. So whom has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry been talking to? All that evidence matters because one cannot solve problems unless one recognises them, but it is different for the Chancellor and the Trade Secretary—they live in a problem-free world where any talk of problems is just

  883
  idiotic hysteria. Why does the Chancellor not talk to people who are doing business in difficult circumstances and find out whether they think that such talk is idiotic hysteria?
  The Chancellor had the chance to put matters right but he has blown it. He is now simply playing the blame game, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said yesterday. The Chancellor should not blame the world. Why, in the midst of all the problems around the world, is Britain doing worst? Why, in the economic downturn, is Britain in worst and in first? The Economist survey shows that Japan is the only industrialised country forecast to be weaker than Britain next year, and Japan is mired in a deep slump. The next weakest country after Britain is forecast to have twice Britain's rate of economic growth next year. If the downturn is due to global problems, why is Britain worst and first? That may have something to do with the Chancellor and his arrogant refusal to accept that there is a problem.
  Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of arrogant refusal. What is his position on the Bank of England's independence? Would the Tories reverse that policy?
  Mr. Maude: I realise that as the Chancellor has made such a mess of that, the hon. Lady is anxious for guidance on how to sort it out. The one absolute certainty is that the policy cannot be left as it is. It was a botched job; it breached an election commitment; it is not working; and it must be sorted out. We shall make our proposals in due course.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a little rich for a party that refused to tell the public its policy on the Bank of England three days before the previous general election to expect us to clarify our policy three years before the next election?
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point well. We see the Chancellor smiling nervously because he knows that what he said before the election was sharply at odds with what he did. That is why the policy was botched and he got it wrong, and it cannot be left as it is.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I want to make progress.
  I return to why Britain is in first and worst. The Chancellor said blithely yesterday that every country has downgraded its forecasts because of world events. If one compares The Economist poll with what was forecast in June when the Chancellor published his fiscal and economic strategy, one finds that there have been downgrades—not universally, but in almost all industrialised countries—but no country in Europe has been downgraded as much as Britain. Not only is The Economist proposing a worse growth forecast for Britain next year than for anywhere else in Europe, but it has downgraded its forecast for Britain by more than for anywhere else.
  Japan is the only industrialised country in the world that will have less growth than Britain—we know about Japan's problems—and the only other comparable country
  884
  is Australia, which also has a downgrade of 1 per cent. However, even that is a downgrade from 3.2 to 2.2 per cent., so the proportional downgrade is very much less than Britain's. There is a problem, and it is a problem for Britain, which will be first into the downturn and, as I said, will have the worst growth of any country except Japan.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: You have said that three times before.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should listen. Things have to be said three times if Labour Members are to understand. They are living in their own little fantasy world, with fantasy figures, adrift from the real world where there are problems that need to be solved.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman made such a silly point earlier that I shall not give way to him.
  We have said this before and we shall say it again: the Chancellor took over a golden economic legacy. There were the best prospects for a generation.
  Yvette Coope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I have given way to the hon. Lady once; I shall make progress now.
  The economy was showing growth faster than that of any other major European country. It had low inflation—the longest period of consistently low inflation seen in Britain for nearly 50 years—and we hit our inflation target. There is nothing very special about all the stuff that the Chancellor was saying yesterday about having brought inflation down; he has simply managed to get inflation back to where it was when he inherited it.
  We had low unemployment—unemployment had been falling steadily. The Chancellor now takes credit for its continuing to fall for the first year and a bit after he took over. It is very nice of him to take the credit for it, but I honestly do not think that it was his doing. That was part of the economic legacy, and it has taken some time for the malign effects of his change of policies to come through—sadly for those people who, week by week, are losing their jobs.
  Mr. John Bercowrose—
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeedrose—
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way. I shall make progress now.
  We also saw record inward investment. What is happening today is very different. Business failures are up already. The Dun and Bradstreet survey shows that, after five years of falling business failures, the figures are rising. Jobs are being lost and factories closed; it is happening all the time. I have a very long list of job losses

  885
  and factory closures. Many of them are extremely familiar to the Chancellor; many of them are taking place in constituencies represented by Labour Members.
  Labour Members know the truth. The Chancellor could not see it yesterday but, when he announced his growth forecast for next year of 1 to 1.5 per cent., we saw the looks of blank disbelief on the faces behind him. Labour Back Benchers did not believe him any more than did the commentators outside.
  That is the reality—job losses, factory closures. What should the Chancellor be doing about it? Why did he commit the country to three years' public spending way above any conceivable growth in the economy? He is behaving exactly like the hedge funds that he was so keen to criticise earlier in the week—making long-term commitments against short-term revenues. He is being as irresponsible and reckless as they were.
  As a result of that recklessness, Britain will bear the burden of higher borrowing—and, therefore, of higher interest rates than would otherwise have been needed.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr Maude: No; I shall not give way.
  Why did the Chancellor attack savings as he did? I am sorry not to see the Paymaster General in his usual place; or perhaps he is in his usual place. How crass it was to let the Paymaster General loose on the savings culture that had been so carefully built up over the years, with his bungled plan to scrap PEPs. In March, the Red Book showed the savings ratio falling gradually over the Parliament, but already, such a short time later, the savings ratio is down by a quarter—at just the stage in the cycle when people should have been encouraged to save more, not less. The effect has been to push money into consumption, and to push interest rates higher than they need have been. Well done, Paymaster General: another outstanding contribution to British business.
  Why did the Chancellor chase up business costs as he has? He knows, because his figures and the Red Book show it, that his business taxes and the Government's extra regulatory burdens will cost British business £40 billion a year. That is the cost of Labour: £1,500 for every person employed in this country.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I shall continue; I am drawing to an end.
  The Chancellor talked a great deal yesterday about productivity. Apparently, low productivity is now entirely the fault of British workers and British managers—it is all their fault. The Chancellor, the Trade Secretary and the Prime Minister wander round the countryside lecturing British business men and workers on how they must work harder and do better, and on how low productivity is all their fault and nothing to do with the Government. However, the Chancellor should listen to some comments made by business people who have invested in Britain in recent years.
  886
  In October 1995, three years ago, the president of Philips said:
  "The most competitive country in Europe today is the UK.
  It has a great sense of realism, a great sense of competitive spirit—the factories we have in the UK are the most changed factories in the world.
  For manufacturing, Britain is the most competitive country in Europe today."
  What has changed? Has the work force changed? Has the management changed? Has the country changed? No, only one thing has changed—the Government.
  In October 1995, BMW—which owns Rover, and was memorably told last week by the Trade Secretary to sharpen up its act—stated:
  "Great Britain is currently the most attractive country among all European locations for producing cars.
  This results from the structural reforms initiated by Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s"
  What has changed? Why is BMW now closing plants, laying people off and reducing capacity? What has changed since 1995?
  The Prime Minister may remember that Siemens opened a plant in his constituency. In August 1996, Siemens stated:
  "Our decision to build the new semiconductor plant here in the UK is a recognition of the pro-business environment which exists and the skills and commitment of the British workforce"—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall not give way.
  The chief executive of Siemens went on:
  "But let me make one point clear here, and that is that we have not invested here because we see the UK as a low-wage economy. On the contrary."
  The Government have concerns about productivity? Those great multinational companies chose to come to Britain because Britain was a good place to do business. Why are those companies now closing their plants and laying people off? What has changed, besides the Government? Nothing.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr.Maude:No,I shall not give way; I am finishing my speech.
  It was 10 Downing street, not the Opposition that ascribed psychological flaws to the Chancellor. Although I would not go along with that ascription—I would go along with economically flawed, for sure—I encourage the Chancellor to keep open somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind a tiny place where he acknowledges even the merest possibility that he may be wrong. He knows that the price of his mistakes will be measured in lost jobs and business failures. If that happens because of his arrogant complacency, he will never be forgiven.
  4.17 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof;
  "notes that the Government inherited an economy set to repeat the same cycle of boom and bust seen over the past 20 years, that inflation was heading way above target because of the previous Government's failure to accept the Bank of England's advice and the public finances were in large structural deficit; recalls that under the previous Government inflation rose to 10 per cent. interest rates remained in double figures for four years and one million manufacturing jobs were lost, while net borrowing increased to £50 billion and the national debt doubled in just four years; notes that the previous Government's policies increased inequality and failed to tackle the structural weaknesses in the economy; commends this Government for its decisive action to build a stable economy, introducing a new framework for monetary policy under which inflation is now at target and set to remain there and interest rates are less than half their previous peak, reducing government borrowing by £20 billion last year and, because of prudent management of the public finances, remaining on track to meet its tough fiscal rules and invest an additional £40 billion in education and health, with an extra £250 million for the National Health Service this year, addressing structural weaknesses by tackling unemployment and poverty with the New Deals and tax and benefit reform, supporting British business by cutting corporation tax, doubling public investment to improve Britain's infrastructure and addressing Britain's productivity gap; and notes that there are now 400,000 more people in employment than at the General Election and that Britain is better placed to steer a course of stability in an uncertain and unstable world."
  I am grateful to the Opposition for today's debate, which gives us an opportunity to explain why independence of the Bank of England is the right policy for Britain; why international financial reform is necessary to deal with the world situation; why the welfare-to-work programme introduced by the Government and the working families tax credit—which Conservative Members would abolish—are the right policies for Britain; why there is a productivity gap that even the previous Government recognised had to be dealt with, even if the shadow Chancellor will not admit it; and why good, efficient public services, in which we will invest £40 billion over the next three years, are right, and the best thing for Britain's future.
  I do not think that the House or the country will take lectures from the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who glossed over the fact that, between 1990 and 1992, when he was Financial Secretary, interest rates were without exception above 10 per cent. During that time, interest rates went up to 15 per cent., the public sector deficit was rising to £50 billion, unemployment was rising by a million, manufacturing output was falling by 7 per cent., manufacturing investment was falling by 15 per cent. and inflation rose to nearly 10 per cent. That is why the country will take no lessons from the Conservative party on how to run the economy.
  Mr. William Cash: Does not the Chancellor accept that the real reason for the catalogue that he has just set out is that we mistakenly stayed in the exchange rate mechanism for far too long? Furthermore, are not the policies that he is pursuing, including the granting of independence to the Bank of England, in pursuit of a policy that means that we will no longer have control over our economy? Both he and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry clearly committed themselves to that policy at the recent CBI conference. Does he accept that,
  888
  by throwing away our ability to control our own affairs, he will condemn this country and those who work in it to massive continuing unemployment?
  Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman seeks every opportunity to bring the European debate to the Floor of the House, and I was grateful for his support during the general election campaign by raising those issues, but the mistakes made in the late 1980s were to allow inflation to get out of control, to allow wages to rise uncontrollably—to 11 per cent. in 1990—and to have interest rates at over 10 per cent. for four years.
  The hon. Gentleman asks about the Bank of England and monetary policy. By making the Bank of England independent, we have set in place a long-term monetary framework for this country. It is the first building block of an economic strategy for the future. The shadow Chancellor says that that must all be changed. In other words, his policy is to scrap independence of the Bank of England—
  Mr. Maude indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is that his policy or not?
  Mr. Maude: As the Chancellor has made such a mess of it, it cannot be left as it is. If he could not tell the country what his policy was three days before the election, we shall not outline our final policy three years in advance. However, one thing that is for certain is that, because he has botched and bungled independence of the Bank of England, it cannot be left as it is. Most people agree with that.
  Mr. Brown: The Opposition say that they have the answers to the problems of the economy, but they cannot answer the first fundamental question about monetary policy. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the Bank of England in control of interest rates. He says that it must be changed. He is at odds not only with the rest of the country and the Labour party, but with many sensible Conservative Members, who know that it is the right course of action for the country.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to someone who supports a central bank, even if it is an independent central bank in Europe.
  Mr. Clarke: I did not seek to intervene on that point. However, I happen to believe in the liberty of Back Benchers to be attracted by the independence of the Bank of England. I know of no independent central bank whose membership comprises full-time officials of the Bank of England plus academic economists who are friends of the Chancellor and his advisers, nor a central bank that has made such mistakes as unnecessarily to raise our interest rates to the highest level in the developed world to avoid an inflationary boom that was never a danger.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Chancellor talked as though he took over the economy in 1988 rather than 1997. He draws comparisons with the boom and bust of the late 1980s,

  889
  not with what he actually inherited. The last peak in interest rates was, if my memory serves me right, at 6.5 per cent., when we achieved a soft landing in 1996. We then resumed steady growth and falling unemployment, for which the right hon. Gentleman has just taken credit. We hit an inflation target of 2.5 per cent., which he and his botched-up independent bank have wrecked.
  Mr. Brown: That was an amazing intervention by the former Chancellor. He wants to forget the 1980s and the fact that he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment, and held many other Government offices, just as the shadow Chancellor wants to forget that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury between 1990 and 1992. They cannot escape their record: interest rates at 15 per cent., and they were above 10 percent. for four years. The answer to that is to have a credible long-term framework for monetary policy. I am glad that he now agrees that there is an attraction in the independence of the Bank of England.
  Perhaps now Conservative Members can resolve this problem among themselves. The former Chancellor supports the idea of independence; the shadow Chancellor opposes it. Perhaps they should have a referendum of their party members to resolve the problem.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have made several speeches in the previous Parliament and in the present one explaining why I wholly oppose an independent central bank, but I speak for myself. Assuming that the Bank remains independent, may I put this important point to him—a technical point that he should consider?
  It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that the new Finance Minister of Germany, Mr. Lafontaine—presumably he has a good deal of political sympathy with him—has been telling the European central bank that he is extremely unhappy that it is limited by the Maastricht treaty to having purely an inflation target. As he has made clear publicly, he wants those criteria changed to include growth and employment.
  If we had to go on with an independent central bank, which I hope we will not, can we not move at least to change its criteria, so that it has to take account of growth and employment, and becomes much more like the Federal Reserve bank in the United States, which does not operate with such narrow criteria and instructions?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for entering the debate about the independence of the Bank of England. The Conservative party now seems to be as divided on that as it is on Europe. The former Chancellor is attracted to it, the shadow Chancellor is clearly against it, and now a Back Bencher says that he has to speak in a personal capacity because he does not know what the policy is.
  Sir Michael Spicer rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarkerose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: I must take the intervention of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). Perhaps he can tell us what the policy is on the independence of the Bank of England.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I was wondering what the Chancellor's policy was. He has made a virtue of
  890
  the independence of the Bank of England, yet it seems that he is one of those who have been outed as hellbent on handing over its powers to the central bank of Europe and on abolishing all its independence. How does he square those two things?
  Mr. Brown: We have set the five economic tests for membership of the single currency. On the future of the Bank of England, the reason why I support independence and believe that the Conservative party, on reflection, will believe that it is against the national interest to scrap the independence of the Bank, is because, for 30 or 40 years, this country has lacked the long-term monetary framework that is necessary for stability—long-term objectives that are set down clearly, free of party politics and short-term pressures, rules that the Bank and the system have to follow, and transparency in the reporting of decisions.
  One reason why long-term interest rates fell from 7 per cent. and why the differential with Germany, which has been a low-inflation country, has narrowed on long-term interest rates is precisely because we made the Bank of England independent.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Brown: Of course the Liberal Democrat party supports us in that, although not in everything else. I do not believe that any sensible political party will veer from that position.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the curious position of the Conservative party on this issue? The only major country in the G7— indeed, in the western world—that still does not have an independent central bank is Japan, which the shadow Chancellor has been pointing out is locked in a serious slump, and is hardly an ideal role model for having a bank that is under political control.
  Nevertheless, will the Chancellor acknowledge that the shortness of the appointments to membership of the Monetary Policy Committee has been a genuine issue? Will he accept that it would be much preferable if those appointments were extended beyond the life of a Parliament, so that independence would not only be granted, but go beyond the life of any single Government?
  Mr. Brown: I am happy to enter a debate about the future arrangements for the Bank of England. I believe that the arrangements that we have set down, with a five-year appointment for the Governor and up to four years for membership of the Monetary Policy Committee, are right. We are hearing sensible questions about the way forward from the Liberals. We have not heard what the Conservatives would do. Would they scrap the independence of the Bank of England? If they cannot answer that question soon, nothing in their economic policy has any credibility. The shadow Chancellor—
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Brown: Ah, the shadow Chancellor is going to answer the question now. I am very grateful to him.
  Mr. Maude: I am getting fed up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would not even answer the

  891
  question on polling day, yet is pressing for an answer from us three years before the election. There was nothing about the issue in Labour's manifesto, and nothing was said to the electorate before the election, yet he criticises us three years before the election for not producing a final answer.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is getting very excited—and more and more red—but he does not seem able to answer the one question that the House is waiting for him to answer: would he scrap the independence of the Bank of England? The Conservatives cannot have a credible economic policy unless they can tell us their position on monetary policy and the independence of the Bank of England.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way after I have made some progress, because there are five issues to be addressed.
  The first is on monetary policy. We have set out a clear policy. Long-term interest rates have come down. Because of our policies and the early action that was taken against inflation, it was possible for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to respond to the international economic conditions as it did last month, bringing interest rates down from 7½per cent. to 7¼per cent. That is a big contrast with the 15 per cent. interest rates at the beginning of the 1990s.
  The second issue is that we should play our part in rebuilding and making changes in the international financial system. That is why we have proposed a global financial regulator. Our proposals have been accepted by many countries. We have also taken action on a fund that will be available to help countries in difficulty. We are insisting on transparency in the future workings of the private and public sector. Those are sensible proposals that G7 countries have agreed to.
  I said when the former Chancellor was not here on Monday that he had contributed to developing proposals for the international financial architecture. The problem is that those on the Conservative Front Bench cannot tell us the party's position on those issues. The Conservatives seem to be opting out of the world as well as opting out of Europe. A sensible economic policy for this country requires answers on how to reform and strengthen the international financial system.
  The third issue of economic policy is international and national economic stability, which must be backed up by a policy for welfare to work in this country. That is why we have taken the action that we have. Some 300,000 people will benefit from the new deal by next Easter. Almost 30,000 companies have agreed to take people on. About 150,000 young people are part of the new deal, and 90,000 long-term unemployed men and women will be offered opportunities in 26 areas from the end of November.
  Disabled men and women are being invited to join, backed up by a disabled persons tax credit. Lone parents are being given the chance to get advice, information, help and child care to enable them to get the chances that they want. Almost every household name company in the country supports the programme, and I am grateful to them.
  892
  I invited individual Members of Parliament from the Opposition parties to be ambassadors for the programme. We sent them details of how it would work, so that they could play a part in their constituencies. However, six months into the new deal, the shadow Chancellor said yesterday that it was a failure, and today that it is a fraud. I do not think that it is either a failure or a fraud. I think that, on reflection, the Opposition will change their mind about that policy as well.
  The Opposition opposed the windfall tax, which made the welfare-to-work programme possible, yet one of their own Members, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel)—I do not know whether he is present—was reported in his local newspaper as saying:
  "When we are returned to power, we will build on this scheme, which is doing a lot to help people."
  Do not other Conservative Members agree that the new deal is doing much for young people? It is about time that the Conservatives recognised that that policy, too, is right for the country.
  The Conservative party is opposing the working families tax credit—a measure which is similar to the earned income tax credit that was expanded by Ronald Reagan in America. The programme enjoys all-party support—from Republicans to Democrats—in the United States. The Conservative party wants to prevent work paying more than benefits as a result of the introduction of the working families tax credit, which improves family credit. Why do Conservatives refuse to extend to 1.5 million people, as we want to do, the benefits that they, under family credit, made available to 800,000 people? What dogma has taken over the Conservative party to the extent that it does not want to reduce the marginal rate of tax for low-paid workers?
  Mr. Nick Gibb indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, a Front-Bench spokesman, says that the Conservatives will definitely abolish the working families tax credit. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that this has been a very revealing debate. The Conservatives would abolish the working families tax credit; an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is prepared to say it.
  Mr. Gibb indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: If the Conservative party stands on that policy, 1.5 million low-paid workers will face a major wage cut as a result. It will have to answer to the British electorate for that.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I remind the Chancellor that he inherited the welfare-to-work policy? We argued that the working families tax credit would simply replace our system of family credit, and we rejected it because the American experience is that it is more expensive, less effective and more open to abuse. The only reason why the Chancellor adopted it was to fiddle public spending figures—to pretend that money spent on it was not public expenditure any more—in order to keep down the anticipated growth of public expenditure over the next three years to a mere 2.75 per cent. in real terms per annum.
  Mr. Brown: History books will show that the original proposal for family credit in the 1980s was very similar

  893
  to the working families tax credit. It was rejected due to opposition in the Conservative party. That was not right for the country.
  As people see the benefits not of just family credit but of a guaranteed minimum income of £190 a week, which is available to those who have families and who take up the opportunity to work, they will realise that the working families tax credit is a far superior system. Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Chancellor, who has changed his mind on issues such as the Bank of England, will change his mind on this policy. Our policy of building on stability is a new deal for young people and the long-term unemployed, backed by a minimum guarantee of money for families in work, so that work pays for everyone who is able to do it.
  I think that, on reflection, the Conservative party will change its policy on the minimum wage, too. A minimum wage, which was acceptable to Sir Winston Churchill and is applied in America and all countries that have a higher standard of living than ours, is a minimum necessary not simply for economic efficiency but for social justice. On that issue, the Conservative party has much thinking to do. I look forward to hearing the results of it.
  The next building block in our economic policy is what we will do about productivity—[Interruption.] We mention productivity and the Conservatives start to laugh, as if they do not recognise it as a problem. I can tell them who first wrote about productivity as a problem in the 1990s. It was the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who, year after year, published competitiveness White Papers saying that our productivity had to improve. [HON. MEMBERS: "It did."] Does the shadow Chancellor say that there is no productivity gap with any of our competitors?
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Brown: He may be able to correct us now.
  Mr. Maude: What I will say is that, as a result of what we did, productivity did improve. It is since the election that it has started to fall. Why did Siemens, Philips and BMW praise Britain to the skies as a place to do business then, whereas they are now withdrawing?
  Mr. Brown: The revealing aspect of the shadow Chancellor's answer is the fact that he started it with the words, "What I will say is that—". In other words, he cannot deny that there is a productivity gap with our competitors. It is a sad reflection on 18 years of Conservative government that we have a gap of 20 per cent. with some of our European competitors and 40 per cent. with some of our American competitors.
  British business and the Government, unlike the Conservative party, are prepared to examine those issues, to discuss them seriously and to consider practical things that can be done. We have been prepared to consider the venture capital industry, for example, and what we can do about employee shareholding and how to encourage science and innovation. The shadow Chancellor may not want to comment on any of those announcements, but they represent significant advances for science and
  894
  innovation, and for small businesses in this country. We have cut small business taxation and given advances for training and skills—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right, I will.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the Chancellor for rethinking his decision; let us hope that it presages a rethink on all sorts of other issues on which he has cocked up in massive style—
  Hon. Members: Wash your mouth out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to withdraw that remark and rephrase it.
  Mr. Bercow: I withdraw that ill-advised term,Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In his foreword to Labour's business manifesto of April 1997, the Chancellor wrote:
  "We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down".
  How does he square that ringing declaration with the reality of an additional £1,500 per person tax and regulatory burden in the lifetime of this Parliament? Is that not a contradiction, and will he not apologise?
  Mr. Brown: We have cut corporation tax— [Interruption.] Now the Conservatives want to deny that we have cut corporation tax. This is a revealing debate. We cut corporation tax—[Interruption.] They are getting angry. We cut corporation tax from 33p to 30p, and small business taxation from 23p to 20p. We have introduced a long-term capital gains tax rate of 10p in the pound. All those measures have been welcomed by business. It is a pity that business and the Conservative party are so much at odds these days that the Conservative party cannot also welcome them.
  I have raised the issues of monetary policy, stability and the international financial system and how we shall improve it. I have also challenged the Conservative party on welfare to work, and Conservative Members do not seem to be able to give answers. Productivity, which they seem to regard as a joke, is serious to every business; it is something on which business wants to work with us.
  Let us deal with the final building block of our policy— the fact that the country needs and deserves good and efficient public services. I thought that the shadow Chancellor would welcome the fact that we had a surplus of £5.5 billion on the current account this year, the fact that we have kept under our spending ceilings, which he and his party said we would never be able to do, and the fact that a net borrowing requirement, prudently estimated in March, has turned into a surplus and allowed us to repay debt.
  I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the fact that the public finances have eliminated the current structural deficit as a result of the work that has been done. Instead, he is unprepared to recognise that

  895
  we were left with a £28 billion deficit, and that the Labour Government have been prudent, sensible and cautious with public finances in a way that his party was not.
  Mr. John Townend rose—
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way; I am explaining to the Conservative party what has happened to the public finances.
  Conservative Members' answer on every issue is that they would cut public spending. Their answer to the question about what they would do about the economy is that there should be a moratorium on our public spending commitments. They started off by saying that public spending was unwise; then they said that they would not carry it out themselves; then they said that it was reckless; and then the shadow Chancellor, who needed a further comment to get attention, said that our public spending programmes were madness.
  This afternoon, we have heard the shadow Chancellor say that he does not want to cut into health and education, but the only way that he could make the savings for reckless, extreme—as he calls them—spending programmes would be to cut into the £40 billion for health and education. That is the majority of the additional spending that we are undertaking; that £40 billion is absolutely central to the increase in public spending.
  If the shadow Chancellor is telling us that he would not put health and education at risk, he must tell us which other billions he would cut, and in which areas. The Conservative defence and law and order spokesmen say that they would spend more. In which area would he achieve those billions of pounds of public spending cuts? Again, the public deserve a proper answer.
  Mr. Maude: As he so often does, the Chancellor has said something that is plumb wrong. He said that the health and education spending increases are the majority of the public spending increases. The total, under the Government's funny accounting, is £110 billion over the next three years, of which health and education is no more than £40 billion. Nearly as much as both of those put together is social security spending, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised to cut.
  Mr. Brown: Let us be clear about this. The Conservatives entered the election campaign saying that they would maintain the basic state pension, and raise it in line with inflation. I assume that that is still their commitment. [Interruption.] No? Well, the debate gets more and more interesting, and is quite a revelation. The shadow Chancellor cannot give us a simple answer. Would he maintain the level of the basic state pension in line with inflation? If he cannot give that answer, he is breaching—[Interruption.] It has taken the shadow Chancellor some time to come to this point. Let us hope that we get a direct answer.
  Mr. Maude: The country will be disgusted by a Chancellor behaving in such a way. He is responsible for the downturn starting in this country, and all he can do is
  896
  make cheap debating points. He should grow up, stop being an adolescent. student politician, and take his job seriously.
  Mr. Brown: The whole House, including Conservative Members, will note that the shadow Chancellor did not answer that question. He cannot give us an assurance, even though it was in the Conservative manifesto, that he would raise the basic state pension in line with inflation. This has been a very revealing debate.
  Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
  Mr. Lansleyrose—
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that two Back Benchers can rescue a shadow Chancellor in this difficulty, no matter how hard they try.
  If the shadow Chancellor will not answer the question, every pensioner in the country should know that the Labour Government are raising the pension in line with inflation and have provided winter fuel payments, but the Conservative party will not guarantee that it would do that if it was in government.
  We know now that there would be cuts in public spending if the Conservatives were ever in government. We know that health and education would be at risk, but there has been a £40 billion increase, which we will stand by. We know also that the pension is not something which the shadow Chancellor will guarantee. The Conservative party initiated the debate, and Conservative Members wanted to ask questions of us. The Conservative party must now answer all the questions. This Government are maintaining economic stability. We are improving public services. We will work with business to increase productivity. Unlike the Conservative party, we will be fair to every citizen, and that is why the House should support our amendment.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was confused by the direction of the Conservative attack. I have come to the conclusion that the only matter about which the Conservatives are sure is that they want the country to go into recession as that is their only hope of making some political gain. Although there are differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, we agree that we want the country to succeed. Our debate is about the policies that will ensure that success and the revenues that will underpin the public services in which we want to invest.
  The Conservatives talk about fantasy forecasts, but we have had many opportunities to debate their forecasts and the substantial revisions that they had to undergo when the outturn did not fulfil the early promise. What is the Conservative policy on inflation these days? The Chancellor pressed the Opposition for clarification on several occasions on the subject of the Bank of England without receiving any coherent answer. The rhetoric appears to be that it was wrong to give the Bank of England independence and that it should be taken back

  897
  under political control, which should then be used to reduce interest rates regardless of the implications for inflation.
  Mr. Maude: That is what the Liberal Democrats say that they would do.
  Mr. Bruce: It is not and the right hon. Gentleman will hear why. The reality is that Japan is the only country in the Group of Seven with a nationalised bank and, as a consequence, there has been a cosy arrangement between the politicians and the private sector, which has brought the country to its knees—hardly a model that we want to emulate. The reality is that markets recognise that independent banks take the short-term political interference out of decisions to control monetary policy. The Chancellor is right to say that that yields the benefit of lower interest rates in the long term.
  The issue that dare not speak its name is how we learn to live with the euro. The Conservative party thinks that it has resolved the issue by simply saying, "We want nothing to do with the euro for eight years." That is completely at odds with the traditional pragmatism of the Conservative party when it had aspirations to government. No one knows what will be the responsible decision in eight years' time and the meaning behind much of what the Conservatives are saying appears to be, "Under no circumstances will we ever join."
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. Given that the euro will be established by 11 countries on 1 January, we will have to do business with that market and live with it. How will we compete if our interest rates continue to be double the European average? The Conservatives have nothing to say about that. They have no strategy or game plan as to how we should live with the euro. They want political control of the Bank of England so that they can manipulate interest rates regardless of the effect on inflation. They want the freedom to have interest rates double those of the rest of Europe. If that is an economic policy, I want no part of it.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in practice, he is saying that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to tell their constituents that they will no longer have any real control—through the ballot box—over interest rates and inflation and, therefore, employment? Does he accept that it is ultimately a political decision and that the Liberal Democrats, in common with the Government and some others, are prepared to sell this country down the river?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should stop deceiving his constituents that he, let alone the Government—perhaps even more than the Government—has the power over such issues that he implies by his questioning.
  We live in a global market—that is reality, not an opinion—and markets must be taken into account. Interest rates across Europe are at least 3 per cent. lower than those in the United Kingdom. It is unrealistic to expect us to compete with no strategy to close that gap.
  898
  The hon. Gentleman is naive if he thinks that the rate set by the European central bank—whether we are in or out of the euro—will have no effect on the decisions that this country takes, regardless of whether the Bank of England is under political control.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman seems badly confused. In an interdependent economy, of course Sainsbury's must take account of the prices that are set by Tesco. Does he seriously believe—as he seems to, on the logic that he used in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—that the chairman of Sainsbury's would give up to the chairman of Tesco the right to set prices at Sainsbury's?
  Mr. Bruce: That is a classic example of treating the economy of a family or a business as if it were the economy of a nation. We operate in a market, and we must take account of trends in that market.
  The Government will have to decide on a strategy to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. The downturn in the economy—which the Chancellor acknowledged yesterday, although he did not dwell on today—has been caused much more by the management of domestic policy than by international factors. In his reply to my question yesterday, he cited the $3 trillion fall in the world stock markets, but that figure takes account only of what happened between July and September. Over the year, the stock markets have not fallen at all—they are still, on the whole, at record high levels. For the vast majority of citizens, what has happened in the stock markets is not a factor that will fundamentally alter individual decisions.
  In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor compares our growth forecast with the weighted average of the G7 figures, which include the figures for Japan. If Japan is taken out of the equation, the downward thrust of British growth is, as the shadow Chancellor said, sharper than that of any of our major partners. The Chancellor has not acknowledged that fact; he certainly has not admitted that it has anything to do with his policies.
  Liberal Democrats support the independence of the Bank of England. We believe that it is unwise for Ministers inadvertently or deliberately to lean on the Bank, as that could be counterproductive. As Trichet warned yesterday, the greater the pressure from politicians, the more likely independent bankers are to resist it—bankers must be allowed to make objective decisions.
  That does not mean that the Chancellor can say, "It's nothing to do with me, guv." His fiscal and spending policies provide the framework within which the Bank operates, and that is where he has failed to strike the right balance. Because he has not pursued the strategies that would have enabled the Bank to reduce interest rates, which has created the disparity whereby our exchange rate has continued to be uncompetitively high, there has been a recession in manufacturing—he admits at least the risk of such a recession next year.
  If the downward revision of our growth forecast and productivity is more to do with domestic economic management than world activity, which the Chancellor chooses to blame, his failure to make any changes will

  899
  mean that his figures are over-optimistic and the Government's ability to sustain investment in public services may be undermined, which neither he nor I want.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the fact that the Government's fiscal policy does not match their monetary policy. However, should he not address that point to the Liberal Democrats? His party is the most profligate of all in pressing for more public spending, so how does he square that circle?
  Mr. Bruce: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from but, like so many hon. Members, we do not read one another's policy documents in detail. To have a proper fiscal policy, if one makes a commitment to invest in health and education, one shows how one will raise the money to pay for it. The Conservative Government did not do that. The irony is that they told us that they would cut spending and then boasted about the increases that they delivered; they told us that they would cut taxes, and they increased them. One does not get something for nothing. If one wants to make an investment in public services, one has to raise taxes.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No, I will not, because I think that our position is clear and I want to discuss the Government's pre-Budget report.
  We welcome the innovation of the report and the principle that it establishes, allowing better consideration before tax changes. As one who participated in the process last year, I know that the consultation was genuine and led to improvements in the quality of the changes that were introduced or, indeed, not introduced.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider some of the tax wheezes that they seem to favour to provide incentives for various types of behaviour. We are in favour of simplifying the tax system and removing anomalies and will support the Government when they endeavour to do that, but well-meaning tax breaks often end up as wasteful tax loopholes that are quickly abused. The Chancellor, in opposition, was a master of exposing tax loopholes, so I hope that he will not create too many in government.
  In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Dilnot said:
  "Thinking back over the last 20 years, I can think of no tax scheme which has been particularly successful in its original objectives… any attempts to use the tax system to encourage a particular activity will generate all of the foreseeable problems we can imagine, a number we had not foreseen, and in general rather less of the good than we had hoped for."
  Those are reasonably wise words. The Government's proposals on individual savings accounts and capital gains tax are already causing problems, to which we will return on the Finance Bill.
  It is easier to identify problems with productivity than to come up with practical solutions. There is an argument about how much of a productivity gap there is and how much it has improved in recent times. We will support measures that genuinely improve productivity, but most of those should come from the companies and businesses themselves, not from the Government. The problem has not arisen suddenly, and it is certainly not the cause of our current reduction in growth forecast.
  900
  The weakest chapter in the pre-Budget report is the section on productivity, which contains an awful lot of waffle. I think that we would all agree that it is desirable to
  "keep to a minimum the number of unnecessary corporate failures",
  as we are told on page 37, but does that really need to be written in a Government report?
  We welcome the extra money for the health service, but would it not be better to be realistic about funding in the first place? I know that the Chancellor likes to have a lollipop to pull out of the hat in his pre-Budget report, but is it sensible to throw £250 million at the national health service in the last five months of the financial year rather than providing it in a planned way over the course of the year?
  We welcome the commitment to new measures to reduce pollution and the work that the Government are doing on tax to reduce carbon emissions from businesses, but am I right in thinking that the Chancellor's welcome for Lord Marshall's report was less than overwhelming? He promised to look at the matter very carefully and said that the report "moves forward the debate". Thank you, Lord Marshall, and goodbye? Will the energy tax join pensions reform, monetary union and other matters in being kicked into touch? As one political commentator said yesterday, it will soon be standing room only in the long grass.
  The central issue in the pre-Budget report was the outlook for growth, employment and borrowing. The Chancellor has forecast a modest and short-lived downturn, but the question being asked in the House and outside is whether that is wise. Unlike the Tories, the Liberal Democrats do not pray for a recession before going to bed each night. We understand that recessions tend to occur when economic policy cannot respond to deflationary forces—for example, if there is an inflation problem or a profound currency problem—but we do not currently have such problems in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats, therefore, agree that the best guess is a slowdown and not a collapse in growth, and we hope that that is the outcome.
  I am surprised that the Chancellor has chosen to be quite so relaxed about our prospects. He has even revised the growth figures for 2001. I wonder whether he could not resist the chance to stick the shadow Chancellor's black hole down his throat. I accept that that prospect was inviting, but I am not sure that a 3 per cent. central prediction for growth for 2001 is prudent. It would be above trend if it were delivered. If that figure is too optimistic, the Chancellor may find that his borrowing forecasts are a little optimistic.
  We agree that the Chancellor has given latitude on the golden rule and he has a margin for error built into the calculations, but we are concerned by his estimates for manufacturing output. Many people working in farming and manufacturing industries will have listened in vain for some words of encouragement from the Chancellor. He forecasts 0 per cent. growth next year as a central tendency, so even he acknowledges that we could face a recession. The private sector consensus is closer to minus 0.5 per cent. and some commentators have gone as low as minus 3.5 per cent. The CBI survey, the results of which are the worst since 1980, estimates that manufacturing is likely to be in recession next year and that, over the two years, job losses could exceed 400,000.

  901
  The Government have not addressed that crisis. The Chancellor's manufacturing forecasts look like proving both complacent and wrong.
  The situation may be even worse. No Chancellor wants to forecast a recession in any sector of the economy, but the danger is that, in masking his concern, he has produced a policy complacency that puts jobs at risk. I made that argument last week and I shall not repeat it, but I remind the Chancellor that lately the pound has been higher than it was in the 1990 recession and real short-term interest rates have been higher than in the 1980 recession. If those problems are not addressed, we face a continual haemorrhage of jobs from the manufacturing sector. In his July Budget last year, the Chancellor diagnosed that problem, but he has failed to deliver his own prescribed cure for rebalancing the economy.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor failed to give the Bank of England a clear message. If he had said that he will not ease fiscal policy in March and, in the present climate, that he will not go ahead with his 10p tax rate, that would have enabled the Bank to bring down interest rates sharply. The Chancellor must surely acknowledge that interest rate cuts—and not tax cuts—must now be the priority. It is unnecessary to dangle in front of us tax cuts that he cannot deliver at the risk of failing to give the Bank of England the scope to the deliver the rate cuts that are desperately needed. If his complacency causes the Chancellor to ignore that need, interest rates may not come down sufficiently fast. I worry that the Chancellor's reading of the situation is that we have passed the worst and that the Bank of England is so depressed by the situation that it will reduce interest rates as a consequence of its negative outlook. The Bank has certainly not received any policy guide from the Chancellor. Without a shift in policy, thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of manufacturing jobs will be lost.
  I hope that the Chancellor's optimism is borne out. He is in charge of the economy and we all hope that he is right. I hope that he understands that the issue is neither the global economy nor the productivity gap. He has a responsibility to share with the Bank of England the policy that will deliver what all of us need. That policy is lower interest rates and a competitive exchange rate that can ensure a slowdown, followed by sustainable growth and the ability to fund quality public services.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) as it was interesting to hear him say that it is wrong to dangle major tax cuts before the public. I know that he has advised people not to read the policy documents of other parties, but I have read closely his pronouncements in "Moving Ahead", the financial policy he set out at his party conference. His proposals included changing personal income tax allowance from £4,195 to £10,000, which would cost the Exchequer £29 billion.
  I do not like to quote the hon. Gentleman's words back at him, but those proposals hit me in the face when he said that when we make a commitment, we have to take responsibility for saying where the money is coming from. As long as we establish that the Liberal Democrats are beginning to say where the money is coming from, that is
  902
  the important thing. They have said that they want to cut what they regard as ill-judged tax reliefs and to impose a significant energy tax, although the details are unclear.
  To raise £29 billion would mean astronomical changes in the tax system. That amount is nearly half the total income tax take, and it is more than the combined amount we spend on law and order, trade and industry and defence. We must find out how the Liberals would raise the money. They talk of ill-judged tax relief, but scrapping tax relief on occupational pension schemes would raise only £9 billion. It would be interesting to know whether they would do that, and I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Gordon if he wants to clarify the point.
  Does the hon. Gentleman want to scrap tax relief on redundancy payments? That would raise only £1.1 billion. If the hon. Gentleman were to try to raise the whole £29 billion by adding to the price of petrol, he would have to triple its price. I urge him to take his own advice: when he makes a commitment, he must take responsibility for saying where the money will come from. I shall happily give way to him if he wants to specify how he wants to pay for that. Will he? No answer. I need not dwell on the Liberals, who are obviously not interested in their own policies.
  Let me focus instead on what is left of the rabble that is the official Opposition. Not many of them are here, and I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor has gone because I had many questions for him. He came out with so much concern for employment that I wondered whether he was considering resigning his directorships at Asda and at Gartmore Shared Equity Trust to let someone else have a go at those extra jobs. Perhaps employment does not figure so personally in his interests.
  The Conservatives persist in talking down the economy. They constantly pick away, trying to find any loophole that will gain them some political advantage. They point out any statistic they can find, throwing bar charts and all sorts across the House at us. They try desperately to say that there will be a meltdown, a catastrophe or a depression. Many economists, industrialists and bankers are worried that if the Tories continue to talk like that—and they must take responsibility for what they say—they may talk down the economy. Lloyds bank said last week that talk of global meltdown raised a real danger of talking ourselves into a United Kingdom recession.
  The Conservatives contribute—perhaps unwittingly—to that problem. Or maybe that is exactly what they want. They want to keep the ball rolling. They want to cash in on political opportunism whenever they can. That is their agenda. They play games and throw mud without ever saying how they would change things. Would they reverse the Bank of England's independence? We heard policy-making on the hoof from the shadow Chancellor when he tried to answer that question, until the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) stepped in and said that other Governments have not laid out policy until after elections. Now we have the threat of their not being prepared to say what they will do about the Bank of England.
  Mr. Townend: Rubbish.
  Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what Conservative policy is?
  Mr. Townend: We did not say that we would not tell the public. The Chancellor will not tell the public the tax

  903
  changes in the next Budget. We shall tell the public the policies on which we shall fight the next election in a year or two years from now. We shall not tell them now. Your party is in Government. It is your duty to debate the issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have nothing to do with that.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is on the fast track towards becoming the new shadow Chancellor. They certainly need a new one following the performance given earlier by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). We have just heard that Conservative policy has changed again within the past hour. The Opposition were not going to announce what they would do about Bank of England independence until after the next election. Now the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) says that they will announce their policy within the next two years, and we can look forward to that. Let us write the date in our diaries in red while we wait to hear what their policy will be. It is not only Conservative and Labour Members who will be interested. The whole country waits to hear what the Conservatives propose. The risk that their election would pose to the economy is substantial. The people of the UK need to know what they would do. [Interruption.] They can bluster all they want, but they clearly do not like to be asked what their policy is. They are all over the place on public spending, too.
  Mr. Lansley: Would the hon. Gentleman try to explain something in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report rather than talking about Opposition policies? Why has the Chancellor reduced from 2 to 1 per cent. his economic assumption underlying public finances for growth in 1999–2000, while simultaneously increasing from £344 billion to £348 billion his anticipated Government receipts? Why does he forecast that growth will go down, but receipts go up? Is that another of the Chancellor's fantasy forecasts?
  Mr. Leslie: That is an intriguing intervention. The Conservatives plainly do not want to talk about the solutions that they offer to the country. After all, this is only an Opposition debate.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the UK is not in isolation from the other countries of the world. We live, work, employ and manufacture in a global economy. We must recognise that worldwide downturns and problems will affect us. We must put policies in place that will get us out of difficulties.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) had been in the Chamber earlier or, if he were here, had unblocked his ears while his point was being answered, he would know that revenue projections for next year are based on this year's growth, which has not been downgraded, not next year's growth which has been.
  Mr. Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leslie: No. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) offered the embryo of a great speech that we shall perhaps hear later this evening.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leslie: No.
  904
  I want to focus on public finance and expenditure over the next three years. An extra £40 billion has been committed for health and education. That financial expenditure will not only bring benefits to the whole country in terms of better public services, improved infrastructure and better capital but have an impact on the economy as a whole. I am intrigued to know just what the Conservative party proposes. Conservative Members talk about the downturn, the slump, the great depression and the meltdown that they foresee, or rather they would love to see as they rub their hands, yet they want to slash public expenditure right at the time when the supposed downturn is taking place.
  I want to know from the Front-Bench spokesman how the Conservatives reconcile cutting public expenditure at the time of a supposed downturn. Do they not realise that that would magnify all the economic problems as a result of changes in the global economy and hurt this country in a much more significant and ingrained way? I should like to know whether they realise what effect their proposed massive spending cuts would have on the economy. Such cuts would be devastating. The Conservatives' blindness to even the most obvious economic factors will come to haunt them at the next general election.
  There were discussions earlier about exactly what public spending on services the Conservative party would consider cutting. We all know that health and education would be a target. The Conservatives were specific in setting out the social security budget as something that they wished to target. They would scrap the £5 billion of expenditure on the new deal to get people off benefit and into work, which is thereby reducing unemployment and, as a corollary, cutting costs to the Exchequer such as jobseekers allowance and other things over the long term. That is the way to bring down social security expenditure, and that is exactly what we are doing.
  The Conservatives want to scrap the working families tax credit. They are not bothered about the poverty trap or getting people off benefit and into work. It is the old, 1980s Conservative party coming back and haunting us. I am not old enough to remember the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979—[Interruption.] Well, I probably am, but it might not have been the first thing on my mind at that time. It was refreshing to hear again all the mistakes that were made in the 1980s. The Conservatives still have not learnt. They want to start right back where they began. They have no concept of where they went wrong. That is good because, as long as they do not realise what is happening, the rest of the country will. We realise what is going on and the people realise what went wrong, but the Conservatives are absolutely nowhere on economic policy.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the old Labour Keynesian economics of spend, spend, spend. Can he explain why some of his socialist friends in Governments in Europe, who are much better at spending than his Government, have higher unemployment than Britain? Will his Government have higher or lower unemployment when they leave office—in the not too distant future, I hope—than when they took office?
  Mr. Leslie: There we have it—the dogma of the Conservative party. Conservative Members wish to slash vital public services regardless of the effect on the

  905
  wider economy. They are oblivious to the needs of the wider economy and the state of demand in this country. The effect of cutting public services would be astronomical. Conservative Members need to think carefully about their position.
  During proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill, the Conservative party proposed a number of changes. They moved a series of amendments which amounted to a £6 billion reduction in the funding available for public services. So as well as opposing the windfall levy on the privatised utilities, the Conservatives have committed themselves to reducing the funds available for public services by £6 billion. They have a variety of choices available to them. They could add the extra money that they would need to borrow, raise other taxes to compensate, which is what I suspect is on their agenda— they would increase VAT on fuel, among other things— or they could cut vital public services. Those are the questions that the Opposition need to answer and pursue.
  We have heard today that the Conservatives threaten the basic state pension and its uprating by inflation. Perhaps when they target social security expenditure, they also threaten child benefit and benefits for disabled people. We shall have to find out in the coming months. We await their policy with interest.
  The state of the economy is interesting, not least because we have to acknowledge that we do not live in a vacuum. I think that the Conservative party sometimes imagines that we do. The old protectionist agenda cloaks it in its historical role. There have been significant international changes. Change has occurred in Japan and ricocheted around Russia, and through Latin America and other areas. Serious threats have been posed by large financial institutions such as the hedge funds, Long-Term Capital Management and others. Economic issues affect us all.
  I am proud of the leadership that has been shown by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister on the international level in the G7 and other forums to move to a more transparent international financial system, to ensure greater supervision and regulation of large capital movements and to ensure that the International Monetary Fund and World bank are more able to nip embryonic problems in the bud. That is an important point. As we saw on Monday, the Conservatives have no answers to give.
  The Government have put us on the right course to the sustainable, high-productivity, high-growth economy that we all want by setting domestic fiscal policy, committing themselves to public spending and the capital expenditure that we know is so important. The monetary policy framework has been set out, with independence for the Bank of England so that stable, long-term objectives can be met. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on putting those firm foundations in place.
  5.28 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) made a good speech for the first 90 seconds. He was right about the Liberals. Given his Front-Bench's love-in with the Liberals I am not sure whether he will earn himself promotion, despite
  906
  all the flattery in the last part of his speech—it was not such a good speech at the end—but he is right about the Liberals. He was especially right in saying that, although the Liberals would increase taxes—they are unashamed about that; it is something that they think would be a good thing—the revenue would in no way meet the bills for the profligate suggestions that they make. Never a day goes by without some Liberal spokesman making some great grand gesture for expenditure. The idea of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the Liberals are the people who have the balanced view is wrong. The hon. Member for Shipley was right to point that out, and I am glad that he did.
  The real irony of this debate has been that for the past two hours, Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Shipley, have been jumping up and down like a jack-in-a-box defending the independence of the Bank of England and asking all sorts of rude questions of us. Yet they are the same people—including the Chancellor, to whom I put this question in an intervention—who are hellbent on abolishing the independence of the Bank of England and handing over its reserves and powers to the European central bank. It is an enormous hypocrisy on the part of the Government and the governing party to pretend to take the line that they do when they are hellbent on abolishing the independence of the Bank of England.
  Those who have not been jumping up and down defending the independence of the Bank of England are likely to be those such as the Chief Secretary who are muddled about the exact nature of that independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) pointed out in a sharp intervention earlier, the nature of that independence needs thinking about carefully, especially on the afternoon when the Monetary Policy Committee is deliberating on what interest rates will be tomorrow. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on having chosen today for this debate, and I am glad that Labour Members have raised the pertinent question of the Bank of England, on the very day that the Monetary Policy Committee sits.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not appear to have taken on board the exact nature of the remit given to the MPC. It is worth quoting section 11 of the Bank of England Act 1998, because in meetings of the Select Committee on the Treasury, it has become clear that many Labour Members are becoming more and more muddled about the role of the MPC. That role is clearly defined in section 11, which states:
  "In relation to monetary policy, the objectives of the Bank of England shall be—
  (a) to maintain price stability, and"—
  this is the crucial point—
  "(b) subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government".
  The legislation goes on to define how the inflation target is to be set. None of that is the same as that which applies to the Federal Reserve or the European central bank. Therefore, it is interesting and relevant to make clear the role of our central bank in relation to economic policy.
  Given that extremely tight context, which makes the inflation target the only real objective that the MPC has to consider as a matter of priority, it is relevant to ask what inflationary pressures face the MPC this afternoon. That is not a subject which has arisen in our debate, but it is one that the members of the MPC will discuss if they

  907
  are doing their job properly, according to statute and the law of the land. It is by no means an easy question for the MPC to answer.
  The first point is that not one single forecast provided by the Government shows any sort of undershoot of the inflation target. Most of the forecasts veer either towards the target or above it, but no one is talking about there being an undershoot of the statutory target at the current rates of interest. I did not invent the target—the Government invented it and they set the law of the land.
  If, when looking at inflationary forces, one takes the figures for broad money, one sees that the latest figures show that 12-month growth rates have risen to 9 per cent. from 8.7 per cent. in August. The money supply is a definite determinant of the rate of inflation. Although there are arguments to be had about how strong a factor it is, no one would deny that, if one is printing more money, one is creating inflationary pressures. The figure for M4 is currently rising, not falling. Furthermore, no one would deny that the labour market is still extremely tight—for example, unemployment is considerably lower than it was in the first quarter of this year.
  The hon. Member for Shipley asked why we worry so much about expenditure, which brings us to the question of the Government's fiscal policy. That policy has to be seen, not only in terms of new hospitals and the context in which the Government wants it to be seen, but in terms of its effect on the MPC's remit on inflation and, therefore, its effect on interest rates. One of the hypocrisies that we hear time and again from hon. Members of all the other parties, including the Liberals, is their failure to take the point that, having for better or worse established by statute such a clear-cut policy on inflation—I personally think that having a fixed inflation target is for the better—if they are profligate in public spending and print money in the way they are printing it, the effect can only be to force the MPC to keep interest rates up, with all the detrimental effects on unemployment and other economic consequences that that carries with it. That is the point which continues to be missed: if the Government are profligate in their fiscal policy and spend beyond what the country can afford and if, therefore, inflationary pressures are created, it will result in higher interest rates and in poverty.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned the so-called profligacy of the Government's public spending targets. Will he tell us in which areas he would make cuts in order to bring public expenditure back under control?
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman's party is in government and it is the Government's job to set targets and to write statute. It is up to them. That is what winning elections means: if one wins an election, one is in charge of priorities. I do not have the books in front of me and I do not know the Government's priorities. I can list various things that I would not be doing were I in government— for example, I would not be reforming at vast cost to the country the highly effective GP service that the Conservative Government left behind. There are many things that I would not be doing, were the Conservatives in government, but, sadly, we are not in government.
  It is the responsibility of Labour Members, whose party is in government, to go to the councils of the parliamentary Labour party, or wherever such matters are
  908
  discussed, and determine what action will result in a public expenditure policy that keeps interest rates down. That is the point which Labour Members keep missing. They Miss it because many of them believe that, somehow or other, someone will give the thumbs down to the Governor of the Bank of England and the MPC when they try to raise interest rates. They have not read the statute properly and believe that we operate the same system as the Federal Reserve, but we do not: we live under a different system, one which is of the Labour Government's own making. It is the Labour Government who have to find the solution; otherwise, interest rates will continue to rise. The question is whether the pressures from public expenditure will, as the Government suggest, create a balanced economy.
  Mr. Love: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is dishonest of the Opposition to set up this debate to chide the Government on their economic policy, but to refuse to offer any alternatives on the best way forward?
  Sir Michael Spicer: It is not the job of the Opposition to govern the country. That is what the electorate determined a year or so ago. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, why should the Government come crawling to us for solutions to problems that are entirely of the Government's own making? That is the crucial point.
  The reason the problems are of the Government's making is that, when one examines the concept of balanced growth, of which the Government have been making much for the past 24 hours, one realises that it does not stand up. The growth assumptions on which the so-called relatively balanced budgets are projected simply do not stand up to scrutiny. No serious economist or commentator would agree with the Government's growth projections, or be able to give any reason why the projections should be increased for the year after next. That is the most extraordinary thing for the Government to have done.
  Even given the Government's own projections, the MPC is sitting down this afternoon having to take into account a deficit for the next five years that is £11 billion higher than it had to consider when it last discussed interest rates. That £11 billion has arrived out of nowhere, based on extraordinarily optimistic growth figures. Although it has not been widely noticed, it is no wonder that long-term interest rates have begun to harden in the past 48 hours. That is absolutely logical.
  I asked the Chancellor yesterday how he can square a profligate expenditure programme with trying to help the MPC to reduce interest rates. I got no answer. The members of the MPC must be scared out of their wits this afternoon as they consider the public expenditure plans in cold print in the context of the interest rate policy, which no doubt they want to try to accommodate with what are conceived to be the nation's needs on growth, unemployment and so on.
  Unless the Government stand ready to change their expenditure or tax plans if their growth forecasts prove to be wrong—we have not heard anything to that effect— the MPC can have no alternative but to assume that the Government are embarking on an expenditure programme that the nation is unlikely to be able to afford and which will therefore be inflationary. Given the Government's

  909
  stance and, above all, the terms of reference that they have set the MPC, it would not be surprising if the committee decided to hold interest rates at their present level. The crucial point is that the nation should understand that all the pain that that would cause would be entirely the Government's fault.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: There has been a pathetic and miserable attempt by the beleaguered Opposition ranks to talk down Britain. They are not in the real world, let alone the global economy. Opposition Members think that we can arbitrarily set interest and exchange rates as if Britain exists in a vacuum. They live in a fantasy land of away days dreamed up by the Leader of the Opposition where everyone dresses up as Val Doonican and pretends that the UK floats around on its own.
  Global circumstances are difficult. A quarter of the world is in recession; global growth forecasts have been halved; the US is rescuing hedge funds; the Japanese are rescuing banks; Hong Kong is rescuing companies; and the UK has, rightly, adjusted its growth rates. Where has the Tories' black hole gone? Why has it disappeared?
  First, the starting point of the economic analysis is much better than people had assumed. The 1998–99 Budget forecasts growth of 1.75 per cent., but that has been revised up to 2.25 per cent. because, under Labour, the economy has fared much better. [Interruption.] No, it is true, and therefore public expenditure has improved and borrowing is lower. Prudent management has reduced the budget deficit from £28 billion a year to £8 billion a year. The projected surplus over five years is £33 billion. A reduction of 1 per cent. in the gross domestic product growth rate would cost £6 billion over two years, so there is a large margin of opportunity for manoeuvre.
  The revised growth targets and rates are realistic and cautious. People will remember that the Chancellor revised the original trend forecast from 2.5 to 2.25 per cent. The economy is in good shape to face a slowdown which, by now, everyone should accept will occur.
  Mr. Bercow: Like other hon. Members, I am accustomed to the hon. Gentleman's display of gut-wrenching deference to the European Commission in most debates. Will he explain to the House whether he agrees with the European Commission's prediction that this country will next year slump to the bottom of the European growth table; if not, why not?
  Mr. Davies: The last time the hon. Gentleman spoke after me, his mother was in the audience; sadly, she is not here to take him home. I shall move on to EU growth rates in a moment. It is important that we discuss why the growth rate projections from the European Commission are lower than they were.
  We are In good shape to face a slowdown in the world economy because the Government have cut debt and controlled expenditure and inflation, and interest and exchange rates are beginning to fall. If the Conservatives were in power, with their resistance to the independence of the Bank of England and current interest rates, inflation would go out of control and, in the midst of a downturn
  910
  in the global economy, they would increase interest rates at the worst time while cutting back on public expenditure on health and education. That would be a disaster.
  Looking back over the past 18 years, it is remarkable that the Conservatives caused two domestic recessions when the global environment was relatively stable. We now face choppier waters in the global economy and this Government are steadily and surefootedly leading us ahead using long-term investment.
  The European Commission has forecast growth rates. First, anyone who has rudimentary knowledge of economics—which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) appears to lack—knows that Britain is at the top of the economic cycle and other economies are at a different stage. The economy is near capacity, but we have created an extra 400,000 jobs since we have been in power. The economic management challenge for the Chancellor is to put into productive work more people who have been dislocated from the economy through lack of training or opportunity. We have introduced the new deal and the working families tax credit to make work pay for people who were left on the scrap heap by the Conservatives.
  We have done so well and are so high in the economic cycle that we have fewer opportunities for growth than our European counterparts. As I said, interest rates are beginning to fall because of the slowdown in the world economy. Exchange rates are now 10 per cent. lower; the pound has fallen from DM3.10 to DM2.75. Britain will come out of the slowdown more quickly and strongly than other EU countries, and that is implicit in the growth forecast. Hon. Members may ask why, and I shall answer that in a moment.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that Britain is at a different stage in the economic cycle, to which he has pertinently drawn attention. Will he develop his argument further and say what are the principal causes of our cycle being different from the continental norm and what measures the Government will take to correct that so that we can enjoy the benefits of a single European currency?
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that certain Conservative Back Benchers are so enthusiastic about the single European currency.
  Current and past events demonstrate that the United States and the UK lead the economic cycle while the core of Europe—Italy, Spain, France and Germany—lags. The UK and the United States went into recession in 1991, and France, Italy, Germany and Spain did not follow until1993. The UK and the US began to move out of recession by 1992, but the rest of Europe did not follow until after1994. Those cycles explain some of the changes in the EU forecasts of which the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—who, I presume, has returned to Asda—has made such play.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Davies: No, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  The first of the Government's main planks for tackling economic developments has been to introduce monetary stability through the independence of the Bank

  911
  of England. That means that interest rates are now responding to the global environment rather than the domestically created environment, as under the Howe and Lawson recessions.
  Secondly, although we inherited about £400 billion of debt, which was costing £28 billion a year, we have brought those costs down to £8 billion a year. As a result, we need not make cuts in health and education spending; in fact, we have drastically increased that spending, by £40 billion. The Opposition would obviously cut some of that amount from their pronouncements about our recklessness. They deny that, but it is self-evident.
  Thirdly, as has been alluded to, Britain is now a leading player—the Chancellor is probably the leading player—in pioneering international reforms to enable us to live in a more stable world, by supporting reforms of the International Monetary Fund and making financial transactions transparent. Governments are shaping the future, instead of reacting like headless chickens, as they did previously. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how humiliating it was for the Conservatives when we dropped out of the exchange rate mechanism.
  Fourthly, we have the welfare-to-work measures—the new deal, making work pay, to bring back into the productive economy more and more people left permanently on the scrap heap by the Conservatives.
  Fifthly, we have a focus on increasing productivity. It is no use saying, "It has nothing to do with us." In productivity, we lag between 20 and 40 per cent. behind many of our competitors. We are in the process of generating an enterprise culture by linking business enterprise into the school and university system, by encouraging venture capitalists and by encouraging regional development. Our challenge is to engage more people in the economy and to make them more productive, to make the whole of Britain more successful. Those changes, be they in management training, venture capital or enterprise, are some of the assumptions that underpin the Chancellor's cautious growth rate projections, which have been dismissed by the Opposition, who have no ideas for improving British industry.
  If the Tories were in charge today, there would be no new deal. Where would they find the £5 billion? The people would still be on the dole. There would be no increase in opportunities for affordable work, so people would languish on the dole. There would be no Bank of England independence, so interest rates would have been held back for political reasons, then jacked up as the world economy slowed. Finally, there would be savage cuts in health and education. Opposition Members ask, "What about the welfare budget?" I remind them that, when we talk about welfare, we talk about old people, pensioners, children and the disabled. All those people would suffer if the discredited Opposition had an opportunity to govern, as has again been revealed today.
  I very much commend the opportunities that have been placed before the British public again by our magnificent Chancellor, and I am happy to reject the ridiculous motion and to support the Government amendment.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. John Townend: With respect, some Labour Members need to learn that the Opposition's job is not to do the Government's job, but to hold the Government to account. I shall try to do the latter in my contribution.
  912
  This is supposed to be a green Budget. Incredibly, in yesterday's statement and in today's debate, Labour Members have hardly mentioned the word "taxation". Yesterday, I tried to intervene on the Chancellor. I now ask the question that I would have asked him, and I hope that, in her reply, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will answer me. My question is, do the Government expect that, in this Parliament, the total burden of taxation—national and local—will rise or fall as a percentage of our national wealth? It is a simple question; I should like an answer.
  Yesterday, as I listened to the Chancellor's statement, I was struck by his self-satisfaction, and his complacency and gross optimism made me think that he was living in cloud cuckoo land. He was self-satisfied about the condition of the public finances, and proudly boasted that this year the budget would be £5.5 billion in surplus.
  Hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time know that I always welcome a surplus. However, the Chancellor did not say who has paid for that surplus. First, it has been paid for by tomorrow's pensioners, who have seen the Government rape their pensions by no less than £5 billion—not in one year, but every year. Secondly, it has been paid for by the motorists, who have suffered the biggest increase in fuel tax in living memory, yielding the Government an extra £2 billion a year. For the first time in my life, it is possible, on the way home from the continent, to fill up in Calais more cheaply than in this country.
  Obviously, we have an anti-motorist Government, who are hitting people who live in rural constituencies such as mine, who need a car to get their children to school and to get themselves to work.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it was stated in the previous Government's Budgets—their plans were laid out for all to see—that fuel tax would increase each year? Does he accept that, in the first year of the Labour Government, we are keeping exactly in line with those plans, so the increase was as projected by the Conservative party?
  Mr. Townend: That is not correct. The Government have inflated the increase by far more than we would have done.
  I readily accept that the previous Government made a mistake in putting up tax to that level—falling for the greens—but the present Government have put it up by 6 per cent. more than inflation. If that process continues for five years, there will be a horrendous increase of 30 per cent. more than inflation.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has given the House the correct figures. The Government have increased the fuel tax inflator by 6 per cent. over and above inflation, and value added tax is imposed on top. That means that his and my constituents, in rural areas, will face a staggering 35p a gallon increase in April 1999. Does he believe that his constituents will be disadvantaged by that?
  Mr. Townend: I do, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall urge the Conservative Front-Bench team and the Leader of the Opposition not to go into the next election

  913
  as an anti-motorist party. I should like us to give a commitment not to increase the price of petrol by more than inflation. That, of course, is a personal opinion.
  I shall now talk about complacency. The Chancellor is still fighting the last battle—the battle against inflation—whereas the battle that threatens us in the months ahead is the battle against deflation. As was correctly pointed out yesterday, Japan, the second largest economy in the world, is suffering from deep deflation. Despite an interest rate of 0.25 per cent., its economy is shrinking rapidly, with no sign of recovery. Russia is broke, and the German banks will have a large write-off of their Russian debts. Latin America is teetering on the edge of a financial crisis. Those events, and the problems of some of the American hedge funds, have severely weakened and damaged the world banking system, to an extent as yet unknown.
  However, I believe that, in the United Kingdom, despite the Chancellor's optimism about growth next year, we face recession. Agriculture is in deep trouble. Farm incomes are collapsing. Bankruptcies are increasing. Regrettably, because of their Euro-fanaticism, the Government are taking no meaningful action to tackle that problem. As a result, in the beef and pig sectors, British farmers do not have a level playing field with the continent.
  Mr. Love: According to Budget projections, growth should be about 1 per cent. next year, increasing to 2.5 or 2.75 per cent. in succeeding years. Is not the hon. Gentleman's talk of recession actually talking Britain down?
  Mr. Townend: Certainly not. It would be pointless for me, a representative of a rural constituency, to pretend in the House that everything in the garden was lovely in respect of agriculture. I should not be doing my job if I did that. I am not a professional politician like many people here. I entered politics as a business man because I believed in things. It has always been my practice in the House to say what I think—even if my comments are not always approved by my own party—and I do not think that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is right.
  I should be very surprised if the hon. Member denied that manufacturing industry has for months been suffering because of the high pound and high interest rates. Now, service industries are weakening, and each week brings more announcements of job losses in banks and City financial institutions.
  I am very proud to be one of that small and—I should like to think—distinguished hon. Members who have run and owned a small business. I am therefore able confidently to tell Ministers, "I know what is going on out there." I can also tell the Chancellor that, in the past six weeks, in the north of England—not only in manufacturing, but increasingly in service industries—small businesses are suffering from the downturn and from declining profitability.
  I know that the Chancellor will say, "I'm not to blame." Labour Members have already said, "We're not to blame—it's the world economy." What rubbish— [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but do they deny that small businesses' profits are falling largely because of the rising costs of implementing Government legislation? The Chancellor should be more honest and accept his share of the responsibility.
  914
  Does the Economic Secretary to the Treasury really know the cost to small business of implementing the working time directive? The directive is having a serious effect on the hotel and hospitality industry in my constituency. It is also undermining the split-shift system that is vital to the industry. Furthermore, individual proprietors, small business men, are having to keep far more detailed records—do far more paperwork—to satisfy the horde of Government inspectors who will enforce the regulations.
  Does the Economic Secretary realise that the cost of the minimum wage to small business is not only the cost of merely raising workers' wages to the minimum wage, but the cost of raising the remuneration of those earning more than the minimum wage, to retain differentials?
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers are guilty not only of arrogance but of ignorance? Last week, on the Floor of the House, the Chief Secretary, and this morning, in Select Committee, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were both utterly ignorant of the report recently produced by the distinguished firm of accountants, Chantrey Vellacott. It showed that the rise in regulatory burdens in the first two years of this Labour Government will be no less than 17.3 per cent. Is not their ignorance of that dramatic impost on British business a worrying portent for the future?
  Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, do not Ministers show their hypocrisy when they talk about productivity and competitiveness? It is the Government who have been destroying the competitiveness of much our industry.
  Does the Economic Secretary know the cost to small business of implementing the packaging waste regulations that came from Europe? Does she realise the cost to small business of implementing the new European parental leave regulations—which came to Britain as a consequence of accepting the social chapter? Does she realise how massively costs to small business have been increased because of fuel tax increases, particularly on DERV? Every small business is involved in the delivery and the receipt of goods.
  Does the Economic Secretary appreciate the burden of high interest rates, which bear down disproportionately on small businesses, which suffer from one of the highest overdraft rates in Europe? The Chancellor says, "Don't blame me, guv—blame the Bank of England." The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) gets very excited and asks whether Conservative Members would take away the Bank's independence. That question will probably be irrelevant because, if the Chancellor has his way, the Bank of England will have no independence, its functions having been transferred to Europe. We should certainly like to take away the independence of the European central bank and maintain our own independence.
  Interest rates are the Chancellor's responsibility. He was the one who gave away the right that he and his officials had to fix the Bank rate. He must have done that because he did not think that he and Treasury advisers were capable of fixing interest rates at a level that was appropriate for the efficient running of the United Kingdom economy. Alternatively, perhaps he gave away the power because he did not think that he would be able to resist the political pressure applied by his spendthrift colleagues.

  915
  When we talk about lowering interest rates and reducing inflation, Labour Members should realise that—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) said—there are two sides to the equation: whereas a tighter fiscal policy allows lower interest rates in ensuring economic efficiency, a lax fiscal policy and high expenditure necessitate higher interest rates. Yesterday's green Budget proposed some small measures that will help. However, compared with the burdens on small business that the Government have imposed since they have been in power, those measures are chickenfeed.
  I should like specifically to deal with tax incentives enabling employees of large companies to buy shares in the companies in which they work. Although I welcome such incentives, they distort the investment situation to the detriment of those who work in small businesses and are unable to buy shares, because the businesses in which they are work are either sole traders, partnerships or family-owned companies in which the family is not prepare to allow equity to be held outside a small family circle. If the Chancellor really wants to encourage saving and investment, he should give equivalent tax allowances for stock market investment to people working in small businesses.
  All the signs are that the Government will end up like every other socialist Government—as a Government of high spending, taxing and borrowing. For the sake of our country, I hope that I am wrong. However, I believe that the pre-Budget statement will come back in future years to haunt the Chancellor. Ultimately, it will be the British people who will pay for his complacency.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What a difference a year makes. In last March's Budget statement, the Chancellor was predicting that the economy was growing at an unsustainable rate, and maintained that interest rates might have to rise five times. He predicted also that the Bank of England would be able to meet its inflation target by using only one narrow measure: raising interest rates. If the Government had not run such a tight fiscal policy, the Chancellor would be able to reduce interest rates, and our competitive exchange rate would be down much more than it is from the April 1998 level of DM3.1 to the pound.
  Last March, the Chancellor predicted growth of 1.75 to 2.25 per cent. He now states:
  My forecast for 1999 of 1 to 1½ per cent. growth in our economy will see Britain steering a stable course, even when one quarter of the world is in recession."—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 682.]
  How can anyone accept the Chancellor's predictions when, only yesterday, he had to reduce so drastically his previous growth forecast? What growth rate will he forecast by the time we get to the real Budget, next March? I suspect that he will have to reduce his growth forecasts even further.
  Britain's leading financial institutions are forecasting growth rates that are lower than those complacently forecast by the Chancellor. For example, Barclays bank predicts a growth rate of 0.8 per cent. next year; Goldman Sachs predicts a rate of 0.5 per cent; Morgan Stanley predicts a rate of 0.5 per cent; Warburg predicts 0.3 per cent; and JP Morgan predicts no growth whatever.
  Regrettably, the Chancellor's forecast is complacently high. He is complacent about the amount of tax take that he will have next year and wants to spend more in real
  916
  terms on the health service, on education and, above all, on social services. Indeed, next year the social services budget is likely to bust through the £100 billion mark for the first time ever.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: What cuts would the hon. Gentleman make in health and education? Is he keen to cut funds for the disabled, children and pensioners? The shadow Chancellor would make no commitment to retain the state pension. What else would the Opposition cut?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is a stupid question. Labour are in government, and it will be found that over the economic cycle the Labour Government have spent money unsustainably. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to know how to save money, he should look at the £7 billion of fraudulent claims in the social security system. What about the £1 billion budget for health service computers, which do not even work properly and are unlikely to meet compliance targets by 2000? What about the £150 million wasted on reforming the GP fundholding system in the huge primary care groups, which will disadvantage my constituents? Savings can be found in plenty of areas of Government policy, if only Labour Members had the imagination to look for them.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's next intervention will be a little more sensible than his last one.
  Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government had 18 years to make savings from the long list that he has just given, particularly from social security fraud, but that they failed to do so?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: We left the Government a golden economic legacy. Such a scenario, with growth exceeding inflation, has been achieved only twice since the war. That is the only way sustainably to increase Government expenditure commensurate with lower taxes.
  I now wish to deal with the subject of keeping taxes down to their optimum level. We spent 18 years encouraging inward investment and were very successful at it. One year, we had a quarter of all Europe's inward investment from firms such as Siemens, Fujitsu and Lucky Gold, which all invested huge sums in this country. They are now so worried about our long-term economic future that they have decided that it is no longer viable to remain here. We shall lose jobs. The Government are far too complacent about the employment figures. No Labour Member has been able to say whether employment will be higher when Labour leaves office than it was when they took office. I fear for the jobs of my constituents and those of other hon. Members. Jobs will be lost over this economic cycle owing to the Government's economic mismanagement.
  One has only to look at some of the measures, both economic and social, that the Government have implemented. One of the first was to join the European social chapter; emerging from that was the disastrous working time directive. They have instituted domestic measures, such as the minimum wage, which will damage employment. All those measures combined will lead to an unemployment rate that is common in Europe, but not yet common here.

  917
  In Europe, the average unemployment rate is 10 per cent. and there are almost 20 million unemployed people. I never want to see this country with unemployment rates approaching that figure, but I fear that the Government's complacent economic policies will lead us in that direction.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful thesis. Does he share my shock that, this morning, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry described the estimated annual £200 million cost of the parental leave directive as "marginal" and merely a drop in the ocean? Is not that outrageous?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) resumes his speech, may I advise the House that only a short time remains for Back-Bench speeches? Constant interventions will remove the opportunity for some hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall observe your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to be as succinct as possible.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The red tape that has been imposed on businesses, particularly small businesses, which has come from both this country and Brussels—
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Labour Members cannot hear, let alone understand; and if they cannot hear, they cannot understand.
  I am worried that the Item Club predicts the loss of 500,000 jobs in this country. Some of the policies introduced by the Government seem to be leading us in that direction.
  I wish to deal with fiscal policy. There have been five base rate increases since the Government came to power. Interest rates are now at an unsustainable 7 per cent., which is 2 to 3 per cent. above the European average. That imposes huge cost burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses. However, the most important factor is that millions of people are paying more for their mortgages each month than they need to. Interest rates could now be lower if the Government had not botched up matters. We should look towards more stable spending, and the Monetary Policy Committee must decide whether confidence will prevail in the world economy. If it does not, the problem will not be meeting inflation targets; it will be deflation.
  The world economy is based on confidence. In Japan, confidence has disappeared from the system and the Japanese Government have had to take extraordinary measures to try to reflate the economy. Just last week, they gave each man and woman £160 each to spend in an attempt to boost the economy. If confidence starts to disappear from the American economy, we shall all be affected. As an old prophet said, if General Motors catches a cold, we all catch 'flu—or something like that. If the American people stop spending, we shall undoubtedly be hit.
  918
  I urge the Government to look seriously at the role of the Monetary Policy Committee. First, it needs to be given a much wider role, not just the single remit of hitting an inflation target set by the Government at 2.5 per cent. That could drive the country into even deeper recession. Secondly, the Government should look at the MPC's composition. Only one member of the committee has had real experience of business, so members do not understand the misery that they are imposing on small manufacturing businesses by not running a more realistic interest rate policy. An interest rate that is more in line with those in Europe would make this country more competitive.
  I wish quickly to mention a number of other issues. A Cabinet Committee is looking into public expenditure. Will the Economic Secretary explain what would happen if a Government Department were to overspend its budget? We are told that some expenditure might be held back next year. Does that mean that if the Department of Social Security overspends, some people will not be paid their jobseeker's allowance next year?
  The Government's economic policy has led the country into recession, and we shall go into deeper recession still. This afternoon, the Prime Minister could not make up his mind on one of the most important economic topics that the country has faced since the war—whether to join European monetary union. He could not tell us whether, in principle, we would join—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but it is one of the most important questions that business men want to know. The Prime Minister would not and could not say because half his party is opposed to it, and half is in favour, and he does not know what economic conditions will be in place when we face the prospect of a referendum. Therefore, why cannot he tell us whether he is, in principle, in favour of joining if the economic conditions are right? I believe that that is what his policy is, but why cannot he tell the House in clear terms what it is?
  This recession has been made in Downing street. We will get a deeper and deeper recession. Tax receipts will drop, unemployment will go up, and we can blame it fairly and squarely on the Chancellor's botched economic policy.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: When the House has debated the record and policies of Chancellors, it has debated the mix between monetary and fiscal policy: whether he is going for a tight monetary policy with a tight fiscal policy, or some other combination. Since the Government made the Bank of England independent, with the possibility of the euro down the track, our debates on the economy have changed. We welcome that, but what the House has not caught up with is the different ways in which fiscal policy can be actively used to affect the management of the economy.
  One of our major criticisms of the Government is that they have not caught up with the dynamics of the changed decision-making process that they gave birth to. We feel that the Chancellor and Her Majesty's Treasury are not taking sufficient account of the effect of their fiscal policy on the interest rate decisions of the Bank of England.
  So we have to start at the basics—analyse the way in which active fiscal policy can work. The Conservative Government, particularly in the Lawson era, said that

  919
  active fiscal policy had no role in demand management. The new Government have rejected that ideology, but they have not made it clear how they envisage fiscal policy working in the short and medium terms.
  The Government have set fiscal rules. They have set a framework for the long-term direction of fiscal policy, which we welcome, but they have not made clear how they envisage the role of fiscal policy in the short and medium terms. That is an important theoretical issue, with practical implications because of the independence of the Bank of England and the way in which fiscal policy, set in the short and medium terms, affects its decisions.
  There are three ways in which fiscal policy helps in managing the economy. First, there is the aggregate effect—tightening or loosening fiscal policy can affect aggregate demand. Of course, there can be cyclical tightening or loosening, but there is also discretionary tightening or loosening. That is the decision of the Chancellor: whether, on a discretionary basis, he wants to take money out of the economy, or put it in through tax and spending.
  Secondly, the way in which fiscal policy is tightened or loosened can affect the economy—the decision between different taxes and different spending; between whom in the economy to hit with taxes and whom to relieve of taxes; the decision on whether to increase public sector pay of certain groups of workers. All those types of decisions—micro-elements of fiscal policy setting—have a macro-effect. It is in that sector that the Government have made some of their major mistakes.
  There is a third way in which fiscal policy affects macro-economic management. That is the rhetoric that lies behind the setting of fiscal policy because it can affect expectations of consumers and business. We saw that in the Lawson boom period. His rhetoric after the 1988 Budget seemed to suggest that national debt would be paid off, and that there would be income tax cuts for ever more. That engendered a feeling of euphoria, so people in the private sector borrowed loads of money and spent, spent, spent. Nigel Lawson's rhetoric fuelled the economic boom.
  Similarly, the rhetoric of today's Chancellor is important in relation to the decisions that private sector agents take. Of course, with the independence of the central bank, the Chancellor's rhetoric is also important in relation to the Bank's decisions.
  I am glad that the House has allowed me to explain the process in which fiscal policy affects economic management. When we look at fiscal policy from its theoretical basics, we can understand where the Government have made their mistakes in their first 18 months in office.
  Our contention is that the Government got the fiscal policy judgment wrong in the July Budget of 1997. The Chancellor said in the House that the economy was unbalanced, manufacturing was slowing and consumers were still spending at quite fast rates, but the fiscal policy that he then proposed did not match that analysis. He failed to take the heat out of the booming sector—the consumer sector—but ladled taxes on to the sector in decline: the manufacturing sector.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the remit to the Monetary Policy Committee had been wider than merely trying to meet an inflation
  920
  target—for example, if things such as growth and unemployment had been built into the remit—we would have had a more realistic fiscal policy last year?
  Mr. Davey: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is a connection. It was his party that signed the Maastricht treaty, whose mandate for the European central bank was similar to that introduced by the United Kingdom Government, but my point is that the fiscal policy that was set in the July 1997 Budget was wrong.
  In yesterday's pre-Budget report, the Chancellor set out the fact that fiscal policy was tightened on a discretionary basis. That is clear because the Government increased taxes on industry and savings and squeezed public spending in their first two years—there was a discretionary tightening of fiscal policy. However, they failed to apply the tightening of the fiscal policy correctly. They tightened it not on those people who were spending, but on those who needed help. That is why manufacturing has been hit so badly—because of the Chancellor's mistaken judgment on where the tightening should take place in the economy.
  The rhetoric was wrong. It gave all the wrong signals. Consumers were not told that their actions—the way in which spending was still taking off—were damaging economic prospects. The euphoria of the election victory or the fact that the Government's hands were tied after their fairly irresponsible election promises never to use personal taxation to govern the economy may have been the Government's excuse; but if they are really serious about managing the economy for the long term, and we have heard how many times the Chancellor uses that phrase in the House, they should be prepared to take difficult decisions, tough decisions, on personal taxation when they are necessary.
  The evidence that the markets felt that the Government had got their fiscal stance wrong in July 1997 was shown almost immediately after that Budget because there was a rise in the pound. The expectation was that, because of the Chancellor's fiscal decisions, interest rates would have to rise—and indeed they did.
  The point of that analysis is to show that this downturn, the recession in manufacturing, has been directly caused by the Chancellor. It is, to use the soundbite that is so popular among Conservative Members, a recession made in Downing street. By using fiscal policy properly, we can affect our country's economic future, even though the Bank of England is in charge of interest rates.
  Mr. Gardiner: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about fiscal policy and tight fiscal policy. Does he recall his remarks on 10 July last year? He urged the House to face up to the need for higher interest rates. He blamed the Conservatives for their reluctance to raise them at the correct time, but also blamed the Government.
  What did the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for? He blamed the Government for their too tight fiscal policy, yet at the same time he opposed the £5.2 billion tightening of fiscal policy, which was the windfall tax, and the £5 billion tightening of fiscal policy, which was the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit.

  921
  He should remember his remarks, made in this Chamber not so long ago, when he lectures the Government about fiscal tightening.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman quotes me out of context. In that full speech, I made it clear that it was the way in which the Government were tightening fiscal policy—the fact that they were loading taxes on the business sector—that was the problem. In our alternative Budget, we proposed clearly where taxes should go up, so it was not tightening of fiscal policy that we were running away from. We were criticising the Government for the fact that they were making the wrong fiscal policy judgments.
  It is now time the Government looked at the way in which fiscal policy can be used to support the economy in the short and medium terms. They have had many reviews to do with fiscal policy and launched many papers about how it should be set for the long term; but with an independent central bank and with monetary union a not too distant prospect—I hope—the Government need to revisit fiscal policy theory and decide whether they are prepared to use fiscal policy actively to promote the interests of this country.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The House cannot take too seriously speeches calling for taxation to be used as a means of fine-tuning the economy. Those policies are understandable from the Liberal Democrats, because we know that they want to give up control of monetary policy to the European central bank in Frankfurt, which would leave us with only fiscal policy to regulate or control the economy, but we cannot take them seriously because they never say what they are calling for. What taxes do they want to increase, and what taxes do they want to reduce, now or in the future? Their policy is confused and confusing.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has made his contribution.
  No economist seriously suggests that tax changes can be used to regulate the economy. They are too blunt and slow-acting in their effects. That is why it is generally accepted that interest rates must be used from time to time. It is a matter of regret that the Liberal Democrats want to give up that domestic instrument to a bank based in Frankfurt, whose interest rate changes would only by coincidence have anything to do with the domestic requirements of the British economy.
  Mr. Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I have referred to the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way.
  Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman incorrectly says that we have not stated our fiscal policy proposals. If he is so concerned about Opposition parties stating their policies, will he tell the House the Conservative party's policy on the independent central bank?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I do not remember whether he was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bank of England Bill. I think he was, in which case he will have heard us at length and repeatedly setting out our objections to the Bill. It was the wrong policy brought forward for the wrong reasons at the wrong time, in defiance of an election promise to the contrary. That is why we opposed the Bill. By the way, the legislation has not resulted in an independent Bank of England. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was after, he has not got it. All our criticisms and observations about that mistaken policy have turned out to be tragically justified and true.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Later, possibly, but I am aware of the shortness of time.
  I want to place on record our disappointment that the Chancellor, who had an opportunity in the debate to defend and explain the figures in his pre-Budget report, instead engaged in irrelevant bluster and obfuscation that left no one any better informed about the implications of his policies for the British economy.
  We may be witnessing an unfolding tragedy, because the Government are defying almost all independent observers and commentators in their growth forecasts. Instead of recognising the severity of the growth decline that the British economy faces, the Chancellor has gone, almost isolated, for a little dip next year and then an extraordinary acceleration in subsequent years, way above what he forecast only four months ago. No explanation was given for this sudden spurt—a sort of millennium boost for the British economy that we are told will manifest itself in 2000 and thereafter.
  In addition, the pre-Budget statement contains a £9 billion increase in public expenditure over the next three years, set out on page 121. Meanwhile, on page 120, the Government are assuming that unemployment will remain flat at its September level. No one can believe that that is a realistic or prudent assumption. Then the Chancellor tells us that his new annual borrowing requirement—what used to be called the public sector borrowing requirement before all the definitions were changed—will be less than he predicted only four months ago.
  The truth, as has been widely said in the press, is that we are faced with fantasy economics. That discredits the Chancellor's announced policy for everyone else in the G7 of increased transparency and rigour in the publication of national accounts. If he continues to defy what the rest of the world knows about the real economy, he will undermine confidence in public policy.
  I should like to re-engage the Chancellor for a moment with the real world of job losses and increased job insecurity. The small print of the pre-Budget document contains some evidence of a severe manufacturing downturn. Page 109 records, almost in passing,

  923
  that manufacturing output next year may fall by 0.25 per cent. The Chancellor did not refer to that in his statement, but it is in the small print. The same page contains the frightening fact that by far the fastest-growing items of national accounts are imports, which are increasing by 7.25 per cent. this year. The balance of payments will weaken by between £7 billion and £9 billion every year. That is the real economy.
  I recognise and forgive the fact that no Treasury Ministers have any experience of running, or even working in, a business. Perhaps the only exception is the Paymaster General, who sadly attends none of our debates these days. He certainly has experience of dealing in a number of companies, but no one in the Government, from what I can tell, has ever worked in or run a business of any size, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) pointed out.
  Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) referred to the distinguished and honourable club of those in the House who have experience of running a business. I count myself among the members of that club. I particularly recall the time under the previous Government when the exchange rate stood at ․1.95. Trying to run a business with such a high exchange rate was very difficult.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had made it to the Front Bench. I was simply pointing out that no one in the Government had any experience of running a business. If the hon. Gentleman has such expertise, I wish that he had a little more influence.
  I wish that the Government would at least listen to business men. Ministers may have no direct experience, but that does not mean that they cannot listen. We have heard nothing for businesses of any size from the Chancellor. He merely crows about his one great achievement, which was getting inflation down to his target of 2.5 per cent.
  Some unkind people might observe that that had a great deal more to do with the downturn in the world economy and the strong pound leading to cheaper imports than anything that the Chancellor has done, but let us be generous and concede that the Chancellor has achieved the goal of getting inflation down to the level that he inherited. In the last month of the previous Parliament, we achieved our inflation target of 2.5 per cent. or less. Inflation then went up under the new Government, and the Chancellor has now at last got it back down to our level.
  If that is such a triumph for the Chancellor's management of the economy, why does he not take similar responsibility for everything that has gone wrong? At that point he falters, and suddenly the problems have nothing to do with him, but are all the fault of the global slowdown. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that does not explain why the slowdown in the global economy has affected this country almost uniquely. We are by far the worst affected, except for Japan, where different considerations apply.
  The reason is not a mystery. It is a result of the policy errors of two Budgets over the past 17 months. There were 17 tax rises in the first Budget. There has been an ill-judged attack on savings, too. The two most successful savings vehicles of all time—TESSAs and PEPs—were
  924
  abolished and supposedly replaced by the wholly untried individual savings accounts, details of which are still unclear. There was the notorious £5 billion-a-year raid on pension funds. At the same time, the Chancellor was exhorting everyone to save more. That was exactly what the British economy did not want. That is why we are facing a downturn and a drop in growth that is far worse than any of our continental and overseas competitors— bar Japan.
  Mr. Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will not; I have several other points to make in answering those already made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) pointed out the mismatch between Treasury policies on taxation and expenditure, and Bank of England monetary policies, which are pulling in the opposite direction. To try to compensate for policy errors, the wretched Monetary Policy Committee has had to set interest rates way above what was otherwise required. That has helped to drive the economy to the brink of recession.
  The Government's fourth policy error is the huge extra regulatory burden that has been dropped on British industry. The Chancellor has suddenly discovered a productivity gap—he mentioned it again in his speech earlier—yet he has done more than anyone to widen it. He tried to widen it when he was in opposition, by voting day after day, year after year, with all his hon. Friends, against all the trade union reforms, industrial reforms and privatisation measures that transformed the productive potential and productivity of the British economy.
  Now that he is in office, the right hon. Gentleman is widening the productivity gap by imposing a £39 billion burden on business in this Parliament through extra taxes and extra business regulation. All those figures are from the Government. Departments have calculated in compliance-cost assessments the additional burden on British business men who face international competition.
  Businesses do not want fantasy economics or lectures about their lack of productivity from the Chancellor; they want the measures to be reversed. They do not want gimmicky trivia about what the Government may do to tackle the problem in consultation in the years ahead; they want to be relieved of the £39 billion burden of extra regulation. They do not want another energy tax that is dreamed up by a consultative committee on the environment, consultation about a new banking committee, or another inquiry into the venture capital industry. They are not interested in the drawing up of what the Chancellor calls public service agreements— especially because they know that, for this Government, consultation means the Government talking to representatives of a few big businesses in London and totally ignoring the real concerns and requirements of business men in our constituencies.
  Nor do business men like the misleading way in which the Chancellor pretended in his speech that employers will not pay national insurance contributions on earnings below £83 a week. Incidentally, that is a recycled policy. The Chancellor did not tell the other side of the story: businesses' national insurance contributions will rise in April from 10 to 12.2 per cent. That is the bad news; that

  925
  is what will cost jobs. The Chancellor is entirely silent on that. That is why businesses do not trust the Government. They are not a business-friendly Government, because they speak only in half-truths.
  The Chancellor is paying the price of 17 months and two Budgets of policy mistakes and financial blunders. The tragedy is that the rest of the country—businesses, savers and unemployed people—will shortly be paying the price. In winding up, will the Economic Secretary confirm that, even at this late stage, the Government will, in all modesty, propose a package of reforms to restore and revive the economy, rather than simply presiding over its decline?
  6.44 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This debate on the economy was called by the Conservatives, and how revealing it has been. It certainly revealed in the first half hour that the Conservative party will shortly have to find another shadow Chancellor.
  The Conservatives have made it very clear today that they are saying no to Bank of England independence, no to £40 billion extra spending on health and education, no to the minimum wage, no to the new deal for unemployed people, no to the working families tax credit, which will make work pay, no to parental leave, no to fair standards for working people, and no to the single currency—even if it is best for British people and their jobs. Most revealingly, we heard from the shadow Chancellor that the Conservatives are even saying no to protecting the basic pension against inflation.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that that is untrue. Our position remains exactly the same; we remain committed to the basic state pension, as we always have been. Are the Government committed to maintaining the basic state pension without means testing—yes or no?
  Ms Hewitt: We made plain in the manifesto our commitment to the basic state pension as the foundation for security in old age. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to say, just as he did in his opening speech, whether the Conservative party is still committed—as we are—to raising the basic state pension in line with inflation.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Ms Hewitt: No, the right hon. Gentleman will not answer the question.
  Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Economic Secretary has directly misquoted me, and is refusing to give way in order to allow me to set the record straight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether hon. Members give way is entirely a matter for them.
  Ms Hewitt rose—
  Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt indicated assent.
  Mr. Maude: I should make it clear, in case the hon. Lady does not understand, that our commitment to the basic state pension and to raising it in line with inflation remains exactly as it always has been. She knows that perfectly well. Is her party committed to maintaining the basic state pension without means testing?
  Ms Hewitt: It was in our manifesto, as I said, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I am delighted that, after giving the shadow Chancellor three opportunities to answer during his opening speech, we have finally heard a reply on the question of inflation.
  Mr. Quentin Davics rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is clearly not giving way at the moment.
  Ms Hewitt: The next question for the Conservative party is where it would cut public spending. It is against our public spending.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that the Economic Secretary has no intention of giving way at the moment. He should therefore resume his seat.
  Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Conservative party has now said that it would not wish to cut public spending by breaking the link between pensions and prices. I welcome that, but the shadow Chancellor has said that our public spending commitments on health and education are madness, and one of his colleagues described them as profligate.
  Where would the Conservatives cut public spending? They have revealed this evening that they are against the additional public spending on health and education. The Conservative party is saying no to British business and no to the British people; no wonder British business and the British people are saying no to the Conservative party.
  Then we heard from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). What a difference there was between his constructive opposition and the shambles of the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Gordon, like the Chancellor and all my other right hon. and hon. Friends, supports the British economy, and will not talk it down as so many hon. Members have done this afternoon.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the excellent report by Lord Marshall, a former president of the Confederation of British Industry, about business use of energy—the report that has just been denounced by the Conservatives. The question for the hon. Member for Gordon is whether he is in favour of an immediate energy tax on business or whether, like us, he thinks it sensible to consult on the complex technical issues that Marshall raises, before we make a final decision on the recommendations of that interesting and helpful report.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Are the Government in favour of an energy tax in principle?
  Ms Hewitt: As the Chancellor said yesterday, we welcome the Marshall report. It is a constructive contribution to the debate, and we want to consult further on the technical and design issues it raises before making any decision on its recommendations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) made another of his immensely enjoyable and well-informed contributions. They are becoming one of the most entertaining and welcome features of the economic debates in the House. I welcome the fact that he explained that it is the Conservative party that is talking down the British economy.
  Mr. Lansley: As the Minister is keen on the Labour manifesto, will she explain why it said
  "An explicit objective of a Labour government will be to raise the trend rate of growth"?
  All that has happened since the election is that the Government have reduced their estimate of the trend rate of growth, and they are now predicting that they will consistently under-perform it in this Parliament.
  Ms Hewitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore support the measures that we are taking to raise productivity in the British economy and put the macro-economic framework and public finances on to a sound basis. That is how we will raise long-term growth.
  The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) complained about the Chancellor's revised economic forecasts. Perhaps I should remind him that the International Monetary Fund forecasts 1.2 per cent. growth for the United Kingdom economy next year, the European Commission forecasts 1.3 per cent. growth next year and 2.1 per cent. growth for 2000, and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts 1.1 per cent. growth next year, 2.2 per cent. for 2000 and 2.6 per cent. for 2001.
  The Government's forecasts announced yesterday are revised, of course, to take account of what is going on in the world economy.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn rose—
  Hon. Members: He has not been here.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I attended the opening speeches, and I should like the Minister to explain whether she would like the Bank of England tomorrow to concentrate on her Government's great forecasts for next year and deliver only a small cut in interest rates, or to concentrate on the average of the growth forecasts, which are much lower, and deliver a bigger cut in interest rates?
  Ms Hewitt: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not been present for most of the debate, but perhaps he would like to tell us where he stands on independence for the Bank of England. We have given the Bank of England the responsibility to take the tough decisions that are needed to keep inflation under control, and we will back it in the decisions it makes.
  928
  To return to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, what he did not tell the House is that, since the general election, there has been a 15 per cent. drop in unemployment in his constituency. We all welcome that, and I hope that he does too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)—
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No.
  My hon. Friend made a thoughtful and well-informed speech, in which he rightly paid tribute to the Chancellor for his work and his role in bringing together the G7 countries in agreement on the steps urgently needed to stabilise the world economy. What a pity that neither on Monday nor this evening could the Conservatives bring themselves to welcome that statement, which was agreed with Governments of the right as well as of the left and centre. They lack the generosity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in bringing that about.
  The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) talked about rural motoring—an extremely important issue. However, he did not tell us that, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, the Government are putting £50 million into rural transport funding, are freezing vehicle excise duty, and will cut that duty by £50 for the least polluting cars. He also failed to tell the House that there has been a 20 per cent. drop in unemployment in his constituency since the election.
  Mr. Townend rose—
  Ms Hewitt: I am afraid that I cannot give way; I am conscious of the time. I have taken enough interventions, and I must make progress.
  The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in a rather excitable contribution, seemed to suggest, although the shadow Chancellor takes a different line, that he does not want the inflation-proofing of the basic pension that is part of our social security budget for next year.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Ms Hewitt: Let me ask the hon. Gentleman one more question first. Does he want to see the minimum income guarantee for pensioners to which we are committed, which we have introduced and which is in the social security budget for next year? Does he want to see the increase in child benefit that is also in the social security budget for next year?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister now tell the House clearly whether her party is committed to means-testing the basic state pension, and whether she intends to tax child benefit?
  Ms Hewitt: It is high time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues read our manifesto; we made the position absolutely clear.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No; I have answered the question.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of the fact, but the hon. Lady does not appear to be in command of her brief. Every time one of my hon. Friends puts a question to her, she merely repeats the answer already given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it proper that she—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a matter for the Chair.
  Ms Hewitt: I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the Conservative party that is not in command of itself in the House.
  Of course, the hon. Member for Cotswold failed to mention that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 29 per cent. since the general election.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Ms Hewitt: No.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady, rightly, keeps mentioning the fact that unemployment has fallen in all those constituencies. We all welcome that, but she sounds as if the Government are taking the credit for it. They inherited a situation in which unemployment had been falling for years, but since her Government have been in power, the rate at which it has been falling has been slowing all the time. The reason for the debate is that unemployment will go up next year—sharply in the north and the midlands, and probably in my hon. Friends' southern seats as well. Does she intend to say a word about monetary or fiscal policy to explain why the Government's policies have produced a reverse in this country's jobs market?
  Ms Hewitt: Not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman can rescue the Conservative party—there are 400,000 more people in employment since the general election, and more people in employment than ever before. We have tackled the inflationary pressures, and cut the £28 billion deficit which we inherited from the previous Government, we have reduced unemployment, and we are now tackling the productivity gap. We have made the tough decisions needed to end the boom and bust of the Conservative years and to achieve the macro-economic framework, the sound public finances and the investment in good public services that will enable the United Kingdom to steer the course of stability that we want and need in an increasingly unstable world.
  I regret that the official Opposition are unable to recognise the mistakes they made, and unable to acknowledge the steps that we have taken. I commend our amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 303.

  Division No. 369]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Amess, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lidington, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Loughton, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Luff, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Madel, Sir David

  Butterfill, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Norman, Archie

  Collins, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paice, James

  Cran, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Faber, David

  Ruffley, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Garnier, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Steen, Anthony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Townend, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Trend, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whittingdale, John

  Hayes, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  Horam, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Key, Robert

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  931

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davidson, Ian

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Allen, Graham

  Dawson, Hilton

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Drew, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Best, Harold

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Betts, Clive

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Galbraith, Sam

  Borrow, David

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  932

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meale, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Truswell, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Vaz, Keith

  Plaskitt, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  White, Brian

  933

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Government inherited an economy set to repeat the same cycle of boom and bust seen over the past 20 years, that inflation was heading way above target because of the previous Government's failure to accept the Bank of England's advice and the public finances were in large structural deficit; recalls that under the previous Government inflation rose to 10 per cent. interest rates remained in double figures for four years and one million manufacturing jobs were lost, while net borrowing increased to £50 billion and the national debt doubled in just four years; notes that the previous Government's policies increased inequality and failed to tackle the structural weaknesses in the economy; commends this Government for its decisive action to build a stable economy, introducing a new framework for monetary policy under which inflation is now at target and set to remain there and interest rates are less than half their previous peak, reducing government borrowing by £20 billion last year and, because of prudent management of the public finances, remaining on track to meet its tough fiscal rules and invest an additional £40 billion in education and health, with an extra £250 million for the National Health Service this year, addressing structural weaknesses by tackling unemployment and poverty with the New Deals and tax and benefit reform, supporting British business by cutting corporation tax, doubling public investment to improve Britain's infrastructure and addressing Britain's productivity gap; and notes that there are now 400,000 more people in employment than at the General Election and that Britain is better placed to steer a course of stability in an uncertain and unstable world.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I must remind hon. Members that there will be a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of the Government to respond to the deepening crisis in agriculture and to secure an end to the beef export ban; applauds the achievements of British farmers in raising animal welfare and environmental standards; recognises that a thriving rural economy depends on a viable agricultural industry and that this can be achieved by giving farmers a chance to compete on equal terms as summarised in the Opposition's call for a Fair Deal for Farmers; calls on the Government to renew or replace the Calf Processing Scheme, restore HLCAs to 1993 levels and take up agri-monetary compensation for the livestock sector financed by the underspends on the agriculture budget; urges action to establish honesty in labelling to help consumers make better informed choices, to encourage the purchase of home grown food by all public sector bodies and cut the burden of excessive regulation; calls for an immediate ban on the sale of food not produced to standards required in Britain; and condemns the hostility consistently displayed by Ministers to the country people in local government finance, transport and planning policy.
  First, I must welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Dispatch Box. We are delighted that he has decided to take part in this debate. After all, it is his first chance to speak in a major agriculture debate since his appointment a little over three months ago.
  Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It was the summer recess for most of that time.
  Mr. Yeo: That is true, but it is also true that for the past three weeks the House has had to debate in Government time all sorts of non-urgent measures, one of which was inspired by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Thursday, on the important but not urgent subject of quarantine. So, this is the Minister's first chance to speak in such a debate and we welcome him to it.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in those three months the problems that face farmers have got much worse. Pig farmers have been going bankrupt, sheep farmers have been forced to shoot their flocks, and beef farmers still await an end to the export ban, while dairy farmers and cereal growers are suffering from falling returns. It is no exaggeration to say that the industry is in crisis. At first, the Government seemed inclined to ignore that crisis or even to deny it. Now that they have been forced to admit its existence, they seem confused about what to do. We have called today's debate to give the Minister a chance to end that confusion. Last Thursday, he told the House:
  "Farmers are looking not for a debate, but for answers."— [Official Report, 29 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 484.]
  If it were left to the Government, they would get neither.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we want from the Government is a level playing field for agriculture? Does he also agree that, this year, about £310 million is available under

  935
  the agrimonetary compensation scheme? Nine other Governments have applied for it and it is high time that ours did, as that would considerably benefit our farmers.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. Farmers are looking for a level playing field. He will be amazed to hear that I intend to refer to agrimonetary compensation later as it is mentioned in our motion.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: A decision is pending which will be important for agriculture, given that it is in crisis—the referral of Milk Marque to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Given the condition of the industry and all the uncertainties and difficulties in which it finds itself, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be undesirable for that decision to destabilise that important sector?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that, where possible, we should strengthen the hand of dairy farmers. It would be damaging if the outcome of the inquiry weakened Milk Marque's position or that of other potential groupings in the dairy industry.
  In opposition, we have the power to deliver a debate and we intend to use it this evening to tell the Minister the answers that he should be giving to farmers. Those answers are urgently needed because, this very evening, farmers are agonising over their future and need to make plans for the winter against a background of certainty, not doubt. Let no one underestimate the severity of the problem. As the Country Landowners Association said:
  "For the first time in a century the depression in prices has extended across all agriculture."
  Farmers Weekly has even published a leader warning of the risks of suicide among farmers. In 15 years of representing a farming constituency I cannot remember a bleaker period and right hon. and hon. Friends who have been in the House twice as long tell me that they cannot either. It is not merely farmers who are being destroyed; the entire rural economy has been hit. The fabric of our countryside is threatened—those parts of it which the Deputy Prime Minister has not covered in concrete through his damaging planning decisions.
  Mr. Betts: Nonsense.
  Mr. Yeo: The Deputy Prime Minister made a statement from the Dispatch Box in February that he would raise the target for the proportion of new homes built on previously developed sites and, since then, he has not allowed one county to revise its structure plan, so it is not nonsense; it is a fact and it is damaging green fields throughout the country. It is helpful of the Labour Whip to make it clear in a sedentary intervention that the Government do not care about the issue.
  Today is the Minister's chance to stop the dithering and to show that the warm words that he has been dispensing so freely are backed up by action. We have heard his hints that help is on the way, so let us have the facts. If he has no more to say than the Minister of State said last week, he will provoke fears that, once again, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been outgunned by
  936
  the Treasury and that the Government's policy on farmers is limited to hoping that the problems will ease if the pound goes down.
  Charlotte Atkins: Why did the previous Government never pay agrimonetary compensation to farmers?
  Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Lady took the trouble to meet any farmers, she would learn that the current crisis in agriculture is of a wholly different order from anything that was experienced under the Conservative Government.
  If the Government's policy on farming is limited to hoping that the pound will go down, the Minister will find that he has more trouble to face. To help him, we set out in the motion what needs to be done. The Government must either renew or replace the calf processing scheme. I warmly welcome reports today of progress towards lifting the ban on beef exports, but, even if the ban is lifted soon, it will take time for British producers to regain their market share. To end the calf scheme without even having a firm date for lifting the ban would be rash, so I urge the Minister to continue such help, at a lower rate if necessary, but certainly for another year.
  Hill farming is one of the most vulnerable sections of the industry. The National Farmers Union report, "Protecting Our Upland Heritage", pointed out that two out of three Welsh hill farmers had incomes of less than £190 a week last year. The Fanners Union of Wales predicts that, this year, incomes will fall by more than half. In Wales, many farmers are working for incomes well below the minimum wage. Not surprisingly, among the FUW's priorities is the need for an increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances.
  Last week, the Minister of State referred to the Government's intention to consider changes to HLCAs in the context of Agenda 2000. He said that the Government planned to consult on options for a new scheme later this year. That is all very well, but what is happening now? The hill farming review is supposed to take account of current conditions; surely an immediate increase in HLCAs is justified in response to the current crisis. Perhaps the former Secretary of State for Wales let the cat out of the bag when he said that no money was available. Is the review nothing more than a sham?
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to hill farmers not only in Wales but in Devon and Somerset. Is my hon. Friend aware that the earnings of Dartmoor hill farmers—and we should not forget the lowland farmers— are as low as those of Welsh hill farmers? I hope that he will tell the Minister what he should be doing about that, as the Minister clearly has not got a clue about what he should be doing.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everything I have said about Welsh hill farmers should be understood to apply to the equally urgent needs of hill farmers across the country.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Why did the previous Government freeze HLCAs in 1992? I suspect that it was not because hill farmers were doing so well; then, as now, they were on the margins of viability. Why the sudden change?
  Mr. Yeo: I thought that I had explained that the purpose of the review is to reflect the current situation.

  937
  The previous Government took decisions in relation to the situation that faced hill farmers at the time. I am asking this Government to do the same. Given what the former Secretary of State for Wales said, however, we fear that their minds have been made up regardless of hill farmers' needs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned agrimonetary compensation. Given the crisis in the livestock sector, why have not the Government drawn down the full amount of compensation? I am advised that £48 million is available this year for the livestock sector. Although taking up that money would of course cut Britain's rebate from the European Union, it would still represent good value, as the actual cash help to farmers would considerably exceed the net cost to the taxpayer. If the Minister does not take up that money, will he explain why he wants British farmers to be at a disadvantage to those farmers in other European countries who utilise that help when they are eligible to do so?
  On the issues that I have mentioned, let us have no more dithering. Today, let the Minister show that he cares as much as we do about the survival of Britain's farmers.
  Mr. Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman return to his shopping list and say what amounts of money he suggests should be set aside in this year's expenditure plans to pay for his proposals?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read the motion—I am about to come to that very point.
  We have tried to make life easy for the Minister— [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We must remember that the Minister is not his predecessor. I admit that that is not a demanding benchmark, but he deserves a fair chance. The motion points out that, this year and last year, there has been an underspend in the agriculture budget. In plain English, that means that the Labour Government decided to spend less on agriculture during their first two years in office than the outgoing Conservative Government would have done if they had been re-elected.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been extremely tolerant in taking a number of interventions, not least from Labour Members, who seem hellbent on referring to the past when they should be focusing on their responsibilities for the present, which are indeed onerous. Of course farmers faced difficulties under the Conservative Government, but those difficulties have now turned into crisis and depression. In my constituency, farmers— especially those in the pig industry—face particularly severe problems. Farm-gate prices have fallen by some 60 per cent. in the past two years. We look forward to hearing the Minister give a response that will, unlike those that he has given in the past, tell pig farmers what short-term help they will receive to prevent even more of them from going bust in the next few months.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It is no exaggeration to say that agriculture is threatened by depression. He is also right to highlight the problems of pig farmers, which I shall deal with in a moment.
  938
  As I was saying, the Government have cut help to farmers—help that they would have received from a Conservative Government—just as the industry is sliding towards depression. The cost of the measures that I have proposed is significantly less than the underspend on the agriculture budget in the past two years.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the shadow Minister recognise that the Government's expenditure on agriculture is greater than that for the whole of the Department of Trade and Industry? There is one reason for that—the Conservative Government's legacy of BSE.
  Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are spending too much on agriculture. If so, I have no doubt that the Minister will respond to his point.
  In our fair deal for farmers campaign, we have also highlighted non-financial issues, such as the sale of imported food that has been produced under conditions that are not allowed in this country. I believe that many consumers would be shocked if they knew what was happening.
  I take the example of pigs. British pig farmers have invested heavily to meet the higher animal welfare standards that the public rightly demand. That has made their costs higher than those of their European competitors. British pigs are no longer reared in stalls or on tethers and they are not fed on meat and bone meal, yet British bacon sits on the counter alongside bacon imported from countries where animal welfare standards are lower and restrictions on feeding are less tight, and consumers remain in the dark.
  British pig farmers are suffering from unfair competition, and that situation should stop now.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown)indicated assent.
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad that I have carried the Minister on that point.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As I asked the hon. Gentleman this question last week and he has had 10 days to think about it, I hope that he will be able to answer. If it is time for that unfair competition to stop now, why was it not the time for it to be stopped when it started? Under the previous Government, the pig sector was very hard hit by exactly the same problem. I constantly pressed Ministers to do something, but nothing was done. Why not?
  Mr. Yeo: I deeply regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a very childish contribution at business questions last Thursday and who has displayed his extraordinary ignorance of the subject that he is trying to address. The pig sector is going through a major crisis: pig farmers are going bankrupt every week. That situation requires an urgent response and could not be more different from the highly profitable conditions that pig farmers enjoyed under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, yesterday morning, my right hon. Friend the

  939
  Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and I attended a meeting in Norwich with a large number of pig farmers who made the point that, although there have been problems in the past, there has never been such a crisis in pig farming? They are not people who complain or whinge, and they are not subsidised—I know that the Minister will agree with that—but they are literally at the end of their tether. They want more than good words and an appearance by Ministers at a pig industry breakfast. They want the Government to take action and not simply to go through the motions of support.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His knowledge of and interest in the pig industry contrasts sharply with the ignorance displayed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I hope that pig farmers in the west country will be aware of how little he knows about the subject.
  A great deal of poultry is being imported from the far east. Avoparcin, a growth promoter which was banned in Europe two years ago, is still widely used in feeding poultry in the far east: another fact which, I suspect, is not widely known by consumers. The Opposition believe that the sale of food produced by methods not allowed here should be halted.
  If good British beef can be banned from entering the rest of the European Union, the Government should be able to find a way of stopping the importation of illegal food. They could start by reading article 36 of the treaty of Rome, which is now article 30 of the treaty of Amsterdam, which allows restrictions on imports if they can be justified on the grounds of protecting the health and life of humans and animals. Will the Minister urgently investigate how such items can be prevented from coming into Britain, or does he prefer to let the British public remain in the dark and go on buying food the production of which has involved unlawful methods?
  I was delighted by today's news that the supermarkets have agreed to make it clear to consumers which food is grown in Britain and which is merely processed here.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will recall that, in last Monday's debate, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked why schools in Devon serve Irish rather than British beef. The following day, the chief executive and the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council explained to us and, I believe, to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), that no British company wanted the contract.
  I did not believe that to be the truth, and I wrote to the council leader immediately asking him to print the names of all those who had tendered for the contract. I have not received the names. I contacted him again today and he told me that he would write to me shortly. Is not that disgraceful from a council led by a party that says that we should support British farmers?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend performed a valuable service for the House, for the voters of Devonshire and for food producers in the western region by exposing the Liberal party's duplicity. I am pleased that she is pursuing the matter and deeply shocked at the failure of the council concerned to give a straight answer to a straight question. The Liberal party has been shown up for what it is, preaching one thing but doing another.
  940
  It was unsatisfactory that food could be labelled as British when in fact it was sourced outside this country, and we have been calling for some time for the distinction to be made clear to consumers. I pay tribute to those involved in taking that important step forward and I hope that action will be immediate.
  Steps must also be taken in the public sector. Some weeks ago, I wrote to the Home Secretary and to the Secretaries of State for Health, for Education and Employment and for Defence to ask whether they would issue guidance on food purchasing to prisons, hospitals and schools. To date, only one of those four Departments has even replied to my letter. That does not suggest that helping local farmers is a high priority for the Government.
  The one Department that replied, the Department for Education and Employment, made it clear that it did not want to issue guidance on the matter, preferring to leave it to the local authorities: hardly encouraging, since most local authorities offer no guidance apart from a consistent hostility towards beef among Labour-controlled councils.
  Mr. David Drew: All local authorities work under the competitive tendering regime. Which Government were responsible for introducing that?
  Mr. Yeo: There are still ways in which councils could encourage local farmers. Sourcing food locally produces higher quality and better value for money, and I understand that the Government wanted that to be done under their best value programme for local councils.
  As we have heard, not only Labour councils are letting down British farmers; the Liberal Democrats are at it as well. I hope that the Minister will accept that the public sector has many opportunities to buy locally produced food. Will he at least find out whether his Cabinet colleagues are willing to give a lead? Does he agree that their failure even to answer my letter after seven weeks suggests that they do not care much about the countryside?
  It is just over five weeks since the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998 came into force. They impose a heavy cost on abattoirs, and especially small ones, which are required to pay for the much more intensive supervision of their work that now takes place. The extra costs are a burden and tend to reduce the prices that they can afford to pay farmers for livestock. Will the Minister find out quickly how those costs are being met in other European Union countries? Does he recognise that the costs may be placing an unfair burden on Britain, putting businesses and farmers here at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the EU?
  In our campaign for a fair deal for farmers, we are concerned about the Government's general attitude to the countryside. Farmers are already struggling and the morale of the whole rural community has been further weakened by the Government's hostility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."] That was an instructive reaction. Government Back Benchers, some of whom may even claim to represent rural seats, are trying to rubbish this point. Let me remind them that, last year, the Deputy Prime Minister cut by £100 million the cash that was given to rural councils, resulting in fewer services in rural areas. Will that cut be reversed when the cash help—the revenue support grant—for next year is announced in four weeks' time?

  941
  Have the Labour Members who are trying to rubbish this point made any representations on behalf of their constituents? Will the Minister tell us whether he has made representations to the Deputy Prime Minister? Does he understand that the matter is important to the rural communities? Will he tell us this evening what he has been doing?
  While the Minister is speaking to the Deputy Prime Minister, will he also tell him to drop the threat of a new law for a right to roam? Good progress is being made on increasing access to private land on a voluntary basis. Why will not the Government let that continue, without more threats?
  We warmly welcome the progress that is being made towards lifting the beef ban. I wish the Minister well in his efforts to have it lifted at the Agriculture Council meeting later this month. Does he recognise that even if the ban is lifted, it will take some time before the markets are recovered? Will he confirm that the lifting of the ban will be partial, not total, and that it will still not be possible to export beef on the bone, and the export of pedigree cattle—the best of British breeding stock—will still not be able to resume?
  When will the Minister see sense and accept our request for a lifting of the ban in Britain on beef on the bone? That ban was introduced by his predecessor last December. It damaged confidence in British beef just when the Government should have been trying to boost it. The ban was not justified then and is not justified now. Even a year ago, one of the options from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, SEAC, was to publish the research and the risk assessment and to let consumers decide. Will he agree this evening to do that?
  Agriculture is in crisis—a crisis that affects the entire rural community. Action is needed now. Any delay by the Minister amounts to fiddling while Rome burns. I have set out three financial measures, which could be paid for out of the underspend on the agricultural budget, and five other steps that would not cost the taxpayer a penny. Farmers in every corner of Britain are waiting for the Minister's reply. The best early Christmas present to them would be for him to accept the Conservative motion, which I commend to the House.
  7.41 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for arranging the debate, and for the welcome that he has again given me to the Dispatch Box.
  Leaving to one side all the political rhetoric and knockabout, and dealing just with the ideas that the hon. Gentleman advanced, it is clear that there is not as much between us as those observing these proceedings might think. Many of the ideas that he advanced are perfectly sensible and it is entirely reasonable for him to invite Government to consider them.
  Nevertheless, I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's strong commitment to the United Kingdom farming industry and to the wider rural economy; recognises that the lifting of the beef export ban in Northern Ireland represents the first crucial step towards lifting the ban from all parts
  942
  of the United Kingdom; welcomes the steps which the Government has taken since May 1997 to support the beef and sheep industry via EU agri-monetary compensation and relief from charges; acknowledges the steps taken specifically to help the sheep, pig and cereal sectors with targeted EU measures; and endorses the Government's intention to bring about a secure and viable future for United Kingdom farming by seeking a reformed Common Agricultural Policy, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which enhances targeted support for the rural economy, which serves the consumer well and which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the United Kingdom's farming and food industries can exploit their competitive advantages in European and world markets." [Interruption.]
  I see that Opposition Members are disappointed—they thought that I would simply accept the motion and we could all go home. Unfortunately, that is not possible. As they have arranged for the debate and taken the trouble to get me to the Dispatch Box, the least that I can do is to respond to the hon. Gentleman.
  I acknowledge that agriculture is going through difficult times, and that the times are hardest for hill farmers and those more generally in the livestock sector. I acknowledge that times are difficult also for others in agriculture. There are a range of reasons for this, some sector-specific and some general. In some sectors, supply is out of balance with demand, not just in the United Kingdom, but in western Europe.
  Against that background, I freely acknowledge that the terms of trade in the recent past have been difficult for British farmers. The collapse of important export markets in Russia and the far east has exacerbated the problem, as has the ban on the export of British beef, which has not only made life difficult for farmers, but led to loss of important markets. Over-optimistic assumptions about the scale of future demand were made in some farm sectors.
  The industry's problems are exacerbated because all those factors, each of which would cause problems on its own, have come at the same time. Agricultural production is a cyclical industry. Its current difficulties are heightened because most sectors of the industry are suffering a downturn simultaneously.
  Mr. Woodward: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that farming is in recession? If so, does he propose to take immediate action to help farmers out of the recession?
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to engage in a semantic debate about crisis, recession or difficulties. That would not help. If I were a farmer who was making an assessment about how to get through the present problems, and looking hard at what the Government could do to help, but acknowledging that ultimately I had to make my way in the marketplace, I would not want to go to see my bank manager, if I were asking for my loan facility to be extended, and hear the bank manager say that the Minister had just confirmed that farmers were going through a crisis.
  One must respond proportionately and accept that the ultimate decisions will be made by individuals who are quite capable of taking charge of their own affairs in the marketplace. Government have a responsibility to be candid about the shape of the marketplace. That is

  943
  particularly important in the agricultural sector, because the parameters are set to some extent artificially by the workings of the common agricultural policy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall work round the Chamber, if that is acceptable to the House.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that if a farmer goes to his bank manager and presents his books, the bank manager is likely to foreclose on the farmer unless he is aware that there is a general crisis. From my conversations with bank managers, it seems that their head offices are being helpful and telling bank managers that a 50 per cent. drop in the books is not unique to a particular farmer and represents not a failure on the part of that farmer, but the crisis facing the industry. It is important for farmers that bank managers understand that—
  Mr. Brown: I have got the point. The banks follow these matters closely, for obvious reasons—it is their money that they are lending. I do not want to make matters worse for farmers through the use of inappropriate language. I want to deal with the situation in its proper terms and to advance remedies.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the Minister agree that one of the things that farmers can do to help themselves is to co-operate? Will he bear in mind the importance of agricultural co-operation when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reference comes to him?
  Mr. Brown: That is an important point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not say too much specifically about Milk Marque, as it would not be proper for me to do so in the current circumstances. More generally, the hon. Gentleman's point is right. In my meetings with farmers, I have been urging them to come together collectively to make sure that the producer side can make a unified response to others in the marketplace who seem more powerful than they are, particularly the big retailers.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister speaks of markets and of redressing the balance of power. During Welsh questions this afternoon, I raised a related matter. It is alleged that in abattoirs, of which a large share is owned by supermarkets, the grading of cattle is being carried out not always on the basis of objective criteria, but on the basis of the purchasing requirements of supermarkets at a particular time on a particular day, and that Meat and Livestock Commission officers doing the work of grading are obliged to participate in that. Is that not wrong? Does it not show that supermarkets are acquiring inordinate power in the abattoir system and the marketplace generally? Should not the Minister examine the matter carefully and always—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers that question, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has put a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches because this is a short debate. Interventions, especially long interventions, only take more time out of it.
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that hon. Members are not taking their 10 minutes out of my time as I slowly work
  944
  my way round the Chamber. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full written response to his question, as I want to consult officials. On supermarket criteria generally, he is right. The supermarkets do lay down exacting standards, which they expect to be met. If he is suggesting that that is being done improperly, I do not believe that to be so, but I will check with officials and if it is so, it will be prevented. I want the marketplace to operate in a fair and transparent way. I shall take two more interventions, then I must make progress.
  Mr. John Hayes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so generously. He has mentioned the marketplace four times in one sentence, rather as if he were a cross between Hayek and Milton Friedman. Does he understand that the marketplace in agriculture is imperfect? Our farmers want the right to compete on a level playing field, and there is no use his telling them to compete in a free market if no one else works to the same rules. They want the right sort of Government support so that they can compete effectively against foreign farmers.
  Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is preaching to the converted. As I have said already, the marketplace in agriculture is particularly distorted because of both the peculiar common agricultural policy regime and the actions that national Governments must take to fit that regime to current circumstances. Sometimes, those actions make matters worse rather than better. I follow the strand of the hon. Gentleman's thought, and I can assure him that I will do all I can to get sensible reform of the CAP. I hope that the World Trade Organisation round will bring further progress, and that enlargement of the European Union as we embrace the countries of the east will provide another liberalising element. In any event, world trade is liberalising, and there is no good reason why agriculture should be left out. I give way at last to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saving the best until last. He has talked about bank managers and farmers' financial problems. He has also commented on the basic causes of those problems. What would he say to my pig and poultry farmers who tell me that the value of the pound means that their products are less competitive than imported products, which are more attractive to shopkeepers? The cost of their overdrafts is also dictated by the Government's financial policies. What would the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor to do about that?
  Mr. Brown: I would not urge him to devalue the currency artificially, any more than I would urge him artificially to overvalue it. It is odd that the debate is being conducted this way round with Labour Members defending market assessments of the currency's value while Conservatives urge that we both disregard the fact that currency is a store of value and devalue it so that it can have a particular impact on one sector of the economy. I have acknowledged that the terms of trade have not helped agriculture in recent times, but those terms fluctuate, and that is at least part of the cause of the economic cycle in the industry. I cannot extrapolate from

  945
  a specific problem a general policy on exchange rates. That would not be sensible, and the previous Government did not do it either.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend find it puzzling that while farmers representatives in the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association share the Government's policy of joining the euro as soon as it is in our economic interests to do so, the Conservative party, which claims to be the farmer's friend, has ruled out joining for 10 years?
  Mr. Brown: I do not find that puzzling. Some hon. Members may not know that in 1990 the current Leader of the Opposition also shared our policy. It seems that those who have brought their minds to bear on the matter see some merits in our policy.
  Having taken a fair tranche of interventions, I shall return to my prepared response to the motion. I am willing to respond, but, before doing so, I was willing to listen, not just to my professional advisers and to farmers' representatives, with whom it is proper that I discuss these matters. I made an enormous effort to meet farmers themselves, and to ask them what they think the Government should do. They, of course, have told me. My approach to the current situation will be based on the representations made to me by farmers themselves.
  Strategically I have three tasks: responding to the present situation; engaging farmers in the Agenda 2000 CAP reform package; and carrying the whole sector—farmers, retailers and middlemen alike—together through the changes and restructuring currently taking place, including the challenges presented by a new round of negotiations in the WTO and by EU enlargement, to move us into the more liberal agricultural markets of the next millennium.
  Let me say something more about the present situation. The Government have already taken a series of steps to help UK agriculture. My predecessor paid £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to UK suckler cow and sheep producers early in 1998. He ensured that the Government met the costs in 1998–99 of Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls on specified risk material from cattle and sheep, which had a value to the industry of £35 million. He ensured that the Government met the start-up and first year running costs of the new cattle tracing system, which had a value to the industry—beef and dairy producers alike—of a further £35 million. Traceability is here to stay. It is fundamental to the operation of a modern industry and the Government cannot and will not go back from it.
  Mr. Tyler: Is not it a little perverse to suggest that those sums were in some way to the benefit of the industry when they were in fact compensation for the incompetence of the previous Government? Those were not hand outs to the industry, but compensation for the damage done to it. Will the Minister comment on the information being put before the Phillips inquiry into BSE by civil servants and former civil servants? That makes it quite clear that former Ministers connived with deception as to what should and should not be put into
  946
  the public domain, and that they were extremely complacent about the consequences of doing so. Will the Minister ensure that the inquiry hears evidence—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to anticipate a public inquiry that has not yet reached any conclusion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to evidence that might be before the inquiry rather than anything else.
  Mr. Brown: The inquiry will report to me and to the Secretary of State for Health. I do not want to say anything to jeopardise it or pre-empt it.
  On the narrower point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about industry charges, I am not sure that I agree. The charges were necessary for the industry. Traceability is certainly necessary if the industry is to operate in a modern environment. Our major trading partners, including those whose markets we are trying to get back into, would look askance if we had no competent traceability scheme in place. I opened the British cattle traceability scheme formally at Workington last Friday, although it has been running for a few weeks. I was very impressed by how the work has been organised and by the enthusiasm of a relatively young work force who are making a go of something that is relatively new to the UK. As well as being enthusiastic about what they are doing, the work force understands its importance.
  I have outlined what my predecessor did. In normal conditions, I believe that at least some of the costs that I mentioned should have been borne by the industry. However, the steps that we have taken recognise that market conditions are not normal. Since I have been Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have initiated the following steps to help. We have made use of a scheme for private storage aid for sheepmeat, following up the earlier scheme in March. I accept that the money does not go to farmers, but it is intended to strengthen market prices and to benefit all sheep producers. We have removed obstacles to the export of whole sheep carcases to France from the UK, with effect from 8 October, and I acknowledge the help of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) in his role as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  The EU opened a private storage aid scheme for pigmeat in September 1998, and all EU producers should benefit from the firming up of prices that should result from taking meat off the market. The UK exceptionally allowed an increase in the moisture content of grain entering UK intervention, in recognition of the wet summer, and the value of that to all UK cereal producers is £0.5 million. We are acting on the EU decision that will allow early payment of £100 million in EU subsidy to beef producers.
  Those measures have been welcomed by farmers and farmers' representatives, but I do not regard them as a sufficient response to the present difficulties. I am working on a range of proposals with others in the Government, and I hope soon to be in a position to be able to say more to the House. The proposals under discussion are all based on a range of ideas put to me by

  947
  farmers or their representatives. The range of ideas offered is not so very different from that offered by the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
  We all understand what is under discussion. I know that there is great interest in how much I am able to deliver from one perspective or in what the announcement will be from another. I apologise but I am not able to say anything to the House tonight for reasons which I think those who have experience in these matters will recognise are perfectly good reasons. As the more experienced among us will know, if an early answer is wanted it is no.
  Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister accept that farmers are in such a complete state of crisis and suicidal depression over these matters that even though the right hon. Gentleman cannot yet announce what his package will be, some indication of when he will make the announcement would in itself be helpful for the morale of farmers across Britain? Will he make his announcement before Christmas, for example?
  Mr. Brown: I am making progress, which should be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. I hope to be able to make an announcement within weeks and preferably within days. Further than that I think it is unwise to go without tipping my own negotiating hand. Suffice it to say that I am taking my new responsibilities very seriously and applying some old skills.
  Mr. Steen: If there is a little time before the Minister makes his statement, will he examine carefully the experience of French farmers, who have the availability of cheap borrowing and not the ordinary bank rate, which means that they can borrow money at 2 or 3 per cent? That availability to our farmers would help them tremendously over the crisis. Is the right hon. Gentleman planning to consider an alternative scheme by which farmers can borrow at a much lower rate than the bank rate? Is that on his screen?
  Mr. Brown: That is an interesting philosophical point. It is rather odd that the parties are again this way round. I believe in free markets and that there should be no artificial construction for one sector to deal with an industry's specific problem. The hon. Gentleman is advocating a specific reduced rate of interest to deal with a particular sector in the marketplace. When I was elected to this place in 1983, we used to have these discussions. I used to do my best for my shipbuilding constituency. The arguments then used to be the other way round. I used to be advocating special state aids and the Conservative party used to explain that that was not the right way forward. We seem to have passed each other as we have crossed from Opposition to Government. Anyway, there we have it.
  Farmers complain that there are subsidy regimes in place in other countries that are not available to them. Where these regimes are outwith the European rules it has been the time-honoured position of the Government that the Commission should address that. We have had some success in making these representations in the past. I shall have something to say on the specific point in a moment.
  My principal announcements are delayed—I am certain that the reason is obvious to everyone in the House—because they cost money. Let me knock down the idea
  948
  that farmers are always asking for money from the public purse. They have not done so. Not one farmer or farm representative has asked me for a commitment from public funds to bail out the industry. I have been asked for measures targeted at the present position, a sense of direction for the future, a constructive dialogue within the sector—with our European Union partners as much as within the United Kingdom—and for political leadership. All of these I intend to provide.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I am pleased to hear what the Minister has just said about the representations that he has received from farmers. There are many of us who believe that subsidies are not the answer for any industry. It is a fact of life that agriculture is subsidised in this country and on the continent, but will the right hon. Gentleman take on board as a matter of principle that the Government can make absolutely sure that it does not add to the overhead burden—the cost to the industry—by Government measures? That would be helpful to the industry and something entirely within the gift of the Government.
  Mr. Brown: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's representations. I acknowledge to the House the specific efforts that the hon. Gentleman has made for the pig farmers who he represents. I am sympathetic to the pig sector because it does not receive large payments from the public purse, even in the current difficulties. I freely acknowledge that the pig sector is in crisis because it asked for a state handout to bail it out. It has made points along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I shall have something to say about that when I get to the pig sector in my statement.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: To take up some of the previous interventions, perhaps I should say thank you for a substantial arable area payment cheque that I received recently, along with many other farmers. These cheques have helped to keep people employed. Following the intervention from Ludlow, I urge my right hon. Friend to understand that the sort of regulation that guarantees the safety of food is imperative to safeguard the interests of consumers and those of farmers. I hope sincerely that my right hon. Friend will be able to make progress on that, perhaps in the Queen's speech.
  Mr. Brown: Yes. I shall have something of substance to say about the Food Standards Agency and how the Government intend to make progress with the proposal immediately after the Queen's speech. Of course I cannot anticipate the Queen's speech.
  On the broader question of food standards and whether we should somehow make a concession that would perhaps have an impact on the public's perception of the public health debate, the answer is no. However, there are some technical aspects that the industry has asked me to consider, which I am looking at. Of course, the public's safety must come first and I must be alert to questions of cross-contamination as well as to issues concerning the specific operations of the industry.
  I refer specifically to the beef sector. As we all know, one of the most important things that I could do would be to lift the export ban in Europe. The motion deplores the fact that I have not done so. The House will want to know

  949
  that today, in the Standing Veterinary Committee, a Commission proposal that would allow the United Kingdom's date-based export scheme to go ahead received a favourable response from a simple majority of the EU member states. If this vote is repeated in the Agriculture Council on Monday and Tuesday, 23 and 24 November, the way will be open for British beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 to re-enter European and world markets.
  I hope that that is welcome on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] I am grateful to the Opposition for acknowledging that this is important to our country. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk, is right to point out that this is for deboned beef. The scheme does not allow for the export of live calves. It does not allow for the export of beef on the bone, but it is an important start. It will enable the British industry to work to get back into markets that we have lost. We shall have to make a substantial effort to get back into those markets, the more so because of the surplus of beef in the EU at present. It is not an easy time to re-enter markets.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Today, I talked to a major exporter of Scottish beef in Inverurie, who had a very substantial export business to Italy, Holland and France. Almost all that beef was on the bone for sale to high-quality restaurants and distributors. They bought it specifically because it was on the bone. They do not want to buy deboned beef. What efforts will the right hon. Gentleman make either to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban here or to ensure that exports of beef on the bone will be allowed shortly after the ban is lifted?
  Mr. Brown: Of course this is not the end. I intend to continue to get British deboned beef into other world markets from which it is currently excluded. I intend to make steady progress in getting beef on the bone, when it is safe to do so in response to scientific advice, back into world markets. It is not as though this is one announcement after which the Government will call it all dealt with. I want to make steady progress so that British food products—livestock products—from every sector are back where they should be in world markets. Further, I want British products to be acknowledged for what they should be, which is among the safest products in the world. I want our country's name to be synonymous with excellence. I do not want consumers to be afraid to buy British because they are not certain of the quality or, indeed, the safety of the product. That is my ambition and I shall make remorseless progress towards achieving it. The announcement that I have made is important, but it is by no means the end.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Following on from what he has just said, will the Minister also ensure that, when the British housewife goes to the supermarket or other retail outlet to buy a British product, she can tell whether she really is buying British? Within his current proposals, what can the Minister do to promote British beef and the buying of it, and to overcome some of the current difficulties with labelling?
  Mr. Brown: When the British consumer goes to the supermarket, I hope that she—or he—will buy British, not
  950
  because the retailer has stuck a Union Jack on the product, but because he or she wants to buy the product because of its quality and the safety and farm welfare standards pertaining to the rearing of livestock in the United Kingdom.
  How will consumers know what they are buying? They will have to be told, which is why I am discussing with retailers a UK-specific scheme that will enable consumers to make an informed choice. That suggestion was made by Opposition Members, by Labour Members and by the industry. It is right that I, as the Minister, accept my responsibilities for getting the producer and retail sides of the industry together to discuss proposals of that sort. I think that the House will welcome the comments that I shall make later about my meeting yesterday with the British Retail Consortium.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the success of campaigns to persuade people—although they need little persuasion—of the excellence of British beef, pork and lamb and to ensure that consumers are able to recognise such products in supermarkets by their labelling, will the Minister also tackle the catering industry? That industry uses a great deal of meat from a variety of sources, but when people go out to eat, they do not necessarily know that what they are eating is the best of British.
  Mr. Brown: Together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I am taking a hard look at the catering industry. One third of all livestock products go through catering rather than home retailing, so it is right to pay attention to the catering industry. Clearly, a labelling scheme would not work in quite the same way, but there are other methods of ensuring that customers are informed about the origins of the product that they are eating. We are giving careful thought to the matter. I share the objective of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton): I, too, believe in informed consumer choice and a free marketplace.
  The position that we are now in regarding the export ban has not been easily achieved. We are making progress because our case is founded on science and on the technical implementation of the date-based export scheme, which is itself based on the agreement reached by European Heads of Government in Florence. I have to persuade other Farm Ministers that there is a case for lifting the ban. We have to explain our position to the technical specialists in other countries and to Commission officials. It is also important that I explain the British Government's position to individual Commissioners and to Members of the European Parliament. I pay tribute to the officials from my Department and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have worked so hard to present Britain's case. We are getting there, and we are doing so because we are constructively engaged with the institutions of the European Union.
  Before they are so free with their condemnation, may I gently invite the Opposition to reflect on three points: why we have a beef ban in the first place; which party was in power when it was imposed; and, if the lifting of the beef ban is such an easy thing to achieve, why the previous Government did not achieve it? I invite Conservative Members to think back to their "beef war" against Europe, to consider whether it successfully advanced our national interests and to consider whether the approach adopted

  951
  by the present Government is more likely to succeed in advancing the interests of British agriculture. I shall not press the point any harder than that, but everyone— especially objective observers—will be able to draw his or her own conclusions.
  Mr. Gill: We do not need time to think about it. The fact is that, at the time of the general election, the Labour party said, "Give us control and we shall solve all these problems at the stroke of a pen," but that has not happened. I am sure that the Labour party has learnt a great deal during the past 18 months, not least that ending the beef ban is not just a matter of going to Brussels on a charm offensive.
  The Minister is up against the same problems that faced the Conservative Government in negotiating the end of the beef ban and it has taken him a long time to achieve what he has so far achieved. The question to which we and the industry want to know the answer is, why on earth have the Labour Government not ended the ban already, given the promises that they made 18 months ago?
  Mr. Brown: Give us another fortnight, at least. The fact is that the British electorate listened carefully to what the Labour party had to say during the last election and decided to give us a chance to do a range of things, including lifting the beef ban. The truth is that we are making some progress. If ending the ban was so easy, the previous Government should have done it. Instead, their war with our partners in the European Union persuaded all 14 of them to gang up against the UK and, when the Conservatives asked the electorate what they thought of that, the electorate responded. My hon. Friends and I are the beneficiaries of that response, as are the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Tyler: As a totally objective observer, may I say that we Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Government's approach in this respect? It is clearly far more constructive and it is delivering results; however, there is a long way to go. We should not raise great hopes of opening the market door to Europe, because the prices there are so low that that will not be of great help to us. The prices in the rest of the world, where we held some extremely valuable markets, are as important. As the door starts to open and the ban is removed, will the Minister and his officials consider seriously those third-country markets?
  Mr. Brown: I hope that I made it plain that I want British foodstuffs back on world markets and want there to be no health impediment to British agriculture products and those products to be regarded as excellent on world markets. That is my ambition for this country and I intend to make remorseless progress towards achieving that.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: Once more, then, in fairness to other hon. Members, I must draw my remarks to a conclusion and allow others to speak.
  Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. If he does not get satisfaction from
  952
  our European partners with the techniques that he is using, will he take the case of Britain's beef farmers to the European Court?
  Mr. Brown: I am content to continue to conduct negotiations in the way that I am currently conducting them and I believe that my approach will be justified by the outcome. I have carefully considered the opposite approach, which is to threaten people. I believe that, at one stage, the previous Conservative Government started to use the mechanisms of the European Court and got thrown out, so I am not overwhelmingly attracted to the approach adopted by the previous Government. I am willing to learn, and what I have learnt is not to do it their way, but to make steady progress using my own approach.
  Let me try to draw this consensus together. I welcome the part of the Conservative party's motion that
  "applauds the achievements of British farmers",
  and add my applause. I regard it as wholly unnecessary and destructive to try to set one sector of the economy against another, or to isolate rural Britain from the rest of the country. We are one country and it is not necessary to set up artificial divisions. I, too, want there to be "a thriving rural economy" and "a viable agricultural industry". I agree that British farmers should compete in an open market "on equal terms" with others.
  That brings me to the Opposition's fair deal for farmers. One of its key points is to take a stand against unfair competition. I hope that the Opposition and the whole House will welcome the agreement that I reached yesterday with the British Retail Consortium that supermarkets will not sell imported meat processed in the UK under a British label. A major source of grievance for livestock sectors, particularly the pig industry, has been that meats can be imported, packaged and described as British. The major retailers have assured me that they will not do that. They have assured me also that, from 1 January 1999, all pigmeat sold in their outlets will be from animals raised to high welfare standards, with no stalls and tethers and no meat and bonemeal feedstuffs. Those who follow these matters know what I am describing. That will help to achieve the recognition that I want for the high welfare standards that British producers apply.
  I want the European Commission to investigate in full today's press reports of new state aids elsewhere in the EU and to take the appropriate action if those prove to be contrary to EU law.
  I am asked to cut the burden of regulation. I tell the House bluntly that I am not willing to compromise on food safety: food safety comes first, and it is in the interests of British producers that it does. I am willing to discuss with the farming industry the information that we collect from farmers and the form in which we request it and to consider whether there is a better way of doing so. The Government have, of course, considered those issues before. I intend to have the whole issue re-examined by specialist advisers. However, regulations are there for a purpose, and undermining public confidence in the regulatory regime by seeking short-term gain is not the right way forward for the industry.
  On public purchasing policy, I am pleased with the outcome of my meeting yesterday with the British Retail Consortium and the outcome of the negotiations that we have been having with the Ministry of Defence.

  953
  We can be proud of animal welfare standards in this country. British consumers should be able to identify meat products that have been reared to the highest British animal welfare standards.
  Allegations are often made that the supermarkets are taking advantage of low producer prices, but not passing them on to the consumer or, indeed, the farmer. The Office of Fair Trading is rigorously examining supermarket pricing. In the meantime, I am working to draw the whole food chain into co-operative working arrangements. The key point is that each part of the industry needs the others. The debate should not be characterised by villains and victims.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is making an excellent speech, which has defused the situation and will be welcomed by the farming industry. However, I am sure that he is aware that, last month, the National Westminster bank published a report revealing that, if the current crisis continues, 25,000 farmers— 15 per cent. of the total—will be driven out of agriculture. That is a serious prospect. Who will maintain the land? Does the Minister believe that his announcements today will do anything to stop the haemorrhaging from the land of those who produce our food?
  Mr. Brown: I accept that the situation is serious, which is why I am trying to flag up the need for a further announcement, which I will make soon. The purpose of today's announcement is not to lift the whole burden of the present difficulties from the industry's shoulders. I cannot do that; no one in my position could. I can intervene proportionately so that the industry can survive the present difficulties. I acknowledge that there is a crisis in the pig industry. I cannot arrange for everyone to survive. I can work constructively with all the parties and point to alternative ways forward. I can encourage, explain and provide support, but I cannot stand against the broad tide of events, and it would not be sensible to do so.
  The industry is experiencing a period of change and restructuring. I do not want the present difficulties to accelerate that process so that we are not the masters of our own destiny. I am determined that British agriculture not only survives but has a good, sustainable future. The shape of that future is the subject of a different debate, and I cannot say that in 10 years absolutely everything will be as it is now. All I can do is set the parameters for the marketplace and let people make their own judgments. I can also ensure that change is driven not by short-term difficult circumstances but by the long-term passage of events, including the liberalisation of markets.
  The Opposition motion criticises the Government's approach to the countryside. Agriculture is only one part of the rural community, but it remains crucial and the whole appearance of the countryside is dependent on it. The Government recognise the special needs of those who live and work in rural areas. We have provided an extra £50 million for rural transport, new rate relief for village shops, extra protection for rural schools and financial support for remote dispensing pharmacists. That sits alongside our commitment to viable United Kingdom agriculture.
  954
  Under the previous Government, the Rural Development Commission recorded the following facts: 83 per cent. of rural parishes were without a general practitioner; 73 per cent. had no daily bus service; 49 per cent. were without a school; 43 per cent. were without a post office; and 42 per cent. did not have a permanent shop.
  The Opposition urge me to extend the calf processing aid scheme.
  Mr. Yeo: If the Minister is concerned about the deprivation described by the Rural Development Commission, will he tell us whether he has asked the Deputy Prime Minister to reverse last year's cut in the revenue support grant—the cash given to councils in rural areas?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will remember from his time in office that government is seamless, and he should address his question to the appropriate Minister, but I shall pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and urge him to treat them appropriately.
  I turn now to a policy for which I am responsible—the calf processing aid scheme, which is scheduled to end at the end of the month. The scheme distorts the calf market, forcing prices up at a time when beef finishers' margins are low. Its continuation could result in a shortage of home-produced beef on the UK market in the medium term. After 30 November, most EU member states will be making no contribution to the reduction of EU beef surpluses. However, farmers—mainly dairy farmers— have pressed for the continuation of the scheme until we have more normal market conditions. I am carefully considering that request, but the animal welfare lobby and the abattoir operators—I acknowledge that they make an unlikely combination—have welcomed the decision to close the scheme.
  It is not fair to suggest, as the Opposition motion does, that the Government are not committed to farming in the hills. More than £600 million has been distributed to hill farmers this year alone. The Government have always provided support for hill farmers. I intend to do so, as well as considering what further help we may offer. In the short term, I shall do what I can. I intend also to ensure that hill areas receive continuing support as part of the Agenda 2000 package and beyond.
  The autumn review is well under way. It is important to remember that hill support is a structured measure, not a measure to top up shortfalls in income. The Opposition motion is misleading on hill support. It refers to returning hill livestock compensatory allowances to 1993 levels. The Conservative Government dramatically cut them in 1994. The severely disadvantaged area payment for cows was £63.31 in 1993, and the Conservatives reduced it to £47.50 in 1994.
  Let me correct another misunderstanding. It was said at our last parliamentary Question Time, or perhaps in the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate, that an additional amount was paid in 1997. That is true, but it was a supplement, from a separate one-off European Union scheme, counteracting the market effects of BSE. It was available throughout the European Union.
  The motion urges me to take up agrimonetary compensation. I make it clear to absolutely everyone that aid is not just there for the taking. The agricultural

  955
  monetary structures are permissive. Operation of the United Kingdom's budget abatement means that the UK Exchequer bears about 71 per cent. of the cost of EU-refunded aid. If anyone thinks that those arrangements are unfair, I remind them that the arrangements are a direct result of the Fontainebleau agreement, negotiated by the Conservative Government.
  The possibility of agrimonetary compensation for United Kingdom farmers was first approved by the European Union Agriculture Ministers in March 1997. Whatever the Opposition say now, the Conservative Government made no commitment at the time to pay such compensation. The only tranche that has ever been paid was paid by my predecessor.
  I have the matter under consideration. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is right to ask me about that point. I am considering it, but, as he knows, I have to discuss with others in the Government.
  Mr. James Paice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I should draw my remarks to a close, if only to let others in to the debate. Although I have been generous in giving way, it is not really fair to the House to extend my speech and thus keep other hon. Members out of the debate. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Paice: On the subject of the previous Government not taking up any agrimonetary compensation, does the Minister agree that not a single agricultural product for which a common agricultural policy regime exists is making anything like the price that it made under the previous Government, and that that is why it was unnecessary for the previous Government to take up that compensation?
  Mr. Brown: That is not the only purpose of the agrimonetary regime, although the present Government accept that, in some circumstances, there is a case for drawing down within the permissive regime. That is why my predecessor did it, and that is why I have the matter under active consideration. My only point—a narrow political one—is that the regime was in place under the previous Government and they did not take advantage of it. There may be a range of reasons for that, but for the Opposition to urge it on us and not to have done it themselves sits them in a less happy position than they might think they find themselves in.
  Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: No. I have an enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and I again acknowledge the part that he plays in these matters, but I have given way to him twice. I understand that the House wants to question me and explore matters with me, which is why I have given way as freely as I have, but, in fairness to others who want to take part in the debate, I should now draw my remarks to a close and let others in.
  The part of the Opposition motion that I wish to address is the reference to
  "underspends on the agriculture budget".
  956
  Believe me, if I could get my hands on an underspend and I was free to make an announcement now, I would do so. There is no pot of money waiting to be redistributed. The motion refers to annually managed expenditure and the difference between forecast expenditure and outturn as a demand-led budget.
  I note that the hon. Member for South Suffolk is calling for more money to be spent under that heading, and I know that he must have cleared that with the shadow Chancellor. I must clear any money that I want to spend with the real Chancellor, and I wonder how the hon. Gentleman can square the demand that much more money be spent in the agriculture sector with the more general approach of the shadow Chancellor, which is that the Government are spending too much money already and should cut expenditure.
  I hope that I have dealt with the Opposition's arguments. I have explained my approach. The Government amendment provides a more rational way forward for United Kingdom agriculture, a way that will allow a viable UK agriculture—a broader rural economy—to play its proper, dynamic role in the United Kingdom economy. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow the Minister after his ministerial debut in a debate in the House as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was, by any standards, a fine speech, and we are grateful for it. Obviously, from the Minister's viewpoint, the policy of killing with kindness now applies, not just to animal welfare campaigners and abattoirs, but to the House of Commons. He has shown the House the courtesy that he showed to the Select Committee on Agriculture last week when he appeared before it, and we should all be grateful to him for that.
  The Minister's analysis is entirely sound. I hope that the judgment of the agriculture community will be the same for him as it will be for me—not at all bad for a townie. We both have that in common. He has shown great understanding of the issues, but he would agree— the thrust of his speech shows that he would certainly agree—that understanding is no substitute for action. The time is coming quite fast when action will be expected of him. Today he showed some areas where welcome action has already been taken.
  The Minister has identified the very strange consensus that exists, not only in the House, but outside it, throughout the agricultural community, about the long-term direction that we must take for British farming—liberalised markets and an end to production-linked subsidies. On that we can all agree.
  I believe that the Minister understands that, to achieve that objective, the Government cannot simply sail into the wind—like a supertanker—toward that Utopian and very desirable goal, but will have to behave rather like a

  957
  clipper, tacking with the wind in seeking to achieve that objective. That means that there is no inconsistency in providing short-term help to farming now, to help it to arrive at that long-term goal. The Minister will have to behave rather less like the Exxon Valdez and rather more like the Cutty Sark, but I think he understands that. He has certainly proved pretty good at pouring oil on to troubled waters today.
  However, there is a real recession out there—a real crisis facing agriculture. As the whole House now understands, that crisis is unique in that it now extends to every sector of farming. When Farmers Weekly regularly publishes the telephone number of the Samaritans, obviously something is seriously wrong. I know from farmers in my constituency, in Worcestershire, about the extent of the problems that they are facing. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) sent me a letter from one of his arable farmers. It says:
  "According to my costing of last year's harvest, it cost us £68 per ton to grow wheat which we are now selling at £68 per ton, last year it was selling at £85 per ton. Our peas, last year, were selling at £102 per ton, this year at £68 per ton".
  Obviously, the situation is exceptionally serious. Farm prices after inflation are lower than they were in the 1970s. I hope that the decision of the Select Committee on Agriculture to launch an investigation of the problems facing the pig industry will help by highlighting some of the problems, perhaps enabling us to learn lessons for other sectors.
  The Government must face up to four categories of problem in dealing with the crisis confronting British agriculture. Obviously, the first is the international dimension—the broader economic questions. Yes, there are very big international problems out there, and they have affected some sectors of fanning especially acutely. The Russian crisis has imposed an especially severe problem on pig farmers. The far eastern crisis has been a particularly severe problem for chicken farmers. The problems are real.
  In most farmers' minds, the overriding factor must be the strength of sterling. Although there have recently been some weakening of sterling and green pound revaluations, which are welcome, sterling is still strong.
  I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Chancellor to draw down the agrimonetary compensation—£48 million for beef farmers, and £89 million for arable farmers. Although nothing is available for sheep farmers, I hope that the Minister will be able to get the compensation that is available, as it will provide a very important symbol of the Government's determination to help farmers.
  The second category of problem comprises the self-imposed wounds that have nothing to do with broader economic issues. Although some might say that, because of the Chancellor's decisions, the strength of sterling is partly a self-imposed wound, as Committee Chairman, I must be careful not to be too partisan in my remarks. Nevertheless, there are other self-imposed wounds.
  I think that the beef-on-the-bone ban was a self-imposed wound, making it more difficult for the Minister to make the progress that he has made in having the ban lifted. At one stage, it seemed as if the price of
  958
  lifting the beef export ban would be a permanent, Brussels-imposed beef-on-the-bone ban. Although the Minister seems to have escaped paying that price, his task was made more difficult.
  Mr. Nick Brown: I did not escape it alone, as much hard work was put in by British officials—Foreign Office officials and my Department's officials—in persuading the Commission to separate the date-based export scheme from another proposal on specified risk material that might have been included in the scheme. It is a very important point for the domestic industry, as the hon. Gentleman is right to mention.
  Mr. Luff: I am happy to pay tribute to officials in the Minister's Department, who sometimes get a raw deal in contending with difficult situations. I am grateful to them.
  The progress that we are making is part of a continuum. I cannot help but notice that the veterinarians who voted today against lifting the ban included some of the Government's most socialist friends in Europe—Germany, France and Spain, who all cast their votes against lifting the ban. In the constructive dialogue, perhaps the traditional friends of the Conservative party down the years, such as Denmark, have been more sympathetic to our case. Although I wonder how much the programme of constructive engagement has shifted the balance, I think that our argument is beginning to get through, which essentially demonstrates the continuum from the previous Government to the current one.
  The problems of the beef industry will not be solved simply because the beef export ban is lifted. I worry that the public at large believe that ending the ban will be a cure-all. It will not be a complete cure, as huge problems will remain. I also hope that the Minister will be able to find some money to help beef farmers regain their lost export markets, both inside Europe and, as many hon. Members have often said, outside Europe—in South Africa, for example. I am delighted to hear the Minister's very strong hints—his dance of the seven veils—on the calf processing aid scheme. It seems fairly clear that there will some type of successor scheme, which will be welcome. A successor scheme will be welcomed not least on welfare grounds.
  There are many "level playing field" issues that lie within the Minister's control. He mentioned Government buying policies. I cannot imagine any other European Union member state that would be quite as transparent and open as we have been. I hope that he will continue putting pressure on the Ministry of Defence. Although he has been successful on beef, more progress on lamb is necessary. I hope that he will put pressure on local education authorities, too—consistent, of course, with local decision making—to try to encourage them to take a more enlightened view.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider his Department's thoughts on imposing charges on farmers. Although I understood his comments on the safety and security of the food chain—one must respect that concern—I hope that he will not impose charges, as his Department's expenditure plans currently forecast, for use of the British cattle movement service, for example, unless he is convinced that other EU member states levy equivalent charges. We must not unnecessarily handicap our farmers.

  959
  I was encouraged by the Minister's comments on welfare standards, on which he has made some good progress. Nevertheless, battery egg producers are concerned about the implications of some Government statements. Producers are worried and are in a difficult position. The consequence of an immediate ban on battery cages would almost certainly be massive imports of American eggs that are produced in conditions that are much worse than those in the UK. We must be very careful when addressing such "level playing field" issues.
  We must be particularly careful about new and unnecessary burdens, such as a pesticide tax. I am concerned about suggestions coming from one Department, to the effect that farmers randomly pour pesticides on their fields. That is nonsense. Pesticides are a very expensive input, which farmers certainly do not want to use unnecessarily. Moreover, imposing a tax will not control pesticide use but will only be another burden on British farmers.
  The third issue is the problem with the food chain. I was encouraged again to hear the Minister's comments on his discussions with supermarkets. I should say that I have been unconvinced by supermarkets' claims and did not find Tesco's London Economics report particularly convincing. There is no doubt that meat sales are contributing substantially to those supermarkets' overheads.
  I noted that, between August 1996 and August 1998, according to the National Farmers Union, farmers' share of retail prices for bread has declined from 18 to 13 per cent.; for pork from 57 to 33 per cent.; for milk from 42 to 34 per cent.; and for poultry from 46 to 30 per cent. Farmers are receiving less from the proceeds of lower prices, which must be a matter of great concern. I hope that the Minister will consider convening a summit of all those in the food chain—including farmers, hauliers, abattoirs, processors, manufacturers, retailers and even consumers—to discover whether the problem cannot be dealt with once and for all, as it has been a running sore for all of us.
  The fourth and final category are the "mood music" issues, in which the Government seem to demonstrate a failure to understand the countryside. The Minister claimed credit for rate relief for shops. I have to inform him that the previous Government took that policy decision and passed that Act of Parliament. Credit for that rests entirely with the Conservative party. I lobbied for it intensely, spoke on the Bill, and we got the measure through. I am glad that the Government did not abandon it, but it is our policy.
  Attempts to ban hunting, sabre rattling over the right to roam, penalising rural motorists, closing facilities in market towns—I have lost my benefits office, and my magistrates court and county court have been threatened; my income tax office is threatened, which some may say is a good thing, but we still appreciate the service—these are all bad measures. New house building in the countryside cannot easily be dismissed. My constituency faces a new town of 5,000 homes as a result of the Government's failure to translate their targets for brown-field land into local county structure plans. The standard spending assessment will be an important test when those decisions are announced next month.
  960
  The Minister has lent a sympathetic ear to farmers and they are grateful to him. As he did at our Select Committee last week, he has offered warm words. The time has now come when he must also lend a helping hand.
  8.44 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: On Monday evening as I was leaving my constituency to come to London I passed Westbury village hall and saw a notice that said "NFU Crisis Meeting". I know that the National Farmers Union has internal difficulties, but it was fairly obvious that the meeting was about the crisis facing farmers in the Forest of Dean. All sectors face unprecedented difficulties, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has just explained.
  On 6 October, I met a group of local farmers who told me about farmers who were either selling up or having to get out of farming. One said that in the past five years he had made a major investment to improve his herd stores and welfare standards, but that he could not even consider carrying out the second necessary stage of investment in his milking parlour and storage. Another farmer came to my surgery on Friday. He was desperate and said that he was now on family credit and did not know how he could continue through the winter.
  The shadow Minister referred to the Farmers Weekly article about suicides among farmers. I am concerned for farmers' well-being. Suicide rates among farmers are high and we do not want them to get worse. The businesses that face difficulties are a vital part of our rural economy as they support village shops and other local businesses. Farmers in the Forest of Dean welcome my right hon. Friend's determination and commitment to listen and talk to farmers, and I thank him for taking time out in his busy schedule next week to visit the south-west to hear more at first hand about the problem.
  I welcome the Government's recognition of the seriousness of the problem and the great efforts that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor have made to lift the export ban on British beef. That is good news for farmers and the whole country. They will welcome today's decision by the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee. A simple majority was in favour of allowing the date-based export scheme to go ahead. We hope that the vote will be similar in the Agriculture Council.
  In response to the grave difficulties that face the agricultural sector, will the Minister consider a short-term package of relief? That is suggested not by me but by local farmers who are under duress. It is not only for the farmers themselves, but for the wider rural economy in the Forest of Dean. Although in rural constituencies such as mine agriculture is a small part of the total economy, it underpins many other activities in the area.
  The calf processing scheme is due to end on 30 November. Will the Minister look seriously at that, not only because it provides short-term assistance but because farmers have raised with me their concerns about animal welfare, should the scheme cease?
  I welcome the Government's recent announcement of an additional £1 million investment to boost the countryside stewardship scheme, which delivers environmentally friendly farming. The scheme is very popular and oversubscribed. The extra funding will be

  961
  concentrated on the upland areas of England. My local farmers, who are from low grassland areas, want an extension for lowland areas as well.
  Will my right hon. Friend look again at agrimonetary compensation, particularly for the livestock sector? We have done it once and should do it again. I recognise that there are substantial public expenditure implications, but I am sure that the British taxpayer would be prepared to take the burden of that cost to help rural communities. The £85 million that was paid to suckler cow and sheep producers in January 1998 was much needed and welcomed by farmers. I hope that the Government are examining the case for further assistance this year.
  As part of the support that the Government give to agriculture, may we ask for more assistance in helping the beef sector back into European markets when the ban is lifted? It is not going to be easy to get back into those markets. Will my right hon. Friend also look at a programme of wider guidance and training, with other marketing initiatives, to help farmers to set up as a co-operative, so that they can have greater strength when they negotiate with retailers and can be price setters, not price getters?
  Lastly, a much voiced grudge of local farmers in my area is the uneven burden of regulation that they face, which does not have to be borne by import producers. The standard that the Government set is understood by farmers. They know that it produces good quality, wholesome and safe products for consumers and gives us good welfare standards, but surely we must ensure fairness; supermarkets must make it clear to consumers that the goods that they buy are of an equal standard.
  In the long term, the real solution is reform of the common agricultural policy and Agenda 2000, with its emphasis on an integrated rural development policy, but at present we face a real crisis in the Forest of Dean and throughout the country. The crisis is being dealt with by the Government because they will not treat farming communities of the 1990s in the despicable way in which the previous Government treated mining and shipbuilding communities of the 1980s.
  This Government are concerned about urban and rural communities. They are concerned about farmers— primary producers—as well as high-tech businesses. I thank the Minister for his support and efforts so far for the farmers of the Forest of Dean.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: In contributing briefly to this Conservative-moved debate, may I also welcome and congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his debut full-speech performance, as it were. As we know, over the past few months, with characteristic patience, he has taken time to do a lot of listening. Tonight, we got an extended chance to listen to him. Hon. Members on both sides of the House could find much positive encouragement both in his approach and in his general political attitude to his ministerial responsibilities.
  When I come back with one or two points later, perhaps the Minister will accept that I do so not simply for the sake of being critical in the parliamentary party political sense, but to try to be constructive, as he is still considering and arguing for a package of relief.
  962
  It was perhaps a bit of bad luck for the Conservatives that, on the day the motion came up, we had such a significant breakthrough at Brussels. They share the pleasure in that, but they would scarcely be politically human if they did not think that it was just a bit inconvenient. If it had happened tomorrow, they could have claimed that it was their motion that had put things over the edge from the Government's point of view, but there we are; no such luck.
  However, it is important that all parties express their pleasure at the degree of progress that was achieved today. Without any shadow of doubt, it is a significant breakthrough; for once, the Government were giving a slightly underspun line in today's news bulletins. It marks an important step forward. Let us hope that, in due course, it leads to both the loosening and, ultimately, the complete lifting of the ban.
  We are dealing with a Conservative motion. We had the chance to move ours only 10 days ago, so our amendment to the motion is just a complete restatement of what we were saying 10 days ago—unlike the Conservatives these days, our policy can remain consistent for 10 days. I notice that, in the earlier debate this afternoon, we got at least three different Conservative policies on some of the issues.
  There is a difficulty in this debate. Clearly, in moving the motion, the Conservatives, after such a long continuous period in office, want the rest of us to suffer from collective amnesia. At the same time, they are having to fight old political battles themselves: battles which ended in such decisive defeat 18 months ago and will again end in decisive defeat if they go to the vote in the Division Lobby tonight.
  It is breathtaking, given the importance of Europe to UK agriculture, that unlike the other two motions, that tabled by the Conservatives—who have considerable difficulties on the issues—does not mention the common agricultural policy, its reform and Agenda 2000. We cannot have a realistic debate about the future of British agriculture without referring to the common agricultural policy, its reform and the implications of that reform for domestic agriculture.
  Given that there will be a move away from production subsidy towards rural development, with further diversification, conservation and environmental aspects being built in to countryside support as a whole, particularly farming support, it is vital that any British Government trying to help to shape the direction of policy should bring some credibility to the European negotiating table.
  No Government can have that credibility unless they are committed to the European project and have something positive to say about its most important aspect, which is the single European currency, as the farming industry well understands. It is essential that we should make it clear in the signals that we send to Brussels and to the Commission, where the long-term decisions will be taken, that two UK political parties have that conviction of the long-term efficacy of the single market and the single currency—although we would like the Government to go further and faster than they are—and that one party is way out of step. It is little wonder that there is no

  963
  reference to matters European in the Conservative motion, because the Conservatives have lost all internal conviction and all external credibility on those matters.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: No, I will not.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: This is silly.
  Mr. Kennedy: We are debating a Conservative motion and it is right to look at the position of the Conservative party on the countryside and agriculture. I find it unbelievable that the Conservatives get so upset about the slightest scrutiny of their policies. That speaks volumes about the mess that they are in. If they want to come to the Floor of the House with proposals, they should expect them to be scrutinised. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. Patersonrose—
  Mr. Hayesrose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should like to make some suggestions about where the Government should go from here on the domestic matters that are within their control. First, there is the hill livestock compensatory allowance, which is under review. There has been a breathtaking call for a restoration to the levels paid shortly before they were cut by the previous Government. It was clear from last week's debate, when senior Labour Back-Bench voices were raised on the matter, that there is an all-party consensus on the issue. The Minister would do well to heed that fact, politically in the House and practically outside. There has been a disastrous collapse in incomes not just in the hill areas but in the lowlands. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and use the rapid administrative and financial injection that the HLCAs can provide.
  Secondly, it is important that the Minister should do everything possible within the European rules to encourage beef marketing and promotion abroad. It is clear from the experience of Northern Ireland that it will be a slow process, even from the date when the ban is eventually gone completely. Although the Minister is correct to say that farmers must work together and co-operate, equally, he must give a co-operative boost to their efforts. If they deliver their side of the bargain, the Government should deliver theirs.
  What the Minister said about his discussions yesterday with the British Retail Consortium was extremely encouraging. Product labelling and the behaviour of supermarkets must obviously be kept under the closest scrutiny. It is important that we do not let up on the supermarkets—not least while the jury is out on that all-important Office of Fair Trading report.
  I do not want to break the 10-minute rule, so I shall leave the Minister with two specific recommendations. He spoke about bureaucracy and red tape, saying that he would not in any way surrender standards—and we agree. There is much bureaucracy and red tape in agriculture.
  964
  Farmers all too often tell their Member of Parliament that they have faithfully tried to fill out the form but have not done so correctly. They are not trying to be corrupt or to abuse the system. They have often been given misleading or inaccurate advice locally over the telephone.
  In too many such instances, the case cannot be referred to the ombudsman because it is not one of malpractice. Will the Minister consider the practice adopted for the Child Support Agency? As a result of the huge problems that have accumulated with the agency, about which we all, as constituency Members, know, a degree of independent trouble-shooting has been built into the system for cases not of political maladministration but, as common sense suggests, of clear individual injustice. The Government could do much to try to advance the matter in agriculture.
  I refer the Minister to the days of the Lib-Lab pact, all those years ago. One of the concessions that the Liberals were able to influence the Labour Administration to make during a bad time for agricultural income was the introduction of a period of roll-over tax relief. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has been in correspondence with the Minister about the matter. Given the horrendous difficulties, will the Minister contact his old chum at the Treasury to see whether it might be responsive to the idea of roll-over tax relief—for, perhaps, three or five years— for UK agriculture? For many who are presently badly hit, such a device could even out the problems of their present trough, and, hopefully, maintain viability for the future. I see that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is present; he will have heard that point.
  I hope that the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues will accept our approach in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. I hope that we can continue to put so much of the past behind us, get through this undoubted crisis and begin in a more united and sensible way to build a better profile for British farming.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I represent many farmers who are in dire trouble. It is no coincidence that the first demonstrations against the import of Irish beef were in north Wales. I am very pleased, however, that that line of action is no longer the policy of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales—I do not suppose that it was actual policy—and that, with some good effect, farmers are trying to put their case through proper democratic procedures. I have had many meetings with farmers in my constituency, at which they have explained their difficulties.
  One reason why farmers resorted to demonstration was that they were, to a certain extent, misled by the idea that there is a huge pool of agrimonetary compensation waiting to be dipped into. As has been made clear, certainly in debates in the House, the compensation is in tranches. The previous Minister for Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), gave as much as he could to the beef sector. I stand to be corrected, but I think that he gave 95 per cent. of available compensation to the beef sector, and 75 per cent. to the sheep sector.
  We have heard the usual rubbish from the Opposition— although it is gratifying to hear about their conversion to state intervention in industry. I have not heard much about

  965
  that from them in steel and coal debates, but things move on. We have not heard many apologies from them for the BSE problem, either.
  I do not think that anyone in the debate so far has mentioned the fact that the price of milk has fallen drastically, partly because of the winding up of the Milk Marketing Board. Had it still been in existence, I do not think that there would have been such a problem.
  We have not heard much about the strength of the pound, either, because it is now weaker than it was when we took power in May 1997. Milk, beef and lamb prices have been steadily dropping over the past two years; the graph is clear, and something has to be done.
  The Welsh Affairs Select Committee looked into the crisis in the livestock industry. It took a slightly different tack from that taken by the Agriculture Select Committee, in that one of our evidence sessions, with the farming unions, suggested that there was a problem with supermarket pricing. It is strange, to say the least, that the price that the consumer pays in the supermarket does not seem to be dropping commensurately with prices in the cattle market.
  All kinds of factors have to be taken into account, but from the evidence from the supermarkets, the meat processors and the catering sector, it was difficult to find out precisely what was happening with prices. We therefore recommended that the Office of Fair Trading investigate supermarket pricing, and I am delighted to say that it is doing so.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: As Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, will the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us on the Committee, urge the Government to ask the OFT to produce its report as soon as possible?
  Mr. Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is essential. It is interesting to note that the supermarkets are now attempting to help. It might be churlish to suggest that they might not have helped if the Office of Fair Trading had not been breathing down their necks. However, I am a little cynical, and I suspect that that is a possible reason.
  Another factor on which the Select Committee focused was immediate help. We are finding a consensus in the Chamber that some immediate help is needed. I believe that it should be targeted, and hill livestock compensatory allowances are a good way of reaching those who are most affected. That is the nature of the game. We need to help those people, because there is not a bottomless pit of money.
  I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister well in his meeting with the Agriculture Ministers, and I hope that we achieve success there.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has left his place, because I wanted to tell him that I found his speech reassuring. He has, however, given some hostages to fortune, and I hope that those are not called upon, because I hope that his speech has given some encouragement to the beleaguered farming industry.
  966
  To the Minister of State, who has remained on the Treasury Bench, I have to say that, in all my years in the House, I have never known a time when farming faced such severe challenges. Not only in Macclesfield but throughout the United Kingdom, as we have heard tonight, agriculture is in crisis.
  The Minister admitted that, and he also said that the distinctive feature of the present difficulties is that virtually every branch of agriculture is affected at the same time. The public are aware of the problems in the beef industry, but on other fronts there is little consolation for our hard-pressed farmers. Cereal prices are down, pig producers are making losses, and dairy farmers are being driven out of business.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) was, I think, the first speaker in the debate to mention the reduction in the milk price. We have talked about the problems of hill farmers, and to my mind those are so severe that the very fabric of our cherished countryside is at risk.
  According to a National Farmers Union survey, next year the average income on hill farms will fall below £8,000, compared with £12,000 last year. I do not need to tell hon. Members what that will mean to families on small farms across the land. The prospect is indeed dire.
  A report from Deloitte and Touche in October predicted a 48 per cent. drop in farm incomes in the current financial year. Last year, United Kingdom farmers' incomes dropped by 56 per cent. That is a huge drop, whatever it is compared with. I am deeply worried. My instinct is to favour the small to medium-sized farm. Big is certainly not beautiful in my view, and it is therefore those farms to which support should be directed.
  On top of that grim short-term outlook, there is uncertainty over the reform of the common agricultural policy with Agenda 2000; environmental pressures are growing; there is increasingly monopolistic buying power in the hands of the supermarkets, to which virtually every speaker so far has rightly referred; and there has been an explosion of public interest in food production and how that should be regulated. The latter matter could impose further financial burdens on farmers as well.
  I do not suggest that all those difficulties have been caused by Governments—some have not—but what is certain is that the present Government appear to have shown a cavalier disregard for the concern of farmers, and a lack of understanding of their problems and the fears of the wider rural community. I say to the Minister that I hope that some of those fears, and what people perceive as that cavalier disregard, may now die away because of the sensitive way in which the Minister of Agriculture has tonight addressed the serious problems facing agriculture.
  As the hon. Member for Clwyd, South said, 10 months ago, the traditional image of farming was shattered, when, a couple of weeks before Christmas, a group of north Wales fanners decided to take matters into their own hands and blockaded the port of Holyhead, throwing a consignment of Irish beef burgers into the sea. Such direct action was caused by frustration; the message was, "Enough is enough."
  The United Kingdom beef industry has done everything that has been asked of it, and the United Kingdom has, I believe, met all the requirements of the Florence agreement. It is time for politicians across Europe to

  967
  recognise that, and the efforts that have been made, and to lift the ban on beef exports, including—dare I say?—beef on the bone.
  Let me make it clear: devastation was brought upon our beef industry not as a result of the previous Government, and not even as a result of the 18 months that this Government have been in power; it was entirely down to Euro-politics. It has paid our competitors in the European Union to have British beef banned, and the longer it is banned the better, for many of them.
  Once highly profitable markets for our beef in European countries have been exploited by other nations. Those markets have now been lost to the United Kingdom, I believe for ever. Political interference by member state Governments to satisfy their own agendas must not be allowed to delay a decision for the complete lifting of the beef ban.
  The hills and uplands play an important role in United Kingdom beef production, because almost 70 per cent. of the beef herd is in less-favoured areas. Hill livestock compensatory allowances are designed, as the Minister knows, to ensure the continuation of livestock farming in those areas, which is absolutely essential if they are to continue to be productive and to be farmed. What would happen to them if they were not farmed?
  At this year's review of HLCAs, it is essential that full account be taken of the critical incomes situation. If the European Commission maintains its objection to the use of HLCAs to offset adverse income trends, the Government—as one of their supporters, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) has urged the Minister— should again use agrimonetary compensation to assist the less-favoured areas and the lowland beef areas.
  As the Minister knows, the continuing strength of sterling is having a major impact on the beef sector. If the exchange rate of the pound against European currencies remains at current levels once the ban on beef exports is lifted, United Kingdom traders may still face severe difficulties in re-establishing a market that, at its peak, took about 28 per cent. of our beef.
  I congratulate the Minister on facilitating the export of whole carcases of sheep over 12 months old to designated French abattoirs. That is a good move, and it has been warmly welcomed. It is also important that the number of designated French abattoirs is increased, because the inability to export whole sheep carcases has had a disastrous impact on sheep prices. Clearly, the implementation of bilateral agreements with France on sheep exports is necessary.
  What is certain is that the Government's policy of deliberately maintaining a strong pound—for whatever reason—is crippling farmers as surely as it is destroying some of our manufacturers. The loss of a family farm that has provided a living for two or three people for generations may not make the headlines in many of the newspapers, as the closure of a large factory would, but for the men and women involved and the work they do, it is no less traumatic.
  The cumulative effect on rural communities will be devastating unless there are some policy changes, with action and not merely words. Therefore, I call on the Government to fight the corner for the British farmer, not only in this country but in Europe. Sadly, the British farmer appears to be appreciated only in times of war or crisis. Farming is facing a crisis. Let the Government and the people give the industry the support it deserves.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on a speech that in many ways almost united the House, for a while at least. Even the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) almost went along with the tripartisan feeling of unity that followed, which is to be welcomed.
  Farmers, whatever their constituency, are not particularly interested in who did what, when and where, or in saying that that Government did this but another Government are doing something else. Farmers have jolly long memories—going back centuries—so they can certainly remember what has happened in the past 20 years in politics. However, that is not the issue.
  The issue is that there are grave difficulties—I hesitate to say "a crisis", as we have been told that its use might be inadvisable—in British agriculture in the short term, and it faces grave risks in the long term. There is general agreement about the measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced or is hinting at, but they will not mean an end to the problems of British agriculture: I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) and her pleas.
  I must cast some doubt on the wonders of the golden calf of the free market. I do not want to get into trouble by saying too much against it, or by not being seen to worship it fully, but we must understand that the sweeping of the free market through some parts of the world is one of the many factors that are harming British agriculture. Since economies are now globalised—a dreadful word—the collapse of economies in other parts of the world has an effect here, which permeates down to the farm at the bottom of the road. Unless we get reform of the common agricultural policy right as soon as we can, the free market will blow through our farms and create greater havoc than many of the diseases that have cursed our agriculture through the decades.
  We must get the system of supports right, and I was grateful to hear Opposition Members saying so. Farmers will not care too much whether their incomes come from being the custodians of the land that they and their families have farmed for generations, or from raising crops or livestock.
  Farmers want to be part of and contribute to the community in which they have lived for many years. If they are preserving our heritage, they should jolly well be paid for doing so. That would not be a subsidy; the rest of us would be paying farmers properly for doing what we want them to do for us. The sooner we move to such a system of support and away from the endless incentives to over-produce, the sooner we will get things right.
  Time is not on our side, however, and it is certainly not on the side of the family farmer. We hear the word "restructuring" bandied about—hon. Members have spoken about it in the context of other industries—but restructuring can take a number of forms. I fear that it will take the form of the destruction of small farms and farms in poorer and remoter areas, with vast tracts of land being taken over by combines of organisations whose primary interest is land value, not land use.

  969
  We must search urgently for medium and long-term solutions to the problems that our farmers face. In agreeing on the immediate measures that need to be taken, we must not overlook the urgent need to act to retain the structure of rural Britain as we have known it for so long.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), whom I am delighted to follow, was cautious about using the word "crisis". I shall be less so: agriculture is in crisis. The Minister is right to be careful about the use of language—exaggeration is not good for the industry—but it is inappropriate to understate the case. It is important that farmers understand that we appreciate the extent of their difficulties, so I am not hesitant about using the word "crisis", but I am not suffering under the same discipline as the hon. Member for Braintree.
  Measured in any terms, agriculture is in crisis. The 56 per cent. fall in incomes over the past year, the level and cost of borrowing, and the fall in the price of products across the sectors all show that it is so.
  I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have not had the courtesy to stay to hear the debate. Their suggestion that what has been happening is part of a continuum or general trend is wholly untrue. There was a downturn in almost every sector in 1996, but, compared to what has happened in the past year to 18 months, that downturn was very small indeed. In the arable and livestock sectors, the real problems and the significant decline in incomes have been in the past 18 months.
  It would be nonsense to pretend that this Government caused all that, but the scale of the crisis requires emergency action. It is inappropriate to point the finger at Conservative Members and the previous Government, because the current problems are of different proportions from those of two years ago, when it might have been legitimate to blame the Conservative Administration.
  I was delighted by the tone of the Minister's remarks, which was in stark contrast to that of his predecessor. I am reminded of the maxim that, to get on, one must be very clever or very nice—the Minister has clearly opted for the latter course. I would say that perhaps the former course was not available to him, but that would be ungracious. The tone, however, is only part of the story. It is important that the Government are listening, but their listening must be backed by action that is, in the Minister's word, proportionate.
  There is no question but that the Conservative party legitimately speaks for rural Britain; in psephological terms, it is the principal party of rural Britain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) may wave his head about, but, if rurality is measured by a combination of agricultural employment and sparsity of population, the Labour party is the third party of rural Britain. It holds less than 20 of the 100 most rural seats. In England, it holds fewer than five of the 50 most rural seats. The Conservative party is the legitimate spokesman of the rural community, with the Liberals trailing some way behind.
  970
  It is also true that the Conservative party speaks up for rural Britain. We hope that the new Minister will be seen a little more diligent in attending conferences, visiting shows and mixing with farmers. His predecessor was not famed for that—he was notably absent from some major events in the farming calendar—and we hope for a change of emphasis as well as tone.
  The Government must take some positive steps. It is important to emphasise that agriculture is different, and should be treated differently, from other industries. Rural Britain and agriculture are not synonymous—probably the majority of employment in my constituency is related to agriculture, although that is not true throughout the whole of rural Britain—but agriculture holds a special place, not only because of its custodianship of the land, as the hon. Member for Braintree said, but because of family connections, the long-standing nature of the businesses, and the contribution they make to the wider community. Rural and urban Britain should not be separated, but they require different solutions.
  I agree that we should consider whether article 36 of the treaty of Rome could help us to create a "level playing field" in trade. We need to consider fresh marketing support, not only for the beef sector but for the whole industry. We should try to improve the advice and research available to farmers. Someone spoke in an earlier debate about farming our way out of the crisis. That cannot be the whole solution, but it can be a part of it. It is a source of shame that the Government have cut the agricultural research budget.
  We need a package of aid. The Minister talked about keeping that in proportion. The proportions are there for him to see: I have already mentioned the fall in incomes and the scaling down of the industry. In response, we surely need a proportionate multi-million pound aid package.
  Members of all parties on the Select Committee highlighted the fact that the Government seem to lack a strategic vision for agriculture. We need that long-term vision, as well as the short-term aid, if Britain's farmers are to be reassured that they have the support of the House in competing with other nations in feeding the world, as Britain has done in the past and will do again in the future.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I want to do something that, I regret to have to say, for the Whips' benefit, is slightly unusual for me, and compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister on a thoughtful speech that drew out many of the consensual elements that exist in the House on the subject. He made this a much more positive and interesting debate than it would otherwise have been, and I warmly commend him for that. The farmers whom I represent have already told me how much they welcome his role and his listening function, and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties agree with that. The strategy remains much the same, but there was a need to listen and to learn, and I think that he has done that.
  We should also welcome the progress that has been made on the beef ban. A critical further step in lifting it was taken today, but there is far, far more to do: we must get the ban lifted on beef off the bone, then beef on the bone, and then livestock. Beyond that, we need to win back the markets that we have lost. One of the critical issues, on which I would welcome a ministerial opinion,

  971
  is whether we can assist our agricultural sector to win back those markets in the future. We have started to hear encouraging noises and a recognition of the problems that the industry faces. Now is the time to turn that into firm policy.
  We should compliment the Government on persuading the retailers to adopt a clearer position on defending the strengths of British agriculture and being more honest with their consumers. That has required substantial work by the Government and a recognition by retailers of the strong public consensus on the matter. Both sides of the House should commend that.
  Any steps that we take to put together a short-term package must be consistent with a long-term strategy. In dealing with the crises—I use the plural—that we have faced in farming, we have tended to look for short-term fixes and ways of supporting farmers into the next crisis that they will face in due course, instead of looking at the medium to long-term future of farming in Britain.
  Hon. Members have implied that, for the first time ever, small farmers are winding up their businesses or transferring them to larger farmers, but that has been going on for decades, and will continue. I should be sorry if any steps that we took impeded the normal process of the market in moving towards more competitive units or more focused—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may disagree, but there is an alternative—more focused attention to niche markets or diversification in the use of farm assets.
  We should encourage farmers to explore all those possibilities. We should not give temporary lifelines to businesses that have no honest long-term future. I say that baldly, as I have said it to the farmers whom I represent—10 days ago I spent three hours speaking to a dozen of them in my constituency. I do not have a habit of pulling punches with them, and I would not do so in the House. Some farmers are in unsustainable businesses and we must help them to find alternative uses for their assets or alternative occupations. We cannot fool people that they can maintain their businesses in the future as they have done in the past.
  If we are to extend the calf processing scheme, which I believe should be extended, we must carefully balance that against the conditions that those producers will face in a freer—but not free—market, once the ban is lifted. We must recognise that that market is in surplus across Europe, which is a tough marketplace.
  I empathise with those who say that we must scrutinise the relative costs of our regulatory regime. I do not question the animal health or food safety aspects of that regulation, but I question the cost burdens that are passed through the industry and whether our officials have learnt enough from the approach taken by other countries in tackling those tasks in an EU regime. I do not believe that we learn enough from other countries that have the same tasks as we have, but undertake them with greater efficiency and sensitivity.
  Our longer-term strategy needs far more work. That strategy is the business of Government because we spend £4 billion a year supporting the sector, and we should be concerned about whether that money is well spent.
  We have no obvious grasp of a rural development strategy. If by a miracle of miracles an agreement was struck tomorrow on Agenda 2000, and a large amount of money was transferred to rural development, we would
  972
  have little idea of what to do with it. We have developed little thinking in that area. We were slow to take up the opportunity of objective 5b funding in rural areas. We will be similarly slow to take our opportunities on rural development.
  We cannot hold off on development of a long-term strategy simply by saying that it is a matter of common agricultural policy reform. We have to serve our farming community and our citizens, and that obligation overrides others. We should be quite clear about our responsibilities. A long-term strategy is also the best way to persuade our European partners to reform their practices. If we have a clear vision of our own, we will be more persuasive.
  We should also recognise fully that the strategy in Agenda 2000 will not succeed in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. We should own to our responsibility to look beyond those limited proposals towards what the marketplace for farming will be like in 10 years time. We have not yet done that thoroughly. The Government need to think carefully about how short-term measures, which are of course welcome, can be balanced with a long-term strategy that will be tough, but to which many positive, market-oriented farmers look forward with enthusiasm.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. William Thompson: It is right that we should debate the tremendous crisis in the farming industry, highlighting the difficulties that farmers are going through. After the general election, I was surprised by the attitude of the Government. They seemed to be much against farmers. We were told that the Government had poured between £3 billion and £4 billion into the BSE crisis, that farmers had had enough money and that the Exchequer would not give them any more. The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was fairly combative, and he seemed not to be very sympathetic to farmers.
  The power of the Ministry seems to have reduced greatly. We seem to be under the control of Europe, which decides our agricultural policy. We can do little without the consent and approval of Europe. Unfortunately, the only power we seem to have is the power of persuasion. We seem unable to threaten, but merely to persuade. However, it would be churlish of me not to recognise the work done by the previous Minister on BSE, which resulted in the lifting of the export ban in Northern Ireland. Now that the ban has been lifted, though, we are recognising the difficulties of exporting beef. Markets have changed. There is a surplus of meat in Europe. The standards that must be met before beef is exported are high. It will be a long time before Northern Ireland exports the same percentage of beef as it did before BSE. We need a good marketing operation to persuade people that our beef is the best.
  The farming crisis has hit Northern Ireland particularly badly because farming is our chief industry. The pig industry has been badly hit by the fire at Lovell and Christmas, where, overnight, the number of pigs that could go to the factory was reduced by 40 per cent. The situation in Northern Ireland is perhaps much worse than that on the mainland.

  973
  I welcome the change in the Government's approach. It seems that they have recognised that there is a serious farming crisis. That was noticeable this evening in the message given by the new Minister of Agriculture. I think that we would all agree that since he was appointed to his post he has spoken to farmers and has an appreciation of their needs and the difficulties that they face. We saw that sympathetic approach this evening.
  It is always easy to argue against someone who is incompatible. It is more difficult to argue against someone who agrees with us all the time. The problem tonight is that the Government have agreed with everything that the Opposition have said. The Minister seems to agree that the various points that we have been making are true.
  I welcome the Minister's speech, which drew a response from both sides of the House. We have promises that a range of proposals will be coming forward and that the calf processing aid scheme will be reconsidered and that various other things will be given careful consideration. We have promises and we have expectations. I am sure that the farming community will look forward to delivery of its expectations, and the sooner it comes, the better.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I had the opportunity last week to listen to Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, who came to talk to local farmers. The meeting took place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) but there were plenty of representatives from my constituency.
  In quite a wide-ranging speech, Ben Gill made two key points and—this shows how things have changed—I almost entirely agreed with him. First, he said that if farmers were to look for reform they had to understand that value added had to start from the bottom up instead of the way in which the food chain now operates, which works downwards from the retailer's margin. Secondly, he said there must be much greater collaboration among farmers. Ben Gill would not attach the word co-operation to those aims although I would. Certainly there is a need for a new way of working.
  Ben Gill's third point was particularly valid. Whether speaking on his own behalf or that of the NFU, he was quite worried about pressure from the United States in terms of the agri-chemical business and the changes that this is making to British agriculture. I share his misgivings.
  As there is a shortage of time I shall merely add to the points made by Ben Gill and try to find solutions rather than continuing to analyse difficulties, crises and long-term problems. First, we must recognise that although we are much in favour of help in the form of environmental subsidies and aid, farming is still an important part of the rural economy. It must be recognised that there is such a thing as an economically sensitive area and provide support accordingly. That is so important in the context of tenant farmers and other farmers who are not necessarily from the wealthier end of the farming community.
  Secondly, we must recognise—this goes back partly to the point made by Ben Gill last week—that farming must be put much more on a business footing. I have nothing
  974
  but respect for the way in which farmers farm, but, from an outsider's perspective, I see the limited business experience that some farmers have and their genuine need for help in terms of training. In addition, we must look at ways in which markets could be made more easily accessible for farmers.
  Thirdly, I am sure that hon. Members would agree that the centralisation of the food supply may have gone too far. Even though there have been advantages in that food standards, hygiene and safety have become paramount, we must recognise that food can be supplied locally. A localised food supply is not only what consumers appear to want, but represents a saving in transport costs and an increase in choice. If we can make progress on that, we might begin to arrive at long-term solutions to an extremely difficult short-term problem.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State charmed us all with his speech and his generosity in taking interventions, but I fear that he has underestimated the seriousness of the crisis. An industry whose turnover has dropped from £4 billion to less than £1 billion in two years is, by any definition, in crisis.
  Today at the Oswestry auctions, lambs were fetching as little as 61p per kilo on average—about half what they fetched two years ago—and one farmer told me that the sheep industry is "a total disaster". I should like to give the Government a few quick, practical measures that would be of immediate help to the sheep industry.
  The farmer I spoke to said that "the Government had panicked about slaughtering costs". There is an abattoir near to my home that employs four meat inspectors, one vet and only four other employees. It sends a cheque every Monday morning for £3,880 to Chester. That is crazy. We must reduce those costs, which are a burden to all farmers. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs reported on "The Present Crisis in the Welsh Livestock Industry" on 20 May, but we have yet to receive a reply from the Government. We were told that we would receive a reply just after the recess, but have not yet got one.
  Finally on the subject of sheep, I acknowledge that the Government are good at spin and controlling publicity and ask them to address themselves to the dangers of maverick, publicity-seeking scientists bursting on to the radio waves and, with one or two sentences, causing severe damage to the livestock industry. That is what happened to the sheep industry in the summer.
  Turning to the beef industry, there is a crisis. Good finished bullocks were fetching 75p to 78p per kilo today at Oswestry—way down on the £1.10 to £1.20 per kilo they were fetching a couple of years ago; and stores are making only £120. The future is bleak. In such a climate, it is crazy to consider abandoning the calf scheme. I was pleased by the Minister's equivocation on the point, because, on commercial and animal welfare grounds, some form of the scheme must continue. Before arbitrarily ending it, a way out must be considered, so I suggest that the Minister reads this week's Farmers Guardian, which contains an interesting article about the potential veal market on the continent.
  Hon. Members on both sides expressed doubt about our ability to reopen the beef market. One exporter in Inverurie had a substantial business: a third of

  975
  his turnover—£14 million to £15 million—came from exports to Holland, Italy and France. I stress that the meat was almost entirely beef on the bone. That exporter said today:
  "They know that what they are getting from the rest of Europe is rubbish. They want British beef for quality. Australia, New Zealand and southern Ireland do not compare."
  Prior to the BSE crisis, he had a £42 million turnover, but that figure is now down to £30 million. He reckons that he could get at least one truck per week back tomorrow if the beef ban could be lifted.
  We have heard good news today, but we have yet to see any practical gains. I appeal to the Government to threaten our EU partners with a return to the European Court if they fail to lift the ban, because it is rank hypocrisy to continue it. We in this country have taken the measures needed to make our meat safe and the response has not been good enough. From British cattle exported in the past five years, the Germans should have picked out 285 cases of BSE, but they have picked out only five. We know that there are now no human or animal health grounds for banning British beef.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is politics.
  Mr. Paterson: It is entirely politics, as my hon. Friend says.
  In the dying two minutes of my speech, I turn briefly to milk, where there is also a crisis. Milk prices are down to 18p or 19p a litre. I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has returned to hear that farmers reckon to break even when they are receiving between 14p and 18p. A 4p quota on top of that price means that they cannot make money. The money tied up in quota would far better be invested in ring parlours and modern equipment so that we can compete with countries such as New Zealand and Argentina, where milk production has increased by 28 and 36 per cent. respectively in the same time that European production has marginally dwindled. A large dairy farmer in my constituency said:
  "Quotas are holding Europeans back as we are in a supply-controlled economy."
  When the Minister replies, will he clarify the Government's view on the end of milk quotas in the Agenda 2000 reforms?
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Only the shortness of time prevents me from being able to refer to each of the 11 excellent speeches by Members on both sides of the House. It says something about the way in which we conduct our affairs that it is possible to say that.
  It is clear that the industry is in crisis. The Country Landowners Association has told us that upland farmers are earning substantially less than £10,000 a year. Letters from the Tenant Farmers Association tell us that hill fanners are making less than £7,000 a year. In the west country, where I come from, The Western Morning News is full of examples—for which I give it full credit—of people living in the most dire circumstances. A report commissioned by that newspaper reveals that the average fanning enterprise in the west country is made up of a husband, wife and full-time working son, who will work
  976
  between them more than 140 hours a week, for which the average return is about 85p an hour—way below any average minimum wage.
  Such figures make one realise that the industry is in crisis and given the financial havoc that that wreaks on farming families, it is small wonder that the Farmers Weekly, as several hon. Members have mentioned, last week discussed not money and the prices of food or cereal, but farmers who are driven to the verge of desperation. I have never before seen an editorial in a farming magazine putting out the number for the Samaritans. That is no idle comment because it is obvious to anyone who reads the agricultural press that farming suicides occur about once a week. That is the measure of the crisis in British agriculture.
  Conservative Members have never made the case that the crisis started on 1 May last year. The indictment has never been that the Government are to blame; it is that the crisis was manifest and the Government were not acting.
  I pay due credit to the way in which the Minister has spoken tonight. Mood music matters, and the right hon. Gentleman's approach is in marked contrast to that of the Secretary of State for Health, who at a rural health forum last week contemptuously dismissed the idea that it was necessary to put any money into a study on rural deprivation.
  The Minister has come across as an absolute sweetie tonight, but he has been in control for the past three months and he could in the first three hours have lifted the ban on beef on the bone. Soft music matters, but the Government have presided over the beef ban longer than the previous Conservative Administration. The conditions set down in Florence were met even before the previous election. Developments only last week, when the Commission took action on the BSE crisis in Portugal, will give cover to those in Europe who want to ensure that even now the beef ban is not lifted. The Minister should consider the way in which tallow has been treated recently. We are still waiting for a visit from the Commission to consider our arrangements on that. He will understand why I am not convinced that we are standing on the threshold of an instant lifting of the ban.
  On agrimonetary funds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made it clear that if circumstances changed he would certainly revisit the debate. It is common ground that the situation has changed.
  I commend the Minister of Agriculture. There is no doubt that he has tonight conceded the case that has been constantly made by Conservative Members. Moreover, he has accepted many of the measures that we set out in "Fair Deal for Farmers".
  We need to study the detail. I note what the Minister said about arrangements that he has reached with supermarkets, but he said nothing about food produced by means that would be illegal in this country. I therefore tell the Minister that we shall want another debate soon. We shall want a debate in Government time to allow us to examine carefully the measures that he intends to bring before the House.
  By standing four square by the country community, the Conservative party has produced this change of heart. I say to the Minister: the jury is out on the Minister of Agriculture. I commend him for having the humility to admit that the jury is out, but we shall return to the subject.
  9.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In the short time available—for which I do not apologise, as in last week's debate I spoke for 40 minutes with a dozen interventions—I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister's tour de force tonight. I thank everyone who has spoken for the way in which they made their case, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he listened. It is no bad thing to have agriculture debates two weeks running. Those who have listened to the debate and who read the pages of Hansard will see the footprints of the farming community across the pages of Hansard in the speeches that were made tonight.
  I say almost as an aside that there has been near tripartisanship in the House tonight. To send the right signals to the farming community in this country and to those abroad, we must win friends and influence people. Therefore, on reflection, the Opposition might not want to press their motion to a vote.
  Last week, I told the House the totals of subsidies paid by Government to farming. Those are very substantial sums of money, one of which my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned tonight—the global sum of £600 million a year paid to the hill farming community. When I was walking a hill farm in Cumbria last Friday morning, having listened to farmers the previous evening, I promised hill farmers that I would give others pause for thought by expressing their point of view tonight.
  About £20 million a year in farming subsidy goes into the Lake district. The income generated from tourism there is estimated at £580 million a year. No one would argue that that massive tourism income would be generated if the Lake district and the county of Cumbria were not looked after as they are. Therefore, although we must express the subsidy figure as £600 million because it is taxpayer's money, that figure is not the be-all and end-all. That money comes back to the Exchequer in other ways, which are not generally accepted by the accountants, who look at matters in a cold, clinical way.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for coming to the debate tonight to listen to the points that were made in the wind-up. My right hon. Friend is a friend indeed.
  The decision taken in Brussels today is important. Today's decision—and, I hope, the decision later this month—to lift the beef ban is very symbolic. However, no one should allow themselves to believe that beef will start to be exported until a long time after that decision, as we know from the case in Northern Ireland. The date-based scheme is slightly different. The industry will need to invest considerably because of the details of the scheme as they relate to cutting plants and abattoirs.
  A substantial marketing operation will be needed, especially as there is overproduction of the product and we have lost markets. It will take a long time to win back the market. However, it is highly symbolic that the safety of British food and British beef will be recognised without exception, and that will have a ripple effect on the rest of the food industry.
  We cannot deny the voluntary actions taken by supermarkets, which are currently much unloved by the community—both the farming community and the wider community—although they have been managing to take people's money by successfully converting themselves
  978
  into banks. Nevertheless, supermarkets have been making their own case with rather less panache. Yesterday, they committed themselves—particularly on pigmeat, including Parma ham, the supply of which is very limited—not to import, from 1 January 1999, pigmeat products from countries that do not provide a genuinely and absolutely level playing field.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 325.

  Division No. 370]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert

  Bercow, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Boswell, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Chope, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dafis, Cynog

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prior, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Randall, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marlon (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Green, Damian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Horam, John

  Townend, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  979

  Trend, Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Allan, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Baker, Norman

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ballard, Jackie

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Darvill, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Battle, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Denham, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drew, David

  Borrow, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Edwards, Huw

  Brake, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Breed, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chidgey, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clapham, Michael

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  980

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Home Robertson, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  ÖOpik, Lembit

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter L

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Salter, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  981

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tyler, Paul

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Vaz, Keith

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stringer, Graham

  Wallace, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Todd, Mark

  Wood, Mike

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolveht'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 132.

  Division No. 371]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Darvill, Keith

  Browne, Desmond

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dismore, Andrew

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dowd, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Drew, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Chaytor, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Clapham, Michael

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fatchett, Derek

  982

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Merron, Gillian

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Michael, Alun

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Goggins, Paul

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mudie, George

  Grogan, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Olner, Bill

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Heppell, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hesford, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hurst, Alan

  Pond, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Salter, Martin

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Lepper, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Levitt, Tom

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Linton, Martin

  Singh, Marsha

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lock, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Spellar, John

  McDonnell, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McFall, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  McNulty, Tony

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Maxton, John

  Timms, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  983

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Touhig, Don

  Wills, Michael

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Allan, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Amess, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Baker, Norman

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Brake, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Breed, Colin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burnett, John

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Livsey, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Luff, Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Colvin, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Cotter, Brian

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Day, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Evans, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Faber, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  984

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willis, Phil

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Tyler, Paul

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Edward Davey.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's strong commitment to the United Kingdom farming industry and to the wider rural economy; recognises that the lifting of the beef export ban in Northern Ireland represents the first crucial step towards lifting the ban from all parts of the United Kingdom; welcomes the steps which the Government has taken since May 1997 to support the beef and sheep industry via EU agri-monetary compensation and relief from charges; acknowledges the steps taken specifically to help the sheep, pig and cereal sectors with targeted EU measures; and endorses the Government's intention to bring about a secure and viable future for United Kingdom farming by seeking a reformed Common Agricultural Policy, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which enhances targeted support for the rural economy, which serves the consumer well and which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the United Kingdom's farming and food industries can exploit their competitive advantages in European and world markets.

PETITION

  Benefit Integrity Project
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg leave to present a petition from my constituency about the benefit integrity project as it applies to the chronically disabled. The petition says that it refers in particular to
  women between the ages of 60 and 65, whilst the over-65s are amongst the groups exempt from this project. Sadly, it is not likely that disabled people of this age are going to get better, or need less care.
  The petition is signed by nearly 700 of my constituents, in particular Mrs. Diane Roberts, who prepared it. It continues:
  The Petitioners therefore request, with respect to the House, that the House amend the minimum exemption age to 60, and allow the elderly Life Award Chronic Disabled to live their difficult, stressful and painful lives without the added worry of benefit cuts, and being under suspicion of fraud. The Petitioners ask, with respect, on behalf of all the disabled and their, at best, poorly paid carers, for the House to look again at the Benefit Integrity Project, not to take away such benefits, but give them some much needed help.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Information Warfare
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  10.26 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am delighted that I have been able to bring up the subject of information warfare tonight. I had hoped to be able to take part in the recent debate on the strategic defence review, but was unsuccessful. However, I now have half an hour of the Minister's undivided attention, which is infinitely better.
  If anybody thinks about information warfare—not many do—they think it the stuff of science fiction. Indeed, I can remember reading a novel that uses information warfare techniques for criminal purposes. Having taken an interest in the subject, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this country is not able to defend itself from an attack that could happen at any time.
  I read the strategic defence review document to try to find out what is planned to tackle the problem, and found references to it only in paragraph 34, which defined information warfare, and paragraph 35, which merely said:
  "While we cannot predict the detailed impact of such changes over twenty years, we have taken a hard look at how we can seek to make the most of emerging trends in all areas of the Review, including how to adapt our requirements and procurement processes so that we are not left behind by the speed of change."
  I then wrote to the Minister for Defence Procurement, who is in the other place. He quoted me paragraphs 16 and 17 of supporting essay 3, entitled "The Impact of Technology", which, frankly, was not much more enlightening. It could be described as a blizzard of words.
  I am sure that Ministers and officials are concerned about the threat, and undoubtedly are working hard to counter it. My concern is that it must be countered as effectively as humanly possible, and I am not sure that the United Kingdom is doing that.
  The neatest and shortest explanation of information warfare that I have found so far is contained in the review. It says:
  "information warfare attacks through the computer systems on which both our forces and civil society increasingly depend."
  The military no longer has its own specifications for computer equipment. With the demand from civilian life far outstripping that from the military, high-tech equipment such as computers, chips, motherboards and all the paraphernalia that now make our lives so much easier is interchangeable. That could allow some person or group of evil intent, with the necessary expertise—not so difficult to come by nowadays—to attack computer systems and networks both in the military sphere and in crucial areas of civilian life.
  For example, the whole of the Ministry of Defence budget, at some time or another, goes through the City of London's banking system; military planes and helicopters cannot move without civilian air traffic control; nothing can be operated without access to electricity, which is produced in the civilian sphere; and military communications use private sector-owned landlines, cables and satellites.
  If only one terrorist group, pressure group, foreign intelligence service, foreign power, rogue military or criminal used only one computer buff, any one or all of
  986
  those systems could be closed down and the country brought to its knees. It does not take a lot of imagination to envisage a good computer hacker getting into the chip that controls a pumping station and instructing the national electricity grid to shut down, and the mind boggles at someone getting into the air traffic control computers. The banking system and the City of London could be bled dry, and every penny sent to an offshore address, or our telecommunication and data systems could be closed down.
  Those would be civilian disasters, but every scenario that I have described affects the MOD directly, and the country would lie defenceless at the mercy of whoever wished to defeat it, without a shot being fired or our forces alerted. There is no point in saying, "But it wouldn't happen." It already does. Banks have had money misappropriated by hackers, and I understand that our air traffic control system, which is regarded as robust, has already suffered from "spoofing" as someone tried to get information from it. The new system, which will be Europewide, will be even more open and, hence, much more vulnerable.
  Everyone who uses computers—people in utilities, banks, telecommunications and the defence industry— uses commercial systems and commercial software. The software is written all over the world. Everyone uses subcontractors. I understand that there are about 60 microprocessors in Eurofighter alone. Does anyone know exactly where they were made and who has written the software?
  Many people use subcontractors for the maintenance of their computer systems. I am told by those who know about these things that "maintenance ports" are often left open. That provides an easy way into the system.
  I hope that I have made it clear that any developed country using modern technology is vulnerable to information warfare attack. The real question is, how are we going to defend ourselves? We will need to do so— we cannot escape it.
  In the mid-1990s, President Yeltsin said:
  "While maintaining our nuclear potential at proper level, we need to devote more attention to developing the entire range and means of information warfare."
  The cold war may have ended, but cold war warriors are aware of the potential of this threat.
  For information and ideas, I turned to the United States. Given the lack of information in the strategic defence review, I suspected that there was not much available from official sources in the United Kingdom, such as the MOD. How right I was. I searched the internet, appropriately enough. Did I find anything at all from the United Kingdom, in the new age of freedom of information? Not a dicky-bird.
  The United States was different, and the entries were enlightening. There were 48, and one site explained what the United States Navy information warfare division at Port Mugu was doing to combat information warfare. Another site, which gave a good description of information warfare, has been visited 5,363 times since 14 July this year, which is an average of more than 300 visits a week. Two of them were mine. That shows that there is quite an interest in the subject.
  In November 1996, the American Under-Secretary of Defence for Acquisition and Technology received a report from the Defence Science Board task force on information

  987
  warfare. It is available in full on the internet and is unclassified. The report recommended a series of actions, the prime one being that the most effective defence against information warfare attack is to ensure that everyone is aware of the issue. The United States has gone public.
  I understand that the United States Department of Defence is working with all the industries most closely affected, such as the ones that I have mentioned. The Department has already sanctioned penetration tests of 12,000 supposedly secure sites. It has discovered that 90 per cent. had been penetrated and, of that 90 per cent., 95 per cent. had been undetected. Another check in 1997 showed that those already appalling statistics had become much worse.
  In the light of that, what are we doing to defend ourselves in the United Kingdom? Have we made any assessment of our vulnerability? Have we put in place key point protection systems? After all, a guard and a dog at a pumping station cannot protect the chip in the pump from the computer hacker.
  Does the Minister agree with the US theory that the best method of defence is wide knowledge and awareness? If he does, what is he doing about it? When will I see his policies and actions on the internet? If he does not, can he tell me and our best allies why he disagrees? It does not cost money to share information between defence and civilian industries, so the Treasury will not object. Has he invited the relevant industries to a meeting to discuss how to protect themselves and develop their awareness and education of the threat?
  The resilience of our military and civilian computer systems can be enhanced at only modest cost. Has the hon. Gentleman asked for estimates? Has the Ministry of Defence developed a threat assessment that he could share with us? Has the MOD plans to create an incident report and response system? Is work going on to develop standards for information warfare and monitor their effectiveness? What is being done to ensure that protection against IW attack is a key requirement of all procurement activity? All that is defensive, so is any thought being given to developing our own attack systems? I am sure that the Minister is not complacent and will be able to reassure me that all those questions have answers that will satisfy me.
  Finally, I urge the Minister, in the spirit of freedom of information and open government, to share what is happening in information warfare with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the United States—they are, I believe, happy to share their information and technology with us.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on her success in securing today's Adjournment debate on an issue of such importance not merely to the security of the United Kingdom, but to our ability to secure the economic and industrial benefits that new information technologies bring. I also thank her for informing me previously of the outline of her speech; I hope that our debate will be more productive as a result. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces would be able to reply, as I understand that he and the hon. Lady were at the same university, but unfortunately he is on Government business elsewhere tonight.
  988
  The Government are fully alive to the threats posed by information warfare to information infrastructure in defence and in government more widely and also to the national infrastructure, which the hon. Lady highlighted. However, I must make it clear to the House that some of the wilder speculation in the media is not founded in fact.
  The Government are working closely with key players in the private sector and with our allies internationally, in particular the United States, to ensure that protection of the national information infrastructure is as robust as possible.
  Everyone recognises how our dependence on available information increases daily and the hon. Lady detailed some examples. That is not a unique Ministry of Defence or Government occurrence, but affects all corners of public and private life. Corporate networks, for instance, are essential to the effective management of all large organisations and, as the hon. Lady mentioned, those networks are increasingly interconnected.
  In addition, the internet has emerged as a potent medium which has the potential to give every individual connected to a telephone line anywhere in the world access to information systems. The significance of that has not been overlooked by the Government.
  Integrated information capabilities create a broader canvas on which to use and share information. That has tremendous benefits, not least in improving the effectiveness of our decision making. However, that wider interconnectivity also makes computer systems vulnerable to attack, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out.
  Attempts by hackers using the internet to gain access to systems are a popular subject for newspapers; they certainly make good copy and even good dramatic material for films, but we must keep them in perspective. Such attacks can originate from a wide range of adversaries, who may include terrorists and criminals as well as mischievous and malevolent individuals; they are no respecters of international boundaries. Ill-disposed insiders are also a threat to many organisations.
  Unless appropriate protective measures are taken, there is a risk that information held in computers may be copied, stolen or deleted. A wide range of techniques can be used—I do not intend to discuss them here. However, it is widely known that they could include the misuse of software to transmit computer viruses or to leave small additions to existing software applications that could be activated later to damage or retransmit the information held by that computer—so-called Trojan horses. I assure the hon. Lady that such vulnerabilities in systems in all areas of government and in our national infrastructure and commerce are taken very seriously.
  Hon. Members will understand why the Ministry of Defence is especially concerned with those issues, and I shall give some insight into the sort of security measures that the Government take by describing how the MOD approaches the subject.
  Within the MOD, the need to guard against risks to computer systems and communications has long been recognised, and procedures and security mechanisms are in place to protect those vital assets. Those mechanisms protect secrets, they protect against damage and they authenticate recipients of information. That involves a combination of physical, people-based and technical measures.

  989
  Physical measures are part of the legacy of the United Kingdom's experience from the cold war and of our response to terrorism. We undertake regular risk and vulnerability assessments of our bases, buildings and personnel security as well as the infrastructure of our information services.
  Personnel security involves training and vetting and has always been a keystone in achieving assured security. Technical measures are based on accredited security products deployed within an architecture that prevents unauthorised access to systems or to the information that they hold. We use nationally developed and approved cryptographic protection, firewalls to limit access between interconnected systems and so-called air gaps or one-way information valves around systems that hold sensitive material.
  Protective measures are built into systems during their design and are accredited through a central process within the MOD. Audits of systems and procedures are conducted, and penetration testing is routinely undertaken to check for any previously unrecognised vulnerability.
  As the hon. Lady said, the MOD, like all Departments and users, needs to use commercial products in many of its systems. The functionality provided by the commercial market cannot be rivalled through bespoke MOD development. The MOD has a policy to use commercial products wherever possible; that brings economy of scale and ensures that the MOD obtains maximum value for money. As she also rightly said, however, that brings its own risks.
  Procedures and techniques are in place to minimise the risk associated with a commercial procurement strategy. First, many defence systems stand alone; they are not connected to the outside world because they do not need to be. Secondly, we have a requirement that key commercial applications be approved by independent UK accreditors before they can be used in any sensitive context.
  The MOD supports a substantial research programme, which looks ahead and analyses the potential impact of new techniques in information technology, assessing their utility to military operations as well as any risk that they represent to existing and future defence systems.
  The MOD takes an active stance, along with industry, in involving itself with the industrial standards bodies to ensure that the security standards set for the next generation of information technology can be applied with minimum further investment by the MOD.
  To protect against possible information warfare incidents against the United Kingdom, there is a Government-wide unified incident reporting and alert scheme—UNIRAS—which collates all anomalies that are reported to it by those in the Government. It must be appreciated that UNIRAS attracts real incidents, false alarms and accidents, as well as physical events such as theft and destruction.
  On 11 May, I answered a question on incidents involving the MOD from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), saying that, up to that time,
  990
  there was no evidence of a successful intrusion from an external source to any MOD computer system. I stand by that answer today.
  Mrs. Lait: Is there any evidence of key protection points being penetrated, and has that been registered on UNIRAS? The Americans have some very worrying statistics about the penetration of key protection points.
  Mr. Spellar: I will seek more information, as I did not have notice of that question, and write to the hon. Lady, subject to the usual constraints.
  The United Kingdom is routinely involved in military operations with coalition partners. The strategic defence review reflected the fact that this trend is likely to be accentuated. There are special issues of information protection when our national systems need to work with those of our allies. Again, we exploit the full range of physical, people-based and technical measures to ensure that we are not exposed to new risks. We also endeavour to provide good protection across shared systems and their associated multinational infrastructures.
  The MOD places a high priority on maintaining strong working relationships with our allies through forums where security standards and operating procedures are developed, as well as through a network of bilateral arrangements.
  A discussion of defence against information warfare cannot be complete without reference to the wider implications to Government and commercial infrastructures. United Kingdom Governments have a good record of protecting our assets against both traditional and unconventional threats. The UK has had to deal over many years with a terrorist threat that has targeted Government, commerce and infrastructure. Information warfare is equivalent in its potential.
  The knowledge and lessons learned from our experience of counter-terrorism stand us in good stead for the new threat that information warfare might pose. In particular, our experience makes it easier for the Government to work closely with key private sector players who are also well aware of the possible dangers to their own information systems.
  The Government's record of maintaining a high standard of computer security is good, and we have been justifiably cautious about interconnection, but we shall look hard at existing arrangements for protecting information and information systems. We need to ensure that our policies and procedures keep pace with the fast-moving environment of information technology and we hope to announce new initiatives shortly, designed to ensure that the critical national infrastructure is adequately defended.
  Protecting against information warfare is not the province of one country alone but, as I hope that I have shown, affects all who want to benefit from the advantages of greater interconnectivity. Threats from attacks on information systems are not bounded by traditional territorial boundaries. It is imperative that international co-operation and co-ordination are actively pursued.
  The Government are actively addressing the threat of information warfare and the risks posed by the wider exploitation of new information technologies and greater

  991
  interconnectivity of computers; we are doing so robustly, in close co-operation with our allies, with the private sector and across government.
  The UK is well placed in its understanding of the risks and how those can be controlled in the emerging world where interconnectivity is as vital to defence as it is to national infrastructure, commerce and the "knowledge economy". We cannot be complacent. if only because this is such a fast-moving subject, but I can assure hon. Members that we are taking all possible measures to ensure that our information is secure.
  The MOD, and Government more generally, are addressing the risks posed by the greater exploitation of new information technology, and they are doing so from the bedrock of tried and tested security policies and procedures.
  The United Kingdom has a history and wealth of experience in dealing with unconventional threats, to which information warfare is a successor. Protection against attack by information warfare is not the sole domain of the MOD. We are active in the national
  992
  and international, commercial and industrial arena, particularly in regard to the close relationship that the UK enjoys with the United States, in exchanging and discussing current information warfare issues.
  In addition, the Government hope to announce shortly a package of measures that will further ensure that key IT systems in government and in the critical national infrastructure are adequately defended against the threat posed by information warfare.
  I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have been concerned to strike the right balance on this relatively new but, as the hon. Lady rightly said, extremely important subject.
  There is a good level of defence in place to protect key systems in the MOD and more widely in government. I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the debate. I expect that this is not the last that we have heard of the topic, but she can be assured that we are taking effective action.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cinemas
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of films made in(a) the United Kingdom by United Kingdom-owned and managed film production companies and (b) in Europe by European-owned and managed film production companies were shown in commercial cinema complexes in England other than London in 1997. [57290]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department does not compile information of this type. However, the Government published a review of film policy "A Bigger Picture" in March this year. The report recommended a number of measures to improve the performance of British films in all parts of the UK and is currently being implemented.

  Fire Precautions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that sprinklers are fitted as a fire precaution in historic buildings of national importance. [57185]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In line with the recommendations of Sir Alan Bailey's report "Fire Protection Measures for the Royal Palaces", an Historic Buildings Fire Research Co-ordinating Committee has been established, with a membership including my Department and major owners of historic properties, in order to gather and disseminate information on the full range of fire protection measures for historic buildings, including sprinklers. Decisions on whether or not they should be installed in any specific case need to be made as a part of each building's risk assessment.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had this year with(a) Railtrack plc, (b) the train operating companies and (c) other interested parties concerning the delays in establishing services between the West Coast Main Line Railway and mainland Europe for (i) Eurostar passengers and (ii) piggy-back freight journeys. [57287]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has continuing discussions with London and Continental Railways (LCR) and the Consortium which is responsible for regional Eurostar services. The Government and LCR have also received proposals from the Virgin Group. The 564
  consortium selected to operate Eurostar have been asked to review urgently the feasibility of regional services and report by the end of this year.

  Railtrack has for some time been considering an upgrade of the West Coast Main Line to accommodate "piggy-back" rail freight. Ministers meet regularly with representatives of Railtrack to discuss various issues connected with the rail network. The proposed piggy-back project would be likely to require substantial Government grant and Railtrack has had lengthy discussions with Departmental officials about the project.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which bodies in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad, have been consulted as part of the departmental project on high level nuclear waste and spent fuel disposal strategy; and what is the total expected cost of the project. [57101]

  Mr. Meale
  The High Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Research Project is due to end in Spring 1999. The aim of this two year study is to identify the research strategy that would be required in order to pursue disposal of high level waste and spent fuel. Its results will be used to inform the development of policy on radioactive waste management and will be subject to full public consultation. An interim report has been reviewed by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  The Department is assisted in its management of the project by a Management Board where the following bodies are represented:

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Nuclear Electric Limited

  Scottish Nuclear Limited

  Magnox Electric Plc

  British Electric Fuels Plc

  UKAEA

  Ministry of Defence

  Environment Agency

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Health and Safety Executive

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Scottish Office

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  The Royal Society

  United Kingdom Nirex Limited (on a co-opted basis).

  Relevant bodies in a number of countries with programmes on high level waste and spent fuel disposal have been contacted from time to time on particular issues.

  The initial contract for the project was advertised in the Official Journal of the EC on 28 July 1995. The total maximum liability for the work is £432,731.00 (including VAT).

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what involvement the United Kingdom has in the EC programme on concerted action on retrievability of deposited radioactive waste. [57183]
  565
  Mr. Meale
  United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. (Nirex) is participating, along with its counterparts from seven other EU countries, in the European Commission Concerted Action on the Retrievability of Long Lived Radioactive Waste Disposed in Deep Underground Repositories. Nirex is providing technical expertise to support the objective of the project"to establish a clear interpretation and working definition of the concept of retrievability".

  Stansted and Gatwick Airports
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans exist to review the passenger capacities of Stansted and Gatwick Airports. [57421]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the Government undertook to develop a new national airports policy. Reviewing airport capacity in the south east will be a key part of that.

  An order under section 32 of the Airports Act 1986 currently limits the annual number of passenger air transport movements at Stansted to 120,000. An application was made by BAA plc to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 October for the limit to be increased to 185,000. I understand that BAA plc has also applied to Uttlesford District Council for detailed planning permission for capacity expansion. If both applications were successful, BAA plc estimate that this would enable them to increase passenger throughput from the current 5.47 million a year to 15 million.

  Passenger air transport movements are not limited by order at Gatwick, although the Government do impose restrictions on night time movements. In the short term, while the new national airports policy is developed, any expansion of capacity at Gatwick would be something for BAA plc to propose.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the actual level of passenger movement at(a) Stansted and (b) Gatwick Airports in 1997. [57420]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  According to figures collected by the Civil Aviation Authority, Stansted handled 5,426,859 terminal and transit passengers in 1997 (being an 11.6 per cent. growth over 1996 levels), and Gatwick handled 26,959,015 (being a 10.8 per cent. growth).

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the passenger capacity at(a) Stansted and (b) Gatwick Airports in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [57419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Passenger air transport movements at Stansted are capped by an order under section 32 of the Airports Act 1986. Since 1996, the ceiling has been 120,000 movements a year. On present assumptions about aircraft size and occupancy levels at Stansted, that equates to something in the vicinity of 8 million passengers.
  566
  No such order exists in respect of Gatwick. Gatwick Airport Ltd's Airport Development Strategy anticipates that terminal capacity limitations would, on the basis of existing infrastructure, constrain passenger throughput at around 35 million passengers per year.

  Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 1997,Official Report, column 256, on aircraft noise, what steps have been taken to monitor aircraft noise levels on incoming flights to Heathrow Airport; and what progress has been made in reviewing noise limits on those flights. [57422]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee (ANMAC), which advises the DETR on aircraft noise and monitoring at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, is investigating the feasibility of setting noise limits for arriving aircraft; and of other possible means of ameliorating arrivals noise. ANMAC has established a working group, which is presently conducting a study of the causes of variability of noise levels.

  A study of the effect of changed air traffic control procedures for Heathrow arrivals from the east in the early morning is in its final stages.

  Daytime noise contours for summer 1996 at Heathrow have recently been published.

  Travel Concessions (Pensioners)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to equalise travel concessions for male and female pensioners. [57467]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Pensions Action 1995 already provides for women's eligibility for state pensions and concessionary fares to be raised from 60 to 65 over a transitional period from 2010 to 2020, thus equalising the qualifying age for men and women. There are no plans to change these dates. The link between pensionable age and eligibility for concessionary travel will be maintained throughout.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if an application is pending before the European Court of Justice on equalising the age at which pensioners may be entitled to travel concessions. [57693]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I know of none. The matter has already been tested in the European Court of Justice, which ruled that the present concessionary fares arrangements were outside the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC, which provides for the progressive implementation of equal treatment of men and women in matters of social security.

  Housing Associations
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those housing associations which have exceeded the Housing Corporation's rent target in 1997–98, showing in
  567
  each case the (a) average rent levels, (b) percentage above target, (c) overhead costs as a percentage of total costs and (d) chief executive's emoluments. [57463]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation's requirement that year-on-year rent increases by registered social landlords (RSLs) should not exceed RPI+1% only came into effect from 1 April 1998.

  The Corporation has recently published an initial analysis of data on rent increases during 1997–98, before the requirement became effective. This showed that overall RSL rent increases in 1997–98 were within the new RPI+1% limit. However, data from a total of 138 RSLs showed increases above this level which are now being investigated by the Housing Corporation.

  The Corporation will be publishing final results from its analysis of 1997–98 rent data by the end of December. The tables to be published will show both rent increases and rent levels in 1997–98 by named RSLs with over 250 homes. Copies will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Modern Local Government White Paper
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the evidence referred to in paragraph 3.5 of the White Paper, Modern Local Government, that councillors wish to spend more time in direct contact with those they represent. [57465]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The study by Ken Young and Nirmala Rao—"Coming to Terms with Change?—The Local Government Councillor in 1993" (published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and LGC Communications in 1994), which was followed up by Audit Commission work—"Representing the People—The Role of Councillors" (Audit Commission Publications 1997)—provide the evidence referred to in paragraph 3.5.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Jubilee Line extension to be operational. [57606]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport, following advice from Bechtel (the international company appointed to oversee the run up to line opening) now plan to open the Jubilee Line Extension in three phases, beginning at the eastern end of the line. The first stage will be Stratford to North Greenwich, in late spring 1999. The second stage (late summer 1999) will see opening through to Waterloo. The final stage (late autumn 1999) will be total line opening, including linking with the existing Jubilee Line.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give the current construction cost estimate for the Jubilee Line extension; and what was the estimate a year ago. [57466]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport review Jubilee Line Extension cost estimates regularly. The latest estimate of final cost is £2.85 billion. At this time last year it was £2.76 billion.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what scientific evidence he took into account in agreeing with the industry to permit farm-scale planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified seeds. [57424]

  Mr. Meacher
  All the Herbicide Tolerant Genetically Modified crops to be included in the farm-scale plantings will be covered by a consent issued under Directive 90/220. Such Consents are granted only after consideration of an assessment of the risks to human health and the environment based on best current scientific evidence and the advice of ACRE and the statutory conservation agencies, including English Nature. The advice from ACRE and the evidence on which that advice is based are held on DETR's public register.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applications for the marketing of genetically modified oilseed rape which are currently being reviewed at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology; what is the scope and purpose of the review; if he will publish the result of the review at the same time as it is made available to the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment; and what consultation will be undertaken before the Committee makes its recommendations. [57423]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) have been commissioned by the Department to review the applications by Plant Genetic Systems for consent to market their hybrid system oilseed rape in the European Community ref. C/GB/94/M1/1 and C/F/95/05–01 A and B. The scope and purpose is to review the information provided by Plant Genetic Systems when the dossiers were considered by member states in 1994–96 and any relevant new information available since then, which may affect the assessment of the risk to human health and the environment, and then present the review to ACRE. ACRE will then give further advice to the Secretary of State undertaking consultation as they think fit before making their recommendation. The review will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what seeds will be permitted to be planted under the recent agreement between industry and the Government concerning the planting of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant seeds; what regulatory consents currently apply to such seeds; if the seeds which will be planted thereunder, or the seeds derived from such planting, will be sold or otherwise marketed; if the seeds which will be planted thereunder will be authorised for such planting under Part II or Part III of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 or otherwise; what companies will be authorised to plant the seeds and over what period of time; where the seeds will be planted; if public participation will be allowed in the monitoring; and who will carry out that monitoring. [57452]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have reached agreement in principle with the plant breeding industry for a programme of managed development of herbicide tolerant crops whereby the first farm-scale plantings are strictly limited
  569
  and monitored for ecological effects alongside comparable plantings of conventional crops. We have yet to reach final agreement on the seeds that will be planted, but in the first instance, we expect to include Plant Genetic Systems genetically modified hybrid system oilseed rape which has approval for seed production under a consent issued by the UK in 1996, and is currently awaiting a consent to be issued by the French Government (Member States voted in favour of the product in December 1996) to extend its use to food and animal feed.

  Any sowings in the programme of managed development will be carried out either (a) under Part II of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 where the material has not yet been issued marketing approval by one of the EU Member States under Directive 90/220 and the purpose of the trials is to collect information in support of such an application or (b) under part III of the same regulations where the product has already been granted marketing approval.

  The seeds derived from such plants in the managed development programme may be sold if they are covered by Part III approval and also satisfy all other regulatory requirements. The details of the farm-scale plantings and associated monitoring have yet to be agreed. The monitoring results will be made public.

  Summary of applications to market genetically modified insect-resistant crops

  Date submitted

  Competent authority France

  Notifier

  Reference

  CM crop

  Scope of application

  Date of consent

  31 March 1995

  France

  Ciba-Geigy

  C/F/4/11–3

  maize

  Use in agriculture in EC and importation of grain into the EC

  5 February 1997

  12 March 1996

  France

  Pioneer Hi-Bred International

  C/F/95/12–01/B

  maize

  Growing, import, storage and processing of grain and maize products for use in food, feed and industrial products

  Vote taken in Regulatory Committee. Outcome unknown

  3 June 1996

  UK

  Northrup King Company

  C/GB/96/M4/1

  maize

  Importation of grain only

  9 June 1998

  12 June 1996

  France

  Monsanto Europe

  C/F/12/02

  maize

  Production of maize in the EC and import, storage and processing for use in feed, food and industrial products

  Commission adopted decision 22 April 1998. Consent believed to be issued, but not confirmed

  17 December 1997

  Spain

  Monsanto Europe

  C/ES/96/02

  cotton

  The same purposes as non-GM commercial cotton varieties

  Vote not yet taken by Commission

  23 June 1998

  Netherlands

  Dekalb Genetics Corporation

  C/NL/97/17

  maize

  The same purposes as non-GM maize varieties

  Vote not yet taken by Commission

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government's decision to permit the farm-scale planting of herbicide tolerant crops will be affected by the results of the review of applications for the marketing of genetically modified oilseed rape. [57749]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review relates to the application by Plant Genetic Systems for consent to market their hybrid system oilseed rape which is also herbicide tolerant. We will have to await the findings of the review to determine whether it will affect the farm-scale planting programme.
  570
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provisions he has sought to have included in the SCIMAC code of practice to give the public the opportunity to assess compliance with the code's provisions. [57750]

  Mr. Meacher
  The draft SCIMAC code of practice and guidelines for growing herbicide tolerant genetically modified crops has provisions for ensuring compliance through a formalised programme of crop inspection. This process will be subject to random independent audit and review. I shall be encouraging SCIMAC to publish the results of these audits.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applications for licences for genetically modified insect-resistant crops which were pending at the time of his recent announcement of a moratorium, indicating in each case the proposed terms relating to the date of marketing. [57910]

  Mr. Meacher
  The plant breeding industry has made a commitment that no insect resistant GM crops will be introduced into the UK for the next three years.

  Applications to market crops genetically modified for insect resistance are described in the table. In all cases insect resistance has been conferred by the introduction of a Bt gene. The current position of each application in the regulatory process is given in the 'date of consent' column.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the regulations requiring local authorities to ensure that vehicles licensed for private hire are distinguished in their markings from those licensed as Hackney carriages. [57603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have no plans to carry out such a review. The legislation already prohibits the use of signs on private hire vehicles which might suggest that they are hackney carriages. Otherwise,
  571
  it allows local licensing authorities discretion in deciding which marking to permit, or require, on private hire vehicles and hackney carriages.

  Pilots
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to enable United Kingdom-licensed professional pilots to overfly France after the age of 60 years. [58107]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the responsibility of individual States to set the age limits of commercial pilots operating in their airspace, subject to relevant international standards.

  The current standard set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation is that contracting States should not permit pilots aged 60 or over to act as pilots in charge of international commercial flights and recommends that they should not be permitted to act as co-pilots. However, States may vary this standard so long as they formally notify the difference to ICAO; other States may then decide whether or not to allow operators operating to the different standard to overfly their airspace.

  Member States of the Joint Aviation Authorities, including France and the UK, have agreed common standards, which differ from the ICAO provisions, in a Joint Aviation Requirement on Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL), which is due to be implemented on 1 July 1999. This will enable pilots to operate aircraft up to the age of 65 years either as Pilot-in-Command or Co-Pilot, provided that only one pilot in the crew is 60 or over. It will be for France to decide how to implement JAR-FCL with respect to their airspace.

  Railway Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require privatised railway companies to improve their standard of punctuality. [57905]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director is responsible for overseeing train operators, performance levels. Operators of rural and commuter services pay financial penalties for poor performance under their franchise agreements, and a special incentive regime now applies to Great Western Trains. Following unacceptable performance level, the Franchising Director has required all train operators to produce action plans setting out how they will deliver improved performance. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to renegotiate franchises in order to secure more rigorous performance standards from train operators.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account the Government take of the level of individual local authority balances when setting (i) expenditure control totals, (ii) standard spending assessments and (iii) revenue support grants; if such balances are correlated to specific purposes; and what plans he has to change the treatment of local authority balances. [57771]
  572
  Ms Armstrong
  The Government take no account of the level of reserves held by individual local authorities when deciding on overall spending plans or grant distribution. However, in assessing overall spending pressures on local government, we do make a broad assumption about the extent to which local authorities will budget to draw down from reserves. We have no plans to change this treatment. According to information received from local authorities, at 1 April 1998 they held £467.3 million in Local Management of Schools reserves, £2,705.6 million in other earmarked reserves, and £1,845.6 million in unallocated reserves.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the limits for speed limiters fitted to heavy goods vehicles in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) under EU legislation; and if he will make a statement. [58003]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1992 and with a maximum gross weight exceeding 7,500 kg but not exceeding 12,000 kg must be calibrated to a set speed not exceeding 60 mph. Speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles with a maximum gross weight exceeding 12,000 kg first used on or after 1 January 1988 must be set so that the stabilised speed of the vehicle does not exceed 90 km/h (55.9 mph). The former class of vehicle is the subject of national legislation but not EC legislation; the latter class is the subject of both.

  Midland Main Line
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government funding is available for the introduction of new rail services on the Midland main line. [58081]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Midland Main Line Ltd. is already committed under its franchise agreement to introducing a significantly increased service frequency in 1999 and procuring 12 new air conditioned two-car diesel multiple units to operate additional stopping services. Promoters of new services can seek Government support for them under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, announced in the Transport White Paper. Over £100 million of funding over 3 years, from April 1999, will be made available under the new Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, the Infrastructure Investment Fund and an increase in funding for the Freight Grant scheme. OPRAF will publish guidance on the operation of the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme shortly.

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the introduction of 20mph speed restrictions. [58088]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The responses to the consultation on the proposal to remove the consent requirement for making 20 mph speed limits is complete and final decisions on how to bring the new system into operation will be made shortly.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the European Commission proposal for a new regulation (EC Draft 10902/98) on ozone-depleting substances. [57956]

  Mr. Meale
  The European Commission adopted a proposal on 1 July 1998 for a new Regulation on ozone-depleting substances to replace the existing Council Regulation (3093/94). The new Regulation is needed to implement recent revisions to the Montreal Protocol, and is therefore broadly welcome. However, the Commission's proposal goes beyond the requirements of the Protocol in a number of respects. In particular, there are proposals for an earlier phase out of methyl bromide, to introduce controls on the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and to ban the sale and use of chlorofluorocarbons. My Department has consulted interested parties on these proposals, and we will take their views into account as we formulate our detailed negotiating position.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide further resources to local authorities seeking to implement local Agenda 21 projects; and if he will make a statement. [58198]

  Mr. Meale
  We do not believe that further resources are needed since 86 per cent. of local authorities are already committed to producing a Local Agenda 21 strategy by the year 2000. LA21 should not be seen as a separate project, but rather as a means of integrating sustainable development into all the policies and activities of the council. LA21 should encourage them to take a holistic approach to the identification of community priorities and the effective delivery of services through local partnerships, in line with our proposals for modernising local government.

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a likely start date for work on the Polegate Bypass. [57756]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently considering the construction programme for the schemes included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements listed in A New Deal for Trunk Roads.

  South Thames Development Route
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investment his Department has made in the South Thames Development route between the M25 and Woolwich in the last 10 years. [57239]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: During this period, and through the annual system of Transport Policies and Programme allocations, several road building and improvement schemes have been supported along this length of the South Thames Development Route, to the extent of some £48.7m.

  London Transport Fares
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the impact of the London Transport fare increases on the number of passengers travelling by public transport. [58214]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The table shows combined passenger numbers for London Underground and London Buses from the beginning of the financial year 1995–96 to the present. This indicates that, while there are some variations between comparable periods from one year to the next, there is no evidence that passenger numbers decrease after the fare increases in January of each year. Indeed, in the last three periods of each year (which show the number of passenger journeys after the relevant fares increase came into effect), the number of journeys undertaken actually increased month on month.

  Figures showing passenger numbers for the rest of this financial year, including the next fares changes, will become available in due course.

  London Transport periodically carries out longer term research to test and update its assumptions about the sensitivity of its customers to fares charges. This research is drawn on when fare reviews are being considered.

  Number of passengers using London Transport (million)

  Period1

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1 (beginning of financial year)

  146.7

  146.6

  152.8

  146.5

  2

  150.1

  155.5

  159.4

  163.8

  3

  148.9

  154.1

  157.0

  160.6

  4

  155.3

  155.7

  166.1

  165.9

  5

  148.9

  144.9

  156.4

  160.5

  6

  145.1

  147.4

  157.3

  158.3

  7

  158.2

  161.1

  169.9

  —

  8

  161.9

  167.0

  171.4

  —

  9

  160.8

  164.1

  171.4

  —

  10

  139.9

  135.7

  142.2

  —

  11 New fares come into effect at the start of this period

  151.9

  150.8

  159.0

  —

  12

  152.8

  157.4

  163.0

  —

  13

  160.9

  166.2

  183.2

  —

  1Each period is 4 weeks. Period 1 begins on the first week of the financial year

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to intervene to secure investment in replacement rolling stock on the services currently provided by Connex South Central. [57777]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to intervene directly, although the Health and Safety Executive has powers to require modifications as to or replacement of rolling stock if it considers that this is necessary for safety reasons. HSE does not consider Connex South Central's slam door stock to be unsafe; but it has proposed that Mark 1 slam door stock such as that operated by Connex South Central must be replaced or modified by 2003.
  575
  Connex South Central recently submitted a proposal to extend its franchise. The Franchising Director concluded that he could obtain increased passenger benefits at greater value for money by allowing the franchise to expire after seven years and retendering it as normal. He is exploring with the company whether there are other ways of achieving earlier replacement of rolling stock.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning demands for payments by freeholders for retrospective consents relating to planning applications; what plans he has to investigate such cases; and if he will make a statement. [57941]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received a number of representations from leaseholders regarding unreasonable charges being made for the granting of consent. We have also received similar representations in relation to estate rent charges. These are both issues which we will consider as part of our current review of the leasehold system. We hope to issue a consultation paper on leasehold reform shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 3 March from Councillor Peter Wyatt of Fiddler's Green, St. Peter's Quay, Totnes, concerning the increase of sewage emissions into the River Dart and the deteriorating water quality. [57343]

  Mr. Meale
  A reply has been sent to Councillor Wyatt today and I have written to the hon. Member to explain the circumstances.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Contingency and Operational Equipment Exhibition, Wembley
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he took to monitor the equipment being exhibited at the Contingency and Operational Equipment Exhibition at Wembley on 22 to 24 September. [57331]

  Mr. Boateng
  This was a privately organised exhibition and was not monitored by the Home Office. However, members of staff from the Public Scientific Development Branch (part of the Home Office Police Policy Directorate) attended the exhibition in their capacity as advisers to the police service on law enforcement equipment.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prosecutions are pending as a result of offences committed by companies attempting to trade in torture equipment at the Contingency and Operational Equipment Exhibition at Wembley on 22 to 24 September. [57332]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am not aware of any prosecutions pending which arise from the Contingency and Operational Equipment Exhibition at Wembley on 22 to 24 September 1998.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what start-up funding is being made available for the Gloucestershire Probation Service pilot for the new drug treatment and testing orders. [57883]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have made available £750,000 from October 1998—March 1999 and are making available a further £1,000,000 in 1999–2000 to cover all costs in relation to the piloting of the drug treatment and testing order. The amount is proportionately larger in the current financial year in order to cover start-up costs. This money, taken as a total over the entire pilot period, is being divided equally between Gloucestershire and the other two pilot areas, Merseyside and south-east London. Gloucestershire Probation Service will therefore receive a total of £559,333 to fund the pilot.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the use of beagles for tests on Viagra conducted in the United Kingdom. [57880]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have received a number of letters on this subject.

  I understand that the drug was originally developed and tested some years ago, as part of a research programme into treatments for cardiovascular conditions. During clinical trials on patients, the properties for which Viagra is now known were discovered.

  Impotence is a serious medical condition, and one which can cause appreciable stress and other forms of suffering. Existing treatments are limited, and not without adverse effects. Further research, involving animals, has taken place to:
  define the specific clinical conditions that Viagra might be used to treat; and
  reduce the adverse, cardiovascular effects in clinical use.

  Young People (Alcohol Consumption)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department is currently supporting to reduce the level of alcohol consumption by those aged under 16 years. [57885]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Ministerial Group on Alcopops, which I chair, issued a statement on 17 July 1997, setting out a programme of action to tackle alcohol misuse by those under age. The programme included a strengthened industry code of practice on packaging and promoting alcoholic drinks, an expanded industry proof of age card scheme, action by the courts and police to help prevent under-age sales and legislation to make it harder for children to obtain alcohol. We are currently considering the progress made and expect to announce our conclusions later this month.

  Young Offenders Institute, Aylesbury
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's response to the report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons on HM Young Offenders Institute, Aylesbury. [57859]
  577
  Mr. George Howarth
  The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution was published on 28 October 1998.

  The report contained no recommendations to the Secretary of State, but 160 to the Director General, the area manager and the governor. Under the protocol for handling reports agreed between the Director General and the Chief Inspector last year, the Prison Services gives consideration to each recommendation and draws up a response and action plan within 30 days of publication.

  The action plan is kept under close review by senior managers and is available, in an updated form, to the Chief Inspector when he undertakes a follow up inspection.

  Youth Justice Board
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. [58562]

  Mr. Straw
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, established under section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, came into operation on 30 September 1998.

  The members of the Board are:

  Lord Warner of Brockley (Chair)

  Mr. Rob Allen, Director of Research and Development, National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  Mr. Jonathan Black, Clerk to the Justices, North East and North West Hampshire

  Mr. Cedric Fullwood, lately Chief Probation Officer, Greater Manchester

  Ms Joyce Moseley, formerly a Director of Social Services

  Dr. Theodore Mutale, consultant child and adolescent forensic psychiatrist

  Ms Janet Paraskeva JP, Director for England National Lottery Charities Board

  Mr. Charles Pollard, Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police

  Mrs. Annabella Scott JP, Inner London youth panel

  Mr. Martin Stephenson, Chief Executive, INCLUDE

  Ms Lorna Whyte, a member of the Police Complaints Authority

  Mr. Charles Wilson, lately Managing Director of the Mirror Group of newspapers.

  The Board is responsible for monitoring the operation and performance of the youth justice system as a whole, and advising the Government on this and on the drawing up of standards for the local provision of youth justice services and for custodial regimes for juveniles. The Board will also identify and promote good practice in the provision of youth justice services and in work to prevent youth offending, which will help deliver the Government's programme of reform of the youth justice system.

  In support of this work, the Government are providing £85 million over three years from April 1999 for a youth justice development fund, which will be used to support the development by local authorities and other bodies, including in the voluntary sector, of programmes and projects, including bail support, to prevent or tackle offending by children and young people.

  Boundary Commission
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take on the report of the interim review of the Boundary Commission for England. [58563]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament the report of the interim review of the Boundary Commission for England, together with a draft Order in Council for giving effect, without modification, to the recommendations contained in the report.

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for this year's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. [58567]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Rowe QC has accepted my invitation to carry out the annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, including those provisions inserted by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, for 1998 and the following two years.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce Protocol Four of the European Convention on Human Rights. [57792]

  Kate Hoey
  Ratification of Protocol 4 will be possible only if potential conflicts with our domestic laws can be resolved. There is a particular concern in relation to Article 3(2) of the Protocol which protects the right of nationals not to be excluded from their home state. This could be taken as conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom on various categories of British nationals who do not have it.

  Security Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Special Branch in respect of the retention of files on individuals where those files were created because the individuals concerned were suspected of subversion; what rights are available to the individuals concerned; and if he will make a statement. [57569]

  Mr. Straw
  All Special Branches in England, Wales and Scotland operate under the "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain", published in July 1994. In addition to subversion, the Guidelines also cover terrorism, espionage, sabotage and counter-proliferation. Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines provides that:Each Special Branch should ߪ maintain an effective system both for updating information where necessary and for the identification and destruction of information which can no longer be clearly related to the discharge of its functions.

  If an individual has reason to believe that a particular Special Branch is failing to comply with the Guidelines, he may address a complaint either to the Chief Constable of the force concerned, or he can approach the Police Complaints Authority. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary undertakes a regular programme of inspections of Special Branches.

  General Pinochet
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests for the extradition of General Pinochet he has received from(a) the Spanish Government, (b) a competent authority in Spain specifying that authority and (c) any other Government or competent authority specifying the same; when each such request was received; and if he will place copies of each in the Library. [58191]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received no formal request for the extradition of Senator Pinochet from the Spanish Government, or any other government, or from any competent authority in Spain or any other country.

  The Metropolitan Police received, on Friday 16 October, via Interpol, a request for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet issued by the 5th Magistrates' Court in Madrid. Disclosure of that document is a matter for the Metropolitan Police.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what notification, pursuant to section 8 of the Extradition Act 1989, he has received from the Bow Street Magistrate of any provisional warrant issued by the Magistrate for the arrest of General Pinochet; and what consideration he has given or proposes to give to the exercise of his powers under section 8(4) of that Act to cancel any such warrant. [58192]

  Mr. Straw
  The Extradition Section at the Home Office received notification on 19 October of the first provisional warrant for Senator Pinochet issued on 16 October by the Bow Street Magistrate under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 and received notification on 23 October of a further provisional warrant issued on 22 October by the Bow Street Magistrate.

  I was invited, on 21 October, by Senator Pinochet's legal representatives to exercise my discretionary power under section 8(4) and to cancel the first provisional warrant issued on 16 October. I had taken no decision before legal proceedings were launched in the Divisional Court on 22 October. The Divisional Court, in its judgment of 28 October, dismissed application for leave to move for judicial review of my failure to exercise my discretionary powers under section 8(4) of the Act.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to reduce the flow of small arms to developing countries. [58185]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID), along with the FCO and MOD, is involved in providing advice to the DTI in the export licensing process. Applications are carefully considered against our national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. These codes require HMG to take into account whether the proposed export would seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country; and to consider the risk that the equipment might be diverted to an undesirable end-user.
  580
  We are also tackling illicit transfers of small arms. Together with the FCO we are developing the EU Programme for Preventing and Combating Illicit Trafficking in Conventional Arms. We funded a seminar in Southern Africa that produced a regional EU/South Africa Development Committee (SADC) action plan tailored to the problems of the region. We hope that this will be endorsed by EU/SADC Ministers in Vienna this week.

  We are also funding, through the UNDP, the implementation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) moratorium on the import, export and manufacture of small arms and light weapons. We warmly welcome the declaration of this moratorium in the final communique of the ECOWAS Heads of State meeting held in Abuja on 30–31 October.

  My Department is keen to support further practical initiatives which help reduce the availability of small arms and ammunition.

  Security Sector Reform
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on support for security sector reform initiatives in post-conflict countries. [58187]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) recognises the special need for security sector reform in post-conflict countries, especially when that sector has been responsible for creating the conflict. Complete restructuring may be needed in some cases. This may include extensive demobilisation of surplus troops which often requires external support, especially in poorer countries. Poor countries need security and stability to be restored promptly if development and progress towards the elimination of poverty are to be resumed. DFID is currently studying its approach to security sector reform in order to strengthen this work.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [58159]

  Clare Short
  The UK is deeply concerned about the impact of the ongoing conflict upon the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We are pressing all parties to the conflict to agree to a cease-fire and to reach a negotiated settlement. The UK has urged all parties not to escalate the conflict in the east following the fall of Kindu to the rebels. It is clear that a resolution cannot be achieved militarily. A negotiated settlement must address the rights of all sections of Congolese society, as well as the legitimate security concerns of its neighbours, whilst respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC itself.

  The situation in the west around Kinshasa, stable for several weeks, is now reported to be deteriorating and ethnic tensions, as demonstrated by attacks upon, and detention of, Congolese Tutsi, remain high.

  581
  Conditions in the east remain poor, with much of the local infrastructure damaged or destroyed. The conflict and movement of refugees are generating a significant requirement for humanitarian aid, but access is a major problem.

  The UK is ready to respond to appeals from UN agencies and NGOs. We are already supporting a UNICEF project in the western Bas-Congo region to re-stock and rehabilitate health centres damaged in the conflict. Efforts to promote tolerance and respect for human rights are also being supported. Prior to the current conflict, UK humanitarian assistance to DRC during 1998 stood at almost £350,000.

  Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has held in the last 12 months on the issue of the welfare and protection of children with the Government of Albania. [57764]

  Clare Short
  My department has been working to improve children's welfare in Albania with Children's Aid Direct and the Albanian Education Authorities.

  We have provided £209,000 for the integration of disabled children into mainstream primary and kindergarten education.

  Aid Agencies (Fraud)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the report by the European Commission on controls over the budget of the European Community Humanitarian Office and the misuse of funds by aid agencies. [57919]

  Clare Short
  The Government are very concerned at the recent allegations of fraud within the Commission notably in the EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO). We are strongly committed to fighting fraud inside the Community institutions by the most effective machinery that can be devised.

  The Commission's anti-fraud unit takes the lead in fraud investigations. We take a close interest in the work of the unit in the fight against fraud and strongly support measures to improve its effectiveness. We will look carefully at the European Parliament's ideas for an independent fraud office and at any proposals brought forward by the Commission.

  Microcredit Schemes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department has undertaken to encourage British banks' involvement in microcredit schemes. [58157]

  Clare Short
  We recognise the importance and potential benefits of involving British financial institutions in microfinance. In many developing countries, however, it may be more appropriate and feasible to develop the capacity of local banks.
  582
  Specific measures which DFID has taken to encourage British banks' involvement in microfinance include the following:
  DIFD supported the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI) in the organisation of a series of meetings in the City of London on the subject of microfinance. This led to a report 'Credit where credit is due: bringing microfinance into the mainstream' which was published by CSFI. A particular target of this publication is British commercial and merchant banks, to encourage them to play a more active role in microfinance.
  The Department is actively working with commercial banks overseas to induce them to lend either direct to small and microenterprises or to lend to retail microfinance institutions, usually by DFID providing some form of guarantee.
  DFID is supporting research on linking self-help groups (and informal credit providers) with formal financial institutions in developing countries. Central to this research is the idea of 'linkage-banking' where banks, British or local, are linked to co-operative groups which can then provide microfinance on a wider scale.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Sudan. [58158]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation remains acute. In Bahr el Ghazal mortality rates have fallen but in some parts of the region they remain unacceptably high. The World Food Programme has sufficient resources to meet all food aid needs in Sudan until April 1999. We continue to press for an extension to the cease-fire beyond Bahr el Ghazal because insecurity hampers access in many areas both to assess needs and to deliver supplies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will discuss with her American counterparts the provision of(a) anti-TB drugs and (b) chloroquinine and other anti-malarial drugs to the Sudan in quantities which would have been produced by the El Shifa factory, prior to its destruction. [57980]

  Clare Short
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 403.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals her Department has for strengthening the linkage between debt relief and poverty reduction. [58162]

  Clare Short
  In providing bilateral debt relief, my Department examines closely the commitment of recipient governments to the achievement of the international development targets, to transparent government, and to the rooting out of corruption and mismanagement. In this way, we can be confident that those funds that would have been spent on debt service will be redirected towards poverty reducing activities such as healthcare and primary education. We encourage other bilateral donors to apply the same criteria when providing debt relief.

  We are pressing for the relationship between debt relief and poverty reduction to be examined by the IMF and World Bank as part of the forthcoming fundamental

  583
  review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and for any lessons learned to be applied in implementing the programme.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps were taken at the recent IMF/World Bank annual meeting to improve the terms and conditions of debt relief initiatives for developing countries. [58184]

  Clare Short
  Ministers endorsed the extension of the entry deadline for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative from 1998 to the end of 2000, to give more countries a chance to qualify. They also agreed to add a degree of flexibility to the process for countries receiving post-conflict assistance programmes. A decision was taken to carry out a comprehensive review of the Initiative as early as 1999. We shall be pressing for this review to consider carefully whether the current HIPC Initiative delivers adequate debt relief to those countries in need.

  HIV-AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what money her Department has given to HIV-AIDS vaccine development initiatives since May 1997. [58188]

  Clare Short
  The UK is the first government to make a contribution—£200,000—to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), to assist in the development of a safe, effective and inexpensive vaccine to prevent HIV infection. In addition, £300,000 of the Department for International Development's overall grant to the Medical Research Council for 1997–98 went to support research into an HIV vaccine, topical virucides and microbicides. A further £300,000 is committed for 1998–99.

  Global Economic Crisis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to monitor the impact of the global economic crisis on people living in poverty in developing countries. [58163]

  Clare Short
  My Department is extremely concerned about the impact of the global economic crisis on poverty which is already severe in many countries, notably Indonesia. Our monitoring of the impact overall relies on work being undertaken by the International Financial Institutions, especially the World Bank, supplemented by work by UK and other academic researchers. Reliable country level data on poverty impact are limited, but the latest forecasts for growth in trade and overall economic growth indicate that the crisis is already having a severe and negative impact overall on global economic performance with adverse implications for poor people in developing countries.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are(a) the crude and (b) the temperature-adjusted figures for UK energy consumption
  584
  in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement on progress towards compliance with emission targets. [56769]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The latest available figures for unadjusted and temperature corrected energy consumption in the UK are as follows:

  UK total inland primary energy consumption1

  Million tonnes of oil equivalent

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (a)Unadjusted

  220.8

  233.0

  226.9

  (b)Temperature corrected

  226.1

  232.1

  233.5

  1Excludes non-energy use of fuels

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics, Department of Trade and Industry

  A consultation document on climate change was published on 26 October. This outlines various options for meeting the UK's emission targets.

  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a key objective of this Government's energy policy. The Government are confident that their energy policy is consistent with achieving their climate change targets. Overall, it is estimated that carbon dioxide emissions decreased by eight per cent. between 1990 and 1997, largely because of reduced emissions from electricity generation.

  Marine Foresight Panel
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons he plans to terminate the Marine Foresight Panel. [57074]

  Mr. Battle
  The next round of Foresight is due to start in April 1999. There has been wide consultation over the format and content during recent months. Final decisions will be taken shortly.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total sum paid out by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of guarantees given to foreign companies or Governments in respect of contracts relating to defence and security equipment in each of the last three financial years. [56835]

  Mr. Mandelson
  ECGD issues guarantees to persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom in respect of the payment risk arising from supplies of goods and services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom.

  Under such guarantees the total value of claims payments made by ECGD in each of the last three years in respect of defence business was as follows:

  £million

  Financial year

  Value of claims paid

  1995–96

  107.3

  1996–97

  49.7

  1997–98

  38.8

  Meteorites
  Mr. öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential threat to satellites of the leonid meteorite shower in November; and if he will make a statement. [56935]

  Mr. Battle
  The threat to satellites from the expected peaks in the Leonid meteor shower in November 1998 and in November 1999 has been assessed by the European Space Agency with support from the British National Space Centre. The results of the assessment have been circulated to satellite operators and the United Kingdom space industry. The assessment concludes that the meteor shower poses a particular risk around 17–18 November this year and the next few years and that it could damage satellites through physical impact or by electrostatic interference. A number of measures are recommended to spacecraft operators to minimise the risk. These include minimising the cross sectional area of the spacecraft facing the meteor shower, turning off sensitive equipment and reinforcing the operating team in order to cope with potential anomalies.

  I will send a copy of the report to the hon. Member and place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Policy Proposals (Quality of Life)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what methods of measurements and from what base lines his Department employs in assessing the quality of life implications of policy proposals; and how these were selected. [55768]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: My Department uses a range of measures to assess policy proposals and departmental programmes consistent with relevant guidance from HM Treasury and other government departments. Risks, costs and benefits to business, the citizen and, where relevant, the environment are assessed for each regulatory proposal.

  EU Structural Funds (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future European Structural Funds regime for Staffordshire. [57943]

  Mrs. Roche
  The negotiations with the Commission and other Member States on the reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds for 2000–06 are continuing. It is too early to predict the outcome for individual regions. Only when negotiations are complete will the future Structural and Cohesion Funds regime be known. In June 1998 the European Council set a deadline for agreement of the end of March 1999.

  The Government will continue to negotiate vigorously for a fair and affordable deal for the UK and its regions.

  Ministerial Visit (Cuba)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total cost to his Department of his recent visit to Cuba; how many DTI officials accompanied him; and with which members of the Cuban Government and with which senior Cuban civil servants he held discussions. [57025]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have not visited Cuba.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement in respect of the ICNIRP international guidelines and their relevance in determining safe exposure to the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields. [57339]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised that the guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields recently produced by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) were developed after a comprehensive review of published scientific papers. The proposed exposure restrictions are based solely on established effects. ICNIRP concluded that the available data on the non-thermal and potential long term effects of exposure, such as an increase risk of cancer, are insufficient to provide a basis for exposure restrictions.

DEFENCE

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fully trained pilots have requested to leave the RAF in each of the last five years. [55818]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of trained RAF pilots who applied for premature voluntary release in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  Applications

  1994

  16

  1995

  38

  1996

  45

  1997

  60

  1998

  76

  Aero Engines
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department(a) has counted, (b) currently counts and (c) plans to count Rolls-Royce sales of aero-engines to Boeing as a legitimate offset purchase for the purposes of offset agreements between his Department and US weapons manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. [56475]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: Before adopting a policy of Industrial Participation, IP, for defence procurement in 1990, the MOD counted the sale of aero engines from Rolls-Royce to Boeing as part of our offset agreement with the company. We are currently considering a claim from Boeing for IP credits for aero engine components supplied by Rolls-Royce. This, and any future Rolls-Royce sales of aero engines and components, must conform with the IP agreement existing between the MOD and the offshore company.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the decision of
  587
  the Army Personnel Centre to benchmark performance against only the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Manning Agencies. [57166]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Benchmarking can take many forms and is one of various management tools available to promote efficiency. The obvious place for the Army Personnel Centre to start is with the Manning Agencies for the Navy and Air Force. It has separately undertaken a self-assessment against the European Business Excellence Model, as noted in the Army Personnel Agency's Annual Report, within the Public Sector Benchmarking Project. The scope for benchmarking with other organisations will be kept under regular review.

  Territorial Army Budget
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if receipts from the sale of TA drill halls(a) will contribute towards his Department's target of £700 million from sale of property and (b) be required to make up an element of the TA budget for the next financial year. [57586]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Receipts from the sale of any Territorial Army centres will form part of my Department's overall future financial provision. Funding for the TA in the next financial year is not dependent on monies generated as a result of such sales.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Interviews)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unemployed 18 to 24 year olds invited to an initial New Deal interview had failed to respond by 30 September; and what percentage this constitutes of those 18 to 24 year olds invited to an initial interview. [57868]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: The latest Government Statistical figures (to the end of August 1998) show that almost 6,600 18–24 year olds have left the New Deal and Jobseekers Allowance before attending their initial New Deal interview. This constitutes 4 per cent. of all those who have started on the New Deal.

  Where a young person fails to attend an interview following 3 invitations, and continues to try and claim JSA, they will be referred to adjudication. Figures to the end of September show that over 600 young people have already had sanctions imposed for failing to attend a New Deal interview.

  New Deal (Benefit Cuts)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24 year olds had their benefits cut for refusing to take up a New Deal option by 30 September. [57870]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: The latest available analysis shows that there were 1,352 New Deal participants aged between 18 and 24 to whom Jobseekers Allowance sanctions were applied during the period 1 January to 30 September 1998, of which 112 were for failing to take up a New Deal Option.
  588
  A further 210 people have been referred to adjudication during that period for neglecting to avail themselves of an Option, failing or refusing to attend an Option.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives his Department is currently supporting to reduce the level of alcohol consumption by those aged under 16 years. [57888]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Education about alcohol is already a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum. The Department for Education and Employment has made increased support of £7 million available to Local Education Authorities this year, through the Standards Fund, to assist schools and the youth service to deliver effective education about drugs, including alcohol. The Department is also working closely with other Government Departments in taking forward the Government's 10 year Anti-Drugs Strategy, published earlier this year. Whilst the focus is on illegal drugs, alcohol is also addressed within the overall Strategy. To support and underpin the Strategy, we will also shortly be issuing targeted guidance to schools and the youth service on the effective delivery of education relating to substance misuse. In addition, the Department is represented on the Ministerial Group on Alcopops, which is taking forward the Government's work to combat underage drinking.

  In partnership with the Department of Health, the Department launched earlier this year the National Healthy Schools Scheme. This Initiative is part of the wider Healthy Schools Initiative. We are making £2 million of support available this year to fund eight health and education pilot projects, one in each of the NHS regions. Criteria for healthy schools belonging to the scheme will be drawn up and an integral part of this will be for the school to deliver a comprehensive drug education programme. That programme will have to include education about alcohol.

  Asthma
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the guidelines covering the responsibilities of local education authorities in catering within schools for the medical needs of children with(a) asthma and (b) allergy-related anaphylaxis. [57914]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In October 1996 the Department published Circular 14/96, "Supporting Pupils With Medical Needs in School", in conjunction with the Department of Health. This summarised the main legal provisions that affect schools' responsibilities for managing pupils' medical needs. At the same time, the Department also published "Supporting Pupils With Medical Needs: A Good Practice Guide", which includes sections dealing specifically with asthma and anaphylaxis. Both publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  School Expenditure
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has
  589
  made of the amount of money from delegated budgets underspent by schools in Hereford and Worcester in each year since 1989–90. [57922]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the amount held as balances by LEA schools in Hereford and Worcester for each of the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98. Information regarding school balances/deficits prior to 1992–93 is not held centrally.

  Balances held by LEA schools in Hereford and Worcester

  Financial year

  £

  1992–93

  13,867,000

  1993–94

  13,855,000

  1994–95

  12,294,181

  1995–96

  9,935,332

  1996–97

  9,940,809

  1997–98

  10,564,756

  Supported Employment Scheme
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for the supported employment scheme for disabled people. [57708]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Expenditure on the Supported Employment Programme for 1997–98 was £155.6 million. The allocated budget for the Programme for 1998–99 is £155.1 million. However, as announced last week we have made an additional £30 million available to help disabled people get jobs, half of which will be spent on supported employment.

  People with a disability or long term illness will also be able to benefit from the New Deal for Disabled People for which £195 million has been set aside for the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of section 11 funding. [57927]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will shortly make an announcement about a new Standards Fund grant to replace the education element of section 11 grant. In the first year of the grant, 1999–2000, allocations will reflect Local Education Authorities' existing allocations.

  Student Loans Company
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the performance of the Student Loans Company with regard to(a) responses to letters, (b) responses to telephone calls and (c) delays in payment of loans since the start of the academic year. [57864]

  Mr. Mudie
  As of 30 October, the Student Loans Company had paid out 283,100 loans. 99.7 per cent. were paid within 21 days against a target of 98 per cent. I have received no written representations about the Company's performance in this academic year, but DfEE officials have received 15 telephone calls about borrowers not 590
  being able to contact the Company by telephone. I understand that the Company has now updated both its telephone message system and website to handle certain calls. Some correspondence to the Company has been delayed, although most replies have been issued within 14 days. I understand that the Company has resolved the complaints it has received on telephone calls and correspondence.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to increase the number of school leavers who attain fluency in a second European modern language. [56857]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Under the National Curriculum, all pupils must study English and all secondary school pupils must study a modern foreign language. Secondary schools must offer one of eight working languages of the European Union, and they can also offer other languages. In practice around 97 per cent. of pupils study French, German, Spanish, or a combination of these. The National Curriculum programmes of study give equal weight to four communication skills: listening and responding; speaking; reading and responding; and writing. We also support language learning through sponsorship of the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT), which encourages good practice through a range of information and advice to language teachers.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many new infant schools have been(a) started and (b) completed in each of the last five years; and in which council areas the schools are located; [55814]

  (2) how many new primary schools have been (a) started and (b) completed in each of the last five years; and in which council areas they are located. [57164]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No statutory proposals to establish new infant schools have been approved in the last three years. The table shows the number of proposals approved and implemented in each Local Education Authority to establish new maintained primary schools in each of the last three years. The list includes proposals which have been determined by the Local Education Authority. A number of proposals have been decided but not yet implemented. Accurate information for earlier years is not available.

  Number approved

  Number implemented

  1998

  Barnet

  1

  1

  Barnsley

  2

  —

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  Bromley

  —

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  —

  Derby City

  2

  —

  Essex (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  1

  Hackney

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  Kent (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  —

  591

  Number approved

  Number implemented

  Lincolnshire

  —

  1

  Newham

  1

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  1

  Shropshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  —

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  Surrey

  1

  —

  Swindon

  2

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  Wiltshire (pre 1 April 1 April 1997)

  —

  1

  Worcester

  —

  1

  1997

  Barnet

  1

  1

  Barnsley

  3

  3

  Bromley

  1

  —

  Buckinghamshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  Coventry

  3

  3

  Devon

  1

  —

  Essex (pre 1 April 1998)

  3

  3

  Hertfordshire

  —

  1

  Kent (pre 1 April 1998)

  2

  1

  Kingston Upon Hull

  2

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  Milton Keynes

  2

  —

  Newham

  1

  —

  Redbridge

  1

  —

  Shropshire (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  Stockton on Tees

  1

  —

  Sutton

  —

  1

  Waltham Forest

  —

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  Worcester

  1

  —

  1996

  Barnet

  —

  1

  Buckinghamshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  —

  Camden

  —

  1

  Coventry

  4

  4

  East Sussex (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  —

  Essex (pre 1 April 1998)

  1

  —

  Oldham

  —

  2

  Surrey

  1

  2

  Sutton

  1

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  2

  Warwickshire

  2

  3

  West Sussex

  1

  —

  Wiltshire (pre 1 April 1997)

  1

  —

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish the Government's response to consultation on the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs". [58535]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Consultation on the Green Paper "Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs" generated many thoughtful ideas and comments. In the light of these, and the advice of the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs (SEN), we 592
  have today published "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action". Copies have been placed in the Library. Copies will also be sent to all MPs.

  The Action Programme sets out the progress we will make in five key areas:
  better support for parents and carers of children with SEN;
  improving the SEN framework, including revising the SEN Code of Practice;
  promoting the inclusion of more children with SEN in mainstream schools where parents want it and appropriate support can be provided and developing the role of special schools as part of an inclusive education system;
  developing the knowledge and skills of all staff working with children with SEN; and
  supporting a range of initiatives to promote partnership in SEN, locally, regionally and nationally.

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to increase the supply of science teachers. [57944]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards announced a package of short-term measures to boost teacher recruitment, intended in particular to tackle problems recruiting secondary teachers in science and maths. Our proposals include:a £5,000 incentive for all those graduates training in and going on to teach science or maths;
  a new scheme to match 600 of the 7,000 people who have already told the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) that they would like to train on the job as teachers, to existing vacancies as science and maths teachers;
  the establishment of a new network of advisers at regional level to co-ordinate and energise local recruitment activities in areas of the country where shortages are most acute;
  mobilising the Employment Service to encourage unemployed people with the right experience and qualifications to train or re-train as teachers; and
  launching a drive to encourage returners to teaching.

  The package will give added impetus to the strong programme of action already being taken forward by the TTA to boost teacher recruitment.

  Looking ahead, our Green Paper on the modernisation of the teaching profession, to be published before the end of the year, will propose a range of fundamental reforms to improve the attractiveness of teaching as a career.

  A-level Physics Curriculum
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of the A-level physics curriculum and exam in preparing students for degree courses in (i) physics and (ii) engineering. [57946]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department has not commissioned or evaluated research on this specific issue. However, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has recently completed a consultation on the development of new subject criteria for all A-level syllabuses, including physics, in the light of the Government's decisions on the future of A-levels following the recent Qualifying for

  593
  Success consultation. Both consultations fully involved both higher education institutions and organisations representing the interests of physics and engineering. QCA will be advising Ministers on the outcome of its recent consultation shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Agriculture Subsidies
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of public subsidies and support paid to agriculture in Scotland, the average amount per constituency and the amount paid to support the agriculture industry in Glasgow, Pollok in the last year for which figures are available. [57186]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Direct subsidies paid to farmers in Scotland for the latest year (1997) for which figures. are available totalled £497 million. This information is not collected by Parliamentary Constituency.

  Catering Courses
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many students there are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time catering education in Scotland; [57061]

  (2) how many colleges offer catering education; how many graduates of such courses undertook further training in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the level of provision for catering courses in Scotland. [57062]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Thirty-eight further education colleges offered catering courses during academic year 1996–97 (the last year for which full figures are available), which were attended by 2,199 full-time and 8,028 part-time students.

  Destination data are not collected centrally, except in respect of full-time students on higher education courses studied in further education colleges. In respect of the 179 such students on catering courses in 1995–96 whose destination is known, 57 undertook further full-time study.

  College boards of management have a statutory duty, under section 12(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 to ensure that their college provides suitable further education, having regard to the likely needs of potential students of the college. The fact that so many of Scotland's colleges offer catering courses suggests that boards of management are responding adequately to local demand for such provision.

  Defence Diversification Strategy
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on what action Scottish Enterprise has taken on the development of a national defence diversification strategy for Scotland in the last 18 months; and what plans it has to produce a report on this matter. [56378]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: In Scotland, defence diversification has been taken forward as a business development activity at local level through Local Enterprise Companies rather than by Scottish
  594
  Enterprise at a national level. The Local Enterprise Companies that have had most involvement in this activity have been Fife Enterprise, Glasgow Development Agency and Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd.

  HIV-AIDS
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people with AIDS died in(a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland in (a) 1988, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 at the latest available date. [56984]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the following table:

  AIDS deaths by health board and year of death as at 30 September 1998

  Health board1

  1988

  1997

  19982

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  2

  0

  Fife

  0

  1

  0

  Grampian

  1

  1

  1

  Greater Glasgow

  8

  6

  5

  Lanarkshire

  0

  1

  0

  Lothian

  8

  14

  3

  Tayside

  0

  14

  2

  Scotland

  17

  39

  11

  1Health Boards not listed recorded no deaths in any of these years.

  21998 data to 30 September

  Source:

  The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cumulative number of people with AIDS who died in(a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland in (i) 1988, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998 at the latest available date. [56985]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the following table:

  AIDS deaths by health board, Scotland Cumulative deaths as at 31 December of specified year as at 30 September 1998

  Health board

  1988

  1997

  1998

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  4

  4

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  9

  9

  Borders

  0

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  3

  3

  Fife

  1

  12

  12

  Forth Valley

  1

  4

  4

  Grampian

  3

  29

  30

  Greater Glasgow

  19

  174

  179

  Highland

  1

  4

  4

  Lanarkshire

  1

  10

  10

  Lothian

  14

  329

  332

  Tayside

  2

  119

  121

  Scotland

  42

  689

  709

  Note:

  1998 data to 30 September

  Source:

  The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people diagnosed with AIDS and not known to have died there were in(a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland in (i) 1988, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998 at the latest available date. [56986]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  595

  AIDS cases diagnosed and not known to be dead at specified dates by Health Board as at 30 September 1998

  Health board

  at 31 December 1988

  at 31 December 1997

  at 30 September1998

  Argyll and Clyde

  2

  1

  3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  2

  2

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  1

  13

  14

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  1

  7

  6

  Greater Glasgow

  13

  75

  74

  Highland

  0

  2

  2

  Lanarkshire

  0

  2

  4

  Lothian

  25

  97

  99

  Tayside

  4

  27

  29

  Scotland

  46

  226

  233

  Source:

  The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people were newly diagnosed HIV positive (i) by probable means of transmission and (ii) in total in(a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland, for each year from 1988 to 1997, and for 1998 at the latest available date; [56987]

  (2) if he will list the cumulative number of people who had been diagnosed HIV positive (i) by probable means of transmission and (ii) in total in (a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland, for each year from 1988 to 1997, and for 1998 at the latest available date; [56988]

  (3) if he will list the cumulative number of people who had been diagnosed HIV positive and not known to have died (i) by probable means of transmission and (ii) in total in (a) Scotland and (b) each health board region of Scotland, for each year from 1988 to 1997, and for 1998 at the latest available date. [56989]

  Mr. Galbraith
  As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged to place the details in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing (Crossnacreevy Villages)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of homes(a) which have received planning approval and (b) for which application is presently under consideration by the planning department in the vicinity of Crossnacreevy villages. [56704]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart, and I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 2 November 1998:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about housing development in the vicinity of Crossnacreevy Villages. For the purposes of this Question, I have regarded the vicinity of Crossnacreevy Villages as being the following area:

  Ballygowan Road between Roselawn and Gransha Road;
  596
  Church Road for half a mile from Crossnacreevy; and

  Houston Road for half a mile on the west side of Ballygowan Road.

  Our records show that only planning applications for individual houses in the countryside, within the above area, have ever been received. I can confirm that 10 of these applications were approved, while one was refused.

  We are not processing any current applications for housing at this moment in time.

  I hope this information meets your needs.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to encourage inward investment projects in South Down. [57070]

  Mr. Ingram
  The most recent initiative by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland to encourage inward investment in South Down is the development of the industrial site at Belfast Road, Downpatrick, the first phase of which has been completed. The opportunity presented by this development and other locations in South Down is brought to the attention of appropriate investors during their visits to Northern Ireland, for example through the IDB's recent roadshow in North America.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she proposes to consult with the new Northern Ireland Assembly on the outcome of the Northern Ireland Comprehensive Spending Review. [58564]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have today sent a consultation paper on the Government's proposals for allocations to Northern Ireland programmes to the Initial Presiding Officer, as a reference under the Northern Ireland Elections Act (1998), requesting the views of the Assembly. Decisions on allocations will be announced next month in light of the consultation exercise. Copies of the Assembly consultation paper have also been placed in the Library, and are available from the Vote Office.

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements she has made for this year's review of the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. [58565]
  597
  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Jermyn Rowe, QC has accepted my invitation to carry out the annual review for 1998 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, including those provisions inserted by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. If necessary, Mr. Rowe will also carry out reviews for the following two years.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will respond to the Third Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of session 1997–98 (HC 337) on the composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and what will be the basis of her response. [58566]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have today sent my response to the Committee and have, by the Committee's leave, placed a copy of my response in the Library.

  I have consulted, amongst others, the Chief Constable and the Police Authority who have both given a broad welcome to the Report. The report provides a timely benchmark of opinion for the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland set up following the Good Friday Agreement as it considers the question of policing arrangements which can fairly represent all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and have widespread community support.

  The Government have accepted a number of recommendations made by the Committee. These include:
  Police officers who already belong to organisations such as the Loyal Orders, the Ancient Order of Hibernians and Freemasonry should register their membership of such organisations, initially on a voluntary basis;
  There should be a more rigorous system of registration in place for new recruits; and
  Registration should be on a private basis with RUC management and perhaps other relevant bodies such as the Independent Commission for Police Complaints.

  A new working group is to be set up to consider how the proposals will be implemented. The working group will meet soon and examine:

  how information relating to the private interests of police officers and others should be gathered and held;

  how, if at all, such information should be available publicly;

  which societies, bodies or interests should be covered;

  which public agencies besides the police should consider schemes for registration; and

  what, if any, further measures might be required to ensure that a system of registration works.

  The Government have considered but rejected for now the proposal that membership of organisations mentioned by the Select Committee should in effect prevent someone from becoming a police officer. The question of a police service which can fairly represent all sections of the community in Northern Ireland is one of the main terms of reference of the Independent Commission on Policing
  and it would be peremptory to go further in advance of the Commission's findings.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many abortions were carried out in Northern Ireland in the latest year for which figures are available; [56669]

  (2) how many abortions were performed by each health and social services board in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [56670]

  Mr. McFall
  The table outlines the number of abortions performed in each Health and Social Board area in Northern Ireland in the years 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Number of abortions

  Health and Social Services Board

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Eastern

  782

  706

  Northern

  368

  336

  Southern

  369

  315

  Western

  367

  324

  Total

  1,886

  1,681

  The overwhelming majority of these abortions were classified as spontaneous abortions.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what grounds abortion can be performed in Northern Ireland(a) in the first and second trimester and (b) in the third trimester of pregnancy. [56671]

  Mr. McFall
  The law on abortion in Northern Ireland is governed by a combination of statute including the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1945 and Case Law (R v. Bourne (1939)). Therapeutic terminations are carried out in Northern Ireland on strictly medical grounds (eg to save the life of the mother) irrespective of the stage of pregnancy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Inter-ministerial Group on Older People
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the interim conclusion of the Inter-ministerial Group on Older People presented to him in July. [57900]

  The Prime Minister
  We value the positive contribution that older people make to our society and believe that their skills and experience should be utilised to the fullest extent.

  As well as boosting NHS funding and tackling crime, specific measures the Government have announced to improve the lives of pensioners include:

  From April 1999 a minimum income guarantee of at least £75 per week for single pensioners and £116.60 per week for couples;

  VAT on domestic fuel cut to the lowest possible level of 5 per cent.;

  free eye tests for all pensioners;

  concessionary travel across the country; and

  introduced winter fuel payments which provide extra help to over 7 million pensioner households towards their heaviest fuel bill.

  We are also determined to ensure that the enormous contribution made to our national life by older people is

  599
  properly recognised and that their concerns are fully represented in policy making. I am very pleased with the progress made so far by the Inter-Ministerial Group. It has identified three priority themes: productive aging (practical measures to help older people remain active through work); care (including the health care-housing interface and transport); and consultation and involvement with older people themselves. The new Performance and Innovation Unit which I announced on 28 July 1998, Official Report, columns 133–34, now being set up in the Cabinet Office, will consider productive aging as one of their first projects.

  The Inter-Ministerial Group is planning to hold a seminar with a wide range of groups later this month to discuss the key themes in more depth. It has also commissioned research into the attitudes and aspirations of older people.

  Portschach Talks
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the European Expansion Plan as discussed at the Portschach EU talks; what level of funding was discussed; and from where such funding would originate. [58008]

  The Prime Minister
  This meeting of the Heads of Government was an informal meeting in preparation for the full European Council in Vienna, at which a broad range of issues were discussed. No formal decisions were taken.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Carcases
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken by his Department to implement the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recommendations that carcases from cattle aged over 30 months must be deboned in licensed plants supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service, with the trimmings to be classified as SBOs. [57001]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 425.

  Farmers' Retirement Schemes
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the operation of enhanced retirement schemes for farmers. [57295]

  Mr. Rooker
  Earlier this year the Government announced that they would not be introducing an early retirement scheme for farmers in the UK because of the limitations imposed by the current EU rules. The Commission has proposed changing these rules as part of its Agenda 2000 proposals and the Government will reconsider the possibility of introducing an early retirement scheme for farmers in the UK after any changes have been agreed.

  Over-30-Months Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the OTM scheme will continue for passport-holding cattle when they reach the age of 30 months. [57296]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. Effective implementation of the Over-Thirty-Month rule is a precondition for the lifting of the EU ban on the export of UK beef. The Government have at present no plans to modify the rule but, as with all BSE control measures, it is being kept under review. Any decision to change the 30 months age limit will be taken in the light of progress with the eradication of BSE and of further advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinarians have been recruited by the Meat Hygiene Service from outside the United Kingdom. [57721]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service directly employs 14 Veterinary Surgeons from outside the United Kingdom. Of these, 10 are Citizens of other EU Member States and 4 are other Nationals.

  The Meat Hygiene Service also contracts out Veterinary Services to Veterinary Agencies and Practices. 100 Citizens of other EU Member States and 4 other Nationals are employed in this way.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinarians are employed by or contracted to the Meat Hygiene Service; and how many more will be necessary to comply with EU meat inspection directives. [57722]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service directly employs 55 Veterinary Surgeons at present. Veterinary Agencies and Practices also currently supply the Meat Hygiene Service with veterinary services under contract with 521 (172 on a full time equivalent basis) Official Veterinary Surgeons under contract.

  The precise number of additional veterinarians required to bring supervision levels at licensed premises in Great Britain into line with the requirements of the EU Directives will depend on several factors, including the number of premises to be supervised. However, based on trends in the industry, the Meat Hygiene Service has estimated that some 300 to 400 additional veterinarians may be required.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what prior notice he received of the arrest of Senator Pinochet of Chile. [57028]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was briefed shortly after the Metropolitan Police received the request from the Spanish authorities for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet.
  601
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) his officials were first informed that Senator Pinochet had entered the United Kingdom on his current visit. [57426]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was first informed on 16 October, when he was briefed about the Spanish authorities' request to the Metropolitan Police for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet. The Chilean Embassy formally confirmed to FCO officials on 9 October that Senator Pinochet was present in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements were made by his officials to receive Senator Pinochet when he arrived at Heathrow Airport for his current visit. [57425]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  At the request of the Chilean Embassy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office arranged for Senator Pinochet to use the VIP lounge on his arrival at Heathrow Airport, but there was no official reception and no representative of the FCO was present when Senator Pinochet arrived.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those people who contacted him or his officials about the diplomatic status of Senator Pinochet prior to the senator's arrest. [57414]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Only officers of the Metropolitan Police contacted Foreign and Commonwealth officials about Senator Pinochet's diplomatic status prior to the Senator's arrest on 16 October.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from whom and when he obtained advice on Senator Pinochet's entitlement to diplomatic immunity. [57969]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was told on the evening of 16 October of the advice on this subject that had been given by FCO officials to the Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department gave the Metropolitan Police on Senator Pinochet's entitlement to diplomatic immunity. [57968]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: This Department informed the Metropolitan Police that there were no grounds on the basis of immunity for not proceeding with the provisional arrest warrant.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom, apart from the Metropolitan Police, his Department gave advice on Senator Pinochet's diplomatic immunity. [57967]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In addition to the advice on diplomatic immunity given to the Metropolitan Police before the arrest, this Department subsequently assisted the Home Office and their legal representatives in connection with the divisional court proceedings against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  British Council
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the work of the British Council. [58094]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Council plays a practical and very effective role in enhancing Britain's image and prestige abroad and in promoting fruitful partnerships in a wide field of activities. The scope of its work is impressive and encompasses not only cultural matters but such important areas as student recruitment and the promotion of British goods and services in education and training and the creative industries. Without the practical support the British Council provides, a number of the Government's foreign policy objectives would be more difficult to achieve.

  Laos
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department plans to make to the Laos Government following the meeting in his Department with Prince Savryavong Savang; and if he will make a statement. [57741]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK Ambassador in Bangkok is accredited to Laos and makes regular calls on the Lao government in Vientiane. He has raised our concerns about human rights and will continue to do so.

  Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the United Kingdom ratified the Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration of the OSCE. [58006]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom has not yet acceded to the OSCE Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration, but will keep the matter under review.

  The Convention, which entered into force in December 1994, provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between states in the OSCE area. But in practice other dispute settlement mechanisms have been preferred, including the International Criminal Court of Justice. So far, no cases have been submitted for conciliation or arbitration under the Convention by any country.

  Chile
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Chile calling on it to ensure the safety of all British scouts attending the World Jamboree of Scouts to be held in Chile in December. [58073]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy in Santiago has repeatedly made it clear to the Chilean authorities that it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of all British nationals and British interests in the country. The Embassy will continue to do so as appropriate. The present advice against all non-essential travel to Chile stands.

  Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's
  603
  Government acceded to the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; what assessment he has made of the implications of the Charter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [57959]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have yet to accede to the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages but intend to do so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Minister of State, informed the House on 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 350.

  We propose to specify the Welsh language in Wales and the Gaelic language in Scotland under Part III of the Charter. We aim to specify the Irish language at an early date. Part II of the Charter will apply to the Scots language. We also propose to commission independent academic research which will help to determine whether Ulster-Scots should be treated as a language for the purposes of the Charter.

  We are considering what aspects of the Charter should apply to the languages specified under Part III. At least 35 paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of the Charter must be identified and applied in such cases.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the recruitment statistics for GCHQ for 1997 in line with the requirements of the Civil Service Commissioners; and how they compare with the figures for 1996. [58477]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ notified the Commissioners that, in 1997, 236 recruits had joined or were in the pipeline. This compares with 228 staff recruited in 1996. In addition, five reappointments were made in 1997 compared with two in 1996.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Recording Computer
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cause of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [58261]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The Contributions Agency (CA) has recently introduced a new National Insurance Recording computer system (NIRS2). The old NIRS1 system had to be replaced because it was aging and could not support future business and legislative changes, in particular those associated with the Pensions Act 1995.

  The new system is designed to collect contributions, hold 65 million individual contribution records, calculate contributory benefits, provide data to many other Government Agencies, and pay age-related contribution rebates to Private Pension Providers. It is one of the biggest systems in Europe, with over fourteen million lines of computer software.

  In April 1995 Andersen Consulting was awarded a contract, under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), to replace NIRS1. The replacement system is the first major IT contract to be delivered under PFI. Under the terms of
  604
  the PFI contract Andersen Consulting has borne all of its own costs in getting the system accepted and has not been paid for operating the new system until it was accepted. Payments for providing the new system did not commence until 13 July.

  The original plan was to replace NIRS1 completely in February 1997. However, in March 1998 Anderson Consulting made a supplementary proposal to phase implementation, in order to reduce the technical and business risks. Therefore, the contract was varied, including financial compensation arrangements, to reflect this phased implementation between February 1997 and April 1999. This variation was documented in the National Audit Office report of May 1997. The contract letting and the phasing variation are fully covered in the 46th report of the Public Accounts Committee published on 17 September 1998.

  Because of the scale, complexity and sensitivity of the NIRS2 system it has been thoroughly tested prior to acceptance by CA. During the first year of operation the system is being introduced through a series of pilots leading to national implementation.

  Contingency plans were developed by both CA and Benefits Agency (BA) in order to accommodate the phased implementation and the attendant difficulties. These plans have been systematically updated to ensure minimum impact on contributors and benefit claimants.

  In June 1998 data were transferred from the NIRS1 system to NIRS2. Andersen Consulting estimate that over four billion data items were successfully transferred before NIRS2 went live. Since then there have been some implementation problems; however, as I said in my letter of 11 September to Members of the House, no data have been lost and no records have been destroyed.

  On 13 July 1998 the majority of the new system was switched on. After three weeks pilot several major business processes were implemented nationally. For example NIRS2 has read over 40 million items from end of year returns supplied by employers, posted over 14 million national insurance contributions for 1997–98, paid out over £630 million in age related rebates to holders of personal pensions and billed and/or collected £230 million in National Insurance contributions from the self employed. The CA is still piloting some key business processes.

  On 14 September 1998 further parts of the system were switched on. Since then there has been a focus on piloting the links into the benefits systems. It is expected that the links to Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit will start nationally in November. Andersen Consulting has submitted a plan that, subject to a satisfactory outcome from the current pilot exercise, enables the links to pensions and long term benefits to be available from December for implementation in early 1999. To reach this milestone problems identified during the pilot running of these functions critical to benefits must be cleared. These include the calculation of benefit entitlement for some cases; these are currently under investigation by Andersen Consulting.

  As a result of the extended transition and pilot period there have been problems for some people making claims to Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Retirement Pension and Widows Benefit.
  605
  Ninety five per cent. of new and repeat claims for JSA are being cleared using information from other DSS systems, from the claimant or by the award of an interim payment. An interim payment is made where the actual contribution position cannot be confirmed and an amount equal to the benefit rate is paid. The remaining 5 per cent. are currently being processed.

  Ninety five per cent. of new claims for Incapacity Benefit are being cleared using information from other DSS systems, and the claimant. The 5 per cent. claims remaining are being processed or have been referred to Income Support. All interim payments and cases referred to Income Support will be reviewed when the NIRS2 system is fully implemented.

  Most new Retirement Pension claims, an estimated 97 per cent. are being cleared using NIRS1 information. Because 1997–98 contributions are not being taken into account most claimants will be receiving initial awards. An initial award is a pension assessment based on the contribution information available at the time, in most cases the initial award of basic pension is likely to be correct or an underpayment of £1.25 a week. All initial awards will be reviewed as soon as the NIRS2 system is fully implemented and their 1997–98 contributions are posted. It is usual practice to make initial awards of benefit while waiting for additional contribution information. However, more cases than usual are being affected and claimants will have to wait longer before their retirement pension is finalised. In the remaining 3 per cent. of claims, where the Benefits Agency has no record of a claimant's contribution history, emergency payments equal to the basic pension rates can be made. All emergency payments will be reviewed when the contribution information is available.

  Where there are unresolved issues relating to contracting out of State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) some pensioners will be underpaid between a penny and a maximum of £100 a week. The Benefits Agency is undertaking clerical calculations in cases of hardship.

  For Widows Benefit it is estimated about 10 per cent. of new claims are being cleared using information available to the Benefits Agency and the remaining 90 per cent. of new claims are being cleared by initial awards or emergency payments. All initial awards and emergency payments will be reviewed when NIRS2 information is available.

  Where benefit payments are delayed as a result of the problems with NIRS2 payment of compensation will be automatically considered within the normal rules of the Department Special Payments Scheme. Where there has been an adverse effect as a result of the NIRS implementation on CA customers, compensation payments are being considered in line with normal procedures.

  Considerable effort has been jointly made by DSS Agencies, private sector, pensions industry and Andersen Consulting to maintain service levels. All the work involved is being taken forward through a co-ordinated plan agreed between the DSS Agencies involved and Andersen Consulting. The key priority is to ensure that full normal operations can resume as soon as possible. It is expected that this will take until the end of this financial year. It will take longer to catch up on all backlogs.
  606
  Within the plan, priority is being given to those aspects of the NIRS2 system, which most directly affect benefit claims. I shall keep the House informed of progress.

  Departmental Toilets
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on access by the public to toilets in buildings under his departmental control. [56095]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Members of the public, including those with disabilities, have access to toilets in most of the Department's buildings. Many buildings also provide access to baby changing facilities.

  There are a number of buildings where there is no current provision. In some it may be possible to provide toilets as part of a programme of upgrade and improvement. In others the layout of the building may make it impossible to provide toilets adjacent to public caller areas.

  Options for improving toilet facilities are being identified as part of the Department's programme of estate strategic planning.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many and what proportion of parents with care will receive less child maintenance under the formula for assessing maintenance proposed in the Green Paper on child maintenance than they do currently, broken down to show those receiving(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) disability working allowance, separately identifying those receiving none of these benefits; [55579]

  (2) how many and what proportion of parents with care will receive less child maintenance under the formula proposed in the Green Paper on child support than they do currently, broken down into those now receiving (a) under £5, (b) £5–£9.99, (c) £10–£19.99, (d) £20–£29.99, (e) £30–£39.99, (f) £40–£49.99, (g) £50–£59.99, (h) £60–£69.99, (i) £70–£79.99, (j) £80–£89.99, (k) £90–£99.99 and (l) £100 and above per week. [55587]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out.

  This table does not include 170,000 parents with care receiving Income Support who will see an overall increase in their income because of the proposed £10 maintenance premium. We estimate also that the new simpler scheme will mean that at least an additional 200,000 parents with care receiving Income Support will be assessed to receive maintenance for the first time.

  Information relating to parents with care with a lower maintenance assessment

  Banded original maintenance assessment (£ per week)

  Caseload

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Under 5.00

  *

  *

  5.00–9.99

  1,000

  1

  10.00–19.99

  4,000

  4

  20.00–29.99

  8,000

  9

  30.00–39.99

  12,000

  13

  607

  Information relating to parents with care with a lower maintenance assessments

  Banded original maintenance assessment (£ per week)

  Caseload

  Proportion (per cent.)

  40.00–49.99

  16,000

  18

  50.00–59.99

  16,000

  18

  60.00–69.99

  13,000

  15

  70.00–79.99

  9,000

  10

  80.00–89.99

  6,000

  7

  90.00–99.99

  2,000

  3

  100 and over

  3,000

  3

  All cases

  90,000

  100

  Notes:

  1.Estimates are based on the 97–98 caseload and current benefit rules and do not take account of, for example, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  2.Caseloads are rounded to the nearest 1,000 and percentages to the nearest percentage point. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3.* denotes caseload of less than 500 or proportion of less than half of 1 per cent.

  Of the 90,000 cases shown in the table 50,000 are receiving Family Credit where the reduction in maintenance could be offset by an increase in benefit. In the remaining 40,000 the parent with care is not in receipt of either Income Support or Family Credit. The number of parents with care receiving Disability Working Allowance is negligible.

  Also, the information in the table relates to assessed liability and not to the amounts of maintenance actually being paid. Cash compliance is currently around 66 per cent. but we estimate that this will increase to 80 per cent. or more under the new scheme. We are also proposing that reductions in maintenance should be phased in, so parents with care with a lower assessment will not necessarily find their maintenance reduced immediately to the new amount.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who are currently waiting for a face-to-face appointment with an official from the Child Support Agency to discuss their case in the West Midlands have been waiting for(a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months and (d) six months and over; [57059]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the current staffing levels at the CSA Dudley Office. [57060]

  Angela Eagle
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. We have set out proposals for radical reform in our Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm3992).

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Ms Joan Walley, dated 3 November 1998:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about face to face appointments and staffing levels in the Child Support Agency.

  The Agency is divided into six front-line Business Units; a Business Unit consists of a Child Support Agency Centre and associated field offices. Information has been provided for the Midlands Business Unit.
  608
  As part of our ongoing commitment to improve significantly the quality of service to our customers, the Agency offers local interviews to both non-resident parents and parents with care. Where a customer requests an interview, and the query cannot be resolved by contacting them by telephone an interview will be arranged.

  I am quite convinced of the need for much increased face to face contact to make our service more responsive to the needs of our customers. By increasing face to face contact we will provide customers with better explanations and improve their compliance and co-operation. Additionally, increased face to face contact should reduce the incidence of fraud.

  We are in the process of changing our organisational structure, and we aim to offer significantly more face to face contact. It is our intention that more interviews will be offered, to more people, at more stages of the process and at more locations. A two month face to face trial has recently commenced involving 17 field offices nationwide with 65 staff dedicated to providing this face to face service.

  The Agency's field offices deal with cases where a local interview is requested either by the parent with care or the non-resident parent. Additionally, field offices deal with cases where the Agency instigates a request for an interview; for example when:

  a Reduced Benefit Direction is being considered

  paternity is disputed

  the Child Support Officer decides that an interview is the best way to progress a case

  Information held on interviews does not differentiate between those requested by customers and those instigated by the Agency. However at 30 September 1998 Midlands Business Unit had approximately 400 interviews waiting to be carried out; in 1997–98 the average number of interviews carried out each month was 489. Information on the number of people currently waiting for an interview is not available, however early results from the face to face trial show that approximately 70 per cent. of interviews are carried out within 6 days of a request being received.

  At 30 September 1998 the Midlands Business Unit's staffing level (whole time equivalent) was 1,220.6; this consists of 812.0 for the Dudley Centre and 408.6 for the associated field offices.

  As part of our reorganisation we are transferring paper processing work from the field to the centres. Consequently the number of staff in the field network will reduce significantly over the next three to four years. However, we will be looking to increase the number of locations where we will carry out interviews; using facilities outside DSS. Field resources will then be focused specifically on improved face to face contact with customers. We expect the availability and amount of local face to face contact to increase significantly over the next year as a result. This is originally the area on which field staff were intended to concentrate at the start of the Agency; paper processing work was undertaken only as a short-term measure to help the Agency deal with the number of applications it received in the early years.

  I hope this is helpful.

WALES

  New Deal
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in(a) Clwyd, South and (b) Wales have signed up to the New Deal. [56583]

  Mr. Hain
  Well over 2,000 firms have signed agreements to offer more than 3,800 jobs in Wales. In the North-East Wales District which includes the constituency of Clwyd, South, more than 200 employers are involved, with over 120 jobs offered to date.

  National Tree Week
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is taking to participate in National Tree Week. [56584]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We do, of course, support tree planting every week of the year, and we are fully committed to increasing the woodland area in Wales. National Tree Week is an excellent initiative and the Forestry Commission will be participating in several planting projects, often enlisting the help of school children.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in securing European structural funds support for Wales. [56585]

  Mr. Michael
  The Office for National Statistics published on 22 October GDP figures for the areas in Wales known by the Eurostat classification NUTS 2. The figures indicate that the West Wales and the Valleys NUTS 2 area should meet the criterion for Objective 1 as currently proposed by the Commission.

  Public Health Action Plan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the public health action plan for Wales. [56587]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the public health action plan for Wales. [56588]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Better Health Better Wales— Strategic Framework was launched on 23 October and sets out the next steps to be taken to develop a medium to long term strategy to improve the health of the population of Wales. It focuses on improving the health and well being of people in Wales through strategies which promote and protect health and reduce inequalities in health through the encouragement of sustainable communities, a healthy lifestyle, and a better environment.

  Secretary of State (Accountability)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the future Welsh Assembly on his accountability to hon. Members. [56589]

  Mr. Michael
  The establishment of the National Assembly for Wales will alter the range of issues for which the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible but he will remain accountable to Parliament for those functions which he retains, notably the promotion of primary legislation. The Government intend to submit evidence to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons for its inquiry into the procedural consequences of devolution shortly.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the state of Welsh agriculture. [56590]
  610
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The current problems in farming bring into sharp focus the need for Welsh agriculture to adapt. Our aim is to create a viable future for agriculture and encourage economic growth in rural Wales.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the(a) economic and (b) social effect of the current crisis in Welsh agriculture. [56594]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Office are currently preparing forecasts for hill farming incomes in 1997–98 as part of the annual review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. It is intended that this information will be made available in a press notice shortly.

  An assessment of incomes for those not fanning in the hills will be made during the next two months and will be published in the New Year.

  I recognise the importance of agriculture to rural Wales. Agriculture is estimated to contribute directly about 8 per cent. to total employment in the less favoured areas (LFA). Agriculture also indirectly supports jobs in other industries; and published studies suggest that in the LFA every 10 full-time jobs in agriculture support approximately a further 4 jobs in related industries.

  Farmers' Assistance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which requests for assistance from the National Farmers Union in Wales he is currently considering for implementation. [56591]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have had a number of meetings with the farming unions in Wales including the NFU. I am engaged in a constructive dialogue with the farmers' leaders and the industry about developing long term strategies for Welsh agriculture so that it can meet the demands of the twenty first century.

  Commission for Local Administration
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the recent report from the Commission for Local Administration in Wales into a planning matter involving Caerphilly borough council; and if he will make a statement. [56592]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I am well aware of the problems highlighted by the Ombudsman's report.

  The White Paper on modernising local government in Wales, which we published in July, announced the Government's intention to introduce a new ethical framework for local councils. This will include clearer codes of conduct for elected members and a far tougher regime in the event that codes are breached. The new arrangements will make it far harder for councillors to claim ignorance of the requirements placed upon them.

  Rural Partnership
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in developing the rural partnership for Wales. [56593]

  Mr. Hain
  The inaugural meeting of the Rural Partnership for Wales will be held on 12 November at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.
  611
  Its membership, which comprises 26 organisations, will bring together a wide range of interests and expertise and be a valuable source of ideas for tackling the many diverse issues affecting rural Wales.

  Referendums (Funding)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence his Department supplied to the Neill committee in respect of funding for referendums. [56595]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to pages 347–357 of volume 2 of the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Neill Report) which contains the full transcript of the oral evidence provided by Welsh Office officials. A copy of the written evidence provided by the Welsh Office is at section 16/404 on the CD-ROM accompanying volume 2.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about farming incomes in Wales.[56596]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Office are currently preparing income forecasts for hill farming incomes in 1997–98 as part of the annual review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. It is intended that this information will be made available in a press notice shortly.

  An assessment of incomes for those not farming in the hills will be made during the next two months and will be published in the New Year.

  Job Losses (Swansea Valley)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the number of job losses in the Swansea valley over the last six months. [56597]

  Mr. Hain
  Some job losses are an inevitable part of the environment in a dynamic economy. However, it is important that jobs which are lost are replaced by new ones. Overall, employment in Wales is continuing to rise.

  In the Swansea travel to work area, manufacturing industry has suffered a net loss of 582 jobs since the beginning of the year. This does not include the 500 new jobs which I recently announced will be created by International Rectifier with the establishment of their manufacturing plant at Penllergaer, Swansea.

  Health Professionals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the pay and conditions of health professionals in Wales. [56599]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have received numerous representations on the pay and conditions of service particularly of nurses. The Pay Review Bodies are currently taking evidence on the pay of NHS staff within their remit and their recommendations will be announced in the New Year. The Government are also considering a revised approach to pay and conditions of service for all NHS staff.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the representations made to him about the reorganisation of NHS trusts in Wales. [56600]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Public consultation on the proposals to reconfigure NHS trusts in Wales ended on 21 September. The comments received are now being taken into account in arriving at decisions which will be announced in due course. A summary of all representations received together with the Reconfiguration Project Teams' and Consultants' independent reports will be placed in the Library of the House when an announcement is made.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chief executive of the New Millennium Experience Company to discuss investment by that company in Wales. [56601]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office officials meet with NMEC officials regularly to discuss progress over the Millennium Experience in Wales. I will be launching NMEC's Learning Experience in Wales on 20 November. I am pleased that NMEC has established an office in Wales.

  LG Semicon
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of the LG Semicon plant at Newport. [56602]

  Mr. Hain
  The semiconductor plant is an important part of the overall LG project at Newport, which currently employs some 1,700 people. We understand that LG Semicon is considering a number of options for the future of the semiconductor plant, in the light of current economic circumstances and commercial discussions.

  Health Services (West Wales)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the restructuring of health services in west Wales. [56603]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Public consultation on the proposals to reconfigure NHS trusts in Wales ended on 21 September. The comments received are now being taken into account in arriving at decisions which will be announced in due course. A summary of all representations received together with the Reconfiguration Project Teams' and Consultants' independent reports will be placed in the Library of the House when an announcement is made.

  Welsh Assembly (Child Care)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the provision of child care facilities in the National Assembly of Wales building. [56604]

  Mr. Michael
  We have received a small number of representations, and in response to the National Assembly Advisory Group's recommendations, my officials are considering the options for providing childcare for the Members and staff of the Assembly.
  613
  In addition, a feasibility study will be carried out, once the Assembly is in session, on the options for providing childcare facilities for visitors to the Assembly, along the lines of a drop-in crèche.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of people on the waiting list for elective surgery for more than six months in health authorities in Wales. [56605]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Central data are only available for residents waiting over 12 months; the latest available figures show that at August '98 there were 9,274 residents waiting over 12 months for inpatient/day case surgery.

  Coalfields Task Force
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that the proposals contained in the coalfields task force report will apply to Wales. [56586]

  Mr. Hain
  We shall be considering, where appropriate, the application of the recommendations to Wales as part of the work of the New Partnership for the Valleys.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the level of(a) current and (b) predicted teacher shortages for the next five years in the (i) primary and (ii) secondary sectors in Wales. [56574]

  Mr. Hain
  Assessments of the demand and supply of teachers are made on an England and Wales basis only. The model used for this assessment does not predict future teacher shortages. Latest data on vacant teacher posts in Wales show that, as at 13 January 1998, there were 105 vacancies for full-time appointments, or appointments of at least one term's duration, in nursery and primary schools and 60 vacancies in secondary schools.

  GDP Statistics
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects an announcement from the Office for National Statistics on GDP levels in the NUTS II areas of Wales. [56581]

  Mr. Michael
  The Office for National Statistics published on 22 October GDP figures for the areas in Wales known by the Eurostat classification NUTS 2. The figures indicate that the West Wales and the Valleys NUTS 2 area should meet the criterion for Objective 1 as currently proposed by the Commission.

TREASURY

  Agriculture (Public Expenditure)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total public expenditure, in current prices, on agriculture in the United Kingdom for each year from 1975 to date; and what are the planned totals, in current prices, for each year covered by the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. [57501]
  614
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: The historical figures for public expenditure on agriculture in the UK can be obtained from "Agriculture in the UK" publications, and the GDP deflator series from the Treasury's deflator table (available in the House of Commons Library). The latest estimate for 1998–99 UK expenditure is £3,466 million. The UK totals for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 have not yet been finalised.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of claiming all the agrimonetary compensation to which British farmers were entitled in the current financial year. [57920]

  Mr. Byers
  The cost to the Exchequer of making use of all agrimonetary compensation would have been £818.5 million.

  Care Packages (VAT)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated additional annual revenue yield following the ruling by Customs and Excise that VAT applies to household chores or errands if they are more than an incidental part of a package of care. [57773]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Negligible. Customs are now reviewing their policy on charity welfare services and consulting interested parties to agree the circumstances in which household chores or errands will be exempt from VAT.

  Saving (Children)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce an equivalent to the former national savings stamps to encourage saving by children. [58256]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: No. National Savings stamps were abolished many years ago following a recommendation from the Committee to Review National Savings (the Page Committee) in June 1973. The stamps were found to be an ineffective way of encouraging small savings. They were also expensive to administer. Re-introduction of stamps or an equivalent scheme is likely to do little to encourage savings and would be costly to the taxpayer. There are many savings schemes designed for children's savings from banks and building societies, and National Savings' Ordinary and Investment accounts and Children's Bonus Bonds are also popular for children's savings. Unlike stamps these offer interest.

  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a more detailed breakdown of the components of expenditure under Scotland, other identifiable expenditure, as shown in table 7.7 General Government Expenditure in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses for 1995–96 and 1996–97; if he will make a statement on the changes between the two years; and if he will provide a corresponding breakdown of other identifiable expenditure, Scotland, for 1997–98. [57578]
  615
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The following table shows a breakdown of identifiable general government expenditure in Scotland, other than that by

  £million

  Expenditure by department

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  2

  130

  The Intervention Board

  2

  74

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food

  —

  56

  Trade, industry, energy, employment and training

  145

  290

  Department for Education and Employment (inc. OFSTED)

  111

  121

  Department of Trade and Industry

  33

  159

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  7

  Office of Telecommunications

  —

  less than 1

  Office of Gas Supply

  —

  less than 1

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  less than 1

  less than 1

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  less than 1

  less than 1

  Transport

  —

  161

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  —

  156

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  —

  5

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  —

  less than 1

  Other environmental services

  —

  27

  Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  —

  27

  Law, order and protective services

  47

  72

  Crown Office

  47

  48

  Home Office

  —

  24

  Culture, media and sport

  —

  7

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  7

  Office of the National Lottery

  —

  less than 1

  Social Security

  8,608

  9,142

  Department of Social Security

  8,608

  9,142

  The figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not comparable in many cases, due to changes in the approach used to collect the data. The coverage of the 1996–97 exercise for apportioning spending by country was wider, with a significantly lower proportion of total expenditure not being allocated. Where departments did not have precise accounting information, they were asked to use appropriate indicators to arrive at an estimate. (For example, allocation of administration costs in the same proportions as the corresponding programme expenditure).

  Figures for identifiable general government expenditure in 1997–98 will be published in the next edition of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA), in March or April 1999.

  Farmers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to public funds of allowing a one-off facility for UK farmers to average their profits for income tax purposes over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [57947]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Currently farmers whose profits fluctuate by more than 25 per cent. can average their farming profits of two consecutive years and attribute half the total to each year. The resulting average profits can themselves be subject to averaging with later years.
  616
  Scottish departments, by broad function and by spending department, for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Together with the various provisions allowing any trading losses to be set against the profits of earlier or later years, this already gives farmers scope to smooth their profits over several years. The additional cost of allowing a one-off averaging over the last five years is difficult to estimate.

  It would be extremely complicated for farmers to prepare, and the Inland Revenue to administer, five year claims, and it would not be possible to focus such a relief on particular sectors of farming.

  The Government are very aware of the difficulties which farmers are facing as a result of the sharp decline in farm incomes. This is why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in close touch with leaders of the farming industry to discuss what can be done to help the industry through this difficult time.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judge Michael Kershaw
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judgments are outstanding in cases heard before Judge Michael Kershaw(a) 18 months, (b) 12 months and (c) nine months ago. [57288]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

HEALTH

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the plans by the World Health Organisation to conduct a study of the health and environmental effects of the use of depleted uranium projectiles in Iraq during the Gulf War; and what assistance it has requested from Her Majesty's Government. [57106]

  Ms Jowell
  We understand the World Health Organisation is considering, with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, deploying a small team to carry out preliminary studies into the incidence rather than the cause of cancer in Iraq and to advise on further action. We have not carried out an assessment of these plans, nor have we been asked to provide assistance.

  Anti-smoking Campaigns (EU Funding)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on European Union funding for campaigns to discourage smoking. [57181]

  Ms Jowell
  The Health Council has called for co-ordinated action to be taken by the Member States and at Community level to encourage the reduction of smoking. It has welcomed and is monitoring progress by the Commission in taking forward action proposed in its Communication of December 1996 on tobacco control. The Council and the European Parliament adopted in 1996 a five year action programme against cancer which includes specific actions to disseminate the best methods of overcoming addiction to smoking. We wholeheartedly support these activities.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the findings contained in the paper by Robert E. Weibel and others published in Paediatrics March 1998 on the links between acute encephalopathy associated with attenuated measles vaccines. [56968]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The paper by Weibel et al describes a group of children with neurological events following measles vaccines. All those cases included were selected through earlier application to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme in the United States. We are advised by the Joint Committees on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that the information in the paper is not evidence that the vaccines caused the claimed outcomes, and is simply a descriptive study without appropriate control populations or avoidance of bias implicit in the case selection process. The JCVI is an independent expert committee which advises the United Kingdom health departments on matters concerning immunisation.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what quantities(a) myelin basic protein and (b) aluminium occurred in pre-1992 measles and MMR vaccine. [56963]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Department has been advised by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control that the techniques involved in the manufacture of measles, mumps and
  618
  rubella (MMR) vaccine have been specifically designed to prevent myelin basic protein from entering at the start of the manufacture and, if there were any, then such presence would subsequently be removed during the manufacture. No aluminium is involved in the manufacture of measles or MMR vaccines.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what brands of MMR vaccine were withdrawn from use in September 1992; and what notice was given to other manufacturers about this withdrawal. [56964]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The supply of Pluserix and Immravax measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, two vaccines which contained Urabe strain mumps vaccines, was discontinued in September 1992. As soon as the Department had clear evidence that there was a significant problem with Urabe mumps vaccines, not occurring with the remaining brand, MMR II which contained Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine, the Department moved quickly to discontinue purchase of the two Urabe strain vaccines. The manufacturers of the MMR II vaccine were advised in September 1992 of the Department's requirements for more vaccine to prevent disruption to the childhood programme.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which medical officer approved the Pluserix and Immuruvax brands of MMR vaccine. [56966]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The decision to grant a licence for any medicinal product is taken by the licensing authority in the light of reports prepared by professional medical, pharmaceutical and scientific staff at the Medicines Control Agency, together with advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines where appropriate.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the years since 1969 in which vaccinations or revised vaccinations were introduced for mumps, measles or rubella. [56973]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Measles immunisation was introduced in 1968; rubella immunisation was introduced in 1970 for girls aged 11–14 years; mumps was introduced as part of the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1988 and a second dose of MMR was introduced in 1996.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Priorix contains the same ingredients, and in the same quantities, as MMR vaccine. [56977]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Priorix is a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The Summary of Product Characteristics contains details of the contents of Priorix, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doses were in standard batches of(a) attenuated measles vaccine and (b) MMR in the period 1986 to 1989. [56978]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: Batches of vaccine vary in the number of doses they contain. Specific information on the number of doses per batch is held by the vaccine manufacturers.

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the findings contained in the paper by Gina Delgiudice-Asch MD and Eric Hollander MD published in CNS Spectrums May 1997 on a review of clinical observations with respect to the possible auto-immune basis of autism, a copy of which has been sent to him. [56970]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The Department is not aware of the status of the publication CNS Spectrums, or of how the articles are peer reviewed before publication.

  Delgiudice-Asch and Hollander describe a number of immunological theories about autism, many of which, as the authors report, are either inconclusive or contradictory.

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the years(a) 1987, (b) 1988 and (c) 1989. [56965]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The membership of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is given each year in the Health and Social Services Yearbook, copies of which are in the Library.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives his Department is currently supporting to reduce the level of alcohol consumption by those aged under 16 years. [57886]

  Ms Jowell
  The Health Education Authority published "A Parent's Guide to Drugs and Alcohol" in June this year. It includes guidance on talking about drugs and alcohol with children of various ages and life stages from primary school age to young people over 16, It also includes basic facts about a range of illegal drugs, gases, glues, aerosols and alcohol.

  The Healthy Schools Initiative, a key component of the public health strategy outlined in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", was launched on 14 May this year. The Initiative aims to build on the concept of the healthy school not just to promote excellence in educational achievement but to foster emotional wellbeing and enable young people to improve their quality of life and that of the wide community.

  Under the initiative, we are funding eight "Health Education Partnerships" pilot schemes. These will include the development of an informed approach to substance misuse including alcohol and smoking.

  A Ministerial Group on Alcopops has been set up to tackle under-age alcohol misuse, its short and long term effects on health, and unacceptable behaviour of our young people in a co-ordinated and effective manner. The Department and other Government departments are represented on the group.

  BSE
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibility for BSE compensation. [57341]

  Ms Jowell
  The responsibility for compensation in relating to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  On the question of the payment of compensation for people who die from new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease the policy of successive Governments has been that questions of negligence are best decided by the Courts and that, other than in cases where negligence is proven, a compensation scheme would not be appropriate.

  Nursing Agencies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent with nursing agencies in 1997 or the latest year for which figures are available. [58028]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest available figures show that in 1996–97 the total national cost for employing agency nurses was £191.3 million.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role for(a) health visitors and (b) school nurses in delivering the objectives set out in the White Paper "The new NHS: Modern, Dependable". [58258]

  Mr. Milburn
  The White Paper's objectives provide for improved public health through an integrated system of care based on partnership and driven by performance. Health visitors and school nurses will play an important role in both developing primary and community health care and in delivering these objectives.

  Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to fund research into the possible connection between the consumption of milk and Crohn's Disease; and if he will make a statement. [57671]

  Ms Jowell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is funding a study of the microbiological quality of raw and pasteurised cows' milk. This study will include examination of samples for the presence of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis which has been suggested as a possible factor in the aetiology of Crohn's disease. The Medical Research Council recently agreed to set up an expert sub-group to steer and monitor the Council's research into various aspects of inflammatory bowel diseases, including Crohn's disease.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Crohn's Disease have been registered during each of the past five years, indicating the age distribution of such cases. [57672]
  621
  Ms Jowell
  There are no national figures on the incidence of Crohn's disease in the United Kingdom; however, data obtained for 20 centres throughout Europe in 1991–1993 indicate that the incidence of Crohn's disease (the rate at which people are diagnosed annually) is approximately 5 per 100,000 of population.

  The number affected at any one time in the UK is about 50 per 100,000 (British Society of Gastroenterology, September 1996).

  Crohn's disease occurs in all age groups although most commonly in young adults.

  Community Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on community care services of including Special Transitional Grant in the revenue support grant settlement. [57776]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: In every year since 1996, the amount of the previous year's special transitional grant has been fully taken into account in the calculation of the revenue support grant settlement. The impact of the settlement on community care services depends on spending decisions by local councils.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The Lord Tordoff on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Global Financial Crisis: Social Policy
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are proposing to take to address the social consequences, especially in Russia and Indonesia, of the current global financial crisis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are responding through the international financial institutions, together with United Nations organisations, to address the deep-seated social consequences of the crisis in Russia, Indonesia and many other countries. In particular, following interventions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development at the 1998 World Bank/IMF annual meetings in October, the World Bank is working on a code of practice for social policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while commending the Government on the efforts that the Chancellor and others are making with regard to the social consequences of the economic crisis, is the Minister aware that not only has the United Kingdom revised its projections for growth downwards from 2 per cent. to 1.25 per cent., but today the government of Japan have announced that the rate of growth expected for the current year has fallen from 1.9 per cent. plus to 1.8 per cent. minus, which suggests a continuing recession in East Asia? Given that the social consequences now include the exclusion from school of hundreds of thousands of young children in East Asia and the gradual breakdown of public health, and in Russia the payment of debt to commercial banks rather than the writing off of wage arrears, will the noble Lord be kind enough to ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the present policies of the International Monetary Fund, which appear to rely on the credit squeeze and very high interest rates? I ask him to look closely at that possibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness is right about the impact on the rest of East Asia of the reduction in the forecast for Japan. We do not underestimate in any way the seriousness of the problem there. In Indonesia, the proportion of the population in poverty, which had gone down to 11 per cent. this year from 57 per cent. in 1970, is starting to rise again. In Russia, GDP has decreased by 10 per cent. in one year and life expectancy is actually decreasing. Those are two very different problems. In Indonesia, the problem is one, fundamentally, of social assistance, which is the responsibility of the World Bank. In Russia, the problem
264
primarily relates to the financial system and needs the co-operation of the IMF. I do not believe that in either case the rigidity of the IMF, which the noble Baroness is alleging, is relevant.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the situation is grave in human terms? In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that by the end of the year 100 million people will be living in poverty, which is four times the level in 1996, and 1.6 million children will have dropped out of primary and junior secondary education. Does the Minister agree that if that urgent problem is to be tackled, not only is it a matter of the World Bank and the IMF getting their act together so that one is not going for deflation and the other for the defeat of world poverty, but it is also a question of trade, and of ensuring more trade credits? Does my noble friend agree that talking about "level playing fields" is not sufficient, because we have to bring poor countries to the position where they have a chance of playing effectively on the playing field?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has confirmed the figures that I gave about poverty in Indonesia. I thank him for that. As to the role of the World Bank and other development bodies, he will know that the World Bank has allocated 17 billion dollars for dealing with social consequences in East Asia and that the Asian Development Bank has an 8.7 billion dollar social assistance and poverty reduction programme. That is in addition to the Community Recovery Programme which has been drawn up by the civil societies in Indonesia.
The problem with Indonesia is that many parts of it are returning to a subsistence economy. I am not sure that increases in trade, valuable though they may be in part of Indonesia, address the whole of the problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many non-governmental organisations—I declare an interest as chairman of Plan International—are actively working in Indonesia? In the UK alone, we are raising £14 million, but world-wide the figure is £150 million, not all of which will be spent in Indonesia. I personally have seen the work in Indonesia. Is the Minister aware that DfID—formerly the ODA—is very good in terms of providing grant support to the NGOs and acts as an agent for moneys given by the British Government to help those people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. I think she is referring to the Community Recovery Programme which I mentioned, which is designed by the NGOs and which covers community based projects for food security, basic social services, income generation and so on. Indeed the DfID has given £850,000 to that programme.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are not all principal financial international institutions moribund on this subject? No mechanism exists whereby at judicial reviews of the WTO social consequences are factored in. What will the Government consider doing about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not understand the noble Viscount's comment. The development committee of the World Bank and the IMF met on 4th October of this year and was given a statement by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the executive governors for those two bodies for the United Kingdom—which concentrated heavily on the social consequences of the problems in these countries. That is what I have been talking about in my responses.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about what the British Government are doing to relieve debt in poor countries, bearing in mind that poverty and social distress, which lead to political instability, also threaten international security? Therefore it is very much in our self-interest to promote the cause of debt relief for poorer countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we have concentrated debt relief on the heavily indebted poorest countries, which does not include either Russia or Indonesia. However, she is right to say that debt relief is important for a wider range of countries. That will form part of the programmes which I have described.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether swap agreements are being considered, for example Russian nuclear weapons in exchange for Russian external debt, which I believe has reached 160 billion dollars?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the solution which the noble Lord has mentioned. If I can learn anything, I shall write to him about it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the proportion of the DfID's budget which ends up in Russia is set to fall, and does he think that is sensible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the budget from year to year can change in a number of ways. What is required in Russia, as I made clear, was fiscal and financial stabilisation rather than direct financial relief. If that is reflected in the DfID's budget, that seems to me the right way to go about it.

Public Sector Housing
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total amount they have committed to public sector housing since taking office, and how was the figure arrived at.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the resources already made available and committed by the Government for all housing capital investment in England by local authorities and registered social landlords between 1997–98 and 2001–02 will total £11.5 billion. Some of the resources made available go towards grants for private sector housing, but these are not separately identifiable for future years. Currently they account for about a quarter of housing capital expenditure by local authorities. This figure excludes expenditure on housing through the Government's regeneration programme, all housing revenue expenditure, and housing capital expenditure by local authorities financed from their own resources.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, but is he aware of the mountain we have to climb to get back on course? Is the Minister aware that in the three years of the Callaghan government over 300,000 public sector houses were built, 80 per cent. of which were built by local authorities, and for that year, 1979, the cost was £4.5 billion in government subsidy? The cost of constructing just over 80,000 houses now would be £13 billion in subsidy, which is well in excess of the sum that has been apportioned to housing now. The Conservative government, by a deliberate act of vandalism in their last year in office, constructed 32,000 houses, of which only 1,600 were council houses. Does not the Minister agree that as a government and a nation we ought to start according housing the same priority as the health service and education if we are to deal with the problem satisfactorily?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the resources which the comprehensive spending review has allocated to housing there will be a substantial increase in the coming few years, partly through the release of capital receipts. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that house building, particularly social housing, declined dramatically over the period of the previous government. Social housing starts in the past few years have averaged about 26,000, as compared with 70,000 in the final years of the Callaghan government, and at one point the figure was 150,000. There has been a change in the pattern of housing. We now look at housing as a whole rather than defining it by form of tenure. We are giving local authorities the flexibility to put resources into all sectors of housing rather than concentrating on one sector.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I believe the Minister gave figures for England. As I believe we still have a

267
United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government are supposed to be responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom, why did he not include the figures for Scotland and Wales?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, most figures that have been mentioned in relation to housing need and house build relate to England. The situation in Wales is similar to that in England in terms of the pattern of housing build. The situation in Scotland is somewhat different in terms of the local authority housing sector strategy. As the noble Lord will know, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive plays a strong role as regards housing in Northern Ireland. That situation is again somewhat different. If the noble Lord wishes, I will provide that information to him in written form.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, there is a widely held belief, which I think the Government share, that providing for the housing need of many groups of people is about more than merely providing a roof over their heads. I refer in particular to elderly people, those with learning difficulties and mental health problems, and families which break up for whatever reasons, sometimes domestic violence. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that much-needed capital projects for such people are not held back because of a lack of revenue funding to support them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a large part of what we are requesting local authorities to do in assessing their own housing need and the need for the conversion and improvement of existing properties, as well as new capital projects in all sectors, relates to the changing social pattern and to those vulnerable groups. However, it is primarily a question of local authorities prioritising on the basis of the social needs within their areas.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how will the Government bring pressure to bear on local authorities to speed up the improvement and turn-around of their stock? Will they consider setting targets? If so, can success be measured by the number of lettings rather than the number of starts?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that the total new access to housing is the key figure. It is not merely a question of starts and completions; it is a matter of conversions and other properties coming on to the housing market which we need to relate to housing need. I agree that lettings form part of that figure. There are a number of measures that can be taken by local authorities to improve their turn-around of stock. The additional resources that the Government are giving to local authorities to improve their stock will be spent partly on improving, and therefore turning round, the poorer local authority housing stock and helping housing associations in that regard.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the deliberate withdrawal, almost in total, of subsidy to local authority housing by the previous government has resulted in the massive deterioration of
268
some estates, which have almost become no-go areas? It will cost an enormous sum to put them into the right condition again.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are many estates around the country where, sadly, the condition of local authority housing has declined. That is partly a reflection of the previous government's lack of priority in that area. There has been an overall decline in the quality of local authority housing stock, as was revealed a recent debate in this House.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government intend to improve 1½ million local authority houses over the next three years. Will that bring the whole local authority housing stock up to scratch?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not recall using that figure. It is up to local authorities whether they put the money into new housing, improving their existing stock or helping the private and housing association sectors. Given the additional resources, local authorities can make a beginning in improving the total housing stock and the availability of housing.

Coal Industry
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to secure the future of the coal industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government inherited an electricity market that was badly distorted and are pursuing a reform programme to create a level playing field for all fuels including coal. In the meantime, the security and diversity of supply provided by coal will be guaranteed by a stricter consents policy on new gas-fired power stations.
We are also working with our European colleagues to minimise the distortions caused by state aid to the coal-mining sector in Europe. In particular, we will seek to ensure that the existing state aid rules are strictly applied. We have already had some success here in the case of graded anthracite.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the recent decision to continue restrictions on the building of gas-fired power stations is very much to be welcomed. However, will my noble friend say when the changes he mentioned in the working of the wholesale electricity supply, commonly known as the pool, are likely to come into operation? They are a matter of some urgency. Is he further aware that the industry needs longer and larger contracts with the generators if it is to be sustained?

269
Finally, does he agree that if there were an increase in manufacturing industry productivity similar to as that in the coal industry, the country would be in a better state?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the new trading arrangements will be completed by April 2000. That is the time we are planning for. We shall depend on the Director-General of Electricity Supply to advise us as to when those arrangements are complete and when consents on the gas-fired industry are no longer necessary. Regarding sustainability, when that point is reached, we shall be able to change the arrangements. I agree that there have been major improvements in productivity. If they continue, they will help the coal industry enormously in obtaining the long-term supply contracts referred to.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if coal is still to be used as a primary fuel in power stations, what steps are the Government taking to assist with the development of fluidised bed combustion to produce better warming, heating, burning and calorific exchange?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are pursuing new technologies in those fields. We are totally supportive of combined heat and power systems, which play a major part in terms of energy efficiency.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we create a level playing field for British coal, we could cut back on the subsidised German coal imports; stop buying French electricity; reduce the 12 to 14 million tonnes of cheap coal imports; reduce open-cast coal-mining; and stop the dash for gas? What has he to say about that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are a number of different categories here. Our aim is to create a market where there can be true competition. Where that does not exist, as in the case of German coal, we are working with our colleagues in Europe to make certain that action is taken to reduce the subsidies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question raised about new coal technologies, will the noble Lord indicate what special assistance or support the Government will provide for the creation of demonstration plants in clean coal technology? Does he agree that the new clean coal processes which are so important for the environment are not being developed sufficiently fast, in spite of demand not only in the UK but also abroad?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a new DTI clean coal research programme is being initiated. It will act as a focus for collaboration with industry and academia. It will enable the UK to maintain and develop its know-how in clean coal technologies. It will also help UK industry to attain a share of the growing market in these new technologies. I was recently in China,
270
where we held meetings with the Chinese government and signed an agreement to enable them to work with British industry on the new technologies.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome the more constructive approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government and look forward to further progress. However, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the remaining British deep-mine industry will continue to be the safest in the world? Will he also confirm that the Government will not shrink from amending the current regulations if that seems desirable?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, our aim is to create a competitive market. Within that, we shall make certain that safety regulations are maintained and amended if necessary.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, even if the Kyoto targets are met, how will the Minister arrest the inevitable rise in emissions consequent upon the eventual retirement of the nuclear power stations by about 2020, and how will coal help the situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the new policy will not affect the UK's capacity to reach its Kyoto target of a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases averaging 12.5 per cent. between 2008 and 2012 compared with emissions in 1990. To the extent that new gas-fired stations eventually come on stream, this will aid the situation and make it easier to reach the targets.
Lord Lofthouse: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the sale of the electricity industry £1 billion was allocated to PowerGen for that company to produce a desulphurisation plant at Ferrybridge power station? That plant has never been produced. What has happened to the £1 billion?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, United Kingdom sulphur emissions are continuing to fall rapidly beyond what our international obligations strictly require. We are encouraging generators to run flue gas desulphurisation stations ahead of non-FGD stations. We have made clear that we believe that all major generators should have at least one FGD station. Eastern has announced plans to fit FGD at West Bourton.

EU Pre-accession States and UK Universities
3.1 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether undergraduate and graduate students from the "5+1" nations negotiating for entry into the European Union and studying at United Kingdom universities pay fees at the European Union rate; and, if not, whether they plan that such students should do so.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, access to higher education in any member state on terms no less favourable than for home students, including fees, forms part of the package of rights and obligations that accompany full membership of the European Union. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate to extend this right to non-member states. However, a total of 11 pre-accession countries are, or soon will be, taking part in the EU's education programmes. One part of Socrates Erasmus allows students from those countries to come to the UK for part of their higher education without paying fees in the UK.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she not aware that at the moment the universities in the United Kingdom are pricing themselves out of the market and that as a result these "5+1" nations are not able to send their students to our universities? Does the Minister agree that that is unfortunate not only for our universities and our students but also for the students of the "5+1" nations who would return, having attended our universities for education, and assist the "5+1" nations, which include the four Visegrad nations and the northern Baltic state of Estonia? Will she approach European Union Ministers in other countries to see whether the system can be changed? If the system cannot be changed, will she increase the number of Chevening Trust scholarships available to these "5+1" nations?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not aware that UK universities are pricing themselves out of the system. More students from the European Union are studying here this year than last and there are many more students from the European Union in the UK than there are British students abroad in the European Union. The British higher education system encourages students from the "5+1" countries to spend part of their time studying in the UK. As I said in my initial Answer, the new arrangements for students from those countries to come here on Erasmus programmes will be very beneficial for them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether "5+1" is a term of art. If so, how does one qualify for entry?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that "5+1" is something of a term of art. The "1" is Cyprus and the "5" are the pre-accession countries of Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. The fifth country is Slovenia. Will the noble Baroness answer the second part of my question, which concerned the Chevening Trust? Many of our ambassadors, including the ambassador to Estonia, Mr. Craddock, is not receiving any funds this year from the Chevening Trust because they have all been used up. Certain students from Estonia are denied access to education in this country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are many good cases for support of students from all over the
272
world through the Chevening scholarship scheme. In considering priorities, we have to look at the former Commonwealth countries and countries in the third world as well as those in central and eastern Europe. I shall convey the noble Earl's comments about the particular needs of the latter group of countries to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 88 as first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
1B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
This is a relatively simple issue concerning the form of proportional representation system for next year's European parliamentary elections. Let me make it clear to your Lordships at the outset that I do not dispute with the Government or the Commons the decision to change our system for the election of MEPs from a first-past-the-post system to a regional list system. That argument is over. What I dispute is the way the regional list system is to be operated.
The United Kingdom is to be divided into large regions, with between four and 11 members in each region, the average being seven or eight. Each party standing in the election will submit a list of those it wishes to put forward for election to the European Parliament. Most importantly, it will put that list forward in its order of preference; that is, in the party's order of preference. On polling day next year the electorate will be asked to vote for the party of their choice—only the party, not the candidate. On the ballot paper will appear the party list as determined by the

273
party, and we are grateful to the Government for that. The individual voter, however, will have no way of influencing that all-important order. After the polls have closed, the total party vote will be determined for the region and a simple mathematical calculation, devised by a Belgian mathematician, Victor d'Hondt, will be used to decide how many seats each party should have. If the Conservative Party is entitled to three seats in a region, numbers one, two and three on the list will be elected. Your Lordships will see that, while it is open to the elector to decide which party to vote for, it is not open to the elector to decide on his or her preferred order within the list. Hence it is a called a closed-list system, and that is the one that the Government favour.
However, it does not have to be a closed list; it can be an open list. With the open list, as proposed in the amendments passed by your Lordships when we last considered the matter, the elector will vote for his or her party by voting for the preferred candidate on the list. There will be no party box; there will be boxes for each of the parties' candidates on the list. After the poll, the party total is achieved by totalling the votes for each of the parties' candidates, the d'Hondt divisor is used, and the number of the seats allocated to each of the parties is achieved in exactly the same way as for a closed list. But now comes the real difference. Again let us assume that the Conservative Party has gained three seats. Instead of the three winners being determined by the party, as in the closed list system, the three winners will be those three people who have achieved the highest votes from that party's electors. In other words, that is a people's choice and not a party's choice.
Your Lordships' amendment would therefore allow the European elections to proceed by proportional representation based on regional lists; but the people, the voters, the supporters at the ballot box of each of the parties, will determine who on the list would go to Brussels to represent them—the people's representatives, not the party's.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his elegant defence of the party's choice and not the people's choice, suggested, the last time we debated this issue, suggested that it was important that the parties should be able to fix the list, essentially so that candidates who may not, for whatever reason, receive the endorsement of that party's voters can be elected. That is not so much trusting the people as telling the people that the party knows best.
Yet even in an open list system the party machine has significant input, if that brings comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The party will be able to decide who will be on the list and the order in which their names shall appear on the ballot paper. I suggest that both lists give enough advantages to the party's favoured sons and daughters to satisfy even the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Your Lordships will have read the well-argued Commons reasons:
"The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable".
274
They did not burn too much midnight oil thinking up that one. Is it not interesting that the Government think that the open list is undesirable?—because, in reality, that is what this means. They are almost alone in thinking that. I pointed out on the last occasion when we discussed this issue what the Electoral Reform Society had had to say in a press release:
"We are all for proportional representation and we give the Government credit for having moved so quickly in introducing PR for European elections. But there is more to electoral reform than PR. We want to see voters being able to exercise more choice, and certainly not less choice, over who their MEPs will be. Such a system"—
that is, the closed list—
"is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1320.]
According to the Electoral Reform Society—which in every other way is delighted with the Government—the closed list system chosen is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy.
In order to demonstrate that this is not a Conservative-inspired idea but has a broad base of support from those people who are particularly interested in electoral reform, Charter 88 said this:
"We believe that voters should be able to choose between candidates of the same party. We are especially concerned that voters are not given the impression that the new voting system is being introduced for party political benefit".
Perish the thought!
"We are concerned that if the Government insist on the use of closed lists voters may be left with the impression that the voting system has been manipulated for party political aims".—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1320.]
Since the Commons discussed our amendments on these matters on 27th October and decided, in their elegant words, that the open list was undesirable, we have had the report of the Jenkins Commission, which was described by no less a person than the Prime Minister as making a well argued and powerful case for the system that it recommends. We have been over these issues a number of times, but I would like to read some of the words written by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, with regard to the list system which he proposes as the top-up part of the new system that the report recommends for the other place.
The list top-up system is very akin to the regional system that we are now looking at for the European Parliament. I will read it to your Lordships because the Commons should be allowed to consider this weighty addition to the issue. If they do not listen to me—and I do not particularly expect them to—if they are not too good at listening to your Lordships, if they do not seem to want to listen to the Electoral Reform Society or to Charter 88, they should consider what the commission set up by the Prime Minister has to say.
Paragraph 138 says this:
"Under a reform system it is crucial that the voters' right to express their view of individual candidates should be at least maintained and preferably enhanced. First past the post does retain the right, theoretical in most cases but occasionally practical as the last election showed, to get rid of a deeply distasteful candidate even in a nominally safe seat".

275
I suspect it is talking about Tatton.
"It would be a count against a new system if any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate. This is the essence of the case for open as opposed to closed lists for Top-up members".
It is also the essence of the case for the open as opposed to the closed list in the regional list system proposed for Europe.
In paragraph 139, the report states:
"Nevertheless it remains essential that the elector should have two rights; first, to bolt the party ticket completely with his or her second vote, in other words to vote for a candidate of one party for the constituency and then to cast his or her vote in a different direction for the Top-up representative or representatives".
This is particularly applicable to the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and also used for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.
"Without this right"—
the right to vote differently—
"the new system would not fulfil the objective of freeing the voter from the prison of having to suffer an unwanted candidate for the constituency in order to get a desired government. Second, however, it is equally desirable"—
and this is the real point—
"that the voter should be able to discriminate between the candidate put forward for the list by the party for which he or she wishes to cast the second vote. Only if this is so does the Commission feel that it will have sufficiently discharged its third requirement of providing for an extension of voters' choice".
There is no voters' choice beyond choosing the party in the system proposed for the European parliament. We should take this opportunity of enlarging that voters' choice and moving to the open list. In the light of the Jenkins Commission report, which has come to hand since the 27th October, I invite your Lordships to invite the other place to think again. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us whether it is the view of the official Opposition that they support the Jenkins Commission report?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have been over all the ground of PR before. I did not bother to say it, but the noble Lord knows that on each previous occasion I have made it perfectly clear that we prefer first-past-the-post.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have studied the debate in the House of Commons very carefully. I think we at least owe that to our colleagues in the Commons, who have unhappily disagreed with our amendments. I have studied very carefully what the Home Secretary had to say to see whether I could discern there an additional reason or argument which we have not previously met and which might justify us changing our minds. I genuinely regret to say that I could find no such new argument of the case.
276
Self-evidently, it is surely better to have an open system and not to give so much extra power to the party managers. It is no longer the electors choosing their MP or MEP; it is a selectorate of a small, anonymous group of party officials; a selectorate which decides who are to be the MEPs of the future. It really is not good enough. It does not conform to the standards of democracy which we expect from the British parliament.
We have discussed the Finnish system before. I looked particularly again at that. It is very difficult, quite frankly, to find any reason at all why the electorate should not be given a list of candidates and be entirely free to choose from it. There is no disadvantage to that system, although there is one possible anomaly.
Let us imagine a seven member regional list and a situation in which the fourth successful candidate has slightly fewer votes than the fourth unsuccessful candidate in the party which has been allocated one seat fewer because of the proportional system. It is difficult to express this situation as clearly as one would like, but it is just possible that because of the allocation under the proportional system a party's last successful member could have fewer votes than the last unsuccessful candidate in the party that had been allocated one seat fewer. However, if that is an anomaly, it is one that arises straight out of the proportional system. Anyone who approves of the regional system and of PR would not object to that. So no serious objection could possibly be sustained on the basis of a remotely possible anomaly.
There are two other considerations that have weighed heavily with me in deciding my continued resistance to what is being proposed. One is how this House voted last time. I asked the Library to look at the composition of the vote and, being a good party man, I looked carefully to see whether the majority was not composed of perhaps ultra-critical Conservative Peers. I was reassured on that point because the analysis showed clearly that the whole of the majority—the extra 25 votes in favour of the amendment in the 165 to 140 result—was accounted for by Cross-Bench Peers. The Cross-Benchers voted overwhelmingly in favour of the rejection of the Government's proposal. That is important because, while I hope and believe that noble Lords who are members of the two main political parties are able on many occasions to consider matters dispassionately, Cross-Benchers have a special role in this respect. They are above suspicion. If the Cross-Benchers had not voted, the Government would have got their way. But they voted and the Government did not get their way.
I have a third and final point. Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome calls for elections to the European Parliament by a uniform procedure. That uniform procedure has not been put into place, largely, I suspect, because the British system has been, as it were, so distant from the practices of our Continental neighbours. If we were to go forward now with a list system of this kind I am quite sure that there would be an amendment to the treaty introducing and enacting a uniform procedure. Why does that matter? It matters because it blocks off any possibility that, if experience shows this

277
system to be a real disaster, we could change it. We could not. We could change it only by a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. That is not on, and we know it.
Therefore, for those three reasons, I strongly urge the House, despite the difficulties of the Upper House having to, as it were, impose itself upon the Commons, to vote against the change that has been proposed. We would still be doing our duty. We are well within our year. If the Commons cannot bring themselves to consider the matter yet again, with the additional material supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, which was quoted to us, we will probably have to accept the inevitable. But I hope that they will consider the matter again and I shall certainly therefore vote against the change that has been proposed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think it is important to correct him on one fact. The Commons will not get the chance to think again. They will either have to produce an amendment in lieu or we lose the Bill.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for his indulgence. Further to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I hope the House has it clearly in mind that it would be open to another place to amend our amendment. Therefore, this need not necessarily be the end of the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am awfully sorry but I think we have to get this absolutely correct. The Commons have to amend the amendment if we send it back. If they insist on it again, we lose the Bill. I was just correcting what my noble friend said. He said that the Commons had the chance to think again and to insist on it again. They cannot insist on it again. They have to produce an amendment in lieu.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when this matter came before your Lordships' House before, I voted in favour of the open list system. I voted in favour of this amendment. I did so against the three-line Whip of my party but I did so in the knowledge that I was voting in the way that I had urged everyone else to vote and to argue since I joined my party in 1949 and the way that my party thinks the thing should be. The Commons have sent this back to us again. We sent it to them with the request that they think again. One might charitably suggest that they have possibly thought again, although there is not much sign of it. They have sent it back to us. At this moment I think we have reached a stage when if we want the Bill to go forward, as I do—and as I think most of your Lordships do—we have to swallow our pride and accept the situation. I am therefore going to change my vote. However, I am not going to do it without a protest.
The protest is not for once in my life that I cast any aspersions on the motives of the Conservative Party, as I know some of my colleagues do. I do not know what its motives are and I am prepared to give it the benefit
278
of the doubt. I protest extremely strongly about the way the Government have behaved. The Labour Party regards itself as New Labour and regards itself as having shed the bad traditions of the past. What it is putting forward now—party before people—is the old, bad tradition, the Stalinist tradition, if you like, of Islington, Lambeth and the great Labour councils of the northern cities. It should be absolutely ashamed of itself. It is not New Labour at all. It is the worst of old Labour. The only redeeming feature seems to be that some people, including the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and Ken Coates, the Member of the European Parliament, recognise the wrongness of what the Government are doing. With great regret therefore I shall vote against this amendment in the hope that the Labour Party and the Government will never go along this line again.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, one is often surprised, but never for long, at the capacity of Liberal Democrats to turn somersaults in your Lordships' House. This example will, I believe, go down as one of the most striking. Coming as one does from the groves of Academe, one is also impressed by the extraordinary political innocence of this House including members of my own party. They still appear to cherish the belief that the present Government are interested in the promotion of democracy in the sense that the voters should have some say in who represents them. We are discussing one example of their failure in this respect. However, since we have discussed it we have seen another. Here is Her Majesty's Government devoting enormous energy to parachuting into South Wales a candidate for the leadership of the Welsh assembly who clearly is not the first choice—or even a choice—of most active members of the Labour Party in Wales. One comes to a point where one wonders whether there is any need for elected institutions at all. Could not this country's policies and the people who carry them out be decided quite rapidly by Mr. Alastair Campbell or Mr. Mulgan, neither of whom has ever been elected to anything so far as I am aware? Why do we pretend that we live in a democracy when we have a government who repudiate the very idea of it?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the arguments for proportional representation in elections to the European Parliament are overwhelming. We believe that a delegation to the European Parliament from any country which is a member of the European Union should reflect the broad balance of the political views of the voters in that country. A first-past-the-post system totally fails to do that. Labour is now grossly over-represented in the Parliament at Strasbourg, and the Conservatives were equally grossly over-represented in some earlier elections. Our supporters have been consistently under-represented, as were those who voted for the Green Party in 1989. We therefore strongly support proportional representation for the European Parliament.
The question is: what kind of proportional representation? As we have always made clear, we prefer the single transferable vote to any form of list system. STV happens in Northern Ireland without any

279
obvious difficulties or problems. Within the list system we prefer open to closed lists. My noble friend Lord Russell made a powerful speech at Third Reading of this Bill in support of open lists even in defiance of his party's Whip. My noble friend is not able to be here today. I am glad to be able to reassure the House that the rumours that he is bound, gagged and locked into a cupboard in the Liberal Democrat Whips' Office are untrue.
But no voting system is perfect and there are drawbacks as well as advantages in open lists as compared with closed ones. This is particularly true of the Finnish system proposed by the amendments we are debating today. The Finnish system does not allow voters to select a party list in preference to individual candidates as many no doubt would wish to do. One sees that happening in the US where many people choose to vote for the Democrat or Republican list as opposed to an individual candidate for the various offices. Indeed, the opportunity to vote for a party list as opposed to individual candidates was recommended by the Jenkins Commission. Therefore, the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is not that which has been recommended by the Jenkins Commission.
I shall not go into the merits of the different list systems because that is not the real issue today. I believe that I speak for almost all Members of my party both in your Lordships' House and in the other place in saying that the crucial issue is that the next European elections should be conducted under proportional representation. That is why my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has very frankly explained to noble Lords that despite his very strong preference for the open list system he proposes to vote with the Government.
Compared with the importance of deciding that the next election should be conducted by proportional representation, the question of whether there should be open or closed lists, however important, is still an issue of secondary significance. It has already been fully argued. I remind noble Lords that on 24th June the Liberal Democrats proposed and voted for an amendment to substitute open for closed lists. On that occasion the Conservative Front Bench did not support us, although a number of individual Conservative Peers did.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to mislead the House. On that occasion the Motion was for a variation of the open list system called the Belgian list system which is quite different from a properly open list system.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, of course it is a different system but it is one that in many ways is preferable because it provides the opportunity, as the Jenkins Commission recommended, for a voter who prefers to do so to vote for the party list. I suspect that a substantial majority of voters would wish to do that. As a result, although a number of individual Conservative Peers voted with us, the amendment was lost by 16 votes.
Following that vote we on these Benches reluctantly accepted the Government's decision to go for a closed list system. We therefore supported the Government in
280
voting against these amendments both at Third Reading in your Lordships' House and in the debate on the Lords amendments in another place. But the issue in the debate today is not only about the comparative methods of voting or proportional representation itself; it is also about our constitution. The Conservative Party won quite properly a tactical victory at Third Reading. But what is it playing at by pursuing it? There are two possibilities. One is that the leadership of the Conservative Party intends to block the Bill if the Government do not give way. The second possibility is that the Front Bench is bluffing and will ultimately give way. If the first is the intention, the consequences of deadlock over the Bill will be chaos. The Parliament Act procedure could not operate in time for the 1999 European elections. We would have to go back, a mere seven months before those elections, to the old constituencies and first-past-the-post.
To frustrate the Bill would, frankly, cause a constitutional crisis. It is clear that if the Conservatives carry the Division today they will do so only by relying on the votes of hereditary Peers. To use hereditary Peers to block a government measure would be close to an abuse of the constitution. I do not believe that the public would stand for it. There are occasions when your Lordships' House should stand up to the Government. We did so in this House on the issue of fourth year tuition fees at Scottish universities in July. That was an issue where noble Lords on all sides of the House felt that there was a real and serious injustice being done to a section of the student population. The amendment was carried by a large majority and would have been passed even without the support of the hereditary Peers. An eventual compromise was reached. But the situation on this Bill is entirely different from that on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill.
It is plain that the Conservative Party does not care a fig for open lists. The motive for moving the amendment on Third Reading and insisting on it today is not to improve the Bill but to embarrass the Government. The Jenkins Report is just an excuse. Up to a point, that is a legitimate part of the political process. From time to time, we ourselves have sought to embarrass both the present Government and their predecessors. But a House to which none of us has been elected and in which many have inherited their seats cannot carry that game too far.
If the Conservative Party is serious in insisting on these amendments they risk involving what would likely be the most serious constitutional crises for decades. If they are bluffing they are wasting our time by raising once again an issue which has already been adequately debated.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, informed the House that the single transferable vote, was the preferred and long held option of his party. I remind the House that in Committee the Liberal Democrats were given the opportunity to vote for the single transferable vote, but voted against it.

281
The noble Lord also informed the House that the Liberal Democrats prefer an open list system to a closed list system. Again, they were given the opportunity to vote for an open list system on Third Reading, but voted against it.
The moral is clear. The Liberal Democrats, for all the high flown phrases they have uttered over the years about their principles, are more interested in gaining seats. I have no quarrel with that. It becomes just a bit rich when we in other parties who are often accused of being grubby politicians discover that those who claim to have wonderful principles are similarly grubby.
It is not my intention to delay the House for long. I do not intend to go over any of the systems which are possible and probable. We have been through them during the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. The Commons' reason for disagreeing with the amendment is that it would result in an undesirable voting system. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out the irony in that. Of course, there is some truth in the Government's reason considering that we have at stake 11 seats in the south of England, 10 seats in Greater London and 10 seats in the north west. The result would be a wieldy list, as the Minister has explained during our debates.
The difficulty is that the open list which this House has proposed is far superior to the awful closed list, centrally selected list, which the Government are offering to Parliament and to the country.
I read with great interest the debates in another place on 27th October when they considered our amendment. I have known the Home Secretary for many years. I have worked with him closely and served for three years on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. I have the greatest respect for him, for many of the pamphlets that he has written and for his work as Home Secretary. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend will not be too upset if I say that his speech of 27th October was not one of his most profound.
Indeed, one could be forgiven if, on reading the speech, one thought one detected frivolity. He made one or two awful jokes. At col. 164 of the Official Report, Commons, he informed the House that he understood that "d'Hondt" meant "dog" in Flemish and stated that we were being dogged by the d'Hondt divisors. That was one of the better jokes that he cracked on that occasion!
It is obvious from the interventions from the Labour Benches that day that there was a considerable degree of disquiet and hostility among Labour Members about the Government's proposal. Apart from Home Office Ministers, not a single Labour MP or Member of this House has spoken in favour of the Government's proposals. Indeed, every Labour MP who has spoken to me on the subject has made it clear that they are opposed not only to the closed list but to the Labour Party's method of selecting the candidates.
I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to pursue that issue at this stage because this House can do nothing about the Labour Party's method of selecting its
282
candidates. However, I must say that I thought at times the Home Secretary was a little cynical about the measures he was proposing. I doubt whether his heart was entirely in it. In an amazing reply to an intervention at col. 172, he stated:
"With an open list, it would be possible for someone to be elected who did not have the unanimous support of the politburo of the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrat party".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/98; col. 172.]
His choice of the word "politburo" was significant on that occasion. I believe that it should be taken as a warning to all Members of the Labour Party that the principle of one member one vote for the selection of candidates, for which we struggled for many years, may now be under threat from people within the party who perhaps are not satisfied with the quality of candidates which one member one vote tends to produce. The party apparatchiks are anxious to control the system. They are anxious to choose the candidates and ensure that only those who reflect the official line at all times will be elected.
At Third Reading, when I voted for the amendment, I asked rhetorically whether this is a revising Chamber. I went on to say:
"An argument is being presented in relation to one aspect of the Bill. It is not an instruction to the House of Commons that it has to accept anything from the House of Lords; it is an opportunity for it to have second thoughts about this particular aspect".—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1322.]
The Commons has considered the matter again—or at least the Home Secretary has considered the matter again—and has declined to accept the amendment. That is their absolute right. As someone who served for almost 24 years in the other place, in no circumstances shall I challenge the Commons' right in that respect. I fear for the future and will continue to fight for one member one vote within my party. I will not tonight vote for the Opposition amendment; I shall respect the Commons' decision. However, I must make it clear that I will not, indeed I could not, vote in the Government Lobby on this occasion.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am a Life Peer not a hereditary Peer. My last experience of the closed vote was in the Soviet Union. There it worked admirably, in favour of the Politburo's wishes, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said. It usually had a turn out of 101 or 102 per cent. I shall be interested to see whether that is the result in this case.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before making my few remarks I wish to point out that I have been chosen as number one in my party's list in the north-west. I am also a hereditary Peer. I wish to reiterate some remarks that I made on a previous occasion during the passage of the Bill and tell your Lordships that I have received conflicting advice as to whether I am allowed to vote. The advice I have received unequivocally from the registrar is that I am allowed to vote.
It seems to me that the issue is simple. The closed list is more illiberal than the open list. In changing the electoral system, we should move towards a liberal system rather than an illiberal system. It is right and

283
proper for the electorate to decide, as much as it can decide in those circumstances, to vote against people like me whom the party has put at the top of the list. For that reason, it is right and proper that we should press on and say that we still feel that an open rather than a closed list system is in the best interests of the people of this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. In a sense, I should like to reply to the wholly remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which performed the very type of somersault anticipated by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
To suggest that open and closed lists are matters of subsidiary importance when in fact they are the most important matters in this debate is a most curious contention. Secondly, to suggest that if we insist, this Bill will frustrate the will of government and in some way it must inevitably be lost is not so. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained already, if this goes to another place, as I understand the procedure it is open to another place to send back a reasoned amendment.
Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has not appreciated that we have a certain function to perform; that is, to provide some measure of constitutional protection and safeguard, in this case, for the MEP electorate in Great Britain. The authority for that function, if the noble Lord cares to look it up, is to be found in paragraph 12 of the report of the review committee chaired by Lord Home of the Hirsel on the future of the House of Lords.
We are here to perform a function. I would have suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we are here to perform it beyond the confines of strict political allegiance. We are here to perform it according to our conscience. It is the people's choice against a party choice. It is as simple as that. It would be a shame if your Lordships, in those circumstances, did not treat it as a question of principle and insist upon this amendment.
We all know about the Burghers of Calais with the rope in the hand ready for the neck. As constituted, your Lordships' House has a duty to perform. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby and insist.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on Third Reading I voted for this group of amendments. I am pleasantly surprised that the Opposition are doing their duty today by seeking to insist on their amendment because it is perfectly in order and, indeed, highly desirable that they should do so. If we vote on this matter, unlike my noble friend Lord Evans, I shall vote to insist on the amendment. I shall be completely and utterly consistent because I believe that this House not only has the right, but the duty to put right legislation which it believes is wrong.
The legislation which was brought forward by new Labour and the new Labour Government—my own Government—was fundamentally flawed and completely wrong. Had it been brought forward by a Conservative government, I feel absolutely sure that it would have been resisted right up to the hilt by my Front Bench and by the Labour Party throughout.
284
What we do in opposition, we should do in government. That means that the Labour Government should not have thought of bringing forward such a system as this because it is undemocratic and breaks the link between the electors and the elected. That is fundamental to democracy and fundamental to the democracy of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that this is not a matter of pride. Of course it is not a matter of pride. It is a constitutional matter. I am not proud that I shall vote against my own Government but I believe that I have a duty to do so because they are doing something wrong.
I should say also to noble Lords that this matter is just as important as, if not more important than, some of the issues on which your Lordships' House has insisted upon its amendments; for example, in the matter of education, which I supported. I remind noble Lords that the last time a constitutional issue like this was brought forward was in relation to the GLC Bill when the then Tory government sought to dismiss the GLC before it had run its course. This House then said that that was unconstitutional and was against the best interests of good government in this country. On that issue, the House of Lords insisted on its amendment; it was right to do so; and I believe that it would be right to do so again today. Because of that, although it will be a matter of great regret to me, I shall vote in the Opposition Lobby.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word as an hereditary Peer, of whom there are many present. I believe that everybody in this Chamber—life Peers, hereditary Peers, Bishops and Liberal Democrats—should vote according to their conscience. We are all here to try to do our duty to our Queen, to our country and our people. As long as we are here, we should continue to do so.
I have been very much convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and my noble friend Lord Mackay have said. I also believe that that is what we should do. I voted yesterday with the Government because I believed that they were right. Today, I shall vote against them.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, O Absalom, O Absalom, my son, how are the mighty fallen! The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, put forward as his central platform that it is the people's choice, not the party's choice. That would not by any chance have been the same noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who spoke so elegantly—I use his word—and powerfully, although not persuasively, in favour of your Lordships' present arrangements.
The words have been used, "a closed, centrally-selected list". Some of your Lordships have experience of another place. All were then elected by the grateful multitudes on a closed, centrally-selected list.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hear the words "no" and "nonsense". If I have to explain that we do not have a primary system of election for the Commons in this country, I am rather labouring in vain.
When I hear the words "democratic accountability" and "the people's choice, not the party's choice" in your Lordships' House, I sympathise with the late Marshal Goering who, when he heard the word "culture", felt tempted to reach for his revolver.
The fact is that we are offering a proportional system for the European elections, as we offered it in the context of the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament elections, on the basis that the outcome will be fairer to smaller parties. That has been done quite deliberately in the context of Wales. The Conservative Party had 20 per cent. of the vote in the general election with no seats. Under the proportional system, which your Lordships have accepted and adopted for the Welsh assembly, 20 per cent. of the votes will produce 20 per cent. successful candidates in Wales. Is the Welsh system—I cannot quite remember at present—an open or closed system? As noble Lords have accepted, it is a closed system. So if I hear again the word "consistency", I sometimes raise a question in my own mind.
It is important for me to put the matter as neutrally as I can. What my noble friend Lord Carter said by way of observation about possible outcomes is correct. There is no prospect of a Commons insisting on this amendment. We are therefore coming to a crunch. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to that extent; and it is as well, I think—I say this respectfully—that we recognise that.
It is not right to say that this would be an unusual system. If we adopt the system the Government have proposed, which has been discussed at length on three earlier occasions, 70 per cent. of our colleagues in Europe will vote on the same system. It is wrong of course to choose selective quotations from the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I see the noble Lord in his place. Perhaps I may look at paragraph 95; I should not wish the quotation to be uniquely selective. The noble Lord speaks of the kind of breakfast menu one can get in certain parts of the United States. By the time the waiter has come to the end of the list, one has forgotten what was on the menu. The noble Lord states:
"In voting rather than in breakfast terms exasperation may discourage going to the polls at all and randomness lead to the casting of perverse or at least meaningless votes. Some people want to be able to choose between candidates of the same party, but many are interested only in voting for parties, and would not appreciate being forced into choosing between candidates of the same party about each of whom they know little".
It is trite but nevertheless true and worth recalling that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, were devoted to the Westminster system of voting, which is utterly and completely different in concept, construction and outcome from the systems that we are presently discussing. The constituencies will be very large. This amendment will not alter that. In the south-eastern
286
region there may be as many as 40 or 50 candidates. This amendment will not alter that. It is parties in a parliamentary democracy, or in any democratic context, which bring forward candidates; and the parties want to bring forward their candidates as they wish to bring forward their slate of policies at Blackpool. The voter then has the opportunity for decision in exactly the same way as he or she has the opportunity for decision now: Do you wish the candidate; and do you wish the slate of policies? You come to your own conclusions.
It is a fact—I do not apologise for repeating it—that women and ethnic minorities are significantly disadvantaged in all areas of our national life, not least in parliamentary representation. It is a legitimate desire, I respectfully contend to your Lordships, for a party to want to put women, or people from ethnic minorities, at the top of the list: to look for people with particular expertise and offer them—I repeat the phrase "offer them"—to the voters.
The debate has ranged quite far. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff complained about people not being elected and referred to Mr. Alun Michael, an MP for Cardiff West and a Welsh speaker, and who has spent much of his political life pressing the case for Welsh devolution. I do not require any lessons on that.
We have discussed this matter. People speak about duty, and principles. Different people have different views, quite reasonably and legitimately in a diverse society, about where duty lies. People also have views which differ about the value of a democratically elected assembly as opposed to one which is not elected by anyone.
The last word I offer is this. We asked the Commons to think again. Chaos will result if this Bill is lost. I do not put that by way of exaggeration, but by way of quotation. Mr. Robert Syms, a Member of the Conservative Party in another place said that we are coming to the end of a Session: to implement change at this stage would cause chaos and difficulty. Another place considered this matter. Whatever the intellectual, political or thematic content of their discussions is not a matter for me to comment on; others have been rather disparaging. What I say is that they were elected and we were not. When the Commons had considered these matters, it came to this conclusion after a full debate. It voted to overturn your Lordships' views by 338 to 131—an elected majority of 207.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I think that my memory does not deceive me when I say that the Government Front Bench found no supporting speaker from behind it, and had to rely—as is sometimes the case—on support from the Liberal Democrats.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, used most of the arguments he has used previously. I believed that I had countered his argument about party advantage by suggesting that even the open list system gives the party, I should have thought, sufficient advantage, even for the noble Lord. But I think his tactic about the 20 per cent. Conservative vote in Wales is a total diversion. The

287
Welsh Conservative Party will gain the same number of seats whether it is the open or closed list. The point at issue will be whether the Welsh Conservative Party or the Conservative electorate in Wales determines who is returned from the list. That is the important point.
As regards the argument that the majority of our friends in Europe use the closed list, that may be so in terms of the number of electorate. But it is a more finely balanced issue as regards the number of countries. The Germans, the Spanish, the French, the Greeks and the Portuguese have a closed list, but Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Ireland have different systems. However, they are all systems in which the order of the names may be changed by casting personal votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, encapsulated the whole issue in a phrase which I regretted that I had not thought of myself: not the electorate, but the "selectorate". That is exactly what the closed list does. It is a "selectorate". had not intended to make any reference to the speeches in another place, in part out of respect for the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, has tempted me. Not only did I read the Home Secretary's speech, but I listened to it. He was more intent on ridiculing the PR system than in defending the closed list against the open list system. However, perhaps I may say this to the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Goodhart. I have always made it clear that I stand four square for first-past-the-post. I have never disguised that fact. So I take badly from them the fact that they think I am doing something underhand. I have always made the position clear. However, if we are to move to a PR system—and I made clear in my original remarks that I accepted that the argument was over in that regard so far as concerns Europe—then at least we should obey the two objectives of PR which I outlined: first, proportionality; and, secondly, voter choice.
I conclude by reference to my noble friend Lord Inglewood. My noble friend has more to gain from a continuation of the closed list than any Member of your Lordships' House. He is on the closed list in the number one position in an area where the Conservative Party is guaranteed to gain three seats. My noble friend could quite simply sit back—he will not do so because he is not like that—and wait for the seat to be delivered. He does not have to do a hand's turn. I do not think it is a wise system, and nor does my noble friend. He believes the Conservative electorate in his region ought to have some say as to which of the three or four Conservative Members are returned.
My last point concerns the position between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. As I understand it, if we send this Bill back the other place will be able to amend my amendment and return the Bill to us for our further consideration. So the cataclysmic end is not inevitable. The Government will have the option of amending. They will have another option also. They will have the option of accepting the open list and of changing next year's European elections from being a vote for one of the party's choice to a vote for one of the people's choice.
288
We have listened to the debate. I am going to insist and ask for your Lordships' opinion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his usual courtesy. It is theoretically possible that an amendment might be produced. But, given the shade of difference between these two positions, what conceivable workable amendment could be produced?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for a fee and in private I might be prepared to advise the Government. But if the Government do not have enough ingenuity to come up with an amendment, I despair for them. If they do not have enough ingenuity, they can always fall back on accepting the open list system.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 221; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carrick, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chadlington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Chesham, L.

Annaly, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clarke of Kempston, L.

Arran, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cockfield. L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Coleridge. L.

Attlee, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Balfour, E.

Craigavon, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Cranborne, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cross, V.

Bell, L.

Cuckney, L.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Belstead, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Berners, B.

Dartmouth, E.

Bethell, L.

Davidson, V.

Biddulph, L.

De Freyne, L.

Biffen, L.

Denbigh, E.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bowness, L.

Downshire, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brentford, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridges, L.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Exmouth, V.

Bristol, Bp.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Forbes, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Gage, V.

Burns, L.

Gainford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Byron, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

289

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Munster, E.

Glentoran, L.

Newall, L.

Hambro, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Northbourne, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Northesk, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Norton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Hayter, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Henley, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Holderness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hood, V.

Palmer, L.

Hooper, B.

Palumbo, L.

Hothfield, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Pender, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ilchester, E.

Phillimore, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pike, B.

Iveagh, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Jeger, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Jopling, L.

Reay, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Rees, L.

Keyes, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rowallan, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Saatchi, L.

Kintore, E.

St Davids, V.

Kitchener, E.

Sandwich, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Savile, L.

Knollys, V.

Seccombe, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Selborne, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, L.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Sharples, B.

Layton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Limerick, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Slim, V.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Luke, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McConnell, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Middleton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Trenchard, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Waddington, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Warnock, B.

Moran, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Amos, B.

Addington, L.

Annan, L.

Ahmed, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Alli, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

290

Avebury, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bach, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Barnett, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bath, M.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

Ludford, B.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Bragg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Burlison, L.

Maddock, B.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Molloy, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies, L.

Newby, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dholakia, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falkland, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Fitt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Grantchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thurso, V.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Uddin, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warner, L.

Hughes, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacobs, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
4.23 p.m.
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either—

(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or

(b) an independent candidate.

(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
2A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
2B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
3 Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
3B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
4 Page 2, line 18, at end insert (",following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
4A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
4B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A, 3A and 4A.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A, 3A and 4A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with reasons.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
4.24 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Constitution]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment that would require the Secretary of State to consult the Minister of Agriculture before he appoints members to a regional development agency. There are a number of reasons why the Secretary of State should do this. First, the Bill states that an RDA's purposes:
"apply as much in relation to the rural parts of its area as in relation to its non-rural parts".
As the Minister of Agriculture has joint responsibility with the Secretary of State over rural regeneration and the rural economy, it must make sense for him to be involved in the appointments of members to the RDAs. Secondly, farming and related businesses have a pivotal role in helping RDAs to meet their defined purposes both in rural and urban parts of their areas.
Here I so agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns at Committee stage, that it is always—I repeat always—appropriate to consult MAFF in metropolitan areas. I firmly believe, and so I thought did the Government, that the town relies as much on the country as the country relies on the town. However, although the national importance of direct on-farm agricultural employment may have decreased over time—and indeed it has—in many regions agriculture still provides a major source of employment. When upstream and downstream dependent jobs are included and the value of produce is taken into account, farming's importance in both the regional and the national economy is far in excess of what might be deduced from a straight analysis of direct employment in agriculture alone.
Thirdly, as a primary land user in the countryside, agriculture also plays a vital role in the Government's sustainable development strategy—something that your Lordships and the Government are always so keen about—a fact acknowledged in the recent Department of the Environment consultation on the Government's proposals for a revised United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development.
In its role both as a consumer and user of natural resources and also as a source of alternative energy, the agricultural dimension of sustainable development is crucial in our regions. I suspect that the noble Lord will tell me that of course the Secretary of State would always consult with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and no doubt he will point out that Clause 2(3)(d) makes my amendment otiose.
I would say that sometimes—just sometimes—Cabinet colleagues do not always agree on everything all the time. As the Bill is written, the Secretary of State would be legally correct if he considered that his

293
colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, was not a person he considered appropriate, as described in that subsection. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the amendment which is in my name, which is grouped with that of my noble friend, at this stage. I understand from the Minister that it will be convenient for him to speak to the Government's amendments after other noble Lords have participated in the debate.
Perhaps I may begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on his amendment and remarking on the importance of the part it would play in making sure that appointments to RDAs take proper account of the needs of rural areas. At this stage it is perhaps a somewhat unusual pleasure for me to be able to welcome also government Amendment No. 2. I should make it clear immediately that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 3 which stands in my name and which is grouped with Amendment No. 1.
It is right that there should be on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State should consult people who represent the interests of those who know best the needs of rural areas—the people who live there, work there and who run businesses there for the enhancement of the economy of rural areas and elsewhere. I raised this matter in Committee, together with a rather more ambitious amendment which would have put on the face of the Bill the requirement that at least one member of each board should have direct experience of rural matters. At that stage there was considerable support for my amendments from noble Lords of all parties.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, offered a meeting to discuss the amendments further. I know that it is traditional on these occasions to thank Ministers for holding such meetings, but I do so not only as a matter of courtesy but also because of my personal gratitude. The meeting was held with dispatch and there was a constructive approach from the ministerial team. I also thank all noble Lords who attended that meeting. Because of the need to keep the meeting relatively small, we could not invite all those who took such an important part in the discussions in Committee. However, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Bowness for attending. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would have attended had not other commitments in the House prevented her from doing so. I thank her for the comments that she was able to make outwith the Chamber, which I am sure had some impact on the Government's decisions.
At that meeting, the Government repeated their arguments against both of my amendments in much the same vein as in Committee. However, the Government took some further steps which were helpful. They presented copies of draft documents on rural policy which would act as guidance to the RDAs. They are working documents and all who attended the meeting have respected the Government's request that they
294
should not be circulated outwith that group without the Government's express consent. I am, however, grateful to Ministers for giving me permission for the documents to be shown to the political adviser of the Country Landowners Association who assisted me, in the first instance, with the drafting of my amendment which is before your Lordships today. We all found it helpful that the Government provided us with those papers in which we found some promising material. That makes me sound rather like a headmistress, so I apologise; that was not intended.
All noble Lords who attended that meeting accepted the Government's good will—that when appointments are made to boards in the first instance, the Government expect that at least one person who is appointed will have direct experience of rural matters. Indeed, the White Paper states that that should be the case. All who attended that meeting expressed their great concern about what may happen in the future when substitute or repeat appointments are made. In its present form, the Bill gives no reassurance that those who are appointed with experience of rural matters will continue to be appointed on that basis in the future. There was a concern that, albeit unintentionally, there may be a drift away from appointing persons with such expertise.
As a result of that meeting with Ministers, I invited interested Peers to attend a meeting last Wednesday with a representative of the CLA to discuss noble Lords' views on how best to proceed on Report. On that same day, I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made it clear to me that the Government had considered my amendments further. On the first matter, the more ambitious matter, the Government retained their opposition and made it clear that there was no way in which they could accede to that. However, on the second matter, the subject of today's debate, the Government made it clear that the amendment was acceptable, but needed more felicitous drafting. Having seen the wording of the Minister's amendment, I quite agree. The Government's amendment is not only more felicitous, but will achieve my objective more effectively than would my amendment.
The response of noble Lords who participated in our debates in Committee and at various meetings since has been that the Government's moves should be welcomed. As a measure of good will, I then immediately withdrew my first, more ambitious, amendment from consideration on Report. I welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled his amendment today and I hope that the House will accept it.
When the Minister responds, I wonder whether he will give some indication of the nature of the organisations which the Government would expect to be consulted as a result of the application of the amendment to the working of the Bill. Obviously, because of my personal views, I have it in mind that one should seek consultation with the CLA, the National Farmers Union and the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other such organisations. I am sure that noble Lords with more experience of these matters than I will be able to come up with a wider but more effective list.

295
In welcoming the Government's moves on this, I end, as one might expect, by commenting that your Lordships have given the Government the opportunity to think again on this matter and, on this occasion, I feel sure that they have come to a better decision.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, during our previous business, I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that a number of northern cities are ruled, and have been for some time—that is changing—by rather Stalinist means and by heavy Whipping on the part of the ruling Labour Party. It is because of that and because such people often do not have much sympathy with the countryside and its real interests that I thought it important to put on the face of the Bill a provision to ensure that there is proper understanding of rural matters and consultation with those involved.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for her work in getting the various bodies together to discuss the matter. I pay great tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his amendment. I suspected that the Government would not meet us on this matter, but they have managed to do so handsomely in their Amendment No. 2. We on these Benches fully support it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, is to be congratulated on the way in which she succeeded in persuading the Government to adopt the substance of her proposals. She said that in the course of that she had abandoned the more ambitious of her proposals. I confess that I do not think that the alternative proposal that one appointee to each agency should have rural experience is either more ambitious or preferable. I think that the noble Baroness has the right answer. The Government and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, are to be thanked for having co-operated on that point. Having had the privilege of attending that meeting. I know that it is absolutely clear that the Government have taken a great deal of trouble about both the original constitution of the agencies and the rules and guidelines under which they are to operate.
My concern, which was also expressed by the noble Baroness, relates to appointments to be made in the future when the matter cannot be considered in the same depth as at the start. It is highly desirable and a great improvement that the interests and concerns of people in the countryside will be expressly considered.
I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has chosen not to adopt the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but to table his own. I quite understand that. The parliamentary draftsmen do not believe that any other hand should ever be allowed to touch a sacred Bill and that amendments must therefore be drafted by them and not by the mere riff-raff who sit on your Lordships' Benches.
However, one word in the amendment worries me. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness refers to persons who represent the "concerns" of people in rural areas. The Government's amendment refers to those who "represent the interests".
296
I say as a lawyer—one always becomes boring at this stage!—that "interests" is a much narrower word than "concerns". There are many cases which hold that you have an interest only if you have a financial interest or a property interest. Persons, for example, who are concerned about the conservation of birds or the amenities of the countryside but have no financial or property interest in those things might be regarded by the courts as not being within the scope of the Government's amendment, whereas they obviously would be within the scope of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
I am afraid that I have seen these amendments only today and therefore I have not had a chance to put this matter to the noble Lord. I am sure he will not wish to give me an answer on this occasion, but I hope he will consider that point and consider whether his amendment might be improved on Third Reading by substituting the word "concerns" for "interests".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Stanley and to reinforce some of the points he made. In so doing I mention as examples some agricultural points that concern the south-west. Of the 80 separately identified regions of the European Union, only Sicily, Northern Ireland, Scotland and north Pas-de-Calais in France had a higher proportion of their land areas devoted to agriculture than the south-west of England in 1994. As a proportion of regional GDP agriculture is more important in the south-west than in any English region and is second only to Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
The south-west accounts for 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's dairy herd and 16 per cent. of its beef cattle. Nearly 60 per cent. of local farms are in the small category with an average income of under £8,000 in 1997. However, a combination of the BSE crisis, the fall in milk prices and the impact of the green revolution has reduced farm incomes by half compared with 1996. Many farmers in Devon and Cornwall—I know your Lordships have heard this many times, but it is a fact—are facing ruin and their uncertain future has a 15 to 25 per cent. knock-on effect on sales of farm machinery and agricultural supplies as well as upon the network of industries and services supporting agriculture in the villages and market towns of the south-west.
I hear that the only agricultural businesses which are growing at the moment in north Devon where I live are those selling tyres for tractors and such like. This implies that our farmers cannot now afford or risk buying new machinery. We should therefore expect them to have even greater problems tomorrow as their ability to compete will be further reduced by a lack of investment today. I think I am right in saying that MAFF is not currently part of government regional offices throughout the country. Therefore it is even more important that strong recognition is given to agriculture within the RDAs.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I have been so polite to one another we are in danger of failing to speak altogether from our

297
respective Front Benches. I, too, congratulate and thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. We are pleased that this reference will now appear on the face of the Bill. I said at a previous stage that I had much sympathy with the Government's concern not to specify direct representation. I think their objective to ensure that members have a mix of expertise to bring a far broader range of experience, background and concerns—to use a word which has been mentioned—to the agencies is a valid one. As I think I have said previously, I do not believe that it will be possible for the agencies to carry out their objectives unless the provision which is now encapsulated in the amendment is put in place.
I have one concern which I wish to place on record although it is not appropriate to push it further. At the previous stage one or two of us mentioned the membership of the London agency when that comes into being. We accepted that expertise in rural matters would be relevant to membership of the London agency. I appreciate that the commencement order for London will not arise at the same time as for the other agencies, and that the London agency will come into being in a couple of years as part of the new government for London. However, the amendment refers to representation of the interests of those,
"in rural parts of the agency's area".
I envisage that may be a little limiting for London. London has its rural parts but they are not extensive. When the London agency is formed it will be important to ensure that it has the right relationship with London's hinterland, as my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley describes it. I appreciate that this is not a comment to be addressed to the Minister but rather to the potential mayor, whoever he or she may be. Subject to that reservation we support the Minister's amendment.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, in Committee it was powerfully argued in all parts of the Chamber that the special concerns of rural areas should be recognised on the face of the Bill. I believe it was accepted that the consultation for the initial appointments would be wide and would cover all the necessary interests. However, I believe—I think this is a fear of many noble Lords—that as time goes by and pressures grow on regional development agencies for different interests to be represented, it will be all too easy for those interests to become dominated by the interests of the large conurbations within the individual regions. I welcome the Government's amendment which ensures that before any appointment is made, not just now but also in the future, those representing the interests of the rural community will be consulted. I take this opportunity to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns for the work they have done in ensuring this outcome.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I intend to speak mainly to the amendment standing in my name and to the amendment spoken to so graciously by the noble
298
Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. I welcomed her comments. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that agriculture will be a central and important area of concern for the RDAs. The Minister of Agriculture will be involved in the decision making process. Decisions on appointments will be taken collectively amongst Ministers, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be involved in those decisions. That is part and parcel of Cabinet government. As agriculture is so important to the regional strategies of many regional development agencies, the Minister of Agriculture will be an important component of the decision making process. I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will accept that the provision does not need to be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Much has been said on rural interests generally. I appreciate the remarks of all noble Lords, and particularly of the noble Baroness, who was energetic and effective in lobbying the Government on this issue. We listened, both during the debate and in the meetings outside this House. We have brought forward a proposal which I believe meets the concerns of most noble Lords.
I wish to make a few points for the record. Reference was made to the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, described by her as more ambitious. It is important that people in rural areas understand why we have not been prepared to go along with that proposal. The Bill does not single out any board member for special areas of interest; all members of the board will be treated equally. Our view remains that we do not want to separate out the rural expertise in that way.
However, while we do not intend rural expertise to be ghetto-ised and represented by one member, we do, on the contrary intend to ensure that there will be rural expertise on the board. I cannot give an unequivocal reply in relation to London because of the role of the mayor in that respect, but on the other boards there will undoubtedly be someone appointed who has rural expertise. That is the Government's intention. We recognise that in bringing forward Amendment No. 2 noble Lords require this provision to be on the face of the Bill, and that people in rural areas require that assurance. The Bill as it stands provides a general list of people to be consulted. We are happy to add to that list the reference to rural interests; that is represented in our amendment.
In parallel with the passage of this Bill, and without pre-empting the view of this House, it has obviously been necessary for us to have started consultation with organisations on the initial appointments to the boards. Noble Lords who inquire, region by region, will know that the consultation has included identifying candidates with rural expertise. We are consulting numerous groups about board membership. In response to the noble Baroness's question, the consultation includes the Country Landowners' Association, the NFU and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. On the national list there are several more bodies with primarily rural interests. I shall be happy to let the noble Baroness have a list. Region by region, there are also local variations in those being consulted. We have received a

299
good response to the consultation. We will ensure that initial appointments will be made in the light of the consultation, and with rural interests very much in mind.
In addition to that, the concern represented to me in the interim between Committee stage and this stage was to the effect that that is all very well for the first batch but we need to ensure that the same will apply in future. I believe that my amendment will ensure that that happens in relation to future Secretaries of State and future appointments.
Perhaps I may explain to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, why we differentiate between the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment and the government amendment. We did not see the same distinction. There may well be more sophisticated reasons from the parliamentary draftsmen, but perhaps I may give just two. First, our amendment refers specially to people in rural areas rather than representing concerns. Secondly, the word "concerns" may be straightforward to a lawyer, but it is ambiguous to a layman in the sense that it can mean enterprises and institutions and not people; whereas we have referred specifically to people, and to those who operate businesses. As I believe the noble Baroness accepted, our wording is slightly wider than that in Amendment No. 3.
I am grateful for all the kind words directed towards the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and myself. Congratulations are probably due more to those who have brought these matters to our attention. However, I believe that this issue can now be resolved. I hope that at least in this instance the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government do listen to the House of Lords, and that on this occasion we can all agree on my amendment.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, there is one problem, although I do not want to pre-empt discussion on my Amendment No. 19. I very much welcome the Minister's remarks in regard to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. To paraphrase, he said that the stature of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter of consultation under Clause 2 would be on a par with that of Secretaries of State. I am grateful to see the Minister nodding. There is a problem, in that the Minister of Agriculture is not a Secretary of State. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that the role of the Minister of Agriculture in the consultation will be of exactly the same weight as it would have been were he a Secretary of State? We shall go into this matter later. If the noble Lord would give that undertaking, it would be very helpful.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, in this context I can give an unequivocal assurance. The matter is more complicated in relation to the subsequent amendment, but however in this context the answer is, yes.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, first, perhaps I may refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Arran. As he said, agriculture in the south-west is vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will bear his remarks in mind when we debate my Amendment No. 9 dealing with the strategy of RDAs.
300
My noble friend Lady Anelay made the valid point that unless there is a provision on the face of the Bill, there will be trouble in regard to repeat appointments. The Minister made the same point in moving the government amendment. He said that it was necessary to have the provision on the face of the Bill in order to remind successive governments. Who knows?—we might have a Tory government who forgot all about the countryside. That is why it is as important to have my amendment on the face of the Bill as it is to have the government amendment. I am concerned about the matter. I must not be ungracious. The Minister's remark that the Minister of Agriculture will make the appointments almost jointly with the Secretary of State is very welcome. However, being cynical and untrustworthy, as the Minister knows, I should have liked to see the provision on the face of the Bill. I cannot see why there could not be mention of both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture.
I am afraid that I shall have to take this matter away and consult with my "rural constituents". If they feel that the provision is unsatisfactory, I hope the noble Lord will not think me churlish if I bring the matter back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, after ("area,") insert—
("( ) such persons as appear to him to represent the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in rural parts of the agency's area,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Constitution of agencies]:
5 p.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 23, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may remove a member of a regional development agency who, at the time of his appointment to the agency, holds office as an elected councillor for a local authority within the area of the agency if for any reason that member ceases to be an elected councillor for a local authority within the area of the agency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, we sought to persuade the Government that it would be appropriate to recognise the special position of local government in a number of different ways, particularly to ensure the representation of local authorities within the area of the RDA, and that that representation should feature on the face of the Bill. In that, we failed.
We failed also in terms of trying to achieve a reference to a specific number of local government members. And we failed equally in our attempt to ensure that, if people were appointed to the RDA to represent local government, that representation should end in the event of their ceasing to be members of a local authority.
The Government ask us to accept that in practice four out of 12 of the anticipated number of members of an RDA will come from local government but that the appointments of those people will not be as

301
representatives of local government, although local government will have been consulted before the appointments are made. We are asked to accept that these people will sit as individuals who, as the Minister said in Committee,
"have the appropriate expertise and background, which includes of course background in local government".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 460.]
Reference was made in the debate on the earlier group of amendments to the Government's desire that members of RDAs should be fully involved in all aspects of the work of the agency rather than be perceived as representing a particular special interest. I cannot accept that someone who is appointed because they have a particular qualification will in some way be a second-class member or that they will be constrained in their activities by virtue either of their self-restraint or of their colleagues' wishes. I believe that there is a case for recognising the special position of local government.
If we are to rely on the Government's assurances that in practice four seats will be occupied by people who, among their other talents, number active, practical local government experience from within the area, it seems appropriate that, even if we cannot write that on the face of the Bill, we should include within the Bill a mechanism whereby the position could be restored if it went wrong at some time. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Perhaps I may take the time of the House to explain again why I believe the position of local government is special. Of course I understand that all kinds of interests and groups can make a case for representation, but none of them can claim that democratic element of representation which is true of local authorities and their members. As I said at Committee stage, whatever the turnout at an election may be, local authorities are more democratic and representative than any other organisation or group of interests within an area. People look to their local authorities to lead in many different activities, especially those listed in the White Paper as being within the proposed regional development agencies' interests. I therefore believe it right that those democratically elected bodies should have a voice within the regional development agencies.
I shall not revisit the question of numbers. I entirely accept the assurances given by the Minister about appointments. But, as was said earlier, times move on; there will be different ministers, and assurances, if not set to one side, can be overlooked. All that the amendment seeks is a power for the Secretary of State, if he chooses to exercise it, to remove a member who at the time of his or her appointment holds office in a local authority if that person ceases to be an elected member of a local authority, the purpose being that active local government within the area may be represented. No compulsion is proposed. If the Secretary of State has reasons for not removing a member, he does not need to do so. He does not have to explain, and the amendment does not bind him to any time limit for his action.
The Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State, a matter upon which we dwelt in Committee. He appoints; he gives guidance and directions; and he can enhance the RDA by delegation of his own powers. How that matches up to the description in the White Paper, I am not sure. It is stated on page 9 that:
"power should not be centralised in Whitehall, but that local, regional and national structures are needed for decision-making and for action to put those decisions into effect".
I cannot understand why the Government are not disposed to give to the Secretary of State a power which will enable democratic local government always to be represented on the RDA.
As was pointed out in Committee, it is quite conceivable that the four members—if that is indeed the number—of an RDA who held office as local authority members might, either by retirement or the electoral process, lose their local government seats. I accept that they would not immediately thereafter lose all the local government experience that they were able to bring to the RDA, but, as the Minister himself pointed out, members might lose their local government seats with three years of their term of appointment to an RDA still to run. Is it really suggested that the local authorities within the area of an RDA should remain unrepresented? It was suggested to your Lordships by the Minister that in those circumstances,
"we would need to review the situation to see what we could do to ensure that the RDA board continued to have some current experience from local government. Depending on the circumstances we could invite the four members concerned to put their RDA places at the Secretary of State's disposal — after all, we are allowed by the Bill to increase the size of a board up to 15 members".
But there would be many other pressures, and some of those places may have been taken up.
The Minister went on to say:
"It is not sensible to place on the face of the Bill an absolute requirement that all those members in all the circumstances I have described should resign the minute they are defeated".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 462.]
I accept that, and the amendment does not make that the issue. The involvement of the local authorities in the regional chambers, if they come about, will not be any compensation for not having a seat on an RDA. It is with the regional development agencies, the centrally appointed bodies that will come into existence, that the real power will lie. In my view, in time the funds and the ability to deliver programmes on the many matters set out in the White Paper will rest with them.
I suggest that the amendment gives maximum flexibility to the Secretary of State. If the Government are serious in their desire for partnership between central and local government, they will recognise the need to ensure that they have the means to make certain that democratically elected local authorities can provide members who, in addition to their other talents, have an involvement with local government. The amendment gives local government fewer guarantees than I should like. It commits the Secretary of State to nothing. However, it will at least ensure that there will be a

303
means whereby the good intentions about appointments which are currently expressed can be continued if problems arise. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was supported by these Benches. I share his views on this issue. Rather than repeating the arguments, I shall ask the Minister a question. In Schedule 2, which deals with the constitution of agencies, paragraph 1(1) refers to members holding and vacating office in accordance with the terms of their appointment. Can the Minister clarify whether the terms of appointment of individual members would go any way towards meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness? I agree with the noble Lord that the position of local authority members is different from that of other members. Is there scope within the appointment to provide for the vacation of office upon an individual ceasing to be a member of the local authority?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I participated in the debate on this issue on the last occasion and spoke not only from my own experience of serving on a council but prompted by the views of the Local Government Association. Whenever one moves to another stage of any Bill, one should reflect on not only what a Minister said at a previous stage. To be fair, one should also reflect on the situation. I start from the basis of hoping that when councils and councillors in a region are given the opportunity, by whatever method, to produce four people from their midst to serve on a RDA, the people chosen will look upon their appointment as a very high responsibility. It is not, like many other appointments, "Buggins' Turn", or something which should be taken lightly. I hope that those in local government will be very careful about the people they put forward and nominate people who are likely to stay in the race for a very long time. We know that in a democracy people who have every confidence that they will last a long time fall at the next hurdle. That has happened to many people. It has happened to me more than once. As I am now a Member of your Lordships' House, thankfully it should not happen again.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is unless I am made into a hereditary Peer in the near future.
Viscount Bledisloe: What about reform, my Lords?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am all for reform. As I understand it, when we reform this House, the issue will be about the place of hereditary Peers. Without making any further comment, I happen not to be an hereditary Peer.
If serious players are nominated, then—whether one uses the term "representing the views of", or "from amongst the numbers of or "with experience in"—I
304
hope that the men and women put forward will look upon appointment to the RDA as achieving a very high post.
Reflecting on what the Minister said, even if there is nothing laid down—either in my previous amendment or in this amendment which makes removal mandatory—I sense that the Minister and his colleagues recognise fully the blemish that would be incurred if there were to be people in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. In such a situation—where very early into a four-year period board members cease to be members of a council—it should be possible, not for pressure to be applied, but for ministerial advice and guidance to be given.
I would hope that the colleagues of the person affected would say "Look, George, Mary, Joan or Charlie, we are sorry that you have lost your place on the council or have decided to retire from the council because you have other important business interests, but do you not understand that we would like someone closer to us after such events? Can we talk about your resigning?" I hope that councils will not put forward people as members who are not receptive to the views of their colleagues. My experience is not recent; it goes back a number of years. I can recall situations where positions were coveted and looked for. I hope that people in local government will respect that.
In view of what the Minister said at the previous stage of the Bill, if he and his colleagues have dug their toes in—which they have—then one will not get very far if one pushes this point. I am a great believer in seeing how things work out. I believe that the Minister is saying in good faith that he and his colleagues have reason to believe that, if the situation we have discussed arises, there are ways of dealing with it other than having it written onto the face of the Bill. Unlike those opposite who are shaking their heads, I say that this is a case where we can give the Minister an opportunity to prove to us, in the light of experience, that his advice at this stage is sound.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I would in spirit like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I regret that he has put it rather in the negative so I am unable to do so. It is not constructive to think of the Secretary of State removing someone from office because they have ceased to be a member of their local authority. I would have preferred the wording to say that that person may be allowed to stay on in exceptional circumstances. If they are there by virtue of being a local authority member, they should cease to represent local authority membership on the board when they are no longer a councillor. However, I can imagine what a hornet's nest will be opened up. The noble Lord is right. These positions are sought after, with many applicants for all of them.
There was also discussion about political proportionality and so on. Given that elections for districts, counties and unitaries do not all happen at the same time, the electoral process is not clear at the moment; we may be going to annual elections and so

305
on. Where would it leave us, removing one member at one time and one member at another time? Suppose all the members were required to leave at one time? That would mean a loss of a third of the experience on the board.
The spirit of requiring members to resign when they no longer represent their local authorities is correct, but to require them arbitrarily to stand down is probably wrong at this stage. We should not leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to remove a member. That might be viewed incorrectly in the region from which that member had come, however good the intentions were. I would welcome a statement from the Minister outlining the criteria that he would imagine using in such circumstances.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the tone of the remarks on this issue. We debated it in Committee when a similar amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was defeated. I understand the objective of the amendment of the noble Lord. We obviously share a substantial amount in terms of the objective. We wish to see local government fully represented, in the broadest sense, on the board in that people with local government expertise should be members of the board. We have committed ourselves to appointing four members out of a 12-board executive, which is a very sizeable minority. But they are not representative in terms of the accountability in the sense in which the word has been used in this debate. They are not representative of local authorities. They owe their position not to their local councils or, in the last analysis, to their electorate. They are appointed by the Secretary of State and in that sense are the same as all other members of the board. One of the important points of our argument is that we wish to treat all members of the board in the same manner.
That is still entirely consistent with our intention that appointments made from local government should be of serving councillors. We intend to appoint to boards local government members who can bring the best possible local government expertise to bear on the work of the RDA. That must be best done by people who are serving councillors. Given the wealth of talent in local government, we should have no difficulty in appointing such councillors. However, that expertise is not wiped out automatically the day after councillors are defeated and cease to be members of the council. Election defeat does not make such people unfit to serve. In addition, I have a particular, almost technical, quarrel with the noble Lord's amendment in that the provision in Schedule 2 deals with people who are unfit to continue to serve because they are not willing to turn up, are bankrupt or are incapacitated in some way which makes it impossible for them to continue on the board. I do not think that that situation fits into the same category.
A recently defeated councillor will not suddenly become unaware of what local authorities are, what they do and what relationship they will need to have with the RDA. The Government wish to create balanced boards which reflect the range of interests concerned in the region. They must be kept to a manageable size and
306
some members will therefore have to bring experience of more than one aspect. To revert to a previous debate, one of the local councillors on the board could be someone who brings particular expertise of rural or agricultural matters. Surely the fact that councillors have just been defeated should not remove them from the board. That is our basic position and why we cannot accept the amendment.
However, I think I can bring some comfort to the noble Lord. As he recognised, I said in Committee that we would need to ensure that there was a continuing current reflection of local government in the membership of the board at all times. If, for example, all four members from local authorities who were on the board lost their seats at the same time, which was the situation referred to in a slightly different context by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, one might wish nevertheless to keep some of those on, but the total result would be that one would need to take some steps to ensure that local government was represented. Depending on the circumstances, we might invite some or all of those members to put their RDA places at the Secretary of State's disposal; or we might make additional appointments if we were below the 15 ceiling; or, as my noble friend Lord Graham indicated, we might look at other ways, in consultation with the local authorities, to ensure that the board continued to benefit from current local government experience.
I more or less said that on the previous occasion, but I shall go slightly further than that now. This is in reference to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In this context we would still be treating all members of the board formally and contractually in the same manner. I am now able to say that all RDA appointment letters will include a provision enabling the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of any member, local government or otherwise, within a given period of notice. The Secretary of State would have the means to change the composition of the board in such cases were the council element to be inadequately reflected. In the same way the Secretary of State could change the membership of the board for other reasons.
I therefore think that we should pursue the path laid out for us by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in that the appointments would allow the Secretary of State—in circumstances where, for example, all members on the board from local government disappeared at the same time in the sense of their being elected councillors—to take steps to replace them. That would not breach our approach whereby all members of the board are in the same relationship and under the same terms but it would give an opportunity in those circumstances for the Secretary of State, under the terms of the letter of appointment, to ensure that local government continued to have its interests fully reflected on the board.
In the light of that approach—I am putting a new position to the House today—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a

307
vote. We all share the objective of ensuring that local government is fully a part of the boards of these important agencies in their regions.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before I deal with the Minister's final point, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that my amendment is in no way intended to be mandatory on the Secretary of State. It may be badly worded, but if it was perceived as mandatory it was misunderstood. We should also bear in mind that those people with talent and experience, including a background in local government, who are appointed, will not be appointed from a list provided by local government. Local government may have been consulted but the appointments will, as the Minister pointed out, have been made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, as things currently stand, it is fair to say that were the circumstances I described in moving the amendment to arise, former colleagues of those appointees in local government and local government associations would have virtually no pressure to bring to bear.
Of course I accept that there are particular circumstances and of course I accept that people do not lose their expertise overnight. It would be foolish of me to suggest that and I do not want anyone to suggest it of me. One hopes it goes on for a little longer. However, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I accept that he understands the case I have sought to make and the position I am trying to protect. It may well be a way forward to deal with the matter through the letters of appointment.
We have had the Minister's assurances in this debate: they are on the record. I should like to read what has been said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Purposes]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("where it is relevant to its area to do so").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
With these amendments we return to the question of sustainability. It may be worth reminding ourselves of the objectives set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 8.1 of the White Paper refers to the regional development agencies placing the principle of sustainable development at the heart of their programmes. It tells us that the Government will give them the specific statutory objective of furthering the achievement of sustainable development, which would be monitored closely; that they will integrate environmental, economic and social objectives; and that they will engage directly in regeneration projects and set a priority for bringing back existing sites into productive use. It talks of working sensitively within the existing built environment and of seeking new uses for redundant buildings which would become part of the urban or rural landscape. The introductory paragraph concludes by
308
saying that in doing all these things the agencies will help to deal with growing pressures to bring greenfield sites into urban and industrial use. The White Paper also rightly points to the pressures on the environment which are wider than just local or regional. I accept that it is appropriate for the Bill to refer to sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
When this matter was discussed at Committee stage at col. 498 of Hansard the Minister contrasted the deletion of the words which are the subject of the first of these amendments,
"where it is relevant to its area to do so"
—the condition limiting the purpose of achieving sustainable development—with the wording of the other subsections. I did not at that stage, nor do I now, propose to delete the reference to the United Kingdom. That may have been a misunderstanding at the previous stage. I do not propose that the clause should read:
"to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in its area",
which appears to be the basis of the response to my amendment. I propose that one of the agencies' purposes should be to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, in the UK, without any limitation.
I have had sight of the draft guidance on the agencies' contribution to sustainable development, which I understand has gone to a limited number of organisations for consultation prior to more general consultation. The Minister may feel that he cannot win on this matter. Having seen that draft, and also the general guidance as to the agencies' strategy, I wonder whether it is appropriate to have separate sets of guidance. There has been a good deal of debate about integrating the agencies' purposes. Reading the two documents, I believe that there is considerable danger of projecting sustainable development as an add-on to the purposes of the agencies. In particular, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the wider draft guidance do not appear to bring the purpose of sustainability into the strategy at all, still less to place it at the heart of the strategy as the White Paper told us it would.
It is the question of integration that has prompted my Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. In Amendment No. 6 I propose that the agencies shall have regard to all of their purposes in seeking to achieve each purpose. In Amendment No. 8 I propose, in the clause dealing with strategy, that they should have regard to all of their purposes in exercising their functions. I do not suggest that it be a requirement that every project achieves every purpose but that with regard to every project the agency must not fail to address each of its purposes.
It is apparent from the draft on the general strategy that the economic work is moving ahead. I should like the agency to keep asking itself five questions based on the purposes in Clause 4(1). For example, how would the particular project further the economic development and regeneration of the area? How would it promote business efficiency, investment, competitiveness and so on? Your Lordships will get the point. I should like each agency to ask itself how each project will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Other noble Lords will have many examples of projects that can meet environmental as well as economic purposes. For example, there is much good work going on at the moment on energy efficiency measures that meet environmental objectives but also provide employment. I hope that my noble friend Lady Maddock, who has particular experience in this area, will be able to join in this debate and provide some examples.
These amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill an acknowledgement of the integration of the purposes. I suggest to noble Lords that it is easy to use the word "strategy" in guidance but that it is the mechanisms that count towards the outcomes and that to acknowledge sustainable development in particular is never irrelevant.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have been invited by my noble friend to support her amendment. I believe it is very important when considering regional development, particularly economic development, with sustainability in mind, that we look very closely at energy efficiency. Noble Lords may be aware that I have a particular interest in this subject. We now have a good deal of information about the energy efficiency of our homes. Legislation that has been introduced has enabled jobs to be created locally and local industries to be used in the area of energy efficiency. Various government schemes give money to such projects, and job creation has been at the heart of the provision of grant and assistance to help people to do just that. The Government have provided additional money to the Energy Savings Trust to ensure that projects of this nature are supported, and innovation is very much part of that.
On the previous occasion when your Lordships discussed this matter I referred to housing and the strategic role of regional development agencies in regional housing issues. This is yet another area in which it is important for regional development agencies to look at their properties and to promote not only better housing conditions but to enable local authorities to get schemes off the ground and bid for projects. I believe that in a regional context this is one of the main areas where regional development agencies can develop thoroughly in line with progress by government in other areas. One of the problems in the area of energy efficiency is that projects do not tie up. Here is a golden opportunity for the other projects that the Government promote in this area to be gathered together in a region so that they are much more effective.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, in referring to these amendments I do not necessarily support the words that have been adopted to try to acknowledge on the face of the Bill a number of important concerns. However, the amendments reveal, in their tortuous language, real concern about the duty of RDAs to promote sustainable development, the extent to which they will integrate their requirements for sustainable development across all of their purposes and strategies and, in a later amendment, how far they have
310
regard to regional planning guidance and local plans. This matter was raised at Committee stage. At that time my noble friend the Minister informed the Committee that it would be reassured by the guidance to be given to RDAs on the various matters that the noble Baroness has already mentioned. Some of that guidance is now out for consultation and the rest is in draft.
We remain to be assured. I believe we all acknowledge the importance of RDAs fulfilling some of their primary purposes to deal with decentralisation, to bring decisions to a more local level, to respond to regional needs and to develop real regional identities. Nevertheless, there needs to be more than a passing nod at some of the national and international commitments that the Government have already made and which should at least be reflected in the guidance if they are not on the face of the Bill.
The Government have given a strong commitment to a national sustainability strategy, which is in preparation. There is already a UK biodiversity action plan. Biodiversity and its fate will be a key test of whether regional development agencies make decisions that are truly sustainable for the future. I do not believe that the Government's commitments can be ignored by RDAs. It would be false to imply through the guidance that economic development was the only primary purpose of RDAs and that environmental and sustainable development outcomes were a bolt-on extra. That is the tone that the guidance is currently adopting. The indicators of whether RDAs will have been successful relate almost totally to economic outcome rather than to the environment or biodiversity.
We were not assured by the Minister's first assurance, so perhaps we will be assured by the finalised guidance. There is real concern that unless we achieve a rounded framework with the three legs of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—we will be doing a bad job by setting the RDAs off on their very important task.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we had a relatively brief discussion of the sustainable purpose in Clause 4 of the Bill at Committee. Amendment No. 5 is a repeat of the amendment then tabled by the noble Baroness. She expressed concern then, as now, about the words,
"where it is relevant to its area to do so",
which apply to the sustainable development purpose. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are about how the RDAs' purposes relate to each other. But of course the concern that the noble Baroness has, and which has led her to table these amendments, is how the sustainable development purpose relates to and will work in conjunction with the other purposes. So, if it will help your Lordships, I wish to explain more fully why the sustainable development provision is drafted as it is.
The RDAs' sustainable development purpose can be looked at in two ways. First, as one of the five purposes of the RDAs, it will inform the RDAs' actions in relation to all the other purposes where sustainable development is an issue. It will not be open to an RDA

311
to decide that this purpose is "irrelevant" if it is in fact relevant, and where it is relevant, and an RDA must take sustainable development into account in taking a decision. It will not be possible to ignore the factor. It will be incumbent on each RDA in all actions it takes in pursuance of its purposes to take account of all its purposes and in particular whether and how its action will contribute to sustainable development. There will be some occasions when some of the purposes will have less relevance to a policy or action than others; not all the purposes will be equally relevant to all decisions. Different purposes may also suggest different decisions or policies. In such cases, the RDAs will have to strike a balance between competing considerations. But the point is that all the purposes must be considered—none can be ignored—and with the nature of sustainable development as an all-pervading concept, it is likely that it will feature to some degree in all decisions and policies. That point was raised by my noble friend Lady Young.
Secondly, RDAs will in practice be able to take action which contributes to sustainable development, even where that action does not fall within one of the other four purposes. It will be open to an RDA, for example, to host a conference specifically on sustainable development, which does not, of itself, further any of their other purposes. I hope that clarifies the position.
The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about energy efficiency is important to sustainable development. The development of the technology relating to energy efficiency may well form part of that category. On the other hand, the RDAs would not be housing authorities, so the component would need to be taken into account. Against that background, let us consider the two limitations on the RDAs' sustainable development purpose in Clause 4(1)(e); that action should contribute to sustainable development and that it should be relevant to the RDA's area. These limitations will in practice have an effect only in relation to decisions and action under the second scenario; that is, when the sustainable development purpose is the sole driver of action by an RDA. The limitations are not relevant to the first interpretation—when sustainable development is influencing action under the other four purposes—because any action under the other four purposes which was relevant to sustainable development would also be relevant to sustainable development in the UK and relevant to the RDA's area. Thus, for example, in furthering the regeneration of its area, an RDA will have to have regard to the need for development to be sustainable development. It will, in doing this, clearly be contributing to sustainable development in the UK; and it will clearly be relevant for the RDA to do this.
If we removed the limitation "where it is relevant to its area", as Amendment No. 5 proposes, we would allow an RDA (indeed, give it a duty) to take actions contributing to sustainable development which were not relevant to its area. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that would not be sensible.
The whole purpose of RDAs—as is clear from Clause 4—is that they will take action which is relevant to their particular areas, rather than action which is relevant only to the rest of the UK.
312
On the other hand, a limitation which confined RDAs to action only within their region would be too restrictive. There may be projects where action outside the region would be relevant to sustainable development within it. A good example of this might be in relation to transport links between regions; for example, across the Pennines, or between the West Midlands and Wales. Limiting an RDA to action physically within its region might jeopardise projects of that kind.
So, given that it is sensible to restrict the relevance of some of the RDAs' actions, we think we have a provision which enables RDAs to make an appropriate contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, without unduly restricting them to action and effects solely within their individual areas.
I ought also to remind the House that we intend to issue guidance to the RDAs on the operation of the sustainable development purpose. I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether it should be outwith the general guidance or treated separately. At this early stage in formulating the guidance, consultation being ongoing, changes might be made to the draft as the process continues. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that we are listening to her points about the process and contents of the guidance.
English Nature and other interested bodies, such as the Environment Agency, the CPRE, Friends of the Earth to name but a few, are actively participating in the consultation.
Officials are currently working on an early draft. It is important to reassure the noble Baroness that it is not our intention through procedure or guidance to marginalise the sustainable development consideration or the development of the strategy within it.
The draft guidance stresses the need for an integrated approach. The aim of the provision on sustainable development in the draft guidance will be to ensure that we develop the best strategies for ensuring that sustainable development is taken seriously. The guidance will seek to explain how an RDA should seek to meet its statutory duty under Clause 4, making clear in particular the need to consider alternative options, to assess the impact of policies, programmes and projects on society, the economy and the environment and stressing the importance of consultation and public scrutiny in the decision process.
The current draft is very much work in progress. We know that a number of organisations will continue to offer their thoughts on what the guidance should say. I shall ensure that your Lordships are kept informed about the development of the guidance and that when, in due course, the department consults formally on the guidance, I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
I apologise for speaking at length but this is an important issue. There is quite clearly a widespread knowledge of and concern about sustainable

313
development and the role it will play in RDAs. I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, not entirely, although I shall not push the matter further at this stage. However, I take this opportunity to make a few points and to ask a question. First, I hope that in view of the concerns about the relevant weight of what may be two documents, the consultation on both of them will run absolutely in parallel and that neither will be concluded before the other. That would disable the Government from taking account of responses in one area in that integrated approach to which the Minister referred.
I accept entirely that the test in Clause 4(1)(e) is objective. It is not a matter subjective to each agency to decide whether or not sustainable development will be relevant to its area. I have not sought to overturn that. My point is to ask whether it can ever not be relevant. If the wording of the Bill accepts that there may be circumstances in which it is not relevant then—I use the noble Baroness's example of the balance between competing interests—that makes it easier for an agency to say that, in those particular circumstances, the balance is against an environmental concern.
As the Minister was describing the complexity of expressing those thoughts in wording which will stand up in legislation—and I can quite see that that must have been a challenge—I wondered whether the difficulty was as regards the term "where it is relevant", and I do not mean that in the sense of the narrow geographical "where". I wondered whether the draftsman had considered referring to sustainable development "which is relevant". Rather than detaining your Lordships on that point, perhaps the Minister may be prepared to write to me on the detail or perhaps discuss the matter with me before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the three points which the noble Baroness made. While the conclusion of the consultation may be at slightly different times, the view taken of the outcome of the consultation will not be taken on one area in advance of the other.
As regards the noble Baroness's concern, I hope that on reading Hansard, she will feel that we have not in any way allowed people to use the term "where relevant" as a way of avoiding the issue although no one, including the noble Baroness, would deny that there may be some difficult judgments to be made. But those cannot be made on the basis of denying the relevance of sustainability.
Finally, in relation to the exact language to be used in parliamentary drafting, I should be far happier to take the course which the noble Baroness suggested and write to her on that matter.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert (", and
( ) have regard to regional planning guidance for its area").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment, we return to the issue of regional planning guidance and its relationship with the strategies of the various agencies.
In Committee, when we debated this matter on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Minister referred us to the draft guidance which was to be published on the strategies. She made the point that the RDAs must work with the regional planning body but that the new institutions which will create the regional planning guidance do not exist as yet and that their relationships with the RDAs will have to evolve.
I accept that, but a distinction needs to be made between the bodies which are responsible for regional planning guidance and their product; in other words, the guidance. The development of the bodies creating the guidance does not preclude dealing now with the relationship between the guidance and the agencies' strategies.
The Minister said:
"Like any other body, an RDA will be expected to work within the framework"—
by that he meant the framework of the regional planning guidance and development plans—
"This is not at issue".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 521.]
However, he then went on to describe what seemed to be quite a circular relationship.
We now have the draft guidance on the strategies which, at paragraph 23, refers to the complementality and mutual responsiveness of regional planning guidance and the agencies' strategies. Yet, it states that,
"the proposals in regional planning guidance for the provision of regionally or sub-regionally significant housing, transport and other infrastructure should have regard to the agency's strategy".
In other words, there is a sentence in there which makes regional planning guidance subsidiary to the agencies' strategies.
I believe that either regional planning guidance on the one hand or the RDAs' strategies on the other must be paramount. That is not to suggest that in the development of regional planning guidance, the body responsible for it would not have regard to the agencies' own developing strategies. Indeed, I should expect a close, detailed and careful dialogue between the two organisations. But when push comes to shove, which is paramount? Which is to govern?
I do not suggest that there is any lack of importance in the work to be carried out by the RDAs but I believe strongly that they should be subject to the same planning framework as everybody else. The creation of regional planning guidance is often a pretty tortuous process. That is because of the work that goes on to ensure a dialogue with all interested parties. There is a whole area which I shall not develop at this point, but I have in

315
mind the democratic aspects of the formation of regional planning guidance and, indeed, the whole consultation process.
Therefore, while I accept and support the role that regional planning guidance will have in helping to achieve an urban renaissance by reconciling rural and urban interests, and so on, it seems to me that RDAs should work with the grain within the framework of the planning guidance of their own regions and not be put in a position where that can be set aside or ignored. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat the points made by my noble friend, but this is a subject about which that I feel most strongly in connection with all the amendments. That is partly because we have now reached a time when it is most important that the public should receive the right messages as regards what is happening in this respect. Planning guidance that is on the table now has taken literally years to develop and will be effective for years into the future. It will send the wrong message at the start of the establishment of the development agencies if they were able in any way to disregard or not pay very full attention to a process in which dozens of local authorities have participated. Indeed, hundreds of meetings have taken place in various areas and that work has finally come together in the form of planning guidance. We should not be so cavalier as not to take that fully into account.
We frequently hear about how we must consult members of the public and the latter often turn out on a rainy night to voice their opinions. Indeed, there are few subjects that they turn out for so strongly than matters concerning planning for their area, especially when it comes to housing development and transport. Therefore, if we wish to send the correct message to them about how development agencies will be responsive to their regions, this amendment will prove to be particularly important. At a time when we are all promoting the message that we will involve and consult members of the public and act upon that consultation, I should like to think, like my noble friend, that for the forthcoming years the relationship between the development agencies and the regional chamber will be a good one. We have conceded that that is not defined at present but, as we have a lack of definition, I believe that we need to be very clear about the role of planning guidance.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we do not want to send the wrong message in this respect. Whatever I said in Committee and, indeed, what I will say now is not intended to cut across that at all. We should make clear that the current position, whereby regional planning guidance provides the land-use planning framework for the regions, will not be changed by the creation of regional development agencies. RDAs will, like any other body, work within the land-use framework provided by RPG and local authority development plans. RDAs will, like anyone else, be required to seek planning permission from local authorities in the normal
316
way. Any proposals that they make will need to be consistent with RPG and local development plans; otherwise they will be subject to the normal arrangements for applications from anyone which depart from the development plans. Similarly, in formulating their regional strategies, RDAs will have to have regard to the strategic planning context for the region as set out in RPG.
That is the position for all organisations which are making plans with land use implications. That is why we did not think it necessary to put a provision on the face of the Bill in the manner suggested by the amendment. The amendment also raises a slight legal difficulty by not limiting the reference to regional planning guidance to that issued by the Secretary of State.
As I said in Committee, this is an organically developing process. Noble Lords will undoubtedly be aware that RPGs are currently being reviewed in most regions. The arrangements for producing RPGs themselves are under review in order to improve regional accountability. My honourable friend Dick Caborn, the Minister for Regions, Regeneration and Planning, has consulted on proposals which are intended to provide a greater input from the regional planning body into RPG and to bring some broader considerations into land-use planning. Thus, while under the previous arrangements draft RPG was prepared by government for consultation in the region, in future it is intended that the regional planning body will prepare draft RPG and be responsible for consulting within its region. Such a draft RPG will then be submitted to the Secretary of State, for him to issue if he is content with it following a public examination in front of an independent panel.
Therefore, in practice, revised regional planning guidance will be reviewed and developed more in parallel with RDAs formulating their strategies. As these strategic documents develop, I agree that the relationship between the various bodies producing them is of the highest importance. The draft guidance on the strategies of RDAs that has been issued for consultation, and to which the noble Baroness referred, seeks to outline the relationship between RPG and RDAs' strategies against that background to make it clear that the RPG and the local development plans provide the land-use planning framework for the RDAs. However, that will also recognise that the review of RPG and the strategies of RDAs will be an iterative process which will require constructive and collaborative working and on-going dialogue. Thus, in developing its strategy, the RDA will need to have regard to RPG, and to the developing thinking of the regional planning body, as it reviews the planning guidance. By the same token, the regional planning body, in reviewing RPG, will need to be responsive to the developing thinking of the RDA on its regional strategy.
Moreover, because this is an iterative process it would not be appropriate to seek to impose a hierarchical relationship between the RDAs and the regional planning bodies. Their work has different purposes. The RDAs will certainly have to observe the planning procedures but the focus of the two strategies will be

317
different. Inevitably there will be issues of mutual interest for those who are drawing up both strategies, but the focus of each strategy will be different.
However, having read the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I looked again at the wording in the draft guidance on the RDAs' strategies which has been issued since the Committee stage. I think that I would accept that the drafting of the relevant sections may not be as felicitous as all that and may not bring out as clearly as it might the relationship that we intend. Whatever the result of the debate on this particular amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall draw these comments to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Regions, Regeneration and Planning so that he can take that into account In terms of the final version of that guidance. In the light of my assurances and the slightly complicated developing situation, I urge the Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the Minister's last comment. When considering responses on the draft guidance, I had intended to ask the Minister whether he might consider that the reference in paragraph 2 to proposals in RPG having to have regard to the strategy of the agency might perhaps be better if set out as, "proposals in draft RPG". In other words, that would reflect the contribution of the objectives of the agency and take into account its concerns as to how it can carry out its purposes in the framing of RPG, rather than RPG, once formed, being set on one side in some way.
I accept the point made by the Minister about particular development applications. However, my concern was not about applications. I appreciate that the usual planning arrangements will have to apply to particular developments. Indeed, my concern is that regional planning guidance once formed, and once that exercise of consultation with all the partners or—to use the current term—stakeholders has been completed, should have its place in something of a hierarchy to which the agency must have regard. Therefore, I do not to that extent agree with the Minister. I wished to have that on the record. However, having got it off my chest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("(1A) In formulating a strategy in accordance with this section, a regional development agency shall carry out consultation with government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies with an interest in its work as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for sending me an up-to-date list of groupings. Noble Lords may find that there are two sets of groupings at present. I refer to the most up-to-date list. In moving Amendment No. 9, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
The Bill places a duty on RDAs to consult with regional chambers on the preparation of the strategies which they will have a statutory duty to formulate under Clause 7. I accept the importance of local authorities in furthering the agenda of RDAs. But they are not the only key players. A number of other agencies play an equally important role in enabling economic development in the regions. I refer, for instance, to government departments, the Environment Agency, passenger transport companies, the Ministry of Defence, and so on. The need to consult those bodies is recognised in the draft guidelines for RDA strategies which were placed in the Library on 20th October. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 1b of that document which states:
"to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their area".
I cannot see how the agencies can do so unless they consult with those organisations. Paragraph 20 is headed "Consultation" and states that,
"in formulating its strategy the Agency should consult widely with Government and other interests nationally, and within the region".
However, as it stands, the Bill does not guarantee that that vital process will take place. My argument is similar to the one that I put forward on my last amendment.
Amendment No. 9 gives the RDAs a duty to consult government departments, statutory bodies, business organisations and any other bodies considered appropriate within the RDAs' discretion when they formulate their strategies. The amendment merely places on the face of the Bill the Government's intentions in respect of consultation on RDA strategies as set out in the draft guidance. I have enumerated two points from that guidance.
Amendment No. 11 is technical and consequential. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The objectives that he seeks to achieve are clearly in the draft guidance but that is not the same as being on the face of the Bill. If the RDAs are to get off to the start that we wish, proper consultation will have to take place with those groups and bodies to which my noble friend referred. It is important that that is done at an early stage; otherwise the strategies formed are likely to omit key ingredients which could contribute to those many interests and groups which wish the agencies to succeed.
It is important that all interests are considered and that different sectors do not feel that they will be discriminated against. Unless we have a provision like this on the face of the Bill, there is a danger that that may happen. My noble friend is right. I hope that the Government will accept what is a simple and straightforward amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It amends Clause 7(2)(b) by providing that social, environmental and other issues be taken into account in formulating the agency's strategy.
We debated this issue at Committee stage. Amendment No. 11 provides for reference in the strategy to social, environmental and other issues. I suspect that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary because that is what the Government will require in any event. If so, I shall give the usual response: if the Government require that, why do they not take the credit for saying so? How will the Government ensure that a future, perhaps less benign, Secretary of State will issue similar guidance?
At the previous stage the House accepted that social and environmental matters are of enormous importance and cannot be separated from economic matters. There have been many contributions on this issue. One of the most recent is Shelter's report on urban and rural renaissance.
The Minister said in Committee that he concurred with the view expressed by me, and far more eloquently, by the right reverend Prelate, and that we could be reassured that it was already government policy. He also said that to put the words on the face of the Bill might be misleading. Having read the Official Report, I cannot find an explanation for such references being potentially misleading. If those matters are not included in the Bill but are government policy—they may not be the policy of a future government—what good reason can there be for not including the references on the face of the Bill unless it is because they were not invented here. However, I am sure that the Government are not so small minded.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I support all three amendments and speak to Amendment No. 9. In passing, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and urge that the words in her amendment are included on the face of the Bill.
I wish to make two points on Amendment No. 9. I am hampered by my failure to get hold of a copy of the draft guidance. The Printed Paper Office is having difficulty identifying the document. A number of individuals who have spoken to me are concerned that the guidance makes it difficult to measure the problems of rural areas. It is another aspect of the constant anxiety expressed to me in Hampshire and in material received by bishops from individuals in rural areas about proper representation of rural areas and rural issues.
I wish to make a substantive point in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, I wish to broaden his concern. His amendment refers to,
"government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies".
I wish to include a specific reference in,
"such other bodies with an interest in its work".
320
There is a sad lack of reference on the face of the Bill to voluntary organisations. I include among those the Churches. It is an important issue to raise. The fact is—this takes us back to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that in rural and urban areas voluntary organisations across the whole range (the Churches included) will be better informed about pockets of detail, about issues of poverty, social exclusion, disadvantage and disability than are the statutory organisations, much as I respect their work and those who struggle to serve them. It is a serious matter that there is so little mention of the whole voluntary section at point after point in the Bill where it would be relevant. I want us to understand the words "such other bodies" in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as referring specifically to the whole range of the voluntary sector.
That means that more serious consideration needs to be given to some specific engagement of the voluntary sector in the membership of regional chambers where, again, they need to be active parties. They bring a skill and often detailed experience of small geographical areas. However, that should not be left to the charity of others. The Government need to make some distinct commitment to and proper engagement with the voluntary sector across this whole range of issues.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment perhaps I can begin by responding to the penultimate point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester regarding regional chambers. It is important to place on record that this legislation is not legislation to establish those regional chambers. As such, his point will be a matter for future legislation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for tabling Amendment No. 9 and allowing me the opportunity to make clear what we expect of RDAs in relation to consultation on their regional strategies. Consultation is an important aspect of this work, as several noble Lords stressed. The Government are quite clear that unless RDAs consult fully on their strategies—indeed, unless they promote a partnership approach to the formulation and the delivery of their strategies—they will not be successful. Moreover, it is very important that the strategies are drawn up in a way that enhances national policies, so that central government and national agencies will respect the strategies as they take forward their own policy thinking. The noble Lord has, in his customary way, hit on the heart of the matter.
This amendment would add to the face of the Bill a requirement that RDAs must consult with interested bodies and government departments, as they consider appropriate, when formulating their strategies. Clause 7 allows for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the RDAs on a range of matters relating to the formulation of their strategies. Indeed, during Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend and I said that the Government intended to issue guidance on the formulation of regional strategies, for consultation. Several noble Lords referred to the fact that it was launched on 20th October. The guidance has been distributed widely and comments

321
have been invited by the end of November. Copies of the guidance were also placed in the Library. Also, perhaps I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the voluntary sector is referred to in the guidance on strategies.
Those noble Lords who have seen the draft guidance will see that it is not excessively prescriptive. That is in line with the Government's view that the guidance should provide a framework within which the RDAs can produce their strategies and should not dictate what the strategy should be or how the RDAs should go about producing it. It is important that there are regional solutions to regional problems: that is at the heart of the Government's wish to decentralise decision taking to the regional level. However, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will accept that the draft guidance stresses the need for RDAs, working within their own circumstances, to build consensus in their regions and to work closely with their regional partners.
During the course of this short debate several noble Lords referred to the people and organisations that they would like to include. But I suggest that the people and organisations listed may stand at six now, but at a later stage in the Bill the list may become extremely long and would never be capable of including all.
The draft guidance specifically covers the question of consultation during the preparation of the strategy. It says that the RDAs should consult widely,
"with Government and other interests nationally and within the region".
It also says that RDAs should include in their strategies a statement on the consultation arrangements they made and a list of those consulted during the preparation of the strategy.
We envisage that it will include the Government Offices in the regions, which will be the normal liaison point between RDAs and government. Government Offices will have close contact with all government departments, including MAFF, which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. As the substance of the amendment has been included in the draft guidance that we issued for consultation, I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to specify on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State's powers to give RDAs guidance on "social, environmental and other" issues to be taken into account in the formulation of their strategies.
RDAs are to be development agencies, set up, as our White Paper of the regions made clear, to promote sustainable economic development and social and physical regeneration, and to co-ordinate the work of regional local partners in areas such as training, investment, regeneration and business support. The purposes of RDAs are therefore essentially economic and their strategies will essentially be aimed at addressing the economic problems of their region.
The Government are quite clear that economic performance can be improved only by taking a broad approach to tackling the problems our regions face. We believe that solutions integrating economic, social and
322
environmental issues are needed. That integrated approach will, in our view, be central to the success of the regional development agencies in improving the economic prospects of their regions.
The draft guidance for the RDAs on their strategies, on which the Government are currently consulting, commends that approach. The guidance highlights the broad spectrum of activity covered by the RDAs' statutory purposes and stresses that, in order to develop an effective strategy, RDAs will need to take an integrated approach to tackling business competitiveness and the need to increase productivity, but also the underlying problems of unemployment, skills shortages, social exclusion and physical decay.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tempts me—but not a lot—with her suggestion that I should contemplate a less benign Secretary of State. I cannot imagine life without my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State and would not wish to do so. Therefore I cannot concede that there could be a less benign Secretary of State at any time in the future.
The draft guidance also makes clear that RDAs should include in their strategies an appraisal of the contribution that a strategy will make to sustainable development and how it will integrate social and environmental objectives. The provision in Clause 7(2)(b) empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the issues to be taken into account in their strategies. It does not limit him to certain types of issues and would certainly encompass social and environmental issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel, as we do, that her amendment is unnecessary.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it was the Prime Minister before last who talked about going on and on and so I would suggest a little caution in suggesting that any Minister, however benign, goes on and on. Experience shows that they do not!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, having been a church warden in the diocese of Oxford for a number of years, I have to tell the right reverend Prelate that I did not always agree with my bishop: far from it. But on this occasion I am delighted to say that I agreed, I think, with all his ideas.
With regard to enumerating bodies, I have to agree with the noble Baroness because I have tried to enumerate before and I did not mention the Ministry of Agriculture. However, it is nearly always a mistake because they always remind you of the bits that you have missed. Of course I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He has made a very important point that I feel strongly about.
The noble Baroness started off very well, so far as I was concerned. She said that RDAs must consult with local and national organisations to be successful and she said that they must not be dictated to. However, my amendment is not dictating to the RDAs. In fact when the noble Baroness began I really thought I had hooked a fish for once, but sadly as she went on, as so often happens to me, the fish got away and I never landed it.

323
I am not happy, for the following three reasons. First, I think it is vital, as I said earlier in connection with my first amendment, to have matters on the face of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out how important it is. Governments change and things are forgotten. Secondly, I was reminded—I am beginning to feel very old—that the drafting of Bills now has become quite permissive, perhaps like our society. For instance, if the noble Baroness were to look up the Welsh Development Agency Act of 1975 she would see that it is written in a far less permissive way. It was laid down, left or right, and I think we have become too permissive.
I am sorry to pontificate, but it is important that your Lordships make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed: it is indeed the purpose of your Lordships' House. I must repeat something that I shall probably get into trouble about, because all the way through the Government of Wales Bill I was told, "Trust the Assembly, trust the Government". I do not trust the Assembly and I do not trust the Government—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me? Perhaps it would be helpful if I could remind your Lordships of the precedent set by the Pepper v. Hart case. The commitment and the clear explanation that are given are, in a particularly important way, recorded because of what has been said in the course of the debate today. Certainly I did not wish to deny the noble Lord the opportunity to go fishing. All I was saying was that perhaps we had already caught a good fish, and that perhaps he would like to eat ours.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have not caught the fish: it has wiggled off. But as far as Pepper v. Hart is concerned, if I got my noble friend Lord Renton on it he would say that, good though that case was, it is not as good as having it on the face of the Bill. I am still convinced that you have to argue it and the judge might say, "Well, Parliament did not quite say that". So I am not entirely convinced.
I will just conclude by saying why I do not trust any of these organisations. As I said earlier, I have farmed for nearly 50 years and have found that if a thing can go wrong it jolly well does go wrong. This will go wrong. My second reason is that, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will agree, my name is Thomas. Thirdly, it is the job of your Lordships to make sure that everything is watertight. I am sorry to have to say this because the noble Baroness was very helpful, but I really will have to think about this point for Third Reading, because it really ought to be on the face of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Regional consultation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to second ("to") and insert ("in the exercise of its functions under section 7(1)(a), to consult and have regard").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 13. If there is any relationship between these two amendments it is perhaps to do with transparency. At the last stage I put down an amendment seeking to provide for consultation with the regional chambers on a non-optional basis: in other words, that the consultation be wider than as directed by the Secretary of State, since our potentially non-benign Secretary of State might give a very narrow direction. The Minister at that time said that this and related matters would be crucial in another Bill at some other time but it was not for this framework. I accept her point that perhaps I was trying to push the limits of this Bill a little further than they are intended to go.
However, reflecting on her words, I began to wonder about the operation of Clause 8(2)(a) and (b). Clause 8(2)(a) talks of the agency having regard to any views expressed by the regional chamber and, separately, consulting the chamber in relation to the exercise of its functions—but only those functions as are specified in the Secretary of State's direction.
Would it not be more helpful to the agency and the chamber if there were to be a more general consultation to give a framework to the views of the chamber to which the agency must have regard under Clause 8(2)(a)? No doubt a regional chamber, doing its job thoroughly and energetically, is going to express views on pretty well everything, but I believe that those views might be more helpfully expressed if they were in response to a structured consultation.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the agency's annual reports. This provides that the report must, among other things, set out directions which have been given to the agency during the relevant period. My amendment suggests that the agency should also report on how it has complied with the direction, since unless compliance with the direction is within the information which the Secretary of State specifies under Clause 17(2)(a), the reader of the report will be left to guess if and how there has been compliance with those directions.
I appreciate that this is a late stage at which to raise such a relatively small matter, and I assure your Lordships that I am not intending to try to score points off the drafters of this clause, because I know one can never achieve that result. However, there is an underlying query about how extensive the reports of the agencies are intended to be. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to give general support to the amendments and to repeat a word of caution which was issued in Committee. The new body needs to be careful to concentrate on strategy (with a capital S) and to ensure that it is not seen to interfere with the functions of similar existing bodies. Of course, we know that each RDA will be unique. The remit of the RDAs is very broad. I doubt whether they would have the time to interfere. However, it is timely to remind the new bodies that we are talking about strategy and consultation on strategy. All of us

325
understand that that is the broad picture; we are talking about general guidance and direction, but not about interfering with the activities of existing bodies.
In Committee, I raised a number of points on behalf of the Local Government Association, which, like many other bodies, awaited the publication of the document. Its initial response welcomes the guidance given, but raises several points which have already been fairly well covered. The main point is to ensure that we do not duplicate the effort, money and time that have already been devoted to this matter. We do not want turf wars in regions. We know that that can easily happen. This is the stage at which the embryo RDAs should be reminded that they are charged with dealing with strategy (with a capital S) and not with running the area, county or district. Good people have been placed in those organisations by the Minister or have been appointed by bodies, and they are every bit as capable of continuing to do that with which they were charged as are members of RDAs. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will hear that in mind.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to issue directions to RDAs which would require them to consult with, and have regard to the views of, designated chambers when producing their regional strategies. Those powers are contained in the Bill as drafted. Subsection (2)(a) allows for directions to be issued by the Secretary of State requiring the RDAs, when formulating and reviewing their strategies, to have regard to any views expressed by the chamber.
In addition, subsection (2)(b) allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to RDAs requiring them to consult the chamber when exercising any functions specified in the directions. This could, of course, include the preparation of the RDAs' strategies, which is a function of RDAs under Clause 7 of the Bill.
In practice we hope that it will not come to that. As I have said on more than one occasion, the success of the RDAs' strategies will depend on the extent to which RDAs are able to build a consensus in their region, and their ability to secure regional ownership of the strategy, and regional commitment to delivering it. Clearly, the commitment of the regional chamber will be a key objective for the RDA. Arguably, therefore, the issue of a direction on the subject of consultation with the chamber would be a sign of the breakdown of this crucial relationship. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to the sensitivity of that matter and the need for people to respect complementary roles.
However, I can assure the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary and that the Secretary of State will have the necessary powers to require the RDAs to consult with the chambers in the formulation and review of their strategies should it ever be necessary. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
326
Turning to Amendment No. 13, I recognise the good intentions that lie behind this amendment, which would require RDAs to include in their annual reports details of their compliance with directions issued by the Secretary of State. However, I believe that the amendment as drafted is not only unnecessary, but unfortunately is also flawed in some fundamental respects.
It is unnecessary, because under Clause 17(2)(a) the Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the agency as to the contents of its annual report and this could be used to achieve the same effect. It is flawed, because if directions had been given towards the end of the period covered by the report, it might be too soon for the agency to report in any meaningful way on its compliance with them. Also, the clause requires the RDAs to include in their annual reports only directions made during the period covered by the report. In terms of compliance, it is at least—if not more—relevant to consider what action has been taken to comply with directions issued in previous years.
As I have said, under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State already has powers to direct RDAs as to the contents of their reports. However, I very much hope that on a matter such as this RDAs would never need to be formally directed, before including details of their compliance in their reports. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 13, I referred to the use of Clause 17(2)(a) to deal with compliance. I recognise that that is a possibility. With regard to Amendment No. 12. I accept the danger of turf wars, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred. I am certainly one of those who is persuaded of the desirability of the RDAs exercising powers which are currently exercised by central government and not taking over the functions of local government. Frankly, I still find indigestible the centralised nature of the provision, with everything being dependent on the Secretary of State's directions. However, I have heard what the noble Baroness said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Power to alter regions]:
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 36, at beginning insert ("For a period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in Committee we sought in the first instance to involve the Boundary Commission in establishing the areas of the regions. The amendment sought to limit the time which the Boundary Commission had for that task, but the Government rejected the proposal on the basis that further reviews would not be in anyone's interests as the imminence of the RDAs had already led to a substantial amount of co-operation. Whether that co-operation was voluntary or enforced, I leave your Lordships to judge. However, the Minister recognised

327
that the boundaries were not immutable and referred to the ability under Clause 25 to make changes to the extent of the regions. In the debate on Clause 25, the Minister steadfastly refused to contemplate reviews which might alter the number of regions. My amendment, which sought to allow that, was defeated.
Among the arguments deployed by the Minister against the amendment were those which appear at cols. 559 and 560 of the Official Report of 7th October. The Minister said:
"The objection that we have to re-opening the question of the number of regions as distinct from relatively minor changes to the boundaries of those regions is that we believe that, in order for the development agencies to work, people must believe that they will be, broadly speaking, permanent areas".
I say in parenthesis that I would like people to feel that the regions are in reality regions in which they are able to work together for the purposes of the Bill rather than being led to believe that they are the right areas and that they have no alternative. The Minister continued:
"If we were to re-open the question of the number of regions, it would lead to local pressure groups trying to alter what has begun to be a constructive dialogue to make the RDAs work…The point is that the Government want to maintain that number of regions. They believe that that puts pressure on people to co-operate. That co-operation is beginning. If we remove that constraint some of that co-operation may be lost and that would not be to the benefit of the purposes of the Bill or the future development of…our regions".— [Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 560.]
I find that troubling. We know that the regions as set out in this Bill were established by the previous government for the administrative convenience of delivering the functions of central government. It was never envisaged or suggested that they should be the basis for organisations which are to deliver policies locally, even if they are policies delivered in partnership with central government.
If the regions have to be maintained as they are to get the RDAs up and running, I accept with reluctance the argument that is advanced. However, I can find no good reasons for a commitment to a figure of 12, no more and no less, at least not without primary legislation. The reasons given by the Minister for rejecting the amendment in Committee smacked more of centralisation than devolution to local communities and more of central government convenience than of whether the arrangements suited local people.
We were assured that the proposal has nothing whatever to do with the possible introduction at some time in the future of regional assemblies. I must accept the Minister's assurances but the Government have said that the figure of 12 regional development agencies and no more and no less is the right number. They have created within those regions not just the development agencies but also the regional chambers. Ministers say that the Bill has nothing to do with regional chambers. They may be voluntary chambers but if there is to be central government guidance and central government approval of what is or is not to be recognised as a voluntary chamber, I believe that the Bill has everything to do with regional chambers, voluntary or otherwise. I believe that by taking such a restricted view—whether deliberately or not—of the area of the regions we are
328
pre-empting our view about the regions of England if, at some time, the Government were minded to try to go down the road I have mentioned.
The Government should consider that in some instances the areas of the regional development agencies will need changes which may alter the number of regional development agencies. I believe local people, local businesses and local authorities within those areas may find that the areas are just not right and cannot be put right by a mere alteration to the boundary of the region. I take the point that the Government do not want to encourage the concept of immediate secession and that they want the different interests to get together to work on regional policies. Having imposed these constraints, the organisations may after a period of time acquire their own identities and the desire to change may not exist. To try to meet the problem perceived by the Government I have limited in the amendment the Secretary of State's ability to change the number of regions to prevent him doing so for the first five years.
I submit to your Lordships that if within five years a regional development agency has not been able to build its identity, has not established its role and has not achieved acceptance within the region it seeks to serve, it should be possible to change the regions in extent and numbers in a way that meets local needs and wishes and not the convenience of central government and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at the previous stage I was among those who argued against setting the number of regions in stone. I was attracted by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I had not expected his passionate argument as to the effect of the legislation on future regional government to have the opposite effect on my thinking.
Clause 25 provides for orders by affirmative resolution. Regional government will be a major area of constitutional development; it is one to which I and my colleagues on these Benches look forward. I would be most unhappy at the prospect of the shape of the regions being pre-empted by an order rather than by the whole subject being fully debated in primary legislation. I can see that in five, six or seven years' time we may be presented with an order varying the number of regions and that a year or two after that we may be told by the Government that it would not be appropriate to make a further change to the number of regions when the country is involved in the much wider debate that primary legislation would provoke and assist. I had not expected to find myself disagreeing with the noble Lord on the amendment, but I fear that I do.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for slightly different reasons I, too, disagree with the noble Lord. I am not entirely sure that I shall be able to adduce many new arguments. I shall merely try more convincingly to explain the arguments given in Committee.
I believe that part of the concern over our insistence that Clause 25 while allowing for changes of boundaries, should not change the number of regions is that there is still a fear that these will be taken as the boundaries for the regional assemblies or any other

329
institutional regional organisations. I do not accept that. The question of whether the number of RDA areas should be increased or decreased can be considered entirely within the context of the Bill and the powers and responsibilities that are going to RDAs. For that reason the Government believe it right to stick broadly to the regions identified in the Bill for the. RDAs. That will provide a certainty and stability which we believe is desirable for RDAs as they face their new challenges. The noble Lord's proposal for a five-year moratorium does not provide sufficient certainty. Indeed, in a sense it would do the opposite. It would raise the expectation that matters might well change within five years. That is a relatively short period of time for the kind of medium-term planning operation we wish to see the RDAs achieve.
We want to see the RDAs established as quickly as possible as strong, influential and stable bodies able to bring the right economies of scale to the regions and to bring regional stakeholders together. We have chosen to use the areas already served by the Government Offices. We accept that in a number of regions, regional identities have not hitherto been strong, and in some regions there have been pressures on us to take a different approach. In some cases there has been pressure to provide an agency for an area much smaller than the region that we are proposing—proposals involving single counties such as Cornwall or the Isle of Wight.
As regards preparation for the establishment of the RDAs, the evidence is that people, broadly speaking, now accept the boundaries for that purpose and acknowledge that an area of approximately the size we are talking about is required in order to achieve the benefits that the RDAs will bring. People are working together constructively to make regional partnerships a reality in all parts of our regions and to bring together for all parts of those regions the benefits of the new approach.
If we set out the prospect of a change in those boundaries after five years, through those five years there will be protracted arguments about boundaries when the important task is to address regional economic performance. That is why we chose relatively uncontentious boundaries in terms of Government Office boundaries, which are well-established. And that is why we wish to stick to the number of agencies we are talking about. We do not accept the proposition that lies behind the noble Lord's argument; namely, that after five years the need for certainty will have disappeared.
Perhaps I may indicate why a proposal regarding a change to the boundaries could be counter-productive. The RDAs' regional strategies will be crucial to their success and, more importantly, to the success of regional economies. We envisage these strategies looking five to 10 years ahead and encouraging investment in that kind of timescale. We envisage their being regularly reviewed over that period. Their delivery and the economic improvements we want them to bring will depend on the will and commitment of regional partners across the spectrum of regional activity and across the
330
whole of each region. The RDAs' role will be to bring people together, to break down barriers that may exist, and to foster regional working. Leaving open the prospect of break-away regions or mergers between different regions, as the amendment might appear to do, is not in the Government's view helpful to RDAs in their task or conducive to constructive regional working.
The noble Lord may regard this approach as one of excessive centralisation. I regard it as common sense. And it appears to coincide with the views of most of the people who are working to establish the RDAs region by region.
I accept that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to change the broad framework at some future date. If, when the time comes, regional assemblies are developed and put into law, and if at that time, as a result of consultation and the democratic process region by region, we, or a future government, reach the conclusion that the boundaries for regional assemblies should be different to the extent that there are a different number it would then be sensible to re-examine the regional development area boundaries.
As I said earlier, and as my noble friend Lady Farrington repeated, the establishment of regional assemblies, their number, and the implications for the RDAs and other bodies would be a matter for future primary legislation, not for this Bill. That legislation would provide the opportunity, when we are establishing a different configuration of regions for regional assemblies, to alter the RDA boundaries in the light of that alternative configuration.
I should have said that I congratulate the noble Lord on achieving in his opening remarks—I am not sure he was entirely aware of it—without changing a single dot or comma of the schedule to the Bill, an extension in the number of regional development areas from nine to 12. There are in fact only nine—
Lord Bowness: Sorry, I am not very good at numbers.
Lord Whitty: That could explain a lot. Such developments as might follow the establishment of regional assemblies are beyond the scope of our discussion today. We believe it right for the Bill to stick with the principle of nine. I underline that there are to be nine regional development agencies for England, including the London agency.
There is an additional meso-economic point, as I believe it is called in the jargon. The main pressure would not be for the merger of regions; it would be for the splitting of regions. I know that it is superficially easy to argue that sub-regional identity is stronger than regional identity and that RDAs serving smaller regions should therefore be permitted. However, that rather misses the economic point of what we are attempting to do in relation to RDAs.
All the evidence we have seen from other members of the European Union in regard to the development of regional policies indicates that in order to be an effective economic unit—and we are talking only of economic instruments—regions need to be large and influential

331
enough to make a difference to regional economies and to the contribution that those economies make to the national and European economy. A certain scale and a certain level of economic generation are needed to improve competitiveness and to make a regional approach to economic and industrial policy work.
That does not of course mean that we cannot have sub-regional sects within a regional development agency framework. Of course we can, for particular purposes where it makes sense to do so in particular sectors and for particular products. That would be a matter for each RDA to decide over time. But where regional policy has worked and where there has been an effective study of the matter, the evidence suggests that regions should probably be slightly larger than the smaller region we have included, which represents over 2 million people. Any area smaller than that would not be able to achieve the economies of scale and economic performance we are looking for as a result of establishing the RDAs.
I have attempted to give one or two additional reasons for not accepting the proposal. If the noble Lord's objection is basically that the Government's view is being imposed from above, I assure him that all those whom my honourable friend Dick Caborn has consulted and continues to consult in establishing the RDAs also believe that it is necessary to provide that stability and certainty to make the RDAs work. Telling everyone concerned, including those who are doubtfully involved at the edges but who have now begun to see the advantage of these structures, and giving the impression that in five years' time the whole matter will be thrown up in the air again, would not be helpful. Therefore, while I understand some of the noble Lord's arguments, it would not be sensible to alter the Bill in this respect. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. My argument is not about regional assemblies. I accept the Minister's remark that he is not endeavouring to pre-empt the discussion. My concern is that, as a matter of fact, in setting up these structures and determining that at no stage can the numbers be changed we are, whether we wish it or not, pre-empting those decisions.
I accept that people are working together to make these structures work. People tend to do that. They are not destructive. Of course they work together; they have no alternative. There are already chairmen-designate of the regional development agencies. Matters have gone on apace, notwithstanding the fact that we are still debating the Bill in your Lordships' House today. People will make the best of it. My point is that I am not convinced that one can say with certainty that these regions, established by the previous government for central government purposes, are the right areas in which to try to achieve the objectives of the regional development agencies as set out in the White Paper.
I am intrigued by the Minister's suggestion that the regions must be this size in order to be effective economic units. The core functions and the issues to which they will contribute—the policies and
332
programmes on transport, land use, environment, further and higher education, crime prevention, public health, housing, tourism, culture, sport and infrastructure—are all matters which would normally relate to local government. Certainly, there are structures which are much smaller than the proposed regional development agencies that deliver policies and programmes on these issues.
I listened with care to the Minister. I shall read and reflect upon what he said and talk to other people. I may return to the matter at another stage, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) An order made under subsection (1)(c) shall in particular make provision for sustaining a network of rural volunteer organisations throughout rural England that will act to reduce social and economic exclusion in all rural areas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. At Committee stage I expressed anxieties about the future and the funding of rural community councils, a rather smaller issue than that dealt with by the previous amendment but nevertheless important. I was grateful for the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who said that she hoped she had given the degree of assurance sought. I am afraid that she had not entirely done so, hence my amendments.
The second of the amendments, Amendment No. 16, is a probing amendment which suggests that funding for rural community councils could come from a national agency, which, by definition, means not a regional agency. I wonder whether any decision has yet been made as to which agency or agencies will be responsible for this funding and what the parameters will be. If it is to be undertaken by a national organisation, that could be the new countryside agency; or it could be ACRE, the charity that is owned by the rural community councils, which would be an interesting alternative.
The first of my amendments, Amendment No. 15, is the more important one. It seeks to put on the face of the Bill what are effectively the objectives of the rural community councils, to ensure that these bodies are retained and that they continue to be used by the new agency or agencies in the way that they have been in the past. Rural community councils have been the eyes and ears locally for the Rural Development Commission. It is acknowledged that the Rural Development Commission has been a highly authoritative source of information on the rural sector and its needs, and that is very important to the rural areas.
I do not need to say much about rural community councils themselves, since I believe that most noble Lords will know about them. Most counties have one. They are all registered charities which guide a great deal of voluntary effort and bring together statutory authorities and voluntary organisations to look after the

333
needs of rural communities. I am sure that it is not necessary to list their various functions. I believe that they come cheap at the price because of the voluntary element of their work. Core funding comes from local government as well as from the Rural Development Commission.
It is not clear at present how the rural community councils will fit in with the two new agencies. However that works out, it seems imperative that the respective roles of the two bodies should be complementary and clearly defined. Meanwhile the social work of helping rural communities must continue in the long term, preferably more strongly than before, particularly bearing in mind the sombre agricultural outlook at present. However, to me the omens do not look favourable.
The question of how to break up the Rural Development Commission is not a simple one. I do not know what further news there is about that. Parallel with the passage of the Bill through Parliament, much discussion has taken place about the future of the agencies and of the rural community councils. I am not happy about the outlook for that.
It appears that the funds of the rural development agencies are to be targeted on a small number of closely defined areas of social disadvantage. My concern is that that hardly meets the rural case, where often small pockets of need exist across substantial rural areas. If the rural development agencies are to pick up this task, I believe that big changes will be needed to the current thinking on how their assistance will be targeted, and I wonder how much would be left over for scattered rural needs after the main targets had been satisfied.
The grapevine tells me that the merger between the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission seems more like a takeover than a merger, and I fear that there may be a difference of culture between the two. The Countryside Commission began its life by managing national parks. I do not believe that it was entirely popular in the way it did that, but I will let that pass. Its field of operations since then has been environmental protection and enhancement and access to the countryside. It has concentrated on those. It is quite a different field from the Rural Development Commission, which has dealt with people. It has been very successful in dealing with people because it works through the rural community councils. There was always each-way communication. We do not want to change that. We do not want to change to a top-down type of organisation. I would not wish to see such things as demonstration projects, initiated from on high, or short-term, pump-priming approaches to different projects from time to time.
I do not feel too happy about the prospectus for the new agency, on the grounds that I have mentioned. There seems to be no reassurance that the new agency will commit sufficient funds over the long term to equal the Rural Development Commission's achievements. Too much of the prospectus looks like proposals for research projects or exhortations to others. This has its place, but the ability of the new organisation to exhort others will be dependent on its long-term understanding
334
of the rural issues. It will need an ear to the ground. That ear to the ground is the rural community councils. That should be understood by all, particularly those making reports and involved in negotiations about the new organisation.
I would like to see this amendment, or something very like it, on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate the merits of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. It is absolutely vital that the new RDAs do not lose sight of the valuable work already in progress in rural areas. The risk is that the RDAs will try to start with a clean sheet and spend three years re-inventing the wheel. There is also the risk that some of the work in progress will fall between the two stools of the RDA and the Countryside Commission and that time will be wasted in deciding who is responsible for what. For example, the RDC's support for rural volunteer bodies, which is key to overcoming social and economic exclusion, is also key to enabling the rural community to adjust to change with a sense of purpose which comes from a local ownership of issues faced.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I too praise the work of the Rural Development Commission. It has been extremely good. I am glad to see in the development guidance so much use made of its indicators, although I disagree with one particular area. I look forward with much optimism to the Regional Development Agency allowing us to address issues that are not defined by rural development areas. This has hampered the Rural Development Commission's work considerably because, up until now, we have had geographical boundaries, drawn up by the use of imperfect indicators, which have cut very arbitrarily across areas which suffer considerable social exclusion.
For that reason, the move that we are now making is likely to produce a much easier working environment for the voluntary organisations. It was no fault of the Rural Development Commission that it was unable to offer the sort of service it would have liked to the volunteer organisations. Those organisations worked across broad geographical areas whereas the development area was, in many cases, smaller and did not cover the same geographical boundaries. We are moving into something that will produce a far more cohesive pattern.
Rather than,
"sustaining a network of rural volunteer organisations"
we are still at the development stage. It is much easier to be a volunteer organisation in an urban area than a rural one, and the development of volunteer organisations in rural areas would be high on any development agency's agenda.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, seeks to specify details about the way in which the new

335
countryside agency will carry out its future role in relation to the rural voluntary sector and rural community councils.
The powers in Clause 35 of the Bill include powers for the Secretary of State to transfer functions of the rural Development Commission to other public bodies or to confer on another public body all or part of a function of the Commission. The order to be made under Clause 35 to put this into effect—and the transfer scheme made in accordance with it—will transfer functions, staff and funds of the Rural Development Commission to the new countryside agency. This will enable it to support the rural voluntary sector and the rural community councils.
As in the case of all the RDCs' live contracts, it will also transfer to the new agency the contractual liability to support funding of the RCCs. I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted to know that this has recently been renewed under a service level agreement. This relates to a specific question which the noble Lord put to me and I hope that that will please him. This renewal of financial support for the RCCs has been notified formally to each one of them. I hope that this goes some way to meet the requirements of the amendments which the noble Lord seeks to put on the face of the Bill.
The Government are committed to a partnership approach with the rural voluntary sector, and I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about the importance of the voluntary sector. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that in many areas it is not only the sustaining of the voluntary sector to meet the needs of rural communities but a more comprehensive approach in helping to develop a voluntary sector where none exists now.
We are committed to a partnership approach with this sector and believe that it is right for the agency to decide in due course how to build on this. The setting up of the new agency offers a valuable opportunity to enhance its role by thinking afresh and imaginatively as to how government policy can be carried out in rural areas. The RDC and the Countryside Commission are paving the way for this with their recently published draft prospectus. It is extremely important to recognise that the countryside agencies merger is intended to build on the strengths of the existing organisation, to sustain and develop that which is good and to ensure that the new body is able to carry forward the undoubtedly valuable work that has been done. An extensive consultation process has just been launched and the new countryside agency will listen to the views of interested parties about its future work and the way in which it carries out its role. The Government are confident that consultees will be emphasising the role of the rural voluntary sector, just as noble Lords have in this debate. We are committed to ensuring that their voice is heard before the new agency is established.
We therefore believe that we should be cautious about putting requirements on the face of the Bill which could unduly restrict the new agency, especially as it will need to work towards the true integration of the RDC and the Countryside Commission functions. Noble Lords, who
336
are extremely knowledgable about the needs of rural communities, recognise the importance of ensuring that the new agency does that.
The draft prospectus for the new agency makes clear the significance of the agency's national advisory role and countrywide work and the need to maintain effective links with all rural agencies and organisations in order to support its work. We recognise that the RCCs have a central role in the RDC's programme for village halls and are also active in rural transport and rural housing. As was said in the debate, the RCCs provide a valuable role in supporting the commission's national advisory role. They work hard in tackling rural problems and are appreciated by local people. As I have said, the arrangements to be made under the Clause 35 order will fulfil the requirement that the noble Lord's amendments would put on the face of the Bill. The Government have absolutely no intention of directing the termination of funding to the RCCs. Such a step would be contrary to government policy. It would not be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill the details of single examples of activities which support the functions of the new countryside agency, or how it should fund particular activities or organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, asked about the future funding of Action with Communities in Rural England. Given that it provides services to the RDC, this will continue with the new service level agreements and RDC funds to ACRE are to be continued under these arrangements.
The new countryside agency will need to ensure that it reflects changing circumstances, including an enhanced role in advising regional development agencies on rural needs. The rural community councils, voluntary bodies in rural areas and many other interested bodies have a part to play in helping to shape the new countryside agency's remit. The Government and the new countryside agency are committed to listening to all their views as this is an important part of the process.
In conclusion, I should like to mention the rural guidance on which work is still in progress. It refers to the range of issues that have been touched on by noble Lords in the debate: the need to be successful in tackling the problems of rural regeneration and the deprivation that exists in rural areas; the need to encourage co-operation and integration between different organisations and sectors; and the need to take account of the often poor level of basic public services, such as transport in rural areas, and to deliver programmes in ways which encourage take-up by those who are most in need of them. The RDAs could build on existing strategies and programmes for the rural development areas designed by the RDC for the targeting of the rural regeneration programme.
I have tried to answer all the points that were raised. Should there be any outstanding questions, I should be only too happy to answer them between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for that thorough reply and I thank those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I was grateful for their support. I am still disappointed that it is proposed that I should withdraw the amendment. The amendment makes a very definite statement which I felt the Government would be pleased to have on the face of the Bill. But there we are. If they feel they can do without it, I am quite surprised. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley that we should put these matters on the face of Bills.
I am glad that the noble Baroness agrees with much of what I said about the way in which rural community councils function, the Rural Development Commission has functioned and the importance of keeping that going. I very much trust that the Minister will bend all efforts to ensure that the future is as successful or better. I expect that that might be quite a task—there are difficulties ahead—and I hope that it does not become too steamy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line and insert—

("(a) requiring the Commission to make one or more schemes for the transfer of such of the Commission's property, rights and liabilities as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate to be transferred in consequence of the order, and

(b) applying Schedule 8 in relation to a scheme under the order, with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Powers in relation to the Agency]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, leave out line 7 and insert—

("(a) requiring the Agency to make one or more schemes for the transfer of such of the Agency's property, rights and liabilities as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate to be transferred in consequence of the order, and

(b) applying Schedule 9 in relation to a scheme under the order, with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [General interpretation]:
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 26, at end insert—
("notwithstanding the provisions of section 5 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Interpretation Act 1978, "Secretary of State" shall be interpreted to include the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the hour, I shall try to be brief. Perhaps I may begin by apologising to the Minister for intervening during the debate on the first amendment after he had spoken. I am afraid that 33 years of bad habits at the other end of the
338
building had not allowed me to realise that the rules in your Lordships' House for Report stage are different from the ones I am used to. I am sorry about that.
This amendment arises from a point I raised at the Committee stage when I noticed that throughout the Bill there is reference to the Secretary of State. It occurred to me, as a former Minister of Agriculture, that the Minister of Agriculture has no role in the Bill with regard to a great many issues in which he has a great interest. I have in mind agriculture, fisheries, the food manufacturing industry and sea and flood defences, among other things. It seemed to me that that was a mistake.
At this stage I think I should explain why the Minister of Agriculture is the only Minister in the Cabinet who does not have the rank of Secretary of State. It is purely a sentimental and historic reason. I think I am right in saying that every Minister of Agriculture in recent years has been begged by the Cabinet Office to agree to become a Secretary of State. Over the years every one of us has said, "No, it has always been the Minister of Agriculture", and we have resisted the blandishments of becoming a Secretary of State. I can remember the invitation coming at the time. I know that the late Lord Peart and our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, turned down that same invitation.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is excluded on the face of the Bill from a number of those important functions purely by historical quirk over the definition of a Secretary of State. I raised this point in Committee. The Minister was extremely kind and referred me to the Interpretation Act 1978. I looked it up—I had not been aware of it—and read that "Secretary of State" was defined as "any Secretary of State". In this Bill there are a number of areas in which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can have a most useful function in relation to both himself and the regional development agencies, but he is precluded from doing so because he is not a Secretary of State. For example, in Clauses 7 and 27 the Secretary of State may give the rural development agencies a certain amount of guidance and direction. As to guidance, I would have thought that as far as concerned the RDAs that was something that the Minister of Agriculture could usefully do.
In Clause 11 power is given to the Secretary of State to give grants to regional development agencies. One can envisage a situation in which functions can be usefully carried out on behalf of the Minister but he is precluded from giving them grants for that purpose. That does not seem to be very clever. Finally, in Clause 16 one sees that the Secretary of State can receive such information, advice and assistance as he may require. That is all very nice for the Secretary of State for Wales who is also the Minister of Agriculture for Wales, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by definition cannot receive such information, advice and assistance as he may require. That appears to be a ridiculous state of affairs.
This anomaly is caused by a quirk of history. In moving this amendment I have no desire to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should be the lead Secretary of State in this matter. All I ask is that in the provisions

339
of this Bill the Minister of Agriculture should be treated on the same basis as every other Secretary of State. It is absurd that in some of these arrangements the Foreign Secretary can do various things that the Minister of Agriculture is not permitted to do. I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment to the Bill and put the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the same footing as he would be if he had broken with the old historic tradition of having the title "Minister of Agriculture" and not "Secretary of State for Agriculture".
7.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation with which we are dealing results in part from the historic diffidence of Ministers of Agriculture in refusing the title "Secretary of State" even when offered it, and in part, I believe, from the noble Lord's misinterpretation of what the generic term "Secretary of State" means. It is right that the term "Secretary of State" is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 and that it includes all Secretaries of State. Therefore, were the Secretary of State who currently deals with this Bill, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, indisposed, somebody else would sign for him. It does not however mean that other Secretaries of State have powers within the Bill that are denied to the Minister of Agriculture.
The term "Secretary of State" is used partly because, unlike the Ministry of Agriculture which, by and large, has kept the same boundaries for many decades, other ministries in Whitehall have altered their configuration; most recently my own department following the coming to power of this Government. Therefore, the term "Secretary of State" must stand for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the areas covered by this Bill. Likewise, Home Office legislation gives powers to the "Secretary of State" but for practical purposes the powers are the Home Secretary's, not the powers of the Foreign Secretary or any other Secretary of State. In this case the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Secretary of State. The DETR is the sponsoring department for RDAs and, incidentally, the lead department on rural policy. Therefore, it is appropriate that the term "Secretary of State" should be used. It does not give powers to departments other than those which are inherent in the collective responsibility to make sure that the RDAs work.
I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture is disadvantaged by this arrangement. Although he is not directly responsible for any of the functions of RDAs, MAFF as the sponsoring department for agriculture has an important interest in their work and is fully involved both in the process of deciding board appointments and, more generally, the preparatory work for RDAs, particularly on the rural side. For example, the rural guidance fully involves the Ministry of Agriculture.
I accept that there are a few pieces of legislation where a different approach is adopted and that while the term "Secretary of State" is used and it is assumed that that is the Minister who has main responsibility, there are references in parts of the legislation to other
340
Ministers, including the Minister of Agriculture. For example, Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which regulates the use, release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, gives power to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State jointly, but that is because they have joint responsibility for those areas. There is an agricultural and environmental dimension. There are a few other examples, in particular the Water Resources Act 1991 because the Minister of Agriculture is directly responsible for flood defences.
In so far as the arguments of the noble Lord are predicated on the assumption that the Minister of Agriculture is disadvantaged, I do not accept them. I believe that in relation to the one example cited by the noble Lord—grants—government finance for RDAs from whichever department, whether it be DTI, DfEE or the Ministry of Agriculture, will be channelled through the DETR. Therefore, with respect to other Secretaries of State and other departments the Minister of Agriculture is not disadvantaged. There is one particular respect in which the Minister of Agriculture would have powers under this Bill. I refer to Clause 6 where power is given to delegate functions to the RDAs. That power is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. That would include explicitly the Minister of Agriculture.
Although at first sight this is a strange way for legislation to operate this is how it has operated for decades. In this particular respect I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate that the Minister of Agriculture and thereby the agricultural interest is not disadvantaged by the fact that he and many of his predecessors have declined the title and with pride have kept the title "Minister of Agriculture". The agricultural interests will be represented here. The Minister of Agriculture will have no fewer powers than Secretaries of State who have an interest in the areas covered by RDAs. I hope that with that explanation, which has been a little complex, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving the very clear undertaking, as I understood it, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not be in any way disadvantaged by the reference in this Bill to "Secretary of State" rather than a specific reference to him or her. Therefore, with that undertaking I feel a good deal more relieved than I did when I rose to speak. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Working Time Regulations 1998
7.48 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool rose to move. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1998/1833), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this short debate this evening I can do no better than to draw

341
your Lordships' attention to an article in the Sunday Observer penned by the admirable Melanie Phillips in which she said:
"The Government is to give employers the unprecedented legal right to force employees to work for 12 days on the trot. This is awful both in the substance of the proposal and the manner in which it is being implemented.
The measure is the implementation through Parliament of the European Working Time Directive. The way our Government are interpreting the directive's weekly rest day provision raises the spectre of the kind of exploitation which some of us thought was now history".
Alerted by that article, and by representations which many of us have received from organisations which are anxious to protect workers' interests, I believed it right to pray against these measures and to give your Lordships the opportunity of debating the matter tonight. I chose to do so for two reasons: first, because of the way in which the regulations have been implemented; and, secondly, because of the substance of the regulations, to what I refer to in shorthand as the "Trojan Horse nature" of the regulations.
My first concern, therefore, is the way in which the regulations have been implemented. They were laid in another place the day before the Summer Recess. Obviously, that was a time when Members of another place were about to go on their summer holidays and were not preoccupied with the regulations. They were implemented in October. Therefore they received no parliamentary debate or scrutiny in another place or in this House. That begs many questions about our role as parliamentarians and the way in which we safeguard the interests of those who will be affected by such measures.
The second and more major issue is the Trojan Horse provision within the directive. It is the erosion inside a measure which has many fine attributes and with which I would not quarrel, not least the number of hours that a worker should be required to work each week. That is a most worthwhile safeguard, but the Trojan Horse provision is to remove the worker's right to have one day off within each working week.
In parenthesis, I should also make it clear that this is not another example of Euro-madness. Other countries have implemented the directive differently from us. They have placed a cordon sanitaire around a day of rest for their workers. In a country such as Germany, its insistence on one day off in a seven-day period, even safeguarded by its constitution, has not notably had a disastrous or calamitous effect on its economy—indeed, quite the reverse.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to a speech by Mr. Ian McCartney, Minister of State in the other place, on 27th October. He claimed that it was totally misleading to suggest that the regulations diminish the rights of workers. He said that they included the right to a day off each week. He said that that was a new right; one that did not exist before 1st October. He continued:
"Therefore, I fail to see how the arrangement could do anything but improve the lot of workers".
342
But then he added that a day off may be averaged over a period of two weeks for the sake of flexibility. And so in one sentence he immediately destroyed his argument. He added, rather unconvincingly, that,
"In most cases rest will be taken on a weekly basis".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/98; col. 237.]
The experience with Sunday opening reveals that precisely the opposite will happen in many, many cases. Since 1994, when the breaks were taken off Sunday shopping, within months others were following the retailers in the quest to build the 24–hour society. Prior to 1994, banks, building societies, libraries and theatres could have opened on a Sunday but chose not to do so. Once the large retailers were given the go-ahead for seven-day opening, a Pandora's Box was opened. The result has been tremendous pressure on thousands of people to work on a Sunday. This is despite a clause in the Sunday Trading Act designed to protect those who do not wish to work on Sundays. How can it now be said with any confidence that there will be no additional pressure to make people take on 14–day working contracts, thereby committing them to arduous 12–day stints? The floodgates have been opened and unless the Government build in protective legislation, as has happened in other EC countries, many more workers in this country will suffer.
Perhaps I may illustrate my point. I ask your Lordships to imagine the following scenario. A husband's employer is given Monday and Tuesday off every two weeks; his wife, in retailing, is given Thursday and Friday off every two weeks; their children aged five, eight and 11, are home on Saturday and Sunday. How does that match up with the Government's rhetoric about deep concern for the family? We all know that, in general, employers put their shareholders first and the quality of life of their employees is always a poor second when profits are threatened.
In almost every publication we pick up these days there are articles about people in all walks of life suffering from rising levels of anxiety, tension, fear and guilt. Common complaints are sleep loss, exhaustion, headaches, skin diseases, digestive disorders and depression. At the root of all of them is stress; stress which, according to the experts, is caused by an overactive work environment where the number of hours you stay at your task is used as a measure of your competence and your enthusiasm. Many seminars and courses have been arranged in an attempt to come up with methods of lessening the effects of pressure in the workplace, but rarely does anyone want to admit that one of the greatest mistakes of this decade was the destruction of Sunday as a family day of rest.
In the four years that have passed since the enactment of that legislation we have gone for the lifestyle which includes a weekend and at least one day which the family can enjoy together: this 24–hour society where the time parents spend with their children can be measured in minutes rather than hours. It is not uncommon to find households where parents have a day off in the week and children are left to fend for themselves at weekends. There was a time when we

343
used to say, "Thank God its Friday, now we can enjoy a weekend break". But for many that is no longer a possibility and there are disastrous consequences.
Not content to preside over the destruction of Sunday as a regular shared family day off, the Government have now allowed this otherwise commendable Working Time Directive to be used as the backdoor introduction of a work pattern which could lead to at least one member of a family working for 12 days in a row. Anyone who has had the experience of missing a weekend and plunging back into the office at 9 a.m. on a Monday morning will know just how debilitating this can be.
As well as the obvious physical and mental stress such a practice can cause, there is another less talked about outcome of making each day of the week a working day, and it is equally undesirable. I refer to recent surveys. One was commissioned by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign which produced sound evidence of the decline of family life in this country. If the family is the building block of society, this is very bad news indeed.
I strongly welcome the Green Paper published today entitled Supporting Families. It is a consultation document. The Government, through the Home Office, are right to spell out on page 5 that they must make it,
"easier for parents to spend more time with their children by helping families to balance work and home".
But now we have to square that rhetoric with the reality of what is in the regulations.
In a recent DTI White Paper, Fairness at Work, there is a section devoted to family-friendly policies. It states that:
"work and parenthood can create conflicting pressures. Parents, both men and women, need time with their children and time to create a supportive home in which their children can thrive. To ensure that all parents are better able to balance work and family life, voluntary measures need to be underpinned by a statutory framework".
The paper then goes on to argue that the Working Time Directive will enable people to balance better their work and home lives and will do this by providing minimum and weekly rest periods. That is absolutely right. But if a weekly rest period falls on a day when one partner is at work or when one's children are at school, the suggested good balance between work and home life is completely lost. The days that family members have off need to be common in order to allow the family to remain a strong and fundamental unit in society. Indeed, it was the European Commission report in 1989 which stated that family life was under constant threat, resulting from a lack of shared time together. But instead of addressing this issue constructively, either wilfully or inadvertently, we are compounding the problem.
If there had been more opportunity in the other place to discuss in detail some of the clauses of the Working Time Directive I am sure that we would not be here today discussing a working pattern—a 14–day reference period—which could inflict further harm on family life. Some closer scrutiny of the directive would certainly have resulted in the kind of correction we are seeking today; namely, that adult workers should be entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven day period, not 14. If a reference period of 14 days remains in the directive, there is no doubt that many
344
unscrupulous employers will exploit it just as many employers have pressurised shop workers to work on Sunday, despite the clause in the Sunday Trading Act which technically allows them to opt out.
We argue frequently that our House is here to permit a more reflective approach; that it is our task to scrutinise legislation in great detail. The debate this evening gives us a belated opportunity to do precisely those two things and to send back this directive to the Department of Trade and Industry so that it may be recast in a way which allows the rhetoric about workers' protection and the protection of families to be matched by legislative reality.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1998/1833), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.—(Lord Alton of Liverpool.)
8.1 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is concerned about the manner in which these regulations were introduced. I am sure that the Minister will respond adequately to that point. However, I am convinced that we all knew that this was on the agenda. The previous government had been speaking about it since 1993, so much so that it was featured in the 1997 election. In that general election, there was a promise in the Labour manifesto to introduce the working time directive. Equally, there was an undertaking in the Tory manifesto that the party would do its best to exclude it. The people have spoken and we must all listen.
The effect of the noble Lord's Prayer will be to protect the wrong people. He will protect the bad employers instead of their victims. These regulations are designed to protect the victims. Of course there are those people who do not wish to work at weekends or on Sundays. Equally, business must be flexible to be competitive. Some industries have their own special work patterns which require that kind of working. That is why the Minister in the other place was right to say that the day off can be averaged over a period of two weeks to allow that flexibility and to allow time off at the weekends.
The noble Lord is concerned about Sunday working. If I remember rightly, the Shops Act and the betting shops regulations still protect people's right to insist that they do not work on a Sunday. The working time directive takes nothing away. If the employees are victimised, that is what industrial tribunals are for. However, I remind noble Lords that until these regulations came into force, workers were not even entitled to that day off.
These rights have also closed a major loophole regarding employment agencies. They are now also obliged to provide their workers with paid holidays. The regulations also stop certain agencies and cowboy employers colluding to take away legal protection from workers.
My real concern is about the effect of the regulations on the nation's economy and on our competitiveness. For 18 years the previous government tried to improve productivity by reducing employment rights and by

345
curbing union power. The McKinsey Report published last week showed us how unsuccessful those efforts have been.
The regulations will not affect our competitiveness. The few firms and organisations which may be affected by them are those which are run by poor employers and by cowboys. Some firms may be forced out of business but it will be due to competition by the better-managed competitors, not by these regulations.
I do not recognise the work pattern explained by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The vast majority of employers will not be affected because they treat their employees fairly. They work reasonable hours because it is right and because it is good for business and for competitiveness.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this important matter before the House today, the day when the Government's Green Paper, entitled Supporting Families has been published, with many positive proposals to support families and parents in their most important job; that is, raising their children.
I remind noble Lords that shortly after the last election the Prime Minister said that it should be the role of any government to include in the assessment of their policies the impact they will have on the family. Sadly, some of the decisions taken since that speech seem to be in conflict with the Prime Minister's concerns for the family, and we are here today to discuss one in particular. If the Government are concerned to strengthen family life, surely it is important for employees with children to be guaranteed either Saturday or Sunday off, otherwise the family can never be together.
We know only too well that since the Sunday Trading Act was passed in 1994, employers have found all manner of ways to make sure that their more conscientious employees are unable to take advantage of their right not to work on Sundays. Pressure has been exerted on many fronts with the result that many young people, especially in retailing, work on Sunday against their will. These same employers will now have in front of them a clause in the working time directive which will allow them to say to their staff, "We need you to work for the next 12 days but you can have a two-day break after that." With the Christmas period approaching, it does not need a lot of imagination to see how some workers will be exploited. There will be families, who in the past could have looked forward to a long Christmas break spent together, but will now be lucky if they have a few hours on Christmas Day.
The family Green Paper recognises that,
"families are at the heart of our society",
and that the stability children need is best provided by two participating parents. Sadly, the opportunities for parents to spend quality time with their offspring is gradually disappearing in the rush to create the 24–hour society. I do not think many people realised the sort of monster they were unleashing when they supported
346
more shopping freedom on a Sunday. It had been popular sport for many years to rail against the boredom of the British Sunday. That was nonsense, because there was plenty to do for those with the smallest amount of imagination.
What few considered were the negative effects which the lack of a shared day off would have on children. A British Medical Journal article earlier this year stated that,
"parenting is probably the most important public health issue facing our society".
The article goes on to say that it is the biggest variable implicated in childhood illnesses and accidents, teenage pregnancy and substance misuse, truancy, school disruption and underachievement, child abuse, unemployability, juvenile crime and mental illness.
Now I am not trying to say that being together for a day is going to solve all these problems, but it goes without saying that if we are still to believe in family life in this country then a family has got to spend some time together, thrashing out problems and sharing the good times. We know that no board of directors is every going to achieve anything if it never meets! Families are no different.
The DTI has received many letters from people concerned with this latest development but, despite the department's support for family-friendly working developments, it is doggedly refusing to recommend what would be a very small, and sensible change to a working time directive, which is, like the curate's egg, good in parts.
My plea is for a weekly, regular and common day off work which could in theory be fulfilled by having any day of the week marked as a day of rest. But in keeping with the Christian and cultural traditions of this country, my candidate for this day would certainly be Sunday.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate but I should say at the outset that I cannot agree with the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to annul the working time regulations.
I start by congratulating the Government on honouring their manifesto commitment to bring this country into line with our European counterparts by applying this directive, which establishes a decent, minimum, fair standard of protection for those at work who need it most.
It is my view that the British people would wish to compete with their European counterparts and they much prefer to do that on a level playing field. I am sure that they would not wish to gain advantage over European industry by taking away some of the rights of those who most need them.
I spent years negotiating in a large cross-section of industry in the north of England with employers who, in many cases, were just as keen as I was to improve standards for their workforce. It is sensible to assume, in any case, that a workforce that enjoys reasonable standards at work will produce better results and enjoy

347
good industrial relations. I always found that the best agreements were mostly arrived at by co-operation and understanding from both sides of the industry. It is also important to progressive companies, which wish to compete at the highest levels, to have a content and committed workforce who are motivated by the knowledge that their employer cares about them. I suppose that the companies to which I am referring will either be slightly affected by these changes or not at all. That is why those to whom I have spoken have made it quite clear that the provisions of the working time directive are not excessive and that they will have very little difficulty in applying them.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about issues like the 20–minute break after six hours, a day off per week—indeed, that relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with which I find it hard to agree on the basis that employers can really apply consecutive days of much longer than 12 hours' duration at present, if they so desire—three weeks paid holiday and the right not to work more than 48 hours in a week, unless by agreement.
It has always been clear to me and to my union, the GMB, that, where there is a need for constant excessive overtime, there has to be a question mark over the competence of the management. There is also more chance of mistakes occurring and a greater risk of industrial injuries, plus the fact that there is evidence of reduced productivity levels as fatigue increases. So these changed arrangements for working hours will at least redress the balance a little for those who are working excessive hours.
I should also like to point out that the working time directive has been around for quite some time, so it can hardly be claimed to have been suddenly sprung upon us. Indeed, it was discussed in 1993 and should have been implemented in November 1996. We then had the previous government's unsuccessful attempts in the European courts to prevent the implementation of the directive. Therefore, it is a little late in the day for those who come along with the excuse that they have not had the opportunity to make their points due to the method applied to the legislation's progress.
I know that much trivia has been spoken about the issue. Many of the examples which have been used have been gross exaggerations, especially in the area of the 48–hour working week. I have even heard it said that there are those in your Lordships' House who delude themselves by thinking that being here for more than 48 hours can be classed as working. There may be some difficulties which arise out of the application of these regulations, but I am sure that the benefits to sensible employers and to workers generally will make it all worth while.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton most warmly for the manner in which he introduced this important issue and for the great clarity of his approach. I support him tonight and speak from my own experience. I am the owner of a herd of dairy cows which require milking twice a day, seven days a
348
week. My herdsman has extra help provided by a relief milker. Under the existing contract the herdsman has one full day off per week, plus one full weekend free per month consisting of a Saturday and a Sunday. Under the new regulations it seems to me that I could insist on the herdsman working 12 days continuously and then having two days off. He would thus be worse off than he is now, and could, I think, be compelled to take most of his two-day breaks during a mid-week period. I am sure that the Minister will tell me whether my interpretation of the regulations is right. If he says that agriculture is an exception under Regulation 21, can he also tell me whether my example would hold good in other industries? In particular, can the Minister say who has the right to choose whether to base the work period on a seven-day or a 14–day schedule? Would it be the employer or the employee? Further, does Regulation 17 come down in favour of the employee?
If the option lies with the employer in hard-pressed businesses such as farming, it seems to me that the employees are likely to be the ones who suffer. The same may be true of many other marginal businesses and possibly also of new "start-up" situations. Can the Minister say whether the directive which lies behind these regulations was ever discussed by one of the European sub-committees of your Lordships' House? If so, what was the result?
Have the Government fully considered the implications of these regulations for health and safety, for social and family life and for religious and spiritual practice and care? Those truly important values may well be at risk, even if they are difficult to quantify. I ask: is it not better to have a contented working population rather than one operating in a theoretically efficient paradise?
Finally, have the Government thought through the possible adverse effects of the regulations? Are they certain that the legislation does not contain within it the seeds of unintended consequences? I regret that, so far, speakers from the Government Benches have not addressed in the slightest way the impact of the regulations on family life. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, said—I believe that I heard him correctly—that it would be a matter for employers and employees to agree on what basis future working contracts should be arranged. But what will happen if there is no agreement? For example, will the issue then have to be submitted to an industrial tribunal? I do not believe that that would be a desirable outcome. Surely we should try to reduce to the minimum possible the amount of likely contention.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I should like first to say that I wholly reinforce the family and Christian way of life. However, I do not believe that the proposal before us is the way to achieve that. Indeed, I find it somewhat incredible that this Prayer has been laid before your Lordships' House. Here we have the working time directive consisting of 43 paragraphs and two schedules all of which provide an enormous amount of benefit in terms of working time, holidays, time off and young people's benefits. Those provisions and

349
benefits have been enjoyed by workers in Europe over the past six years but have been denied our workers because the previous government were not prepared to embrace the directive.
Against that we have a prayer which tackles just one element of the whole document, referring to paragraph 11—and only one part of it. The other part is quite distinctive. Young people are entitled to one day off in seven whereas for an adult worker it can be averaged over a 12–day period. It reminds me a little of what my father told me when I was a small boy. A man finds £1, loses sixpence and becomes obsessed with looking for the sixpence. That is what seems to be happening here.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to shopworkers. I declare an interest. Having represented shopworkers for 30 years, I think I know a little about their circumstances and those of their families. I fought and campaigned against low pay, discrimination against women, exploitation of part-time workers and the abolition of the wages councils. I campaigned strenuously against the abolition of the Shops Act 1950. But times changed and it was necessary to protect shopworkers. I was in the frontline of my union, USDAW, in so doing. The noble Lord said that the directive forces people to work 12 days. It forces no one to do anything except as regards unscrupulous employers who deny their workers genuine paid holidays and reasonable working times during the week. Many do not have holidays.
We should look more closely at the working time directive. The new rights include the right to a break where the working day is longer than six hours; a guaranteed rest period of 11 hours every working day; a guaranteed rest period of 24 hours once in every seven days—and that is the average; a ceiling of 48 hours on the maximum average working week; a ceiling on night work of an average of eight hours in every 24; a free health assessment for nightworkers with a possibility of transfer to day work where available if health is being damaged; and three weeks paid leave a year rising to four weeks in November 1999. New rights for under 18 year-olds involve a rest period of 12 consecutive hours each working day; a rest break of 30 minutes when the working day is more than four and a half hours; and a prohibition on working between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., with some exceptions.
What do we have at present? People are forced to work long hours over long periods without protection. They are given no time off for holidays; and if it is time off they do not get paid. All that is to be changed. It would be diabolical if this House threw out all those benefits simply because of one small part which may not be perfect. It will be for organised workers and trade unions to ensure that where possible we have a day off during the period of a week rather than a fortnight, but that may not always be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the Keep Sunday Special campaign. In the 1980s my union had some collaboration with Keep Sunday Special over the shop trading legislation. We did not want legislation to be introduced to enforce trading on Sundays. However, long after the campaign was formed, Keep Sunday
350
Special decided to embrace workers' interests in its campaign. I am not against its activities. Its documentation refers to having a Sunday off as a shared day off every week. I do not mind its members battling to have Sunday off, for whatever reason. But do not express that desire as being in the interests of workers! The working time directive is in the interests of workers, and it would be foolish to see it damaged.
I believe that the Prayer is ill-conceived, misguided and, to some extent, mischievous. I ask noble Lords to reject it.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, wish to speak against the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to annul the working time regulations. In an earlier debate he described the regulations as a hostile attack on the family. He repeated that charge today. I say that that is cynical scaremongering. The danger of his Prayer is that it brings together two unholy lines of attack on entirely worthwhile legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that this is other than family-friendly legislation designed to provide better protected times for work, rest and play. In another place Members of the Opposition accused the Government of introducing measures which increase burdens and costs on business. In practice, the regulations will simply provide for UK employees to benefit from measures which are common across Europe and among our European partners, and are common practice in the UK for most employees.
As I understand it, the regulations give effect to an important element of the social chapter—and not before time. They provide for a limit on the number of hours to be worked, and set the figure at 48. They make sensible provision for paid leave of three weeks rising to four weeks in 1999. They put in place measures to protect night workers; that is, those most at risk from accident and injury.
The Government have been sensitive in the manner in which they have sought to implement these important regulations. They have been sensitive to both employees and employers alike in carefully designing exemptions which recognise the special position that some industries occupy. I refer to transport, sea fishing, others who work at sea, and doctors in training. By agreement it is also possible for employees to waive their right to the limitation on hours at work. Choice is thus preserved.
How will it work in practice? I checked with my own local authority. It acts as an employer and enforcer of the working time regulations. It made clear to me that it welcomes this legislation. Local government welcome the legislation because it establishes a decency threshold in the workplaces of our nation. It raises standards among employers. It provides a balance between encouraging hard work and fair employment practice. It protects the most vulnerable in the workplace, the low paid, and makes special provision for adolescent workers over school-leaving age and under 18.
There will no doubt be some problems. But in enforcing the regulations, the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities will I am sure tread

351
carefully. Most councils will want to achieve compliance not through high profile prosecutions but by persuasion, education and advice. If my own authority is a yardstick to go by, officers there are already preparing to give advice and guidance. The retailers, shops and small workplaces of our city, for which the local authority is responsible, are seeking that guidance as a constructive way of implementing the regulations.
I see only two small areas of difficulty. The first is the question of bureaucracy. No doubt there will be a prize for the organisation which comes up with a cute and clever data collection package which manages easily to put together the information which we need to collect in order to enforce the regulations.
The second problem is simply that of ensuring that enforcement agencies establish a level playing field and common standards of application. I know that employers and local authorities are anxiously awaiting some guidance from the Health and Safety Executive on the implementation of the regulations. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea when it will be published and will assure us that the necessary consultation has taken place between employers, small business and the local authority sector.
In conclusion, the regulations are welcome. The debate is timely with the publication of the Government's consultation document, Supporting Families, which lays considerable store by creating the right framework to promote parent-friendly employment practices. The Government say, quite rightly, that they want to set a basic model for family-friendly employee rights on working hours, flexible working arrangements and parental leave so that we can all take time off for those family crises which arise from time to time. The regulations will encourage the best from employers and will raise the standards of those who do not match our minimum expectations by creating a common decency threshold. It cannot be right that as we approach the millennium, we have a labour marketplace which actively encourages excessive working hours, punishes good employers, rewards poor practice and, as the CBI has found, contributes through stress and poor health to a bill of some £25 billion per annum through absenteeism.
The public sector has led the way. Now is the time to extend the benefits of sensible working practices across our country and our nation.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to make plain that I consider the Government to be right to bring forward regulations in accordance with their manifesto commitment. I want to question only one small part, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in relation to Regulation 11.
Regulation 11(1) says that,
"an adult worker is entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven-day period".
But it takes away that right in paragraph (2) of the same regulation. All I ask is that the Government withdraw the regulations with a view to deleting Regulation 11(2)
352
with consequential amendments and reintroduce them, as amended, next week, which I understand they are perfectly able to do.
Most of the European Union countries included in their directives the equivalent of paragraph (1)—allowing one day off in seven. That also follows the directive originally given by the Almighty himself in the book of Genesis and is a good standard to follow. I understand that many countries also recommend that that day should be Sunday, but that is not my point.
I have three reasons for wanting the Government to withdraw Regulation 11(2). The first relates to the health and safety of employees—already mentioned by a number of noble Lords. Article 118A of the treaty says that member states should pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers.
To give employers the right to make people work 12 days on a stretch unilaterally does not improve the conditions for employees in their workplace, though many other provisions in the regulations with which I am not concerned do just that. That provision will increase stress. I am sure that a number of government Ministers will be aware that working for 12 days without a break increases the level of stress. It also increases sickness and compromises safety.
Napoleon tried a 10–day week; Stalin tried a much longer week than seven days and Scottish coal mines tried it in the Second World War. But it does not work. Given the encouragement of the express authority by the Government to force employees to work for 12 days, some employers will try it to their own and their employees' disadvantage. I therefore regret the inclusion of paragraph (2).
I want to refer to the employees' community and family. In 1929 Moscow workers wrote: "What do we have families for?" when they were being made to work longer than seven days at a stretch. Employees with families need time off work when spouses, partners and children are also at home and they are able to join in community activities. That is well brought out in the Green Paper Supporting Families. On page 25 it says,
"Well-managed and competitive businesses ensure that their staff work sensible hours and are able to agree appropriate work patterns with their employees. Some firms however do coerce staff into working excessive hours. To support the responsible majority the Government is underpinning voluntary co-operation on working time with a set of minimum statutory standards".
I believe paragraph (2) to be unnecessary and feel it should be deprecated.
Noble Lords have already mentioned employees' religious liberty. Christian, Jewish and Moslem communities have a specific day off each week and leaders of different religious communities have expressed concern about this provision. To reiterate, my only complaint relates to Regulation 11(2) which I should like the Government to delete.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I can speak briefly because a number of my noble friends have already

353
explained the importance of these regulations. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It has done two things. First, it ensures that a number of noble Lords read the proposals and check out what they do; secondly, it gives Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to express an opinion.
I felt that unfortunately the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was based on a false premise; that is, that prior to these regulations workers had certain rights to paid holidays, limited working time and so forth. That is not the case. As a number of my noble friends pointed out, this is a major step forward in providing for the first time limits on the amount of time that workers can be forced to work and provision for paid holidays.
I was interested to read the debate in the other place on this subject. Apart from root and branch opposition to any regulation imposed on employers—my noble friend Lord Burlison quashed that argument—the other argument put forward against the regulations was that they were too complicated; it would be too difficult for employers and workers to understand them. I did not come to that conclusion. The argument was that workers would have to employ lawyers to interpret the regulations for them. That is nonsense. One of the reasons for the existence of trade unions is to provide advice and assistance to workers when technical difficulties arise. I am sure that the trade unions will rise to the occasion in this case.
I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to respond to ensure that the Government monitor the provisions of the regulations and take note of what the trade unions say about the way they are working in practice. I have a query in relation to one or two specific points. The first arises in Regulation 10(3), which identifies an exemption for the daily rest periods for young workers; and a similar exemption arises for weekly rest periods for young workers under Regulation 11(8). Will my noble friend give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention that young workers should be treated worse than adult workers, but that in fact they should have better conditions than adult workers?
My second point relates to the long list of exemptions in Part III which identifies a number of industries and working occupations which are exempt from different parts of the regulations. Can we be assured that the Government will keep those exemptions under review to ensure that they are not used by unscrupulous employers to abuse their employees?
Finally, will my noble friend confirm also that, where applicable, health and safety provisions will override the provisions of these regulations to ensure that the health and safety of workers are not damaged even though employers work strictly to the regulations that we are debating tonight.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, being as anxious as any of your Lordships for my dinner, I will be extremely brief but, with your leave, I should like to draw attention to
354
a couple of things which I think I can squeeze into three minutes. Although the noble Lord suggested four minutes, I think I might manage with three.
I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension here. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that there was really only one thing wrong in the regulation that was being picked out and that one should not throw the rest of it away for that. That statement demands two responses. One is that if you had a new car and the brakes were wrong you would not preserve it unchanged for that reason. The other thing is that if the Prayer were to be agreed to, the rest of the benefits would not be lost: they would be brought back in a form which was acceptable to your Lordships.
This is not throwing away the benefits to workers: it is trying to add to them. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it would be an encouragement to bad employers if we were to throw the regulations out. What we are actually trying to do, and what the noble Lord appears to be trying to do, is to remove from such bad employers one possible bad practice. Our aim is actually to give more power to the workers and not less.
A number of your Lordships have said that there ought to be a day off a week and not a day off a fortnight. In considering that situation, I ask your Lordships (a) to consider the family, which the Green Paper has put the Government squarely behind and (b) to cast your minds back different distances in time to the moment when you were six or seven, and consider how far apart the end of one fortnight was to the end of the next. If you saw your parents only once a fortnight, how enormously impoverished you would be, compared with being able to see your parents once a week. I do not doubt that your Lordships saw your parents once a week.
That is what this Prayer seeks to make possible, where the employer does not want it to happen. To pass this Prayer would not be to put us out of line with Europe, as has been suggested, because the Germans already have what the Prayer wants to have. Nor would it be a breach of the manifesto agreement because the commitment was to implement the directive and no one is saying that the directive should not be implemented. Noble Lords on the other side of the House should understand that noble Lords who wish to pray against this regulation are in fact trying to make things better for the worker and worse for bad employers. That would be the only effect. It would also give the other House an opportunity to consider these highly important regulations, which so far they have not done.
8.42 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to debate this very important issue and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing it to our attention, but I cannot agree with his Prayer to annul the regulations. My colleagues and I do not agree with the noble Lord that to agree with this Prayer would not be to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that these working time regulations are sensible and generally well designed. We take issue, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned,

355
with the manner in which they have been introduced. We also feel that they are not as clear as they ought to be and that industry, commerce and the unions are concerned as to how the regulations will apply and how they will be implemented.
I should like to begin by saying why we on these Benches feel that these regulations are to the benefit of the country as a whole. They guarantee, as the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, has made clear, minimum working conditions, in terms of setting limits to the working day and to the working week and setting a minimum amount of paid leave. There are, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Monkswell, have made clear, extensive exceptions written into the regulations. They are so extensive, if I may say so, that when they were being developed in Brussels they were generally referred to as the "gruyére regulations" because there were so many holes in them.
However, if we are concerned about family values we should also be very concerned about current employment practices. Many of the provisions put forward in these regulations are thoroughly to be welcomed from the point of view of employment practices. We are all well aware of the lengthy hours that junior hospital doctors—who are among the exceptions to these regulations—have to work. A friend of mine not long ago was helped by an AA patrol man. When they asked him how long he had been on duty his reply was "20 hours". I do not think the health and safety of the nation are actually helped by those lengthy working hours, and these regulations will help to prevent that sort of thing.
There is considerable evidence also that Britain as a whole has been overtaken by a culture of long hours. In Spring 1997 a United Kingdom labourforce survey showed that over a quarter of employees in full-time employment worked in excess of 48 hours. Among the self-employed it was over 50 per cent. Recent Eurostat data show that the United Kingdom has the highest proportion of full-time employees working longer hours: over 30 per cent. compared with 12 per cent. on average, the next highest being Greece at 17 per cent. A recent survey by Austin Knight of about 13,000 workers in major firms who together employ over one million people, found that although three-quarters of the respondents had contracted for working hours of between 35 and 37½ hours each week, two-thirds of them—these are white collar workers—worked over 48 hours a week, 25 per cent. over 50 hours a week.
I do not think this would matter if these long hours were voluntary, but there is considerable evidence to show that many of those undertaking these long hours do so because they cannot complete the tasks allotted to them in the time available. Many feel that they are now dragooned into long hours and that we are now into a culture of long hours in this country. It is taken for granted that they will put in the hours that are required to fulfil their jobs decently. The Austin Knight survey of white collar workers showed that 47 per cent. of those surveyed said that they felt their families suffered from their long hours; over 50 per cent. said that their health
356
suffered; women in particular felt pulled between work and family; and two-thirds reported physical stress symptoms.
We support the spirit of the directive. Shorter hours will be good for Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, they will help to raise productivity rather than the reverse, and the NHS will benefit in terms of the size of stress bills. The quality of family life will be improved. I go back to what I said at the beginning. The regulations are very complex. They apply extremely widely across the workforce. There is currently much confusion on such basic issues as precisely what constitutes working time, who is affected and who is not, and so on.
The debate today about the implementation of the right to one day a week off work illustrates again the confusion. That confusion is particularly evident among smaller and medium-sized businesses. We fear that the regulations, as they stand, will create a field day for lawyers and industrial tribunals trying to sort out the muddle.
In brief, we support sensible, clear working time regulations, but we feel that the Government still have a long way to go to address the genuine concerns of those who have to operate them. I hope that we can get a commitment from the Minister that he will provide more guidance for those who have to implement the regulations.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the Government appreciate, we do not care for the directive and care even less for the manner in which it was introduced. The regulations were sneaked in on the last day before the Summer Recess. That is not an observation made in the name of "huff and puff" or in the name of parliamentary pomposity. The regulations are very complex and confusing. The likely consequence of the manner in which they were introduced is that businesses, largely unaware of what is being proposed are, I fear, likely to over-react. And that, contrary to the Government's wishes, may have a damaging affect on employment in this country. But whatever misgivings we may have about the regulations, we shall certainly respect the convention that we should not vote to annul the regulations in the event of a Division being called.
Both on this side of the House, and in earlier days on the other side of the House, I have rehearsed the arguments why we believe that the introduction of this directive into the United Kingdom is undesirable. I do not propose to rehearse those broader arguments again. It is our view that it will damage competitiveness; that it will destroy jobs and limit prosperity; and that it will undoubtedly restrict the advantage that we have hitherto enjoyed in attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom in comparison with our other European rivals.
On the Government's own calculation, the implementation of the directive will cost employers something in the region of £2 billion every year. However, in spite of that problem and a looming recession, the Government seek to introduce the regulations. It does not give us any satisfaction at all that they should press them forward in this way now.

357
It is interesting that in introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has not only identified the inflexibilities and rigidities of the directive which will be difficult for employers to introduce and which are likely to damage employment, but he has also identified the inflexibilities and rigidities within this complex approach to employment law, which does not even help a large number of employees in whose name, we presume, there was supposed to be some advantage.
When we argued that the introduction of the regulations was alien to the spirit of British "voluntarism" in this area, we were accused of taking a one-sided view of the regulations in favour and on the side of employers. Both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a number of my noble friends have observed perceptively that the regulations will not be of assistance to employees. We fear that those problems will be of disbenefit, not only to those who will lose their jobs, but also to those who remain in work.
We reflect with dismay that the Government have rushed forward with the regulations at this time. There may be a certain aptness that we are debating them a day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered predictions of the future of the British economy with an optimism that seemed to show an increasingly tenuous grasp on the realities of the economics of this world. Looking at the position as a whole, we are concerned that not only are those predictions seriously out of kilter with reality, but, worst of all, the Government have not understood that the regulations and directive will introduce a reduction in employment. For a considerable number of those who remain in employment, far from improving their lot, the regulations will seriously disadvantage them.
8.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we have been reminded in the debate this evening, the implementation of the working time directive is a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party and therefore a commitment of the Government. We are not only proud to have introduced the working time directive, but we are also especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us an opportunity to debate it this evening. I say, incidentally, to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that a similar debate took place in another place last week—but perhaps it was not very similar because it was much less cerebral—and that debate ended in a Division which supported the Government. Surprise, surprise!
We are proud to have implemented the working time directive because we believe in a flexible labour market, but one which is underpinned by fair minimum standards. Throughout the centuries there has been an imbalance in the relationship between workers and employers. That is the whole basis on which the labour movement grew in the first place. Some employers still seek to take advantage and to abuse this, and so workers need support. It is not right that employers should be able to force workers to work excessive hours against their will, for fear of getting the sack.
358
I was brought up on the history of the 19th century. I was brought up on J.L. and Barbara Hammond's The Village Labourer and The Town Labourer. I was brought up on Flora Thompson's Lark Rise to Candleford. I was brought up on the efforts of many liberals and other reformers who sought, first, to reduce the working hours for children and to abolish child working and then to reduce working hours generally. That has been the history of the labour movement throughout the past two centuries. Indeed, when this House came into use in, I think, 1851, there must have been many noble Lords on the Tory Benches who argued then that if you stopped children of six or eight working for 12, 14 or 16 hours a day the employers would go bankrupt.
This is not the end of it, but this is the first time in this country that we have had working time regulations of any kind for adult workers, let alone the kind necessary to preserve the fairness which we believe to be important. We see these regulations, together with the national minimum wage which will come into force next year, as going a long way towards improving the position of the most vulnerable workers.
I shall not repeat the provisions of the regulations, although they would, indeed, bear repetition. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, both referred to them. It has to be said that not forcing workers to work over 48 hours on average; and establishing a right to three weeks' paid annual leave; rest breaks during the working day; rest periods from work, including the right to a day off a week; special protection for night workers; special protection for adolescent workers and protection from unfair dismissal for asserting these rights, are not extreme demands. They are very moderate. A day off a week is not excessive; three weeks' paid holiday a year is not excessive. Those rights exist in most other countries in Europe and it is right that workers in this country should have them as well.
Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lord Monkswell, who is afraid that something is being taken away, that the health and safety protection which exists under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act is retained in full and that nothing is lost.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Bassam, referred in friendly terms to the Government's Green Paper on the family which was published today. In preparing for this debate, I have not had an opportunity to read that yet but I am pleased to hear their responses.
The regulations will contribute positively to the Government's wider goal of promoting family-friendly employment. Combining paid work and parenting, or caring for dependants, is a constant juggling act. Being a parent and a worker is not easy, as many of us know, and working parents need as much support as possible. The long hours culture has historically not only created barriers to work for women with caring responsibilities, but has also prevented many men from taking an active role in their children's upbringing. Providing limits on working hours, minimum rest periods from work and an entitlement to paid annual leave will help working

359
parents to spend more time with their children and to balance their home and work commitments more successfully. I hope to convince your Lordships that the Green Paper on the family and the working time regulations work together, rather than against each other.
I also hope to convince your Lordships that there are benefits to business from this measure. It is an old fashioned idea that business should involve the exploitation of workers. All modern business nowadays recognises that agreement, collaboration and co-operation between employer and employee are the secret of success.
It has been suggested that the regulations will impose a burden On business. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned a figure of £2 billion. I am aware of that estimate but I am not at all convinced that it is fully worked out. However, we have also been reminded in the course of this debate that the cost of absenteeism in this country is estimated—again, this is only an estimate—at £25 billion. If we can reduce that by 10 per cent.—I am sure that we can—we shall have already overcome any cost to business. The £25 billion was a CBI estimate.
We are seeking for many aspects of working time to be resolved by agreement between workers and employers. It is much better for that to be settled locally in the workplace rather than by government. That is the theme throughout the regulations. It is a theme of constructive dialogue between employers and employees.
I turn now to the issue which prompted the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to raise this matter. I repeat the quotation he mentioned from Melanie Phillips in the Observer. She stated that the regulations,
"give employers the unprecedented legal right to force employees to work for 12 days on the trot".
Nothing could be more wrong. That is not what the regulations achieve. It has been suggested that the measure weakens the position of workers by introducing a 12–day working week. In fact at present there is no regulation. There is no protection for workers. There is nothing to prevent workers from working a seven-day working week, week after week after week, with no rest period whatever under the present law. This is the first time a provision such as this has been introduced.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity was too modest. He compared the situation with finding a pound and losing a sixpence. My noble friend Lord Monkswell said the same. However, we have not lost a sixpence. We have gained a pound but we have not lost a sixpence. Everything is to the benefit of workers and everything is to the benefit of proper working relationships.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to agriculture and to dairy herds. The noble Lord is clearly a good employer. He has sensible relationships with his workforce and he gives them time off. He suggests that employers would be given new rights to enforce 12–day working. Nothing could be further from the truth. My noble friend Lord Grantchester has advised me on this matter as he knows about these things. As I understand the position it is quite common for those who work with
360
dairy herds to work one weekend and one week off. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, does not follow that practice and that is fine. The point about the regulations is that they will encourage agreement between employers and employees. If employees prefer to work as the workers of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, do rather than as others do, that will be no less possible than it is now. There will certainly be a failsafe protection. My noble friend Lord Haskel said that nothing is taken away from workers. He is quite right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be most helpful if the noble Lord could explain the effect therefore of Regulation 11(2) which states,
"If his employer so determines, an adult worker shall be entitled to either"—
the choice is with the employer—
"two uninterrupted rest periods each of not less than 24 hours in each 14–day period…or one uninterrupted rest period of not less than 48 hours in each such 14–day period".
It is that which causes anxiety.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that has to be taken in context with the whole of the rest of the regulations which concern agreement. This flexibility for a period of two days in 14 days rather than one day in seven days was introduced with the encouragement of employers who wanted that degree of extra flexibility to avoid unnecessary burdens on business.
We are talking about a new right and about something which could indeed force people under certain circumstances to work on Sundays, but that is in place of the free-for-all which exists at the moment. As regards rights under the Sunday Trading Act and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act for workers in betting shops, I can give the House an unqualified assurance that the protection introduced in that legislation is not taken away by these regulations. There is no question of any rights being taken away from workers. Those rights exist as they did before 1st October.
Therefore nothing is lost. No sixpence has been lost and a pound has been found. When noble Lords mention Sundays I am bound to remind them that the original European Community directive in 1993 stated in Article 5 that the day of rest should in principle include Sunday. Why do the regulations not include Sunday? That is because the Conservative government challenged that provision in the European Court of Justice and had it struck out. At their behest the European Court of Justice determined that Sunday was no different from any other day. Under those circumstances I think noble Lords opposite should be a little cautious about accusing this Government—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to protract the debate at this stage and wishes to introduce a discordant note of that nature I am perfectly prepared to "mix it" with him for as long as he likes. He may care to reflect that I did not mention Sunday at all in what I had to say for the very good reason that it seemed to me a proper approach to this matter would be to respect the religious convictions of

361
other groups in our society. Sunday may not be the day they would necessarily focus upon. If the noble Lord wishes to bring this debate to a reasonable and early conclusion I hope he will reflect on what he has just said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from the history I have recounted, I understand why the noble and learned Lord did not refer to that matter. In a more emollient mode, perhaps I may say that we do indeed hope that employers will look sympathetically at the possibility of matching the rest day with Sunday or whatever other day is appropriate—whether it is a Saturday for those of the Jewish faith or a Friday for Moslems—for those with religious beliefs. I accept the noble and learned Lord's rebuke that I was to some extent acerbic. I was taking advantage of an opportunity which it was a little difficult to resist.
In the same mode, let me say that I think it is always unfortunate if an order is introduced at the end of the summer Session and brought into force before the House reassembles. In defence, I would say only that these regulations have been in the pipeline since 1993; that there have been not one but two exhaustive consultations, one by the previous government and one by this Government; and that the regulations should have been implemented in November 1996 were it not for the legal challenge—I am sorry!—by the Conservative Government. No one can say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said, that they have been rushed forward. They have been given a very thorough debate. I was asked whether they had been debated by your Lordships' European Communities Committee. There was a report by a committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Lockwood in 1990 on this subject, but in all candour I must say that the committee concluded that it was open to question how far there should be a rigid approach to the issue of working time. There has been adequate consultation and consideration of these regulations.
I am conscious of the time. My noble friend Lord Monkswell made a point about young workers and Regulation 10. The exceptions from the 12 hours' rest requirement for young workers are in very strict circumstances. For adults flexibility is laid down in Regulations 20 to 23.
My noble friend also asked about the exemptions, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made the point that they apply very widely. The exemptions are under review by the Commission and we await its views with considerable interest.
We believe that the regulations provide minimum fair standards of protection for workers exploited by unscrupulous employers. The introduction of these regulations is long overdue and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Prayer against them.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has gone out of his way to address a number of the issues raised during the debate and I welcome the spirit in which he has done that. As a matter of historical record, I disagree with him on two points. First, he laid all the blame for the fact that the regulations do not include Sunday at the door of the previous Conservative government. I would remind him that Mr. Tony Blair, the then home affairs spokesman in another place, voted against my own successful amendment to the Sunday trading legislation to exclude Christmas Day and Easter Day and that from the Front Bench of the Labour Party there was consistent support for the deregulation of Sunday.
Secondly, although I am familiar with the literature he mentioned and I would perhaps add Tressle's Ragged Trousered Philanthropist to the list of books that influenced me, too, I would say in fairness to the Conservative Party that it was, after all, Lord Shaftesbury who pioneered the reforms that stopped children from being exploited. Perhaps there is less of a partisan issue here than we sometimes make out.
Without going too far into the recesses of history, I believe that this has been a useful debate. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about it being cynical scaremongering. It is surely our duty to scrutinise these matters. There was no debate in another place and no debate here on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks, I strongly welcome what the Government have done. This protection is long overdue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, that two out of three of the workers in this country are not even in a trade union, and it is they who are most adversely affected by many of the issues that we have been debating here tonight. His colleague and comrade in these causes, Ray Powell, was an ally of mine in another place during those battles. We worked strongly together on his Private Member's Bill—I served on the Standing Committee—and on the Bill that subsequently followed. I was disappointed when USDAW changed its view, though he did not change his, during the course of that legislation. It is the repeal of the Shops Act 1950 which has led us to the position where workers can be so badly exploited. And many already have been. So, far from being cynical scaremongering, we have only to look at those examples of workers who are given no choice under the so-called conscience clause, who are told to "take it or leave it" and, "If you don't work, then there won't be a job here for you". We all know that it is those bad employment practices that we must try to root out.
Never mind the sixpence or the pound; in this regulation here is one item which could undermine much of the good that is in the regulations. If we had had a considered debate on this matter we could have moved an amendment, the provision could have been removed and there could have been consensus across the Floor of the House. So, far from cynical scaremongering, it is proper and is the duty of this place to scrutinise measures such as this. Where we

363
believe that there are weaknesses, we should try to have changes made to the regulations and Bills that are laid before us.
The debate has allowed us to air those concerns and to place our reservations on the record. Given the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has dealt with the remarks made, and his promise to keep these questions under review, to watch these issues as
364
they develop and, I hope, to be prepared to come back with amendments if necessary if it is felt that there has been the widespread abuse that some of us fear may follow, on that basis I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.

  Community Gardens in Urban Areas
  Community Gardens in Urban Areas
  Towns and Cities: Policies
  Towns and Cities: Policies
  NHS Administrators: Redundancies
  NHS Administrators: Redundancies
  Medicines Control Agency: Herbal, Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Medicines Control Agency: Herbal, Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Royal Navy Deployments: Far East
  Royal Navy Deployments: Far East
  MoD and PJHQ Staffs
  MoD and PJHQ Staffs
  Porton Down: Claims for Compensation
  Porton Down: Claims for Compensation
  Army: Recruit Numbers
  Army: Recruit Numbers
  Prisoners of War: Compensation
  Prisoners of War: Compensation
  MoD Railheads
  MoD Railheads
  MoD: Transportation of Freight
  MoD: Transportation of Freight
  MoD: Environmental Policy
  MoD: Environmental Policy
  Marine Foresight Panel
  Marine Foresight Panel
  Royal British Legion: VAT
  Royal British Legion: VAT
  United Nations: Funding
  United Nations: Funding
  Council of Europe: Harmonisation of Law on Religious Liberties
  Council of Europe: Harmonisation of Law on Religious Liberties
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Nuclear Weapons: Elimination
  Nuclear Weapons: Elimination
  US-Japan Defence Co-operation: Guidelines
  US-Japan Defence Co-operation: Guidelines
  Algeria: EU Troika Meeting, 21 October 1998
  Algeria: EU Troika Meeting, 21 October 1998
  GCHQ: Recruitment Statistics
  GCHQ: Recruitment Statistics