Sitting of 29 October 1998

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Exports (North-east)
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: When he plans to meet business leaders in the north-east to discuss export prospects for the region. [55050]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): On 9 October, I launched a nationwide "listening to exporters" tour with a meeting in Glasgow and will visit Birmingham, Manchester and the south-east during December. I also intend to hold a similar meeting in the north-east, where I hope to meet a number of leading industrialists and exporters, including Michael Stephenson of Helena Biosciences and Peter Joliffe of Loblite Ltd., who is also chairman of the North East of England Export Club, which has some 600 members.
    Mr. Atkinson: I predict that the Minister will have an ear bashing when he arrives in the north-east. The exporters will complain that the strong pound, high interest rates, new Labour taxes and new Labour regulations are destroying their businesses. Is he aware of yesterday's report by the Northern Development Company, which showed that, in the north-east, two jobs were being lost for every one created? What does that mean for the promises that Labour made before the election? What sort of new deal is that for the people of the north-east?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not exactly astonished that the hon. Gentleman chooses to look on the gloomy side of
    444
    everything, but I refer him to the fact that, in the past two months alone, 5,000 new jobs have been announced in the north-east, including 1,500 in manufacturing industries. I draw his attention to the success of companies such as Solarsolve Marine in South Shields, which has just won the export award for smaller businesses. If he does not find that company—it will probably be away successfully selling its products—he could go to Immunodiagnostic Systems Ltd. of Bowden, NWC Precision Engineers Ltd. of Stanley or Eclipse Translations Ltd. of Alnwick, which are all major export success stories.
    The hon. Gentleman must be well pleased with the fall in unemployment in his constituency since the general election. Ear bashings are always welcome, as they are part of the process of dialogue, but most sensible people can see the wider story—they know the world circumstances as well as the success stories in this country that are countering such difficulties.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend should take no lessons from the Conservative party, which, in 1981–82, destroyed a third of the north-east's manufacturing jobs in 18 months. Will he respond positively to the competitiveness agenda recently put forward by business, enterprise and representatives of employees in the north-east, so that the north-east—as the region that exports more per head than any other region of Britain—can continue its splendid exporting record and take its good exporting tradition right down to small and medium enterprises in the way that he has described, with a robust interventionism?
    Mr. Wilson: The positive and constructive note struck by my hon. Friend is much more representative of the spirit of the north-east than is the carping of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who I think is the only Tory Member left in the region, which tells its own story about what happened before the general election. Unemployment has continued to fall, but we face difficult exporting conditions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can be immune from a world situation in which, for example, exports to the Philippines and Thailand have dropped by three fifths, to South Korea and Malaysia by a half and to Japan, Singapore and Indonesia by more than a fifth. Those figures are not a result of circumstances in the north-east; they are a result of circumstances in Asia, from which we are not immune. We all have to work that much harder and be that much more competitive, and many companies in the north-east are meeting that challenge. The Government will continue to respond to the message of my hon. Friend about constructive dialogue with everyone involved in industry and job creation.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Has the Minister, who has had much to read in his new job, had time to look at the Anglo-Portuguese News, which reported on 1 October that, in the same month as Siemens closed a plant in the north-east, it opened a plant in Evora in Portugal with 400 new jobs, specifically on the grounds of labour costs? The export from the north-east has been jobs.

    445
    Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who are both north-eastern Members, how long they intend to sit here like local Neros, fiddling while an estimated 16,000 manufacturing jobs are to be lost in the region in the year to come?
    Mr. Wilson: I must confess that I have read only the English version of that report. The lesson that I would draw from it is that it refers to a different product, different jobs and, presumably, a different system of financial support. If the Tory party is still sending out the message that we can attain immunity from world economic circumstances by some mystical process if we cut wages and conditions to the bone, it will receive exactly the same answer from the whole country as it received from the north-east at the general election.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: What plans he has to increase the target set for renewable energy output in 2010. [55052]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We undertook in our manifesto a commitment to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. As a first step, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry announced the fifth and largest non-fossil fuel obligation, or NFFO 5, order of 1,177 MW on 24 September 1998.
    For the future, we are reviewing what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewables by 2010, and what contribution new and renewable energy technologies might make to future greenhouse gas commitments.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that, as the climate change conference in Buenos Aires approaches, renewables must become the main source of energy supply in the UK—well above the 10 per cent. Target—as a central part of the climate change strategy? Will he try to convince the Chancellor that it is terribly important that the renewable energy review be published soon, to give us a stable framework for investment, economic development and jobs? There are tremendous opportunities that we simply cannot afford to miss. Specifically, does he agree that we need to unlock the mechanisms for bio-energy, which could make an important contribution to the revitalisation of rural economies and to farm diversification, which is especially important at the moment?
    Dr. Howells: Discussions have taken place between officials in my Department and in other Departments—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for example—to consider the possibility of developing the new energy crops. The thought of hard-pressed farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in mine being able to supplement their incomes by growing energy crops and helping to combat greenhouse gas emissions is extremely attractive. I am confident that we will publish the review shortly and that there will be a full debate on the future of renewables. Whether we can produce a majority of our energy via renewables is
    446
    another matter. Merely to reach the 10 per cent. target we have to produce 5 GW of electricity, and if that means covering Wales in windmills, I, for one, will not have it.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware of the European Commission's interest in renewable energy output. Will his Department work with our European partners to consider the barriers to renewable energy output that are created by some of the European mechanisms? Can he assure me that the previous Government's cuts in renewable research funding have been reversed?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry has certainly reversed those cuts. I am absolutely confident that this vital research will be carried out and that we will become the driving force in Europe for renewables. We have great resources. We have ample opportunity, for example, to develop offshore wind generators, and I am sure that that is what we will do. I am extremely interested in the idea of biomass and energy crops. There is a great future for that in this country.
    Mr. Richard Page: The NFFO 5 round is welcome, as is anything that can give greater opportunity for renewables. Does the Minister not agree, however, that the problem is not the size of the round but the lack of success of the projects that have been initiated? Of the bids accepted, perhaps less than 50 per cent. have gone through to produce renewable energy. Would the Minister consider mechanisms whereby the bids can be promoted up the scale on the basis not simply of cost but of the projects' chances of success?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is absolutely vital both that there is a concept and that we look carefully at the delivery systems. With wind power, as happens all too often, what looked like a viable scheme was smashed apart off the Scottish coast and suddenly it became wholly unfashionable. We will get nowhere with that sort of short-term view. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that the research and development element is extremely important, but the entrepreneurial element is important, too. We must consider that carefully.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I understand why the Minister does not wish to cover Wales with windmills, but has he any plans to develop offshore wind power? Has he received any representations on that?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry has received a good many representations on projects for looking at offshore wind generation. After all, we have plenty of resources for it. There is plenty of wind around. There is wind in other quarters, too. I have often thought that the most effective bit of generation would come if we could ever wire up the Chamber: we could probably keep a large part of London going.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the prospects for securing objective 1 status for United Kingdom regions in the next round of negotiations on EU structural funds. [55053]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): On the basis of the Commission's proposals and the latest Eurostat figures, it appears likely that a number of UK areas will be eligible for objective 1 status. Detailed negotiations of the regulations are currently under way between member states and the Commission. The Cardiff Council set a deadline of the end of March 1999 for agreement on the Agenda 2000 proposals.
    Mr. George: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sure that she is aware just how anxious are the regions, which have to put together the programmes and the programming documents, that those matters should be brought to a conclusion and objective 1 regions confirmed as soon as possible. Can she confirm that the Secretary of State is as enthusiastic as his predecessor was to bring those matters to a conclusion; that she will meet a delegation from Cornwall, as requested by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) recently; and that for regions such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, this matter will be given the highest priority prior to the Dresden conference next year?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman knows how hard the Government have been fighting the United Kingdom case on structural funds. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present for last week's debate on this subject, but, during that debate, all parties congratulated the Government and the Secretary of State on their tough stance. I can assure the House that the Government will do all that we can to get the fairest possible outcome for the UK and all its regions.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although much progress has been made on Merseyside, gross domestic product per capita still remains at three quarters of that of Europe as a whole? Does she therefore agree that the continuation of objective 1 status is essential for that region and that the same applies with assisted area status for the whole of Merseyside, including the Wirral?
    Mrs. Roche: As regards structural funds and objective 1 status, the figures are encouraging for Merseyside. The House will know that, on assisted area status, we have a review of the map, as the Commission requires us to do. Every hon. Member has been sent a copy of the review and I urge all hon. Members to respond to it. The closing date is tomorrow.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Would not the disparities in wealth that exist within our country, which are significant, be even greater were we to accept a single currency? The differences in economic performance within the United Kingdom with our single interest rate are as nothing compared with differences in
    448
    wealth within a Europe with a single currency where a single rate of interest would not be universally appropriate.
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, and perhaps I can say that we probably have rather different views on the European question. What we have in common is a determination to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, which is why, in the negotiations, we are arguing, particularly in relation to objective 2 status, for maximum flexibility, so that we can hone our efforts towards particular areas of deprivation. That certainly will be to the benefit of all regions of the United Kingdom.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What representations he has received from United Kingdom aerospace companies concerning difficulties in securing Federal Aviation Authority approval. [55054]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. The problem was brought to my Department's attention by the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, and the Society of British Aerospace Companies has also written to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about it. I understand that DETR has taken the matter up with the US Federal Aviation Authority.
    Mr. Prentice: That does not surprise me because it is an immensely serious issue, not just for the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, but for aerospace companies across the United Kingdom, as the business is worth about £200 million a year. The long and the short of the matter is that American companies can repair British and European aircraft in the United States, but we cannot always repair American aircraft. The Federal Aviation Authority has been dragging its feet systematically for years and failing to appoint the inspectors that are required in the United Kingdom to ensure that there is a level playing field in aerospace. I urge my hon. Friend to take the matter up with his colleagues in the Department of Transport, and resolve it.
    Mr. Wilson: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. He is right to raise the issue at every opportunity. He will also appreciate that DETR is the lead Ministry in those matters. I understand that the information that DETR has received is that, by the end of the year, the FAA should be able to devote more resources to approval issues, so it is to be hoped that the position will change and the approval of servicing facilities in the United States will proceed. We are certainly aware of the importance of the issue to UK aerospace companies and are keeping in touch with DETR. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the industry and the issue to the British economy.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: What we seek is that the FAA should act fairly and impartially as a regulator. Does the Minister agree that the Government's hand would be strengthened if the Secretary of State could be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in his own

    449
    regulatory role vis-a-vis sponsors of the dome, which include British Aerospace and GEC? Can he explain why the Secretary of State will not follow the advice in a leading article in the pink paper, the Financial Times, calling on the Secretary of State to hand over responsibility for the dome to a Government colleague and thereby
    "avoid the appearance of impropriety"?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has a very loud voice, but that does not guarantee that he will say anything sensible. As he very well knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acted impeccably on the advice of officials. He will continue to do so and is well aware of the importance of the issues. Everything is transparent and above board—exactly what could not be said of the previous Administration, whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

    Small and Medium Enterprises
    Mr. Brian White: If he will make a statement on his Department's work in supporting high-technology small and medium enterprises. [55055]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): High-technology SMEs are crucial to Britain's economic success and the enterprise and innovation which are needed to generate them will be at the heart of the forthcoming competitiveness White Paper. The Department's current support for high-technology SMEs includes grants for research and technology transfer through schemes such as the small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—improving their financial management and marketing skills through advice and support from the business links network, and advising on how to access private finance and working with the financial community to improve the quality of appropriate finance available. We aim to extend and improve that support and we shall do so.
    Mr. White: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the key problems for many small high-tech companies is the gap between coming up with the idea and the innovation and being ready to go to the market to get venture capital? There is a difficulty with securing funds. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many small companies face the barrier that financial institutions and civil servants are ultra-cautious? Will he ensure that those barriers are addressed in the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness?
    Mr. Mandelson: We shall certainly address all those issues in the White Paper. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the paramount importance of providing finance for small and medium enterprises. We certainly need more technology banking in the United Kingdom, and if we were better able to have our banks acting as investors, perhaps in a more competitive banking sector, we might be able to achieve an altogether better service.
    I also agree that we need well-performing capital markets and mechanisms to provide finance through successive stages of enterprise growth. I welcome the
    450
    positive and practical proposals made in that context by the British Venture Capital Association. We shall follow up those proposals, and others, in the forthcoming White Paper.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Secretary of State have a word with his opposite number at the Department for Education and Employment about the perhaps excessively complicated overseas labour section rules on overseas work permits? They are cumbersome and difficult for small high-tech companies, in which the acquisition of an overseas employee may frequently be crucial to growth.
    Mr. Mandelson: That is an extremely good point, and it is well taken. On my recent visit to the United States, I spoke with entrepreneurs who managed new high-tech businesses in Silicon valley, and I was struck by how many of those enterprises got off the ground using people who had gone to the USA from around the world and who had the skills and entrepreneurial flair necessary for the success of such enterprises. If there are blockages in the system, in relation to either the Department for Education and Employment or the Home Office, they will be closely scrutinised by my Department.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: May I welcome those comments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in comparison with the position in the United States, too few companies spin off from United Kingdom university sites and engineering bases? Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about ensuring that academics in British universities are encouraged to work more with business so that there are more academic entrepreneurs and more entrepreneurial universities?
    Mr. Mandelson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the key objectives of the Government, and of my Department, is to turn universities from ivory towers into business partners. That practice has been successfully followed in the United States, and we could do with more of it here. My hon. Friend will not be disappointed by the measures that we shall propose in the White Paper.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: Is the Secretary of State aware that, by 16 October, only 194 people had been trained as millennium bug busters? The Prime Minister suggested that we would have 20,000 by April 1999, but at that rate we shall not have that number until 2050. Would the Secretary of State care to comment?
    Mr. Mandelson: If the previous Administration had recognised the problem of the millennium bug and had done more to prepare by carrying out measures that were needed long before we were able to begin on them, we would be in a better position. The Government have moved with alacrity to put necessary measures in place. I recently met Mr. Don Cruickshank, who is directing Action 2000, and if the Government need to take any further steps to ensure that we are properly prepared to overcome the problem, we shall certainly do so.
    Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State to his first departmental Question Time,

    451
    although the fact that it is his first shows how little accountability the Government have. High-tech businesses are already being sandbagged by higher taxes, higher interest rates, an erratic sterling and a massive increase in regulation introduced by the Government. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether high-tech businesses will be in for a pounding from his predecessor's proposals on trade union reform, or whether he will water down those proposals in the light of strong business opinion against them? I have read stories in the press both ways. Some newspapers of a leftward inclination say that the right hon. Gentleman is standing by every dot and comma of his predecessor's proposals to suit the left of his party; others say that he will water them down because business does not want them. The Secretary of State has said, "No more spin, honest." Will he now, loud and clear, tell us whether he is standing by every word or watering them down? Honesty is the best policy—in all things.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am tempted to say that that is rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I reassure him, and anyone else who is interested in the fairness at work proposals in the White Paper, that they are designed to encourage partnership in industry and at places of work. We want to encourage in all those employed in firms and companies a commitment to their success and profitability. That is what the proposals were designed to do. I am sure that, in translating those measures into the Bill that will be published by the end of the year, we will be faithful to the tenets and principles set out in the White Paper and, as a result enjoy considerable support and good will from all parts of the business community.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Will the forthcoming measures recognise the credibility gap that exists—certainly in the west midlands—between his Department's assessment and administration of grants and the great length of time that it often takes for companies to benefit from them? If the gap is recognised, what measures will the Secretary of State take to overcome it?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am glrateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. If he has any specific cases in his inside pocket, or anywhere else about his person, I hope that he will draw them to my attention. It is no part of the Government's responsibility, in making much-needed financial and other assistance available to companies, to let it be held up by poor administration.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Graham Brady: What his Department estimates to be the cost of the social chapter's parental leave directive, works councils directive and part-time work directive to British business. [55056]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Compliance cost assessments were attached to the explanatory memorandums submitted to this House and another place on 28 October 1997 in relation to the parental leave and European works councils directives and on 17 March in
    452
    relation to the part-time work directive. The Government are carrying out further work to update and refine those estimates.
    Mr. Brady: I cannot thank the Minister for the detail of his reply because it was somewhat lacking. Given that Ministers have recently had the experience of BMW stating that it must cut jobs at Rover because of higher business and employment costs, does he accept in principle that the increased costs that he is applying to business will cost jobs and will he give some estimate of how many jobs the proposals will cost?
    Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had been doing his job over the summer, he would have read the documents set out in my answer. The Confederation of British Industry said, in the last year of the Conservative Government, that British industry lost £25 billion through unregulated absenteeism, a huge on-cost to business affecting its competitive advantage. Our proposals will help to cut such unregulated activity and ensure a better atmosphere in the workplace between employers and employees. On investment in this country, we have just had the biggest increase in inward investment in the past 20 years: more than 600 projects, including a new multi-million pound project in the car industry at Jaguar, which I was pleased and proud to have negotiated between Ford and the Government.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Do not those three directives represent a small increase in protection for people in the workplace? Could not that protection be better obtained by enhancing the role of trade unions in the workplace? Will my hon. Friend go a little further than the Secretary of State and confirm that there will be no significant alterations to the principles outlined in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper?
    Mr. McCartney: There were very good discussions between my comrades in the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC. One could not put a trade union card between me and my right hon. Friend on those matters.
    From day one, the Government have set out their stall regarding partnership in the workplace, including employment rights. Employment rights are about not whether workers are union members but the right to be treated properly in the workplace, irrespective of union membership. If a worker is a union member and wishes to be recognised as such, the legislation sets out the relevant proposals clearly and specifically. My right hon. Friend has confirmed today that the Government will proceed, as we promised, to set out a framework for partnership in the workplace, which includes trade union representation.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Before the Minister slips up again and perhaps mentions the "socialist" word in the Chamber, will he tell us how many redundancies will occur and how many businesses will go to the wall before the Government conclude that it is not extra regulations and burdens that create jobs but deregulation and competitive conditions that allow businesses to create extra jobs?
    Mr. McCartney: That is a bit rich coming from a member of a Government who cast regulation after regulation upon business.

    453
    Since Labour came to power, 400,000 new jobs have been created in the economy. We have put in place the biggest job investment and training package to help young people get off the scrapheap on to which they were thrown by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman knows full well—as one of the biggest offenders in his almost creeping defence of the previous Government in a failed attempt to serve on their Front Bench—that, when the Conservative Government could not hide the level of unemployment, they tried to fiddle their way out of it. That is why the Conservatives are in opposition and we are in government.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Do we not need those measures to restore some basic fairness in the workplace, and do we not also need a sensible and rational debate about what level and scale of social protection is compatible with the enterprise economy? In that light, does my hon. Friend agree that the simplistic party political posturing on this issue that we see from the Conservatives—who oppose any form of regulation, wherever it occurs, under whatever circumstances—is completely wrong and unhelpful to the debate?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the British business community and the Government are absolutely committed to the principle of achieving competitive advantage by not spiralling down wages and conditions but by investing in a trained and skilled work force that is dedicated to the enterprise and its success. Only Conservative Members maintain the principle that Britain can succeed only by becoming the sweatshop capital of Europe. We reject that principle, as do the British people and British business.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. John Bercow: What research his Department has undertaken on the cost to British industry of increases in interest rates. [55058]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The tough and decisive action by the Government, including taking the politics out of interest rate setting, will create the long-term economic stability that industry needs and ensure that Britain steers a course of stability in an uncertain and unstable world.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that small businesses, which make up more than 90 per cent. of all enterprises in Britain, do not ordinarily pay the implausible interest rates that Ministers habitually parrot in this Chamber, but typically pay 11 per cent. or more on their overdrafts and other business borrowings? What confidence can business men and women, who face the prospect of a deepening economic crisis and who strive daily to keep their heads above water, have in Ministers who fail woefully to understand the real interest rates that real businesses must pay daily in the real world?
    Mr. Mandelson: Under the previous Administration, a small business closed every three minutes as a result of the economic policies pursued by that Government. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that industry as a whole—small, medium and larger companies—would
    454
    stand to lose a great deal more if the Government were to allow the economy to lurch back into the stop-go policies of the past. If we had failed to take the prompt and decisive action that we have taken since coming into office, industry would pay a higher cost in interest rates in future years. That is exactly what happened when interest rates reached 15 per cent. in the early 1990s, precisely because the Government failed to take the necessary action early enough to avoid that happening.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. What advice will his Department be giving the Monetary Policy Committee now that inflation has been settling at around 2.5 per cent? Can we now look forward to the Government—particularly the Department responsible for manufacturing industry—giving a clear signal, as they are entitled to do in their advice to the MPC, that this is the time for interest rates to start falling even further than last month's welcome quarter of a per cent. cut?
    Mr. Mandelson: As my hon. Friend has said, it is the MPC that sets interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target. In doing so, the committee takes account of all available information, some of which comes from my Department. The Government will continue to give the committee full support in whatever difficult decisions on interest rates it has to take. In announcing its last quarter of a per cent. cut in rates, the committee noted that the international economic and financial environment had deteriorated and the outlook for demand had weakened. I am sure that, in view of that, the decision that the committee took was a wise one. I am also sure that that wisdom will continue to be shown in all its decisions.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that our interest rates are more than double those in France and Germany, making it extremely difficult for our manufacturing businesses to compete? Is he aware that the Bank of England has cited two Government policies as being especially damaging, leading it to leave interest rates higher than manufacturing can afford'? The Bank has cited the coming minimum wage and the impact that it thinks that that will have on wage inflation higher up the scale. In addition, it has cited the big increase in public spending—my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have always criticised the surge in welfare spending over which the Government are presiding.
    Why will not the Secretary of State and his colleagues now release us from the pressures of the minimum wage? Why will he not restore family credit, instead of introducing the working families tax credit scheme, which is so much dearer? Does he not realise that the Bank of England would be more relaxed about Government policy if he did so? The Bank would see that expenditure and wages were under better control and it could then start to cut interest rates, as business wants. That is what business desperately needs from him and his colleagues.
    Mr. Mandelson: On the subject of public spending, the right hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially the shadow Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, both of whom have been complaining that the

    455
    Government, far from spending too much, are spending too little. By what voice should we judge the policies and approach of the Opposition? They speak with many voices and they need to clarify exactly what their view is.
    As for the national minimum wage, I note that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to continue the policy of his predecessors, which is to support poverty wages in this country. I have certainly had no sign at all from the Governor of the Bank, who in conversation offered a view on that very subject, that the national minimum wage has been wrongly set. The real disaster for the economy would be to retreat to the boom-and-bust policies of the previous Administration, which did such enormous and long-term damage to British jobs and British prosperity.
    Mr. Redwood: Perhaps if the Secretary of State read the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee, he and his colleagues would start to relieve the pressure on businesses, as they need him to do. Will he stop peddling false rumours about the Opposition's position? All of us—the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor, the relevant spokesmen and myself—support improved provision for health and education. We all condemn the wasteful rake's progress and breaking of promises on welfare. If the right hon. Gentleman sorted out those matters and read the minutes of the MPC, industry might not have to suffer so much.
    Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously determined to add bluster to his policies of boom and bust. The Conservative party's spin doctors are responsible for sorting out the rival positions of members of the shadow cabinet; I am glad that I moved on from that responsibility some time ago.

    Employment Opportunities (Small Business)
    Mr. John Heppell: What plans he has to increase employment opportunities in small businesses. [55059]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The creation of new employment in small businesses is dependent primarily on a climate of stable, sustained economic growth. The Government have taken decisive action to establish a new framework for monetary policy to ensure economic stability.
    The Government are also committed to helping businesses to overcome financial, regulatory and other barriers to growth.
    Mr. Heppell: My hon. Friend will be aware that many small businesses in Nottingham have sensibly taken advantage of the Government's new deal to ensure that they have a well-trained and highly motivated work force. Has she made an assessment of the importance of the new deal in creating employment opportunities?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the opportunities offered by the new deal for people gaining employment and for small and medium enterprises. More than three quarters of the 25,000 employers who have signed up to the new deal are small companies, which means that they are often,
    456
    valuably, filling gaps and creating necessary skilled jobs. That is why the new deal has been so warmly welcomed by small businesses.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My question seriously follows up earlier questions and is relevant to this matter. Does the Minister agree that the best way for the Government to encourage additional employment by small businesses would be to change the guidelines and criteria of the Monetary Policy Committee so as to enable it, under the Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, to reduce interest rates to make them competitive for companies in this country? I am following up the request made, in person, of the Government and the Secretary of State by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who chairs the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Is it not important for us to consider interest rates, because they are so fundamental to investment by small businesses which would increase employment?
    Mrs. Roche: I know that the hon. Gentleman has an impressive record of support for manufacturing industry and interest in small businesses. I know from my extensive discussions with small businesses and my visits to them that the most important factor for them is economic stability. Nothing was more damaging than the record of the previous Government, which saw us going from boom to bust and back again. We need a period of stability, which is exactly what the Government are providing.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that, if we want to know about long-term competitive conditions for small businesses, we must consider long-term interest rates? For many years under the previous Administration, we suffered from penal long-term interest rates. Since Labour came to power, we have started to reduce those rates, which is good for large, medium and small businesses.
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right, and he speaks with many years' knowledge of this matter. It is essential that all businesses, but particularly small and medium businesses, know what conditions will be, not only for the next few weeks but for the next few months. We are providing that stability and certainty.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister recall her colleague, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, saying, when in opposition, that, if Britain dragged behind its Community partners on economic and monetary union it
    "would be a serious blow …would make Britain a"
    far
    "less attractive place"
    to invest in and would jeopardise even
    "more jobs"?—[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 964.]
    Does she agree with him?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely what the Government have said about economic and monetary union. The key thing that we must do at the moment is to prepare all our businesses—small, medium or large—for the fact that there will be 300 million consumers in the euro zone. The key thing that the

    457
    Government must make up for is the deficiency of the previous Government, who wasted precious time squabbling among themselves instead of acting for the country, and thereby let those small businesses down. That is why we are doing so much work on preparing our businesses, so that they can take true competitive advantage of the euro zone when it comes into being on 1 January.

    Steel Industry
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the steel industry. [55061]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The UK steel industry is facing pressures from international competition, but it is one of the success stories of the British economy. It is one of the most efficient and productive steel industries in the world. The industry continues to attack its cost base to ensure that it remains profitable and is better able to compete at home and overseas.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He may be aware that the plant at Stocksbridge in my constituency is one of the most efficient producers of special engineering steel in the country and in Europe, and that it fulfils more than 50 per cent. of the needs of the home market for that type of steel, which provides the vital bits and pieces in car engines and aero-engines that we all depend on. However, by its nature, it requires stability and consistency in its supply chain and its energy costs. What will the Government do to help provide that consistency and stability, to ensure that Stocksbridge remains one of the prime manufacturing locations in the country?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right in the way in which she describes the success of that company and of that plant. I shall happily—as I would expect to do—learn a great deal more of its success when I visit Sheffield later today, when I shall probably meet representatives, if not of that company, at least of the steel industry in Sheffield. The UK steel industry has undergone substantial restructuring since the 1970s, but productivity has increased fourfold and it continues to invest more than £350 million a year in new plant and innovation. I believe that, with that commitment to productivity, to investment and to increasing the industry's competitiveness, we shall continue to see further success. It will certainly have the full support of my Department.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister mentioned visits. I wonder whether he will shortly visit a country that is one of the most attractive and growing markets for British steel because of the careful way in which it has balanced political and economic forces—Chile?
    Mr. Mandelson: I have no plans to visit Chile, although, if I had been able to add a visit to it to my forthcoming visit to Brazil and Argentina in the time available, I should have been only too pleased to do so.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his post, may I tell him of the
    458
    dismay and desperation of steelworkers at the Shotton works in my constituency, who see yet more redundancies on the horizon? How might he help the industry and Shotton with regard to energy costs and to dumping from the far east of steel products? I know that he will not tell steelworkers in my constituency to sharpen up their act, because they are the most competitive, productive and co-operative—and have been the most successful—steelworkers that one could imagine. In 1980, they suffered 8,000 direct steel job losses in just two months. I know that he will do all that he can to help them.
    Mr. Mandelson: I should never dream of simply asking any work force in any company to sharpen up its act. I should, however, always say to any company, all those who are employed in it and particularly all those who manage it and are responsible for its long-term strategic direction, to raise their game and performance and sharpen up their act. That injunction is well taken.
    In the case of any redundancies in any industry or locality, the local Employment Service will work closely with the companies concerned and the resettlement consultants appointed. We take that responsibility seriously.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the EU Commission is responsible for taking any anti-dumping action and, in working with the EU Commission, we shall consider each complaint on its merits.

    Brewing Industry
    Mr. James Gray: What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Competition Bill [Lords] on employment in the brewing industry. [55063]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We have a fine brewing industry which understands the need for all sectors to be capable of taking on international competition. I should expect the Bill's provision of a more effective regime to help in that respect by deterring and tackling anti-competitive agreements and conduct in the brewing industry as in every other. It will lead to a more competitive market, which will provide the basis for greater employment opportunities.
    Mr. Gray: I think that I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I am concerned that he seems to be reconfirming that agreements between breweries and tied houses will be within the provisions of the Bill—something that was not clear before. I am particularly concerned about the agreements between small country breweries, such as Wadworth and Arkell's in my constituency, and the country pubs. Will those agreements be within the terms of the Bill or not?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, they will be. On supply agreements, we have received notice that the European Commission intends to take a favourable view of a number of standard United Kingdom pub leases. Formal exemption decisions will be expected in the next few months.
    Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the growth in small and

    459
    independent breweries throughout Britain, which will benefit not only from the proposals in the Competition Bill but from the legislation due on 1 November on late payment to companies, a crucial factor affecting the success of small businesses? It will help to create not only a better environment for the future but a business culture and climate in which late payment is unacceptable.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are the first Government to tackle successfully the question of late payment. We have raised it as an issue and acted upon it. Given the Conservative party's attitude to the brewing industry, the question is a bit rich coming from them. Just last July, Conservative Members talked out a private Member's Bill that would have allowed every beer drinker in Britain to have a proper measure of beer. How many more jobs in the brewing industry would that have created? In everything the Conservative party touches, it short-changes consumers and workers. We put consumers and workers at the centre of everything that we do.

    Libya
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations he has received from the British-Libyan business group concerning actions taken since July 1998 by the Libyan Government against UK firms involved in work in Libya. [55065]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Secretary of State has received two letters from Mr. Kevin Boyle, chairman of the British-Libyan business group, covering several points on UK Libyan trade. Those have not included specific references to actions taken by the Libyan Government.
    Mr. Dalyell: What was the Department's understanding about an embargo against British goods and services in relation to the great man-made river project, possibly the biggest engineering project in Africa? Will my hon. Friend discuss with Kevin Boyle the problem surrounding visas, which is a great difficulty for British business men in what is a potentially lucrative, once British, market?
    Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend is well aware, those issues do not take place within a vacuum. I am well aware of the potential and the past trade with Libya. If the other
    460
    issues could be resolved, as I am sure my hon. Friend wishes, and I and the Government wish, it would be extremely healthy and positive for our relations with Libya, including our commercial relations.
    I am not aware of an embargo on British contracts in connection with the great man-made river. The Department receives many inquiries from British firms about it and we give them balanced advice. Problems with visas should not arise for legitimate business people and, if they do, I would be pleased to discuss them further. I shall ask my officials to speak to Mr. Boyle on those matters.

    Fairness at Work
    Mr. Paul Marsden: what representations he has received on the fairness at work White Paper. [55066]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Department has received 474 responses, reflecting a wide range of views, to the White Paper on fairness at work published on 21 May. I have placed a list of respondents in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Marsden: I assume that all sides in British industry have replied to the proposals. Will my hon. Friend lend his support to making partnerships in British industry work? As a former manager in British industry, I have seen the damage caused by conflict and disagreement. We need far more compromise and reconciliation. What are my hon. Friend's views on the proposed partnership fund?
    Mr. McCartney: There has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the concept of partnership at work set out in the White Paper, and to the specific proposal for establishing a partnership fund for innovative projects to improve the training of managers in the workplace and employee representatives, to encourage partnership approaches across a range of activities currently taking place in companies. That will ensure over time that the Government put their money where their mouth is and invest in processes to improve industrial and employee relationships across the workplaces of Britain. I am delighted to say that discussion with the social partners so far will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an announcement about those matters in due course.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Debate on personal pensions mis-selling on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (20th allotted day).
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the economy, followed by a debate on agriculture. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 4 November, there will be a debate on the social action programme 1998–2000 in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that, on Wednesday 11 November, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee B on Agenda 2000: financial aspects.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 4 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 8328/98, Social Action Programme (1998–2000); and relevant European Legislation Committee report, HC 155-xxx (1997–98).
Wednesday 11 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 7046/98, Agenda 2000: The financial perspective 2000–2006, (b) 7221/98, Agenda 2000: The interinstitutional agreement of 29 October 1993, (c) 9302/98 ADD1: Own resources based on VAT and GNP, (d) COM(98)560, Financing the European Union; and relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 155-xxvi and HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98), (b) HC 155-xxvi (1997–98), (c) HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98), (d) HC 155-xxxviii (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for providing the business for next week. Her predecessor was able to announce two weeks' business in advance, which was found to be helpful both inside and
462
outside the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is her intention, and that she will revert to that practice as soon as she can?
I welcome the right hon. Lady's response to my request last week for an early debate on the Jenkins report. I hope that, in that debate, the Government spokesman will reconcile two sentences from the Labour party manifesto:
"We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons"
and
"We have promised only what we know we can deliver."
Can she tell us whether a promise is to be broken?
The Leader of the House will know that we asked for a statement about Senator Pinochet. Of course we understand the sub judice rule, but will the right hon. Lady accept that, once the matter ceases to be sub judice, serious questions will remain to be answered? Will the Home Secretary make a statement before the House about the confusion that arose between Government Departments? Can the Foreign Secretary explain how relationships with Chile can be restored, as their democratic Government have made it clear that they want this matter to be brought to a swift conclusion?
Although we regret the Prime Minister's failure to make a statement following last weekend's European summit at which a number of key issues were covered, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will make a statement on Tuesday? Can she confirm that we shall have, in Government time, the two-day debate on the economy that we usually have at this time of year? Following the further fall in business confidence reported in the press today, the Government have refused yet again to find time for a debate on the economy.
In view of the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo, may I press the Leader of the House for a debate on foreign affairs? Finally, is she yet able to give us the date of prorogation?
Mrs. Beckett: By chance, the first and last of the right hon. Gentleman's questions work well together. He asked the date of prorogation; he also asked me to return to the arrangement whereby we give two weeks' notice of business. My difficulty in both respects relates directly to the operation of another place. I cannot give a date for prorogation, although I can confirm that it is likely to be late because of the timing of debates in another place. Similarly, that is why I cannot give two weeks' notice of business. I very much regret that. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is highly desirable to do so, and confirm that it would always be my wish to do so as soon as that once again becomes possible.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the debate on the Jenkins commission report. It is clear from the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making on that matter—I know that he will make it clear in the debate—that the Government primarily seek the fullest possible debate. The Government are committed to a referendum on those matters so that the people of this country can give their view, but it is clear, too, that the timing of that must be looked at in the context of the Jenkins report. It is certainly not ruled out that it may well be within this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a statement on the Senator Pinochet issue when it ceases to be sub judice, which it is not yet. However, I can say that, as the Prime

463
Minister made crystal clear yesterday, there has been no confusion between Government Departments. As he pointed out, the request came from the Spanish Government to the magistrates, not via this Government.
The right hon. Gentleman regretted the failure to report on the EU summit. As he is aware, it was an informal meeting in Austria. There were no formal conclusions to report to the House, and no formal statement was issued. The Prime Minister has always followed the practice, where there are such statements or communiqués, of reporting to the House, and he will continue to follow it.
As for a debate on the economy, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make a statement on the matter. Arrangements for future debates on the economy are generally a matter for the usual channels, but we are likely in the not-too-distant future to have a Queen's Speech and an opportunity to debate such matters.
We shall continue to keep the House informed about developments in Kosovo, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has done throughout.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, the Modernisation Committee reported on the need to improve the scrutiny of European legislation, both within the House as a whole and within its specific Committees? Can she give a firm undertaking that those recommendations will be debated on the Floor of the House before this Session ends so that they can come into effect in the next parliamentary Session?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot absolutely give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, but I can confirm that I share his wish to see such an outcome. As he knows, the House is under some pressure at present, but I hope to accommodate him before the end of the Session.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us any more details about the nature of the motions that the Opposition will be tabling next Wednesday? It will not have escaped her notice that we had debates on the economy and agriculture on Monday, and Conservative Members not only did not turn up or table an amendment, but did not vote. It is well known that some Conservative Members find difficulty in reaching the Chamber in eight minutes, but 10 days to get to the Division Lobbies is rather a lengthy time.
The Leader of the House has made an announcement about the timing of the Jenkins report, and we certainly welcome an early debate in the House on the independent commission's recommendations. Does she think that sufficient time will have elapsed for the Conservative party to get its act together between now and then? She will have noted that the Conservative party published its reaction to the report before the report was published, and so missed all the rebuttal of its arguments contained in the report. Will she particularly note that the Conservative party has decided not to use the first-past-the-post system to elect its leader, although Conservative Members now seem to think that that is the one type of election that they can all rally around?
464
Will the Leader of the House give us a specific answer to a specific question: is it not right that every member of the parliamentary Labour party was elected to the House on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the subject of the Jenkins report in this Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: May I begin where the hon. Gentleman ended? The manifesto commitment, on which—he is right—every Labour candidate fought the election, was that we would have a referendum on proportional representation.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In this Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: No, the manifesto did not say that. It was, broadly speaking, the expectation, and might well indeed be the outcome, that the referendum would be held in this Parliament, but that was not the wording of the manifesto, which is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said. It is only fair to set the record straight.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the attendance of Conservative Members at Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates. It would not be right for me to intrude on private grief in that matter. He also asked me to speculate on the wording of the motions. That, also, is not directly within my area of responsibility, although we can be quite confident that, in some way or other, we will discover that the blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country lies at the door of the Government, and that nothing whatever relates in any way to the actions of the Conservative party or to its 18-year tenure of government.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether I believe that the Conservative party will get its act together on Jenkins. It would be wrong for me to predict that it will either get its act together on anything or that Conservative Members will all rally around anything.
Mr. Richard Burden: May I, too, add my welcome for the early debate on the report from the independent commission and express my hope that, whatever our different views on the report, we debate what is in it, rather than things that are not in it, as has happened today? What happened was hardly surprising, because some views were published before the report was published.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important debate on the report will take place not in the House, but outside? It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to ensure that that debate is as informed and open as possible, because the British people should have the final say on the way in which Members of Parliament are elected, rather than Members of Parliament working it all out for themselves.
Mrs. Beckett: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said in the sense that I whole-heartedly agree that it is enormously important that there is a thorough, proper and well-considered debate on those issues in the country. I take the view, however, that it is right for the House, if I may venture to say so, to lead that debate. It is important that hon. Members make their own contribution and, although the decision in the referendum will ultimately rest with the British people, the outcome will undoubtedly be influenced by discussions in this place.

465
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call for a thorough and long public debate—I certainly believe that it should be constructive, and hope that that will be the outcome—but it is also right to recognise that this House has its proper place.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, when I put to her my complaint about the draft order on the arrangements and expenditure involved in The Hague trial of the Lockerbie suspects, she kindly suggested that I should raise the issue with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, which I did? He said that there was no reason why hon. Members could not have a debate on the subject. Sadly, however, having applied to Madam Speaker, I was advised this morning that I was unsuccessful in the ballot.
As the United States has said that time is running out, and as this matter is vital to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to the people of Libya, would the Government agree to hold a debate to let the House express a view on what some consider to be an incorrect policy and others think is correct? Surely the House should debate an order produced by the Government on a vital issue of public policy.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate for the hon. Gentleman in the near future. I suspect that he has not wholly exhausted the procedures. Knowing his skill and experience as a parliamentarian, I am confident that he will continue to explore the means open to him to secure a debate on this matter in the near future. I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend may have heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refer in Question Time to the need for more competition among the banks. May we have a debate on the banking sector, because the National Westminster bank's operations are causing much damage to many businesses in our constituencies, and much heartache to our constituents? The banking practices of the National Westminster bank, including the practices of its subsidiary Lombard, should be exposed to Parliament. May we have that debate as a matter of urgency?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend such a debate as a matter of urgency. Like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), my hon. Friend is skilled in finding opportunities to raise matters, and I am confident that he will do so.
Mrs. Theresa May: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that, last October—a year ago—the Government published a Green Paper on the provision for children with special educational needs. In December last year, the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), promised that, when the Government gave their response to the Green Paper, they would come to the House. A response has been promised since last April, and there have been rumours that it will be made in a statement to the House. However, I learned this afternoon that the Government intend to make their response not to the
466
House as promised, but in a press conference next week. Will the Leader of the House ensure either that the response is made to the House in a statement or that we have an early debate on special educational needs and the Government's response to the consultation?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. The subject of special educational needs arouses great interest on both sides of the House. I hear what she says about expectations of the outcome of the consultation, and I shall draw her views to the attention of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment. However, I cannot undertake to find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in next week's debate, the Government will be astute and will not get tied hand and foot to the tinpot Jenkins proposals which were published today? If those proposals were carried into practice, every constituency in Britain would have to be changed, there would be first and second-class Members of Parliament, and for some the entire constituency link would be removed. As for the report, we need two bottles of claret to digest it.
Will my right hon. Friend always remember that Roy Jenkins—"Woy of the Wadicals"—was the man who tried to destroy the Labour party some years ago, and failed? He destroyed the Social Democratic party, and now he is among the Liberal Democrats. Word has it that even some of the Liberal Democrats do not like the Jenkins proposition. He is trying to destroy them as well.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has made it plain why it is necessary for a full debate to take place on those issues, about which he has raised important points. As for his call for the Government to be astute, I assure him that we endeavour to be so.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on transport in London, in view of the exorbitant and scandalous increases in tube fares that are to take place from January next year? Tube fares are to rise to five times the inflation rate, while bus fares will rise to six times that rate, and further increases above inflation are projected for every year until 2002. Is that the Labour party's integrated transport strategy in action? The debate in question should surely be wound up by a Treasury Minister, as the travelling public will have to travel not by tube or bus, but by car, and will thus be caught not only by duty rates that are above inflation but by congestion tax. It seems that the only possibility for Londoners is to travel on foot.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks me to arrange a debate in the near future, which I am not sure that I can undertake to do. He also asks whether that increase is a consequence of the Labour party's integrated transport policy. No; it is a consequence of the Conservative party's neglect of London Transport, its failure to invest and its ignoring of Londoners' transport needs over the past 18 years. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of

467
London Transport, not of Ministers, and the balance between fare levels and the need for investment is always difficult to strike.
Mr. John Cryer: May we have a debate on the role of private firms and private capital in education action zones? I understand that McDonald's has become involved in one zone. I cannot believe that its motive is entirely altruistic; it is more likely to be the wish to stuff hamburgers down children's throats.
There are various worries about the role of private firms in the new education action zones. May we have a debate soon?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the issue of education action zones, how they might work and how they could deliver different ideas on the running of the education system is a matter of interest and controversy throughout the House. I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to the Government for lifting the siege of the London clinic, a subject to which I shall want to return when the case ceases to be sub judice, but did the Leader of the House really mean to say that the extradition request had come from the Spanish Government? I had understood that that was the one source from which it had not come.
Mrs. Beckett: I think I am right in saying that, although the request originated with a Spanish judge, it had to have the imprimatur of a Spanish Minister in order to be delivered. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman, but 'in any event' that does not affect the main thrust of my earlier answer, which was that the matter was not dealt with through this Government.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Has my right hon. Friend read the comment attributed to Sir Paul Condon this morning that pay levels in the Metropolitan police somehow excuse corruption? I am sure that that rather strange comment was a misquotation, or that it was quoted out of context, but does it not highlight the fact that the sooner we have the annual Adjournment debate on policing in London, the better? I wonder whether it could be fitted in before prorogation.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not know whether the remarks that Sir Paul Condon is reported to have made have been quoted accurately, but I recognise and understand my hon. Friend's active interest in policing in London, and agree that it is worthy of debate in the House. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate during this Session, but the next Session might be another matter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is aware that western parts of the United Kingdom have experienced severe weather and flooding in recent times. In my constituency, Garden street, Steeple street and Hurdsfield road, and the houses in those streets, have been under water. In the village of Bollington, north of my constituency, Water street and John street have been under water. The village of Adlington has experienced severe flooding, and part of the village of Prestbury, at Bridge green, has also been under water.
468
As the House will have time over the next week or two, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement about the experience in the west of England that has resulted from the severe weather, so that we know what action we can take to help our constituents and what help may be available to our local authorities—whether borough or county councils—so that they can try to alleviate the suffering?
Mrs. Beckett: Like hon. Members from both sides of the House, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the distress that is being experienced as a result of the flooding. I will certainly bear in mind his request for a debate, although, as I know that he will appreciate from his long experience in the House, we are approaching a point in the Session when time will be under pressure in various ways. He will know that, on 20 October, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement on the lessons to be learned from the Easter floods. The Government keep those matters under review and will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituencies, particularly the fact that they have a responsibility to represent the areas for which they are elected? In the context of the Jenkins debate, will she make it clear that any proposal for a two-tier system of Members of Parliament, in which Members at large could interfere in any of the 10 constituencies within an area, would be contrary to the tradition in which Members of Parliament represent the electorate of a town, city or constituency for which they are elected?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, too, alludes to the proposals in the Jenkins commission report. He identifies important aspects of those proposals, which I know the House—whether hon. Members support or oppose them—will want most thoroughly to debate and to encourage the public to debate.
Mr. Paul Keetch: May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of the floods that are causing so much havoc not only in the west of England but in the Welsh borders? In my constituency, the city of Hereford is effectively cut off—there are no trains in or out of the city and the main A49 is blocked by waist-high water at the Belmont roundabout. The city is in gridlock and Herefordshire's largest trading estate—at Rotherwas—has been closed. People are today being evacuated from their homes, at least one fanner is believed to have drowned and two old people's homes have been closed. Floods are heading for Ross-on-Wye, where evacuations will take place later today and a school is being made ready as a reception centre. Moreover, four Royal National Lifeboat Institution inshore lifeboats have been stationed in Herefordshire. Although, as the right hon. Lady said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we have had a statement on the Easter floods, clearly the lessons have not been learnt, so why can we not have a statement on those floods?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was here when my hon. Friend the

469
Parliamentary Secretary made a statement a few days ago, but part of the problem at Easter was the failure of the flood warning system and, as I understand it, some lessons have been learnt from that. However, that does not detract in any way from the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which the House will share, for his constituents and others who are affected by present developments. I assure him that the Government are monitoring, and will continue to monitor, the position carefully. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who deal with those matters, are in the Chamber and have heard this exchange.
Mr. David Winnick: Are not some of our hon. Friends being somewhat unfair to Lord Jenkins? As for next Thursday's debate, should not Lord Jenkins and his colleagues be warmly congratulated for making recommendations that are so untenable and unacceptable that most people will conclude that, with all its faults, the first-past-the-post system is far preferable to a two-tier House of Commons, which there has never been in the past and which there should not be in the future?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes it absolutely plain how wise the Government were to arrange for a debate next week.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 1714?
[That this House welcomes the acknowledgement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that his responsibilities for competition policy require him 'both to act fairly and impartially and to be seen to do so'; notes that he satisfied himself he could take decisions about the British Airways/American Airlines alliance, and 'having discussed it with officials' decided he should determine whether the proposed acquisition by BSkyB of Manchester United be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; calls upon him to explain why he concluded that he will be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in these cases, despite the acceptance by the New Millennium Experience Company of sponsorship from British Airways and Bskyb totalling £24 million; further notes that the Director General of Fair Trading is investigating the profitability of supermarkets, including Tesco which has committed sponsorship to the NMEC of £12 million; is concerned that the NMEC is negotiating with the Ford Motor Company over a £12 million sponsorship when it may lay off workers at Dagenham and when the DGFT is about to investigate UK car prices; is concerned that companies may appear to be compromised by the refusal of the Secretary of State to separate his role as regulator and sole shareholder of the NMEC; and calls upon him to give up his position with the NMEC immediately or step aside from any regulatory role regarding any industry involved in NMEC sponsorship.]
Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on the difficulties arising from the different interests of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the issue of interests and understandings for someone who holds the important post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always kept under review by the Ministers involved and by proper officials. It has been confirmed repeatedly that my right hon. Friend does not have a conflict of interest.
Mr. David Drew: Yesterday's statement on welfare reform by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was very welcome, but will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the urgent need for widowers' rights to be promoted, because the existing anomalies are unacceptable?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks can and will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. Welfare reform is a major programme that is being conducted benefit by benefit and service by service. I feel confident that further announcements will be made in due course.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it possible to arrange an early debate on the Government's energy policy? An application is pending for 15 wind turbines that will stretch from Pendle, a neighbouring constituency, into Ribble Valley, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty which attracts tourists and is used largely for agriculture. There is another application for about 350 wind turbines in Wales. If we have one more wind turbine in Wales, it is likely to take off on a windy day—not the answer to devolution for which we were looking. For a small fraction of the cost that goes towards subsidising turbines, energy conservation measures could save more energy than could ever be generated by those useless, ugly and unwanted wind turbines.
Mrs. Beckett: I take heed of the hon. Gentleman's request. He will know that there are a variety of ways in which to pursue the opportunity to raise such issues, especially if they are constituency related—in Adjournment debates and so on. I will, of course, draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with such matters.
Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the accountability of quangos set up by the previous Government between now and the date they are likely to be wound up? I refer in particular to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and its cavalier treatment of charter fishing vessels owned by my constituents which sail out of Cardiff bay. Up to a dozen small businesses could be destroyed and, I am afraid, people are desperate. I spoke today to Skipper Steve Jones of the Lady Helen; my impression was that, unless the development corporation behaves in an acceptable manner, people may take desperate measures.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know of his great regard for his constituents' interests. I feel confident that he has taken steps to draw the matter to the attention of my parliamentary colleagues, but I fear that I cannot promise him a debate in Government time in the near future. Perhaps he might pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate.
Dr. Evan Harris: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the Labour party manifesto commitment to end
"unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists"?
She has redefined a manifesto commitment as not necessarily applying to the Parliament concerned—which makes that merely a commitment to keep it in the manifesto—but does she accept that the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, which was steered through all its stages in the House of Lords by the Labour peer Lady Turner of Camden, would be a worthwhile measure to end the institutionalised, widespread and systematic discrimination against homosexuals? As the Member in charge of the Bill in this place, I wonder whether Government time could be found in this spillover period to debate and legislate on that important matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I am deeply touched by the care with which hon. Members have read the Labour party manifesto and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by its contents. I fear, however, that, as he will know, it is always difficult for a Government to find time for other measures, no matter how important and worth while the subject. I take his points about the seriousness with which those matters should be discussed and the opportunity that has been made in the other place. I cannot undertake to find time before the end of the Session, even for such an important measure.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve the ministerial muddle over the future of the Post Office? The right hon. Lady will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the Post Office—the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—announced on 16 May last year a review of the options for the future of the Post Office with a view in particular to removing "unnecessary and damaging shackles" on it. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will be aware that, since then, there has largely been an eerie silence in public, punctuated by occasional briefings to some journalists that the Government favour a radical move, and counter-briefings to others that they do not. Is it not time that Ministers stopped arguing like ferrets in a sack, came clean and announced their proposals for the future in the interests of management, employees and customers of the Post Office?
Mrs. Beckett: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me today, since we have just had Trade and Industry questions—
Mr. Bercow: The matter did not come up. The question was not reached.
Mrs. Beckett: That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before. I feel confident, knowing the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, that, had he really tried, he could have worked the matter into some question or other.
There is no confusion about the future of the Post Office. The Government are committed both to giving it greater commercial freedom and to its success. As for talk about removing shackles and concern about its future, all I can say is that when the Tory party had responsibility for those matters, it made an awful mess.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I ask the Leader of the House in her capacity as Chair of the
472
Modernisation Committee—[Interruption.] Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to draw to her colleagues' attention when bringing forward their proposals for the Queen's Speech the excellent new systems for bringing legislation before the House? Will she ask them to fulfil the promise of her predecessor that, in the next Session, there will be a number of Bills that take advantage of those new procedures, which will be to the benefit of the House and the legislation?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to pre-empt any of the processes of the Queen's Speech, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly share the view that there is room for improvement of the ways in which we scrutinised legislation in the past, which would immeasurably improve the quality of the legislation and perhaps even our efficiency in dealing with it. I share the hon. Gentleman's view and I can assure him that those matters are under consideration.
Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Lady has told us that, on Monday, we shall debate the security services. As she knows and as many hon. Members will have heard, Ministers frequently take refuge in the answer that they cannot discuss something because it relates to security matters. Would it be in order to ask a Minister whether the assessments of individual Cabinet members and their possible security risk are submitted in the first instance to the Prime Minister or to Mr. Alastair Campbell?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that the question about what is in order is not a matter for me, but I suspect that that is not the point that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. The role of the Prime Minister's official spokesman is well known. He is highly respected. We all take note of the fact that the Tory party so much dislikes his efficacy in that role that hon. Members do everything that they can to undermine him.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the ingenuity of that answer. I have two points to raise with her. First, following up a point made earlier, will she reconsider having a free vote at the end of next Thursday's debate so that every right hon. and hon. Member can express an opinion on a report which, in effect, proposes the destruction of our parliamentary system, so that she herself can be free, unfettered and unshackled and can tell us what she thinks about such a monstrous proposal?
Secondly, on a point that will unite the House, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is a great pity that we have been unable to debate early-day motion 1647, headed "Speaker's Chaplain".
That this House notes that the Reverend Canon Donald Gray is to retire at the end of the current session after 11 years as Chaplain to the Speaker; pays warm tribute to his years of service to this House both in his formal duties and in his less formal but equally important ministry to honourable Members and staff throughout the House (including his support to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship); notes also that he and his wife Joyce having made many friends in and outside Parliament, will be greatly missed; and wishes them both many happy and fulfilling years in their retirement.]

473
The right hon. Lady will know that, this afternoon, Canon Gray conducted Prayers in the House for the last time. Does she agree that it would be appropriate for us all to place on record our great respect for Canon Gray and our profound gratitude for the service that he has rendered to the House, to all right hon. and hon. Members in a pastoral role and to so many of the staff of the House and the other place who have gone to him for counsel and help? He has been an exemplary Speaker's Chaplain and it is appropriate for that to be put on record before we move on to the next business.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me for a free vote at the end of the debate next Thursday. It is not the end of the debate or the discussion; it is very much the beginning. It is certainly my view and that of the entire Cabinet that we would like widespread and thorough debate on the issues raised by the Jenkins report.
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his remarks about the Speaker's Chaplain and for giving me the opportunity—which might not otherwise have been in order—to say how strongly I share his views, which I know are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Speaker's Chaplain is held in not only great respect but much affection. The hon. Gentleman referred quite rightly to his pastoral role and his work with staff and with right hon. and hon. Members. If one may put it this way, he has adorned the House for a long time and we shall always find Prayers very different and for some time a little strange without him. I hope that he will be aware of how highly he is regarded and certainly, if that were not the case, I hope that it will be now.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AREA (PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the benefits or otherwise of accession by the United Kingdom to the North American Free Trade Area Treaty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 251].

Pet Quarantine
[Relevant documents: The fifth report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1993–94, on Health Controls on the Importation of Live Animals (HC 347–1, published on 23 November 1994).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Betts.]
4.12 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his new role as principal Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters and I do so now. I know that he will be a robust opponent on party political issues, but on issues of national importance that transcend party politics, such as the date-based export scheme, I hope that I can count on him as an ally.
Today's debate is not party political, although it involves matters on which people hold very strong views. Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, much of my time has been consumed by the specific difficulties faced by farmers and the Government's desire to do what we can to respond; Agenda 2000 and the wider search for common agricultural policy reform; and, of course, the beef export ban, on which I have set myself the target of getting the issue resolved before Christmas. I am absolutely determined that the intense focus on those priorities will not divert me or the Department from our other responsibilities, especially food standards and the protection of the public.
Our quarantine laws, and the case for their modernisation and reform, are one aspect of public protection. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her having secured Government time for the debate. The views of individual hon. Members are especially important on an issue such as this one, in which there is no obvious party political divide. The British people are internationally famous—or notorious—as animal lovers. We keep pets as part of our families, and we object to forced separation. It is no surprise that the requirement of six months in quarantine for dogs and cats entering the United Kingdom has always been unpopular among pet owners, especially those whose work commitments require them to travel abroad. That has a particular application for the armed services.
There are good reasons for quarantine, however. Rabies is an appallingly unpleasant disease which still causes many deaths in some parts of the world. It is right to take strict precautions against it. I am not willing to recommend to the House anything that puts our population at risk from rabies. Nor am I willing to put to the House anything that would inflict rabies on our wildlife or our pets. There has been no native case of rabies among animals for more than 75 years, and it is 95 years since someone last died of the disease after contracting it here.
We maintained that record during a period in which an epidemic in wildlife made rabies common on continental Europe. It is no longer common, however. A successful campaign is pushing the disease back beyond the frontiers of the present European Union. Western Europe is now

475
largely free of rabies. There were only 100 cases last year in animals other than bats, compared with 14,000 cases in 1989.
We must also take into account the freedom to travel that people now enjoy. Holidays abroad are part of modern life. In particular, the channel tunnel has made travel easy. Against that background, we must ask whether our arrangements are still justified. In 1971, the Waterhouse committee recommended retention of six months quarantine as a standard requirement. In 1994, the Select Committee on Agriculture had a fresh look at the subject, and it reported that vaccines were available for the prevention of rabies, that blood tests could show whether the vaccine had taken and that microchips could identify whether an animal was the one mentioned in a vaccination or blood test certificate. The Select Committee concluded that
"scientific advances since the Waterhouse Report now make it not only feasible, but desirable, for the UK to permit anti-rabies controls based upon vaccination and blood-testing as an alternative to quarantine for pet dogs and cats arriving from other EU countries and all other countries internationally recognised to be rabies-free and carrying out appropriate policies to maintain their rabies-free status".
That report is before us today to help inform our debate.
The then Government welcomed that report, but concluded that the changes proposed were premature. The Conservative Government argued that the eradication programme in the European Union had not been completed. They said that new arrangements for importing traded cats and dogs to the UK were still untested. They said that similar relaxations recently introduced in Norway and Sweden were also untried.
Whatever the case may have been at that time, those objections surely have little force today. Highly respected bodies—including the British Medical Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association—have argued that the time has come for a re-evaluation.
When we came into office, the Government were aware of strong opposition to quarantine among many pet owners, but aware also of deep fears among those who support the existing system. To help to reconcile those views, my predecessor called for a scientific assessment of the risks that we run under the policy of quarantine and under five other options. It is, perhaps, remarkable that that had not been done previously, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for his decision. Professor Kennedy chairs the advisory group on quarantine that conducted the review. On 23 September, I published his report "Quarantine and Rabies: A Reappraisal". The report is an excellent and thorough analysis which gives a sound basis for conducting the public debate. I commend it to the House, and am most grateful to Professor Kennedy and all the members of his group.
The essence of the report lies in the first two of its 41 recommendations. It recommends an alternative system for bringing pets into this country from the European Union, European Economic Area and rabies-free islands. For such animals, the alternative system gives safeguards equivalent to quarantine, which would be abandoned for those areas. That would apply both to pets taken from Great Britain to those countries and then returning, and to pets coming into Great Britain from those countries if they satisfy the same conditions.
476
The key to the new system will be certification showing, first, that the animal is identified by a microchip; secondly, that it was vaccinated against rabies at or over three months of age using an approved vaccine; thirdly, that it has had a blood test to confirm the effectiveness of vaccination carried out at least six months before entry into Britain; and, finally, that it has had treatment against ticks and a parasite no more than 24 hours before entry. The reasoning behind the requirements is well set out in the report. Of course, we shall have to review them in the light of comments on the report, but the basic structure of identification, vaccination, and certification is fundamental to any new system.
In considering the options, the group recognised that even the present system is not risk free, because smuggling clearly occurs. It found that its recommended alternative did not involve any significant increase of risk. It could make no assessment of the impact of smuggling in the modern environment. This is a personal view and not something on which the group felt able to advise me, but I think that some of the incentive to smuggle lies in the six-month period of separation. People do not want to be separated from their pets, and some of them, foolishly and wrongly, decide to try to circumvent the law by smuggling. It logically follows that, if we can find a legal alternative that does not require separation, at least part of the incentive to smuggle will be removed. We are, therefore, providing a further public safeguard, rather than undermining the protection of the public.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If anyone needs evidence of what is going on with smuggling and its vast scale, particularly in respect of cats and dogs, they need only ask around confidentially in the expatriate English-speaking communities in any capital in Europe. One of the reasons is that to which my right hon. Friend alluded, but there is another: it can cost between 1,000 and £1,500 to put a cat away for 15 months. Most people cannot afford that, which is why they have to smuggle, sad as it is. I look forward to a change in the law because it is desperately needed.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on the right track. It is difficult to estimate accurately how many pets are smuggled because of the nature of the activity. To judge from anecdotal evidence of the sort that he mentioned, it is a problem and, at least in part, the desire to avoid separation between pet and owner is the motivation. If we can put in place a system that avoids that motivation, we may diminish the amount of smuggling, and, because ours is a tested route, diminish risk to the public.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. While I agree broadly with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), does the Minister accept that the Government need to maintain a system of emergency regulations in the event that an outbreak of rabies occurs in a given geographical area? Will he ensure that, if he goes through with the reforms posited in the Kennedy report, any collection of emergency regulations will not damage activities, such as farming, more than the evil from which protection is sought?
For example, the Government might intend to ban at short notice all animal movements within a given area. That could have a direct effect on horse race meetings and

477
other equine events, such as Badminton and Burghley by Stamford. While taking every care to prevent the spread of rabies, the Government should not simultaneously damage the economic value of activities involving horses.
Mr. Brown: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and thank him for welcoming me to my new position.
The emergency regulations are designed to deal with a rabies outbreak after it has been identified. They do not take into account the source of that outbreak—although the appropriate authorities will prosecute those who caused it. We do not intend to change the emergency procedures for dealing with an outbreak or to alter the criminal sanctions that are already in place regarding smuggling. Those people who attempt to smuggle animals into the country in defiance of the rabies regulations are being very selfish and foolish, and I deplore their actions.
The Kennedy group considered other options, but they were found to carry a greater risk and, therefore, were not recommended by the group. The Kennedy group rejected the option of simply reducing the quarantine period to one month. It did not find a system of identification, vaccination and certification to be a good enough safeguard for pets coming from every country in the world. Indeed, the report advocated European Union action to put adequate controls in place against animals coming from third countries, including the candidate member states. However, it recommended a further study of the number of animals that might come from North America, and a risk assessment in light of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable recommendation.
The group envisaged controls coming into force at the port of entry, and was very clear about the need for proper enforcement. Any scheme that is introduced to parallel existing quarantine rules will rely on enforcement, and I am determined to ensure that enforcement features strongly in any such scheme.
Upon entry, the pet and its certificate would be presented to an official whose sole responsibility would be to check imported animals. Although nothing has been firmly decided in this area, the House will want to know that it is pretty certain—as certain as we can be at this stage—that, if such a scheme were to come into effect, those officials would come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official would read the pet's microchip number and check it against the certificate. Provided that they matched and the certificate was satisfactory, the animal would enter the country without further ado.
In order to avoid any doubt, I stress that the Kennedy group did not propose—and the Government would not accept—anything that would imply a green channel whereby animals would be waved through. That is not the proposal on which we are consulting. Animals that failed to meet this simple requirement, for whatever reason, would be quarantined for six months or until such earlier time as their certification was shown to be in good order.
It is important to stress that quarantine would remain the rule not only for pets coming from most countries
478
outside Europe, but for animals that failed to meet the new requirements in full. If animals failed to meet the requirements, they would go straight into quarantine.
Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This may be an appropriate moment to congratulate him on his new position. I was in the House when he made his maiden speech from the Opposition Benches, which roughly coincided with my own debut at the Dispatch Box.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that it would be his Department's staff who monitored compliance with the new regulations or criteria. It is clear that that will be an expensive matter. As he knows, the considerable delay envisaged in the report has been the subject of objections and is a matter of great concern. During his opening speech, will he tell us that he has already started the costing of the arrangements; that he is making allocations in the next public expenditure survey round for his Department's proposed expenditure; that there is a realistic progression of stages leading to the implementation of the new proceedings; and whether those can be accelerated?
Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new duties and thank him even more for having sat through my maiden speech, which was delivered in 1983 at around midnight, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Clark: It was memorable.
Mr. Brown: It did not strike me as being memorable, although I did have one good joke. I have been telling it ever since and it has carried me a long way.
The arrangements will have to be paid for, of course, and I shall talk about costs later in my speech and deal with the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's question then. When I referred to the official being a MAFF official, it was not to invite the House to go through the Department's whole budget to see whether existing resources would cover the money to pay that official, but to make the point that the official would be dedicated to that specific duty and that it would not be added to the responsibilities of other officials who have duties at points of entry. The Government will take enforcement extremely seriously.
One of the Kennedy report's most important recommendations is for a large-scale education and publicity programme. Everyone who might use the system, as well as those operating it, will need to know the rules well in advance. Otherwise, people will try to bring in pets that do not qualify and there will be chaos and ill feeling at the point of entry, as pets are refused entry and sent straight into quarantine. The group recognised that the new system could not be brought in overnight and recommended that up to three years be taken to get it up and running. Sites at port should be ready, staff recruited and trained and the public properly informed. I shall return to the issue of timing later.
The group emphasised that its proposals must be viewed against our obligations within the European Union. I am also mindful of our special obligation to

479
Ireland, with which we have a common land border. I am grateful to the group for covering several detailed aspects that are often left by the wayside when quarantine is discussed.
As to the Government's response to the report, without pre-empting the public consultation, I am sympathetic to the case for change. In the light of the Kennedy report, we cannot maintain the status quo, nor can we any longer argue that quarantine is the only way in which to protect our country against rabies. I do not see how we can keep our current system unchanged when there is a less onerous alternative that gives rise to no greater risk and, indeed, has some advantages over the current system.
The report confirms that we have the scientific knowledge and techniques to take the necessary precautions against rabies. Many have said that before. That is not the key issue, even though some important technical details remain to be settled. The report treads new ground in its emphasis on implementation and the effects of change. It puts that into context through its risk assessment, which helps us to devise a new system and warns of the points to watch. Compliance with the rules is essential to the success of any scheme, but particularly this one.
First, we have to be ready for a vast increase in the number of pets taken to and fro. The report assumes that the number of animals might reach 250,000, rather than the 8,000 that currently go into quarantine. That would be in line with the Swedish experience. Gearing up to deal with that number of animals is a task we cannot afford to underestimate. Secondly, vaccination and blood testing are not infallible. Checking remains important and we shall have to consider how that is best carried out. I am determined that we should remain a rabies-free country with strong safeguards against the disease.
Thirdly, we must be ready for people who are willing to break the law. The report recommends that we should check the certificates of every animal coming into the country and makes further recommendations designed to make enforcement easier and more effective. The problem lies not with pets going to, and coming from, rabies-free countries, but with the difficulty of distinguishing those animals from others that carry a risk. Following up the report will therefore not be a straightforward task.
When we published the report on 23 September, I announced that we were inviting comments by 31 December. We are anxious to have reactions to the proposals. We have already received more than 300 responses from more than 20 countries and expect many more. I welcome today's debate as part of that process.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown: The House would probably like to know how the consultation is going. Eighty-seven per cent. of the responses are broadly in favour of change as proposed by the Kennedy report, but not going beyond that; 10 per cent. are opposed to change, mainly on the grounds that they do not have pets and do not want to be placed at any risk by other people's pets, and 3 per cent. made neutral points. I give way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give us his view on paragraph 11.9.1 of the report, which says:
"We understand that the Minister may wish the animal owner to meet the cost of any enforcement under any new system",
and goes on to offer observations? It would be useful if he told the House whether he believes that it would be proper and reasonable for the users of the system to pay the full cost and that the cost should not fall on the taxpayer.
Mr. Brown: That is a fair point, which parallels that made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). I am about to deal with that matter in terms that will brook no misunderstanding. I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I shall not equivocate on that issue—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not let me.
Mr. Forth: Good man.
Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the Chancellor is a good man. I strongly agree with that.
While consultation continues, we are doing some preparation and taking a hard look at all that would have to be done to put a new scheme in place. We must concentrate on three aspects at this stage. First, there are legal issues to be resolved. We must be sure that what we do is compatible with European Community law. I am keeping the Commission informed of progress in my Department. We also need to consider how we shall link together the three systems that might in future apply: quarantine, the so-called Balai system for traded cats and dogs and the new arrangements for pets based on vaccination and certification. Linked with that is the need to specify certification that we will have to ask other countries to provide.
Secondly, the pet owners who benefit from the new system will have to pay for it. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea.
Mr. Alan Clark: That is an interesting and perfectly legitimate response. If that is the case, surely the pet owners—the paymasters—can determine to a far greater extent than if cost were a matter for the right hon. Gentleman's Department when the measures will come into force, and plainly they will want that to happen at the earliest opportunity. Since pet owners can no longer be put off by the explanation that the scheme will take a long time to put in place and the provisions must be passed through the public expenditure survey and the Chancellor, surely there are good grounds for accelerating the implementation of the measures.
Mr. Brown: I am keen to do what I can to meet the legitimate aspirations of pet owners, but my primary concern is to protect the country from rabies. The interests of my fellow citizens and public health and safety come first, and within that I shall consider what can be done to meet the legitimate requests of those who own pets and want to take them abroad. Professor Kennedy's report will inform and advise decision making in the Department.
However, the fact that pet owners will have to pay for the new arrangements does not mean that they can set out their terms and conditions. Under the existing system, it

481
is a requirement not only that pet owners are separated from their pets for six months if they have brought them in from abroad, because of the quarantine requirement, but that they pay for quarantine. The state does not pick up the cost of those arrangements, which can be quite high—£ 1,600.
Currently, anyone who wishes to bring a pet into the country is required to pay. It does not seem unfair and unreasonable, therefore, for the arrangements to continue if the test and the public protection arrangements—and that is what they are—are to operate differently from the quarantine procedures when we deal with the European Union.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Can the Minister confirm the valid point that he is making—that at the moment, there is a cost to the Exchequer of inspections of quarantine kennels and the like, so the present system is costing us in any case?
Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is completely right. There is a cost to the Exchequer of kennel inspections, and that cost will continue to be incurred—although its extent might be different under the new arrangements—because Kennedy does not propose, and the Government are not considering, the abolition of quarantine.
Quarantine will remain for animals coming to the UK from countries outside the scheme. It will also be needed for animals brought in by people who believe that their pets comply with the regime, but find that the pets do not. Those pets will go into quarantine, and the obligation will be on the owner to be able to show that the pet can be brought into compliance—perhaps by providing the certificate that they left outside the country—but the effect will be the same. They will have to be able to comply with the new arrangement or the old arrangement will carry on, and I am afraid that they will be charged for it.
The third aspect that the Government will need to consider closely is the question of the time that will be needed to put the new arrangements into place. The Kennedy estimate—three years—seems a long time. I am examining the case for an earlier pilot project—perhaps funded at a premium—to establish new arrangements, or perhaps one covering a limited number of animals. These are early days. I am considering the possibility of speeding up progress—at least for part of the scheme. However, I ask the House not to underestimate what needs to be done. I emphasise that the project is being driven forward by considerations of the safety of the public in the United Kingdom—not by the views of others who will benefit from the project.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Minister agree that, if it is known that quarantine will shortly be abolished for some categories of country, the temptation to smuggle will be much increased in people who—perhaps having served in the Army abroad—have been waiting a long time to return a pet? They will think, "This system will die anyway in a few months, so why
482
should I go through all that?" If it is possible to accelerate the process for an especially urgent case of that kind, it might help increase security.
Mr. Brown: I do not think that it is fair to describe the desire of individuals to move now and bring their pets with them as urgent in the sense of public policy. I hope that nothing that I say in the House today will give any comfort to anyone who has smuggled animals or is even thinking about it. If they are caught they will be punished, and punishment can involve custodial sentencing. A more likely outcome of today's debate, and the broader understanding that the Government are minded to agree to change and reform, is that those who can adjust their travel arrangements will wait a little to see whether a scheme comes on stream that is more acceptable to them than the existing quarantine arrangements.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the quarantine arrangements are very harsh if they are not strictly necessary for the protection of the public. Professor Kennedy and his group have made a very persuasive case that, at least in the context of the European Union and other rabies-free islands, the case for continuing the existing arrangements is pretty weak. Substitute arrangements will be put in place.
Mr. Brian White: Many rabies-free countries are not islands. Has the Minister considered, in the consultations, including some more of those countries in the scheme?
Mr. Brown: The Government proposal will have to be very area specific when it is set before the House, and I shall consider those questions of nuance when the consultation is finished. However, if I err, it will have to be on the side of the safety of people in the United Kingdom, not on that of people's desire to move their pets around.
I have made a specific comment about arrangements in north America, which is the pretty obvious great exception to what is proposed. Very reasonably, Kennedy asked for a further look to be taken at that, and I find that request very persuasive. Rabies is endemic in wildlife in north America, but those who travel from north America—perhaps to work in this country, for business reasons or to take an extended holiday—are very unlikely to keep a rabid animal in their household as a pet, and veterinary standards in the United States are very high indeed. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we shall be able to devise a parallel system for north America, but that is for the future.
I shall now discuss arrangements for establishing the new system. We must gear up ports to receive arrivals in a way that is compatible with the rules that we intend to impose. We shall need to install facilities and procedures, which will, I am afraid, slow down pet owners. Currently, ports usually move people through as fast as is compatible with the duties of Customs and Excise and immigration controls. Pet owners will have to do something different from other travellers: there will be a separate official for them to see.
We must tell other countries about the certificates that they may need to provide for those of their nationals who want to bring pets here. We must consider the diseases, other than rabies, that dogs and cats may carry. Moreover,

483
we want the arrangements to be agreed for the whole of the British Isles, not for Great Britain alone. None of the details to be worked out seem to carry with them insuperable obstacles.
Mr. Robert Key: Eurotunnel and Eurostar got in touch with me today to say that the concept of Eurotunnel was designed specifically with such changes in mind, and that they could implement the regulations very quickly indeed. Eurostar would be delighted to offer its services for a pilot study.
Mr. Brown: That is excellent news, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. I shall arrange to get in touch with Eurotunnel and Eurostar through the Department to discover whether we might devise such a scheme. It seems logical that, if one were to set up a pilot project, the terminal at Waterloo and embarkation at Paris would be suitable—but I seem to remember that Eurotunnel also stops at Ashford and Lille, so the latter might be better. As I have shown, the details are best not worked out over the Dispatch Box. There is at least a possibility of a pilot project, which will be explored.
In the meantime, we have no choice but to continue to apply the existing laws; I hope that no one is under any illusions about that. We shall move as fast as we can, depending on the outcome of consultation, but quarantine will stay until we have something as effective to put in its place. Madam Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. How easy it is to lose friends in this place! Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate. I know that other hon. Members want to take part. I take the views of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House on such a topic very seriously indeed.
4.49 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I thank the Minister warmly for the welcome that he extended to me at the start of the debate. I assure him that the Opposition are ready to support any measures that address the acute problems which have arisen in the industries for which his Department is responsible.
I take this opportunity of offering the Minister an apology for mistakenly suggesting earlier this month that he was once a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a mistake that he hastily pointed out to me. In making that suggestion, I had his own best career interests in mind, because I was seeking, with some difficulty, to find aspects of his early career that he shared with the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I regret the error.
This is the Minister's first chance to speak in the House since the summer recess started three months ago. It is a matter of some regret that in this, his first debate since the recess in Government time, the subject is quarantine. It is an important subject of course, but I cannot believe that, in House of Commons terms, it is particularly urgent, since the consultation period does not end until 31 December. That will be noted by farmers up and down the country. They will be puzzled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reaction of those on the Treasury Bench who are trying to deride this important point is extremely instructive. Farmers throughout Britain will note and be puzzled about why the Government and the Leader of the
484
House, and possibly the Minister, think it more important for Parliament to discuss quarantine this afternoon than to address the crisis in agriculture, which became so much worse during the parliamentary recess.
Mr. Nick Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about me and for putting the record right. I am not and never have been a member of CND. On the question of the difficulties that the agriculture sector is experiencing at present, I and my Department have been working hard on those very issues and, at an appropriate time, I shall come to the House and have something of significance to say. Farmers are looking not for a debate, but for answers. When I can, I shall come to the House and say what I am able to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Now that the point has been made about the farmers and it has been responded to, we can go on to quarantine.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. In reverting to quarantine, I would just say that the Opposition are not at all reluctant to debate agriculture, as we hope to do next week. We look forward to the Minister's statement in due course.
The Opposition fully recognise the powerful case for reforming the present laws. Matters have moved on since the previous Government considered the issue. I endorse the Minister's appreciation of Professor Kennedy's report. We fully accept that the onerous restrictions imposed by the current quarantine requirements cause real anguish for many pet owners—for families who have to live abroad for professional reasons and particularly for those in the armed forces who serve this country. For all those people, the system is an extra burden on top of those that they already carry.
We are mindful of the example of Sweden where there is now a certain amount of experience and where the determination to exclude rabies matches our own. We also have the 1994 report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reached the clear conclusion that an alternative to the existing arrangements was desirable. I also accept the force of the argument that a change in the regulations will reduce the incentive for owners misguidedly to try to smuggle pets into Britain.
The Opposition will support the removal of the present tight controls subject to two essential conditions. First, the ending of the present restrictions on the movement of animals should not increase the risk that rabies will enter Britain. I warmly welcome the tone in which the Minister has assured us that that is also his concern. Secondly, the practical arrangements needed to make the proposed new system work should be feasible, realistic and watertight and not be a burden on the taxpayer. That point has already been raised by Conservative Members, and the Minister has said that the pet owner will bear the cost of the new system. I am glad that, on this matter, there has been no equivocation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Minister's right hon. Friend is equivocating like anything over some other matters which he is no doubt debating with him at the moment.
The question of risk is clearly the overriding consideration, and I have read the relevant chapter in the report. As the Minister said, no responsible Government

485
would wish to be the instrument by which the country lost the freedom from rabies that it has enjoyed for almost the whole of this century. I do know how concerned the Government are with risks, even with quite small risks, as we have learnt from their imposition of a ban on beef on the bone. That ban was imposed despite the risk of dying from eating beef on the bone being less than the risk of being struck by lightning. The Minister will be familiar with the Opposition's view, which is held as strongly today as when last expressed, that that ban should be lifted.
I assume from what the Minister has said and from my reading of the report that it is the Government's view that, since the risk of eating beef on the bone in the past year was unacceptable, the risks that might arise from ending the current quarantine arrangements—I appreciate that we are not abolishing quarantine altogether, but we would be proposing a substantial relaxation of the arrangements in respect of some countries—are even lower.
Mr. Nick Brown: Strictly speaking, comparing like with like, I cannot truthfully tell the House today that the Government have measured the risks identified in Professor Kennedy's report against the risks of consuming beef on the bone. A direct comparison is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he studies Professor Kennedy's report carefully, he will see that the risk assessments cover a pretty wide range.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It is a point to which we might wish to return later. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the emphasis must be on making only those changes that do not impose any measurable risk. One important difference between the two examples in my comparison is that a risk that results from eating something is more or less run knowingly, while a risk from rabies might be outside one's control.
A number of detailed aspects arise with regard to the effectiveness of the practical arrangements proposed. The first concerns the position, which might arise, of a British pet returning to Britain from another EU country. From what I have read and heard so far, I am not clear how the checking station at the port of entry, say, Dover, will know whether, during the time that the animal has spent abroad, it has been outside the EU to a third country that might not be rabies free. It is at least possible that checks on animals re-entering the EU—outside Britain—might be rather less rigorous than those envisaged for the UK. So a UK resident who had a second home in another EU country, as a growing number do, and who might spend a substantial part of the year there, say six months—
Mr. James Paice: Tuscany.
Mr. Yeo: I believe that that is favoured by a number of the Minister's colleagues. If the cat had not mysteriously disappeared from No. 10 Downing street—who knows? —
486
it might have been favoured with a trip to an expensive villa in Tuscany where it might have received extremely generous hospitality.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A retirement scheme.
Mr. Yeo: Possibly so. Anyway, a British resident who made an extended visit to another part of the EU might, during the course of that visit, travel from there to a non-rabies-free country, return to the EU country where the second home was maintained, and then return to Britain. I should be interested if the Minister could give assurances about such a situation, which might easily arise.
Mr. Brown: One of the conditions of the scheme proposed by Professor Kennedy is that the animal must be inside the European Union or one of the islands referred to in the scheme for at least six months. It will have to have been vaccinated, the effectiveness of the vaccine will have to have been checked, and the animal will have to be deloused 24 hours before coming in, so that parasites that might carry rabies or other equally damaging diseases will be killed off. The safeguards proposed by Professor Kennedy are severe.
Mr. Yeo: I understand that. I have read the safeguards, and I have a continuing concern about the first one, which stipulates that an imported animal should have been in an EU country for the six months before it enters Britain. I am not clear how that fact will easily be verified at the point of entry into Britain. In trying to avoid the risk that an animal might not have been continuously in the EU for the previous six months, there is a danger that we will effectively be relying on standards at every point of entry into the EU to be as stringent as ours. The consultation is no doubt intended to cover such points. There is a loophole which I hope will be dealt with.
My second concern relates to the possible enlargement of the European Union. If countries where rabies exists were admitted as EU members, how do the Government envisage that the safeguards will be maintained? Can the Minister say whether any of the countries likely to negotiate EU membership are not rabies free? Does he agree that, unless a special system of protection is established, the admission of a non-rabies-free country into the EU could drive a coach and horses through the controls that are envisaged?
In that connection, will the Government publish a list of countries outside the present EU that would qualify as rabies free? The list that is envisaged does not precisely coincide with the list defined by the World Health Organisation as rabies free. It would clearly be helpful to know which countries are envisaged.
My third concern relates to the technology that will be used to identify animals. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will deal with the matter in more detail in his speech, so I shall flag it up briefly at this stage. I understand that more than one type of microchip is already in use. Is that likely to cause practical difficulties?
Like other hon. Members who will no doubt take part in the debate, I have a constituent who runs a quarantine kennel. Miss Valerie Sheldrake has raised her concerns

487
with me, one of which relates to the microchip. She suggests that it can move around inside an animal and could be reprogrammed or replaced. I hope that the Government will comment on that risk in due course. Like many other kennel owners, Miss Sheldrake points out that she has invested heavily in the facilities that she provides for quarantine. I hope that the Government will take account of her concern about the future of her own and other people's investments.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the animals that currently go into quarantine—about 8,000 a year—would still have to do so if the new system were adopted. It is clearly impossible to forecast how many animals will be brought into the country in the future. The Minister referred to 250,000. I assume that, whatever the number, the Government will be flexible about the number of staff needed to maintain the new controls adequately, given the assurance that we have received that the costs will be borne by the pet owners, not by the taxpayer.
The Opposition support in principle the case for a fundamental change to the quarantine laws. We believe that the change should take place only when the legitimate concerns about the risks and the effectiveness of the arrangements proposed have been satisfied. I welcome the way in which the Minister has addressed the problem, and the tone of his comments and his reassurances. We welcome the fact that the consultation is taking place. I hope that that will help to meet the concerns that I have outlined.
5.4 pm
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I add my congratulations and welcome to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first outing. He might remember coming down to my Dover and Deal constituency three months before the election and introducing me to the now famous pager. Much water has passed under the bridge since then.
One could easily be tempted to treat the subject of quarantine and the potential spread of rabies in an alarmist and emotive manner. I know that, in previous debates in the Chamber, that has happened. I shall avoid that temptation, but we cannot avoid the reality that rabies is, as Professor Kennedy states,
"still a horrific disease in animals and man".
That has been acknowledged in the debate.
We should not ignore the fact that, last year, there were more than 100 reported cases of rabies in mammals in EU countries, and more than 3,000 reported cases in central and east European countries. No one would deny the seriousness of the subject, and the need to approach the changes and relaxation of controls with care and consideration. The Kennedy report reflects a measured approach. I am sympathetic to the animal welfare case presented by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
My constituency, Dover, is in the front line in the importation from mainland Europe of animals that might be infected with rabies. Officials in the port of Dover are committed to preventing the illegal importation of animals. East Kent has a significant number of boarding kennels which are licensed to hold animals in quarantine and whose primary business has evolved to meet the Government's requirements in respect of the existing quarantine laws. The vast majority of those kennels meet the high standards of care required of them.
488
There are some 80 licensed kennels in the United Kingdom. Almost 80 per cent. of those are members of their representative body, the Quarantine Association. The association understands the need for change, and wants the Government to understand the implications for its members' business if the sweeping changes proposed in the Kennedy report are implemented in full.
Mr. White: Given that the number of animals coming through the port would be much larger, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ironic consequences of introducing the new system might be more animals in quarantine than there are at present, because they would fail the strict conditions laid down by the Government?
Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but we would have difficulty convincing the kennel owners whose businesses go bust over the next three or four years that the proposals contain good news.
The kennel operators want to draw on their considerable experience and make positive and practical responses to the consultation, but they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty that will affect their businesses over the next few years. Kennel owners and their employees are worried about the impact of the changes on their businesses and the consequent loss of jobs. They realise that the present system, which has been in use since the turn of the century, is out of date and needs modernising, but they are anxious that all the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new arrangements are implemented.
I was a little alarmed to hear suggestions from my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench about accelerated schemes, hurrying up the system and filling the channel tunnel with cats and dogs. We have had the present system for 100 years, and it is less than 100 days since the report was published. We should make a considered response and let the consultation process take its course over the next two months. We should listen to all the arguments, rather than rushing into change under pressure from a few particular lobbies.
While the association realises that the system needs reforming, kennel owners, and their association, have raised a couple of specific concerns. One that has been mentioned this afternoon involves lax border controls. An animal could be taken from one area to another and falsely licensed. The Minister has given some assurance on that in respect of the six-month rule, but we shall have to consider it a little more closely.
Mr. Loughton: I fully appreciate the interests of quarantine kennel owners in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country, but to coin a pun, one does not want to let the quarantine kennel owner's tail wag the animal welfare dog. Can he suggest a scheme allowing the 50 per cent. of quarantine businesses that will be lost under the proposals to receive some form of decommissioning compensation, perhaps along the lines of the scheme for the fishing industry? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that, and will he press the Minister for such a scheme?
Mr. Prosser: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated issues that I shall deal with later in my speech.
The second issue is the possibility that an animal owner living in, say, France might do a tour of central and eastern Europe before returning to France and crossing the channel. Can the Minister reassure us about that risk, which concerns proof of residence?

489
Kennel owners have also voiced concerns about the proposed means of validating incoming animals. Last year, 150,000 pets entered the country through the port of Dover. The bulk of them entered during the busy summer period. There would be major problems in dealing with the increased number that would result from the changes.
The proposals have implications for both airports and sea ports. Dover Harbour Board says that it will be pleased to discuss ways and means of handling any new arrangements, but would have to take a commercial approach to any additional facilities or boat space that it might be asked to provide. It emphasises the need to deal with different ports in different ways.
For instance, the recommendation that there should be a dedicated lane for traffic from ferries to the new inspection facility is simply impracticable for Dover, which is the busiest ferry port in the world. Last year, it handled more than 21 million passengers. It has seven berths with seven carriageways serving each "link span", and incoming traffic is separated from outgoing traffic by a complex arrangement of overhead roadways and underpasses. If one adds to that the squeeze on available land, the extreme difficulty of providing dedicated lanes for travellers with pets becomes obvious. However, the port is happy to explore other options for facilities within the port.
Some kennel owners have suggested alternative options. For example, pets could be removed, under appropriate security, to inland sites such as existing quarantine kennels. That would allow adequate space and time for checks, including, where appropriate, blood tests.
Kennel owners have other practical concerns which they want to put to the Government as part of the consultation process. They are particularly concerned about the uncertainty of the present climate of change, which means that they cannot produce business plans, reassure their staff about their future, or invest in their kennels. They rightly feel, having effectively been an instrument of Government policy for so many years, that, if the Government's change in policy now threatens their existence, it is reasonable to expect some decommissioning funding or other special support to help them either to close their businesses in an orderly way and meet redundancy liabilities or to adjust to the new circumstances.
The Quarantine Association believes that full implementation of the proposals would lose its members some 46 per cent. of the market. If the changes are followed by a relaxation in quarantine regulations in north America, they would lose a total of 79 per cent. of their work. Such a dramatic impact would drive smaller kennels out of business. The association anticipates that fewer than 20 businesses would survive and more than 60 would be driven into bankruptcy.
I urge the Minister to consider all the responses to the report so that he can give due regard to the input from the quarantine kennel industry and its staff. I hope that, as he moves towards decisions that may seriously affect the prospects of hundreds of kennel workers across the land, including my constituents in Dover, he will agree to meet some of their representatives and explore ways to ease their difficulties.
5.15 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: May I add my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and on introducing this debate in such a non-partisan way? I fully understand the caveat that a significant number of agricultural issues need to be debated in the House, but it would be wrong of any of us to suggest that the issue is not of considerable concern to many people in the United Kingdom, as well as UK expatriates. The attention that the matter is at last receiving is long overdue.
As the Minister reminded the House, Sir Jerry Wiggin introduced the Agriculture Select Committee's report in 1994, when he was Chairman of that Committee. It said that the current quarantine system could no longer be justified and change was clearly overdue. At that time, the all-party parliamentary animal welfare group, which I had the privilege to chair, made it plain that we supported that view, and we have pressed for change ever since. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, is in the Chamber because he has been a doughty fighter in the cause of change. I hope that my saying that does not embarrass him.
As the Minister said, the status quo is no longer an option. Even in the best quarantine kennels, quarantine is inhumane, to a large extent ineffective, and unnecessary. That is not to say that those of us who support change do not recognise the clear warnings that have been issued and the need to ensure that whatever replaces the quarantine system is every bit as secure as the current system. In that regard, the proposal by Professor Kennedy in his excellent report is not only as secure, but is arguably better.
It has already been said that significant numbers of animals are believed to be smuggled into the country by an increasing variety of means. It may originally have been by private yachts, but latterly it is by cross-channel ferry and, most recently, through the channel tunnel. We are led to believe that it is relatively easy for somebody who wishes to bring an animal into the UK illegally and to avoid quarantine to secure the services of a veterinary surgeon in northern France to have a cat or dog anaesthetised. It can then be put into the boot of a car with a blanket thrown over it, and it will not miaow or bark as it enters the country. We all know that, given the volume of traffic that now comes across the channel, the chances of detection are extremely remote. That is clearly going on, so to suggest, as some do, that the current system is somehow foolproof is very wide of the mark.
There is a tremendous incentive to smuggle animals into the country. The financial penalty of putting an animal into quarantine is £1,500 to £2,000 per animal, and many families have more than one animal. That is a great deal of money to spend for six months. That is not the animal lover's prime concern. What is, especially for the owner of a relatively elderly animal, is the animal's welfare. The owner desires not to be parted from that cat or dog for six months, so, because the animal lover knows that the animal is healthy, there is tremendous incentive to skirt round the rules, in the knowledge that no real harm will be done. However, there is always the danger that harm will be done and what Professor Kennedy is suggesting will therefore probably enhance rather than weaken the existing position.

491
As an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, I attended its annual congress this year. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that, following publication of Professor Kennedy's report, this issue was a major topic of discussion throughout the three days. The then president of the association made his view plain, and he represents the view of a considerable number of veterinarians, which we should not ignore. Although they are reasonably content for there to be change, they urge haste with caution.
We must put the proper safeguards in place. If something goes horribly wrong, the veterinarians will be right at the sharp end, dealing with the problem. It is therefore not entirely surprising that they, more than some others, are expressing concerns, but whereas they were cautious about the quality of vaccines, the efficacy of blood testing and the reliability of microchips when Sir Jerry Wiggin's Agriculture Committee report was published in 1994, they are now satisfied on all those counts.
Veterinarians are now concerned that implementation is secure, and that the facilities, the trained personnel and the checks and balances are in place to make sure that the system works as Professor Kennedy intends it to. That is a major shift in the opinion of those to whom we should listen most—people in the veterinary profession.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). He represents a significant number of quarantine kennels, which are used by my constituents and many others using the channel ports, and I fully understand his desire to represent those interests. There is a significant concern here. It is not so long ago that a television programme "exposed" the Dover and Folkestone quarantine kennels. That was especially unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will endorse, because the kennels had changed ownership by the time that the programme was transmitted. The new owners were attempting to clean up the act, invest in and improve the facilities, and bring those kennels up to standard.
Mr. Prosser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the exposéprogramme on Channel 4 was filmed the day after the exchange had taken place? Since then, the new owner, whom I spoke to this morning, has invested more than £90,000 in cleaning up the kennel's act, making it respectable and achieving a caring arrangement. He is a animal lover and a pet owner. He says that he is in it purely for the love of the animals; I will not extend that argument too much, but he is dedicated to providing a careful and proper service.
Mr. Gale: I am very aware of all those things. I visited the kennels, and I hope and believe that I sought the hon. Gentleman's permission before I did so. He has put it clearly on the record that premises change hands, but there is another point.
The hon. Gentleman, having visited those kennels and the catteries, will be aware that there is an on-going programme of investment. I am concerned that, if we do not get a move on and the signals are not clear, and if provision is not made for the quarantine kennel owners, we shall effectively achieve planning blight—legislative blight, in this case.
What kennel or cattery owner will invest more in facilities that he or she believes may be redundant within two or three years? My fear is that, unless we move much
492
more swiftly than has been suggested, standards will deteriorate and, as a consequence, animal welfare in quarantine kennels across the country will deteriorate. Owners simply will not be able to afford to invest, and what bank or lender would lend money to the proprietor of a business that is going to go out of business?
Although I do not seek to over-represent their cause, I believe that quarantine kennel and cattery owners have just cause to look to the House to secure their interests. They have been, effectively, acting on behalf of the Government, doing the business and the bidding of the regulatory process. People such as me have called on them to invest more, raise their standards and make sure that the animals in their care are well cared for. Having done that, we now have a responsibility to them.
As I suggested to the Quarantine Association a couple of years ago, it is possible to look to Europe, because we shall effectively be harmonising our regulations with those throughout the rest of the European Union, to allow freer movement of animals. If we are to do that, there is no reason why the EU should not look favourably, as it has on other agriculture issues, at what would be a modest contribution in European budgetary terms but what would be significant to the owners in terms of compensation for likely loss of business.
I want the process to be speeded up. I do not believe that it is necessary to take three years to get moving, and I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is already considering staffing costs and ways of bringing the process forward. It should be possible to introduce a pilot scheme swiftly—not at the channel tunnel, but at either the port of Ramsgate or the port of Dover, as I proposed two years ago.
Four years ago, we proposed a pilot scheme on this basis: initially, but not for ever, quarantine kennel owners should collect animals from the port and take them to their kennels to hold overnight for blood tests and identification checks. There could be a problem at the ports. I do not want to make too much of another issue, but the port of Dover and other ports will be faced with the ludicrous imposition by Brussels, with the support of the Member of the European Parliament for East Kent, of the passenger registration system. That will cause interminable delay when it is introduced, and, not a green channel, but a channel for people with animals, would also cause severe delay.
I believe that the Minister could say now that those who can demonstrate, as Professor Kennedy requires, that their animals have been vaccinated, blood tested and microchipped should be able immediately to take advantage of such a system, provided that they are prepared to put their animals into quarantine kennels for a brief holding period while blood tests and identification checks are carried out. That would mean that we could take the heat out of the risk that was highlighted earlier and start immediately, rather than wait and risk further smuggling.
I go further: there is no reason whatever—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may want to touch on this—why, given the services of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, service men serving overseas should not immediately be allowed to embark down this road.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I want to clarify a point. The hon. Gentleman suggests that animals should be blood tested on arrival in the United Kingdom.

493
I thought that the idea was that they should be blood tested six months before, and that a microchip should be inserted. They would then have to go through a process similar to the use of a bar code in a supermarket.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is right: that is Professor Kennedy's intention, and I am sure that that is what we shall arrive at. I am suggesting an interim measure to allow a pilot scheme to begin immediately, without the full ramifications of having to appoint and train staff and build and provide holding facilities at ports. If we have to wait for all that, there will inevitably be considerable delay.
I am suggesting to the Minister a way of getting this process up and running now without having to wait. If he can do that, it will enable him and his colleagues and veterinarians to study the process in practice. It will allow systems to be established for identification, vaccination and blood checks, and it will enable parasitology measures to take place, which are important as we are dealing with other problems as well as rabies. The sooner the Minister can get on with the job, the better, and I hope that he will be able to do so.
5.30 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on his exemplary introduction to the debate. From what he said, I am sure that the process will be dealt with cautiously and in great detail. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) apologised to my right hon. Friend, who was not a member of CND. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for targets, I am a minor one, because, like the Prime Minister, I was a member of CND. Unlike the Prime Minister, I still am a member—at least, I think so, because it seems to have given up collecting subs in the past few years.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak in favour of the recommendations in the Kennedy report—I have one or two minor reservations—and to congratulate his advisory group on the thoroughness of its work. It is remarkable how similar its central proposals are to those made by the Select Committee on Agriculture back in 1994, of which I was a member. There was a debate in the Chamber on 13 July 1995—some six months after the report. It is surprising that my speech and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee, Sir Jerry Wiggin, if they had been made again today word for word, would have been directly germane to the discussion of the Kennedy report.
A couple of weeks ago, my good friend, Mrs. Mary Rees, the chairman of Lathom parish council in my constituency, told me that she was still nervous about the prospect of rabies. A decade or so ago, when it became clear that the channel tunnel was an inevitability, she expressed deep foreboding, in whatever forum she could find, about rabies entering the country. She had worked out that a fox can travel about 25 miles in a night, so, within 10 days, a rabid continental fox could be in Lathom—where, of course, it would want to go.
494
The Select Committee visited the channel tunnel before it was opened. We went inside it and saw that it was the one entry point where it was impossible for animals to come in unless they were deliberately smuggled in. It is ironic that there may be a pilot scheme through there, given that the company spent £20 million on defences against animals being brought into the country through the channel tunnel.
The fact that Mary Rees is still worried, and no doubt reflects the worries of many thousands of British people, shows the deep-seated and instinctive fear that rabies inspires.
Mr. Key: Has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to Mary Rees the evidence on page 224 of the report, which suggests that even she may not have to worry too much about this matter? It states:
"if 1000 dogs are imported each year one would expect that on average a dog incubating rabies might enter the country once every 1250 years."
Mr. Pickthall: Mary Rees is an elderly lady, but not quite that old. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I shall point that out to her to ease her mind.
As I said, there is a deep-seated and instinctive fear about rabies in this country, which, to all intents and purposes, has been rabies free for a century. That fear was reflected in the evidence given to the Select Committee in 1994 by the then Minister for Agriculture, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She was always meticulous in her evidence to the Committee. In answer to specific questions, she said:
"there would be, rightly, an enormous outcry if a relaxation of the system that we already have resulted in an outbreak of the disease".
Of course there would. She said:
"at this stage I am not persuaded that there should be further moves … I still believe that the overwhelming public view is that rabies is dangerous and frightening and that this"—
quarantine—
"is the best, most effective way of preventing its outbreak in this country".
She rightly said:
"it is an appalling disease, both for animals and for human beings. I would certainly not want to move in any direction that increased the likelihood of the incidence of rabies in this country."
That is almost exactly the phrase that my right hon. Friend used.
I am quoting the right hon. Lady's perhaps over-cautious responses because they articulated the emotional response of citizens such as Mary Rees. They also more or less articulated my own feelings at the start of the Select Committee inquiry four years ago. Like most of the Committee members, I had a strong prejudice in favour of quarantine. It seemed to me that quarantine took advantage of our island status, it was a sensible bulwark against a horrible disease and it appeared to work. I believed that removing quarantine would seriously undermine public confidence. With the exception of Sir Jerry Wiggin and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Committee shared that prejudice at the start of the inquiry.
By the time that the then Minister gave her evidence to the Committee at the end of its deliberations, we were unanimous in our belief that the alternatives to quarantine

495
were infinitely preferable. Most of us had made a substantial U-turn on the basis of the evidence that we had heard. We were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, and we remain so.
We thought that the submission of our report to the Government made that crystal clear, but the then Minister's view prevented further action. It is important that Governments, for the most part, go with the grain of public opinion, especially on such big, emotive issues. However, there are occasions—this was, and still is, one of them—when Governments should take a lead in explaining why an emotional reaction of historic proportions must be tempered by hard evidence and new science.
The previous Government failed on that count, and I am more than pleased that my right hon. and hon. Friends have encouraged the public education process by setting up the reappraisal under Professor Kennedy. I also congratulate the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, members of the armed forces, Passports for Pets, the all-party committee and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been meticulous member of that committee. Since 1994, they have taken part in an unwavering programme of public education on the alternatives to quarantine. I believe that that has made strong inroads into public prejudices on the issue. The public are not quite so terrified of possible alternatives to quarantines as they were four years ago.
The central reason why I changed my mind during the inquiry had nothing to do with sympathy for pet owners. Although I do sympathise with them, if the balance were between their natural attachment to their pets and the possibility of rabies, there would be no contest. My main concern, and that of my colleagues, was to recommend the best possible way of maintainin the United Kingdom's rabies-free status. The costs of quarantine, in both financial and emotional terms, were shown to be so huge as positively to encourage the smuggling of animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and the hon. Member for North Thanet both put that point forcefully.
We became more than ever conscious of our vast and indented coastline, with its thousands of small harbours, and the huge increase in the use of small leisure craft and even business craft. Of course the alternatives recommended by the Select Committee, and refined and amplified by the Kennedy committee—vaccinations, blood tests, identification by microchip, health certificates and passports—involve costs, but nothing like the costs of quarantine to the individual concerned.
Whereas quarantine tempts otherwise honourable and honest people to smuggle—dishonest people will always smuggle: it is their business—the alternative gives those same people an incentive not only to comply with reasonable regulations, but to maximise the monitoring of their animals' health. The case for the alternatives to quarantine is not a sentimental response to the emotional ties of owners and pets, nor is it about helping the tourist trade. It is about positively improving our protection against rabies.
As I have said, the case for the Kennedy recommendations was effectively made four years ago, and I think that it was approved by most hon. Members on both sides of the House who followed the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the
496
Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary, made their general support for the alternatives clear before the last general election. For four years, the case has been examined, in public and in the trade press, and the Kennedy report has now set it out very clearly.
That brings me to one problem that I have with the report's recommendations, which others have mentioned and on which I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. In recommendation 15, the advisory group said that the new system should not be adopted for, perhaps, three years. I agree with what has been said so far: surely that is much too long a delay. Of course time is needed to get the system right, to train staff, to inform the public and to organise premises, but I should have thought that could be achieved in a time nearer to one year. If the Government really feel that the whole scheme cannot be up and running until 2001, would they consider introducing pilot schemes as soon as possible—as the hon. Member for North Thanet suggested—in two or three ports of entry? Perhaps Dover should not be one, but Liverpool might do. It is rather a long way away, but it needs the jobs. My right hon. Friend the Minister seemed quite sympathetic to that idea.
Perhaps there should also be a pilot scheme at Heathrow—which is already fairly well equipped for the purpose—so that we can see how the system works, and meet the training requirements in the report. There is no point in beginning to train people if there is nowhere for them to be trained and, if we have pilot schemes, it may be possible to provide the necessary facilities.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could interpret the recommendations on European harmonisation in paragraphs 10.5.5 and 10.5.7. I understand our legal obligations under the treaty of Rome and so on, but I fear that—unless I have misread those recommendations—we might create a bit of a pickle. In its summary, the advisory group recommends
"that the Minister introduce the new system specifically and explicitly as a transitional system".
That is fine. It also recommends
"that the Minister simultaneously seek to promote a harmonised EU system of controls against rabies which will reflect the concerns and meet the needs identified in our recommendations."
That is a two-track business. Thirdly, the advisory group recommends
"that, until rabies has been effectively eradicated from the EU and appropriate EU-wide measures put in place in respect of animals to be imported from third countries where rabies is endemic (including the candidate countries of eastern Europe), the Minister should, if necessary, seek a derogation from a harmonised EU system to allow checks to take place at British points of entry."
Unless I have misread the proposals, we could end up with a wish-mash of systems—for which the Government would be responsible—that in some ways contradicted each other. That could create more of a worry among kennel owners who still have some part of their business to run over the next few years.
Nevertheless, the report offers great promise. It confirms the strongly held belief of many that the existing system of quarantine is no longer the best way of dealing with the inward movement of animals from what are virtually risk-free countries. Its proposals would establish a much stronger and fairer system, while maintaining powerful safeguards—in fact, the same safeguards—against the entry of animals from risky countries. That is

497
only a personal opinion, but I think that we should class the United States and Canada as risky countries until they can be conclusively proved not to be.
Incidentally, the implementation of the proposals would be an enormous relief for thousands of individuals, especially in the armed forces, whose jobs necessitate their living abroad with their families and moving back and forth. It would also help the tourist trade at the margins—although I must say that I contemplate the prospect of thousands of foreign tourists arriving with their dogs with no pleasure at all.
Those last two factors, however, are bonuses. The main point of the Kennedy recommendations is safety and common sense. Parliament, and the Government, have a duty to sell them to those in the United Kingdom, such as Mary Rees, who have a deep and abiding fear that quarantine has so far helped to allay. It is our duty to explain in detail that the new measures will constitute a better, not a weaker, system of control.
5.46 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) performed a service by reminding us so lucidly of the background to the Agriculture Committee's deliberations in 1994, and the reasons—which he gave fairly and coherently—why it reached its decisions and its vantage point.
The Minister described himself as sympathetic to the Kennedy report—I hasten to add that Professor Kennedy is no relation—and his stance has been broadly echoed in the House. This is one occasion—another may be next week's agriculture debate, which will arise from a Conservative motion—when the Conservative spokesman and I can make common cause. Given another issue that is being dealt with outside the House today, perhaps we are all into constructive opposition—on this issue, if not on others.
I agree with the fairly consensual points that have been made about changes to the quarantine system. However, although concern has been expressed about the timing, we should bear in mind the fact that the present system has been in place since 1901, and has been stupendously successful. Parliament is right to tread with caution, given the horrendous down side—rabies—which is the alternative to the status quo. But, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire said so persuasively, given the costs of quarantine—which are undoubtedly driving some people into illegal activity—it is surely the lesser of two evils to opt for a system that is likely to deliver than to stick with a system that, at least potentially, is delivering less well. That is the balance of probability that should commend itself to the House.
Dr. Tonge: I remind my hon. Friend that many pet owners act responsibly and vaccinate their pets—which would thus qualify for a pet passport or microchip—but still have to pay quarantine costs to kennels. I am particularly reminded of my constituents, the two dogs Whisky and Soda, who have already suffered six months' quarantine for this country after their master dealt with Hong Kong. They could easily have to go through the
498
process again if their master, useful man that he is, is sent to Europe in another role. I make a plea to the Minister to remember Whisky and Soda.
Mr. Kennedy: Anyone who knows my personal habits knows that I am always willing to defer to whisky and soda, although not necessarily of the canine variety. My hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has been well trailed through the national and international press by her constituent, Mr. Chris Patten, although what she says may be a strong argument not to offer him a job at the EU Commission. However, I shall not stray too far down that road.
Joking aside, it was useful that someone with a high public profile was able to draw attention to the sense of frustration that so many people have felt as a result of the current arrangements. Indeed, that is partly what lay behind the Kennedy committee proposals.
It is obviously extremely important that documentation and vaccination requirements are met. Proper border controls are also important in preventing unprotected animals from entering the country, and that relates to monitoring generally.
Hon. Members have mentioned kennel owners, and gun control may be a more valid comparison than fisheries decommissioning policy in this case. When, under the new Government, the House passed primary legislation on guns, we dealt with the issue of compensation for those who would lose out in terms of business. I accept that the comparison is not ideal, but there is a legitimate argument that the Government should consider those people with businesses that carry out, albeit privately, a Government agency function and who, as a result of primary legislation, may be financially disadvantaged.
I take this opportunity to make a plea for those people who have to use guide dogs—there is a strong case for exempting them from the current rules on travel outwith this country. I expect that all hon. Members have heard from constituents who have found themselves in farcical situations when travelling abroad on holiday. They have discovered—in some cases, not even at the point of exit from this country but when they have been in transit—that they were not to be allowed to have their guide dogs with them on arrival. That is a bizarre state of affairs for people who are self-evidently dependent on a guide dog for access and mobility and for their capacity to enjoy visits to the continent or elsewhere abroad. I hope that the Government will be particularly sympathetic, even under the current arrangements, to the rights of disabled people, especially those who use guide dogs.
As has been clear from this debate, the House is generally supportive of the Government's stance on the Kennedy recommendations, and I hope that we can make further legislative progress on the matter sooner rather than later.
5.54 pm
Ms Jenny Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned the fact that people with guide dogs have faced great problems in travelling abroad because of the quarantine laws. That point has been raised in the considerable postbag—more than 100 letters—that I have received on this subject from my constituents. All those who have written have been in

499
favour of the Kennedy recommendations, and some have gone further, wanting quarantine to be ended immediately, although I do not go along with that view.
There has been consensus in this important debate and I, too, welcome the Kennedy report and its recommendations. A review of quarantine is now long overdue, not least, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) argued, on animal welfare grounds. We can debate quarantine reform because veterinary science has developed to such an extent that there is a viable alternative to quarantine—vaccination, blood testing and microchipping.
We also have a far greater knowledge of animal behaviour and the effects of the long-term separation of animals from their owners. Indeed, it has been known for some time that dogs can develop behavioural problems as a result of being separated from their homes and owners. Now, however, we own far more cats than dogs; we seem to be turning into a nation of cat owners, of whom I am one. I have owned cats for 35 years—
Dr. Palmer: Hear, hear.
Ms Jones: My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear."
I regard myself as a responsible owner, and the House may be interested to hear that I made electoral history last year as the first Member of Parliament to choose to be photographed not with the nearest and dearest of my family—my husband and son—but with one of my kittens. What greater commitment could anyone have to a pet?
There has been a great deal of research into the behaviour of cats, and it has been discovered that cats suffer far more than dogs in quarantine. Two of the saddest letters that I have received were from constituents explaining how their pets had died in quarantine, not from rabies or parasitic diseases from abroad, but, after about four months in a kennel and a cattery respectively, from diseases caught from the other animals.
There is nothing sadder than having to part from one's pet when it has to be put in quarantine. Pet owners do not want their pets to return to this country with rabies, but they do not want them to die from another disease that has been picked up in this country. Now that there is a real alternative to quarantine, the animal welfare argument should be given due weight in our consideration of the Kennedy report.
Until we manage to eradicate rabies worldwide, there will always be a risk that it could get into this country. I have long thought that our analysis of where the risk lies has been wrong. We have assumed that people will get rabies from pets brought in from abroad, but more and more Britons travel abroad to countries that have rabies—the House of Commons Library came up with the figure that a quarter of summer holidaymakers from Britain regularly travel to Turkey, the United States of America, Kenya and other countries that are known as rabies black spots—so rabies is more likely to be brought back here by someone who, perhaps through lack of caution, has been bitten by a rabid animal abroad.
Every time I go abroad on a ferry, I am struck by the emotive posters warning of the dangers of rabies from bringing pets into the country, but I wonder how much information is given to those travelling to countries where there is known to be a risk. We should consider an
500
education campaign aimed at travellers, because we must reassess the source of the risk of rabies ever getting back into this country, which of course we all hope will not happen.
Moving from quarantine to vaccinating, blood testing and microchipping will certain mean upheaval, but, since 1994, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has accepted that animals imported for sale can come in on the vaccination rather than the quarantine route, so we clearly already have the beginnings of that way of controlling rabies.
Three years will be too long a delay. I agree with those who have suggested a pilot scheme based on vaccination in one of our ports where animals come in, in line with the European Union directive. That should be started within a year.
6.2 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: In all fairness, I should declare an interest at the outset. My dear, beloved mother-in-law, who lives in the United States, is deterred from visiting this country frequently by our existing excellent quarantine provisions. I must stress that that is not the reason why I intend to argue in favour of keeping the existing regime.
Nor, indeed, is my main reason for expressing severe reservations about the proposals the fact that we have an alarming degree of consensus in the House. I have an instinctive suspicion of consensus, especially when it is cosy. Many of us recall that, when there is almost complete agreement on something in the House, we often end up with a disaster. I need not give a catalogue, as hon. Members of all parties will be familiar with what I have in mind.
There is no harm in some dissent being expressed on an occasion such as this, if only for the sake of pointing out some aspects that have not yet been covered. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it amiss when I express my regret at the absence of the Minister of State. When I raised the matter of conditions other than rabies in a debate on the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill—an excellent little provision with the total support of the House, including me, because it was relevant to standards of quarantine provision—the Minister of State said:
"it is a myth that quarantine is all about rabies. The pressure mounted by lobby groups to abolish the quarantine laws ignores all the other issues raised in the New Scientist article to which the right hon. Gentleman"—
that was a reference to me—
"referred. We should therefore not rush to judgment on that issue. It is not a question of not wanting to be the Government who let rabies into the country. This matter goes well beyond rabies, to issues such as climatic change and bugs discovered in quarantine cells."—[Official Report, 27 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 851.]
That gave me the impression that the Minister of State had a balanced view. I would not dream of implying that the Minister of State's absence has any significance.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am glad to explain that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has an important engagement this evening and tomorrow for the official opening of the cattle traceability scheme, for which he has responsibility. All of us as

501
Ministers have spent a great deal of time talking to, and paying attention to, different people and organisations throughout the country, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my hon. Friend has important duties to perform. His absence is not due to any particular view on the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman said, his view is perfectly balanced and in line with the Government's position on the Kennedy report.
Mr. Forth: I am delighted to hear that the Minister of State is balanced. That is a great reassurance to us all.
My primary reservation can be characterised, rather inelegantly, under the heading, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We have had some interesting exchanges along those lines, and of course I am not saying that the existing quarantine arrangements are perfect or foolproof. Frequent reference has been made to the likelihood that animals have been smuggled into the country to get around the regulations, and I do not doubt that that happens, but the existing regime is simple, straightforward and easily understood, and those important virtues should not be overlooked.
There is a parallel with the argument, which was started today, about the virtues of first past the post—an electoral system that is elegant, simple and easily understood—as against the nonsense of the proposals of the partial Jenkins commission, which are bizarre and incomprehensible. That may remind us of the proposals in the Kennedy report. The existing regime has the strength of simplicity.
My next point is particular to me, and I expect few people to accept it. To my mind, the proposals to do away with our present arrangements are yet another diminution of the concept of the territoriality of the British Isles and the United Kingdom, and yet another example of the way in which proposals are made to reduce the significance of our borders and our nation as it has been historically understood.
Dr. Palmer: Does the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position not suggest that we should introduce quarantine for foreign humans?
Mr. Forth: I am always open to any such helpful suggestion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could get together and work on that one. I can think of many foreign humans who are extremely undesirable and whom I would not want here unless they had a microchip inserted, were vaccinated and were otherwise identified.
My point is unashamedly political. Each time we move in the direction of the Kennedy report, we reduce the possibility of continuing to identify ourselves as a separate nation with border controls that have always been, to my mind, an important part of nationhood and national identity. I regret that, and believe that it is an important consideration that should not be cast lightly aside.
My main objection arises from my doubts about the safety and integrity of the process that is suggested. I had some research done into the incidence of rabies in Europe, the European Union, the European Economic Area—the European continent as a whole—which came up with some fascinatingly different figures. For example, figures relating to the first quarter of 1998 suggest that, in Europe
502
as a whole continent—charmingly put—1,711 cases were reported in domestic animals. Another set of figures suggests that, in Europe as a whole, there were 2,257 cases. I think that that was for a whole year for domestic animals. Referring to the most recent quarter, a publication rather charmlessly called "RABNET" states:
"During 'This Quarter', 1711 rabies cases were reported in Europe".
It then gives details for different countries.
The relevant point was made earlier that, whatever the position in the European Union as constituted—rabies is still endemic in certain parts of the EU—there is a considerable degree of endemic rabies in the countries that it is proposed to bring into an enlarged EU. That suggests that a risk element is involved, perhaps not so much in the existing EU as in an EU enlarged as proposed. I hope that the Government will weigh that up carefully when they consider the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of the proposed regime against the background of the incidence of rabies and the degree of increased land travel that is bound to take place across greater Europe, if I may thus characterise it.
Mr. Loughton: Would my right hon. Friend concede that, according to the figures for last year, there were apparently only 12 cases in the whole of greater Europe, as he calls it, of humans contracting rabies, of which none ended in death? Of those 12 cases, 10 came from the Russian Federation, one from Lithuania and one from within the EU—France.
Mr. Forth: That is reassuring, but I am not sure whether it is reassuring enough for us to introduce an element of greater risk, if indeed that were involved in a change of regime. I do not know whether the elderly lady constituent of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) would be reassured by that. To reassure her and many like her is an important part of this whole debate.
The British Veterinary Association has been mentioned. I have here a news release issued by it in which the BVA vice-president, Mr. Ted Chandler, said:
"The present quarantine policy has served this country well over many years and while it is indeed true that the science is now available to justify a new approach in theory, the capacity and commitment to enforce a new system in practice is quite another matter. Neither the Government nor the profession should be under any illusion that new laws and a new system of rabies control can simply be created, brought in and made to work. If as a result of change rabies were to be introduced to this country, there would be the most serious consequences for all involved.
If and when the Government takes a decision to change, consult and subsequently legislate, there must be no short cuts on enforcement. There can be no compromise on professional vigilance and there must be no collapse of public confidence. The task for Government is daunting. The aim of the veterinary profession must be to support only those changed procedures which meet their scientific criteria and are capable of being enforced."
I quoted that news release at some little length because the views of the veterinary profession are important. If the Government are to make the changes that are proposed in the report, it is important to make absolutely sure that the vets are fully on board, not only because their views matter, perhaps more than any other single group of people, but because they and their professional colleagues in this country and, more important, abroad will be crucially involved in making the proposals work.

503
My greatest reservation arises for the following reason. Throughout the debate, it has been claimed that the present quarantine arrangements, because they are expensive and unpleasant, deter people from using them and encourage smuggling. The animal welfare point has been made by many who have contributed. I looked at the proposals in the report with growing disbelief and asked myself these questions. Is it likely that people who wish to take their pets abroad and bring them back will go through the process described in the report? Will microchips be implanted in those pets? Will people have their pets vaccinated? Will the pets have the required blood test before re-entry at a laboratory approved by the United Kingdom? Will such laboratories be handy and close enough for people easily to fulfil that requirement? Will they get the treatment 24 hours before re-entry for the conditions other than rabies that are mentioned—I am glad that they are mentioned—in the report? What about the person who has to change plans at the last minute and is faced with the choice either of finding somewhere for the treatment or of taking the risk of smuggling the pet back into the United Kingdom?
The requirements for certification involve finding a competent authority, filling out a single sheet of paper, having a unique identification number and a qualified veterinarian. The report rather quaintly states, although I understand why, that black ink must not be used. That is presumably so that the paper cannot be easily photocopied or forged. The more I thought about that exhaustive and exhausting list of requirements, the more I wondered whether it would be likely that even the most devoted, dedicated pet owner who did not wish to fall foul of the new regime could fulfil all those requirements in all reasonable circumstances. I think not.
My worry is that, if we make the proposed change, having persuaded ourselves of the disadvantages of the present regime, the new regime would be more bureaucratic, more complicated and more difficult in many ways for pet owners to adhere to. Therefore, in the end, it may not have anything like the desired effect. We may end up with a worse system than the one that we have. As is traditionally said in these cases, I hope that I am proved wrong.
I am worried that so many people are rushing to embrace this proposal so whole-heartedly without expressing sufficient concern about its complexities, its bureaucratic nature and the likelihood that it will deter people from ensuring, as we all wish, that animals are free of rabies and other unpleasant conditions and that those conditions are not brought into this country. For that reason and the others that I have given, I remain to be convinced.
6.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Reed: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who made some pertinent points in his valuable contribution. He is right to say that there is always a danger of rushing into changes. The context of my speech, however, will be in total opposition to what he has said. Nevertheless, it is vital that we hear such opinions because many of our constituents feel the same. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, 10 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation at this stage have expressed some opposition.
504
When I received my first correspondence saying that a constituent wanted to see me at my surgery about passports for pets, I was reminded of a story told by a Conservative Member. He said that at his first surgery, somebody wanted to extend the franchise to the canine variety. His constituent thought that he had rather an intelligent dog and that the franchise should be extended to it.
Dr. Palmer: Was its name Whisky?
Mr. Reed: I think that they were called Whisky and Soda.
I was more fortunate as my constituent explained the reasons for the passport for pets scheme. I was more than happy to listen and to take the arguments on board. During the past 12 months or so, I have become quite deeply involved in the issue. We need to reassure our citizens that whatever replaces the current scheme is satisfactory and, more importantly, maintains the United Kingdom as a rabies-free zone.
The case for ending quarantine has been made forcefully this evening and it is not necessary for me to repeat all the arguments. However, I support the need for change in the cost to the individual as £1,000 to £1,500 is rather expensive. For many people it is a substantial sum to find in one go. Many people love their animals and pets play a vital role in their lives, as my constituency case demonstrates.
The welfare issue is important and has been touched on in the debate. The figures suggest that, even if we included the United States in the scheme, some 29 per cent. of animals entering the country would still need to be kept in quarantine, so we cannot let up on ensuring that welfare standards are maintained. We should not ignore the issue simply because we are moving to a different system.
The world has moved on. I am not a scientist, but the evidence in the Kennedy report suggests that the risk is small—there were 12 cases in the wider European area. If only 12 humans out of a population of some 500 million contracted rabies, the risk is extremely small. If the proposed scheme involves only a small additional risk, it is probably one worth taking.
Smuggling continues to be widespread. We have heard anecdotal evidence of that this evening and I am sure that we all have constituency cases. Since I have discussed the issue on local radio and with the local media, I have been inundated with examples.
My only personal experience of the issue was in Germany a few years ago when there was a rabies scare in the area where I was staying, so I am aware of the fear that rabies causes in the local population.
I wish to mention a constituency case that urges me to make two specific points that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will consider in the final implementation of the scheme. They concern the time scale with the delay of up to three years and the exclusion at this stage of the United States.
My constituent, Mrs. Lily Rigley, has an 82-year-old sister who moved to the United States some 30 years ago. All her family there have now passed away, so she is on her own and now wishes to return to the United Kingdom to live with her sister in Loughborough. She lives in

505
Florida, so she will definitely be travelling in the right direction. Loughborough is an extremely attractive place. However, her sister Margaret is blind and has a guide dog.
Mr. Paice: She will not know if it is any better, then.
Mr. Reed: Even if she were fully sighted, she would appreciate the delights of Loughborough. If Margaret were to return to the United Kingdom now, her guide dog would be placed in quarantine for six months, creating enormous upheaval in terms of her mobility and her life style. It is quite worrying for her in that, because of her age, her friends in the United States have diminished in number. She finds it extremely difficult to cope and she would desperately like to return to the United Kingdom.
Lily Rigley in my constituency and her sister Margaret in the United States have been excellent campaigners. They have contacted an enormous number of American senators and I appear to be on all their mailing lists. I have been inundated with e-mails. Information technology makes some things rather difficult as e-mails are all too easy to pass around.
The Kennedy report recommends that a further study is necessary. It has already carried out a risk assessment which concludes that there would be a slight additional risk if the scheme were extended to the European Union. However, it is such a very slight risk that I urge my hon. Friend to consider implementing the scheme as quickly as possible.
When she heard about the report on the news, Margaret Nash booked her airline ticket and arranged to return to the United Kingdom just before Christmas. One of the hardest things that I have had to do as a constituency Member was to phone Lily Rigley and ask her to tell her sister to cancel her ticket as we do not change the law that quickly in the United Kingdom. I am proud that, in the past 18 months, the Government have introduced many measures very speedily and I hope that they address this issue with the same urgency.
If we were to start some of the background work now and set up a pilot study, perhaps fast-tracking individuals such as those with guide dogs would be an ideal solution. Margaret Nash had already booked her ticket. I am sure that others feel equally anxious to come to the United Kingdom, and having heard about the issue on the world news, they will feel that the time has come to do so. Unfortunately, some may be prepared to take the risk of smuggling, perhaps assuming that, if the Government are considering changing the system, they may not prosecute them. I hope the signal goes out that that is not the case. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will repeat that, in the meantime, the quarantine regulations will continue to be enforced strictly. That is another difficulty that will arise if we delay the scheme for three years, as is mentioned in the Kennedy report.
The recruitment and training of the 43 staff could start fairly quickly. I cannot understand how it could take up to three years. If someone were employed to implement the strategy and set up the programme, I do not understand the time scale of three years.
I wanted to keep my remarks brief, highlighting my concerns on behalf of my constituent which have led to my involvement in the on-going debate. I particularly
506
emphasise the points that I made about the timing of the scheme. It has been discussed since the Select Committee report in 1994. There has been plenty of debate in the House and the country, and I know from my postbag that many of my constituents are concerned about the issue. I am more than happy to suggest that we implement the recommendations in the Kennedy report as quickly as possible and give serious consideration to including the United States in the scheme.
6.28 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am afraid that I am about to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by adding to the rather cosy agreement that, with his exception, has existed on both sides of the House.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on four counts. First, I speak as vice-chairman of the Conservative animal welfare group. Secondly, I represent the closest channel port to London; I am not touting for the business of a pilot scheme as we do not have a passenger ferry, although Shoreham airport could be used. Thirdly, I am a supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its campaign on quarantine and many other dog-related subjects, and I am a co-supporter of the Registration of Dogs Bill, which, alas, did not make it on to the statute book. Finally, and perhaps, uniquely, I speak also as a Member who has a constituent who was bitten last year by a rabid bat, which had apparently fare-dodged a cross-channel ferry to Newhaven. I may, therefore, be able to speak with a little more authority than many of my colleagues.
We have already heard that Chris Patten said that the existing law is a painful and expensive farce. I can infer from what some hon. Members have said that quarantine and rabies are still something of a taboo subject, one of the last taboos in this country. One conjures up images of people manning the barricades, jealously guarding our boundaries against a dreadful, filthy, foreign disease. That is a rather outmoded concept. Yet, when the channel tunnel was being discussed, some people whipped up hysteria by saying that rats and other creatures would flood across from the continent, and that we would have rabies within a matter of days. Of course, that has not happened.
The truth is that the quarantine system has the potential to do more harm than good. Most hon. Members have mentioned the greater risk from smuggling, which may be much more dangerous, and which is certainly not on the wane. We have heard less about the enormous discomfort and stress that is caused to cats and dogs that have to go into quarantine, as well as that caused to their owners.
I welcome the Kennedy report; such a report is long overdue. Many things have happened since the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture of November 1994. The campaign for passports for pets has matured greatly, and the experiments in Scandinavian countries have proved largely successful. I do not see why we cannot base a scheme on those experiments. The technology of microchipping has advanced enormously, too, into a simple and straightforward process. On the continent itself, enormous progress has been made towards combating fox rabies, which was a big problem in the past, but which is certainly diminishing.
The report is detailed, balanced and welcome to all animal lovers, and we should note that there are around 6.9 million dog owners in the United Kingdom. The report

507
also has implications for other measures to encourage more responsible ownership of pets, such as the dog registration scheme that many of us supported. Alas, a Bill to introduce the scheme failed, just as the earlier ten-minute Bills to amend the quarantine law, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), failed.
Mr. Morley: The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) completed all its stages and is now law.
Mr. Loughton: We may be talking about different ten-minute rule Bills.
Mr. Morley: The Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998.
Mr. Loughton: I defer to the Minister's greater wisdom. The measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West would have tackled quarantine specifically, and that did not progress.
Some 5,000 dogs and 3,000 cats are in quarantine each year. Those figures have been relatively static over the past 25 years, although the figure for dogs has dropped over the past year, which suggests that people anticipate a change in the law. If they do not get one sooner rather than later, there will be a good deal of angst. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned, there is the possibility that people may flout the law if to do so will soon not be an arrestable offence.
The trauma and stress inflicted on pets themselves should not be underestimated. Six months in quarantine is three and a half dog years, which is a large chunk of an animal's life. The cost can be around £1,200 for a cat and about £2,300 for a large dog. There are other animals: the cost for a chinchilla is £692; for a guinea pig or ferret £434; and for hamsters and rats—for those who value their pets so highly—£247. Out of 200,000 cats and dogs imported over the past 25 years, there have been four possible cases of rabies, although all of them were questionable. During the same period, 2,800 animals in quarantine have died, 1,200 of them during the past 10 years.
There is a question mark over the standard of quarantine kennels. Although there are many good ones, some anomalies were highlighted recently in a Channel 4 programme. Owners have no right to an independent inspection of their animals' living conditions. In 1995, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received 35 complaints of animal cruelty in quarantine and kennels.
Across the world, 35,000 people die of rabies. It is a virulent, important and dangerous disease. The majority of deaths happen on the Indian sub-continent. I have spoken already, but will remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, of the risk we face—that only 12 people have had the disease in Europe, none of whom have died, over the past year. There were around 5,000 cases of animal rabies in greater Europe last year, but that was the lowest figure ever. It was just 20 per cent. of the comparable figure from 1989. The problem has certainly lessened.
508
The truth is that quarantine is not preventing anything. It causes harm to animals, and distress and cost to their owners. The risk of rabies in the UK is small and diminishing. The Kennedy report offers something far more effective in the form of vaccination. We should remember, too, that quarantine is unfair not only to members of the armed forces who often travel over borders to reside in Germany or other places, but to those in the diplomatic service whose life styles take them abroad. It also prevents many Britons from holidaying on the continent if they wish to take their pets with them. In the spirit of wishing to encourage greater European understanding—though not necessarily harmonisation of systems—I believe that that would be helpful.
Smuggling is alarming. Between 1988 and 1995, there were 769 recorded instances of animals being illegally imported to the UK. That is the tip of the iceberg as those are the ones that were caught. The RSPCA estimates that, each year, at least 1,000 animals are smuggled into the UK illegally, of which only about 10 per cent. are detected. There are also anti-quarantine activists who uses quasi-guerrilla tactics. One Chichester-based organisation regularly sends out detailed newsletters on how to transport animals through the channel tunnel without being caught. That is big business in some parts of the country.
There are big anomalies in our present system. Ours is the only country in the world to operate a compulsory six-month detention period, with the exception of the Hawaiian islands. Australia and New Zealand have recently modified their regulations for animals coming from rabies-free countries. Japan has no quarantine regulations, and it is rabies free. The experience of the Norwegian and Swedish systems shows that they can work. Those systems involve vaccination, antibody testing and passports. There is also, importantly, no cost to the taxpayer in those countries. Monitoring the current system alone costs the Exchequer about £1.25 million in respect of inspecting quarantine premises, testing animals and publicity about rabies.
I agree with the Kennedy proposals, which are common sense, because vaccination is a cure while quarantine is not. Vaccination ensures that animals do not contract rabies. The terms for revaccination and proper accreditation of laboratories are sensible.
I strongly favour giving animals proper passport identification documents, which is now easy with microchips. Some hon. Members mentioned the inconvenience of microchips, but they are the size of a grain of rice. It is a simple, virtually painless injection, over in a matter of seconds, and it costs only a few pounds. It is not costly or complicated; any vet worth his salt could administer it. The cost of the registration scheme, and its paperwork and everything that goes with, it has been estimated by the RSPCA at £300 to £400, which is a substantial discount on the average quarantine fees faced by owners. The scheme does them a financial favour.
One matter in the identification procedure to which I might take exception is the suggestion that uniquely numbered microchips cannot be chosen by the dogs' owners. That is a shame. Like personalised number plates, they could raise a good deal of revenue for good causes.

509
The possibility of Fifi 1, Posh Dog 2 or—most exclusive of the lot—K9, makes me think that we are missing a trick and an extra form of revenue for dog welfare.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have come late to the debate, but I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with these ideas generally. Is there any danger that a microchip inserted in a pet that has gone through all the registration procedures could be removed and inserted in another that has not?
Mr. Loughton: That is a pertinent question that I raised recently with the RSPCA. It is integral to the project that the microchip inserted in the dog matches the paperwork. There is a double check. If the microchip scan shows a poodle, but an Irish wolfhound has been presented, something is amiss. There are many inbuilt safety measures.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: What if it is another poodle?
Mr. Loughton: As the process involves blood testing, there is scope to take DNA samples. The RSPCA has considered all manner of solutions. Through the PetLog scheme, 355,000 dogs have been microchipped. If people are worried because all these hounds will have to be microchipped, let me say that many already have been. Regardless of the quarantine laws, I would like all dogs to he microchipped because that would bring about greater responsibility in the ownership of dogs. PetLog, a scheme run by the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, means that we have an increasingly sophisticated database for dogs. It gets 600 new applications every day.
We are out of step with our European partners. France has had a permanent compulsory identification system since the beginning of the year. In the Netherlands, all commercially traded dogs must be permanently identified, mostly with microchips. Germany has a compulsory dog identification scheme, as do Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Switzerland and many others. We are behind the times.
The system has applications elsewhere, especially with dog registration. The Kennedy report having conceded that the principle that dog registration is achievable and desirable, I urge the Minister to reconsider the possibility of a registration scheme for all dogs in Britain, regardless of whether they go on holidays across the channel. The problem is that more than 50 per cent. of our 6.9 million dogs stray each year. Traffic accidents, biting people, attacks on livestock and the time of police and council officers in seeking to reunite dogs with their owners cost more than £40 million. There are also the cases of cruelty to dogs. In 1997, the RSPCA brought 1,092 dog cruelty cases to court. Some 100,000 stray dogs have to be destroyed. It is a big problem. Microchipping those dogs would make the job of reuniting them with their owners much easier and would place the onus of responsibility on owners, so that, if they do not take care of their pets, dogs will be identified and the full force of law brought to bear.
I have some concerns about things that are not in the report and about some things that are, but should be modified. The major one is the three-year delay. It should be 18 months at the most. The delay can only encourage more smuggling in the short term. Some ports of entry are
510
virtually already equipped to handle such a system. The simple technology that I have described is easy to provide. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to find 43 enforcement officers and train them in a simple procedure that is not much more complicated than that used by the average checkout assistant at Sainsbury or Tesco in running a bar code scanner across the microchip. If the procedure is beyond the wit of civil servants, will the Minister consider putting it out to tender for an agency or private contractor to set up the scheme more quickly, or could we use the expertise available in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps? I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on that. There are many ways to speed things up.
My second concern is the countries covered. The World Health Organisation has categorised 46 countries as rabies free. Many are outside the European Union, have land borders and would be excluded, including Switzerland, which has a high standard of dog care and registration. North America, with the exception of Hawaii, is another area that frequently comes up, and it has some of the highest veterinary standards in the world. Of the dogs and cats brought into quarantine last year, slightly more than 26 per cent. came from north America, easily the second highest figure after the 38 per cent. from the EU.
Hon. Members will have had many e-mails from the persistent Mrs. Gloria Glammeyer from the United States. Her latest e-mail complained about
"blatant discrimination against the United States … I thought that Britain and America shared a close camaraderie as sister countries."
Presumably, she has a dog that she particularly wants to bring to Britain, such is the ferocity of her e-mails, although I have never met her and she has no connection with my constituency so far as I know.
The third point, which was partially tackled by the Minister, is non-qualifying countries. We must ensure that a proper system is in place so that unscrupulous owners from a country such as South Africa do not bring their pets to a less rigorous EU country, reclassify them as EU dogs or cats and import them into the UK. A few years ago, a South African dog imported to Spain, which was claimed to be rabies free, sparked off a new spread of rabies. If we introduce all those measures and people flout the law and smuggle pets despite the ease of the system, the fines or terms of imprisonment should be increased. We must increase the penalties to act as a deterrent. There would be no excuse for people who still flouted the law.
The fourth consideration involves the administering of drugs for ticks and worms to animals within 24 hours of importation. That is a new idea. It is not currently required under the Balai arrangements governing the commercial trading of cats and dogs, and I believe that it should be detached from the quarantine issue. I think that it is a separate matter, and I hope that considerations in that area will not delay the speedy implementation of the changes.
The fifth issue involves the ferries. I hope that the Government will issue some guidance to ferry companies—particularly those operating ferries on longer crossings, which will need specific accommodation and exercise areas for pets in transit.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) referred to the legitimate case of kennel owners. I believe that they should receive some form of compensation, probably centred within the European Union. Some 46 per cent. of quarantined dogs and cats come from within the EU and,

511
if the present proposals are agreed, kennel owners will lose virtually half of their business. If North America were also included in the new arrangements, only 29 per cent. of quarantine business would remain with the 80 or so kennels operating in this country. That must mean bankruptcy for the vast majority of them, particularly the smaller kennels.
This is an area where it is appropriate to use that horrible word "modernise". We need to modernise and update our quarantine system. It is self-defeating for our system to be so different from those operating in the rest of the world. We have the technology to operate the alternative system and we have the good will of pet owners in this country. We now need to move much more quickly. The report proposes not a relaxation of our vigilance against rabies but a more viable replacement programme. As such, I hope that the Government will use every endeavour to speed up the implementation of the Kennedy report and the vast majority of its recommendations.
6.51 pm
Mr. Brian White: As is usual at this time in a debate, many of the points that I wished to make have been made already—particularly with regard to animal welfare, smuggling and guide dogs. As I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), I was forced to cross out large chunks of my speech because I agreed with him almost totally. I disagreed with him in one area, but I shall turn to that in a moment.
Five years ago. we would have had a totally different debate on this subject. Several of the comments made in this debate, particularly those by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have been more relevant at that time. Five years ago, I suspect that we would not have proceeded down the route that Kennedy has suggested. However, technology has changed all that.
I recently visited my mother-in-law in Sweden. As I knew that the United Kingdom quarantine system was under review, I asked the Swedes about their quarantine experience. Sweden shares land boundaries and we do not—except in the case of Northern Ireland, and the quarantine system in the Republic of Ireland is in line with our own—but I was interested to know how it had coped with the changes that had been introduced. Five or 10 years ago, there was a great debate in Sweden about whether the system should change. The almost universal view now is that the system is working well and that we should follow the Swedish example. I hope that the Minister will accept that the Swedish system works, and that he will proceed down the same route.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on the question of which countries should be involved in the scheme. I am confused as to why the restriction on islands that are rabies free remains. I believe that the Minister should include in any list of countries to which the scheme applies a number of countries—not just in north America—that have been declared rabies free. It is also important that that list be reviewed regularly to include or exclude certain countries. As the figures cited earlier in the debate show, circumstances change—it is not so long since rabies was advancing through France towards the channel. We must build a regular review
512
mechanism into the system so that countries that are rabies free may be added and those that have problems may be excluded.
I disagree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about compensation for kennel owners. It is important that that issue should not delay the progression of the scheme. The kennel owners have a valid concern, up to a point: they will lose business and the Government must ensure that they have a viable future. However, kennel owners should not be allowed to hold the Government to ransom or to hold up the scheme by expressing fears that were valid five years ago but now no longer apply for reasons that were set out earlier in the debate.
According to the figures, more pets will travel under the new scheme. Therefore, more business may be generated for kennel owners. Like any business when circumstances change, the kennel owners should adapt to altered circumstances. It is right that the Government should help them, but I do not believe that progress should be halted because the kennel owners fear change.
The timing is also important. I welcome the earlier statements about pilot schemes, but I think that at least one scheme should include an airport. The Eurostar and our ports have been mentioned as likely settings for pilot schemes. However, as a child, I was shown around the quarantine kennels at Heathrow and I believe that animals arriving at airports could create a problem. If there are to be pilot schemes, I believe that an airport should be included so that we may head off all possible problems.
Many of my constituents have contacted me to say that they believe that three years is too long, and I echo the comments made earlier in the debate in that regard. It is important that we implement the scheme before the centenary of the introduction of the quarantine regime in 1901.
6.56 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I was brought up to treat dogs with respect and never to forget that, whether working dogs or perfumed poodles, they are animals, not children. I was brought up to respect the laws on rabies and to be very careful of dogs in less fortunate countries. I was brought up to accept all that without thinking. It was easy—because our family did not own a dog.
I did not like dogs. My ankles were nipped by pernicious pekinese and my neighbours had little dogs that yapped for hours and put me off. Glasses of gin and tonic—I do not like whisky and soda, or I would use that line—were sent flying by the tails of labradors and retrievers. I was indoctrinated, prejudiced and thoroughly anti-dog, and it was all very convenient. So what changed?
I begin by welcoming Professor Kennedy's advisory group's report and the Government's response to it. I welcome particularly the Opposition's response to the report because it makes it much easier for me to deliver this speech. I declare not so much an interest in the debate as a motive. I am now a reformed character. I am the proud owner of a springer spaniel called Tigger, whom I would like to take on holiday to France every year. Hundreds of my constituents would also like to take their dogs on holiday to France and elsewhere every year—after all, Salisbury is only an hour from the channel ports.

513
Furthermore, hundreds of service men and women in my constituency—who serve mostly in the Army—and their families are compulsorily posted to Germany and Cyprus. I am really standing here because about four years ago a young intelligence officer and his wife came to my surgery on a Friday evening to tell me about the rough time they were having. They had acquired a dog while posted to Germany. Shortly thereafter, they were posted back to the United Kingdom for what was supposed to be two years; in fact, it was only six months before they were posted back to Germany again. They could not afford the expense, but they were blowed if they were going to do without their dog.
Far more recently—only a few months ago—I went to Cyprus to visit the British forces and I met many people who had dog problems. It is ridiculous that a rabies-free island like Cyprus should not be excluded from the regulations, especially when the Royal Army Veterinary Corps is on hand at both ends to help and there are secure premises at each end. I urge Ministers to consider a trial involving our troops in Cyprus, because they provide a jolly good example of how things should be done. They care hugely about the issue and they have massive experience. They have an excellent and ingenious dog exchange scheme; dogs can stay in Cyprus and families can adopt a new dog when they are posted there, but there is nothing like being able to take one's own dog to a new posting.
Another motivation comes from a husband-and-wife team in my constituency who have sunk their savings into a well-equipped and well-staffed quarantine kennel. They would face extremely hard times if Government reforms were introduced without there being any financial recompense. The husband, Michael Wykeham, is chairman of the Quarantine Association and I am grateful to him, his wife and their staff for bringing me so carefully and convincingly up to speed on the issue.
I recall one of my visits to those excellent kennels. It was a kennel owner's nightmare: it was February, the temperature was below freezing, all the pipes and everything else were frozen and the local Member of Parliament had turned up to inspect. It could not have been more difficult for the kennel owner, but it was a happy, clean place and the level of care made a great impression on me. At this point, I should like to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who met Michael Wykeham and myself to discuss the issues some time ago. He received us courteously and constructively.
There can be no doubt that rabies is a terrible disease, but science has moved on and the current regulations have been left behind. I do not suppose for a moment that those who strongly argue in favour of there being no change refuse to go on holiday to parts of the world where there might be a rabid animal in the street. Do they refuse to allow their children to go abroad? Do they visit only a handful of certified countries that are guaranteed to be free of rabies? I bet that they do not. The biggest risk that rabies will enter this country arises from the smuggling of pets.
I was a tad concerned by the RSPCA campaign about "relaxing the rules", because I do not see the changes as relaxing the rules; I see them as tightening the
514
effectiveness of the system and reducing the risks of smuggling. Some years ago, when I started on this treadmill, it was hard to persuade the RSPCA of our case. My approach was to stay beside the RSPCA stand at the Conservative party conference and say in a loud voice to anyone who came near, "The RSPCA is promoting cruelty to animals, because they will not agree to change." I was eventually taken to one side, as one is, but that was the start. Now, the RSPCA is wholly on side for all the right reasons.
It was a little harder to persuade the vets, because vets are cautious people. When I first started campaigning on the issue and speaking in the House about it, I got into trouble with the local vets in Salisbury. However, even they have now come around to our point of view—albeit with entirely legitimate concerns.
It has been hard to persuade the public and it will continue to be so. After all, for the past 50 years the taxpayer has been funding extremely expensive and convincing advertising campaigns. I was entirely brainwashed by those wonderful campaigns, which cost a great deal of money out of MAFF's budget. We all have to think about how to re-educate the public.
I always thought it an anachronism that traded cats and dogs were excluded from the regulations. What is good enough for traded cats and dogs should be good enough for the rest of us. If we are talking about raising the standards up to those applying to traded cats and dogs, that appears to meet the case. In fact, I suspect that we shall go further.
What about the kennel owners? There are two issues involving kennel owners, not one. The first is cruelty and bad kennels. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and none of the respectable kennel owners in this country will put up for a second with neighbours who bring their trade into disrepute. Most kennel owners are good kennel owners; they would not be kennel owners if they did not care for animals. The second, separate issue is that of quarantine. It is a great pity to blur those two issues, and the only point in the past couple of years on which I have had any slight disagreement with the campaign has been with people who have muddled them.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the campaign of Passports for Pets, which I have supported for some years. I pay particular tribute to Mary Fretwell, who is the prime mover behind the campaign and an indefatigable worker. She knows all about how the regulations affect our professional representatives overseas in the diplomatic service.
I shall address briefly the question of recompense to kennel owners. I deliberately do not use the word "compensation", preferring to use the term "ex gratia payment". As the former Select Committee on Agriculture made clear, there should be some recompense. It seems to me that, the more the state interferes in the private affairs of its citizens and accelerates regulation of our lives, the more the state should accept responsibility if it effectively confiscates private assets that were bought at the request of the state, licensed by the state, regulated by the state and inspected by the state.
We have seen this sort of thing before. We saw it when bovine spongiform encephalopathy led to the entire head deboning industry being closed down overnight by fax. The premises were licensed and inspected by the state, but they received not a penny from the state. The same

515
was true of the buildings and assets of gun makers and gun clubs, which subject has already been mentioned. That legislation marks the only occasion in my 15 years in the House on which I have voted against my own Government on a three-line Whip. Another case concerned the campaign, in which I was a prime mover, for an ex gratia payment settlement for haemophiliacs who had been infected with HIV through the national health service.
The conventional Whitehall arguments are pretty familiar: the Government have never compensated citizens for loss of trade resulting from Government policy. That is not an unreasonable proposition. If the Government introduce a new or increased tax, or impose a regulation for reasons of public health or public interest, I can understand that argument. The European convention on human rights states that the state should not deprive a person of his possessions
"except in the public interest".
In the case of changing quarantine regulations, it seems to me that it would not be the Government's intention to bankrupt kennel owners, but it would be a secondary consequence of a change in public policy. In those circumstances, the Government might say that they were not depriving private citizens of their possessions, but simply prohibiting their use, so the rules governing confiscation did not apply. However, those are weasel words and the Government should show some generosity of spirit. I hope that they will.
As to the three-year implementation period, I can say only that delay will encourage smuggling—it is as simple as that. There is a possibility that the system will be phased in. Earlier, I mentioned that Eurostar and some of the ferry services might be willing to help—indeed, being the first to be ready to transport pets might even introduce a new element of competition between those services. We shall see. In any case, the three-year implementation period is unrealistic.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that all animals should be treated no more than 24 hours before entering Britain with drugs to kill ticks and worms that might spread disease. It is not that I do not approve of preventing the spread of ticks, worms and disease, but that requirement appears to have been bolted on to the rabies debate. I am not quite sure where it comes from, but it seems likely to have originated from those who are determined that there should be no change—so we must try to demolish their arguments. That is a new idea; it should be considered on its merits and I agree that it is right for a different legislative framework. The 24-hour requirement for vaccination against ticks and worms is not enforced under the Balai arrangements for trading cats and dogs; nor is it enforced for horses entering and leaving the country.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman, who is making a good case, is underestimating the need to control ticks and parasites. A condition of Balai is that the animals never leave their place of origin, so they are already tightly controlled in relation to parasites.
Mr. Key: I recall the Balai regulations. I remain to be convinced that it is right to include such a measure in this system; it might slow down the operation and people might lose confidence in it. Pet owners are the first people
516
to care for the health of their pets. It is the exception for pet owners not to recognise when their pets have an infestation or are thoroughly off colour because of worms. We must consider that measure afresh.
I welcome the proposals and I congratulate the Government and Opposition Front Benchers on their constructive stance. Four years ago, I did not think that it would be only four years before we had a proper debate on this matter; I thought it would be more like 10 years. We are making progress, but let us not wait another three years before something happens.
7.10 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: The system is an idea whose time has come, as the debate has shown. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) said, the proposals would have been much more controversial five years ago and, if we were to wait another five years, they would seem antiquated. I warmly support the proposals. Rather than reiterate the many good points that have been made, I shall focus on a few aspects of the matter.
First, the areas covered by the system should relate not to political associations such as the European Union and the European Economic Area but to a geographical area. There are places within the EU and the EEA—principally Switzerland but also Andorra, San Marino and a few other mini-states—that are not covered by those political associations, not because they are great centres of rabies, which they are not, but because, for political reasons, they decided not to join. If we include Liechtenstein in the system but not Switzerland, enforcement will be almost impossible because the border between the two countries is completely porous. I therefore urge that the area covered should be western Europe—the EU, the EEA, Switzerland and other small states.
I concur with earlier speakers that there is a strong prima facie case that the proposals could include the United States. I suggest that, during the introductory period, the Minister might commit himself more closely to consider the US position, so that it might be possible to add the United States to the scheme in a few years.
On the introductory period, the full version of the report says that Kennedy rejected a phased period because he felt that there might be a legal problem. He envisaged a form of phasing that would allow all British citizens to use the system but make foreigners wait. He pointed out that, first, such a proposal would cover two thirds of the traffic and, secondly, it would be against European Union rules. That is correct and that version of phasing is a non-starter.
I suggest that we begin by including in the scheme what one might consider, in human terms, to be hardship cases, such as people who, for a good reason, usually related to work, are taken abroad for longer than a few weeks. I am referring not to holidaymakers but to Army personnel, business men and diplomats who are posted abroad or who are already abroad and perhaps reaching the end of their period of work.
We should have a pilot project that applies to people who are leaving the country, or who have already been out of the country for one month or longer. That could be introduced possibly even before we have sufficient legislation to justify charging on the basis that those people would have to come through one or two specified

517
ports and airports. That would give us a chance to test out the system and train people. It would be difficult to train people on paper to operate such a system.
If we began with what I estimate to be a minority of the total numbers involved, that would help to smooth implementation of the scheme—we are aware that in Sweden there were teething problems—and deal with hardship cases. Much as I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), he would accept that going on holiday is not as heart-wrenching as being posted abroad. Holidaymakers might reasonably agree to wait two or three years until the system had been tested and was working smoothly.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the complications in any attempt at a pilot scheme, however defined, would be the availability of approved laboratory and veterinarian facilities for certification? That will determine how the scheme operates, whether it is a pilot scheme or the final dispensation. Does the hon. Gentleman not view that as a problem?
Dr. Palmer: No, because, as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, the Kennedy report identifies the certification procedure and selection of the correct vaccine and laboratories as problems that must be solved, and a pilot scheme would reinforce our ability to solve them. To say that, on a certain date, 250,000 people will enter a system and all the laboratories will be set up and the arrangements will be working, is to ask a lot of our powers of organisation. If we begin with a few tens of thousands of people, we have the chance to try out the scheme on a more manageable basis and ensure that the conditions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are fulfilled and that implementation is foolproof.
My remaining points reinforce those of earlier speakers. The significance of the 24-hour period in tick vaccination is not clear. If it is deemed essential to introduce that vaccination at the same time as the scheme, there may be physical problems in ensuring that a vet is available on the day that the person is travelling, so perhaps that period could be extended.
I have campaigned on kennel compensation for many years, partly because I have lived abroad and felt the consequences of the present system. Those of us who will benefit from the proposals should accept that there will be a huge reduction in costs for us. I would not begrudge it if, for a transitional period of two or three years, there was an additional charge of £10 or £20 on the fee for the microchip to raise money for a decommissioning fund for affected kennels. I am sure that most people would agree, given the enormous savings that they would make.
My conclusion is the same as that of all the other speakers, with one exception. The scheme is overdue and I praise the Government for taking it up and hope that we can press forward with it as soon as possible.
7.19 pm
Mr. David Amess: I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to discuss quarantine measures, although I am not especially delighted to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) because he has ruined my
518
speech. Nevertheless, as I have sat in the Chamber since the start of the debate, I feel that I must make one or two points.
The idea that the nation is gripped by the subject of subsidiarity would be bizarre, but the nation is very interested in quarantine. If hon. Members think that it is not, I suspect that they are out of touch, because this is a nation of animal lovers. My goodness, we had the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South—
Ms Jenny Jones: Wolverhampton, South-West.
Mr. Amess: Thank you. We had the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) telling us that for her printed election address she was photographed with her cat, not her family. I also was happy to be photographed with my dog, but that is where the hon. Lady and I part company; I included my family in the photograph, because they thought that they were at least as good-looking as the dog.
On a serious note, animals are many people's life. Many people genuinely prefer animals to human beings. Some of us can understand why they feel like that. When I go home, my family is not always thrilled to see me, but my dog is. Frankly, that is because it knows that, when I come in, it will be taken for a walk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that he had a springer spaniel. The latter is 10 years old, so the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary should note that he, for one, cannot wait three years until the measure becomes law. I have a black labrador which was bought for one of my children by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). It certainly reflects her formidable personality, and it seems to dominate our house.
Animals are terribly important to many people. In November 1997, I introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill; I take the credit for thereby inspiring the Government to come up with this proposal, and inspiring Professor Kennedy. I introduced the Bill because, having read the speeches of Lord Waddington and Chris Patten, I had been moved by their circumstances. Some might churlishly inquire, "One had been Home Secretary and the other was Secretary of State for the Environment, so why did they do nothing about it at the time?" I shall be kind and say that I suspect that not all members of the Government agreed with the moves that they wanted to make.
I am sure that, when the Minister introduced the debate, he did not wish to imply that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, when in government, were not seriously considering introducing a similar measure; if that was the implication, I believe that it was wrong.
When I introduced the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill, I spent a great deal of time talking to the representatives of all manner of organisations. Like all other hon. Members, I have praised Passports for Pets, the RSPCA, the Kennel club and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I spent much time with all those organisations, learning at first hand about our quarantine laws.
I heard the Minister say that he could not possibly take risks with the nation's health. There can be no suggestion of such risks being taken; we are at one with him on that.

519
The existing measures have worked successfully for a long time. However, after reflecting on the law, we have come to realise that there should be some moderation. Presumably, if one wanted to prevent all road accidents, one would ban cars and coaches. To prevent alcoholism, one would stop everyone drinking. Some measures have achieved their ends, but I doubt that the quarantine laws are among them.
When I was shown around a large quarantine centre I was struck by the fact that, in each compound, owners were kissing and cuddling their animals. It occurred to me that—never mind rabies—if the animals had an infection, the owners would catch the disease and pass it on to people outside. I saw at first hand how ridiculous the arrangements are. Moreover, in one compound there was a dog aged about 16. It was very grey and it did not have any of its required tablets and medicines with it, so it would not last much longer. I believe, therefore, that the existing measures are cruel.
I am greatly encouraged by the debate—especially because I now know that, if I am lucky enough to be drawn in the ballot for a private Member's Bill and seek to re-introduce my 1997 Bill, the Government will support me. Under no circumstances can we afford to wait three years. I do not accept that it will take that long to draft and pass sensible regulations to enable us to treat our animals humanely. I very much look forward to the Government's support if I am successful in next month's ballot.
7.26 pm
Mr. James Paice: We have had an excellent debate—which is probably not surprising, given the House's ability to discuss issues in real depth when we debate them on the Adjournment. The debate has been useful, and we should all be grateful to the Government for arranging it, although I think that some of us understand the difficulties that the Government are having in filling time while their legislation is in another place.
Mr. Nick Brown: I could fill it on my own.
Mr. Paice: The Minister says that he could fill it on his own. Perhaps he would start with a statement about agriculture. [Laughter.] Promises!
I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the debate, and express my pleasure at seeing him in the Chamber. I was not expecting him to be present because I thought that he would be at the place where I was supposed to be tonight, but I am pleased to see him. I also record my thanks and appreciation for the fact that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) gave me his apologies for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, in principle, we support change, but some aspects of the proposals, make us profoundly uneasy—especially their bureaucracy and complexity and, as a consequence, their ability to ensure at least as high a level of protection against rabies as at present.
I do not mean it as a criticism, but this afternoon we have seen how easy it is to get carried away with emotion and to ignore the fundamental factor—the protection of human health and of our animals and wildlife. I realise that, in theory—and as is shown by the New Zealand
520
assessment and the experience in Sweden—the proposed method may be even more effective than quarantine, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it also matters that the system is possible to implement. Quarantine is very simple, however rough and ready—and perhaps inhumane—it may sometimes seem. My right hon. Friend quoted Mr. Ted Chandler, a vet, who expressed similar views.
I consulted my noble friend and constituent, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, former President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the first vet to become President of the Royal Society of Medicine. He has spoken on this subject in the other place many times. He has endorsed my view that change is necessary, and he believes that the proposals of the Kennedy committee represent the way to go, although he has one or two queries, some of which I intend to convey to the House.
The proposed criteria specifically refer to the animal being resident in the EU or the European Economic Area for six months. The Minister dealt with that in so far as a UK citizen takes his animal abroad. However, the matter is slightly less clear with regard to an animal owned by somebody from France, Germany or wherever. How are we to know whether, during that six months, that animal has been to some other country where rabies exists? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that.
The Minister touched on recommendation No.34 and the possible import of exotic diseases. The committee said that it was beyond its resources to examine the issue properly. I hope that the Minister will state categorically that such a study will be carried out before the proposals are introduced; otherwise, we might find a better way of preventing rabies only to let in some other obnoxious disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to commercial transactions. I share his view that the present position is inconsistent. I was a parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture when the Balai agreement was drawn up for commercial transactions. I felt then that the pass had effectively been sold and that we would have to move forward on similar grounds for dogs and cats.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk referred to concerns about the efficiency of the system and the availability and universality of the technology involved. Professor Kennedy recommends a central data base, although he says that it is not essential. Surely that is an essential tool, with terminals at every port. How else can fraud be prevented? We cannot be certain that the controls will not be evaded. It may be almost impossible to transfer a chip from one animal to another, but it is not impossible to alter documentation. We must ensure that every eventuality is covered. However much we might like to think otherwise, someone will always want to evade the controls. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and many others, I have seen the PetLog system and that seems to be a good example of what could be provided.
I come now to the systems that other countries will be required to use for their nationals entering Britain. Who will issue the health certificates in other countries? How can we ensure that that will be done with the professionalism and rigour that we would expect from our own vets? That brings us to the issue of what veterinary

521
qualifications we recognise in some of the countries whose citizens may be coming here with a dog, hoping that they have the necessary certification.
The Minister said that, if someone comes in with inadequate documentation, the animal will have to go into quarantine, at least until the matter is sorted out. However, there is a difference between inadequate documentation because a form has not been filled in properly or is incomplete, and what appears to be a perfectly valid set of documents, but which have been produced and signed by somebody who is not displaying the rigour necessary if the system is to work.
There is an International Standard Organisation standard for implants which, presumably, would be used by the Government, but, as has been said, other systems are in use throughout Europe. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how interchangeable that technology is and how transferable any information from it would be between other countries if we wish to move in that direction. I understand that there is no standard serological test and no designated laboratory in Europe to do it. The Government must move quickly to set the right standards for those tests and to bring uniformity to the arrangements.
The Minister properly referred to the issue of costs, and he answered one or two interventions, for which we are grateful. I hope that he or the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that dog owners who do not seek to take their dog abroad will not face any costs as a result of the proposal.
Mr. Nick Brown indicated assent.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that the cost will fall on those dog and cat owners who take their animals abroad. I assume that that means that the annual costs of running the system will be put into some sort of charge. Will he elaborate on the initial cost of up to £4.4 million according to the report? Will that be annualised into the charge or funded in some other way? Several hon. Members have said that it would be wrong for the taxpayer to be involved and the Chancellor clearly agrees.
I think that all hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the three-year timetable. That has clearly surprised many of the representatives of outside organisations that are involved in the issue, many of whom will be reading the debate. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the matter will be looked at again. That would be welcome. It does seem a long time, but the matter must be got right. At the end of the day, we must ensure that, because that is the most important thing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that he is always concerned about consensus because if anything is a matter of consensus, it must be wrong. He knows, because we have talked about it many times, that I have a lot of sympathy with that view. The real problem is that such consensus often results in a hurried piece of legislation. That is one reason why I am usually so cynical.
Mr. Morley: That is not this case.
Mr. Paice: Yes, that is why I am prepared to disregard my concern about consensus. This matter is clearly
522
receiving a lot of time and deliberation. We must not rush its introduction, but we must not delay it more than is essential.
I intended to propose a pilot scheme, but the Minister pre-empted me and I am delighted that he did. Nearly every hon. Member has supported the idea of such a scheme. There have been many suggestions and a number of bids from constituencies to have such a pilot—surprise, surprise. I hope that the Minister will now give serious consideration to that prospect.
I come now to the legality of the proposals vis-a-vis Europe. The Minister said that he had been in close contact with the Commission, and we appreciate that. It is what we would expect of him. However, the Minister and his predecessor said, and continue to say, that, with regard to food safety, they are allowed not to check every consignment of food from Europe that comes into this country, but only to make random checks. If so, and that is the line that has been followed for the past 18 months, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that he will be able to carry out checks on every cat and dog coming into Britain, and that he will not be prevented from doing so by the same legislation that prevents him from inspecting every food consignment.
The Minister nods, and I hope that I can take that as confirmation.
Recommendation No. 27 says that the new system would be transitional while a Europe-wide scheme was developed. I share the views of many hon. Members who believe that the British people will accept the proposed new system, if we can persuade them that it will offer better protection than the present system. However, they will not accept any dilution of that scheme for the sake of European harmonisation, so I hope the Minister can assure us that he will not agree to any modification of our new scheme with the objective of attaining a Europe-wide scheme that is less effective.
Another issue, which was raised by my noble Friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, relates to the veterinary certificates that are currently required to take a dog abroad from this country, in many cases at a cost of £50. We have not been told whether that system is to be maintained or abandoned. Concern is expressed in recommendation No. 26 that, even under the present system, no effort is made to trace the considerable number of import licences that are issued but not used. That requires investigation.
A further question, which may raise one or two eyebrows, concerns animals that fail the test for entry into Britain. The Minister said that such animals would have to go into quarantine while the matter was sorted out, or be re-exported. Some people may not be able to afford the costs involved. I hope that the destruction of those animals will be an option if that is what the owners want. That may not seem a satisfactory solution to many people, and I hope that the option would be exercised only rarely, but we have not heard whether it would be available.
Several hon. Members spoke about the issue of north America, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and for Salisbury. It is unclear whether the definition of north America includes Mexico. The report states that very few animals enter from north America. The assumption is that, if quarantine were ended, the number would remain low.

523
As a Member of Parliament with a high number of United States service men living in my constituency, I am not sure that that would be the case. If it were easy for service men to bring their animals in, the numbers would rise considerably. Representations have been made to me along those lines.
I hope that the Government will undertake, as they have been urged by several hon. Members, to carry out an assessment of the situation concerning north America, particularly as the New Zealand assessment for the United States gave a lower level of probability of failure to control rabies through a vaccination programme than through six months quarantine. That was reinforced by the Kennedy report, which states that, if animals from any country are satisfactorily identified, vaccinated and blood tested, the risk is reduced, compared to quarantine. We envisage allowing animals from the EU and EEA to come into the country. Neither of those areas is rabies free, so the position with regard to north America is anomalous.
We have had an excellent debate and, as has been observed, a consensus seems to be developing. In this case, that is highly desirable and the Opposition are willing to participate. As we all know, however, there is a huge difference between theory and practice. The proposed system is far more complicated than the present one. There are many questions to be answered before we can give it our whole-hearted support. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the many concerns that I and others have expressed. If he cannot, I hope that the Government will find the answers and ensure that the problems are resolved before the scheme is introduced. As long as that scheme is effective, the sooner it comes on stream, the better.
7.43 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have had a constructive debate on the report. I add my congratulations to Professor Kennedy and his team for the thorough way in which they have undertaken their task, following the brief that they were given by the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I shall try to deal with various points that were raised by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in his opening speech for the Opposition and by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in his closing speech. With regard to enlargement of the European Union, the issue of new member states would have to be addressed by the European Commission, which has its own procedures for controlling rabies. I assume that that would include eradication programmes, which have been extremely successful in northern Europe.
The microchip that is proposed by Professor Kennedy should conform to ISO standard 11784. Much work has been done on microchip technology. One hears stories about microchips moving around animals' bodies. That is somewhat exaggerated—it sounds as though the microchip goes round the bloodstream. There was some migration of the early microchips, but that has been rectified by microchip design, particularly of the surface of the microchip. Even in the case of the early microchips, any movement was within a fairly limited area where the microchip had been inserted.
524
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) gave a considered response to the Kennedy report. Representing a major point of entry and having quarantine kennels in his area, he has a substantial interest in the matter. If the Dover harbour board builds new facilities for the animals that will come in, it can recover the costs through harbour charges, as it does at present for any new facility that it provides—for example, for roll on/roll off or passenger ferries.
My hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, asked about the prospect of compensation for quarantine kennel owners. People who run quarantine kennels fear that, if the proposed changes are introduced, they will be severely disadvantaged. I understand that. There are about 80 quarantine premises in Great Britain. Quarantine will, however, survive in some form, even under the recommendations of the Kennedy report. Quarantine kennel owners will not have their land or buildings confiscated. They will still be able to use their facilities. Providing quarantine boarding will still be an option, as will other commercial activities such as normal boarding facilities, which are increasingly being used.
The Kennedy report found that the risk of allowing animals into Britain from some countries without quarantine is simply too great at present. In countries such as India, street rabies is endemic. The advisory group made it clear that animals must go into quarantine if the proper paper work is not available or if there is genuine doubt about compliance with the rules. That was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is also likely that such animals will have to be quarantined for a period.
Dr. Palmer: I seek clarification. I presume that, as now, it will be possible to take the animal away and apply at a later date, and that it would not be a tightening of the present regulations.
Mr. Morley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means take the animal out of the country.
Dr. Palmer indicated assent.
Mr. Morley: That might be an option, because that option exists now in the case of people who bring animals into the country, unaware that they should go into quarantine. Those animals have to be removed from the country. I suspect that the same regulations would apply in those cases. There may be the option of keeping the animals in the country but putting them into quarantine. I think that people would have that choice in those circumstances.
Quarantine kennel owners have asked for compensation if the rules are changed. That request was supported by the Agriculture Select Committee in 1994. However, as some hon. Members have acknowledged, it is a long-established principle that Governments do not compensate commercial operators for loss of business when health controls are introduced or removed. It would be wrong to offer any prospect of departing from that principle. Furthermore, if new legislation impacts on a business, automatic right to compensation does not necessarily follow. For example, the head deboning industry closed down overnight as a result of BSE regulations, and gun shops were affected by the firearms legislation. There are many other such examples.

525
I acknowledge that quarantine might command wider support if people thought that their pets were as well looked after on quarantine premises as they would be at home. Concerns have been expressed about some quarantine kennels and, although it would be wrong to generalise, there have been many reports of poor treatment. The lack of statutory welfare standards for quarantine premises has been a gaping hole in our controls, but thanks to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who introduced a ten-minute Bill, we now have on the statute book the power to introduce such standards. We intend to make full use of that power and will hold a full public consultation in due course.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has been consistent in his campaign for change. He is right to say that the quarantine issue is not necessarily one of cost, but the fact that people do not want to be separated from their pets. I understand that. He is also right to say that proper safeguards need to be implemented and that, even once the changes have been introduced, quarantine will continue and welfare standards must still be properly applied.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned time scale. That was echoed by several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). We agree that the recommended three years is a long time. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a lot of work to do before the changes can be implemented, including introducing primary legislation, which is a delay in itself.
Mr. Key: There has always been a dispute about whether primary legislation is needed. I have been advised that we could simply amend the regulations. I understand that, politically, it might be better to opt for primary legislation but, technically, the changes could be made by amending secondary legislation, so let us not rule that out.
Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look at the matter closely because it is always easier and better to introduce changes through secondary rather than primary legislation. We can thus avoid the problem of time slots. However, we are advised that, as charges are involved, and because of the element of compulsion in those charges, primary legislation would be required.
Dr. Palmer: Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of a pilot scheme. Would it not be sensible to have no charges under the pilot scheme to allow for the fact that procedures would move more slowly and people would have to put up with various difficulties?
Mr. Morley: I shall come to the idea of pilot schemes in a moment. The problem of introducing pilot schemes without charges is that it is always more difficult to introduce charges later.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has a long involvement in this issue. He was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture that made the case for change in the quarantine laws in 1994. Although, at that time, many people were not persuaded by the case for change, the detail that the Select Committee went into
526
changed many people's minds. It certainly influenced me. Although I had always thought that there was a case for change, the Select Committee's detailed arguments made it clear that it was time to look at the matter properly, as Professor Kennedy has, and to assess all the risks. As my hon. Friend said, people must be reassured. I join him in congratulating groups like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Passports for Pets, which have taken a constructive approach to the issue and made sensible and detailed arguments.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who apologised for being unable to be here for the winding-up speeches, made a balanced and constructive speech. He raised the famous case of Whisky and Soda. Although prominent and famous people who have raised the issue in the press have helped to advance the debate, it would be wrong to assume that the proposed changes have been driven by people who happen to be wealthy and powerful. People have been arguing for change for many years. The proposed changes are not a response to those who are fortunate enough to be able to articulate their inconvenience at being unable to bring their dogs back from Hong Kong. The issue is about the concerns of service families, diplomats and people who work and live abroad—those who simply do not want to be parted from their pets.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) spoke of guide dogs. Professor Kennedy considered that matter, but did not make guide dogs a special exception because they are as vulnerable to rabies as any other dog. However, we have discussed pilot schemes and ways to implement the change. We are in a consultation period, so we can consider all the issues carefully. There is certainly an argument for considering guide dogs in any pilot scheme, so long as they comply with the recommendations put forward by Professor Kennedy.
I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the impact of separating people from their animals. Studies show that separation can be detrimental to both animal and owner. I understand how important the issue is to my hon. Friend, given that she was photographed with her cat for her election address. I know of a prospective parliamentary candidate who was photographed with a donkey for his election address. He was not successful in his campaign, so those matters must be considered carefully. I have two cats, one of which was rescued. One is called Boris—I shall not say why he was named after Boris Yeltsin, but he is fairly laid back. The only stress that he would suffer from separation would be separation from his lunch.
Just as we were having a constructive, consensual discussion, along came the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who put a spanner in the works. I hope that his mother-in-law will not have to look for a new excuse for not visiting him if the quarantine laws are changed, given some of his attitudes. It appears that the Euro-sceptic poison in the Tory party bloodstream runs very deep. The proposal for quarantine reform is not some kind of Euro-federalist plot. It is a little bit more constructive than that.

527
I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the serious point that he made: we are not prepared to take risks with this country's rabies-free status. We are all agreed on that, one of the important points which Professor Kennedy had to consider. As a number of hon. Members said, public confidence must be maintained when any change to the law is made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough was absolutely right about cost. I make it clear that the cost of changes will be based on full cost recovery for those who use the service, which is only right and proper, and there would be a considerable saving on the current cost of quarantine. He also mentioned north America where, as Professor Kennedy recognised, rabies is endemic. I should make it clear that we do not include Mexico in north America in geographical terms.
Mr. Paice: Someone did.
Mr. Morley: I do not know who, but that person is not from the Labour party. We understand geography quite well enough not to include Mexico in north America. We recognise, as did Professor Kennedy, that standards of veterinary and animal care in north America are high, so there is a case to consider. Again, that can be done as part of the consultation.
Mr. Reed: This is a second bite of the cherry, but I reiterate that, because of the system in the United States, the particular guide dog is already chipped, has a health certificate and would meet the requirements in the Kennedy report. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that north America, and those states that are already covered, have a strong case for being in the first wave?
Mr. Morley: There is a case, and Professor Kennedy acknowledged that in his report. Further consideration will be given to that as part of the process.
Mr. Paice: The Labour party may know that Mexico is not part of north America, but the Americans clearly do not, given that the North American Free Trade Agreement includes Mexico.
The Minister has answered questions about running costs, but I mentioned set-up costs, which will be £4.4 million. Can he shed any light on where the funding will come from?
Mr. Morley: That is one of the issues that we shall have to consider as part of the response to Professor Kennedy. It is possible, for example, that the set-up costs could be recovered over time, as part of the overall charging regime. We can consider that issue, and I do not think that it is a particular problem.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) put forward a good argument about the advantages of the changes. It is worth emphasising that the regulations will not be weakened; in many ways, they, and the measures that protect our country from rabies, could be strengthened. I also accept his arguments on the progress that has been made on eradicating fox rabies. A scheme in northern Europe, involving dropping bait from helicopters, has been successful and should be extended to eastern Europe, where fox rabies is concentrated at present.
528
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned dog registration, which is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to consider. He made a persuasive case for dog registration, and those arguments will be considered in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) was right to refer to the atmosphere of the debate, because we would not have had such a calm and rational discussion about changing the quarantine regulations a few years ago. There have been changes in technology and, as he mentioned, we have the experience of Sweden, which has changed its quarantine control regulations.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a good case, and I understand his desire to take Tigger on holiday in its advancing years. I should point out to him, however, that there will be a charge for taking animals on holiday, and people will have to weigh that up. This is not simply a matter of taking the dog across the channel for the day on a shopping trip; there will be a charge, and strict regulations to ensure that our rabies-free status is not undermined.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury about a trial in Cyprus. In 1994, when I spoke from the Opposition Benches, I suggested to the then Government that a trial in Cyprus would not be a bad idea because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is rabies free and there would be minimal risk. We have the Kennedy recommendations, and we could perhaps consider the option of a pilot scheme on an even larger scale. We must consider the issues, and some interesting ideas have been put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made some interesting and thoughtful suggestions on trial areas, based on the amount of time that people stay out of the country. We want to consult widely on the Kennedy report, and those issues can be considered and evaluated so that we can decide what is the best way to implement the recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe also mentioned Switzerland and mini-states. Switzerland is not a member of the European Union or of the European Economic Area, but, nevertheless, its role can be considered within the evaluation. Some of the mini-states that he mentioned are part of the EEA, along with countries such as Norway and Iceland. They would be embraced within the Kennedy recommendations.
I remember the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), although it would need a fair bit of redrafting in response to the Kennedy report. Introducing that measure was a useful contribution to the debate, although I do not want to underestimate the great deal of work and preparation that has to be done, even in respect of dealing with the report's recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made it clear that we are sympathetic to the recommendations, and we shall approach them in that light.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed concern about regulation, which I understand. Regulation can be a problem and can be bureaucratic, but he would agree that, because the measures represent a major change, especially in this country's psyche on rabies and rabies control, they must be effective and

529
rational. They must also be as easy to understand as possible, and we must explain them to educate the public about what the changes will mean and what pet owners will have to do to comply. The measures have to be in place to protect the interests of this country.
Mr. Paice: I was expressing doubt, not about the regulations, but about being able to manage and enforce them properly. At least we have a simple system at present; the proposals are far more complex, and getting it right will be that much more difficult, which is the point that the Minister has made.
Mr. Morley: There is no disagreement between us on that point. These are complicated matters, but we must not compromise our rabies-free status. We have to address the issue of delivering the changes as coherently as possible.
I can confirm to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the cost of any changes in quarantine regulations will fall only on those who take animals out of, or bring them into, the country, not on pet owners who do not want to be involved in the scheme. He also mentioned the EU, with which we have to work closely because of single market regulations and the Balai directive, which is already in place.
We shall consult closely with the European Union. I emphasise that our top priority is to ensure our rabies-free status. The measures that we put in place must be tailored for our country and our circumstances. We understand that, and we think that that issue has been addressed by the Kennedy report.
Other issues have been raised, and questions have been asked about the details of how this process will work. They will be addressed during this consultation period and when the Government give their formal response to the Kennedy report. People will make representations and give their views on how it will work in practice.
As there is wide consensus in the country, we are now able to reform our quarantine laws without undermining the original intention of protecting our rabies-free status. We can protect people's health and welfare through regulations that will allow freedom of movement for animals.
That is a challenge, but Professor Kennedy has provided a framework. With good will and a rational approach by the various interest groups—welfare groups, veterinary organisations and the public—the time is right to think about a change. I believe that this change will be for the better and not for the worse, and will enhance quarantine control and protect against associated health risks.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Power Lines (Electromagnetic Fields)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
8.11 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Minister for Public Health, who has today been appointed a Privy Councillor.
I shall explore the dangers to health caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields near power lines. In preparing for the debate, I was immensely grateful to be able to consult the work of Professor Denis Henshaw at the university of Bristol, which is entitled "Mechanisms of increased exposure to environmental pollutant aerosols near high voltage powerlines"; the work of Professor Mike O'Carroll, emeritus professor at the university of Sunderland and chairman of Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission, otherwise known as REVOLT; and the report of the working group of the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences entitled "Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields".
All that work proves that there is a strong possibility that electromagnetic fields contribute to cancer in those living near overhead power lines. In those circumstances, I am calling on the Minister to comment conclusively on the health aspects. If I were her, I would not want on my conscience any negative effects of a newly proposed giant, high-voltage power line between Lackenby and Shipton via Picton through the Vale of York. I hope that an element of doubt will be raised this evening sufficient to delay the construction of that line until the health aspects have been fully explored.
House of Commons research paper 94/119 of 24 November 1994, entitled "Overhead Power Lines and Health", takes up the suggestion that exposure to electromagnetic fields near overhead power lines may increase the risk of contracting cancer. It examines scientific evidence for such a link. It summarises the relevant exposure restrictions recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board, based on established health effects arising from exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation.
Electricity and magnetism are different aspects of the same physical phenomenon. They are natural processes that are seen in thunderstorms. The earth has a steady, static electric field arising from electrically charged atoms and molecules in the atmosphere. The strength of this electrical field near the ground is about 120 volts per metre. That is a measure of the force that would be exerted on an electrically charged particle placed in the region of space permeated by the field. Electrical currents below the earth's crust give rise to a magnetic field. The direction of that field is determined by the force that it exerts on a compass needle.
Teslas give magnetic flux density—the common measure of strength of magnetic fields. The House of Commons research paper gives the power frequency magnetic flux densities at various distances from various household appliances. At 3 cm from a hair dryer, the magnetic flux density in microteslas falls within the range

531
of six to 2,000 microteslas. At 30 cm from a hair dryer, it falls between 0.01 or less and 7 microteslas. At 3 cm from a gentleman's electric shaver, it falls between 15 and 15,000 microteslas. At 1 cm from an electric overblanket, it falls between 2 and 3 microteslas.
On 10 June 1997, the Minister replied to a written question on potential health risks posed by mobile phone usage and the use of electric blankets. She said:
"The Department obtains advice from the National Radiological Protection Board … on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
The NRPB's advice is based on … scientific studies … carried out by the World Health Organisation, by the NRPB Advisory Group"
and others. She said that NRPB's advice is that
"there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to microwave radiation associated with mobile phone and electric blanket usage is harmful to … health."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 422.]
I ask the House to contrast that decision on so-called inconclusive scientific evidence with the decision taken by the same Government—albeit a different Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to ban the sale of beef on the bone. Why and how did the same Government jump to ban beef on the bone with much less available evidence than we have of the dangers from electromagnetic fields? The Government are quick to act at one level and ban beef on the bone on the basis of inconclusive scientific evidence, whereas they are reluctant to act on the threat to health, particularly children's health, from exposure to electromagnetic fields near overhead power transmission lines.
Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important Adjournment debate. I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment.
Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a cluster of families in my constituency whose children have had childhood leukaemia, two of whom tragically died? Is she also aware that Professor Henshaw is coming this weekend to look at the impact of power cables that are above the ground and close to the railway lines behind their homes, and to consider the possible role that electromagnetic fields from those power cables may have played in causing the children's illness?
Miss McIntosh: I am indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The House and the Minister will have cause to be grateful to Professor Henshaw for his studies. I hope that some good news follows from his visit to the hon. Lady's constituency.
The Government and the National Grid will argue that the proposed line through the Vale of York and elsewhere in North Yorkshire does not pass through centres of population. That is not strictly correct. Certain stages near the start of the line go through residential centres. Even in the Vale of York, the lines pass within a mile of a village or the outskirts of a town.
I believe that the Government need to develop a systematic approach to hazards whose effects are not precisely known and will become clear only over time. Although the scientific evidence may not be conclusive, it is sufficient to raise questions and concern and, in my view, to justify a delay in the construction of any further
532
power lines until the full effects are known. The term "prudent avoidance" is often used by the United States Government in relation to possible health hazards. Although the Government will not legislate, they will advise people to avoid the dangers.
Two possible links with cancer arise from such hazards: energy effects—electromagnetic, for instance—and information effects, interfering with the body's chemical and hormonal systems. In June 1998, the United States published a report produced by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which I have with me this evening. It is important, in that it reinforces the view that power lines are a possible cause of cancer. If the Minister reads no other part of the report, I strongly urge her to read page 396, and, in particular, the conclusion that carcinogens may be caused in humans by power lines. The report states:
"electric and magnetic fields such as from powerlines are a possible human carcinogen".
That statement is accompanied by a 500-page report, which is widely available on the internet. Distinguished scientists from Sweden, France and Italy participated.
The report raises the question of planning in relation to houses near power lines, and it is bound to have an impact internationally. Notably, and regrettably, no United Kingdom expert participated in the study that produced it. Is the Minister aware of that study, and of its wide health implications?
Research based at the university of Bristol under Denis Henshaw, professor of physics at the university, is concentrating on trying to find a causal mechanism to explain the acknowledged increase in the incidence of leukaemia under high-voltage power lines. Professor Henshaw is now aware of five separate mechanisms through which the electric field from power lines interacts with airborne pollutants in a way that leads to increased exposure near power lines. Childhood leukaemia is known to be associated with airborne traffic pollution, and the Bristol university hypothesis is based on increased exposure, under power lines, to an agent that is already firmly linked to childhood leukaemia.
The research has progressed as far as demonstrating increased exposure to an agent—traffic pollution—that is known to be linked to childhood leukaemia; but the general concern at Bristol university about the health effects of living under power lines goes well beyond the childhood leukaemia risk. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the work conducted by Professor Henshaw and his team.
Another question is how far housing developments should be from a 400,000-volt power line. Given the existence of continuous and increasing exposure to environmental pollutants, 20 m is far too close. Epidemiology demonstrates that the preferred distance is 100 m. However, an unpublished report by the United States National Council on Radiological Protection in 1990 made a recommendation stating that being 150 m from overhead power lines was potentially dangerous. Does the Minister agree with that analysis?
Although the power lines that are to be built through the Vale of York from Lackenby to Shipton via Picton will not go through a large centre of population, they will nevertheless pass by such centres, and over many hamlets and large farm dwellings. Does the Minister, as a Public Health Minister, really want on her conscience the

533
remotest possibility of the formation of clusters of cancer, such as leukaemia, which could be related to the new giant transmission line that the Government have allowed?
I invite the Minister to consider the weight of the evidence, to operate the policy of "prudent avoidance" that exists in Sweden and part of the United States, and to delay the construction of any further power lines until more is known about their health effects and potential risks. Finally, may I ask whether she will agree to a moratorium on the building of any more power lines at this time?
8.25 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) in congratulating the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing a debate on an issue that is extremely important to her constituents, and in regard to public health more generally.
Let me give some of the background. The decision to grant consent for the building of the North Yorkshire lines was made in March this year, following public inquiries in 1992 and 1995. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concluded:
"in the absence of any material change in the evidence of any harmful effect from electric and magnetic fields emitted by power supply equipment, possible health effects provide insufficient grounds to refuse consent to the development."
The issue applies not only to the Vale of York, but to any part of the country where people are concerned about power lines.
We are exposed to electromagnetic fields every day in many different ways, at home and at work. Kitchen appliances, computer screens in offices, security systems in shops and airports and the networks of power transmission lines and radio and television stations all emit those fields. Industry, transport and defence networks, and hospitals depend on electrical equipment emitting EMF in one form or another. It must be recognised that EMF can never be completely avoided. Electromagnetic fields also occur naturally. The earth produces natural fields: magnetic fields at the earth's surface are produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth's core. Electric and magnetic fields are also produced in the atmosphere. The strength of those fields changes with weather conditions; that excludes the massive effects of lightning strikes. Electrostatic fields are not uncommon, and can be encountered from charged objects in the home and at work.
During the 20th century, environmental exposure to man-made EMF has increased steadily owing to the demand for the provision and consumption of electricity, advances in technology and changes in social behaviour. In the 1960s and 1970s, the main concerns involving power lines were to do with their aesthetic impact, their interference with radio or television reception and problems with noise and perception.
In 1979, concern about the alleged link between cancer and public exposure to magnetic fields arose because of an American study of the incidence of childhood cancer in Denver. That study, and the public and media interest
534
that it created, stimulated much of the scientific research that followed. The hon. Lady has outlined the range of conclusions that that research has produced.
Since then, many human health studies have been published around the world. Some of them have found an increased incidence of illness in people living close to power lines, but other studies have not. However, it should be noted that the risk, where it has been quantified, is usually small.
A great deal of attention, usually by the media, may be given to a study that suggests a health risk, despite the large number of other studies that do not suggest such a risk. In considering important public health issues, it is important that the balance of risk is made clear.
Currents produced in the body from electromagnetic fields near power lines are weaker than natural currents in the body, such as those produced by the brain and heart, so some scientists argue that it is impossible for EMF to have any important effects. Other scientists argue that, just as a trained ear can pick up a familiar voice or cry in a crowd, so a cell in one's body may respond to induced current as a signal that is lower in intensity yet detectable even through the background noise of the body's natural currents.
Laboratory studies, often using high-intensity electromagnetic fields—higher than those to which we are normally exposed—have shown that some biological effects can be caused by exposure to EMF. However, biological effects do not necessarily translate into health effects—an important distinction. In most cases, it is not clear how EMF produces those demonstrated biological effects; in particular, no mechanism has been established for possible carcinogenic effects.
Some biological effects are well known. Strong electric fields, such as those beneath large transmission lines, can cause hair on the exposed head or arms to vibrate slightly. That is felt by some people as a tingling sensation. EMF from transmission lines can also, in some circumstances, cause nuisance shocks from voltages created by EMF on objects or metal structures, such as fences.
Miss McIntosh: I have some difficulties with the Minister's arguments, for reasons that I hope that she will understand. I believe that any death caused by living too close to a power line carrying high-voltage electricity is one death too many. Does her Department have a formula, such as the one used by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to establish how many deaths there have to be before a roundabout is built? Why is it more acceptable for a pylon to pass within 20 m or 100 m of a dwelling that houses 10 people than for a pylon to pass close to a housing development?
Ms Jowell: Risk assessment is an extremely important way in which to make judgments about difficult and contentious public health issues. It is also an important and vivid way in which to convey information about risk to the public. However, it is a developing science and, although we can use calculated risk assessment to demonstrate the harm that some actions may cause, we cannot yet use it with scientific certainty as the sole guide in making decisions that may also, for example, involve planning considerations.
Last year, the hon. Lady took part in a debate about the siting of electric pylons in her constituency; the issues that she raised were primarily environmental rather than health

535
related. Of course, our overriding concern is to protect the public's health and to prevent death, but the means of conveying risk levels is difficult. I do not believe that the methodology is sufficiently developed to be used as the sole basis for making such decisions, which is why we rely so heavily on the expert advice of scientists who are qualified in this field.
Before I set out some of the more detailed scientific background that informs Government policy, I shall say something about the guidelines on exposure restriction. At relatively high EMF intensities, there are short-term immediate health effects—including subtle effects on the nervous system—against which people need to be protected. For some types of EMF, such as microwaves, the main effect is the heating up of tissues in the body.
Those well-established effects have been thoroughly studied and documented for many years, and guidelines have been published on the exposure limits that may prevent such effects. Although the restrictions need to be considered only in industrial premises using high-intensity EMF, it is also important that people are given proper guidance about protection in their homes.
In the United Kingdom, guidance on the levels of exposure restriction is obtained from the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent body that was set up under statute to provide radiological advice. Industry and planners currently follow those guidelines to protect workers and members of the public. Discussions are under way to harmonise guidelines throughout Europe based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an organisation comprising individuals from many countries with expertise in the effects of EMF.
Both those bodies, along with the World Health Organisation, have looked long and hard into the scientific data on which they will base their guidelines. All have agreed that the available data on potential long-term effects, such as cancer, are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure conditions.
In 1992, the overall position was summed up in a review of the published literature by the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation. The advisory group concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that could be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances or work in the electrical, electronic or telecommunications industries. The independent advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment endorsed the advisory group's report.
The advisory group's position was mirrored in the US by the National Academy of Sciences, which undertook a similar review in 1997. A more recent epidemiological study of childhood cancer by the US National Cancer Institute produced results that, using the authors' own words, can be summarised as "reassuring rather than alarming".
Very recently, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences working group voted, by majority, that EMF should be treated as a "possible human carcinogen", a definition that appears to be based on a recognised category laid down by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The proposal is at public consultation stage, and a final report is due to go to Congress before the end of 1998.
536
Despite the reassurances of some of the reviews and statements, there clearly remains widespread concern. Moreover, the positive association from a few studies suggests that there is good reason to continue to investigate the issue both experimentally and epidemiologically. Indeed, all the bodies—and we ourselves—agree that more work needs to be done to shed light on the issue and create the greater basis of certainty that we all want.
Miss McIntosh: There was inconclusive evidence for the ban on beef on the bone, and many would say that the weight of evidence was in favour of continuing to sell it. I do not see the logic of banning beef on the bone, but allowing what is clearly a health risk to continue. There could well be evidence of that risk in the Minister's constituency.
Ms Jowell: That is an important point. Risk assessment—knowing what the odds are—takes us part of the way, but does not provide us with the definitive basis for action. Beef on the bone was banned because of the judgment that there could be a risk of a further opportunity for BSE, in the form of new variant CJD, to be transmitted into the human food chain, not only through eating beef, but through eating stocks, broths, soups and other preparations made from bones that might have been contaminated.
We considered carefully the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's advice on that and on other aspects of BSE, and our efforts to understand more about new variant CJD—a devastating disease about which we know so little—and, from a public health point of view, we considered it essential to close every possible window of opportunity for further contamination or further infection of humans with the properties that translate into new variant CJD.
I reiterate the clear view that there is a need for further research to allay public concern. The positive association from a few studies suggests the need for further investigation. A number of human health studies have been carried out, especially in Europe and North America, and more are under way. Most of the emphasis has been on cancer. A few of the studies suggest that exposure to low levels of EMF may cause some effect, but those findings have tended to be weak and inconsistent, and other studies suggest no increased risk of the disease. Until now, most scientists and clinicians have agreed that the health effects of low-level EMF are likely to be very small, if they exist at all.
Experiments with healthy volunteers clearly show that short-term exposure at the levels experienced in the environment or in the home do not cause any clinical or pathological effects. Some studies report effects, but they tend to be inconsistent between studies. Many animal and cellular studies have failed to show any significant effects of exposure. Reported effects tend to be small and experiments must be performed with great care for any effect to be detected.
A great deal of effort is being directed towards investigating the effects of magnetic fields on cancer. It seems that magnetic fields alone cannot cause cancer, although some laboratory studies suggest that they speed up the development of existing cancers.
In 1996, the international EMF project was initiated by the World Health Organisation. The project will assess health and environmental effects of exposure to

537
time-varying electromagnetic fields. The project is being carried out in collaboration with national and international agencies, organisations and research institutions. The Department of Health is contributing to the funding of this large undertaking, as is the Health and Safety Executive.
The NRPB, which is highly regarded throughout the world for its expertise in the field, is an official collaborating institution with the WHO EMF project. Many international organisations are involved and a series of international seminars is being held where leading scientists present status reports on dosimetry, in vitro, in vivo and human studies. The project will publish environmental health criteria monographs of the scientific literature towards the end of the five-year programme.
The Department of Health also supports the United Kingdom childhood cancer study, a key study due to report next year. The study was set up in 1992 and is the largest of its type. It is investigating cases of childhood cancer for which the causes are still unknown. EMF is one of a number of possible causes included in the study. The Department also supports another type of
538
epidemiological study of childhood cancer and some biological laboratory work. Results will be published in the scientific press when the studies are complete.
Researchers at Oxford university have been investigating the effects of EMF on free radicals in the body. Others, such as Professor Henshaw at Bristol university, have proposed the idea that electric fields attract very small particles such as bacteria, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease in their vicinity.
I hope that that makes it clear that we are faced with scientific data that produce a range of conclusions. The way in which we act on those conclusions is to subject the analysis to scrutiny by the experts on the NRPB. The hon. Lady raised several important points about the continuing uncertainty. The development of risk assessment, the application of best available evidence and the continuing search for greater certainty will guide what we do. We will ensure that the conclusions are published and that the process by which our decisions are reached is transparent. Ultimately, our overriding concern will be the protection of public health and safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Armed Services Personnel
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of criminal record debar a candidate from joining Her Majesty's armed forces. [54905]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The regulations with regard to applicants with criminal records differ slightly for each Service. However, in general, any custodial sentence, including corrective training, youth custody, and detention, would debar a candidate from joining any of the Armed Forces. Additionally, any conviction for sexual offences, under the Sexual Offences Acts 1956, 1967 or 1985; the Street Offences Act 1959; the Indecency with Children Act 1960; the Protection of Children Act 1978; or the Sex Offenders Act 1997, or for misuse of drugs will debar candidates from entry. Experimentation with soft drugs, however, is not an automatic disqualification from Armed Forces employment. For other minor convictions each application will be considered on merit and the nature of the offence.

  All criminal convictions and police cautions must be declared for security clearance purposes. All personnel recruited into the Naval Service and the RAF, all Army Officers, and some Army Other Ranks in specific trades, for example the Intelligence Corps, require security clearance before entry. The requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1978 are always taken into consideration.

  Territorial Army
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the reduction of the TA establishment on the closure of local TA centres in Liverpool. [56827]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Proposals for the future of the Territorial Army and local TA centres have not yet been put to Ministers for their consideration.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of a reduction in TA strength on related cadet forces where TA centers are closed. [56834]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is the aim of my Department to ensure that any disruption to cadet units arising from the restructuring of the Territorial Army should be kept to a minimum. Wherever necessary alternative accommodation will be provided for any cadet group which shares premises with a TA unit that is affected by the restructuring process.
  220

  Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of TAVRAs in providing the TA with value for money in property management and utility provision; [56832]

  (2) what steps he will take to retain the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations in the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review. [56833]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  An appraisal of the supply services provided to the Reserve Forces by the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations (TAVRAs) was undertaken as part of the Strategic Defence Review. The Review made clear that the Department recognised and valued the support of the TAVRAs. We consider the Associations are an essential part of the management of the Reserves and Cadets, and attach great importance to their contribution in a wide range of activities.

  The Strategic Defence Review therefore concluded that the TAVRAs should continue in the future. The Review concluded that there should be some changes to the boundaries of the regions for which Associations are responsible, and to their funding arrangements, to reflect the closer integration between Army Regulars and Reservists. The Associations are closely involved in the development of these proposals.

  Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF pilots have completed training in each of the last five years. [56754]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  RAF pilots are classified as passing into 'productive service' following completion of the various stages of pilot training up to and including Operational Conversion Unit training on particular aircraft. Numbers entering 'productive service' in each of the last 5 financial years were as follows:

  Year

  Number of RAF pilots

  1993–94

  85

  1994–95

  71

  1995–96

  87

  1996–97

  99

  1997–98

  105

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy Air Service units currently have a shortage of trained pilots; and what is the total extent of the shortfalls. [56750]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following Naval Air Squadrons have a shortage of trained pilots: 899, 800, 801, 702, 810, 819 and 845. This amounts to a total shortage of 12 trained pilots.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Defence Sales Organisation of the Ministry of Defence was informed of the visit of Senator Pinochet of Chile to the United Kingdom in September and October 1998; and over what parts of his programme they were consulted by British Aerospace. [57024]
  221
  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The Defence Export Services Organisation of my Department first became aware of the visit of Senator Pinochet to the UK around 6 October. They were not consulted by British Aerospace over any part of his programme.

  Trident
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident missiles have been deployed on each United Kingdom Trident patrol since 1995. [55871]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: I am withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations).

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims his Department has received from former service personnel arising from exposure to radiation whilst serving on Royal Navy submarines. [57167]

  Mr. Spellar
  Records show that, as at 28 October 1998, thirteen claims for compensation had been received by my Department from former Service personnel alleging exposure to radiation whilst serving on Royal Navy submarines.

  Military Land (Surplus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present acreage of military land in the United Kingdom that is regarded as surplus to needs and will be offered for sale. [57434]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of land which my Department has in disposal changes constantly as some properties are sold and others are declared surplus to military requirements. However, we currently estimate that some 13,000 hectares of land is in disposal and more is likely to come forward as a result of the recent Strategic Defence Review.

  Arm Sales (Turkey)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the value of arms sales to Turkey by the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will list the equipment sold. [57474]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is currently working with the FCO and the DTI to assemble information in preparation for the Government's first Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. The Report will include details of export licence applications for UK Military List items and details of such equipment exported with annual values. When the Report is issued I will also write to my hon. Friend in regard to the information requested for previous years and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Housing Executive (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties he estimates will be required by the 222
  Defence Housing Executive in Scotland to meet the needs of service personnel at 1 April (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2005.[57036]

  Mr. Spellar
  The DHE are currently working on the figures:

  (a) 1999: 5,661

  (b) 2000: 5,354

  (c) 2005: 5,104.

  The 2005 assumptions are an estimate pending the full implementation of Strategic Defence Review recommendations.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the amount of rent/violent profits abated in respect of due rent in Defence Housing Executive properties in Scotland(a) in the financial year 1996–97, (b) in the financial year 1997–98 and (c) from 1 April 1998 to date. [57034]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of rent/violent profits abated is as follows:

  (a) 1996–97: 0

  (b) 1997–98: 0

  (c) 1998–99: 10,000.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Defence Housing Executive has to(a) sell, (b) demolish and (c) otherwise dispose of housing stock in Scotland which it has identified as being surplus to requirements. [57037]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current plans are:

  (a) To sell 352 properties

  (b) To demolish 265 properties

  (c) To lease 118 properties to a Housing Association.

  The remainder of properties are being held both to maintain a management margin of vacant quarters and for refurbishment, and until the effects of the Strategic Defence Review are fully evaluated.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many eviction orders have been awarded to the Defence Housing Executive in Scotland in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 to date. [57033]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following eviction orders have been awarded:

  (a) 1996: 0

  (b) 1997: 21

  (c) 1998: 25.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many evictions have been raised by the Defence Housing Executive in Scotland in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 to date. [57032]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of evictions raised by DHE are as follows:

  (a) 1996: 0

  (b) 1997: 29

  (c) 1998: 57.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Defence Housing Executive properties there are in Scotland; how many are presently occupied; how many of these are occupied by(a) serving forces personnel,

  223
  (b) former forces personnel, (c) the partners of serving and former forces personnel, (d) irregular tenants, (e) tenants and (f) others, under tenancy agreements. [57031]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently 6,091 Defence Housing Executive properties in Scotland.

  (a) 4,092 properties occupied by serving forces personnel

  (b) 57 properties occupied by former forces personnel

  (c) 57 properties occupied by partners of serving and former forces personnel

  (d) 114 properties are occupied by irregular tenants (The definition of Irregular Occupants is described at (b) and (c) i.e. former forces personnel and partners of serving and former forces personnel. The response at d is, therefore, the sum of (b) and (c)

  (e) 165 properties are under other tenancy agreements.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unoccupied Defence Housing Executive properties there were in Scotland in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [57035]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of unoccupied properties in Scotland were as follows:

  (a) 1996: 1,431

  (b) 1997: 1,312

  (c) 1998: 1,509.

  VC10 Aeroplane Repairs
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 891, on VC10 aeroplane repairs, when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. [57232]

  Mr. Spellar
  I expect to be able to write to the hon. Member shortly. The information is not held in the precise form requested and it might not be possible to provide the full financial information without incurring disproportionate cost. Considerable progress has been made but further interrogation of IT systems is required, particularly in respect of the value of spares consumed.

SCOTLAND

  Salmon
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outbreak of an anaemia virus in farmed salmon. [56160]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia was first confirmed at a site in Loch Nevis on 16 May 1998. Since then the disease has been confirmed on a further 9 sites, the latest on 18 September. Eleven further sites are also formally under suspicion. There are 340 sites in Scotland involved in fish farming.

  Measures designed to eradicate the disease are being carried out in strict accordance with EC and domestic legislation. As part of that, movement restrictions have been imposed on fish farms within an area of 40 km surrounding the confirmed and suspected sites.

  The original cause of the outbreak has not yet been established but inquiries are continuing. Rigorous testing and surveillance are also being maintained and my
  224
  Department is in close contact with the European Commission and with the Norwegian authorities, who have longer experience of the disease.

  The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has been invited to consider the risks for human health. It noted that there is no current evidence of any fish virus causing disease in humans, and that the ISA virus is unable to replicate at human body temperatures. It concluded that there is currently no evidence that ISA poses a risk to human health. This is consistent with experience in Norway and Canada.

  Water and Sewerage Authorities
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the external finance limits that will apply to the Scottish Water and Sewerage Authorities in 1999–2000 and in the following two years; and if he will make a statement. [57729]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The External Finance Limits (EFLs) for the 3 water authorities have been set at £206.904 million for 1990–2000. The allocation to each water authority will be: North Authority £51.000 million, East Authority £70.500 million, and West Authority £85.404 million.

  Indicative EFLs for 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been set at £206.954 million and £208.018 million respectively. The indicative allocations for 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be: North Authority £40.000 million and £40.000 million, East Authority £76.000 million and £76.000 million, and West Authority £90.954 million and £92.018 million.

  This settlement represents a significant real increase in the resources available to the industry, offering each authority greater sums for investment over the 3 year period than they planned for in their current corporate plans. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to securing the modernisation of the Scottish water industry.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment his Department has made of(a) the safety of the MMR vaccines and (b) the links the vaccines have with the development of autism in children; what representations he has received from abroad about the potential link with autism; what assessment he has made of the regulatory action which has been taken by other countries; and if he will make a statement; [56967]

  (2) if he will assess the findings contained in the paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield published in The Lancet on MMR vaccinations. [56972]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Dr. Wakefield's paper has been considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and by a group of independent experts convened by the Medical Research Council on 23 March 1998 to consider the relevant evidence in view of suggestions that MMR vaccination was linked to autism and inflammatory bowel disease, especially Crohn's Disease. This group concluded, as had the Committee, that there was no evidence of any causal link. In the light of the Committee's views and the conclusions of the group of experts, the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland wrote to Health Boards and general practitioners on 27 March 1998 recommending strongly that parents
  225
  continue to have their children immunised with the MMR vaccine. My right hon. Friend has received no representations from abroad about the alleged link with autism.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce single vaccine components of MMR. [56976]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. Friend is advised on vaccination and immunisation policy by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The Committee has not recommended the introduction of single vaccine components of MMR and he has no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a review of(a) the effectiveness of and (b) side effects from the most recent national MMR vaccination campaign. [56979]

  Mr. Galbraith
  MMR vaccination is now established as a normal component of the childhood vaccination programme. The safety and efficacy of all vaccines are kept under continuing surveillance by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children below the age of five years were diagnosed as being autistic in each year since 1970. [56974]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not held centrally.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  MPs (EU Travel)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council if she will seek an increase in her Vote to allow hon. Members to travel once a year to each EU member state for the purpose of meeting members of national parliaments of EU member states. [57311]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since the amount spent on the EU travel scheme at present is significantly less than the annual budget, any extension of the scheme would not require an increase in the Voted expenditure.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) Labour, (b) Conservative and (c) Liberal Democrat hon. Members took advantage of their right to annual travel to an EU institution in each year since 1994. [57310]

  Mrs. Beckett
  With the exception of Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties the financial records supporting the Members' Vote are not analysed by party. The information requested is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The total number of Members who travelled to EU Institutions, analysed by financial year, is as follows:

  1994–95: 93

  1995–96: 97

  1996–97: 77

  1997–98: 89

  226

TREASURY

  World War I Loans
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Britain's debt owed to the US Treasury in respect of loans made during World War One; and what plans he has for repayment. [56940]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the end of World War I the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations than it owed to the United States. No payments have been made to or received from other nations since 1934.

  Data Archive
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 35, if he will make it his policy that hon. Members should be able to obtain without payment tabulations of data sets which have been paid for from public funds and which are available from the Data Archive. [57220]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 29 October 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the Data Archive.
  The Data Archive is a national resource centre funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). It is for the ESRC—which is outside of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remit—to advise upon the charging policy for the Data Archive.

  European Income Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it policy to veto any EU proposals regarding the introduction of a European income tax; [57123]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to veto any EU proposals regarding the harmonisation of income tax rates. [57122]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's firm view is that decisions on the rates and structure of income tax should remain a matter for national Governments. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity.

  Charity Welfare Services (VAT Exemption)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will announce the outcome of the review by Customs and Excise of the VAT exemption for charity welfare services. [57891]

  Ms Hewitt
  From today Customs and Excise will be consulting interested parties to agree the circumstances in which a wider range of charity welfare services will be exempt. Customs is reviewing its policy following a recent VAT and Duties Tribunal decision. This extended the definition of welfare services to include daily living tasks such as cooking, cleaning and laundry, where there was sufficiently high risk to the recipients' health because of their inability to perform these tasks safely themselves.
  227

  EU Taxation Policies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposed European Union withholding tax on dividends. [57459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The draft Directive deals with interest paid to individuals across national boundaries within the European Community. We are in favour of effective international action against tax evasion and are playing an active and constructive part in discussions on the draft Directive. But we have made it clear that we will not agree to any course of action which would seriously damage the UK and other European financial markets.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on further developments on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [57734]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am delighted to announce that the Tax Law Rewrite is making good progress. The Inland Revenue have today published a third Exposure Draft which rewrites the capital allowance provisions for industrial buildings. The rewritten legislation in this Exposure Draft will form part of the first Rewrite Bill. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Rewrite project aims to bring clarity and certainty to our direct tax legislation, and commands my continuing support. Consultation is the key to the success of the project. I would urge anybody with an interest in tax legislation to take this further opportunity to comment on the rewritten legislation while still in its formative stages. It is an excellent opportunity to influence the statute book of the future.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Reception Classes (Grants)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to local education authorities in respect of the use of grants available to them under the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 and subsequent legislation, for children to be educated in primary school reception classes until the term in which they attain the age of five. [57218]

  Ms Hodge
  Funding is available through Revenue Support Grant and nursery education grant to provide three terms of early education before compulsory school age for all four-year-olds whose parents wish their children to take advantage of this. The places can be in the state, private or voluntary sectors, with the local Early Years Development Plan setting out where they will be secured. The Department has issued guidance on producing Early Years Development Plans and a document, "Requirements of Grant 1998–99", which sets out the eligibility criteria and conditions under which nursery education grant may be paid during the period April 1998 to March 1999.
  228

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority is ensuring that all parents of children with autism fulfil their statutory obligations of ensuring that their child receives an efficient and suitable full-time education either at school or otherwise by taking action through the courts; and if he will make a statement. [57055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 specifies that the parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him/her to receive full-time education suitable:

  (a) to his/her age, ability and aptitude, and

  (b) to any special educational needs he/she may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

  Schools and LEAs are also under a duty to identify children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders, and to make provision which meet the needs of individual children. In doing so, schools and LEAs must have regard to the statutory guidance contained in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs.

  Where the authority is of the opinion that the child should attend school an LEA must by law serve a School Attendance Order (SAO) on the parent of a child of compulsory school age who fails to prove that the child is receiving suitable education.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that every child with autism receives a relevant educational service; and if he will make a statement. [57050]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In practice, a child with autistic spectrum disorder is likely to be assessed as having special educational needs. The Education Act 1996 section 317 specifies that the Local Education Authority or governing body shall use their best endeavours, in exercising their function in relation to the school, to secure that, if any registered pupil has special educational needs, the special educational provision which his or her learning difficulty calls for is made.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that every parent of a child of compulsory school age with autism is ensuring that their child receives an efficient and suitable full-time education either at school or otherwise; and if he will make a statement. [57054]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 specifies that the parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him/her to receive full-time education suitable:

  (a) to his/her age, ability and aptitude, and

  (b) to any special educational needs he/she may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

  Schools and LEAs are also under a duty to identify children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders, and to make provision which meet the needs of individual children. In doing so, schools and LEAs must have regard to the statutory

  229
  guidance contained in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to issue specific guidance on educational services for autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [57052]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Guidance on educational services for children with autistic spectrum disorder is available on request from local education authorities. Information can also be obtained from the National Autistic Society.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that every local education authority has sufficient funds to develop new services for autistic children; and if he will make a statement. [57053]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Each year the Government set out what it considers a reasonable and affordable level of spending on education, and ensures funding to local authorities for that amount. Education is a key priority for this Government. For financial year 1998–99, national funding for education is £1,107 million, or 5.7 per cent. higher than for 1997–98. The Comprehensive Spending Review will provide an increase of almost £10 billion a year by 2001–2002, an average increase of 5.1 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. Each local education authority is responsible for allocating its budget between and within services. In doing so it must secure that sufficient schools are available to provide the opportunity of appropriate education for all pupils, including those with special educational needs such as autistic spectrum disorder.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to ensure that LEAs make appropriate provision for individual children with autism. [56639]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The Education Act 1996 places schools and local education authorities under a duty to identify children with special educational needs, including those with autistic spectrum disorders, and to make appropriate provision for them. In doing so, schools and LEAs must have regard to statutory guidance contained in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs.

  In the case of spectrum disorders like autism, provision can be made in specialist autism schools, other special schools, autism units at mainstream schools or in mainstream classes with support.

  New Deal (Travel Concessions)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many travel companies have so far pledged to offer concessions to those benefiting from the New Deal for young unemployed; and what plans he has to extend this service to other target groups. [57144]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) have agreed to offer reduced fares to participants of New Deal for the 230
  18–24 age group nationally. They will consider extending this to New Deal participants aged 25 and over once they have reviewed the 18–24 scheme.

  There are a further 218 national and local agreements in place with bus and coach companies offering reduced fares for young people on New Deal. Of these, 95 have signed agreements to extend this facility to New Deal clients aged 25 and over. Negotiations are taking place regionally to extend agreements further for New Deal 25 plus.

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those who moved from the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds to unsubsidised employment between April and September 1998 are no longer in work. [56044]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The latest published figures show 15,830 young people leaving New Deal between April and August 1998, to go into unsubsidised employment. These figures exclude any who have returned to claim JSA within 13 weeks of leaving New Deal. We do not know yet how many, if any, have left their jobs but not returned to claim JSA. Our detailed evaluation of New Deal will enable us to produce more detailed information, such as this, once a full cohort of New Deal participants has completed its progress through the programme.

  Unemployment (Lowestoft)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the factors underlying recent trends in the level of unemployment in Lowestoft. [56760]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are no ILO unemployment series for travel to work areas; so only claimant unemployment statistics can be presented.

  In the Lowestoft and Beccles travel-to-work area, between September 1997 and September 1998 the claimant unemployment rate fell by 1.3 percentage points to 7.3 per cent; and the claimant count fell by 16 per cent. to around 3,180. The corresponding UK seasonally unadjusted figures were a fall of 0.6 percentage points in the claimant unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent. and a 12 per cent. reduction in the claimant count to around 1,334,275.

  Because the data are seasonally unadjusted, it is not possible to assess the underlying trend month by month. However, over the last year unemployment in the Lowestoft and Beccles travel-to-work area continued to fall, reflecting steady growth in the economy and employment.

  Intermediate Labour Markets
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of intermediate labour markets in reducing long-term unemployment. [56982]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department has commissioned the Institute for Employment Research to investigate current intermediate labour market
  231
  programmes, and what evaluation evidence exists about their effectiveness. The research is due to be published before the end of this year, and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  The Government are interested in any measure that has the potential to help in tackling long-term unemployment. Elements of the intermediate labour market approach are included in our Welfare to Work programme, through Employment Zones, the New Deals for the young unemployed and people with disabilities and the pilots under the New Deal for adult long-term unemployed. All these initiatives will be fully evaluated.

  Primary Schools (Entry)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities in England and Wales maintain a system of three-point entry into primary schools. [57219]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The dates of entry to infant classes are for an individual school's admission authority to determine. The admission authority for county and voluntary controlled schools is the local education authority, and for voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools it is the school's governing body. A number of local education authorities do operate a three-point entry system within their primary admission arrangements. The Secretary of State will shortly be issuing a consultative draft of a new, statutory Code of Practice on School Admissions. The Code is expected to advise that local admission arrangements should aim to meet the preferences of local parents as far as possible, and that local consultation should take place on the arrangements within admissions forums.

  School Buses
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance he will give to improving school transport and encouraging local authorities to extend the school bus pass system. [56214]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: In conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Health, we have set up a School Travel Advisory Group to look at all aspects of home to school transport. This held its inaugural meeting, with a wide range of interested organisations, on 13 October and it will make recommendations in due course.

  Infant Classes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in reducing class sizes for five, six and seven year olds. [57141]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We expect to meet our class size pledge ahead of schedule. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 24 July, places a duty on both local education authorities (LEAs) and governing bodies to limit the size of infant classes for 5,6 and 7 year olds to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest—ahead of our Election pledge.
  232
  In January 1998 there were 485,000 infant pupils in classes over 30. In September 1998 the figure was 345,000 pupils. These figures show the effects of the allocation of the first tranche of class size funding—the £22 million allocated for 1,500 additional teachers from this September. We have also allocated £45 million to build some 600 extra classrooms to reduce class sizes. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review additional resources are available over the next three years to enable LEAs to meet the infant class size limit in nearly all schools by September 2000–18 months earlier than the Election pledge. A total of £620 million has been made available to deliver our infant class size policy.

  LEAs are now in the process of submitting plans, for the Secretary of State's approval, setting out how they will implement the class size policy. We expect most of these to have been approved in early 1999.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional full-time qualified teachers have been identified by local education authorities in their plans for reducing infant class sizes as being required to implement(a) the required reduction in infant class sizes in the school years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 and (b) measures required under paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Education (Plans for Reducing Infant Class Sizes) (England) Regulations 1998. [56901]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available as plans to reduce infant class sizes have not yet been received from all LEAs. Once the plans are received, officials in the Department will be discussing them in detail with authorities.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many of the extra teachers which his Department reported had been recruited as part of the programme to reduce infant class sizes were recruited(a) on completion of teacher training courses, (b) from previous teaching posts in primary schools, (c) from posts in infant schools in local education authorities who were not provided with grants for recruitment and (d) from other sources; [56663]

  (2) how many teachers of infant classes were in post in September (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [56664]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the real rates of increase in each educational psychologist's pay award since 1990. [56450]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These matters are the responsibility of the Soulbury Committee which operates under the auspices of the Local Government Management Board (LGMB). The information requested is therefore not collected centrally.

  First Schools
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many first schools in three-tier systems have(a) fewer than 100 pupils,

  233
  (b) between 100 and 200, (c) between 200 and 300, (d) between 300 and 400, (e) between 400 and 500 and (f) more than 500 pupils. [56740]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available information is shown in the following table.

  Numbers of maintained first schools by size1 in England in January 1998

  Size of school (number of pupils)

  Number of schools

  less than 100

  439

  100 to 199

  466

  200 to 299

  479

  300 to 399

  227

  400 to 499

  55

  500 and over

  8

  Total

  1,674

  1 Number of full-time pupils

  Middle Schools
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many middle schools in three-tier systems have(a) less than 300, (b) 300 to 400, (c) 400 to 500, (d) 500 to 600, (e) 600 to 700 and (f) more than 700 pupils. [56739]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of maintained middle schools by size1 in England in January 1998

  Size of school (number of pupils)

  Number of schools

  less than 300

  177

  300 to 399

  157

  400 to 499

  126

  500 to 599

  69

  600 to 699

  32

  700 and over

  11

  Total

  572

  1 Number of full-time pupils

  Travellers' Children
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he has made to ensure that travellers' children receive education. [56708]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Schools receive funding for the education of Traveller children in the same way as for other pupils on the school roll. In addition, and in recognition of the particular educational needs of Traveller children, schools and LEAs can benefit from additional support through a specific grant payable under Section 488 of the Education Act 1996. In the current financial year this grant is supporting expenditure of some £10.7 million across 3,400 English schools, mainly providing additional specialist teacher support. The grant aims to improve levels of school attendance and achievement amongst Traveller children, including their full integration alongside other children in mainstream education.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies his Department has 234
  (a) conducted and (b) evaluated into the effects on children of special educational units being taught in (i) main-stream schools and (ii) special schools. [56722]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The 1997 Green Paper "Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs" set out our view that there are strong educational, moral and social grounds for educating children with special educational needs with their peers. The great majority of consultation responses to the Green Paper supported the principle of inclusion for such children wherever possible. We have commissioned a small-scale research project to assess the relative costs, benefits and practical implications of educating children with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream and special schools, and expect to publish the project's findings later this year.

  Music Therapy
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Minister in his Department has responsibility for music therapy. [56192]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have responsibility for special educational needs, including provision of therapy services.

  Rural Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to ensure that students in rural areas are not excluded from further education or training because of transport costs; [56205]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that students in rural areas are not excluded from further education or training because of child care costs. [56204]

  Mr. Mudie
  We plan to introduce for September 1999 a new system of student support to replace discretionary awards which will be fairer and better targeted. Such a system will be responsive to individual needs such as transport and childcare and will take account of local circumstances. We expect to make an announcement on new arrangements before Christmas.

  Help with the cost of childcare and transport is already available to young people in further education as part of the New Deal initiatives and through the National Childcare Strategy.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of national TEC expenditure in 1997–98 was allocated to(a) salaries and administration and (b) other activities. [56050]

  Mr. Mudie
  Based on the 1997–98 consolidated annual statutory audited accounts of 71 English TECs (out of a total of 73), the percentage of national expenditure allocated to(a) salaries and administration was 12 per cent. and (b) other activities was 88 per cent.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the relative percentages of national TEC expenditure during the first five years after establishment in relation to(a) training, (b) business support and (c) salaries and administration. [56057]
  235
  Mr. Mudie
  The figures in the following table show the relative percentages of national TEC expenditure for the financial years ending 1995, 1996 and 1997 in relation to the headings requested as stated in the Department's appropriation accounts. Expenditure under these headings for previous years is not readily available.

  Percentage of national TEC expenditure

  Percentage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Training

  62

  64

  65

  Business support

  4

  7

  9

  Administration

  9

  11

  10

  University Drop-outs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost to the Exchequer of students who dropped out of UK universities in each of the years 1992 to 1997. [56200]

  Mr. Mudie
  The cost to the Exchequer of students who drop out from UK universities depends on factors such as the timing of drop outs within academic years, the level of public funding associated with individual courses, whether or not students transfer to other HE institutions and whether or not students return to HE at a later date. Figures for the cost are not compiled centrally.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish the drop-out rates for undergraduates in their first year of study at each UK university in the six most recent years for which figures are available; [56201]

  (2) if he will publish the undergraduate drop-out rates for individual courses in each state-funded university in the six most recent years for which figures are available. [56202]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on drop-out rates by year of study and individual course at each UK university is not compiled centrally. Measuring drop-out rates is complicated by the non-traditional routes that some students follow and which may include changing courses or institutions, repeating years or leaving HE for a year or more before continuing their studies. But work is currently being undertaken by the funding bodies in the UK to produce progression statistics for each institution. After a period of consultation with individual institutions, this is intended to lead to the publication next year of progression rates which will reflect drop-out and other causes of non-completion.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress his Department has made in ensuring that children in the care of local authorities receive the same standard of education as other children. [56068]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department is working closely with the Department of Health and statutory and voluntary agencies on a range of measures to improve the education of looked after children and raise the level of their attainments. The Government have announced in the National Priorities Guidance for Health and Social Care 236
  targets for the educational attainment of looked after children: that by 2001 at least 50%of children leaving public care should have achieved a GCSE or GNVQ qualification, and by 2003 at least 75% should have done so. The Department is requiring local education authorities to set their own targets in their Education Development Plans, and will expect individual authorities wherever possible to set themselves more challenging targets. In 1999–2000 the Department will be supporting LEA initiatives to improve the education of looked after children through the Standards Fund, and issuing guidance for schools and local authorities on how to increase their educational opportunities and attainments.

  Skills Development Fund
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will make an announcement on the make-up of the Skills Development Fund. [55697]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Secretary of State announced at the TUC Conference on 15 September 1998 a £38 million Regional Development Agency (RDA) Skills Development Fund including the new £5 million Rapid Response Fund to re-train those involved in large scale redundancies. Final guidance on the operation of the full RDA skills package will be issued to RDAs in February 1999.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to encourage the(a) World Bank, (b) International Monetary Fund, (c) World Trade Organisation and (d) OECD to require environmental assessments before new funding or policy proposals are approved. [56771]

  Clare Short
  In our work with the multilateral agencies we advocate the support of national strategies for sustainable development and, as appropriate, promote and monitor the use of rigorous environmental appraisal in their projects and programmes.

  The World Bank has long-standing Operational Policies covering environmental assessment of projects to help ensure they are environmentally sound and sustainable. One of the key policy recommendations agreed by donors at the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) involves further progress by the World Bank—and other GEF implementing agencies—to integrate global environmental concerns in their country strategies, project design and policy advice. To take this forward the Bank is developing a Corporate Environment Strategy and related sector strategies for Energy, Forest Policy and Transport.

  We support the International Monetary Fund aim of promoting high quality growth that is sustainable, results in a permanent reduction in poverty and greater equality of economic opportunity, and that is respectful of the environment.
  237
  The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is involved in projects through its technical co-operation funding which are designed to help developing countries (and countries in transition from centrally-planned economies) build capacity to operate successfully in the multilateral trading system. We support this work which aims to help build the necessary institutions and to train officials both on trade policy issues and effective negotiation. Environmental assessments of such activities are of limited relevance.

  Trade and environmental policy issues have been a key area of discussion at the WTO. We support the incorporation of environmental concerns into economic policy, including trade. We are working, in close co-operation with the WTO, to help build capacity in developing countries to identify and protect their interests in the trade and environment debate.

  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) does not administer programmes or projects in developing countries. However, its Development Assistance Committee's Working Party on Development Co-operation and Environment has published a range of guidance on environmental appraisal in donor organisations. This is incorporated into internal guidance and applied by bilateral donors, including the Department for International Development (DFID), as appropriate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases were awaiting an appeal hearing(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [56170]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 1 May 1997 there were a total of 23,863 asylum appeals awaiting to be heard of which 23,556 appeals were at the adjudicator tier and 307 appeals at the tribunal tier. On 1 October 1998 there were a total of 19,195 asylum appeals awaiting to be heard of which 17,802 appeals were at the adjudicator tier and 1,393 appeals at tribunal tier.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage remand and convicted(a) young offenders and (b) juveniles in Feltham Young Offenders Unit were from ethnic minorities in the last quarter for which figures are available and each of the previous five years; [56726]

  (2) what percentage of remand and convicted (a) young offenders and (b) juveniles in young offender units in England were from ethnic minorities in the last quarter for which figures are available and each of the previous five years. [56725]
  238
  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Receptions1 of persons from ethnic minority groupsas a percentage of all receptions, into remand centres and Young Offender Institutions in England, 1993–98

  Percentage from ethnic minority groups

  Year/custody type

  Juveniles2

  Young offenders3

  1998 July to September

  Untried

  16

  16

  Convicted Unsentenced

  15

  15

  Sentenced

  17

  15

  1997

  Untried

  19

  18

  Convicted Unsentenced

  18

  15

  Sentenced

  17

  16

  1996

  Untried

  19

  18

  Convicted Unsentenced

  18

  17

  Sentenced

  17

  16

  1995

  Untried

  19

  17

  Convicted Unsentenced

  17

  15

  Sentenced

  14

  13

  1994

  Untried

  16

  15

  Convicted Unsentenced

  13

  12

  Sentenced

  12

  12

  1993

  Untried

  14

  14

  Convicted Unsentenced

  12

  12

  Sentenced

  12

  10

  1 The table covers young offenders received at remand centres and young offender institutions. Some young prisoners are initially received at other establishments. In the period July-September 1998, 7 per cent. of receptions were at local prisons.

  2 Persons aged 15–17 years.

  3 Persons aged 15–20 years.

  Receptions of persons from ethnic minority groups as a percentage of all receptions, into HMP Feltham, 1993–98

  Percentage from ethnic minority groups

  Year/custody type

  Juveniles1

  Young offenders2

  1998 July to September

  Untried

  47

  49

  Convicted Unsentenced

  47

  40

  Sentenced

  39

  41

  1997

  Untried

  47

  50

  Convicted Unsentenced

  46

  46

  Sentenced

  39

  42

  1996

  Untried

  50

  49

  Convicted Unsentenced

  48

  46

  Sentenced

  38

  40

  1995

  Untried

  44

  45

  Convicted Unsentenced

  42

  41

  Sentenced

  30

  36

  1994

  Untried

  45

  43

  Convicted Unsentenced

  43

  39

  Sentenced

  28

  34

  239

  Receptions of persons from ethnic minority groups as a percentage of all receptions, into HMP Feltham, 1993–98

  Percentage from ethnic minority groups

  Year/custody type

  Juveniles1

  Young offenders2

  1993

  Untried

  36

  37

  Convicted Unsentenced

  31

  33

  Sentenced

  28

  29

  1 Persons aged 15–17 years.

  2 Persons aged 15–20 years.

  Religious Persecution
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the incidence of assaults and other offences motivated by hostility based on the victim's membership of a religious group. [56837]

  Mr. Boateng
  No research of this type has been commissioned or evaluated.

  We will, however, shortly be commissioning research into the nature and extent of religious discrimination in England and Wales. This may reveal information about religious hostility and the forms which it takes.

  Mr. Trutch
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire regarding affidavits signed by Mr. Trutch. [56697]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not had any discussions with the Deputy Chief Constable about this case. The Hampshire Constabulary has been given advice by the Home Office on how to register its interest with the Royal Court of Dubai in the outcome of the George Atkinson case, to which Mr. Trutch's affidavits are related.

  In cases such as this, it would be usual for the police to register their interest with the Dubai Public Prosecutor, initially through Interpol. If the Hampshire Police were to investigate an allegation of perjury, the Crown Prosecution Service might prepare a formal request to the authorities in Dubai for assistance in gathering evidence.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to increase public confidence in community service orders; and if he will make a statement. [56500]

  Mr. Boateng
  Community service is a very useful sentence. Offenders have to undertake demanding unpaid work for the benefit of the community; and each year about 6 million hours are worked in this way. As well as requiring offenders to make reparation to the community, community service also provides good opportunities for preventing repeat offending and increasing offenders' employability. We therefore want to see greater public awareness and appreciation of the contribution which community service can make to the criminal justice process. Among the measures we have in mind to bring about this aim are:
  240
  Better enforcement action by the probation service in the case of offenders who fail to comply with their orders. Prompt and consistent enforcement is a necessary condition for public confidence in all community sentences, and we shall shortly be giving the probation service new guidance on improved performance.

  We plan to review National Standards for community service and other community sentences over the coming months, to ensure that they lay down the right expectations for the way in which these sentences are carried out.

  We shall be considering, in the light of responses to our consultation document following the Prison/Probation Review, giving community service a new name which will help its purpose and nature to be more widely understood.

  Police Pensions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the Police Pension Scheme provides a pension for the widow of a policeman who married after retirement from the Police Force but before 6 April 1978 as if the requirement of the Social Security Act 1975 applied prior to that date. [56721]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to do so. To extend retrospective changes to pensioners in the way suggested would be contrary to the principles of a contributory public service pension scheme.

  Green Goddesses
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Green Goddess fire appliances there are; what is the age of the(a) oldest and (b) newest; and what plans he has to replace them with modern appliances. [57173]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are 1,039 appliances. Their age ranges from 42 years to 45 years. There are no plans to replace them with modern appliances.

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the administration, operation and running of coroners courts; and if he will make a statement. [56565]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The coroner service is a locally provided service. We have no plans to alter local authority responsibilities, although the efficiency and effectiveness of current arrangements are kept under review.

  Refugees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of additional refugees resident and seeking assistance from local authorities in each London borough in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 to date, divided into (i) single adults, (ii) families and (iii) unaccompanied adults. [56245]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.
  241
  Figures of asylum seekers supported by London boroughs are supplied to the Department weekly for adults and fortnightly for the other groups. The numbers

  Week ending 26 December 1997

  Week ending 16 October 1998

  Borough

  Adults

  Families

  Unaccompanied children

  Adults

  Families

  Unaccompanied children

  Barking

  75

  43

  n/a

  408

  139

  n/a

  Barnet

  154

  156

  6

  285

  216

  23

  Bexley

  17

  21

  n/a

  61

  32

  67

  Brent

  389

  164

  10

  840

  262

  122

  Bromley

  24

  29

  4

  100

  91

  29

  Camden

  416

  241

  28

  536

  371

  77

  Corporation of London

  17

  2

  0

  32

  9

  9

  Croydon

  206

  159

  217

  270

  183

  152

  Ealing

  347

  151

  6

  254

  186

  3

  Enfield

  39

  69

  n/a

  124

  112

  8

  Greenwich

  186

  102

  3

  459

  276

  n/a

  Hackney

  548

  230

  8

  684

  294

  n/a

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  284

  130

  40

  542

  275

  94

  Haringay

  527

  405

  n/a

  1,187

  637

  n/a

  Harrow

  124

  178

  1

  182

  85

  3

  Havering

  8

  4

  0

  50

  7

  5

  Hillingdon

  105

  n/a

  n/a

  323

  n/a

  n/a

  Hounslow

  90

  137

  1

  172

  191

  15

  Islington

  233

  133

  27

  845

  261

  137

  Kensington and Chelsea

  390

  115

  67

  622

  173

  81

  Kingston upon Thames

  45

  31

  2

  90

  56

  123

  Lambeth

  480

  255

  21

  799

  421

  95

  Lewisham

  422

  140

  6

  757

  329

  70

  Merton

  60

  69

  11

  175

  128

  38

  Newham

  647

  581

  n/a

  919

  978

  n/a

  Redbridge

  52

  118

  7

  157

  178

  36

  Richmond

  46

  19

  0

  255

  38

  84

  Southwark

  202

  332

  28

  424

  532

  57

  Sutton

  30

  16

  4

  71

  23

  15

  Tower Hamlets

  155

  50

  7

  156

  83

  2

  Waltham Forest

  208

  139

  4

  511

  249

  15

  Wandsworth

  84

  134

  0

  302

  193

  n/a

  Westminster

  580

  227

  92

  610

  319

  190

PRIME MINISTER

  Legislation (Language)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that all future legislation is written in gender-neutral language. [57193]

  The Prime Minister
  The most important objectives in the language used in legislation are clarity and legal certainty. In general, the use of gender-specific language is not necessary in order to meet these objectives. But there are occasions when, for example, the use of gender-specific pronouns makes it possible for legislation to be expressed more simply, and so more clearly, than it otherwise could be. In these cases, section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies. It provides that, unless the contrary intention applies, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine, and vice versa.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report for 1997–98. [57852]

  The Prime Minister
  Yesterday I laid the Government response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's report before Parliament.242
  of asylum seekers supported by London boroughs in the last week of 1997,and for the latest week in 1998 for which figures were provided are:

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to veto any EU proposals regarding the harmonisation of income tax rates; [57124]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to veto any EU proposals regarding the introduction of a European income tax. [57125]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's firm view is that decisions on the rates and structure of income tax should remain a matter for national Governments. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals for an EU-wide direct tax were discussed at the EU Council meeting in Portschach; and what his response was. [57199]

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

  The Government's firm view is that decisions on the rates and structure of income tax should remain a matter for national Governments. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity.
  243

  EU Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals for additional EU expenditure were discussed at the EU Council meeting in Portschach; and what his response was. [57198]

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

  Ministerial Code
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the compliance of(a) Ministers and (b) Parliamentary Private Secretaries with paragraph 46 of the Ministerial Code. [57113]

  The Prime Minister
  With regard to Ministers I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 130.

  As paragraphs 44 and 46 of the Ministerial Code make clear, Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government, and it is for Ministers to ensure that their Parliamentary Private Secretaries are aware of certain principles which should govern their behaviour in the House of Commons or in any speeches made outside the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drumcree
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the person photographed on camera entering and leaving the field at Drumcree and shooting at Police lines has been(a) identified, and (b) charged. [55533]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC has not, to date, been able to identify the individual concerned but an investigation into the matter is continuing.

  School Enrolments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the enrolment(a) is this year and (b) was five years ago in each primary, secondary and grammar school in the constituency of Strangford. [56705]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  1998–99 enrolment figures are not yet available.

  The information for 1997–98 and 1992–93 is as follows:

  Strangford

  1992–93

  1997–98

  (a) Primary schools1

  Abbey PS

  485

  598

  Alexander Dickson PS

  202

  217

  Andrew Memorial PS

  496

  519

  Ballykeigle PS

  56

  57

  Ballyvester PS

  87

  91

  Ballywalter PS

  135

  165

  Belvoir Park PS

  259

  304

  Braniel PS

  267

  432

  Cairnshill PS

  414

  527

  244

  Strangford

  1992–93

  1997–98

  Carrickmannon PS

  78

  80

  Carrowdore PS

  135

  130

  Castle Gardens PS

  454

  416

  Comber PS

  404

  375

  Donaghadee PS

  393

  486

  Greyabbey PS

  65

  73

  Killinchy PS

  230

  217

  Kircubbin PS

  59

  79

  Kirkistown PS

  46

  59

  Leadhill PS

  179

  205

  Londonderry PS

  270

  317

  Lough View Integrated PS

  —

  169

  Loughries PS

  85

  83

  Maze PS

  72

  89

  Millislie PS

  168

  150

  Moneyrea PS

  134

  141

  Newtownards Model PS

  362

  404

  Newtownbreda PS

  207

  220

  O'Neill Memorial PS

  39

  36

  Portaferry Integrated PS

  42

  60

  Portavogie PS

  150

  136

  Regent House Preparatory Department

  177

  159

  St. Anne's Primary

  45

  51

  St. Finian's Primary

  208

  144

  St. Mary's PS (Portaferry)

  325

  270

  St. Mary's PS (Comber)

  35

  27

  St. Mary's PS (Ballygowan)

  64

  45

  St. Mary's PS (Kircubbin)

  224

  222

  St. Patrick's PS

  80

  110

  Victoria PS (Newtownards)

  567

  568

  Victoria PS (Ballyhalbert)

  105

  101

  West Winds Primary

  208

  196

  (b) Secondary Schools

  Comber High School

  487

  452

  Donaghadee High School

  306

  327

  Glastry High School

  528

  582

  Lagan College

  811

  964

  Movilla High School

  688

  888

  St. Columba's High

  373

  324

  (c) Grammar Schools2

  Regent House School

  1,413

  1,422

  1 Includes pupils in reception and nursery classes at primary schools. Also includes pupils in preparatory departments of grammar schools

  2 Figures exclude preparatory department pupils

  MacBride Principles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) states and (b) cities of the United States which introduced legislation seeking to implement the MacBride Principles following representations from Her Majesty's Government not to do so, indicating (i) whether the representations were made (a) in writing and (b) verbally and (ii) whether there was an inquiry where witnesses were subject to cross-examination and in which years; and which states and cities decided not to implement such legislation following representations from Her Majesty's Government. [55632]

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

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is currently the policy of Her Majesty's Government to advise states and cities in the United States against legislating to implement the MacBride Principles. [55631]
  245
  Mr. Ingram
  Yes, where possible and appropriate. The Government's view is that Fair Employment legislation in Northern Ireland renders unnecessary any reference to the MacBride Principles in legislation in the USA. Furthermore, the way in which the campaign in support of MacBride Principles is conducted could be a disincentive to the investment from the United States needed to reduce unemployment in both communities in Northern Ireland.

  Presidential Visit (Costs)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost incurred for Northern Ireland Office staff associated with the recent visit of President Clinton and his wife to Northern Ireland in September 1998. [57127]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CABINET OFFICE

  People's Panel
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he intends to publish results from the People's Panel. [57673]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I am pleased to announce that the People's Panel, made up of 5,000 people from across the UK, has now been set up. The Panel will be used to find out what members of the public think about the services for which they pay. It is further evidence of this Government's commitment to listen to people in framing its policy for improving public services.

  Senior civil service

  Band D

  Band B

  Band A

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  4

  7

  White

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Non-white

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Disabled

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No form returned

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1

  5

  The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is covered by the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 which requires that all departments and agencies should recruit on the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. The office ensures that all recruitment is conducted on this basis and that all recruitment is subject to internal audit and review by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  The Office is required to report the number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit were used at each level (except for appointments up to 12 months). The only exception the Office has made is to convert a number of short-term appointments to permanent posts in Bands D and E, where the initial publicity did not state that such appointments could be so converted. This was done as a result of an increase in workloads and organisational changes.
  246
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the results from the first wave of research conducted with the Panel.

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the next review of the Buying Agency will be conducted. [57737]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have decided that the first stage of the quinquennial review of The Buying Agency (TBA), an evaluation of its performance from 1994 to 1998, should commence immediately. The second stage, the reconsideration of the prior options, is expected to start early next year. The review is expected to be complete by the early summer next year.

  Anyone with an interest in TBA and its work who has any comments or suggestions on the Agency's performance should contact David Smith at the Cabinet Office Agencies Unit, Room 206, Ashley House, 2 Monck, Street, London SW1P 2BQ (Tel: 0171 276 2758/Fax: 0171 276 2739) by 8 January 1999.

  Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the latest recruitment statistics for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and if he make a statement. [57733]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Figures showing the statistics for the recruitment campaigns held during 1997 for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are set out in the table.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to regional development agencies concerning the implications for them of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [56157]

  Mr. Meale
  None.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with his US counterpart on the likely date for US ratification of the Kyoto agreement. [56511]
  247
  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of bilateral and multilateral discussions with his US counterpart on the important question of US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he expects to implement the de-trunking of the A40 through Cheltenham before improvements are made to the alternative A436 route; and if he will make a statement; [56405]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the trunk roads review on the number of vehicles entering Cheltenham on the A40 from (a) the east and (b) the west; and if he will make a statement. [56404]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As a result of the Roads Review it is proposed to detrunk the whole of the A40 from the M40 westward to Ross-on-Wye. The timing of detrunking will be subject to consultation and agreement with the local highway authorities. The administrative act of detrunking will have no impact on A40 traffic flows through Cheltenham, but Gloucestershire County Council, who will become responsible for the section through the town, will be able to consider measures to reduce the amount of through traffic. They are the highway authority for the A436 and, as such, responsible for determining the need for any improvements to that road.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with housing groups concerning the levels of repossession cases for(a) mortgage arrears and (b) rent arrears. [56703]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No recent direct talks have been held with housing groups concerning the level of repossessions. The Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers have developed proposals for the better protection of home buyers, including improved mortgage payment protection insurance. Groups such as Shelter and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureau were consulted.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to amend the laws relating to house repossession to reduce the levels of possession cases for(a) mortgage arrears and (b) rent arrears. [56702]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. The Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers have presented proposals for securing better protection for home buyers by means of improved insurance products, improvements in the way these products are sold, and better integration with state support. Ministers are considering these proposals.

  Seat Belts (Buses)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make the wearing of seat belts by passengers compulsory on all buses. [56457]
  248
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department encourages the wearing of seat belts in all vehicles wherever they are fitted. There are no present plans to make the wearing of seat belts by passengers compulsory in all buses (including coaches and larger minibuses) where they are required to be fitted.

  At present, unless groups of children are being carried on organised trips, there is no requirement for seat belts to be fitted in the rear seats of minibuses or the unexposed rear seats of coaches. Seat belts for passengers are not required to be fitted in other types of bus, mainly the type used on local bus services. That is because the seats and floors are generally not suitable to be so fitted, or to take the loads that a seat belt would exert in a crash, without major modification.

  The law requires that passengers in small minibuses (those with an unladen weight of 2540kg or less) must wear seat belts where they are fitted. However, wearing is not a requirement in larger minibuses and coaches because of problems of enforceability.

  Tyneside Metro
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to give formal approval for the extension of the Tyneside metro to Sunderland; and if he will make a statement. [56902]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The application for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise the Sunderland extension was considered at a public inquiry at the beginning of this year. The Inspector's Report of the inquiry is being considered in the Department and the Secretary of State hopes to announce his decision, on whether the Order should be granted, shortly. Tyne and Wear PTA's application for financial support for the extension is also under active consideration by my Department.

  Freight (Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment his Department has made of the potential for increasing the level of freight on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line; and if he will make a statement; [56920]

  (2) what has been the level of freight traffic on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line during each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [56919]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Railtrack that there has been no freight traffic on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line in the last three years, because of capacity and structural problems. The company also tells me that it has received no expressions of interest from any potential freight customers in a freight service on the line.

  The Government have made substantial sums available for freight grants, which are designed to assist companies in moving freight from road to rail. The spend on such grants was doubled to £30 million in our first year in office and the budget for the current year was increased further to £40 million. In launching the Integrated Transport White Paper in July, the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that still further money would be found for

  249
  these grants, if there was demand. Nevertheless, it is for the commercial railway interests or freight customers to propose schemes and make application for grants.

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount of the cost of repairing the damage to the Thames barrier following the incident involving the Sand Kite was met from public funds. [56737]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At present all costs have been met from Environment Agency funds as a settlement has yet to be reached with the Sand Kite's owners. The claim may be subject to a limitation of liability under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Legal opinion is currently being sought over whether other options for reclaiming costs exist and negotiations are continuing in order to obtain a satisfactory outcome.

  Arco Arun
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will authorise an investigation into the incident involving the dredger Arco Arris; and if he will make a statement. [56734]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I believe my hon. Friend's question relates to the vessel Arco Arun. An investigation into the incident involving the Arco Arun is being undertaken by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch which will report its findings in due course. The PLA is co-operating fully with the MAIB investigation in addition to conducting its own formal investigation as required by the Pilotage Act 1987.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the dredger Arco Arris which recently ran aground in the Thames had a qualified river pilot on board at the time. [56735]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I believe my hon. Friend's question relates to the vessel Arco Arun. The Port of London Authority was informed, when the Arco Arun entered the port limits on 13 October, that pilotage was being conducted by a holder of a valid Pilotage Exemption Certificate.

  Business representatives

  Jordan/Egypt—4 to 9 October 1997

  Balfour Beatty International

  Colin Ostler

  British Arab Commercial Bank

  Mohamed Fezzani

  Clyde & Co.

  Niamh Burke

  Hammond Suddards

  David Jones

  HSBC Investment Bank

  Declan Hegarty

  IHS International Hotel Services

  Howard Gaunt

  John Laing International Cairo

  James Lawday

  Kvaerner Construction

  Robin Blackmore

  McNicholas Construction

  Kevin McNicholas

  Mott MacDonald International

  Chris Ecob

  Paribas

  Andy Simpson

  Tarmac Heavy Building Materials Overseas

  Simon Taylor & Steven Jones

  Taylor Woodrow

  Mike Kelly

  Thames Water International

  Emilio Gabrielli

  Wintersgill & Faulkner

  Matthew Wintersgill

  250
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount of the cost of the salvage operation involving the Arco Arris will be met from public funds. [56736]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I believe my hon. Friend's question relates to the vessel Arco Arun. The costs of salvaging the Acro Arun lie with the vessel owners. Should the vessel be abandoned, the PLA has powers under the Port of London Authority Act 1968 to require the vessel to be removed and to recover the full costs from her owners.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will urge the Port of London Authority to review PLA Pilotage Directive No. 5 following the incident involving the Arco Arris dredger. [56733]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I believe my hon. Friend's question relates to the vessel Arco Arun. I understand that PLA Pilotage Direction No. 5 does not apply to vessels of the type and length of the Arco Arun. We expect all harbour authorities responsible for pilotage to keep their arrangements under regular review.

  Construction Exports
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which directorships the head of the Construction Export Promotion and Materials Sponsorship Division holds. [56922]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Head of the Construction Export Promotion and Materials Sponsorship Division has been a Non-Executive Director of The Building Centre Group Limited since 21 January 1998. The appointment does not attract any remuneration and was considered and approved in advance by the Department.

  The Building Centre is the major permanent exhibition and information centre for the UK building materials industry.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the countries the Minister for London and Construction has led trade missions to since 1 May 1997; which representatives of British industry accompanied him; and what business has been secured as a result. [56930]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The countries visited and the business representatives who took part are as follows:
  251

  Business representatives

  Poland—19 to 23 January 1998

  Jan Bobrowski & Partners Consulting Engineers

  Aleksander Bobrowski

  CU Phosco Lighting

  Stephen Brickenden

  WS Atkins

  David Howell

  Gibb

  James Dawson

  Mott MacDonald Group

  Mario Donnetti

  Gardiner & Theobald

  Keith Rogers

  Biwater Treatment

  Phil Rudd & Richard Thomson

  Maunsell

  Ed Plewa

  Barlow Greeves Associates International

  Barlow Greeves Associates International

  Christopher Barlow & Gina Barlow

  Taywood Engineering

  Ray Elliott

  Tarmac Heavy Building Materials Overseas

  Simon Taylor

  Kvaerner Construction

  Cahit Atasoy

  McNicholas Construction Group

  Barry McNicholas

  Montgomery Watson

  Matthew Leonard

  Bovis Construction Group

  Henry Liszka

  Brown & Root

  Ian Chorlton

  Buro Happold

  Padraic Kelly

  Messrs Sandberg

  Neil Sandberg

  Ove Arup & Partners International

  Richard Thurlow

  PMI Polska SP. ZO.O.

  Alexander McMillan

  Philippines—16 to 19 March 1998

  ABS Consulting

  Jim Ure

  ARC South Wales

  Chris Hobbs

  Ashurst Morris Crisp

  Clive Tucker

  Asia Halcrow

  Ian Rowden

  Cameron McKenna

  Julian Hill

  Conren International

  Bernard Dennis

  Dawson Construction Plant Asia

  Julian Dawson

  First Philipine Balfour Beatty

  Alistair Kennedy

  Franklin & Andrews (Hong Kong)

  Jeremy Newton

  Gibb

  Tony King

  H R Services

  Phil Pardoe

  HR Wallingford Group

  Dr. John Weare

  John Laing International

  John Lockwood

  Lagan Asia Pacific

  Peter Long

  Linklaters

  Simon Davies

  Mivan

  Mervyn McCall

  Mott MacDonald Group

  Dr. Bernard Waterworth

  Sterling Lloyd

  Matthew Sanderson

  Transport Research Laboratory

  Michael O'Connell

  Taylor Woodrow Construction

  Bruce Russell & John Chesworth

  Egypt—6 to 10 September 1998

  WS Atkins International

  David Howell

  Balfour Beatty International

  Colin Ostler

  British Arab Commercial Bank

  Mohamed Fezzani

  British Consultants Bureau

  Rory O'Connor

  British Standards Institution

  Tom Harland

  British Steel

  Gareth Reece

  Conren International

  Bernard Dennis

  Ecocolour

  Paul Paschali & Roger Lord

  Enron International

  John Bannerman

  EC Harris

  John Bacon

  High-Point Rendel

  Nelson Ogunshakin

  HR Wallingford Group

  Stephen Huntington

  John Laing International Cairo

  James Lawday

  Kvaerner Cementation Foundations

  Colin Courtney

  Llewelyn Davies

  Kenneth Cooke

  Montgomery Watson

  Peter Lawrence

  Mott MacDonald International

  Tony Emes

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Keith Seago & Johnny Ojeil

  Parkman

  Roger Pearce

  John Reid & Sons

  Rollo Reid

  Sterling Lloyd

  Mehrdad Paykazani

  Stramit International

  John Mosesson

  Taylor Woodrow Construction

  Dennis MacDaid

  Thames Water International

  Dreda Gaines

  United Bank of Kuwait

  Christopher Somes-Charlton

  WRC (Water Research Centre)

  Stephen Ramsey

  Wintersgill & Faulkner

  Matthew Wintersgill

  252

  253

  Business representatives

  Brazil—12 to 16 October 1998

  Anglian Water International

  Harry Rowlands

  Bovis Brasil

  Denis Carter & Ossie Falconar

  Kvaerner

  Ramon Coo & Charles Hardeman

  Linklaters

  Edmundo Nejm

  Taylor Woodrow Construction

  Bruce Russell

  Thames Water International

  Cesar Seara & Emilio Gabbrielli

  British Consultants Bureau

  Nigel Peters

  Buro Happold

  Padraic Kelly

  Control Risks

  Mark Sorby, Joshua King & Robert Froudie

  High Point Rendel

  Derek Fletcher

  IMC Group

  John Hughes

  Kennedy & Donkin

  David Colvin

  Knight Piesold

  Peter Garratt

  Lindapter International

  Ian Larner

  Mott MacDonald

  Don Moore

  Ove Arup Partnership

  Ray Crane

  Individual Consultant

  Robert Dowding

  No limit was placed on the number of companies able to participate in these trade missions and every company which expressed an interest in taking part was given the opportunity to do so.

  Securing contracts in construction and civil engineering can be a very protracted business and it is rare for orders to flow quickly or solely as a result of contacts made during trade missions overseas. There is no obligation on the part of participating companies to report contracts won or under discussion. However, feedback from the accompanying business representatives has been consistently positive about the value of the information they have gained on markets and particular opportunities and about the number and quality of the business contacts that have been established.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which British companies the Construction Export Promotion and Materials Sponsorship Division has been able to assist with securing orders abroad since 1 May 1997; and if he will list the materials which have been exported as a result. [56932]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Construction Export Promotion and Materials Sponsorship Division provides assistance to exporters in a variety of different ways including trade missions, briefing seminars, publications and market reports. Press reports of the Division's activities, such as trade missions, can also be instrumental in alerting companies to particular markets and opportunities. Exporters will use this information alongside that provided by other organisations, such as Overseas Trade Services, to form a view about market opportunities and whether to pursue particular export orders. It is not therefore possible to provide a list of British companies which have been assisted in securing export orders by the Division's activities alone or of the materials which have been exported as a result.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration.[56809]
  254
  Mr. Meale
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Saving
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has evaluated on the role of low-emissivity glass in helping to reduce energy consumption in buildings. [55081]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department, through the Partners in Technology programme, has sponsored research into the thermal performance of glazing systems. This work has confirmed that low-emissivity glazing, used in conjunction with high performance framing systems, provides the potential for significant energy savings. The Department also monitors research carried out by other bodies including manufacturers, trade associations and universities.

  The Department promotes the use of low-emissivity double glazing under the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses were received to his Department's consultation paper on the funding of home improvement agencies; how many were (i) in favour of the proposal to include funding in revenue support grant without ring fencing and (ii) against; and by how much each local authority will(a) gain and (b) lose at the end of the three-year period if the proposals are implemented. [57308]

  Ms Armstrong
  We received 202 responses to the consultation paper. 15 respondents fully supported the proposal to include funding in the revenue support grant programme (RSG) without ring fencing, with 184 respondents against.

  It is not possible to say precisely how much each local authority would gain or lose after three years if funding was provided through RSG because funds are allocated forsmulaically on the basis of indices which can change each year. However, the 164 authorities currently in receipt of grant for home improvement agency services

  255
  would each lose about £10,400 on average. The other 225 authorities would each gain about £11,500 on average.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has concluded his consideration of responses to the Government's consultation paper on the funding of home improvement agencies; and if he will make a statement. [57732]

  Ms Armstrong
  Our consultation paper set out proposals for giving local authorities a greater say in decisions on the funding of home improvement agencies, as part of our overall aim of increasing local democracy and improving services for local people. We have received over 200 responses to the paper. The majority expressed support for a greater local say, but a large number of respondents expressed concern about the proposal to transfer resources from specific grants into local authorities' revenue support grant. Respondents were particularly concerned that this could divert resources from authorities who currently choose to support an agency, to those who do not.

  In the light of these comments, we have considered very carefully whether there is an alternative mechanism which allows us to achieve our objectives while avoiding these potential problems. We have concluded that, within the present funding framework, the best way ahead is to retain an element of specific central grant, which would be made available only if the local authority agreed to provide funding itself. Subject to the availability of resources, the grant would be paid up to a level which would match the amount provided to the agency by the local authority and its funding partners. In this way, the primary decisions on support for agencies will be taken by local authorities, rather than by central government.

  We propose to introduce this 'matched funding' approach without delay. Letters explaining the details of the arrangements and inviting bids for funding for next year will go out to local authorities shortly. In order to give greater certainty to agencies, funding will generally be for three years. Meanwhile we will continue to explore how the funding arrangements might develop in the context of our longer term strategies for improving the local delivery of services to elderly and vulnerable people.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plan he has to develop a national strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; [57145]

  (2) what steps he has taken to encourage the pursuit of the Government's biodiversity objectives on land managed by Government agencies; and what steps he has taken to encourage local authority biodiversity action plans; [57146]

  (3) what steps he has taken to encourage biodiversity-friendly business practices. [57147]

  Mr. Meale
  "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan" the national strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity was published in January 1994. This strategy and the UK Biodiversity Steering Group 256
  Report published in December 1995 contain the measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity within the UK. At the heart of these measures is the development of costed action plans for priority species and habitats. 116 species and 14 habitat action plans were published as part of the Steering Group report and are now being implemented. A further 56 species action plans were published on 2 June. We expect to publish a further 10 habitat action plans in December and a further 256 species and 16 habitat plans early in 1999.

  The consultation paper on improving the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, issued on 10 September, sought views on the proposal that we should provide legislative backing for the Government's own commitment to the better management of SSSIs, and to the delivery of biodiversity objectives. We will carefully consider all responses to this proposal.

  The Highways Agency provides one example of the delivery of government policies for biodiversity on its network, in partnership with other landowners and wildlife interest groups. Management strategies for landscape management and biodiversity will be developed as current surveys of landscape and ecological elements of the highway estate are completed.

  The UK Biodiversity Group and the Local Agenda 21 Steering Group have jointly issued five guidance notes on the preparation of local biodiversity action plans to all local authorities. Case studies on the preparation of such plans are currently being finalised and it is hoped to issue these to all local authorities by the end of the year.

  In May the Government co-operated with the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development in launching the booklet "Business and Biodiversity", which explains how businesses can integrate biodiversity into environmental management systems. Some 18,000 copies of the guide have been distributed to date. The guide is a product of a wider report on "Integrating Biodiversity into Management Systems" by the Round Table. The Government have today published a positive response to that report, accepting the thrust of the Round Table's recommendations, particularly those on keeping business abreast of national and local biodiversity work.

  The consultation document "Making Biodiversity Happen", published in June as part of the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy, contained a major section on how business might become more involved in biodiversity at local and plant level, as well as nationally. We have received over 360 responses to the consultation document and are currently considering how to feed these into the revision of the Sustainable Development Strategy and the work of the UK Biodiversity Group.

  West Midlands (Freight)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received to improve the shipment of goods from the West Midlands. [57138]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has for some time been considering an upgrade of the West Coast Main Line to accommodate "Piggyback" rail freight. The project would be likely to require substantial Government grant. Railtrack has not yet made a grant application.
  257

  West Midlands (Public Transport)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received to improve public transportation in the West Midlands. [57139]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received a number of proposals for improving public transport in the West Midlands from West Midlands local authorities in their bids for local transport capital finances for 1999–2000.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the level of carbon dioxide and other noxious gases in the atmosphere from motor vehicles in the United Kingdom. [57140]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On Monday of this week we published a consultation paper seeking views on policy options to meet our climate change commitments. The paper made it clear that we aim to develop a climate change programme where all sectors, including transport, play a balanced part.

  The Government are already pursuing a number of measures which will help to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and the entire car fleet. In the last Budget on 17 March 1998, Official Report, columns 1097–112, the Chancellor announced our commitment to the continuation of the fuel duty escalator raising fuel prices by 6 per cent. per annum in real terms, and plans to graduate vehicle excise duty to encourage more fuel efficient cars. These measures will encourage drivers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles as well as use fuel more efficiently.

  We also strongly support the Commission's Strategy on C02 from cars which aims to reduce the emissions of C02 from new cars sold in the EU to an average of 120 grammes per kilometre, by 2005 or 2010 at the latest. A substantial proportion of this reduction will come from the voluntary agreement which the Commission has recently secured with the car industry. This will reduce the average emissions from new cars sold in the EU by around 25 per cent. by the year 2008.

  We have also set up the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force which aims to create a partnership between the Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles which people actually want to drive and buy. The Task Force will encourage the production, marketing and sales of vehicles which are cleaner and more fuel efficient.

  The measures contained in the Transport White Paper will also play an important role by delivering a properly integrated transport system for the UK and reducing dependence on the car.

  Public Transport (Social Exclusion)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the links between public transport and social exclusion. [56981]
  258
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are shortly to commission research into the links between public transport and social exclusion. The research will seek to establish the level of exclusion from public transport, identify the factors which discourage different groups from using it, examine the initiatives to encourage new passengers and propose a range of initiatives to encourage ridership among excluded groups. The results of the research will be available in late 1999.

  Limestone Pavement
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to control the extraction and sale of limestone pavement. [56914]

  Mr. Meale
  Our consultation paper,SSIs—Better Protection and Management, invites comments on options for further protection for limestone pavement. We have also asked the group responsible for the Biodiversity Action Plan for limestone pavement, for information on the extent of trade.

  A140 (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents have occurred on that part of the A140 located in Suffolk since May 1997. [57197]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of accidents on the A140 in Suffolk since May 1997 1

  Accidents

  Severity

  Number

  Fatal

  2

  Serious

  4

  Slight

  6

  All severities

  12

  1 Data cover the period between 1 May and 31 December 1997. 1998 data are unavailable

  A14 (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents have occurred on the A14 between Bury St. Edmunds and Stowmarket since May 1997. [57196]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of accidents on the A14 between Bury St. Edmunds and Stowmarket since May 19971

  Accidents

  Severity

  Number

  Fatal

  1

  Serious

  8

  Slight

  19

  All Severities

  28

  1 Data cover the period between 1 May and 31 December 1997. 1998 data are unavailable.

  259

  Barnet Football Club
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the inquiry into the future location of Barnet Football Club is due to report. [57114]

  Mr. Caborn
  Shortly.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Seventh Report of this Session on London Underground (HC 715). [57728]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government welcome the Committee's report on our plans for a Public Private Partnership for London Underground (HC 715-I) which has provided a useful input to the discussion on the details of the proposals. We share with the Committee the desire to create a first-class tube service fit to take us into the next millennium. We agree with many of the report's recommendations, and are today publishing our formal response, copies of which will be laid before the House.

  Local Authority Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he will make for management and maintenance spending on council housing in England for 1999–2000. [57736]

  Ms Armstrong
  Our proposals are set out in the draft Housing Revenue Account Subsidy and Item 8 determinations for 1999–2000, which we have sent to housing authorities today. Authorities have been invited to let my Department have their views by 4 December 1998.

  We expect councils to use the extra resources for housing to give priority to urgently needed repairs. We therefore propose to calculate separate allowances for management and maintenance from next year, in place of the combined allowance used previously in the calculation of subsidy. This will enable us to target additional resources where they are most needed.

  We are proposing that maintenance allowances for council houses in England will increase by £52 million next year. This is the first time in four years that maintenance allowances have gone up in real terms.

  We want Councils to continue to seek increased efficiency in the management of their housing stock and we are, therefore, also proposing a continued freeze in provision for management of the housing stock.

  These increases in maintenance allowances are in addition to the very significant £3.6 billion increases in provision for capital investment in local authority housing announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in July, following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Our proposals for 1999–2000 anticipate the proposed move to resource accounting within the Housing Revenue Account. Resource accounting will put local authority housing on a more business-like footing, increasing transparency and enabling authorities to make better decisions about the use and maintenance of their housing
  260
  assets. We expect to consult authorities later this year on detailed proposals for introducing resource accounting from April 2001.

  Copies of the draft determinations have been placed in the House Library.

  Local Authority Staff
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will repeal the requirement for local authorities to publish their staff numbers locally. [57850]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government (Publication of Staffing Information) (England) Regulations 1995 require authorities to publish locally each year their staff numbers, in a prescribed format which is based on the figures produced for the Joint Staffing Watch return. The Joint Staffing Watch group has decided that the Joint Staffing Watch return is no longer the most appropriate method of meeting central and local governments' needs for employment information, and the survey is to be discontinued. Trends in aggregate local authority employment will be monitored by inquiries carried out by the Office for National Statistics, which will be less burdensome on authorities. As there are a number of other mechanisms in place for ensuring that local authorities are accountable to their community for the efficient use of resources, I have decided to repeal the Publication of Staffing Information Regulations.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that were reorganised on 1 April 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [57854]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 17 July I invited authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1998–99. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the revised maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs in 1998–99. I have given priority to those authorities that reorganised in 1998.

  The amounts allocated are as follows:

  1998–99

  £000 (rounded)

  Authority

  Supplementarycredit approvals(SCAs)

  County Councils

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  250

  Cheshire County Council

  2,217

  Devon County Council

  765

  Essex County Council

  2,683

  Kent County Council

  752

  Lancashire County Council

  1,465

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  4,534

  Shropshire County Council

  994

  Worcestershire County Council

  2,250

  261

  1998–99

  £000 (rounded)

  Authority

  Supplementary credit approvals(SCAs)

  All Purpose Authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  1,280

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  3,349

  Blackpool Borough Council

  3,188

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  650

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Nil

  Brighton and Hove Council

  1,407

  Bristol City Council

  1,268

  Darlington Borough Council

  1,193

  Derby City Council

  1,602

  The East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  4,259

  Halton Borough Council

  2,832

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  720

  County of Herefordshire District Council

  5,155

  Kingston-upon-HuIl Council

  1,823

  Leicester City Council

  No bid

  Luton Borough Council

  1,973

  Malvern Hills District Council

  Nil

  Medway Council

  5,674

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  2,284

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  2,250

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  1,853

  North Lincolnshire Council

  3,288

  North Somerset Council

  652

  Nottingham City Council

  3,920

  Peterborough City Council

  2,061

  Plymouth City Council

  9,450

  Poole Borough Council

  1,100

  Portsmouth City Council

  1,603

  Reading Borough Council

  3,281

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  1,000

  Rutland Council

  1,065

  Slough Borough Council

  2,781

  Southend on Sea Borough Council

  2,690

  South Gloucestershire Council

  830

  Southampton City Council

  3,185

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  1,646

  Stock-on-Trent City Council

  1,348

  Swindon Borough Council

  742

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  4,143

  Thurrock Borough Council

  3,067

  Torbay Borough Council

  6,396

  Warrington Borough Council

  2,934

  West Berkshire Council

  Nil

  The Royal Borough of Windsor andMaidenhead

  Nil

  Wokingham District Council

  2,262

  York City Council

  No bid

  Total

  118,114

  Note:

  Leicester and York City Councils and Bracknell Forest, Malvern Hills, West Berkshire and Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Councils did not submit bids for SCA.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the response to the fourth annual report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development will be published. [57851]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to announce that the Government's response to the Fourth Annual Report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development has been published today. We have been able to respond positively to many of the Panel's recommendations. The Panel is a valuable source of advice for Government in 262
  the achievement of sustainable development. I wish to express my gratitude to the Convenor of the Panel, Sir Crispin Tickell, and his colleagues for their continued commitment to helping to identify new sustainable ways of enhancing the quality of life and prosperity for everyone.

  Examples where the Government have been able to respond positively to the Panel's recommendations are:
  on climate change emissions: we have reached an agreement with our EU partners during our UK Presidency on binding targets to meet the Kyoto Protocol target of 8 per cent.
  on marine biodiversity: we have set up a specialist sub-Group to ensure an integrated approach is taken to preserving the diversity of marine eco-systems;
  on endocrine disruptors: we have undertaken a new £3 million research programme to address male reproductive health and the marine environment.
  on building regulations: we have begun a comprehensive review of the existing regulations;
  on economic instruments: we are taking forward the Panel's recommendations in a number of areas.

  I am placing copies of the response in the Library.

  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will respond to the report by the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development on Integrating Biodiversity into Management Systems. [57952]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have today published their response to the report by the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  The Government response to "Integrating Biodiversity into Management Systems" is positive and accepts the thrust of the Round Table's recommendations. In particular, it welcomes recommendations on keeping business abreast of biodiversity work, nationally and locally; on taking account of biodiversity in the various pollution control regimes, and on giving biodiversity an appropriate weighting in the accreditation of environmental management systems.

  I wish to express my gratitude to Sir Richard Southwood and the Round Table for their valuable work in helping to identify new ways to take forward Sustainable Development.

  I am placing copies of both the responses in the Library.

  Utilities (Diversionary Works)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a conclusion about the contribution which the utilities pay to public transport operators in connection with diversionary works. [57971]

  Dr. Reid
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, undertakers with apparatus in the street are required to meet a proportion of the cost of moving or protecting this apparatus ("diversionary works") in connection with major highway works, major bridge works, and major transport works. These terms are defined in the Act.
  263
  These arrangements replaced earlier ones, under which all the costs of diversionary works were charged to the promoter of the scheme giving rise to them.

  The Act allows different proportions to be prescribed in different cases or classes of case, but the existing regulations, the Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations 1992 (SI 1991 No. 1690) and the Street Works (Sharing of Costs of Works) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (S.R. 1998 No. 156), prescribe a single proportion of 18 per cent. for all cases.

  In discussions while the legislation was being prepared, representatives of the highway authorities and the utilities agreed that an 18 per cent. contribution would be appropriate for diversionary works in relation to road works and bridge works. In terms of the definitions in the Act and Order, these include all major highway works and major bridge works, and those major transport works, which are road or bridge works in nature.

  However, the Act, the Order and the regulations go further, by including other forms of transport works, for example new light and heavy railways and street-running tramways. The utilities argue that these are different in kind from road and bridge works and should not be included in the cost-sharing arrangements. Against this, public transport operators maintain that the existing arrangements are appropriate, arguing that their works are akin to highway works and may indeed be an alternative to them.

  The Government consider that a distinction should be made in this context between road and bridge works, and other public transport works. The utilities derive an operational benefit from the existence of roads and bridges, because these provide a convenient route for their apparatus. The 18 per cent. contribution might be regarded, at least in part, as a form of rent for this facility. The same consideration does not arise in the case of public transport.

  The Government have concluded that a lower rate of contribution would be appropriate for diversionary works in connection with public transport works other than road and bridge works, and has decided that this rate should be 7½percent. As a transitional measure, the 18 per cent. rate should continue to apply to any diversionary works in this category which have started on site at the date of this announcement.

  Regulations to make the change will be introduced as soon as possible. The contribution in relation to road and bridge works will remain at 18 per cent.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of benefit fraud have been successfully prosecuted in each month since 1 May 1997. [53110]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government. However, questions on Benefit Agency operational matters are the responsibility of its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.
  264
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 31 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of cases of benefit fraud successfully prosecuted in each month since 1st May 1997.
  Please find detailed in the attached table a month by month breakdown of the prosecution figures. These figures are totals combining figures from the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service who carry out locally based fraud investigations and the Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service who concentrate on serious attacks on the benefit system by organised criminals.
  The Department has always operated a selective cost effective and humane prosecution policy. However, as set out in the green paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", the Government is committed to removing "no-go areas" where a fraudster might assume that he or she will avoid prosecution. Fraud attracting low overpayment is certainly no guarantee that a fraudster will not be prosecuted.
  Administrative penalties are one alternative to prosecution which the BA can now choose to offer in cases involving less serious fraud. We expect the application of this penalty to grow as staff become familiar with its use and we intend to evaluate the effectiveness of this new sanction.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Fraud Investigation Service, Benefits Agency Security Investigation prosecution figures since May 1997

  Date

  May 1997

  901

  June 1997

  1,091

  July 1997

  1,171

  August 1997

  928

  September 1997

  994

  October 1997

  953

  November 1997

  982

  December 1997

  820

  January 1998

  997

  February 1998

  874

  March 1998

  902

  April 1998

  876

  May 1998

  791

  June 1998

  845

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the dates when the ministerial group, established to oversee anti-fraud strategy across central Government and announced in the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everybody's Business" has met. [57126]

  Mr. Denham
  The group is to meet shortly. Subsequent meetings will follow as necessary.

  Widow's Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of extending entitlement to widow's benefits to widowers; and if he will make a statement. [55640]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: To extend Widow's Benefit to new and existing widowers would generate a gross cost of about £300 million and a net cost of about £250 million once means-tested benefit and tax credit offsets have been taken into account.
  265
  Notes:

  1. The gross costs have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department and assume that benefits are paid on the basis of the wife's contribution record.

  2. Means-tested benefit and tax credit offsets were calculated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the May 1996 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  3. Estimates are in 1998–99 benefit rates and are rounded to the nearest £50 million, although are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  4. The estimate assumes no behavioural changes.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of new claims which are made for each of the main widow's benefits, and how much would be saved by abolishing each benefit for new claimants only; and if he will make a statement. [55639]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 October 1998]: The information is set out in the tables.

  The estimated number of new claims for widow's payment and new awards of widow's pension and widowed mother's allowancein 1997–98

  Lump sum (claims)

  Widow's Payment

  45,000

  Ongoing weekly benefits (awards)

  Widow's Pension

  23,000

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  7,000

  Notes:

  1. Widow's Payment information provided by Benefits Agency's Management Information System

  2. Ongoing weekly benefit information provided by a 5 per cent. sample taken from the Pensions Strategy Computer System

  3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000

  4. Estimates for Widow's Payment relate to claims made; a small number of claims may not be awarded a payment. Estimates for the ongoing weekly benefits relate to actual awards

  It is estimated that by 2020–21 annual gross savings of the order shown in the table below would accrue from abolishing Widow's Payment, Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension for new claimants.

  Lump sum

  Lump sum

  £ million

  Widow's Payment

  50

  Weekly ongoing benefits

  (i) Basic Element:

  Widow's Pension

  700

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  100

  (ii) Additional Pension element

  150

  Notes:

  1. Estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department

  2. Estimates are in 1998–99 benefit rates and is rounded to the nearest £50 million. Long term estimates of this kind are uncertain and subject to demographic variation

  3. The answer estimates the savings on Widow's Benefits alone; it does not take account of subsequent savings from Retirement Pension paid to widows who were bereaved whilst they were under State Pension Age

  4. The estimate takes account of the equalisation of State Pension Age between 2010 and 2020
  266

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the level of pensions paid to British citizens retired in other countries. [55801]

  Mr. Denham
  The Australian Minister for Social Security wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 August about this issue. Representations have also been received recently from the Australian High Commissioner, the British Consulate-General in Vancouver, the President of the British Australian Pensioner Association, the Secretary-General of the World Alliance of British Expatriate Pensioners and from pensioners and their organisations.

  As there are competing demands and constraints on Social Security spending in the United Kingdom, it would be wrong to raise expectations that uprating UK pensions paid abroad would be likely to attract priority in the current circumstances.

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if circular No. 16, issued by the President of the Independent Tribunal Service on 15 September, is compatible with the Government's assurance given on 30 March 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 130, that proposed changes to the composition of social security appeal tribunals would be subject to the affirmative procedure; and if he will make a statement. [57231]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to improvements in the current arrangements for handling appeals. Current delays, averaging 7 months, are unacceptable. Tribunals whose composition can be tailored to the issues raised on each appeal, are essential if we are to deliver the necessary improvements and reduce delays. The Social Security Act 1998, therefore, provides for tribunals to consist of three, two or one person. We will be bringing regulations to the House early next year for debate under the affirmative resolution procedures.

  The Act also contains, at Schedule 6, a transitory power which allows the President of the Independent Tribunal Service to vary the composition of Social Security Appeal Tribunals prior to the introduction of the main changes. The immediate effect of the transitory power was specifically highlighted by my noble Friend, the Lord Advocate when he introduced the provisions to the House of Lords on 20 April 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, column 959. My noble Friend the Lord Advocate went on to explain that the immediate power to introduce flexible tribunal composition had been requested by the President, His Honour Judge Michael Harris, as a means of allowing him the opportunity to test out the proposal prior to full implementation. Circular No. 16 allows Incapacity Benefit appeals to be heard by a lawyer supported by a doctor.

  The commitment given by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate that changes to the composition of Appeal Tribunals will be subject to affirmative resolution, still stands.
  267

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Radio 4
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to the Board of Governors of the BBC concerning scheduling revisions at Radio 4 and the ratings of that channel; and if he will make a statement. [56420]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made no such representations. Responsibility for all matters concerning the editorial content and scheduling of programmes rests with the BBC itself.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the Ministers Mandate and the Forestry Commission's management of the New Forest in respect of his policy to give the New Forest recognition as a world heritage site. [56502]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to comment on his Consultation Paper on a revised Tentative List of UK World Heritage Sites, which included the New Forest, and is currently awaiting its comments.

  Royal Parks (Car Parking)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's policy is in relation to car parking charges within the Royal Parks; and what consultations he has had with the Crown Estate on this matter. [56335]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: Parking spaces are made available in the Royal Parks principally for the benefit of people visiting the parks. Where possible these are free, but charges have been made if it appeared necessary to discourage commuter parking.

  In 1994, in accordance with this policy, the Royal Parks Agency, which is responsible for managing the Royal Parks on behalf of the Department, introduced pay and display charges for car parking in Hyde Park and Regent's Park. It is proposed to extend these charges to weekends and Bank Holidays in early 1999 in line with this Government's policies on discouraging the use of vehicles in central London, as both parks are well served by public transport.

  The Crown Estate was among those organisations which the Agency consulted both over the introduction of charges in 1994 and this year over their extension. Their views, and those of other consultees, have been taken into account in framing the arrangements.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the annual report of the Millennium Commission is to be produced. [57731]
  268
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission laid its Annual Report before Parliament earlier today. The Government welcome the report, showing as it does that the Commission continues to exercise good stewardship of Lottery proceeds, whilst delivering real benefits to communities throughout the United Kingdom.

WALES

  Optical Fibres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he attempted to assist the optical fibres plant DIP Flintshire prior to the announcement of redundancies; and if he will make a statement. [56496]

  Mr. Hain
  The North Wales TEC was in touch with the company prior to the announcement and was able to put the appropriate assistance packages in place to help those that would be affected by redundancy. This has been considered as a large-scale redundancy which enables employees who have lost their jobs to be immediately eligible for Work Based Training for Adults, the New Deal for Employment Service programmes.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the optical fibres industry in Wales. [56495]

  Mr. Hain
  Despite recent reverses, the prospects for the optical fibres industry in Wales remain very encouraging. The Wales Opto-Electronics Forum, which brings together all the major players in this sector, from both industry and academia, is currently examining ways of building further on their individual and combined strengths.

  Supporting the Opto-Electronics industry in Wales is one of the flagship projects in the Wales Regional Technology Plan, which sets out the longer term vision of creating in Wales a culture which encourages and values innovation.

  Members of the Opto-Electronics Forum are considering how to establish North East Wales as a Centre of Excellence by developing a cluster of firms in the Opto-Electronic sector.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals his Department and its agencies have to assist the optical fibres (BICC) plant at Deeside Industrial Park; and if he will make a statement. [56491]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office has approved the North Wales TEC's application that this should be regarded as a large scale redundancy. Those affected by redundancy will therefore be immediately eligible for Work Based Training for Adults, the New Deal and Employment Service programmes. Following the announcement the officials from the WDA and Flintshire County Council met the company and have agreed to take all possible steps to try and assist the workforce in finding alternative employment, with a view also to ensuring that the skills of the workforce can quickly be put to productive use for the benefit of the local economy.

  Kimberley-Clark Factory (Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he assisted the Kimberley-Clark
  269
  factory on Deeside Industrial Park prior to its announcement on 21 October of closure; and if he will make a statement. [56497]

  Mr. Hain
  Up to February 1995 the company received financial assistance, under the Regional Development Grant and Regional Selective Assistance schemes, totalling £1.46 million in support of projects to develop and expand production facilities at the Deeside Mill. The WDA has also offered the company assistance in property deal matters.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in Wales. [56409]

  Mr. Hain
  Manufacturing output in the year to the first quarter of 1998 was 1.4 per cent. higher than in the previous four quarters; in the UK there was an increase of 1.1 per cent. over the same period.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the damage caused by the floods in Wales on 23, 24 and 25 October. [57129]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  At present it is by no means clear how much damage there has been in monetary terms. The Environment Agency, with whom the Department's officials have remained in close contact throughout the event, have estimated there were about 500 houses flooded from main rivers. There were also many properties flooded from other watercourses and by surface water. This event is, of course, not yet over and Environment Agency Flood Control Centres remain open throughout Wales. I have asked the Environment Agency to provide me with a full report.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations requesting aid he has received following the floods in Wales on 23, 24 and 25 October. [57137]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  None at present.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what aid he has given to those suffering damage from the floods in Wales on 23, 24 and 25 October. [57130]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  None. For individuals and most organisations flooding is an insurable risk and it has been the policy of successive Governments that responsibility for their own property is a matter for the individuals and organisations concerned. Local authorities are able to apply to the Government for financial assistance, under the so-called Bellwin scheme, towards expenditure in relation to any uninsurable damage they may have incurred.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Banknotes and Coins
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries show the Queen's head on their currency. [55944]
  270
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following countries show Her Majesty The Queen's head on their currency:

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Anguilla

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Belize

  Britain (including Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man)

  Canada

  Dominica

  Fiji

  Grenada

  Kiribati (uses Australian dollars)

  Nauru (uses Australian dollars)

  New Zealand

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  Solomon Islands

  Tuvalu.

  Departmental Employees (Physical Difficulties)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people employed by his Department have physical difficulties. [56260]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 1 April 1998 we employed 106 permanent UK-based people who have declared that they have a disability which will affect them in some way at work. People are not required to report a disability.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 963, what material help Her Majesty's Government are giving to the independent radio station B92 in Belgrade. [56442]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The British Government have helped Radio B92 since 1993. In March of this year we decided to fund the establishment of a dedicated telephone line linking the BBC's Serbian Service to Radio B92. This line is now operational and has enabled Radio B92 and its network of independent radio stations throughout the FRY to increase significantly the re-broadcasting of BBC World Service Programmes. We are currently considering what further assistance we can provide to the independent media in the light of the adoption on 20 October by the Serbian Parliament of a new repressive Information Law designed to restrict their operations severely.

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India to permit foreign journalists and representatives of human rights organisations unrestricted access to Jammu and Kashmir. [56716]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear to the Indian Government our commitment to human rights. We shall continue to encourage them to allow more visits by international human rights groups, including Amnesty
  271
  International and UN thematic mechanisms. We are not aware of any restrictions on visits to Jammu and Kashmir by foreign or other journalists.

  Visa Requirements
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visa requirements for persons from Taiwan seeking to enter and work in the United Kingdom; and in which currency they are required to pay for visas in Taiwan before departure. [56706]

  Mr. Fatchett
  All Taiwan passport holders require a visa to enter and work in the United Kingdom. The requirements will vary according to the type of work. For certain categories of employment, a Work Permit issued by the Department for Education and Employment is also required. Visas are paid for in local currency; in this case the New Tawain Dollar.

  Edgar Fernandes Case
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish, Italian and Maltese authorities in respect of the extradition of Mohammed Abdel Mohem Abbas Aly in the Edgar Fernandes case. [56683]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In September my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited Turkey and raised the extradition with the Chief of Police and the head of Interpol in Turkey, in Istanbul and with the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara. The Italian authorities are not involved in the extradition process. The Turkish and Maltese authorities used their Missions in Rome to hand over the extradition papers. The British High Commissioner and Vice-Consul in Valletta take every opportunity to raise the case with their Maltese counterparts. The latest occasion was on 7 October, when the High Commissioner made a formal approach to both the Attorney General and the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to stress the importance we attach to the processing of the extradition request as soon as possible.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Edgar Fernandes. [56682]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement I made during the Adjournment debate on 15 July 1998,Official Report, columns 549–52. Our Missions in Ankara and Valletta continue to press the Turkish and Maltese authorities to expedite the request for the Egyptian suspect's extradition. On 19 October the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Valletta informed our High Commission that they had received the extradition papers from the Turkish authorities on 16 October. The Maltese Attorney General will now consider the extradition request.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56812]
  272
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following officers of the board of the British Council were elected by the Board, with the prior approval of the Secretary of State.

  Position

  £

  Sir Martin Jacomb

  Chairman

  Remuneration

  10,850

  Baroness Helena Kennedy

  Chairman

  Remuneration

  35,000

  Virginia Bottomley MP

  Vice Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Patricia Hewitt MP

  Vice Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Lord Chorley

  Deputy Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Sir Martin Jacomb was re-appointed on 13 November 1997 for 9 months, in order to provide continuity to the Council during the new Director-General's settling in period. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) became Economic Secretary to HM Treasury in July and no longer sits on the board. The place is still vacant.

  Commonwealth Institute

  Position

  £

  David Thompson

  Chairman

  Remuneration

  15000

  John Cluff

  Governor

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Helen Robinson

  Governor

  Remuneration

  Nil

  The Commonwealth Institute are in the process of appointing 10 new governors.

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Position

  Dr. Frances Dow

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Sharwar Sadeque

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Julia Somerville

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Douglas Tallack

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Graham Benson

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-Healy

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-Healy was re-appointed on 9 February 1998.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Position

  £

  Menzies Campbell MP

  Vice Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Gary Streeter MP

  Vice Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Archy Kirkwood MP

  Vice Chairman

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Peter Frank

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Timothy Garton Ash

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Richard Page MP

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Mary Kaldor

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Gillian Merron MP

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Ieuan Wyn Jones MP

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Elizabeth Smith

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Georgina Ashworth

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Beverly Bernard

  Board Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) resigned and was replaced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) a Vice Chairman of Westminster Foundation for Democracy, on 9 December 1997. Beverly Bernard resigned as a board

  273
  member on 10 June 1998 and there is currently one vacancy on the board. Peter Frank and Timothy Garton Ash were re-appointed to the board on 22 May 1998.

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Position

  £

  Gael Ramsay

  Council Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Andrew Rowe MP

  Council Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Nik Gowing

  Council Member

  Remuneration

  Nil

  Ministerial Visit (Turkey)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Baroness Symons, had with the Turkish authorities during her trip to Istanbul. [56685]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During her trip to Turkey from 14 to 16 September, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met Ambassador Haktanir, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara. She had wide ranging discussions and raised the case of Edgar Fernandes. She agreed that our High Commission in Valetta would press the Maltese authorities to process the extradition without undue delay. Ambassador Haktanir undertook to monitor the progress of the extradition papers and to chase this as necessary. In Istanbul she met Hasan Ozdemir, the Chief of Police in Istanbul and the Head of Interpol in Turkey, specifically to discuss the case of Edgar Fernandes. Mr. Ozdemir agreed that Turkish Interpol would pursue the paperwork needed to extradite the Egyptian suspect from Malta.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to create a unit for missing persons within his Department. [56684]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Consular Division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office automatically pass details of inquiries about missing persons to consular offices abroad, where consular staff check their registration records, telephone and last known address and inform the inquirer of the outcome of such research. There are no plans to create a separate unit for missing persons.

  Responsibility for searching for missing people rests with the police. Where individuals go missing outside the UK, that responsibility lies with Interpol. We have no investigative powers or resources to trace missing persons. Consular Division advises inquirers to register the person as missing with their local police force, who will work with Interpol to establish their whereabouts.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has instructed Consular Division to check with those reporting missing persons whether they have turned up three months after they make the original inquiry.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) the British Embassy in Santiago and (b) his Department were informed by the Chilean authorities of the intended visit of Senator
  274
  Pinochet to the United Kingdom; and what information about Senator Pinochet's intended visit, and when, his Department communicated to the Home Office. [56695]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: In early September the embassy in Santiago was told informally of a proposed visit by Senator Pinochet to the UK. On 16 September the Chilean embassy made a routine request to the Foreign Office for the use of VIP facilities at Heathrow for Senator Pinochet's arrival. Senator Pinochet came on a private visit. As a Chilean citizen he did not need a visa to enter the UK. We do not as a matter of routine communicate information relating to VIP facilities to the Home Office and did not do so on this occasion.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department provided VIP facilities for Senator Pinochet's visit to the UK in October 1997; and if he will make a statement. [57233]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 27 October 1998,Official Report, columns 146–47.

  Amnesty International
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of Amnesty International are planned to be seconded to his Department; when they will commence working with Ministers; and by whom they will be paid. [57234]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Ms Harriet Ware-Austin from Amnesty International will commence work with the Human Rights Policy Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in December of this year. The costs of this attachment and that of Dan Seymour from Save the Children Fund will be met from the FCO'S Human Rights Project Fund.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from Amnesty International concerning(a) China and (b) Argentina. [57235]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Amnesty International, and other NGOs, briefed senior officials on their concerns about human rights in China in advance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent visit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the issue of human rights in his discussions with the Chinese leadership, and we continue to address these concerns through our bilateral and EU human rights dialogues with China. We liaise closely with Amnesty on these issues and Amnesty have participated in the dialogue process.

  We have received periodic reports from Amnesty International on their "Urgent Action" appeals in Argentina—as elsewhere. Amnesty International have not approached the Foreign Office recently with specific questions about Argentina. But we are happy to receive Amnesty representatives, if they have any particular points to discuss.

  Diplomatic Posts and Embassies
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the diplomatic
  275
  posts and embassies which are being examined for potential closure; and when he plans to announce his conclusions. [57237]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are considering several options to modernise our overseas network. This includes looking for opportunities for growth in areas of the world where Britain is under-represented. No decisions have yet been taken on closing any posts to release resources for redeployment elsewhere.

  British Business (Emerging Markets)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 20 principal emerging markets for British business. [57285]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Decisions on emerging markets for individual companies will be the responsibility of individual companies. In 1997, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Trade and Industry published the report of the Export Forum, which set out criteria for selecting priority markets for the work of the DTI, and UK Posts overseas.

  Falkland Islands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to enter into negotiations with the Argentinian President and his delegation over the status of the Falklands; and if he will make a statement. [57115]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falklands. This is not negotiable. There will be no change in the status of the Islands unless that is the wish of the Islanders themselves. In inviting President Menem we have made it clear to the Argentines that his visit will not be an opportunity to negotiate sovereignty over the Falklands.

  Overseas Estate
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British Government owned buildings and estates held abroad and the latest estimate of their value. [57238]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information requested, in respect of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's overseas estate, which comprises some 3,900 properties, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. 50 per cent. of our office and residential accommodation overseas is freehold. The provisional market value of the overseas estate in 1997 was £936.5 million.

  Further information on the Department's estate can be found in pages 71–72 of the FCOs Departmental report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Consul-General, New York
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the newspapers and journals in which he plans to place advertisements for the post of British Consul-General in New York. [57236]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The position of Director General of Trade and Investment US and Consul-General New York was advertised in The Sunday Times on 11 October, "The
  276
  Voice/Weekly Journal" on 12 October, Ethnic Media Group (consisting of the "Asian Times", "Caribbean Times", "New Nation" and "Eastern Eye") on 13 October, the Financial Times on 14 October, The Times on 15 October and The Economist on 16 October. It also appeared on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office web-site.

  European Union (Business)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [57730]

  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of business for November 1998

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  November 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  9

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  17

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  26

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  27

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30–1 December

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  November 3: Consumer Council

  Proposal for a Council Directive on the distance selling of financial services: Commission presentation.

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers: Common position.

  Consumer preparation for introduction of Euro. Public debate.

  Quality standards for instructions for use of technical appliances used in households: Council Resolution.

  Commission information campaign on food safety: Presentation by the Commission.

  Consumer dimension in the information society: Council resolution.

  EURO-MED consumer conference: Commission report.

  November 9: Internal Market Council
  Single Market Action Plan: Actualisation of the rolling programme—Updated version of the Scoreboard: Presentation by the Commission—Mutual recognition: Council resolution— Standardisation: Progress report.
  Legislative simplification: SLIM initiative: Report by the Commission, evaluation debated—Simplification of national legislation: Report by the Presidency on the outcome of the conference on "Better Regulation Serves Employment"— European Business Test Panel: Report by the Commission.
  Amended proposal for a Regulation on the Statute for a European Company (SE): Political agreement or progress report. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending

  277
  Directive 85/374/EEC on the harmonisation of the legislations of the Member States regarding product liability: Common position.
  Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 3259/94 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods: Adoption.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 92/109/EEC relating to the manufacturing and placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances: Common position.
  Follow up to the Commission communication on public procurement: Orientation debate.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of provisions relating to the implementation of Good Clinical Practice in the conduct of clinical tests on medicinal products for human use: (possible) Common position.
  Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 297/95 on fees payable to the European Agency for the evaluation of medicinal products: Adoption.
  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices: Common position.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society: Common position (possible item).
  Follow up to the Commission Communication on Commercial communications: Report by the Commission.
  Amended proposal for a 13th Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Company Law concerning take-over bids: Common position.
  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to cableway installations designed to carry passengers: Orientation debate.
  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting: Common position.
  Amended proposal for a 10th Directive of the Council based on Article 54(3)(G) of the treaty concerning cross-border mergers of public limited companies: Presentation by the Commission.
  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the specific aspects of the information society including electronic business communications: Presentation by the Commission.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access: Progress report.
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption: Common position (Common position).
  Commission communication on the Green Paper on the general principals of food law in the European Union: Presentation by the Commission.
  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to honey: Adoption (possible item).
  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption: Adoption (possible item).
  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweet chestnut puree intended for human consumption: Adoption (possible item).
  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption: Adoption (possible item).
  Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption: Adoption (possible item).
  278
  November 9–10: General Affairs Council (agenda can change up to a week before)

  Agenda 2000.

  Enlargement.

  Comitology (possible item).

  TACIS: Orientation debate (possible item).

  Poland: Adoption of the EU position for the Association Council (possible A item).

  Hungary: Adoption of the EU position for the Association Council (possible A item).

  Czech Republic: Adoption of the EU position for the Association Council (possible A item).

  Slovenia: Adoption of the EU position for the Association (co-operation) Council (possible A item).

  Russia: Report of the EU-Russia Summit.

  EU-USA: Preparation of the summit (possible item).

  Western Balkans.

  Indonesia.

  Africa.

  Middle East Peace Process (possible item).

  Algeria (possible item).

  Export controls: Assistance to the associated countries (possible A item).

  Preparation of the OSCE Ministerial Council.

  November 12: Health Council
  Communication from the Commission concerning the future framework for action in the public health field: Council Conclusions.
  Amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on injury prevention in the context of action in the field of public health: Common position.
  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on limits for exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields: Progress report.
  EU-US Task Force on communicable diseases: Council Conclusions following the 4th meeting on the Task Force in October.
  Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 92/73/EEC and 92/74/EEC concerning homeopathic medicine.
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: Discussion.
  Progress report from the Commission on the reduction of tobacco consumption in the Community: Progress report of exchange of views (possible item).

  November 16: Industry Council

  Report from the Commission on the competitiveness of European Industry: Presentation.

  Business services—Commission communication: Presentation.

  Results of benchmarking analysis—Financing Innovation— Skills—Logistics—Adoption of ITCs and organisational change: Presentation and (possible) conclusions.

  Sectorial issues and Commission communications (possible item).

  Commission communication—Competitiveness of the recycling industry: Presentation.

  Mid-term work programme for the organisation of an ongoing debate on industrial competitiveness: Debate.

  The follow-up of the recommendation of the BEST Task Force: Progress report.

  Information of the Presidency on the results of the Forum/Roundtable in Baden: Presidency conclusions.

  Results of the conference on supplier industries in Graz: Information by the Presidency.

  Structured dialogue with PECOs and Cyprus: Preparation of the meeting.

  279

  Proposal for a Council Directive combating late payment in commercial transactions: Debate, (possible) adoption.

  Shipbuilding—Monitoring report on aid to certain shipyards undergoing restructuring: Presentation.

  State Aid: Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down detailed rules on the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty: Debate, (possible) adoption.

  10th Monitoring Report on the control of aid to the steel industry: Presentation.

  Future of ECSC Treaty—Expiry of the ECSC Treaty: Commission communication—Financial activities—Non-financial Activities concerning the Steel Aid Code: (possible) Decision.

  Communication from the Commission on a global approach to promote regional and social conversion and to facilitate industrial restructuring in the Central and Eastern European Countries: Presentation.

  Competition policy—XXVIIth report on competition policy: Presentation.

  Electronic commerce: Oral report on the Ottawa Conference: (possible) conclusions.

  November 17: Culture Council

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community initiative for the "European City of Culture" event: (possible) Adoption or progress report.

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation (1st European Community framework programme in support of culture, 2000–2004): (possible) Common position or progress report.

  Culture and Employment: Debate.

  Cross-border fixed book prices in European linguistic areas: Report by the Commission.

  Evaluation of the MEDIA II programme: Report by the Commission (possible item).

  European audiovisual sector: Presidency report.

  Commission communication on the future of the audiovisual policy in the European Union: Public debate.

  Consultation process regarding the Green Paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors, and the implications for regulation: Report by the Commission.

  Council decision on an information infrastructure on audiovisual issues: Progress report or adoption (possible item).

  High level Audiovisual Group set up by Commissioner Oreja: Report by the Commission.

  November 20: Employment and Social Affairs Council

  Joint Employment report 1998: Debate.

  Commission Draft Employment Guidelines 1999: Debate.

  November 23: ECOFIN Council (provisional agenda)

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU.

  Taxes.

  SEM 2000/Fraud prevention—Protection of financial interests/Discharge in respect of the 1996 budget (Report from the Commission to the EP)/Court of Auditors' report on the 1997 EU budget.

  Employment.

  Agenda 2000.

  Financial services (possible item).

  Stability and convergence programmes (possible item).

  November 23–24 Agriculture Council

  Agenda not yet available.

  280

  November 24: Budget Council (provisional agenda)

  Draft general budget for the financial year 1999. (possibly) Draft supplementary and amending Budget for 1998.

  November 26: Youth Council

  Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Community action programme for youth: Common position or progress report.

  Pilot project on European voluntary service for young people: Report by the Commission.

  November 27: Telecommunications Council

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic signature: (possible) Common position. Political agreement on Articles (possible).

  Convergence of telecommunication sectors, media and information technologies: Elementary implications: Commission communication on the result of consultations and exchange of views.

  Globalisation and information society: Strengthening of the international coordination: Progress report.

  Commission communication on a Community policy in the field of frequencies: Presentation by the Commission.

  Proposals for Decisions concerning a second phase for IDA programme: Orientation debate and (possible) political agreement on 1 of 2 Decisions.

  Commission communication on the implementation of the relevant Community legislation on telecommunication: Presentation by the Commission.

  Management of the Internet: Progress report.

  November 30: Development Council

  Peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution.

  Tourism and development.

  Operational coordination.

  Evaluation.

  Indigenous peoples.

  Microfinance and development.

  Anti-personnel mines.

  Private sector in ACP countries

  Decentralised cooperation—NGO co-financing.

  Gender.

  Democratisation and Human Rights—Article 130W—Article 235.

  Renegotiation Food Aid Convention 1995.

  Coordination with a view to meetings of the WFP Executive Board.

  November 30-December 1: Transport Council

  Proposal for a Council directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures: (possible) adoption of a common position.

  Negotiations between the European Community and Switzerland on inland and air transport: Progress report/conclusion.

  Framework for a solution for the environmental problems caused by heavy goods vehicles: Policy debate, Commission communication expected (possible item).

  Proposal to amend Regulation 3820/85 concerning working time in road transport: Policy debate, Commission proposal expected (possible item).

  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States and amending Council Directive 96/53/EEC, as far as the maximum authorised weights in international traffic are concerned: (possible) Common position (possible item).

  Rail infrastructure: Policy debate/(possible) common position on specific directives (possible item).

  281

  Commission communication on the interoperability in conventional rail transport: Policy debate (possible item).

  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 82/714/EEC laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels: Policy debate.

  Implementation of Decision 1692/96 (TEN-Guidelines): Policy debate, Commission report expected (possible item).

  Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA): Policy debate, Commission report expected (possible item).

  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road: Policy debate.

  Commission Communication on common policy on manning if regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States—Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3577/92 on 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States—Proposal for a Council Directive on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States: Policy debate and (possible) Common position.

  Proposal concerning the RO-RO ferries: (possible) Common position.

  EU/US aviation relations—policy debate.

  Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport: Common position.

  Green paper "Civil aviation and the environment": Policy debate (possible item).

  Commission communication on air transport market: Policy debate.

  European Calendar: November 1998—April 1999

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  November 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  3

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  3–4

  Vienna

  EU/SADC Ministerial Meeting

  3–4

  Vienna

  Defence Ministers (Informal)

  4–5

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  16–20

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  17

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee (if necessary)

  20

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  26

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  26

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  27

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30–1 Dec

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  December 1998

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  1

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs and ECOFIN Council

  1

  Vienna

  Parliamentary Heads

  2

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–4

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  4

  Brussels

  Education Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  282

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  7–8

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11

  Vienna

  Political Committee

  11–12

  Vienna

  European Council

  14–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  January 1999

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  February 1999

  4–6

  Bonn

  Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Berlin

  Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs (Informal)

  18

  Brussels

  Research Council (possible)

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  25

  Brussels

  Internal market

  March 1999

  9

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (possible)

  13–14

  Reinhartshausen

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  15

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Special European Council (possible)

  24–25

  Frankfurt

  Asia-Europe Finance Ministers

  25

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Berlin

  Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers

  April 1999

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Barcelona III

  16–18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  23–25

  Mecklenburg

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Strategic Export Controls
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responses he has received to the consultation on the strategic export controls White Paper. [55060]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls was published on 1 July, the Department has received 52 responses from representatives of industry, non-governmental organisations and other interested organisations and individuals.
  283
  We are currently considering all the responses carefully as part of the process of further developing the proposals contained in the White Paper.

  Science Base
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the contribution of the science base to the UK economy as a whole. [55067]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The strength of Britain's science base is absolutely fundamental to the success of the UK economy. I plan to publish soon a Competitiveness White Paper which will demonstrate how the use and application of science is helping companies meet the challenges of the knowledge driven economy.

  The UK's future success depends crucially on a partnership between the science base and the commercial sector. Most importantly, it depends on the well-trained, skilled people produced by and working in our scientific centres.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the future of the Post Office. [55068]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received representations from a wide range of interested parties, including management and unions of the Post Office, the Post Office Users National Council and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. My officials have also received written views and, amongst others, met representatives of business users and distribution companies.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with Post Office trade unions relating to the structure and funding of the Post Office. [55075]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I maintain regular dialogue with the unions. They have been contributing fully to the work of the Review of the Post Office and are maintaining contact with the Review Team and the working groups, which are considering all aspects of the future of the Post Office, including its structure and funding.

  Aerospace Industries
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the restructuring of the aerospace industries. [55069]

  Mr. Wilson
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear since his statement on this subject with the German and French Heads of Government on 9 December last year, there is an urgent need to restructure the aerospace and defence industries in Europe.

  Although it is for industry to develop specific restructuring plans, we have undertaken to facilitate any sensible restructuring proposals as far as practicable.
  284

  European Assistance (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what forms of European assistance will be available to the Berwick-upon-Tweed area following the closure by Pringle of Scotland's factory there. [55070]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are four types of potential funding sources which could be accessed to finance a strategy for the economic regeneration of the Borough, from which over £2.5 million is currently available in the Berwick sub-region.

  Government Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings he has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of the co-ordination of Government policy on(a) the minimum wage and (b) fairness at work legislation. [55071]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Ministers regularly meet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss the co-ordination of Government policy.

  Energy Market (Regulation)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in achieving a fair system of regulation in the energy market. [55072]

  Dr. Howells
  We have made good progress. Following the publication of the Green Paper on Utility Regulation in March, we published a response to consultation in July which set out a series of commitments to improve regulation of all the privatised utilities, including gas and electricity. The Government intend to place the regulators under a new primary duty to protect the interests of consumers and to create new independent statutory Consumer Councils. We also intend a number of specific reforms in relation to energy regulation. These include the separate licensing of electricity supply and distribution, which will lead to greater competition in the electricity market, and the merger of Offer and Ofgas. Indeed on the last point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced the appointment of Callum McCarthy as the new combined gas and electricity regulator. We have recently published consultation papers on the detail of these and other changes, and will bring forward our proposals taking account of responses received.

  Manufacturing and Construction (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the Government's priorities for promoting manufacturing and construction in London. [55073]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's priorities in London, as elsewhere, are to help companies improve their competitiveness and innovate through the delivery of high quality business support services and initiatives.

  Fairness At Work
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the Fairness at Work White Paper. [55074]
  285
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department has received 474 responses, reflecting a wide range of views, to the White Paper on Fairness at Work, published on 21 May. I have placed a list of respondents in the Library of the House.

  Competitiveness UK Initiative
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of his Department's Competitiveness UK initiative. [55076]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The initiative produced a number of good ideas for promoting competitiveness which I will include in the White Paper on competitiveness later this year.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make a decision on the future of Parcelforce. [55077]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The future status of Parcelforce is being considered in the context of the Government's Review of the Post Office. The Government hope to announce their proposals shortly.

  Electricity Pricing
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the changes to be made to the setting of the pool price for electricity. [55078]

  Mr. Battle
  Recognising the inadequacies in the existing trading arrangements in October last year I asked the Director General of Electricity Supply (DGES) to look into the case for reforming them. The Government believe there is a need to build an electricity market which plays a full role in facilitating competition which people understand and trust and which is responsive to customer demands.

  In July of this year the DGES identified that there are significant problems with the existing pool arrangements and made proposals for new electricity trading arrangements which would effectively replace the Pool with arrangements similar to those used in other commodity markets. I have asked for work to be put in hand to develop and implement new trading arrangements using these proposals as the starting point.

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to promote the use of science, engineering and technology across Government. [55080]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The effective use of science, engineering and technology is one of my key priorities. The Government have already allocated an additional £1.4 billion over the next three years, including £0.4 billion from the Wellcome Trust, to restore the excellence of the Science and Engineering Base. The forthcoming Competitiveness White Paper will demonstrate that science is fundamental to helping UK companies address the challenges of the knowledge-driven economy.
  286
  Within Government we will seek to ensure that policy and regulation are always based on the best available scientific evidence. Lord Sainsbury and I will be working with Ministers in other Government Departments both to make sure the Chief Scientific Advisor's Guidelines on the use of scientific advice in policy making are fully and rigorously implemented and to improve public confidence in the Government's use of scientific advice.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr.Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the impact of current levels of sterling on manufacturing companies seeking to export goods. [55084]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have had a number of representations from manufacturing exporters about the strength of sterling.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of current interest rates upon the manufacturing sector. [55087]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government recognise that the level of the pound and, more recently, the impact of financial difficulties in Asia, have been causing problems for exporters and manufacturers. However, the Government's economic policy framework will create long-term economic stability and ensure that we do not return to the boom and bust cycles which have done so much damage to the United Kingdom's manufacturing sector in the past.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effects of current levels of interest rates on the profitability of Britain's industry. [55089]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's economic policy framework will promote long-term economic stability, and break with the cycle of boom and bust, and so establish the conditions for the long-term profitability of British industry.

  Clothing and Textile Industry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the clothing and textile industry on the prospects for the industry. [55088]

  Mr. Battle
  During the course of the year, DTI Ministers have received a number of letters about the position of the industry from companies, MPs, trade unions and trade associations. In addition, DTI Ministers have met with representatives from the textile and clothing industry and the unions.

  Part-time Workers Directive
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making on the implementation of the EC directive on part-time working. [55079]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We intend to take powers as soon as Parliamentary time permits to implement the Directive and to ensure equal pay for part-time workers. The
  287
  Directive will be fully implemented by the April 2000 deadline and we will aim to ensure the provisions are in place in good time for employers and employees to know the provisions and make arrangements.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to promote information technology on a local basis. [55082]

  Mrs. Roche
  This Government's aim is to ensure that the UK is recognised as a global leader in the Information Age. We therefore believe it is crucial that we encourage greater awareness and use of information and communication technologies (ICTS) by both business and individuals in the UK. Provision of advice on ICTs to small businesses at a local level is a core activity in the Department's Information Society Initiative (ISI) Programme for Business. This advice is provided by a UK wide network of local support centres which are based on Business Links and equivalent organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The IT for All initiative aims to raise awareness amongst the public of the benefits new technologies can bring in everyday life. About 3,000 local sites are currently listed on our database.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of grant his Department is paying to the RSA in 1998–99; and what plans he has for 1999–2000. [55853]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: The RSA budget for 1998–99 is £130 million. The Comprehensive Spending Review has set DTI's overall budget for the next three financial years. However, no decision has yet been taken on the allocations to individual programmes for 1999–2000.

  Unimerco
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors he took into account when deciding to provide a grant to Unimerco; what assessment he made of its effect on British competitor companies; and if he will make a statement. [56560]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The application for Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) from Unimerco Ltd. was appraised against the criteria of that scheme which covers employment, viability, industrial and regional considerations, UK net benefit and need for assistance. Those criteria were fully satisfied. As part of the RSA appraisal process, advice was provided by the Department's market specialists on the wider industrial background to the application and the company's marketing plan. The application was also considered by the West Midlands Industrial Development Board which brought a commercial perspective to the decision making process and paid close attention to the value of the project for both the regional and national economy. An offer of grant was made when the Department was convinced that the project would result in net benefits to the UK economy and that assistance was necessary for the project to go ahead.
  288

  Chile
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the promotion of British exports to Chile; [56568]

  (2) what measures he is taking to maximise United Kingdom trade with Chile. [56569]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The full range of Government overseas trade services are available for Chile. This includes support for trade missions and trade fairs. Chile is included in an on-going programme of promotional events on Latin America. My Department also has an Export promoter, seconded from the private sector, promoting opportunities in Chile.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the financial impact per capita of the population of the removal of Objective 5b funding in the North West region. [56913]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Northern Uplands Objective 5b 1994–99 programme, covering parts of the North West, North East and Yorkshire, covers a population of 0.374 million people and 118 million ecu (in 1999 prices) over the six years.

  It is not possible at this stage to estimate the impact of any potential changes to coverage until negotiations are completed on transitional arrangements and the Commission's broader rural development proposals.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the United Kingdom Government will participate in the forthcoming European Space Agency Future Launcher Programme. [55384]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The United Kingdom's participation in the European Space Agency's Future Launcher Technologies Programme will be considered when the likely benefits and costs to the United Kingdom have been assessed by the British National Space Centre with the help of the United Kingdom space industry.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the capacity of British industry to contribute to the European Space Agency Future Launcher Programme. [55385]

  Mr. Battle
  The British National Space Centre has asked the United Kingdom space industry for its views on the European Space Agency's proposed Future Launcher Technologies Programme and will assess the capacity of British industry to contribute to the programme in light of the industry's response.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the basis of his calculation of the jobs impact of the minimum wage. [55085]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 23 June 1998,Official Report, column 473.
  289

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet representatives of manufacturing industry to discuss the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. [55051]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I meet representatives of manufacturing frequently to discuss competitive issues. I am pleased, for example, to be attending the "Made in Sheffield" dinner tonight.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priorities he has identified for his Department in respect of assistance for small and medium businesses. [55083]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's single most important priority is to create and sustain a sound economic framework in which small firms can develop and grow.

  Specific priorities are to address barriers to SMEs, such as obtaining finance, inappropriate regulatory burdens and accessing business support.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1287, if he will estimate the year on year cost of the Working Time Directive to the Rover Group. [56520]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: No specific estimate has been made of the costs to individual sectors or companies. An assessment of costs for the whole of British industry is held in the Library of the House.

  Any cost of implementing the Regulations needs to be compared with the benefits of helping to combat stress and absenteeism by ensuring workers receive proper rest and so reducing costs to industry. The CBI estimate up to £25 billion was lost in 1996 due to absenteeism. The London School of Economics also estimates that current staff turnover levels cost employers up to £1.8 billion.

  Trade (Burma)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department's Asia-Pacific Advisory Group currently promotes trade with Burma. [56933]

  Mr. Wilson
  No.

HEALTH

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what views the United Kingdom representative at the Copenhagen Conference of EU Chief Medical Officers in September expressed concerning the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. [56168]
  290
  Ms Jowell
  The Department did not send a formal representative to the conference but funded the attendance of officials and experts. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jeremy Metters, chaired one of the preceding workshops on "elements of good practice in the use of antimicrobial agents". The conclusion of this workshop was that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters should be phased out. A preliminary report on the conclusions and recommendations emerging from the conference is available, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mental Health Care Groups
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create discrete mental health care groups within area health authorities. [56212]

  Ms Jowell
  None. We need to remove the "Berlin Wall" between health and social care in order to provide the most effective support for people with mental illness rather than create new barriers. That is why we issued, on 16 September 1998, a discussion document "Partnership In Action—New Opportunities for Joint Working between Health and Social Services" setting out our proposals to enable authorities to work better together.

  Dentistry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of funds allocated to Investing in Dentistry up to 30 September; which health authority areas have applied for funds to date; how much each bid for; and how many applications have been successful in each health authority area. [56489]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since the Investing in Dentistry initiative was announced in September 1997, grants totalling £6,161,352 have been approved. The table gives details of the health authorities that submitted Investing in Dentistry funding requests to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1997–98 and 1998–99 to date, the gross amount of funding requested and the number of applications approved.

  Investing in dentistry requests by health authority

  Health authority

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding requested (£)

  Avon

  4

  363,100

  Barnet

  —

  214,900

  Barnsley

  3

  97,700

  Bedfordshire

  2

  30,000

  Berkshire

  5

  175,000

  Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  396,000

  Birmingham

  1

  76,700

  Bradford

  1

  354,300

  Bury and Rochdale

  —

  33,100

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  —

  186,400

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  4

  396,400

  City and East London

  5

  290,800

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  7

  932,700

  County Durham

  3

  312,000

  Coventry

  —

  49,000

  Doncaster

  2

  119,400

  Dorset

  2

  55,400

  Dudley

  —

  39,500

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  6

  155,000

  East Kent

  —

  518,400

  East Lancashire

  1

  605,600

  East Norfolk

  3

  453,800

  East Riding

  6

  377,300

  291

  Investing in dentistry requests by health authority

  Health authority

  Number ofapplicationsapproved

  Gross funding requested (£)

  Enfield and Haringay

  —

  197,000

  Gloucestershire

  10

  457,900

  Herefordshire

  2

  60,000

  Isle of Wight

  2

  165,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  —

  267,000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  —

  207,000

  Leeds

  —

  492,455

  Leicestershire

  2

  162,100

  Lincolnshire

  2

  130,000

  Liverpool

  1

  147,100

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  51,100

  Morecombe Bay

  6

  183,000

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  2

  199,600

  Northamptonshire

  3

  70,000

  North Cheshire

  1

  50,000

  North Cumbria

  5

  309,300

  North Derbyshire

  1

  60,400

  North and East Devon

  6

  264,600

  North Essex

  2

  38,400

  North and Mid Hampshire

  5

  544,900

  North Staffordshire

  6

  214,500

  North West Lancashire

  5

  311,700

  North Yorkshire

  8

  550,900

  North West Anglia

  —

  90,000

  Nottingham

  2

  222,800

  Oxfordshire

  6

  242,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  5

  719,400

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  4

  209,700

  Rotherham

  6

  312,700

  Salford and Trafford

  2

  22,200

  Sandwell

  —

  151,000

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3

  162,100

  Shropshire

  7

  303,500

  Somerset

  5

  722,200

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  116,600

  South Cheshire

  7

  200,700

  South Essex

  1

  45,000

  South Humber

  2

  83,000

  South Lancashire

  1

  172,400

  South Staffordshire

  2

  143,000

  South West Devon

  8

  282,000

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  8

  888,800

  Stockport

  —

  14,000

  Suffolk

  6

  124,000

  Sunderland

  —

  207,620

  Tees

  —

  146,914

  Walsall

  —

  100,500

  Warwickshire

  —

  154,000

  West Hertfordshire

  1

  107,900

  West Kent

  2

  80,200

  West Surrey

  4

  791,600

  West Sussex

  5

  726,100

  Wigan and Bolton

  1

  194,000

  Wiltshire

  14

  1,128,600

  Wirral

  —

  77,000

  Wolverhampton

  —

  132,500

  Worcestershire

  1

  232,000

  Notes:

  1. Gross funding figures have been rounded up to the nearest hundred pounds

  2. Some gross funding figures may be inflated due to the inclusion of revised or re-submitted applications

  Agency Nurses (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agency nurses have been employed at NHS hospitals in the Greater London area during the last 12 months; and what was the cost of this employment. [56719]
  292
  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive does not record the numbers of agency nurses employed in NHS hospitals. The latest available figures show that in 1996–97, £108.8 million was spent employing agency nurses in NHS hospital trusts in Greater London.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many carers are themselves minors in(a) Staffordshire, (b) the West Midlands and (c) England; and what proportions such figures represent of (i) all carers and (ii) all minors in the latest year for which figures are available. [56660]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996, the Office for National Statistics published results of the first national study based on a sample of young carers taken from the general population. Copies of this report "Young carers and their families" are available in the Library.

  It was estimated from the research that there were 32,000 young carers in Great Britain aged 8 to 17, representing 0.5 per cent. of the population in this age range. Estimates for England and by region are not available.

  The 1995 General Household Survey estimated that the number of informal carers in Great Britain aged 16 and over was 5.7 million.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirements are placed on employers of nurses to provide time and pay for continuation training; what action is taken to ensure that nurses do not have to fund their own continuation training nor undertake it in their own time; and by what means he monitors the performance of employers in respect of continuation training of nurses. [56436]

  Mr. Milburn
  The level of investment in the continuing professional development of National Health Service staff is a matter for employers. We expect them to have personal development plans in place for the majority of professional staff by April 2000. We shall be considering the need for any other measures in the light of the response to our consultation document; "A First Class Service".

  Clinical Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many clinical psychologists are employed in the NHS in grades(a) assistant psychologist, (b) trainee psychologist, (c) grade A psychologist and (d) grade B psychologist; [56506]

  (2) what is the current age distribution of clinical psychologists; [56448]

  (3) if he will list the number of clinical psychologists at each spinal point of their wage scale; [56447]

  (4) how many clinical psychologists currently work in the NHS. [56445]
  293
  Mr. Milburn
  There are 3,800 clinical psychologists (whole time equivalents) working in the National Health Service. It is not possible to say how many were employed in each grade or spine point because

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): scientific, therapeutic and technical staff by age bands in the clinical psychology area of work in England as at 30 September 1997

  whole-time equivalents

  All clinical psychology staff

  Manager

  Scientist

  Scientific Officer

  Technician

  Student/ trainee

  less than 25

  260

  *

  70

  140

  10

  40

  25 to 29

  790

  *

  330

  180

  10

  270

  30 to 34

  670

  10

  530

  50

  *

  70

  35 to 39

  540

  20

  470

  30

  10

  20

  40 to 44

  530

  20

  460

  30

  10

  10

  45 to 49

  520

  30

  450

  20

  10

  *

  50 to 54

  330

  20

  290

  10

  *

  0

  55 to 59

  110

  10

  100

  *

  *

  0

  60 to 64

  30

  0

  30

  *

  0

  *

  65 +

  *

  *

  *

  0

  0

  0

  Unknown

  10

  *

  10

  0

  0

  0

  All staff

  3,800

  120

  2,730

  480

  50

  420

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  2. * 5 or less and greater than zero

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census 1997

  Abortion Costs (Barnet)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost of a first trimester abortion by vacuum aspiration in the Barnet Health Authority in 1997. [56903]

  Ms Jowell
  The average cost of a first trimester abortion by vacuum aspiration in the Barnet Health Authority in 1997 was £300 for a day case episode.

  Childbirth Costs (Barnet)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost of childbirth in the Barnet Health Authority in 1997, including the cost of ante-natal and post-natal care. [56898]

  Ms Jowell
  The average cost of childbirth in the Barnet Health Authority in 1997, including the cost of ante-natal and post-natal care is approximately £2,000.

  Young People (Housing and Social Services)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve housing and social services provision for 16 and 17 year olds who are no longer able to remain in the parental home and who are not in paid employment. [56453]

  Ms Jowell
  We are looking at ways in which local authorities can make better and more effective provision for looked after children who are leaving care. We will set out our proposals when we publish our responses to the Children's Safeguards Review.

  Training
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many associate specialists appointed in each of the 294
  information is now broken down into the five categories shown in the table (manager, scientist, scientific officer, technician and student/trainee).

  last five years have had their training accredited; and what proportion of those entering ENT clinics have had their training accredited. [57162]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of offering free sight tests to all people of Afro-Caribbean origin resident in the United Kingdom who are currently not exempt from payment. [57224]

  Mr. Milburn
  Assuming that the same proportion of Afro-Caribbean residents are eligible for free National Health Service sight tests as in the population as a whole and they have their sight tested at the same frequency, about £3 million per annum.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the relative risk of contracting new variant CJD from(a) cross- contamination between patients from hospital surgical instruments used in tonsillectomies and appendectomies and (b) eating beef on the bone. [57200]

  Ms Jowell
  After careful consideration of the case in which the abnormal prion protein associated with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) was detected in the appendix of a patient who had subsequently died of the disease, the Joint Working Group of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) concluded that given all the circumstances surrounding the use of surgical instruments the risk to other patients was minimal.
  295
  SEAC has subsequently reviewed the implications of this incident for the risks generally of transmission of nvCJD through surgical instruments. The Committee concluded that because so little is known about the infective agent further studies were needed before a definitive assessment of risk could be undertaken.

  Our decision to ban the sale of beef on the bone was taken in the light of advice from SEAC and taking account of the views of the Chief Medical Officer. This advice, together with the Government's response, is published, and copies are available in the Library.

  The very limited information about risks in either case means that it is not possible to make any meaningful comparison of the risk of contracting nvCJD through contaminated surgical instruments and eating beef on the bone.

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children below the age of five years were diagnosed as being autistic in each year since 1970. [56975]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the number of children below the age of five years diagnosed as being autistic is not held centrally. It is for the local statutory authorities to determine the needs of children with autism in their area and work together effectively to ensure that these needs are met.

  Sudden Death Syndrome
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from(a) organisations and (b) hon. Members regarding Sudden Death Syndrome. [57136]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers have received twenty-eight letters about sudden death syndrome, almost all of which were from, or on behalf of, representatives of the organisation Cardiac Risk in the Young. Of these, 20 were from hon. Members and the remaining eight were from members of the public.

  Most of the representations received pressed for wider recognition of the impact made by sudden death, particularly in the young, and included requests for consideration of funding under the Section 64 scheme.

  Cardiac Disease (Young People)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is supporting into the treatment of cardiac disease in otherwise healthy young people. [57134]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department funds a comprehensive programme of research and development into the treatment and prevention of heart disease, though nothing specifically on treatment for this group of people.

  The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into clinical issues. The Council is always open to new sound scientific proposals, in competition with other applications.
  296

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the number of NHS trusts which provide MRI scanning and (b) the number of trusts which use private companies to provide that service. [57117]

  Mr. Hutton
  No statistics are held centrally on the provision of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning services in the National Health Service. However we estimate that MRI services are provided by approximately 150 NHS trusts and approximately 50 privately owned scanners are used by NHS patients.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS trusts planning to provide new MRI services over the next five years; and, of these, how many intend to use private companies to provide that service. [57116]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Professions Allied to Medicine
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people working in professions allied to medicine who have left the NHS over the past five years; and what proportion of the total NHS workforce in those professions this figure represents. [57118]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not collected centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to the 15th Report on Professions Allied to Medicine issued by the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (January 1998) for statistics about the number of Professions Allied to Medicine leaving the National Health Service; copies are available in the Library.

  Pain Killers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into the relative effectiveness of(a) dextropropoxphene used in combination with paracetamol and (b) paracetamol alone in acute pain relief. [56543]

  Ms Jowell
  All applications for marketing authorisations to place a medicinal product on the market must be supported by data showing the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. The Medicines Control Agency assesses this data and permits a product to be placed on the market only if it is satisfied that the data submitted by the applicant prove the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. The Medicines Control Agency does not, however, make any assessment of comparative efficacy of any medicinal product.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Countryside Stewardship
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of applications for
  297
  management agreements under the countryside stewardship scheme were rejected in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 to date. [56549]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: In 1996, 2,584 Countryside Stewardship applications were received and 1,135 agreements offered (43.9 per cent); in 1997, 2,217 applications were received and 1,197 agreements were offered (54 per cent.); and, in 1998, 2,444 applications were received and we plan to offer approximately 1,344 agreements (55 per cent.). The approved applications were those which offered best value for money; the rejected applications include those which were ineligible.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the implications of budget reductions on the countryside stewardship agri-environment scheme. [56667]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The Countryside Stewardship budget has increased annually, enabling new agreements with a first year cost of £5.9 million in 1997 and £6.5 million this year to be approved.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is presently being taken by his Department to promote countryside stewardship in Dorset. [56665]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The Ministry is consulting interested local organisations and statutory bodies to identify the priorities for the scheme for the coming year. We will also clarify the scale of funding available and thus the number of applications it would be reasonable to consider.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much of his Department's budget has been allocated to the countryside stewardship agri-environment scheme in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; [56666]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the budget allocation to the countryside stewardship agri-environment scheme. [56668]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 October 1998]: The financial provision for the Countryside Stewardship scheme for payments to agreement holders in 1998/99 is £21.2 m. The budget for the scheme in 1999/2000 is still under consideration but it will be an increase on this year.

  Piers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy for the protection of seaside resort piers and esplanades from coastal erosion. [55707]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy aims to reduce the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of adequate and technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defences. Local authority proposals for coast protection capital works which protect seaside resort piers and 298
  esplanades or where piers or esplanades contribute to coastal defence may be considered for approval under the Coast Protection Act 1949 and for funding assistance.

  Recycling
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of paper used by his Department is recycled. [55721]

  Mr. Morley
  All the paper used by this department is either recycled or made from sustainable managed forests and is elemental chlorine free and made without the use of chlorine gas. According to the suppliers, about 1 per cent. of the paper provided during 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 was recycled.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the Environment Agency's regional flood defence business plans for the South West; and if he will make a statement. [55719]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware that the Environment Agency has put together a business plan which sets out options for the programme of flood defence work that needs to be done in the South West region. The Government set the strategy but a Government assessment of such plans would in practice amount to another level of approval and undermine the proper responsibility of the Agency. I shall be writing to the Chairmen of all Regional Flood Defence Committees about strategic flood defence priorities in the wake of the Report by the Independent Review Team on the flooding that occurred at Easter this year, and the business plan will need to take account of that.

  Supermarket Produce
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the volume of produce wasted annually as a result of rejection by supermarkets solely on grounds of appearance; and if he will make a statement. [56350]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: I have made no such assessment. These are matters for resolution between supermarkets and their suppliers and customers.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 655–56, what progress has been made in identifying the implications for organic farmers of cross contamination with pollen from genetically modified crops. [56357]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 1998]: The research referred to is to be conducted by the John Innes Centre in conjunction with Elm Farm Research Centre. A contract for this work is expected to be finalised in the near future. The work is expected to take 5 months and the results will then be considered by MAFF and the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS).

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Colyton Lord Colyton —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Seat Belts
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take any further steps to alert drivers and passengers in motor vehicles to the liability that may arise, by reason of contributory negligence, through a failure to wear seat belts when the vehicle in which they are travelling is involved in an accident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, it is a well-established fact that wearing a seat belt reduces the risk or the severity of an injury in a road traffic accident. Failure to wear one could indeed reduce an award for damages if it could be shown that the injury would have been less severe if the seat belt had been worn. In most cases, wearing a seat belt is also a legal requirement.
In any claim for damages in respect of injury or loss the principle of contributory negligence arises. It is a long accepted and well understood principle of civil law. A recent government campaign has highlighted the dangers that can occur when seat belts are not worn, and more of these campaigns are planned.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But is he aware that most people are ignorant of the fact that grave consequences can arise in the civil courts as a result of not wearing seat belts, because in certain circumstances damages could be reduced by as much as 50 per cent.? Does he agree that previous campaigns by successive governments have not highlighted that important factor? Does he further agree that the time is overdue for a campaign to alert people to the real sanctions which can apply—namely, those referred to in my Question—and that it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that seat belt legislation becomes effective?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the recent safety campaign on wearing seat belts in the back of cars was probably one of the most hard-hitting and effective which the Government have run. It certainly had an effect on the number of people wearing seat belts. Unfortunately, even now less than 50 per cent. of adults wear seat belts
2074
in the back of cars. The contributory negligence aspect in court cases would differ from case to case, but in any future campaign we shall bear it in mind and try to bring it to the attention of the public as one of the consequences, and financially possibly a larger consequence than a simple fine.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 17 years ago the late Lady Birk, a distinguished Labour Front Bencher for a dozen years or more, admitted to your Lordships that despite favouring the compulsory wearing of seat belts, her life had been saved by not wearing a seat belt? Her car was in a collision and she was thrown out to safety on a grass verge. But the front of her car was totally crushed, as she would have been had she been belted in. Is that by no means unique incident not hard to reconcile with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware of that situation. There are very few cases in which not wearing a seat belt has avoided injury. However, statistics show that in the vast majority of cases the wearing of seat belts can reduce risk. The courts in considering such cases will take into account the size of the risk and in many circumstances suggest that not wearing a seat belt contributed to the injury.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since I have become ancient I use black cabs fairly frequently. Is my noble friend aware that often the seat belts are difficult to put on and sometimes do not work at all? I suggest that the owners of black cabs and mini-cabs should be urged to ensure that their seat belts are wearable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, even though I have not quite reached my noble friend's advanced years I sometimes find my dexterity lacking in the back of some taxi-cabs.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must rapidly rephrase that and return to seat belts! The responsibility is on the cab-owners to ensure that seat belts in the back of the cab are workable and usable. That is the case with drivers of cars which are required to have such belts.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said about the effectiveness of seat belts. However, is it not the case that under certain conditions certain people—for instance, the very old and the very young, those who have been injured and perhaps pregnant women—are doubtful about their relationship with the law as regards seat belts? Can the Minister give any guidance to those who are uncertain about whether they should travel in a vehicle when they find the belts uncomfortable or threatening during their period of injury and so forth? Can he give guidance on the difficulty which may be faced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the law requires all people travelling in a car fitted with seat

2075
belts to use them. If that caused much discomfort it would be a matter of personal judgment not to travel by car. Such circumstances are limited. In many cases it may be uncomfortable or difficult to wear a seat belt, but it is still substantially safer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House his view of rear seat belts?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my view of rear seat belts is that passengers in cars fitted with them should use them, and that is indeed the law.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why according to the law must one wear a seat belt in the back of a taxi while the driver need not do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would need to take advice on that matter. However, I understand that the drivers of all cars, including black cabs, must wear a seat belt.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation is clearly governed by taxi regulations rather than the law to which I have referred. I will rapidly retreat and let the noble Earl know the reasoning behind it, if any.
Lord Acton: My Lords, have any surveys been carried out to ascertain whether passengers other than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the Minister himself use seat belts in the back of taxis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I should talk about the back seat of taxis any more! In general, surveys show that for vehicles as a whole just under 50 per cent. of adults use a seat belt. It is a legal requirement to wear them where they are fitted.
Lord Meston: My Lords, are any reliable statistics held by the insurance industry or elsewhere relating to the number of awards or settlements which have been discounted by contributory negligence? If there are reliable statistics should they not be further publicised?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of statistics in that form. Should they be in that simple form, clearly they should be given greater publicity. The problem is that the degree of contributory negligence will vary from case to case.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, bearing in mind the alarming fact that, despite all the campaigns, less than 50 per cent. of people are wearing seat belts, is it not necessary, as I indicated before, to inject a measure of urgency into a campaign to boost the wearing of seat belts by emphasising the dire consequences that can occur if they are not worn?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have said already to my noble friend that in future campaigns we shall certainly
2076
take that aspect into account. Whether in the literature or the television campaigns, I am sure that it will feature in future.

Millennium Dome
3.10 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What new information they can give on the Millennium Dome, with particular reference to means of access, parking arrangements, contents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the new Millennium Experience Company's annual report and financial statements for 1997–98 were published on 30th July and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The company's corporate plan for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 was published in August and copies of that are available in the Libraries. I understand that the Millennium Commission has today laid copies of its annual report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Good progress is being made on all aspects of the transport arrangements for the dome. In particular, the Government welcome London Transport's recent appointment of Bechtel to manage the completion and commissioning stages of the Jubilee Line extension, and its confirmation that it will open in good time for the millennium experience.
I understand that the London Borough of Greenwich has recently approved the principle of the New Millennium Experience Company park-and-ride strategy. Overall, I am happy to report that the millennium experience, both at the dome and around the country through the associated national programme, is developing extremely well. The installation of the content of the dome has already begun on time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does it not strike the noble Lord as being rather odd that in this age of spin doctoring, carefully contrived messages and masses of paper, there is still very little understanding throughout the country as to what will emerge in the dome at the end of the day? For example, is there to be any sign or token of the anniversary which it commemorates; or alternatively, will there be in any way a stage to show British skills? So far, little is known on those subjects?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure from the noble Lord's question whether he deplores spin doctoring or asks for more of it. It has always been planned that the details of the content of the dome will be made public over a period of time. We do not want to have everything known more than a year in advance.
As regards the anniversary which the dome celebrates, as the noble Lord knows, one of the zones is the spirit zone. The content of that is being developed

2077
in conjunction with the Lambeth Group which is chaired by the personal chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what plans are being made for parking and other facilities for severely disabled people within the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will be parking facilities for severely disabled people, and only severely disabled people, in the dome area.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a dome has been marking the birth which this dome celebrates since the Great Fire of London in the building of St. Paul's? It would be more fitting if, instead of looking like a giant mushroom, the new dome, like the old dome, had a cross on top of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his aesthetic and architectural judgments. Many other people who have seen the dome—which, strictly speaking in architectural terms, is not a dome—are very excited about it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord say more about the opportunity being given to the Christian Churches within the spiritual content of the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question. The spirit zone within the dome is being developed in consultation with the Lambeth Group which is chaired by the personal chaplain of the Archbishop of Canterbury and includes representatives of all faiths in this country. In addition, the noble Lord may be aware of the announcement made earlier this month about the candle ceremony which is planned for the beginning of the new millennium. It is to be observed all round the country and at the dome.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the masses, other than the disabled, will be able to get to the dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, I can give that assurance. We have confirmation that the work on the Jubilee Line extension, which is planned to take 60 per cent. of visitors to the dome, will be completed in good time for the millennium. As I said, the park-and-ride facilities which are necessary are going ahead as planned.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is it not the case that even if the Jubilee Line is completed—and we all hope that it is—it is totally distorting the investment priorities of London Transport and therefore other tube lines are being totally neglected? On the Northern Line and other lines, people are travelling in appalling conditions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a user of the Northern Line, I agree that it leaves much to be desired. Of course, the Jubilee Line extension was planned a long time before the suggestion of the
2078
Greenwich site for the dome. It is important for the economic development of the whole of eastern London and is justified on those grounds alone.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in view of pending competition inquiries involving Sky Television, British Airways and the Ford Motor Company, all large donors to the Millennium Dome, does the Minister not agree with me that there is a potentially serious conflict of interest between the role of Mr. Peter Mandelson as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his role as chief fund raiser for the dome? Does the Minister not agree further that the prospects for the dome would be greatly enhanced if it were declared a Mandelson-free zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have indicated already in answering questions on the dome that I do not propose to intervene in other noble Lords making jokes on the subject. However, the noble Lord made two serious points which I shall answer. First, the shareholder, Peter Mandelson, is not involved in the detailed negotiations or indeed in the negotiations in principle on sponsorship within the dome. That is the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company. Secondly, the noble Lord asked about possible conflicts of interest. I assure the noble Lord that on each occasion that matters concerning sponsors of the dome have arisen in his department, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken proper advice. So far he has been advised that there is no conflict of interest, but if he were advised that there were a conflict of interest, he would certainly not take part in anything which would give rise to such a conflict.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I should draw his attention to the fact that we are beyond the half-way mark for Questions.

Regional Eurostar Services
3.18 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce whether the north of London Eurostar trains will be used for services north of London or, suitably shortened, for services between Paris, Brussels and Heathrow.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his statement of 3rd June, the train operator consortium has been asked urgently to review the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to report before the end of the year.

2079
We understand that the train operator consortium is simultaneously considering the feasibility of a Heathrow service. It is intended that a statement regarding the reviews will be made to Parliament before the end of the year.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting Answer. Is he aware that part of the consortium carrying out that study is British Airways which naturally wants the set of trains to go to Heathrow? The same set of trains are required to go north of London. Would it surprise the Minister if it were demonstrated in that study that north of London services would not be viable without a subsidy? He is probably aware that Virgin trains, the Labour Party's special friend at Blackpool, has offered to operate a service north of London without subsidy. Will the company be given an opportunity to operate that service if the subsidy request is zero as opposed to the other request which may be higher?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that British Airways, along with National Express Group, SNCF and SNCB—the French and Belgian railways—are party to this consortium. However, I welcome the involvement in an integrated transport sense of British Airways in surface transport. The feasibility studies will be objective and they will reach a conclusion which I should not like to pre-empt or predict today.
Virgin has run a campaign saying that it will run regional services north of London without public subsidy. Quite what that means when it says that it will have to have the regional Eurostar trains, which are the same trains that the consortium is considering, I am not sure. It is not the only option for running a service to Heathrow. Clearly, if the north of London service proves feasible, we shall move on from there to consider the operators of that service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, would not certain railway companies be better advised to make a good job of running the services they have at present rather than thinking of running new ones?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister made his view clear on that matter with regard to Virgin and other operators. Clearly we wish to see some improvement of the current operators, but we want also to look at options for improving and extending the Eurostar service. That is what the consortium is considering and I hope to make a Statement before the end of the year.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there will be grave discontent in the north of England and in Scotland if regional services are delayed in order to let the Heathrow services go ahead first? Is he also aware that considerable track improvements need to be put in place before the Heathrow service to Paris and Brussels—however desirable it may be and I agree that it is desirable—can
2080
be put in place? Is it not therefore a matter of timing, with the regional services coming first and the Heathrow link second?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are track aspects and track difficulties in both the north-south route and the Heathrow route which Railtrack needs to address and which need to be involved in the feasibility study. The first question is not timing, but whether either of those services is feasible. That is what the current study is designed to find out.

Kosovo: OSCE Monitors
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements have been made to protect the OSCE monitors in Kosovo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the security of members of the OSCE Verification Mission to Kosovo is of paramount concern to Her Majesty's Government. That is why Britain pressed for the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution making clear to President Milosevic the responsibilities incumbent upon him to ensure the safety and security of all international personnel working in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO is working on options for a force to extract OSCE personnel in an emergency.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees made it clear at a contact group meeting on 23rd October that the overwhelming reason for a failure of refugees to return was their fear of being once again attacked by Serb security or police forces? The only reassurance UNHCR felt able to offer was the presence, on a 24-hour basis, of the monitors. Those monitors may be at risk of hostage taking and I therefore press the Minister to consider whether more urgent action might be taken.
When the refugees return, they will find nothing—no food, no shelter and no stocks for the winter. Will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of using NATO logistics to mount a major humanitarian effort of the kind that has been perhaps exemplified by the recent US airlift of blankets and health kits to Pristina in the last few days?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a number of important questions. I hope the House will forgive me if I take a little time to try to answer the points she raised.
The UK sent a joint Foreign Office Ministry of Defence team to Kosovo today to explore the scope for deploying an advance contingent of 50 British personnel to Kosovo to reinforce the Kosovo diplomatic observer

2081
mission. They will be integrated into the OSCE mission once it is properly established. We hope that that will be possible next week. Thereafter 2,000 monitors or verifiers will flood into Kosovo, along with the presence of the humanitarian agencies and the international staff from those agencies. We hope that we will be encouraging the displaced persons to return.
The noble Baroness again raises the question of the vulnerability of those monitors. NATO plans for ensuring that the mission members can be extracted in an emergency are being worked out as a matter of urgency. I am sure the House will understand that I cannot go into detail in relation to those plans, but I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully engaged in that process. The noble Baroness asked also about aid. I can see that the Front Bench opposite is becoming restless. Questions of aid are important and I shall be happy to answer them if other noble Lords wish to ask them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to ask two crucial questions, cutting aside the verbiage. First, is it not manifestly plain that the monitors cannot go in unless they are amply safeguarded by armed protection on the ground? Secondly, is it not equally plain that no monitors can go in while there is any prospect—and there is—that air strikes may be required?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that there have been 45 to 50 monitors in Kosovo so far this year. It is not verbiage to tell the House that a Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence team is going into Kosovo this very day to look at the logistics on the ground and, furthermore, that the NATO ambassadors are taking advice from military planners in regard to the safety of those people on the ground. It is not verbiage; these are matters of fact.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say how long it will be before the winter sets in and many of the upper villages become unreachable? Can she say also whether NATO engineers will have a mandate to use military equipment to open the routes during the winter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in relation to the last point I shall have to take further advice. I will write to the noble Lord on the use of military equipment for humanitarian purposes. The good news is that humanitarian agencies have been able to return to Kosovo. They have already resumed the delivery of aid. The weather is highlighting the urgency of that task. It is right that the UNHCR should focus on providing adequate shelter for those still living out of doors. There were 50,000 still living out of doors when your Lordships last discussed this issue. I am happy to say that the numbers are coming down and there are now only 10,000 people living out of doors. I am also happy to say that last week UNHCR managed to deliver aid to 100,000 needy people in Kosovo. I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to make those important points.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UN Security Council Resolution 1203, to which she referred, once again fell short of authorising military action in the event of non-compliance by Belgrade? Given that both China and Russia abstained from that resolution, what assurances can the Minister give the House that, should history repeat itself in Kosovo, we will not yet again be a witness to the spectre of a "dithering and disunited" international community, as the Prime Minister's press spokesman himself described it last week?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of what the UN Security Council resolution states. It fulfils an important function in reminding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of its responsibilities to ensure the safety of the OSCE mission members, the diplomats and the humanitarian workers. It spells out to the Kosovo Albanian leadership that it, too, must play its part in ensuring safety. However, the legal base of any military action is, of course, the same as it was when your Lordships last discussed the issue. The United Kingdom's view is that even without Security Council authorisation, military intervention can be justified when there is an overwhelming humanitarian necessity.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that NATO intends to keep up the pressure on President Milosevic. There has been serious progress towards compliance with UN Security Council resolutions but only because of the continuing threat of NATO action. NATO will not lower its guard. It remains ready to act.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I see very clearly the difficulty in which Her Majesty's present advisers find themselves. I suspect—the noble Baroness might like to confirm this—that our allies are rather less keen on getting involved than we would think correct. Is not the noble Baroness aware that the danger that many of us see is the kidnapping of, say, 20 or 30 observers which would then make it almost impossible to carry out air strikes. The more pressure that is put on Milosevic when civilians are involved, the more dangerous it will be for those same civilians. I promise that I am not trying to make difficulties for the Government; I am asking this question with the maximum amount of sympathy. Can the Minister help us on this?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I note the spirit behind the noble Earl's question. Of course there are difficulties in using civilian monitors in that way. If there were no difficulties there would not be an MoD/FCO team going in today to look at the problems and the UN ambassadors would not be consulting military planners over the safety of those monitors. It is because the dangers are so clearly recognised that that vital planning work must go ahead. I am sure that the noble Earl is not trying to tempt me to reveal those details. I have given the House the assurance that that work is under way. The difficulties described by the noble Earl are fully understood. The seriousness with which this matter is being discussed at NATO is understood by all participants.

Petition: Mr. Roger Viggers
3.32 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from Mr. Roger Viggers which prays that this House will call upon the Secretary of State for Social Security to backdate the war pension of Roger Viggers who, following a serious accident, was discharged from the Army in 1976 but did not receive a war pension until 1995.
Petition presented.

Business
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a question about business. Can the noble Baroness confirm to the House that she and the Government regard the report published this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as a matter of some importance? If they do so regard it, I hope that the House can be assured that the Government will take the report seriously. I hope that they will also feel that Parliament is owed an explanation as soon as possible of how the Government regard the report and what they intend to do. After all, one House will be deeply affected by the report whether or not it is accepted.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing the attention of the House to the important report by the independent commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The report's proposals are significant and worthy of lengthy debate and discussion. The noble Lord recommends, for example, that the proposals that he puts forward could not be considered for any general election until the one after next. I think, therefore, that this is not a matter for immediate discussion although it is clearly worthy of important discussion.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Government used adequate and proper methods to ensure that your Lordships were aware of the publication of the report. The arrangements appeared in a Written Answer in Hansard yesterday. The report was available in the Printed Paper Office this morning at 11 o'clock. It was accompanied by a statement from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 3 to 6,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 7 to 19,
Schedule 4,
Clause 20,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 21 to 23,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 24 to 32,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 33 and 34,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 35 and 36,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 37 to 45.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (119) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and

(c) Articles 1 and 2 of the Sixth Protocol,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46, 54, 55, 57, and 59.
Amendment No. 1 adds two substantive articles of the sixth protocol to the convention rights. This refers to the abolition of the death penalty, except for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war.
The other place added Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol in response to amendments tabled by my honourable friend Mr. McNamara. It was explained in another place that that would make it impossible for Parliament to reintroduce the death penalty in future, except for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war, without denouncing the convention itself. It was also explained that if those articles were added to the Bill, when we had not signed or ratified the sixth protocol, there would be a certain degree of lack of kilter with our international obligations.
Another place voted by a very large majority (294 to 136) on a free vote to go ahead with the amendments. Your Lordships may recall that we said at that stage that we would respect the will of another place and would initiate the signing and ratification of the sixth protocol.
Three other amendments in this group come from a decision announced in another place on 24th July by my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. He said that there had been a review of the law in this area and that following that review the Government

2085
intended to abolish the death penalty for military offences in all circumstances, whether in peace or war. Therefore, Amendment No. 54 inserts a new subsection into Clause 21 which provides that any liability to the death penalty under the service discipline Acts is to be treated as a liability to life imprisonment or some lesser penalty. This general statement will be supplemented by detailed amendments to the service discipline Acts when the next legislation to consolidate those Acts is announced.
Amendment No. 55 provides that the new subsection inserted by Amendment No. 54 comes into force when the Human Rights Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is consistent with our intention to proceed without delay to sign and ratify the sixth protocol.
Amendment No. 57 provides that the new subsection inserted by Amendment No. 54 has effect in any place in which the service discipline Acts have effect. This is needed because the Acts, unlike the Human Rights Bill, are not limited in their territorial extent to the United Kingdom. It is consistent with our intention, subject to their agreement, to extend the ratification of the sixth protocol to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I can tell the House that Jersey and the Isle of Man have already agreed and that Guernsey is this week debating a recommendation from the appropriate committee to do so as well. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, my party does not object to the Commons amendments. We shall not oppose them. I wish, however, to ask the Minister one question by way of elucidation. Before I do so, perhaps I may thank him for the helpful and quite lengthy letters he sent to myself and other noble Lords setting out what the various Commons amendments do. To receive such information when one is dealing with a Bill of this complexity makes the life of Peers in all parts of the House much easier.
The only question I wish to ask relates to the possible resurrection, if that is not the wrong word, of the death penalty as regards the Armed Forces. I am not sure that the noble Lord made that quite clear in his remarks and I may have misunderstood. Am I right in saying that it will be possible for Parliament to reintroduce the death penalty for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war without being in breach of the convention itself but only in those circumstances?
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, it will become apparent that I am not altogether in agreement with the views of my party, as so clearly expressed by my noble friend Lord Henley. I doubt whether I am really exceptional in finding considerable difficulty with the amendment. I have been an abolitionist for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I cannot recall a time when I was not opposed to capital punishment; nor do I remember now what made me an abolitionist. I suspect that it may have been
2086
the case of Craig and Bentley. What I do remember is that in my Oxford college hall there was a portrait—it may still be there—of Lord Goddard. I still feel a certain sense of unease upon recalling the sight of the former Lord Chief Justice above us in his frame.
At the same time I cannot accept that it is constitutionally proper or reasonable to end, against the apparent wishes of the Government and in a hole and corner way, the convention which has existed for so many years that Parliament, its Members voting according to conscience and on a free vote, decides whether and on what terms the death penalty may be restored.
The objection to the death penalty, I accept, is its irreversibility and, to a lesser extent, what many people may call its obscenity. But the irreversibility and obscenity of the death penalty pale into insignificance when compared to the irreversibility and obscenity of the death of innocent civilians in war or of innocent bystanders in civil disturbance, at the hands of public authorities, which we have to accept. The right not to be hanged for a crime is important to me, but that does not make it an absolute human right, philosophically valid in all circumstances. I suggest that in human rights terms it is not even on a par with the right to a fair trial or with the other rights given effect to by the convention.
I do not believe that these views will necessarily be all that far distant from those expressed by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in Committee. The noble Lord said then that the Government's view was that the issue of the death penalty was a matter of judgment and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they saw fit, and he believed that this was common currency among all the political parties. How wrong he was. He said that he believed that all political parties had taken a view on this particular aspect which was different from other human civil rights. He pointed out that the ratification of the sixth protocol would mean that we could not reintroduce the death penalty for murder, short of renouncing the convention. Six months later, almost to the day, the overwhelming majority of his party in another place voted against that advice and that of the Government by adding the sixth protocol to the Bill. Even before the vote was taken, Mike O'Brien, the junior Minister entrusted with the Bill, had said, when pressed, that the Government would take a yes vote as an instruction of the House and would proceed to ratify the protocol, notwithstanding the views which he and the Home Secretary had expressed. There was nothing in the amendment itself to show that it contained any such instruction. How many of those who supported the amendment actually heard the debate and knew that that was how the Government viewed it? On entering the Lobbies, how many were told that it was a vote against capital punishment?
Questions should be asked of the Government. Why the volte-face? The Minister has not made that clear, except by quoting the size of the majority in favour of the amendment. One possible reason strikes me

2087
forcefully. It could have occurred to the Government, at some time between the support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in November of the massive logic of the White Paper and the vote in May, that there was a political disaster of the dimensions of Niagara Falls lying in wait for them. The Government must have come to the conclusion that one unavoidable result of tinkering with the constitution like a cabinet of dysfunctional canons would be a referendum on the death penalty unless something was done to stop it. Clearly, the Government will have realised that such a referendum could not be fudged in the way the Welsh referendum was fudged and that the only safe way out of this constitutional impasse was to put the question of the death penalty into the hands of the Council of Europe. Only in that way might they escape the inevitable logic of their penchant for referendums.
The Minister may like to comment on the point of order which my honourable friend Mr. Grieve attempted to make during the Division in the other place. He claimed that after Mr. O'Brien had stated there would be a free vote, the Government Whips outside the Chamber were directing Labour Members to vote against the ostensible position of the Government and in favour of the amendment. Were the Government blowing hot and cold at the same time? Had they a hidden agenda? I believe they had.
The amendment we have received from the other place is an intolerant assault on the rights of Parliament. It demeans parliamentary democracy itself. We are all diminished by the Government's volte-face and their abandonment of principle. We have witnessed a trahison des clercs which does credit to no one.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I take a rather different view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. We support these amendments and pay tribute to the efforts of those in this House and the other place to carry them. Perhaps I may recall one or two background facts in view of the speech which the noble Lord has just made.
As I recall the position, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, moved amendments in this House to abolish the death penalty for military offences. There was a debate on them. When a vote was called there were insufficient Tellers on the Conservative side. A very small minority had spoken against the proposition. So there was no vote.
So far as the undemocratic upper House was concerned, the matter was carried without even a Division. However, I was one of those who said that because we were the undemocratic, unelected upper House it was right that the democratic other place should speak. It did overwhelmingly by 294 votes to 136 to extend the incorporation of the convention to include the as yet unratified sixth protocol to abolish the death penalty in peacetime and then to deal with the situation as regards military offences.
The protocol has been ratified by all the European Union states with the exception of the United Kingdom. It has also been ratified by 28 of the 40 Council of
2088
Europe states. So far as I am aware, the death penalty has been abolished from Ireland in the west to Turkey in the east in 40 member states. I understand the strongly held opinions to the contrary, although not recently expressed, even in the tabloid media, which is remarkable. But it seems to me that no one can say that what we are doing has not been carefully considered by both Houses or is out of line with general standards across the European system which includes a variety of legal and cultural traditions.
We pay tribute in particular to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. We are very glad to hear that the position in the Channel Islands is to be brought into line because we attach great importance to the implementation of the international human rights obligations to all parts of the United Kingdom and to the Channel Islands. We have made that clear in the past.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add one sentence. If I heard him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, described the amendment as an intolerable assault on the rights of Parliament. I do not understand how a sovereign Parliament can do such a thing. To put it no higher, is this not a most ingenious paradox?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, made about the letter which was sent to him. It is a tribute to the quality of the work which officials in the Home Office have demonstrated throughout the quite lengthy and difficult passage of this Bill. I shall certainly pass on his gratitude and thanks to them.
The noble Lord's specific question was: is it still possible to reintroduce the death penalty for acts in times of war or imminent threat of war? The answer to that is yes, because of Section 2 of the sixth protocol. That would not involve a denunciation of the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, asked for a number of matters to be attended to. I understand his points. They were fully explained to another place and it chose to come to its conclusion, on a free vote, 294 to 136, as I have already indicated. I do not think that this is a demeaning of parliamentary democracy. The noble Lord spoke of an intolerable assault on parliamentary democracy, or an intolerable insult, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a moment ago. Quite a lot of us in both Houses think that the death penalty is an intolerable insult to human rights. It is not for me to comment on unsubstantiated hearsay about who said what in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("any").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.

2089
Amendment No. 2 is an amendment of some importance because there was a very significant debate in your Lordships' House about the position of Churches and other religious organisations. Your Lordships will remember those debates quite vividly. There was quite considerable correspondence thereafter between, notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a number of the bishops and a large number of representatives, one way or another, of other religious organisations. We in the Home Office promised that we would pay careful attention to those representations and we have demonstrated that we have done so. We had a number of meetings, which were all extremely courteous and fruitful.
Your Lordships passed certain amendments to the Bill. We came to the conclusion that they ought not to remain in the Bill in their then form—I underline those words—and another place, on the 20th May, voted to remove them. We concluded that we should put our minds to a proper and proportionate response to the concerns of Churches and religious organisations. The important aspect of this present group—it consists of Amendments Nos. 2, 8, 14, 16 and 37—is Amendment No. 37. Perhaps I may quote it to assist your Lordships:
"If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right".
I have mentioned the matters that have been raised. In particular, without being unduly selective, I shall mention the concerns which were moderately pressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. We responded to his concerns in two ways: first, by provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act; and, secondly, by this present clause.
The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in these terms:
"The proposed new clause does not provide the firm guarantee of the Churches' continued doctrinal independence which we have sought, and you will appreciate that not all Church members will therefore be satisfied with it.
Nevertheless, I am grateful both for the new clause and for the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill which, together with the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor …. and the other amendments already made …. I believe constitute a significant improvement".
Cardinal Hume wrote:
"I also welcome the fact that the Government has moved an amendment to the Human Rights Bill in order to meet the more general anxiety we have expressed. I recognise the difficulty of framing an amendment in a way which is consistent with the Convention. I have sought the best legal advice and my initial assessment is that the amendment in the form tabled by the Government may be the best that can reasonably be achieved to reinforce the protection given by the Convention to the churches and other faiths under Article 9".
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, in an earlier part of my life, in particular in the Department of Social Security, I was defeated on many occasions by my noble kinsman Lord Russell on various social security Bills. On a number of occasions those defeats were reversed or partially
2090
reversed in another place. I remember that on each occasion my noble kinsman obtained part of what he asked for, he was grateful for it and welcomed the half a loaf rather than a full loaf. All I can say on this occasion is that we welcome the fact that the Government were prepared to move some way even if they were not prepared to move as far as this House originally sought to push them when my noble friend Lady Young and others made their original amendments to this Bill. On this occasion I thank the noble Lord and the Government for that half a loaf, even if it is not a full loaf.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, on behalf of the Churches I reiterate our gratitude to the Government for taking our concerns into account in these amendments in the way that has already been described. Perhaps I may take a little time to correct any misunderstanding that has arisen about the fact that Churches and other religious bodies have pressed for these amendments. The Churches are deeply committed to human rights, both in theory and practice, and support the incorporation of the European convention into United Kingdom law.
It is important to set the great body of human rights law that has arisen since the Second World War into some kind of historical perspective. Above all, it has been about the protection of the individual against tyranny—first the tyranny of the Nazis and then the tyranny of Soviet-style communism.
Societies contain not only individuals but institutions such as trade unions, schools, families and churches. If we are genuinely concerned about a plural society we must be concerned not only about the rights of individuals but also the legitimate claims of those intermediate institutions. Therefore it is particularly welcome that in Amendment No. 37 there is a reference to an organisation—in this case a religious organisation, itself or its members collectively. We very much welcome the fact that these intermediate institutions in the forms of Churches and other religious bodies have legitimate claims.
Let me give one brief example. Let us suppose that there is a voluntary aided school—either Jewish, Moslem or Christian—and the head teacher of that school decides to convert to another religion. If he claims a right to freedom of speech, and therefore the right to remain in his position, what would happen to the particular ethos of that voluntary aided school? Under the amendment which the Government have incorporated into this Bill, it is said that if the matter comes to court then the court must have particular regard to the importance of the right of the institution.
It is true that the amendment does not go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the religious bodies wanted. However, I hope that your Lordships will feel that a reasonable balance has been struck so that the individual's right to freedom will be measured against the legitimate claims of religious institutions. I reiterate the thanks of the Churches to the Government for hearing their concerns and incorporating them into these amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is very good to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. One can think of very few religious leaders who are more deeply committed to the cause of human rights. No one doubts at all that the Churches in this country are indeed deeply committed to the effective protection of human rights.
It seems to us that these amendments strike a fair balance. On the one hand, they draw attention to the particular importance of freedom of conscience, belief and religion, without seeking to distinguish between one religion and another, speaking of religious bodies generally, which seems very wise, so that there is no hierarchy or exclusivity, and being declaratory of what we have understood the convention in any case to have guaranteed; that is to say, not in any way trespassing on the regulation of divine worship, including the administration of the sacrament or admission to church membership or the priesthood, which are all plainly private matters. On the other hand, there are situations in which the Church is part of the state or exercises public functions; for example, in maintaining voluntary schools. In such a case the law already intervenes; for example, by forbidding racial discrimination in providing education in all schools, including voluntary schools. Even religious bodies are capable of breaching convention rights and cannot be above the law of the convention; and no one disputes that.
Therefore, it seems to us that this provision does not in any way seek to immunise religious bodies from the convention but respects freedom of conscience, belief and religion, drawing attention to the importance of that and maintaining the distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere. For all those reasons we support this balanced approach.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for those generous responses. We in Government did not ever think that the Churches or other religious organisations were seeking a selfish or partisan advantage. They had legitimate concerns. I am grateful to your Lordships for recognising that we have addressed them fairly and achieved the proper balance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 1, Page 1, line 16, leave out ("section or Schedule 1") and insert ("Act").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a technical amendment only. Clause 1(4) provides a power to amend Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to reflect protocols which have become binding on the United Kingdom. There is also a reference in Clause 21(1) of the Bill, so we took the view that a wider power was not needed. We thought the neatest way of doing this was to leave out "section or Schedule 1" and insert "Act". I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out ("under this Act").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 9, 17 to 21, 23, 32, 38 to 45 and 47 to 53. These amendments are entirely technical and relatively minor. Their purpose in the main is to ensure that the Human Rights Bill is consistent with the Government's devolution legislation; that is, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to enable the devolution legislation to work effectively. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 38, 39, 40 and 41 enable evidence of Strasbourg judgments to be conveniently introduced. The rest of the amendments are entirely technical. They are concerned with the status of, for instance, certain types of Order in Council and relate to definitions of, for instance, Northern Ireland Ministers. Unless your Lordships particularly require an explanation of a specific amendment—I see vigorous shaking of heads in the negative and I hope I can take a hint—I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 2, Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("(aa) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland;").
6 Page 2, line 18, leave out ("Lord Advocate or").
7 Page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("(b) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i) which deals with transferred matters; and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force.").

8 Page 2, leave out lines 22 to 35.
9 Clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—
("(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him),

(b) a member of the Scottish Executive,

(c) a Northern Ireland Minister,

(d) a Northern Ireland department,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9. These amendments have already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 5, Page 3, line 35, leave out ("an application made to the court") and insert ("giving notice").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. These also are technical amendments to Clause 5 relating to whether or not notification is required to the Crown when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility. They are entirely technical. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. l0.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome these amendments, as I had intended to welcome the previous group of amendments but was somewhat slow to get to my feet. I wish to raise one practical issue in relation to the relationship between Amendment No. 9 and these amendments.
I may be wrong, but I understand that Clause 5, as now amended, entitles the Crown to notice of the consideration of whether a declaration of incompatibility is to be made, and then, under subsection (2), gives the Minister of the Crown and various other parties, who now include a member of the Scottish executive and a Northern Ireland Minister, the right to intervene. I am interested in exploring the practicalities of how the Scottish executive, the Northern Ireland Minister and the Northern Ireland department will become aware of the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility being made. No obligation is set out on the face of the Bill to give notice to other parties in the same way as to the Crown. One possible solution might be for the Crown to undertake to pass on such notice to the other parties involved. I am sure that could be done administratively.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we welcome what are undoubtedly perfectly sensible technical amendments. However, I wish to raise one matter. Under the amendments that have just been passed and under these amendments, it is obviously sensible for the governing authorities of the country to be given notice and for the Crown to be given adequate notice of the right to intervene when a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, whether in the context of the devolution legislation or under the Human Rights Act. It is troubling that there will be no body that is able to represent anyone other than the individual victim or the Crown or government body concerned except in the context of the Northern Ireland Bill, where, as we understand it, the Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland will be able to intervene, playing a public interest amicus role.
I was re-reading an important essay written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when in opposition. He deployed the case for a human rights commission very clearly. That is water under the bridge at the moment as far as concerns Great Britain, but I wonder whether the Minister can say something about
2094
how he sees the amicus curiae role of third party interest groups able to put in their submissions, in addition to the Crown's submissions, when issues about declarations of incompatibility are in issue. It is quite right that the Crown should be in a preferred position and have an automatic right of intervention, but does the Minister echo the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at an earlier stage when he said he hoped that the courts would be generous in permitting third party human rights organisations to be able to make their representations, in addition to the victim him or herself.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, originally this was simply a technical amendment because no notice is required to be served on the Crown. However, I have taken note of the noble Lord's question. I hope I can undertake that, if there is a gap in the appropriate notification to, for example, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish parliament, that will be attended to in the rules as provided for in Clause 5(2). I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has made a specific point and one which we need to bear particularly in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is casting his net a little wider as regards this amendment. We have been together now for not quite 40 years—although it sometimes feels like it. I ought to point out that there is nothing at all—and I am saying this on the record for the noble Lord's legitimate, though subterranean purpose—to stop interest groups assisting individuals who may bring proceedings or making their views known to the Crown.
An important aspect of the development of judicial review and related proceedings in this country—and this echoes what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said quite plainly—is how much more flexible and open the courts have been in allowing various interest groups the amicus role. I can give your Lordships one illustration in that respect. I have in mind, for example, the time when NACRO performed an extremely helpful role in the very thorny question of the balancing of rights of those who have been convicted of paedophile offences to live reasonably with the rights of the community to know of their offences. That was a step forward and one in the continuing process. On the basis of the assurances that I have given to the noble Lord about the rule-making power, together with the other indications that I have made, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 5, Page 3, line 37, leave out ("An application") and insert ("Notice").
12 Page 3, line 37, leave out ("made") and insert ("given").
13 Page 3, line 40, leave out ("an application under this section") and insert ("a notice under subsection (2)").
14 Clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 24 to 30.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("() Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or

(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
At present, the Bill makes no provision regarding the period in which proceedings can be brought under Clause 7(1)(a); that is, on convention grounds alone as distinct from any pre-existing course of action. We believe that it is desirable to set a limitation period and that is the purpose of this amendment. It will provide that proceedings must be brought within one year beginning with the date upon which the act complained of took place or within such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances. The time limit is subject to any stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question; for example, the most obvious case being judicial review.
There is a balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the individual bringing the case and, on the other, those of the public authority alleged to have acted unlawfully. We think it is right that those who believe a public authority has acted unlawfully under the Human Rights Act and are bringing proceedings on that ground alone should do so within a reasonably short time. To allow for a longer period—for example, six years, which is the standard period in tort—would cause uncertainty for such authorities and make effective administration very difficult, if not virtually impossible.
We do look to flexibility. There may be occasions when there is a good reason for delay. Therefore, to cater for those circumstances the amendment gives the court a discretion to extend the one-year period. We know at present that the period for applications on judicial review is three months. It is true that it is notionally flexible, but I believe that it is rare for the three-month period to be extended. I think that I have given a fair summary of the balance that we have sought to achieve. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment to this Commons amendment. Therefore, it will probably be more convenient if I defer my remarks in that respect until he has developed his theme.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 15
Line 3, at end insert—
("() the period of two years beginning with the date upon which this Act receives Royal Assent; and thereafter").
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, which is an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15. I should like also to speak to other amendments in this group. As the Minister explained, the Government take the view that a one-year basic limitation period for bringing proceedings under Clause 7 of the Bill strikes the right balance. They have essentially—and quite understandably and rightly—put their trust in the courts to do mercy and to extend the time limit when it is fair to do so.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that there was absolutely no indication that there would be any such time limit in the White Paper or in any other document which preceded the introduction of the Bill; nor is there any time limit of this kind in any of the other constitutional Bills of Rights anywhere else in the Commonwealth of which I am aware. Indeed, there is none in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and none in the Canadian Charter of Rights. However, this has been put in and it seems to me that Her Majesty's Treasury is probably concerned to seek to limit liability by public authorities for what will be a new constitutional tort under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill.
What troubles me, first, about the time limit of one year is that it will cause confusion and uncertainty because the scheme of the Act will be to bind convention rights into the fabric of the common law. Therefore, there will be a whole variety of claims, some of which have time limits appropriate to an ordinary tort action but some of which will have time limits appropriate to this one-year constitutional tort action. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Let us suppose that there is the tort of misfeasance in public office, which might have a convention element added to it. That would be subject to a longer time limit. Alternatively, there could be an Entick v. Carrington claim based upon common law notions of personal privacy which would be subject to a different time limit.
Somehow the unfortunate litigant will have to sort out what the true position will be about time limits. Therefore, I am troubled that it may cause confusion and uncertainty to introduce this unique one-year limit. I say "unique" in the sense that I know of nothing like it in any constitutional Bill of Rights. The Minister referred to the three-month time limit in judicial review, but that does not deal with a claim of right—a tort claim—indeed, it is dealing with a separate issue about judicial review.
That is my first major concern. My second concern is that the reasonableness of a one-year period is also undermined by the narrow victim test that has been adopted on standing and by the absence of any assistance for complainants, about which I have already spoken and upon which we await future government announcements.

2097
It is easy to imagine a situation where someone with a potentially meritorious claim is unaware for a year that his or her rights have been infringed, especially if the person has had no effective access to legal services and little knowledge about the impact of the new legislation. In such a situation, the Minister will no doubt say that we can trust the judges to extend the time limit. I agree that that seems to be probable. However, I am still concerned that this new one-year time limit will have a chilling effect upon the vulnerable and underprivileged in deciding whether to invoke the Act.
The reason why I tabled my amendment to extend the one-year period to an initial two-years relates to another problem which, if anything, is more serious as far as concerns ordinary members of the public. When we read Bringing Rights Home we thought—at least I did, and I believe most other people did—that it meant that rights would be brought home within a reasonable period of time. I certainly thought they would be brought home some time within a year of Royal Assent.
My understanding is that at present the Government are not thinking of bringing rights home next year—in terms of any claims of right—and not until some unspecified time in the year 2000. I believe that the reason put forward is judicial training. I am much in favour of any form of training for anyone, including the legal profession and judges. However, I am concerned that the public administration will immunise itself from claims involving alleged breaches of convention rights throughout that long hiatus with no prospect of an individual being able to seek and obtain an effective domestic remedy throughout a period of perhaps two years from now while breaches of convention rights may occur.
That will result in a number of factors which concern me greatly. First, it will frustrate the central objective of the legislation, which is to bring rights home and create speedy and effective domestic remedies without the need to go to Strasbourg, except in the last recourse. The longer the hiatus, the longer the period in which there will be no effective domestic remedies. That will be a great misfortune. In my view as time goes by and we see rights not being effectively brought home, many of us who strongly support the Government and strongly support the objectives of this legislation will become discontented. Instead of being friends and allies of the Bill—as we are—we shall become discontented. That would be a great pity because in a measure of this kind I believe that we should seek the widest consensus of support. Therefore the longer the hiatus—if I may say so, this may be the result of the Treasury seeking to minimise liability as much as anything else—the greater the discontent.
My concern was aggravated by the comments of the Home Secretary in another place when he explained to one of the Members of his party why Article 13 of the convention had not been incorporated into our domestic law. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on this matter. During the Third Reading debate on 21st October the Home Secretary said,
"Although Article 13 mentions a national authority, the truth is that it is there to provide a remedy for the international Court at Strasbourg. For that reason, the Government thought that it would
2098
be inappropriate to include Article 13 in the Bill to incorporate the principal operational parts of the convention that provide substantive rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/98; col. 1367.]
With great respect, the Home Secretary was surely mistaken in suggesting that Article 13 does not create a substantive right to an effective national remedy. That has been made quite clear by the court in Strasbourg again and again. I mention it because it is important in the context of this time limit and the immunity that it gives to public authorities when allied with a delay in bringing the Bill into force. It will mean that there are continuing breaches of Article 13 of the convention for failure to provide effective domestic remedies during the long hiatus.
I have proposed a two year initial period so that no one will be prejudiced, in terms of their claims against a public authority, by the one year limitation period if the Government take two full years to bring the substantive provisions into force. It will mean that time will stand still as regards the one year limitation period. If people are the victims of breaches of convention rights by public authorities during that period after Royal Assent, once the Bill comes into force they will be able to seek and obtain a domestic remedy. If that does not happen, it will simply mean that we shall have to continue to have recourse on the international plain.
I am not suggesting that the Government should bring the Act into force on Royal Assent. That would be absurd. Nor am I suggesting that they should do so within a matter of weeks. However, I hope that we may be given some reassurance that the Government will look sympathetically at this matter and bring it into force in the course of 1999 before the millennium. I hope that the one year limitation period will not be an engine of injustice. I am sure the courts will do their best to secure that it is not.
Moved, That Amendment No. 15A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, be agreed to.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I object to this amendment. This is not the occasion either to initiate or reiterate a form of Committee stage argument. The views of the noble Lord are sincerely held, he is entitled to hold them, and I respect them. However, to impose them at this stage in these circumstances upon this House is not acceptable. The Government have this measure. I do not always agree with the Government—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not know why I do not always agree with the Government, but if one does not feel like doing so one does not. There are occasions when I agree with the Government. I think that the Government have this measure right, and it is rather distressing that we have to take the time of the House on this affair. The noble Lord is, of course, an expert on this matter, but we are not a House of experts. I hope that we are still all of a somewhat amateur status.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that we

2099
are discussing something entirely new; namely, a time limit that was inserted by the other place? That is why I thought it right to raise the consequences of that, coupled with commencement. Therefore it is a proper point for this House to consider.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall not prolong the discussion between the noble Lord and myself. In my opinion too much time has been spent on this matter already.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether he would care to rectify one thing that he said. He said that we do not have experts here. The strength of this House and its superiority is because of the vast amount of expertise that there is here.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I wish to reinforce the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill by reminding the House of the opening words of the financial memorandum to the Bill which state, in terms, that public authorities should already be seeking to comply with the convention. I also point out that although these amendments affect Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill, Clause 7(1)(b) provides that a person may,
"rely on the Convention right or rights … in any legal proceedings".
As I understand it, Clause 22(4) provides, in terms, that that applies to,
"proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the act in question took place".
Accordingly the message should clearly be going out to public authorities that they cannot afford to be complacent and that they are vulnerable to arguments involving convention rights from now on.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am always reluctant to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on matters such as these because he is so often right. I am equally nervous of agreeing with the Government lest my noble friends accuse me of political ineptitude. Nevertheless I think this is an occasion where the Government have got it right.
If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had advanced an argument based on a six-year limitation period deriving from the establishment of a new tort, the logic would have been compelling. But the noble Lord has not done that. What he has done is to say: "The Government have taken a stab at what is a fair limitation period; I think that they have got it wrong, and my stab is better than theirs".
In matters relating to public authorities, speed is important. Our laws must be certain. I am sure that the Minister would wish to assure the House that, in circumstances where an individual could not possibly have known that a breach of the convention had arisen, a court would normally extend the time period in sympathy with that individual. If the Minister could give some indication along those lines and deal with the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the transitional provisions, we might all find ourselves in agreement with him.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was in the Chamber at the end of Questions. I am fairly sure that the Minister was. The noble Lord may have heard a Petition presented by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to which I listened with close attention, relating to the denial of a war pension for service-induced deafness. The denial happened in 1976 and was discovered and finally put right in 1993.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the need for speedy execution of the law. Public bodies do not always rise to that. We do not yet have a freedom of information Act. I shall not speculate on when we shall have one. In the absence of such a right it may take quite a long time to discover that a miscarriage of justice or denial of the convention right has taken place. In those circumstances this time limit may prove doubly onerous.
To repeat a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, this matter is before the House for the first time. This is our first opportunity to address it. If new matter comes from the Commons at this stage, we should at least have the privilege of speaking about it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this amendment delivers all that can reasonably be required. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in indicating that sub-paragraph (b) gives a discretion to the court by stating specifically that the period of one year may be extended to,
"such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances".
I cannot think of a clause that could be more aptly drafted to secure the interests of those persons of whom examples have been given, not least that of Mr. Viggers—I was present; I am always here—and the Petition regarding his deafness.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked what happens if there is a good reason for delay. I am happy to confirm that there may well be occasions where an individual has good reasons for delay—for example, when he is not aware at the time of the act that it might be incompatible with convention rights and therefore unlawful.
Every matter has been introduced into this debate, including a freedom of information Bill. I am happy to reiterate—yet again, and I am not confident that it is for the last time—that a draft freedom of information Bill is to be placed before the relevant committee in another place for pre-legislation scrutiny in the early part of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, thought that this was somehow the hand of the Treasury manipulating the Home Office like a marionette. That is simply not so. The Home Secretary has already announced that a task force is to be set up. He has asked the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State in the Lord Chancellor's Department to be on the task force. There will be representatives from non-governmental organisations, and the Home Secretary has asked me to chair it. That is not putting off the evil day at the request or

2101
instruction of the Treasury. It is an attempt to make sure that this epoch-making Act is translated into practice in the proper way. Judicial training is a very important aspect. We have already achieved the result from the Treasury of an extra £5 million for the Judicial Studies Board for judicial training. And it may be that barristers and solicitors will also be able to open their minds to training in this new discipline.
There will not be confusion. A person bringing proceedings will have the choice of proceeding under Clause 7(1)(a), on the convention ground alone, the one-year time limit, or relying on convention grounds in the course of existing proceedings under Clause 7 (1)(b) with exactly the same time limit as at present.
It would be confusing to have no time limit at all. There is no necessary confusion. For instance, the time limit for defamation has recently been reduced to one year. If I am assaulted by a police officer and defamed by him on the same occasion, there are two different limits. But that is easily manageable. We believe that we have got this matter right—to coin a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was kind enough to offer. This is new law. A year is not unreasonable. It has nothing to do with the purse strings of the Treasury. Public authorities have to run their businesses and manage their schemes. If they are left in limbo for an unnecessarily long period of time, that will militate against efficient administration; in fact, it will be a recipe for human rights not to be upheld and demonstrated. On the basis of the assurances I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I ask him to withdraw his amendment to the Commons amendment—which I respectfully commend to the House in its place.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will deal with two matters before I explain what I propose to do. First, does it follow from his remarks that in the Government's view it would be open to the courts to treat as a just and equitable reason for extending the time period any very long delay in bringing the human rights Act into force after Royal Assent, so that the hiatus problem could be dealt with in that equitable way?
Secondly, will the Minister reassure me on a matter that causes widespread concern among human rights organisations; namely, the suggestion by the Home Secretary that we are not obliged under Article 13 to give effective domestic remedies as a substantive right? Again, that relates to the hiatus problem.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the discretion is given to the courts to be exercised judicially on an equitable basis. It is not right for any government Minister, not even a Home Office Minister, to give indications to the courts as to how they exercise their discretion. That would be improper.
Article 13 states that everyone whose convention rights are breached has a right to an effective remedy before a national authority. I do not believe that on any occasion the Home Secretary has said anything implying a contrary proposition.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate, even to
2102
the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who thought it somehow improper to raise the subject at all since he thought it to be unimportant. It is important that, if we bring rights home, we do so speedily and in a way that can be enjoyed in practice by ordinary men and women of limited means, by the vulnerable and by those who do not understand their rights well.
I am reassured by the Minister's remarks about the width of the judicial discretion. I very much hope that the Government will make sure that there is no unnecessarily long hiatus. On the basis that it is common ground that Article 13 guarantees the right to an effective remedy in this country, not merely a right to an international remedy, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 15A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 7, Page 5, leave out lines 19 to 39.
17 Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("(aa) in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court,").
18 Page 5, line 41, after ("court") insert ("or tribunal").
19 Page 5, line 42, leave out ("the purposes of this section") and insert ("those purposes").
20 Page 5, leave out lines 43 and 44.
21 Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("before") to end of line 47 and insert ("a tribunal in Northern Ireland—

(i) which deals with transferred matters; and

(ii) for which no rules made under paragraph (aa) are in force,

rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes,").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 21 en bloc.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 21 en bloc.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 7, Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("may") to end of line 9 and insert (", to the extent he considers it necessary to ensure that the tribunal can provide an appropriate remedy in relation to an act (or proposed act) of a public authority which is (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1), by order add to—

(a) the relief or remedies which the tribunal may grant; or

(b) the grounds on which it may grant any of them.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is just departing but he ought not to, because I deal with a question that he raised on an earlier occasion. I caught him just in time.

2103
I was about to pay a glowing tribute to him and did not wish him to read it at second hand and stale tomorrow morning. Amendment No. 22, to which I link Amendment No. 24, clarifies the intended effect of the power in Clause 7(13) to make an order in relation to tribunals. When we considered what became the Asylum and Immigrations Appeals Act 1993, the noble Earl pointed out that there might be the consequence that a special adjudicator would be prevented from determining whether an appellant's removal would breach his convention rights. When the noble Earl raised it with me, I said that I would give it careful consideration. We have done so, and we think that the current wording might be misinterpreted. It might be read as implying that no tribunal would be able to take account of convention rights unless and until a Minister made an order under Clause 7(13).
Therefore, we have introduced these amendments in order to bring about the consequence which the noble Earl wanted, namely, to make it quite plain that the gap he feared is not to exist. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly and apologise for my mistaken intended departure.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments are most welcome. I believe that the gap was exposed first, not only by my noble friend Lord Russell but also by two prominent members of the Bar, Murray Hunt and Rubindar Singh. I too was involved in it at one stage. It is obviously right to make quite clear that the tribunals will give full effect to the convention rights, as these amendments do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
23 Clause 7, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("() "The Minister" includes the Northern Ireland department concerned.").
24 Clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out ("jurisdiction") and insert ("powers").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Page 6, line 32, at end insert—
("() A public authority against which damages are awarded is to be treated—

(a) in Scotland, for the purposes of section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 as if the award were made in an action of damages in which the authority has been found liable in respect of loss or damage to the person to whom the award is made;

(b) for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as liable in respect of damage suffered by the person to whom the award is made.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.
The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 provides a right to contribution where more than one person is liable in respect of the same damage. We believe that this should apply where damages are awarded against a public authority under Clause 8. Therefore, the effect of the amendment is that the terms of the 1978 Act and the relevant related provisions in Scotland apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 10, page 7, line 21, after ("stated") insert ("in writing").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 33 to 35 and 60.
These are technical amendments concerned with the remedial order provisions of the Bill. In earlier discussions a number of your Lordships indicated that in their view the power to make remedial orders was too wideranging. There was not sufficient opportunity for scrutiny by Parliament. We promised to think about the matter and this series of amendments demonstrates that we have done so. We thought that we should do more to respond to the concerns. Therefore, most of the amendments relate to extending the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 26 requires persons stating that they do not intend to appeal to do so in writing before the power to make a remedial order can be exercised. This places on a statutory basis what is likely to happen in any event, because the only way in which Clause 10(1)(a) can operate in practice will be for the person making the order, if he wishes to proceed urgently before the time for appeal has expired, to take positive steps by seeking statements from all interested parties to the effect that they do not propose to appeal.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 27 to 30. At the moment Clause 10(2) provides that, if a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to amend legislation using the power conferred, he may do so by making a remedial

2105
order, introducing such amendments as he considers appropriate. Amendment No. 27 takes that term away from Clause 10(2) and requires there to be compelling reasons for proceedings under Clause 10(2). It limits the amendments to those which are necessary to remove the incompatibility. It is therefore a restriction of the circumstances, responding to your Lordships' concerns specifically, in which a remedial order may be made. Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 make equivalent provisions in Clause 10(3) and (4).
I have seen the further report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which was printed yesterday. I shall come to that in a moment. The procedures for making remedial orders are at present in Clauses 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 remove those clauses from the Bill. Amendment No. 60 inserts a new schedule into the Bill (Schedule 2) which reproduces Clauses 11 and 12, with certain modifications. We thought it would be easier to read and understand them if they were in one place. They are procedural and therefore we consider they should be in the schedule. Amendment No. 31 is simply consequential.
The modifications made in Schedule 2 by Amendment No. 60 are intended to provide greater opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of draft remedial orders or remedial orders. Schedule 2 describes the different procedures for non-urgent and urgent orders. Essentially, a 60-day period of consideration is provided during which representations on an order or proposed draft order may be made, followed by a further 60-day period after which a non-urgent order may be made if Parliament approves it or an urgent order, which has been made, expires if Parliament does not approve it.
In the case of non-urgent orders, paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 provides for a document containing a draft of the proposed order and certain other information to be laid before Parliament for a minimum period of 60 days. After that, the draft order itself may be laid before Parliament together with a summary of any representations received. Under paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 2, a further 60 days must then elapse.
In the case of urgent orders made before first being approved in draft—this appears in paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 2—the order must, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, be laid before Parliament after it is made with the required explanatory information. If any representations are made on the order within 60 days of it being made, a summary of the representations must be laid before Parliament together with details of any changes proposed as a result of those representations. If there are changes, a replacement order must be made and laid before Parliament.
The point of having two 60-day periods is to provide an opportunity for representations to be made on the Government's proposals when laid in the form of a document containing a draft order and then an opportunity for considering the draft order, including any changes made before a Motion to approve the draft order is debated.
The report of the Select Committee to which I referred criticises one of the provisions of the new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 60. That is the
2106
procedure for non-urgent remedial orders. It provides for two successive 60-day periods. The report indicates that the second 60-day period differs from what the Select Committee recommended in its previous report, which was essentially to follow the procedure under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The report states that the second 60-day period amounts to an excessive delay and could make a remedial order procedure unworkable. The Select Committee's recommendation is to remove the second 60-day period.
We took the report seriously. I believe that the criticism is perhaps misplaced. We did not need to follow the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act exactly because our schedule provides for two kinds of remedial order: non-urgent (paragraph 3) and urgent (paragraph 4). The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act has only one kind: non-urgent. If there were compelling reasons for amending primary legislation by means of a remedial order and the matter was urgent, we would proceed by way of an urgent remedial order made in advance of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. If the matter was not urgent, we would proceed with a non-urgent remedial order. It would not matter that the process took 120 days. It would still offer an advantage, in a compelling case, over the normal kind of amending legislation for which it might be difficult to find time in the legislative programme.
Therefore, I hope I can make two points. First, we listened carefully to concerns expressed by your Lordships about insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I think we have attended to that. Secondly, we looked carefully at the comments of the Select Committee, took them into account but believe that the scheme we have is appropriate and acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that a serious matter arises under Amendment No. 60. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has done his best to explain and excuse the purpose of Amendment No. 60 which inserts a new schedule and, for the first time, makes proposals to deal with remedial orders. It is right that the matter should be dealt with. If only the third paragraph of the new schedule had not been inserted everybody would have been satisfied. But I invite the attention of the House to the comments on this matter by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I shall not read a great part of what is said. However, if I quote paragraph 8 on page 4 of the report it will place on record the difficulties that are likely to arise. Having said that paragraph 2 of the new schedule introduces a second 60-day delay by providing that a draft order cannot be approved by resolution until after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid, the committee states:
"The consequence is that a proposal which meets with universal approval when laid under paragraph 3 cannot be made until at least 120 days have passed—and paragraph 6 (calculating periods) could make the delay much longer. The Government explains that the procedure was devised in response to concern expressed during the Lords proceedings on the Bill".

2107
I do not believe that anything was said during those proceedings to justify the long delay that is now put forward in paragraph 3 of the new schedule. The report continues:
"While we appreciate this positive response, the procedure set out in Commons amendment 60 is not, however, what we suggested in our previous report—there is only one 60 day limitation in the procedure under section 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—and we see no reason for the introduction of a second 60 day period".
The committee met yesterday and its report was published only this morning. I confess that I did not see it until this afternoon. The paragraph concludes:
"We hesitated to draw this matter to the attention of the House at such a late stage in the Bill's passage, but do so because it may be that this exceptionally lengthy scrutiny period will in practice make the procedure so slow as to belie the definition 'fast-track', and will in fact make it unworkable, thus leading to greater reliance on the emergency procedure. The Government and the House may therefore wish to consider a simple amendment to Commons amendment 60 to remove the second 60 day period".
Due to the short notice, although I would have wished to table a manuscript amendment I have not done so. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who is always so sensitive and helpful about difficulties arising on legislation, will seek the permission of the House—I understand that under the rules of procedure such can be given—to delete paragraph 3 of the new schedule. There would be such obvious public advantage in so doing. I wish that I had had the opportunity to alert the noble Lord to the point before the debate. However, he has a full grasp of the situation as he made clear when he invited the House to approve Commons Amendment No. 60. I very much hope that even at this late stage we can put the matter right.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. In a sense we are in a Gilbertian situation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation is one of the most admirable recent inventions of this House. It is there to maximise parliamentary scrutiny over delegated legislation and to ensure that Henry VIII clauses are not abused. It blew the whistle at an early stage. It was the main Opposition party which pressed strongly for adequate safeguards against the misuse of Henry VIII powers. There was also a certain dislike of the fast-track procedure. We on these Benches were strongly in favour of that procedure while we also pressed for safeguards.
The reason for our support for the fast-track procedure was the same as that put forward by the Government; namely, first, that for the procedure to come into force there must be a declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction that there is an incompatibility between the statute and a convention right; and, secondly, that the victim must have abandoned or completed all appeals under our system, or it must appear to the Government having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights that the provision in our statute book is incompatible with an obligation under the convention.
All of those events must have happened before the fast-track procedure can start. When one reaches that situation there has been a systemic failure: that is, the
2108
courts have decided that there is a mismatch between our statute and a convention right, and in the background is the victim. The victim cannot make the ghastly long journey to the Strasbourg court. The procedure takes six or seven further years after the fast-track procedure has been exhausted. The victim must have exhausted all effective domestic remedies; and this is one of them. Therefore, the longer the fast-track procedure the more it becomes a slow-track procedure, the worse the injustice to the individual, and the worse the failure to provide an effective remedy under our own legal system.
The Gilbertian aspect is that the admirable committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, now tells us that the Government quite rightly, commendably, and in a way that was not always true of the previous administration, are bending over backwards to provide effective safeguards. But by enhancing parliamentary scrutiny they have fallen on their back. The committee believes that the procedure is now so slow that it is no longer fast-track and use will have to be made of the emergency procedure.
I believe that the argument for doing what the committee suggests is quite overwhelming. I very much hope that it is possible—as a relatively new boy in this House, I do not know whether it is—to pursue the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to table a manuscript amendment even at this late stage. If not, I am concerned that our desire for parliamentary scrutiny will defeat one of the central purposes of the legislation.
5.p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I endorse everything my noble friend Lord Renton said on the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and I endorse part of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester said.
I have two points to add. The previous government introduced the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee because, quite legitimately, there were a number of complaints about the use of delegated legislation and, in particular, Henry VIII clauses. I want to inform the House and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that, having introduced the committee, the previous government always observed the recommendations of that committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The committee was setup during the lifetime of the previous government and there was no case where its recommendations were not observed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for that acknowledgment. Since then the current Government have continued with the services of the committee and on a number of occasions have observed its recommendations, but not, I have to say, always with the alacrity with which the previous government observed them.
Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I saw the report at a late stage. Therefore, I was not in a position to put down an amendment to the Bill. Both my noble friend

2109
Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, have suggested that, at this late stage, the Government could introduce a manuscript amendment that would deal with the problem.
I propose another alternative. As there is considerable agreement on all sides of the House and a considerable amount of goodwill, which would allow the Bill to be dealt with quickly, we could adjourn consideration of this matter until some time next week. It would not take up time that the Chief Whip values so much and therefore we could see the Bill amended in the way in which the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has suggested. The Bill would then speed to the statute book without further delay.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a misunderstanding and a deep irony here. We are doing more to protect parliamentary scrutiny than the committee suggested. It is not a case of a government doing less—for instance, flouting the views of the committee. In fact, we have done more. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was generous enough to say that the committee welcomed the positive response but thought that the model should be the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The important point to bear in mind—I believe that it has been overlooked—is that the 1994 Act does not distinguish between urgent and non-urgent cases. Therefore, it has a single period of time. I cannot repeat often enough that we are offering more parliamentary scrutiny than the Select Committee suggested.
We need to distinguish carefully between the urgent and the non-urgent. If the matter were urgent, and there were compelling reasons, the Government would proceed by way of urgent remedial order, made in advance of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. If the matter were not urgent, the Government would proceed with a non-urgent remedial order and it would not matter that there were 120 days to complete the process, except in terms of the benefit of additional scrutiny. There would still be an advantage to whichever government were in power in terms of amending legislation when there was difficulty finding time in the legislative programme.
I have heard what your Lordships said. Perhaps I can suggest a way forward. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I have said on distinct occasions, as has the Home Secretary in another place, that we would welcome either a joint committee on human rights or a Commons committee or a Lords committee subject to the views of both Houses. This is the sort of question that could usefully be addressed by such a committee. Once this provision has been implemented and we have had a certain amount of experience, rather than conjecture, about how things may or may not work in practice, such a committee could usefully put its mind to see whether or not we should have second thoughts about the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is one problem in dealing with the matter in that way. If we accept the new clause as it stands, it will become part of our statute law and
2110
we shall have the long delay of 120 days, and perhaps sometimes even longer, before what may be an urgent and important matter can be dealt with. As the select committee said, it utterly belies the fast track procedure, which is something that both Houses of Parliament presumably favour. Therefore, I have to say that the noble Lord's idea of letting us approve the new clause as it stands, without striking out one paragraph, is unsatisfactory and taking a big risk.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the Minister has not yet sat down, perhaps I may ask if he can deal with the points I raised about the victim. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is, of course, not dealing with the same situation. The Bill is designed to give an effective and speedy remedy.
My points relate to the problem that the Government have in being too democratic. They have bent over backwards. I appreciate that they have gone further than the scrutiny committee. They point out that they have gone so far that something very bad will be produced which will mean resort to emergency procedures because everything will have to become an emergency or there will be great and unnecessary delay in securing a remedy. I appreciate the importance of the parliamentary Select Committee and I hope that that will be done swiftly. I am concerned to clarify the consequences if we accept the amendment as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that. But one needs to put it into context and into proportion. Here we are introducing two different types of orders, quite different from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. I repeat that if the matter is urgent, and if there are compelling reasons—that takes into account the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the victim—then we can proceed on the basis of urgent remedial action. If it is non-urgent remedial action, we offer Parliament the opportunity of 120 days.
May I suggest that 120 days, in terms of having a right remedied and an injustice put right, is a very short time indeed if one is considering the balance of having proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, accused me of being unduly democratic. A number of your Lordships have said that they are uneasy about the principle of remedial orders and that there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. We have bent over backwards, first, to maintain the urgent, compelling remedial route, and, secondly, to have the non-urgent remedial route which gives 120 days for consideration. The period of 120 days is not a vast amount of time for consideration and representations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, surely the greatest problem is that reconciliation—and that is what we are all aiming for—needs to be carried out as soon as possible and indeed failure to do so may lead to grave injustice. Those cases are more likely to have a time factor which is of importance than to be the sort of cases that can be dealt with at leisure.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always, I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There

2111
may well be urgent, compelling cases, which is why we have the urgent, compelling procedure. However, we suggest that for the non-urgent cases 120 days is a decent amount of time for parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe that we have got the balance right. The more I think about it and the more I listen with care to the arguments put forward, I am sure that we have got it right. If we have bent over too far to submit to parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary will, I am content.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ahmed, L.

Amos, B.

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

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bach, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Levy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Longford, E.

Carlisle, E.

McConnell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Christopher, L

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Coleraine, L.

McNally, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Newby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Erroll, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Hardie, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hayman, B.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Hooson, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

2112

Tenby, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wharton, B.

Uddin, B.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Berners, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Bridges, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cockfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denbigh, E.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harlech, L.

Stockton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Torrington, V.

Kintore, E.

Trefgame, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vinson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 10, Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("that") to end of line 36 and insert ("there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.").
28 Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("that") to end of line 43 and insert ("there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section,").
29 Page 7, line 45, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary").
30 Page 8, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("where") and insert—
("(4) This section also applies").
31 Page 8, line 4, leave out ("section 12(1)(b)") and insert ("paragraph 2(b) of Schedule (Remedial orders)").
32 Page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9.
33 Page 8, line 11, at end insert—
("() Schedule (Remedial orders) makes further provision about remedial orders.").
34 Clause 11. Leave out Clause 11.
35 Clause 12. Leave out Clause 12.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 35.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 35.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
(".—(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
(2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made ("the respondent") is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—

(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or

(b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.

(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

(a) the extent to which—

(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

(b) any relevant privacy code.

(5) In this section—
"court" includes a tribunal; and
"relief" includes any remedy or order (other than in criminal proceedings).").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. It is an extremely important amendment because it deals with the potential impact of the Human Rights Bill on the freedom of the press. As your Lordships will recall, a good deal of concern was expressed that the Bill might undermine press freedom and result in the introduction of a privacy law by the back door. We did not take that view.
However, after the Bill left this House we had a number of further conversations and representations in correspondence with a large number of people who were interested in free speech, whether in conventional writing, journalism, the broadcast media and so forth. Having considered all the representations made—and I should say how grateful the Government are notably to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the representatives of the broadcast media—we thought that we should put forward this amendment which is designed, and designed solely, to ensure that free speech, free expression, is abundantly safeguarded after the Bill becomes law.
The terms of the clause are well known to your Lordships. It relates to questions of protection of free speech and free opinion as well as maintaining a proper balance for those whose personal interests in their reputation and private life need to be properly safeguarded.
2114
Of all the occasions during the passage of this Bill, the occasion of introducing this amendment to your Lordships' House is one which gives the greatest pleasure.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is not in his place. I am glad that the Government resisted the Press Complaints Commission's attempt, which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, led, to immunise itself from liability under Clause 6 of the Bill as a public authority. The PCC performs extremely important public functions which have an impact on free speech, a fair trial and personal privacy. If it makes decisions which breach convention rights, it is important that the victim should have an effective remedy against it as a public authority.
I am glad also that the Government have successfully resisted the suggestion from some sections of the media that the Bill should not be able to be used as a springboard for the development by the courts of a common law protection of personal privacy. I am glad that they have not given in to an ill-judged campaign from some sections of the media.
This amendment creates a fair balance between the right to free speech and other competing rights and interests. What I like about it in particular is that it will ensure that prior restraints on free speech against the media—the most draconian form of interference in free speech—are imposed by the courts only when necessary and that the right to free speech is given particular weight by the courts.
But there is another aspect which I also welcome. This amendment will encourage the media to develop effective means of enforcing privacy codes because the extent to which a newspaper has complied with a relevant privacy code is a matter to be taken into account by the courts in deciding whether to grant a media injunction. The amendment will not fetter the courts in developing the common law nor in construing legislation in conformity with convention rights, including both the right to free speech and the right to respect for personal privacy. Therefore, thanks to this amendment, our law will be able to develop, on lines similar to those in other common law countries, including the United States. We fully support this fair and balanced amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
37 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
(".—(1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
(2) In this section, "court" includes a tribunal.").
38 Clause 20, page 12, line 30, after ("power") insert ("of a Minister of the Crown").
39 Page 12, line 32, after ("power") insert ("of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State").
40 Page 12, line 36, after ("made") insert ("by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State").
41 Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
("() The power of a Northern Ireland department to make—

(a) rules under section 2(3)(b) or 7(11)(c); or

(b) an order under section 7(13);

is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.
() Any rules made under section 2(3)(b) or 7(11)(c) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution") shall apply as if the power to make the rules were conferred by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
() No order may be made by a Northern Ireland department under section 7(13) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
42 Clause 21, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
(""amend" includes repeal and apply (with or without modifications);").
43 Page 13, line 8, at end insert—
(""Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland;").
44 Page 13, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
("(f) Order in Council—

(i) made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative;

(ii) made under section 38(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);").

45 Page 13, line 20, after ("legislation") insert ("(otherwise than by the National Assembly for Wales, a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department)").
46 Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
(""the Sixth Protocol" means the Protocol to the Convention agreed at Strasbourg on 28th April 1983;").
47 Page 13, line 31, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(ii) made").
48 Page 13, line 32, at end insert ("or the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; or

(iii) amending an Act of a kind mentioned in the definition of primary legislation;

(ab) Act of the Scottish Parliament;").
49 Page 13, line 34, leave out ("Northern Ireland Assembly") and insert ("Assembly established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973;
(ca) Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly;").
50 Page 13, line 40, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph (ab),").
51 Page 13, line 41, leave out ("or (c)") and insert (", (c) or (ca)").
52 Page 13, line 42, at end insert—
("(f) order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty;
"transferred matters" has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998;").
53 Page 14, leave out lines 8 to 10.
54 Page 14, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) Any liability under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 to suffer death for an offence is replaced by a liability to imprisonment for life or any less punishment authorised by those Acts; and those Acts shall accordingly have effect with the necessary modifications.").
55 Clause 22, page 14, line 12, leave out ("and 20") and insert (", 20 and 21(6)").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 55.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 55.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Clause, 22, page 14, line 20, leave out ("committed") and insert ("taking place").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. This is a drafting amendment to Clause 22(4). At present it provides that Clause 7(1)(b) applies to proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority whenever the act in question "took place"; but that otherwise Clause 7(1)(b) does not apply to an act "committed" before Clause 7 comes into force. Amendment No. 56 replaces "committed" by "taking place" so as to be consistent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
57 Clause 22, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
("() Section 21(6), so far as it relates to any provision contained in the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, extends to any place to which that provision extends.").
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Clause 22, page 14, leave out lines 23 to 26.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. This amendment, which I hope to be non-contentious, removes Clause 22(7) of the Bill. That is the provision inserted by this House in order to avoid questions of privilege.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
59 Schedule 1, page 19, line 23, at end insert—
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  PART III
    THE SIXTH PROTOCOL

      Article 1
      Abolition of the death penalty
      The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

      Article 2
      Death penalty in time of war
      A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.").
      60 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

    SCHEDULE

      REMEDIAL ORDERS
      Orders
      1.—(1) A remedial order may—

      (a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;

      (b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made;

      (c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions;

      (d) make different provision for different cases.

      (2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes—

      (a) power to amend primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and

      (b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).

      (3) A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects.
      (4) No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.
      Procedure
      2. No remedial order may be made unless—

      (a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament made after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid; or

      (b) it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.

      Orders laid in draft
      3.—(1) No draft may be laid under paragraph 2(a) unless—

      (a) the person proposing to make the order has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed order and the required information; and

      (b) the period of 60 days, beginning with the day on which the document required by this subsection was laid, has ended.

      (2) If representations have been made during that period, the draft laid under paragraph 2(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—

      (a) a summary of the representations; and

      (b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes.

      Urgent cases
      4.—(1) If a remedial order ("the original order") is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.
      (2) If representations have been made during the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, the person making it must (after the end of that period) lay before Parliament a statement containing—

      (a) a summary of the representations; and

      (b) if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order, details of the changes.

      (3) If sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the person making the statement must—

      (a) make a further remedial order replacing the original order; and

      (b) lay the replacement order before Parliament.

      (4) If, at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement order, the order ceases to have effect (but without that affecting anything previously done under either order or the power to make a fresh remedial order).
      Definitions
      5. In this Schedule—
      "representations" means representations about a remedial order (or proposed remedial order) made to the person making (or proposing to make) it and includes any relevant Parliamentary report or resolution; and
      "required information" means—

      (a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order (or proposed order) seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and

      (b) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under section 10 and for making an order in those terms.

      Calculating periods
      6. In calculating any period for the purposes of this section, no account is to be taken of any time during which—

      (a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued; or

      (b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").

      Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
      Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
      Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may seek some clarification. We had a Division just now. I thought we were dividing on the Question as to whether we accept Amendment No. 60. If not, what was the Division about?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I imagine that the Division was purely surreal and philosophical.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Student Mobility in the EU: ECC Report
      5.26 p.m.
      Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Student Mobility in the European Union (27th Report, HL Paper 116).
      The noble Lord said: The context of this report was a Commission communication, Towards a Europe of Knowledge, which deals with the next round of the Erasmus-Socrates scheme which is to start from January 2000. Therefore, our aim is to feed into the development of that new and expanded programme. We note in particular that the Commission's aim is for a major expansion of exchange programmes with only a small expansion in the budget allocated. We note that the number of participants in the scheme is expanding and will expand further with the new programme, as applicants and associates join.
      In the past three months I have been struck by the fact that I have been approached by two former students of mine, one of whom is now the Icelandic co-ordinator for Erasmus-Socrates and the other the Estonian co-ordinator for Erasmus-Socrates. Clearly, those countries are gearing themselves up to take advantage of the best opportunities provided by the programme.
      I should like to thank our Clerk, Mary Bloor, and our special adviser, Anne Corbett, for the assistance they gave us in this inquiry.
      As we began the inquiry, we discovered the difficulty of examining only the Erasmus-Socrates schemes. We were aware immediately that those represent only a fraction of student flows into and out of the United Kingdom. There is also a substantial flow of students from the United Kingdom to the rest of the European
      2120
      Union and, of course, from other countries within the European Union into the UK, quite often for their full undergraduate or graduate study periods.
      There is also the whole international dimension of British higher education, which is much influenced by the interchange between the United Kingdom and non-EU countries, as indeed it has been for a long time. My own institution, the London School of Economics, was founded partly to deal with the education of Indian civil servants and has always had a strong Indian connection. Many of us have spent part of our educational experiences in the United States.
      There is, of course, an imbalance in all of these flows. We noted the imbalance within the Erasmus-Socrates programme. We were told—some within the Department for Education and Employment feel that this is a real problem—that there is an overall imbalance in interchanges between Britain and the rest of the European Union amounting to some 40,000 students which, we were informed, is equivalent to four United Kingdom universities. There is, of course, an imbalance between ourselves and the rest of the world, but at fuller cost since those students pay a much higher fee.
      We also noted a strong consensus that the international dimension is valuable; that it is an important aspect of the high quality of British higher education; and that it is to be encouraged rather than discouraged. There are clear benefits as well as some financial costs. But we were concerned to discover that the widening gap between inflows and outflows, particularly within Erasmus-Socrates, follows partly from the decline in the number of British students who are willing to spend part of their period of study abroad.
      The reasons for the decline were fully discussed. It is partly a problem of the deteriorating quality of language teaching in British schools and universities, partly a matter of funding, and partly the caution and conservatism of British students in the current uncertain financial conditions towards undertaking periods of study abroad which may lengthen their overall course and thus deepen their financial obligations. There were also fears over whether their home universities will recognise the value of the courses they have undertaken while abroad.
      We also discovered a degree of incoherence in the British Government's approach to Erasmus-Socrates in their calculation of the costs and benefits and the co-ordination between the different parts of the DfEE, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council. We explored and wish to query the Commission's bias in promoting student exchange towards minority languages as against the clear evidence that students prefer to study the major languages, above all in Britain. Britain and Ireland are the two countries with the biggest imbalance in the European Union, and then it is France, Germany and, to some extent, Spain and Italy.
      Our recommendations are directed both to the Commission and to Her Majesty's Government, and through those to other member states. To the Commission we recommend that grand objectives require comparable resources and that grand objectives

      2121
      without adequate resources must be questioned. If this is a worthwhile activity—we are convinced that it is—then the Commission should fight for a larger share of the Community budget than the current tiny proportion that is spent on it. It would also be of greater benefit to Britain than some other areas in which the Community budget is currently spent.
      We query the focus on minority languages within the Commission's initial proposals. The balance should be towards encouraging mobility and exchange and therefore responding to students' interests and needs. We also say that the Commission's new ideas about virtual mobility, electronic networking and computer exchanges are not a substitute for the encouragement of students to spend some of their time studying in foreign cultures and experiencing all the benefits of seeing how the world looks from a different environment.
      We wish to encourage more intensive language courses, shorter courses and summer courses in particular, to encourage mature students who do not have the time and often have family commitments which prevent them from going abroad for a full year. We wish also to encourage greater access for the disabled and other minorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is unable to be with us tonight, was particularly concerned about that dimension of our inquiry.
      We recommend that there should be more incentive payments for language development in the new programme in respect of English and the major languages. We emphasise also the importance of further progress and a mutual recognition of courses through the European Credit Transfer Scheme.
      Our recommendations to the Government are, first, that we wish there to be a clear recognition that the international dimension of higher education represents high value to British education. We welcome the warm response and the firm statement from the Government in response to that recommendation. We wish the Government to make it clear that it is a worthwhile aspect of higher education for more students to be encouraged to study abroad. In that respect, we welcome the Government's waiving of fees for British Erasmus students as one way of encouraging more student interchange.
      We call for an examination of the perverse effects of funding in that at the present time there is a greater incentive for British higher education institutions to recruit people from outside the European Union than from inside. We received some evidence of declining enthusiasm for Erasmus within British higher education institutions because the funding implications and costs are high. The benefits are intangible whereas the costs are tangible. Those are all elements in the shifting balance of funding for British higher education, which shifted this year and many of us fear will shift again over the next few years.
      We made a number of recommendations to improve the management of the UK scheme, which I shall leave to others to address. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton has been the chair of the UK Socrates scheme and I bow to his greater expertise in that respect. We wish to encourage and recommend to the Government a
      2122
      broader take-up of disciplines within the scheme. There is a vast overemphasis on business and language studies. We emphasise that we were given good evidence from the Institute of Physics that scientists also benefit from studying their subject in a different cultural environment. I hold a particularly strong view that economists would benefit a great deal from studying outside the Anglo-Saxon world, thus appreciating that Anglo-Saxon economics is not the only form of economics in the world. My economics colleagues do not entirely agree with me in that respect.
      We wish also to encourage the Government to pursue the question of funding of the Commission's programme and to encourage other governments to increase their funding of exchange programmes to attract more British students. The way to lessen the imbalance is to encourage more British students to study abroad, not to discourage students from elsewhere in the European Union from coming to Britain.
      There is a wider issue, which is expanding the horizons of the younger generation. I note the immense success of the Franco-German student exchange schemes over the past 35 years, which altered the way in which the younger generation in those two countries see each other. It is an immense success. I recall that when Britain joined the European Community in 1973 we had our own Rippon package, which was also intended to encourage precisely the same sort of student exchange, brought in by the then Conservative government which, in those days, your Lordships may remember, was in favour of greater European integration. The scheme was then killed by the incoming Labour Government, which your Lordships will remember in those days was against European integration.
      It seems to me that we should be moving towards something like a Rippon package. I see that in the Government's response there is a suggestion that a super-Erasmus set of scholarships should be pursued by private funding through business and the city. Private funding is a supplement, but it is not the only basis on which to expand.
      We wish to encourage, therefore, a wider British strategy for international education through languages, academic exchanges, student exchanges, funding priorities and incentives. The Government stated in their response that,
      "We recognise and endorse the view that it represents on the whole a lost opportunity for UK students in that many more could take part".
      That is precisely the approach we wish to encourage. We also welcome the Government's statement in their response that we need a proper strategy for language teaching. We need to reverse the decline in foreign language assistants in British schools and universities. The move towards broader A-levels and more language teaching, both in primary and secondary schools, is part of what our response should be.
      I was initially a sceptic in regard to the Erasmus scheme. However, I was impressed by how rapidly it encouraged interchange among universities in this country and elsewhere on the European continent. I was

      2123
      also impressed by how it changed the attitude of a number of British academics to international and European exchange. There have been problems of management, funding and balance as the scheme has grown. We address some of those questions in the report.
      However, the overall objective is highly valuable and important. This is not just a question of the European Union, or even of the efficiency or inefficiency of Commission management. This is a question of foreign policy and education in the widest sense. As we say in paragraph 219:
      "in terms of UK education policy, Europe can no longer be seen as an add-on".
      The European dimension of our own national education strategy cannot be ignored. I commend the report to the House.
      Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Student Mobility in the European Union (27th Report, HL Paper 116).—(Lord Wallace of Saltaire.)
      5.40 p.m.
      Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, like most of your Lordships, I became a European citizen with the passing of the Treaty of Maastricht. I do not recall having asked to become a European citizen; nevertheless I was made one. I should like to reassure your Lordships, in case there is any doubt, that I intend to be entirely non-controversial today. There are dangers in being too contentious on matters relating to Europe, but that is another story upon which I shall not enlarge today.
      I pass no comment on the purpose of the Commission as I see it although it is set out in the report. It wants to establish a firmer base to European citizenship. It considers that by the exchange of students, particularly those at higher level, an extra consciousness of European citizenship would be encouraged, irrespective of whether or not that consciousness rivals our responsibilities as British nationals to our own country.
      The trouble with these European programmes in which we are invited to participate and indeed to enlarge our participation is that they all cost money. I must apologise for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that such programmes always carry a cost which ultimately has to be borne by the British taxpayer, whether in the form of value added tax or income tax.
      At present—and, indeed, in the past—we have all been subject to financial disciplines. We have to determine our own priorities within our expenditures. Your Lordships will recall that in more recent times my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Health, found it necessary to lay down firm rules with regard to any additional expenditure on, for example, the National Health Service. Indeed, stringency is implied in the term "sound finance", which means that there is a definite clampdown. Whether or not that is desirable is a question for economists. I do not think we have many here this afternoon.
      2124
      At present—this is factual; it is not at all controversial—the British taxpayer pays net into European funds £2,500 million per annum. I do not know whether people realise that. I repeat, "£2,500 million net"—that is after abatement and once all receipts into the Exchequer have been taken into account. That is not an insignificant sum. In order to heighten interest in the matter I observe in passing that so far neither this House nor its committees—the appropriate committee being the Select Committee on the European Communities—has considered the budget for 1999. The preliminary draft budget came to this country shortly after 15th May. I understand there was cursory perusal of the document but it did not feature in any committee or sub-committee deliberation. That is in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wrote in most explosive terms last year complaining that we were getting the budget too late for us to consider it. The budget was issued on 18th July. When it arrived here is not certain. I understand that it has been listed for consideration by Sub-committee A when it eventually meets. As far as I can ascertain—I have been making diligent inquiries of another place—the European budget has not been considered in the Commons either. Surely that is a little extraordinary. However, I digress from the central purpose of the report.
      We are already spending quite large sums, as per the Community budget, on exactly the matters covered by this debate. They cover Socrates, the remnant of Erasmus and another scheme, more picturesquely called, Leonardo da Vinci. I have taken the precaution of bringing a copy of the budget with me. In money terms, at an exchange rate—I have taken the average from The Times over the past week—of 1.41 ecus to the pound, the budget provision for 1999 amounts to £232,596,000. The share of the Commission's budgeted expenditure borne by the United Kingdom is 13.42 per cent.. That works out at £34,214,130. Therefore, we are already contributing quite large sums.
      Bearing in mind our overall contribution—made in cash out of taxpayers' pockets—into the European Communities, we are due to spend £32 million on this specific programme alone. That is £32 million as per the existing titles because all the expenditure is set out in the budget under Article B3–10. That can be checked.
      Can we really afford to increase our expenditure on this programme, which passes unnoticed and undebated and about which nobody bothers? Can we really afford it? It is not for me to be controversial on the matter but I think that I owe it to the House to point out the facts of the expenditure. That may perhaps encourage both your Lordships and Members of another place to pay far more attention, before we proceed further on such expenditure, when making up their minds on the difficult and hard decisions that have to be made regarding the finances of this country—decisions that usually have adverse effects on the lower income groups, let alone the higher.
      I thank your Lordships for so kindly listening to me on this matter. I have no opinions to offer on the desirability or otherwise of the scheme, but this House has not yet had the opportunity of even considering the

      2125
      United Kingdom's budgeted expenditure in Europe for 1999. Perhaps if there was a considered re-evaluation with the aim of improving the state of the nation's finances and establishing a proper order of priorities for those things on which the British taxpayer spends money, we might get a rational conclusion. I am certainly not going to hint to your Lordships which way I would wish the judgment to go. That remains for noble Lords and Members of another place to determine on the basis not so much of gutsy emotion or deeply ingrained prejudice, but on the sheer impact of financial facts.
      5.51 p.m.
      Lord Elibank: My Lords, our committee chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has given a broad and very lucid overview of the report and our hearings. I should like to concentrate for a few moments on the effect that the mobility of students has directly on the United Kingdom. It is rather different from that of other countries in Europe.
      We have been importing students for many years. We have been doing so for one or two centuries. It has been in the clear interests of this country to bring to our educational establishments leaders, and potential leaders, from what was then our empire. We would try to catch mostly young men at an appropriate stage and send them to this country to learn our way of life, culture and democracy. It was in the hope that when those young men returned to the home country after a period of years they would become leaders of their communities, having imbibed a good deal of what Britain had to offer. We also hoped that some—they would be sons of wealthy businessmen—would look to us as the mother country and it would become the first stop for the investigation of trade opportunities. It worked well, but perhaps we did not have sufficient of such students. The influence of the mother country on our empire was beneficial and profound in some respects.
      That situation has not changed today: what has changed is the clientele. We are now importing European citizens with precisely the same hopes: that they will be influenced by our culture and learn our language; and that in the course of time they will become senior business executives and trade and commerce will flow our way. That is quite admirable and it is money well spent. The more we can spare for such a cause, so much the better.
      However, the export of students is a more intangible matter. If we send our students to Europe what do they gain? They gain some knowledge of the culture of our European allies and the language. Perhaps they have rather a pleasant time. But the net benefit to UK Incorporated is rather slender. That is my first point. There is an imbalance, but do not let us worry too much about it.
      Several factors influence student mobility. Two of the main factors are finance and language. When we were taking evidence in committee, I was struck by the various sources of finance available to students coming to this country and those leaving it. But it is difficult to find out where a student should apply and where the
      2126
      relevant funds might be. If I were a little bewildered by that, I suspected that many of the students were. It is right that responsibility for the education of these people should be spread widely. That is wholly admirable. But information about what is available should be much more closely co-ordinated. I know that the Government are doing something about it and we had some evidence about that. I still believe, however, that a good deal more can properly be done to disseminate information about the possibilities of education, in particular in this country.
      Language is the other factor of great importance. We speak of English as one of the major languages of Europe—and, of course, it is. But it is a great deal more than that. I suggest to your Lordships that English is in a different category from French, German and Italian. English is now a world language and the lingua franca of a large part of the world. One can properly say that most intellectuals, academics, politicians and so forth who are scattered around the world aspire to a working knowledge of the English language. I believe that they regard it as indispensable not only for their own movement, but for their own ideas and trade. It is in quite a different category from the other European languages. It will inevitably lead to an imbalance in student mobility figures.
      How does it work the other way? Why do our students not go overseas, and specifically to Europe? I suggest that there is not much incentive for them to do so. For example, a graduate engineer might consider studying engineering in Italy and believe that that would be of benefit to him. Then he pauses to think what he should do. If the funds are there, then why not? The benefit to him and his career is dubious. The chance that a job in engineering in Italy will occur soon after graduation or in the next few years is pretty remote. The benefit to him is marginal. The benefit to this country is also marginal.
      This imbalance arises for historic reasons and because of the lucky fluke that our language has become a world language. It is not something that should worry us. We should not fret over the imbalance in the student mobility statistics. We should welcome it as a chance to benefit ourselves and spread our ideas, culture, civilisation and trade as widely as possible. We should put those funds available for higher education largely into the importation of students and their education here. Subsidising that education should be done in whatever way is thought appropriate. But I believe that we should be a good deal more conservative and cautious about investing moneys for British students to go to Europe. Our national interest in this exercise is pretty clear. We should keep it firmly in mind, notwithstanding the attractions of the cultural theory of student mobility which tends to dominate our thinking.
      6 p.m.
      Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak as a newcomer to this House and not as a member of the committee. I also speak as a university teacher who has taught students who have benefited from the Erasmus-Socrates scheme. I welcome this excellent report from the European Communities Committee. I am

      2127
      delighted that it has stressed the value of the exchange opportunities which the Erasmus-Socrates scheme offers students and the important part it plays in the international dimension of higher education.
      Looking through the report and its evidence, I regret that my own university, the University of Sussex, did not submit evidence to the committee. The university was founded in the 1960s, in the post-Robbins days, on the philosophy that knowledge did not fit into useful little boxes but crossed boundaries. It is was one of the first universities in this country to establish a school of European studies. In the school of European studies all the students benefited from a four-year course, which included a year abroad to study not only languages—French, Russian, Italian, German—but history, geography, international relations, law and economics.
      The scheme was extended in the 1970s to include science students of Sussex. We ran a Science for Europe programme. Those studying physics, chemistry, engineering and biology have had, for the last 20 years, the opportunity to do a four-year course and to spend the third year abroad studying their subjects at a foreign university.
      I have been teaching science students on that course economics and current European affairs for the past 10 years. I have found it extremely interesting to talk with the students, both before they go and after they come back. As you might expect, it is a very eye-opening exercise from their point of view. They are science students—many of them have done nothing but maths, chemistry, physics or biology since the age of 16—and I am amazed and appalled at how little they know about the way in which Britain operates, let alone about the world as a whole and the development of the European Union.
      When they set out, one of the issues that hits them immediately is the contrast between the higher education systems—the huge size of lectures, the lack of any personal contact with members of staff, the lack of laboratory work if they are science students. But they also benefit enormously from the experience because it is a different world. They are nearly always hit by the rigour of the scientific studies in these countries. In mathematics they frequently have to drop a year—sometimes even more—in order to keep pace with the mathematics required. Although there is not the practical work, they benefit from being taken into the laboratories of the host university to do a special project and to write it up, which they are expected to do. They return more mature, much more understanding of other cultures and much better citizens, not only of Britain but of the world. We are spending something like £34 billion a year on education. I think spending £34 million on this particular scheme is infinitely worthwhile.
      Let me put in a good word for the students we receive. The report notes the imbalance between those whom we send abroad and those who come to this country. I echo entirely what the report says about extending the teaching of languages in this country and extending the opportunities, such as we have at Sussex, for students to spend a year abroad—as, if you like, the wandering scholars—in foreign universities.
      2128
      It is also enormously valuable for us, as teachers, to have these students in our classes. If I am teaching about enlargement in the European Union, having a German student there to talk about issues such as the problems that Germany has faced in embracing the old East Germany into the new Germany, is enormously valuable. It acts as a catalyst; it gets the whole class talking. It is much better than my preaching at them. It is real experience.
      In almost all the classes that we hold on the subject, there is at least one and often there are two visiting students. They are enormously useful and valuable people to have in the class; they are delightful. They also wonder at the contact that they have with members of staff in this country. I remember one of the French students saying to me, "You know, Madame la Professeur, we see our teachers but they have separate staircases to the rostrum so that they can lecture and do not have to rub shoulders with us students." Visiting students enjoy and benefit from being treated as more equal members of society in our tutorial system, which is a very valuable part of British education.
      Let me end by saying that I endorse this report thoroughly. I welcome its very positive attitude to the Erasmus-Socrates scheme. I hope that other noble Lords will welcome it also.
      6.7 p.m.
      Lord Bridges: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, particularly as I was not able to be present when she made her maiden speech here last night. I welcome her to this House most warmly, not least for the contributions that she will be able to make on a subject such as the one we are debating this evening.
      I speak as a member of the sub-committee which, under the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, undertook this inquiry. The inquiry was perhaps rather unusual. It did not concern a large and important issue of policy, such as the European Central Bank, which we debated here a couple of weeks ago. Nor was it one of those detailed investigations into a precise directive on a scientific or environmental matter. The document we were looking at was a Commission communication entitled Building a Europe of Knowledge. It recommends, inter alia, continuation and extension of existing programmes to promote student exchanges. It will require approval by the Council in due course.
      Our preliminary discussions in the committee suggested that issues of long-term importance might be involved. After a good deal of preliminary deliberation we decided to take a closer look. This decision in itself was not easy. Some of our number doubted whether it would be possible to extract the necessary data and statistical information. But we thought that the questions involved were sufficiently important to justify the risk, and so I believe it has proved.
      We were greatly helped by the personal interest taken by the Minister, whose valuable evidence and widespread experience was made available to us. She also facilitated the production of evidence by her department's officials, which was quite essential to our

      2129
      work. In addition we had the benefit of the personal knowledge of some of our own members: the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, Lord Smith of Clifton, and our chairman stand out in my recollection.
      We saw some very interesting witnesses. I would especially commend to your Lordships Professor Ulrich Teichler of Kassel University, whose evidence on page 72 is of particular interest.
      What are the issues here? There are many. In part, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out, they are financial. To what extent should official resources, British or European, be used to encourage the flow of students between the various member states of the European Union? If the flow is uneven—and it certainly is—should we seek to correct the imbalance; and if so, how? There are more strictly educational matters to think about. If, as it appears, the imbalance is caused by a reluctance of British students to enter degree courses abroad because they feel that their linguistic skills are inadequate, should we attempt to improve those skills; and, if so, how?
      The Government's response to our report approaches these issues in a balanced and co-ordinated way. I notice that the department has no hesitation in adopting the celebrated 1066 and All That classification. Student exchanges, like Magna Carta and the execution of King Charles I, are a "Good Thing" and deserve encouragement and support, but, the department seems to say, we should not get carried away into the realms of dangerous enthusiasm. It sensibly welcomes the Commission proposal to continue existing programmes and to improve them in a practical manner—very much a Whitehall sentiment. As to imbalance, the Government suggest that it is,
      "unrealistic to expect complete parity",
      in student exchanges. That is a sage observation, but I do not think anyone has been so rash as to make that suggestion. However, they will seek a bilateral meeting with the Commission in order to bring about improvements.
      There is nothing objectionable in these responses and I suppose we can take comfort from the knowledge that, if the corpse of Jeremy Bentham is still on display at University College, his utilitarian principles remain alive and well in the Department for Education. I hasten to deny any implication that the Government's reply was drafted by the sub-committee. But, for me, there is one important missing dimension, and my purpose for intervening in this debate is to suggest what it is.
      Looking at this matter as a student of foreign policy, it seems to me that the success of the European Union over the long term will depend on our ability to train successive generations of citizens in a broader understanding of each other than is the case at present. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, what France and Germany have been attempting to do bilaterally, and with considerable success, over the past 35 years on the basis of the Elysée Treaty. I should like to see this sort of effort reproduced on a multilateral basis. There is no better way of doing this than by encouraging a steady flow of students to conduct some of their courses in foreign universities. This is not
      2130
      always easy, because students are serious people who are interested in their subject for its own sake and seek to obtain a qualification in it which will launch them on a career based on some specialised knowledge. Linguistic skills are sometimes, but not always, a step on that road.
      Foreign students come to this country for a variety of reasons, but it would seem for two reasons in particular. First, they come to benefit from the high quality of our universities and the personal supervision which they receive here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, our teachers supervise their pupils personally, rather than lecture to mass audiences as so commonly happens in Continental universities. So British universities are good value for money. Secondly, the incoming students acquire the English language which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said, is so useful in the world today.
      Statistics were made available to us. They show that some of these students are even prepared to put up with our weather and our cookery in order to obtain these advantages. British students, per contra, are often reluctant, even when the climatic and gastronomic factors are weighed in the balance, to give up the advantages they enjoy in their own country, including the support in so many cases of their own families. Now we are not the losers in importing more students than we export. Our Continental neighbours would be delighted to obtain the result we have, and they do indeed spend large sums in efforts to attract foreign students.
      But we are losing out in a different way. The relatively small outflow of British students means that the next generation of leaders in our professions, trade unions and businesses will lack a sufficient number of staff who have the advantage of having studied abroad in the past and thus have the ability to contribute strongly to the policy work and context of their organisation, because they understand the culture, attitude and language of the nations in which they seek to do business. To my mind—here I must disagree with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Elibank—this is the area on which we need to concentrate most and where we have most to gain.
      To improve this situation, we need to develop language learning in our schools. This would not necessarily mean spending more money but it would mean spending money more wisely. Should we seek to make it normal to expect university graduates to obtain a reasonable facility in one foreign language as part of a first degree course? Myself, I do not regard that as an unreasonable objective in the modern world. I am pleased that the Government support our suggestion that we arrange summer courses to help those preparing to study in a foreign university. The important point, which I do strongly stress, is to recognise that the target we are aiming at is very significant, and that reasonable success in reaching this goal would have very beneficial effect for the country as a whole.
      Views on this subject are obviously much affected by personal experience. In my 36 years spent in government service, I worked in seven missions abroad, which involved using six different languages. In only

      2131
      one of those, Germany—I leave out the United States—did I have a reasonable competence in the native language on arrival in post. I was not a professional linguist but I tried hard to achieve a good standard in the language in each country. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that I do think that the Foreign Office takes the study of foreign languages far more seriously than he implied in his Question last week. I think that his view may have been based on his knowledge of what happens in Lithuania and the other Baltic states, which are a rather special case.
      I did not always succeed in my objective but I used to set myself the personal target of trying, within one year of arrival, to be able to write a leading article-type of composition in the local language, expounding the local reaction to some wholly unexpected event. To do this, you had to understand the way in which local opinion would react and to write and talk about it in that language.
      An example I remember was Brazil in the early 1960s, when Brazilians were suffering from price inflation of up to 100 per cent. per annum. I asked myself how they would react to a decision by the Bank of Brazil to peg the cruzeiro to the US dollar. Of course, no Brazilian politician, thinking of the next elections, would dream of anything so rash. But the intellectual exercise was quite useful, not least in this case because it enabled my excellent language teacher to instruct me in the correct use of a rare tense in the Portuguese language, the future subjunctive, which I have not encountered anywhere else. It carried a strong sense of continuing uncertainty and doubt which was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
      I hope your Lordships will forgive this stray reminiscence. I recite it for a serious reason. Students in foreign universities will carry away with them a knowledge and understanding of that country which will never be lost to them. I do believe that if we can increase the number of British students in foreign universities, we shall be creating a valuable resource for them personally and shall make a useful contribution to a more rational and peaceful Europe.
      6.18 p.m.
      The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I agreed with every single word he said. In a recent Parliamentary Question I asked how many of our 202 heads of legations abroad could speak the language of the nation to which they are accredited. The answer was 50 per cent. That reflects exceedingly well on a most remarkable organisation—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which moves its senior mandarins around every two or three years. I hope that it will continue to set that magnificent example. I point out that in a space of just two or three months our ambassadors to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, are speaking a "survival" version of the local languages.
      I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for enabling us to take part in the debate this evening and
      2132
      for introducing it with his customary rigour and clarity—a hallmark, may I say, of this report and of the committee which produced it. I hope that the report will be widely read and circulated not only in British universities but also in our secondary schools. I hope that the main points will be taken up in those places where young people are studying for A-levels and deciding upon their university courses—that is, those who are fortunate and skilful enough to be awarded a place—and also in the European Commission and in other member states. I hope that the Minister and her department will study the report with care, take note of its recommendations and, most importantly, where it affects us all, implement them. Some of the recommendations can only be implemented by the European Commission. When the Minister concludes the debate, I hope that she will be able to inform us when and where she expects the Commission to act.
      If I have one quibble with the report it is that perhaps it does not give enough stress, although there is some, to the enlargement process. For example, between 1996 and 1997, I learned from a report, of the 85,210 people from overseas who took part in the scheme we have been discussing only 1,507 were from nations which were formerly occupied by the USSR. I can give your Lordships two examples of where the scheme has benefited individuals coming from overseas. The first is a Mr. Vaher Soosar from the foreign ministry in Estonia. He is 26 years of age and took a course in economics at Green College University. He has now gone back to his country to head the Central Asian desk in his foreign ministry, dealing with an extremely turbulent area of the world. He came to this House, met people and said afterwards, "I have received enormous value and great knowledge of this country. I have improved my language. I have seen and met members of your Foreign Office, and I am determined to follow and put into practice in my foreign ministry the good, positive lessons that I have learned."
      My second example concerns an historian, a Mr. Ilimar Ploom, who is currently at Tartu University. He spent a year at Queen's College, Oxford, studying the Conservative Party from Peel until the present time. He wrote his thesis at Tartu University on the subject of F.E. Smith/Lord Birkenhead, social reformer. That is how he looked upon Birkenhead. He met the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in the Peers' Guest Room. The noble Lord quietly assured him that F.E. Smith had other great virtues and that that of social reformer was not the one we prominently associated with the name of that noble and learned Lord who once sat on the Woolsack.
      The scheme has benefited Europe, the United Kingdom and our universities, especially those undergraduates and graduates who have been able to take part. Not only have member states needed to co-operate but universities, as well as their staff and their consumers, have also had to co-operate. The Commission's claim that education and training programmes have given meaning to the notion of a European dimension is well founded. As a result of the programme, we have achieved a greater sense of European citizenship and shared values.

      2133
      I should like to focus on two points raised in the report. The first is one upon which other noble Lords have dwelt; namely, the imbalance. It is claimed that UK students undergoing three-year degree courses abroad who take a year off as it is called—wrongly and incorrectly, in my opinion—in the second or third year to study at another European university on the Continent are penalised. Looking back over 28 years since I studied for a degree in modern history, I can say that I would have given a year's pay to have spent a year away from my university studying in a French, a German or an Italian university. However, the opportunity was not available because the scheme was not in existence at that time. Moreover, my knowledge of those languages was insufficient at that point.
      I hope that the Minister will encourage, exhort, persuade, entice but not bully the Comittee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at the universities of the UK to ensure that those students who opt to take a course abroad should far from being penalised in their degree grade, be regarded as having special merit for their achievements and diplomas from Continental universities. If they have done well in their studies, so be it. However, I hope that they will also have done well as ambassadors for their country. Indeed, as has been pointed out, they will come back with better knowledge of those countries and will be able to put that to good use in the future over, say, five, 10, 15, 20 years or until they reach the grave. For that reason, and with great respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Elibank.
      I am pleased that our students are no longer penalised financially by undergoing courses at other European universities. Can the Minister reassure us that that will continue to be the case? Further, does the noble Baroness see her department offering any further financial incentives for our students who are studying abroad? If so, how and why?
      I come to my second crucial point; namely, language training. I divide that into two components. The first is language teaching and the second is the learning of a foreign language. I declare an interest here. At the age of 45, four years ago, having failed twice overwhelmingly to be elected to another place I applied, and was accepted, to train at that excellent establishment, Sheffield Hallam University. I attended and passed the TEFL course, the teaching of English as a foreign language. The final hurdle of a six-week course was to be put in a classroom with 35 pupils, none of whom could speak English. They were immigrants. In my class, 16 of the 35 were of different nationalities. One had to give two one-and-a-half hour lessons. Sitting at the back of the classroom was one's instructor. One sank or one swam. This was Sheffield University's present, if you like, to the people of Sheffield—the training of immigrants in our language.
      I passed the course and learnt more about teaching and about myself during those two lessons than I had learnt elsewhere. I also learnt that if other immigrants can bother to learn our language, then surely we can learn other languages with all the opportunities that we have. Indeed, our people can learn the language of a neighbouring nation.
      2134
      Moreover, I make the following point with no boasting but with a certain amount of pleasure. At the age of 48, when I went to Estonia to teach the English language to a Baltic battalion—a peacekeeping company of the Estonian nation—I began to learn their language. I shall not explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, did, certain differences between our languages. I just say that the Estonian language has nine vowels while we have five. Their language has no determiner and no future tense, despite the fact that they have a great future. Moreover, they have 14 different case endings.
      How did one learn? Perhaps the answer will help other people. I learnt from the Bible which fortunately I had been taught. Indeed, those who know the Bible well will recognise what is coming next. To learn Estonian, one should read the Estonian Bible. While in Estonia I also noticed that at five o'clock in the evening, which is prime television time, there was a comic strip programme for children; that is, for Russian and Estonian children. Those programmes had subtitles so that one could learn and follow the dialogue. I also watched many episodes of "Santa Barbara" and "Neighbours", which carried subtitles. It is the visual and the hearing that helps one to learn a language.
      Finally, I turn to the question of textbooks. I believe that the range of textbooks in our primary and secondary schools needs to be reviewed. Until we put more investment into learning foreign languages from primary school onwards, we will not build on sure foundations a Europe of knowledge.
      6.30 p.m.
      Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I must apologise for missing the first part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire but I am reassured to learn that it was characteristically coherent and comprehensive. I must declare some interests as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster which participates to a great extent in the Erasmus-Socrates programme. I am also chairman of the United Kingdom Socrates Council.
      We very much welcome the report, as does the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It was produced quickly and well. It is a timely report because of the new programme that is emerging from Brussels. It served to tighten the sinews of the major actors: the DfEE, the CVCP and the universities. We had possibly allowed ourselves to take things too much for granted and I think that we are now more seriously pondering the problems that have been highlighted which might not otherwise have received attention. We welcome the fact that the Government have agreed a major relaunch of the programme some time in the future. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for that.
      Members of your Lordships' House have drawn attention to the biggest issue: that of imbalance. I believe that European Union enlargement will exacerbate the problems of imbalance. The member states from eastern Europe will swell the numbers of those students wanting to study in the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords have noted, the outward

      2135
      participation from the United Kingdom is falling. While the committee does not favour seeking compensation from the European Union, a programme where one member state alone, the UK, accounts for over 40 per cent. of all the participation cannot be in the best overall interests of the European Union itself and cries out for examination by Brussels to see what can be done. For all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, mentioned, I think we must recognise that we shall continue to attract vast numbers but somehow we need to contrive systems which relieve the pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the financial pressures, which are real, but we must also understand that the Erasmus programme is under-financed and under-capitalised. The unit of resource is getting lower and lower as Brussels endeavours to stretch it further and further. Therefore there are real financial and economic issues to be addressed.
      The most important recommendation is Recommendation 196 which calls upon the Government to provide funds for language classes for would-be participants in the Socrates programme. My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to his own experiences in language acquisition. It is important that we should get away from the notion that you have to be absolutely fluent in a language to be able to participate. Opportunities must be created and seized to enable our intending students to have that basic confidence which may result in their applying in greater numbers than has hitherto been the case.
      The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, referred to a hypothetical engineering student who might think twice about going to Italy. The University of Ulster has the largest single Erasmus programme for environmental scientists. We take in 90, and send out 70 on average per year. Environmental scientists, by definition, would benefit from going almost anywhere. As regards engineering where resources are scarce, we should not be so supremely confident that our own engineering facilities both in industry and in the universities are of such a state of the art quality that our students cannot learn from engineering best practice in member states of the Union. It is a foolish and parochial attitude to nurture such ideas. My noble friend Lady Sharp referred to her own experience of teaching students. A student who spends a good length of time in one of the member states comes back two inches taller. Such students have an immense confidence and if they never visit that country again they will nevertheless be equipped with lifetime skills which will hold them in good stead.
      I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, sought to persuade the Minister to punish, kick or force the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to give due recognition to qualifications and time spent abroad. The United Kingdom is in the vanguard of credit accumulation and transfer schemes. We bend over backwards in this regard. Many universities, including my own, award additional certificates and diplomas to those who have participated in such schemes. Therefore I do not believe we are slouches as regards trying to facilitate this kind of student mobility and interchange.
      2136
      From my perspective, I believe that the United Kingdom is extremely well served by the work of the director of the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council, Mr. John Reilly, whose comprehensive evidence to the committee must be seen for what it is. Not only do he and his staff manage a complex national programme with great efficiency but he is also the acknowledged doyen amongst the European Union core of national organisers. He has a real passion for promoting the idea of European student mobility while being ever diligent about the UK's interests. The higher educational world is fortunate to have his energy and expertise at its disposal.
      6.37 p.m.
      Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by offering apologies for my noble friend Lady Blatch, who has an unavoidable engagement. I also offer apologies for my noble friends Lord Pilkington and Lord Inglewood, both of whom served on the committee. My noble friend Lord Pilkington is away in the country organising the placing of his wife's gravestone. My noble friend Lord Inglewood is out of the country.
      This has been an excellent and fascinating debate. We on these Benches are delighted to welcome the report and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and his committee, for their dedicated and detailed work. We also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the Government for finding the time to hold this debate. The report will make an important contribution towards the development of a new programme to replace the Socrates-Erasmus programme, which comes to an end in 1999.
      I believe the committee was wise to focus its attention on two important strands. First, it addressed questions of principle rather than detail. It is right to consider some analysis of the aims and achievements of the programme as well as examining, through British interest groups, the hope for, the aspirations of, and indeed the commitment to, the new programme. The second strand, of course, addressed more detailed questions from the standpoint of the UK. It is clear from the report that the issue of imbalance created by the movement of students into and out of the UK occupied much of the committee's attention. As is customary for committees of this House, the structured way in which the committee approached its task was commendable.
      The flow of questions set out on page 9 chart a constructive course from the strategic to the detailed issues that needed to be considered if the analysis, conclusions and recommendations were to be sufficiently forward looking and at the same time to be capable of being delivered by participating countries in a way that was both affordable and achieved the stated aims and objectives. The committee was also right in taking account of those students who study abroad outside the Socrates-Erasmus programme.
      In the Commission communication, Building a Europe of Knowledge, I was pleased to see the stated aims of linking policies of innovation, research, education and training to boosting economic activities

      2137
      as well as bringing personal fulfilment and increasing the employability of young people. Unemployment throughout the Community, although at lower levels in the UK, is unacceptably high. The focus of the communication embraced not only the physical mobility of students and staff but also "virtual mobility", as it is known in the jargon, achieved by a more imaginative use of new technology. Co-operation between institutions was addressed by the report, in addition to the vexed issue of language skills—a point of particular significance for the UK.
      Like my noble friend Lord Elibank, I believe that there is a world of difference between students from most parts of the world, not just from European countries, coming to the UK to study and UK students leaving these shores to study abroad. The obvious point is made well: that the universality of the English language brings with it a confidence to undertake study in the UK using English as a second language.
      Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I welcome students from abroad, and I have a particular reason for so doing. The bold step taken by a young Ukrainian woman has given my family a much-loved and wonderful daughter-in-law. It was with great pleasure, delight and pride that we heard that she had been awarded her doctorate in linguistics at Lancaster University a couple of weeks ago. Sadly, there is as yet not a large enough cohort in the UK of young people who are sufficiently proficient and confident in a second language to take the step of studying abroad.
      The report, however, points out that language was not the only attraction of British higher education to overseas students. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that foreign students appreciate many aspects of our higher education system, including our shorter three-year degree courses, less crowded campuses, generally better staff-student ratios and, as mentioned, more effective pastoral care for students.
      The language problem for UK students is dealt with in some detail in the report. The introduction of a foreign language as a compulsory subject in the national curriculum is producing an increase in the number of young people reaching the age of 16 with some competence and skill. However, the number of students taking a language at A-level continues to fall. That is worrying. One factor appears to be the decline in foreign language assistants. Noble Lords will see that the committee firmly recommends an increase in their numbers. As an aside, I was interested to see that the fall was mainly across the state sector; there was an increase in the independent and grant-maintained schools. That is another very strong argument for schools to enjoy as much financial responsibility as is possible.
      The issue of teaching languages in the primary schools is difficult. However, it needs to be said that many primary schools do in fact either teach a foreign language or run foreign language clubs as an extra-curricular activity. That is to be welcomed. However, until there is a large enough pool of students leaving school competent in a foreign language at both GCSE and A-level from which language teachers can be
      2138
      recruited, it will not be possible formally to include a foreign language in the primary curriculum. There are approximately 20,000 primary schools, and that requires large numbers of staff. In spite of that, it remained a policy aim of the previous government to extend language teaching to the primary schools.
      Another welcome sign is the growing number of higher education institutions which offer students the opportunity to learn a language irrespective of their primary course of study. Perhaps HEFCE could focus more attention on that aspect of higher education funding.
      The committee concluded that the Erasmus programme had benefited the UK. It regarded such education interaction as an investment. It rightly warns the EU that to propose ambitious programmes without commensurate funding would be,
      "to build castles in the air".
      The committee makes the interesting point that, although there is an imbalance of students in and out of the UK, nevertheless we are fortunate to attract high numbers of overseas students. The issue as seen by the committee is to increase the number of UK students leaving these shores for study abroad. More use of periods of study abroad was encouraged by the committee, with a call on HEFCE to consider that and to press universities to be more proactive in encouraging students to learn foreign languages.
      Recommendation 198 takes a tough line on whether the UK should be compensated for the net inflow of students. The committee concludes that the answer lies in the improvement of language teaching and increasing the number of UK students studying abroad. However, that is a long-term solution and, meanwhile, our universities carry a substantial financial burden. That problem is here and now.
      The committee makes reference to the perverse effect of tuition fees and the funding structure, a point to be considered by the government and HEFCE. Pressures for the new programme to diversify are challenged in Recommendation 208. I hope the government will give weight to the concerns expressed by the committee on that issue.
      There is an almost insoluble tension between the preservation of the viability of minority languages and the natural inclination towards studying in English. Persuading UK students to study in, for example, France, Germany and Spain is proving difficult enough; but to extend the numbers who study in, for example, Greek, Polish or Latvian calls for specially targeted projects.
      It is clear from the excellent work done by the committee that the programme should continue. The committee concludes that the increased and more effective use of technology; better co-operation and co-ordination between and across participating institutions; improved language teaching; and some restructuring of funding by HEFCE will combine to increase the effectiveness of the new programme which will be put in place in 1999.

      2139
      I am sure that the noble Baroness will have received the briefing from the CVCP. I hope that she will take special note of its first point for subsequent action and its wish to take an active role in taking the committee's recommendations forward.
      Finally, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallis of Saltaire, and all the members of his committee. The report that they have produced is an important document, as the development of the next stage of Erasmus is considered. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the exchange of students should be encouraged, as we all benefit from it. We on these Benches wish all those concerned well as they make their decisions to carry this initiative forward.
      6.49 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and I know that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for having introduced it and for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss the issue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I thank the noble Lord and all the members of the Committee for their report into Student Mobility in the European Union. It is a complicated issue, but the report is a model of clarity and extremely timely. It has helped the Government to prepare their position for discussion of the proposed Socrates II programme. It has been helpful in that respect.
      I start by saying that I share the committee's view that the international dimension in higher education is important. It deserves the attention that the committee's report and this debate give it. It is a worthwhile aspect of higher education, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I shall not comment on the special value study abroad for British students of economics, although I have a little sympathy with what the noble Lord said.
      I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that students benefit from a period abroad, not just in order to continue their studies in whatever subject it may be and learn about the culture of the country they are in, but also to learn about different systems of higher education. Similarly, incoming students from around the world, including the European Union, can learn from our system. It is very different from some of the systems they experience in their studies.
      At the beginning of this month I was particularly pleased to be able to lead a delegation of representatives of UK higher education to the UNESCO world conference on higher education. I was able to put forward our view that higher education is increasingly an international enterprise. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development stressed the important role that higher education can play in creating sustainable development. That is again a very important role. The UK sponsored the student debate which enabled students from all over the world to play a part in that important conference. I was delighted to chair what turned out to be an
      2140
      extremely lively and stimulating exchange of views. In some ways, it was more lively and stimulating than the rest of the conference.
      Before turning to Erasmus, it may be helpful to set it in the wider context of the Government's international higher education policy and, along the way, to pick up some of the points made during the debate that do not strictly fall within the remit of the report.
      First, many British students study outside Europe under bilateral agreements between institutions. The UK Government have in place mechanisms for supporting such activity, particularly by offering those studying in high cost countries additional support towards their costs.
      Secondly, there are those students who come to the United Kingdom from elsewhere in the European Union for a complete higher education course for a whole three years or in some cases four years. We must, under EU law, treat these students no less favourably than students from the UK as far as tuition fees and institutional grants are concerned but not loans for their living costs. There are significantly more students who choose to come to the UK than there are UK students who choose to study a complete course elsewhere in the EU or around the world. I am aware that some have argued that this imbalance is unsatisfactory.
      On the positive side, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank said, it is a vote of confidence in the quality of UK higher education, both by our own students and by others in the European Union. It encourages the European dimension to develop in institutions and exposes those students who do not themselves travel to an international atmosphere. It undoubtedly gives many future decision-makers a positive experience in the UK which they carry with them throughout their lives. There is much in what the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said about it, but a great deal is being done to promote the value of British higher education and British further education around the world, not just in the European Union but outside. It is being carried out directly by vice-chancellors and principals and academic staff of British universities. But the Government too are involved. I have particular responsibility for the international aspect of my department's work and have made a number of trips abroad carrying out that form of export promotion.
      Finally, there is the growing group of students from outside the European Union who are designated as "overseas" students, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. The Government unreservedly welcome the students to the UK for their contribution to academic life in our institutions and for their contribution to the internationalisation of UK higher education. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that these students should fund the full cost of their higher education. However, the Government fund various schemes to support such students such as the Chevening

      2141
      scholarships. Many more students are, of course, sponsored by their own governments or by industry. Sometimes they pay for their studies in the UK themselves.
      The Government recognise the long-term benefits for the United Kingdom from hosting these different kinds of students in the UK. The Government also welcome the initiative taken by Claude Allegre, the French Minister of Education, now known as the Sorbonne Declaration. This sets out in very broad terms the benefits that the signatories believe would accrue from adopting a similar broad "architecture" of higher education: bachelors or first degrees, masters degrees and then a doctorate. In this perhaps we in the UK are fortunate because the architecture proposed looks remarkably similar to the one already in place. The declaration does not prescribe course length and certainly not content of curricula.
      The broad aim of a common architecture is to increase understanding of the signatories' higher education qualifications, making student, researcher and teacher mobility easier. It will also improve universities' opportunities to develop closer links with their counterparts in other countries.
      I now turn to the substance of the report which is about Erasmus and the European dimension in higher education. I wish to respond to those recommendations that concern the Government. I shall not pick up those specifically directed at the Commission. We can, I think, all agree with the committee that the programmes have been successful and that the new programmes, when they emerge, will continue to play an important role. We can also agree that the United Kingdom has benefited from them.
      The key point of the debate is the fact that more students come to the UK than go out from the UK, not just generally, but also on particular programmes. The committee rightly focused on the causes and effects of the imbalance and made some helpful suggestions as to action to tackle it. I wish to deal with three key areas: funding and student flows, external factors and the new programme itself.
      As to funding of student flows and what some have called "bean counting", because of the reciprocal nature of Erasmus our institutions do not receive funding for incoming students. But they receive funding for their own outgoing students. In short, it is the institutions that bear the cost of the student imbalance through teaching more students for the same money. It is therefore in the end for the institutions to decide what level of imbalance is acceptable to them when weighed against the undoubted benefits of hosting students from elsewhere in Europe. The institutional contracts are freely entered into and institutions must, of course, fulfil their obligations.
      The UK Government also pay a contribution to the European Union towards the cost of Erasmus. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington agrees when I say that for those reasons I believe it is right to seek maximum benefit for our students and institutions. The key point is whether or not the imbalance should be tackled. I agree with the committee that perhaps a
      2142
      little more can be done. I also agree that in some ways the imbalance represents a lost opportunity for UK students. However it is important to be realistic. Here I make two points. First, demand for places in the UK is very high for a number of reasons. The UK offers world class higher education and also has the benefit of the English language which is increasingly the lingua franca in many fields. For many young people around the world it is the first language they learn after their own. For those reasons—the quality of our institutions and the fact that we speak English—we believe it is unlikely that the high demand will diminish.
      Secondly, UK students already participate broadly in proportion to the numbers that one would expect for our population. In that sense the imbalance is not as bad as one may imagine. Taken together this means that complete parity is unlikely to be achievable. But that is not to say that we cannot do more to encourage our institutions and students to take part in Erasmus. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who spoke for vice-chancellors and his colleagues, that a great deal is already being done by our universities although I am sure many accept that other things can be done. However, I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that UK students studying abroad were being penalised. I know of no evidence of that. The noble Earl spoke a great deal about Estonia. Perhaps he is not aware that Estonia is not part of the Erasmus programme, at least not yet. It may be in future.
      As evidence of the Government's positive attitude I was able to announce to the committee a concession on fees for UK Erasmus students who undertook a full academic year of study abroad. This concession provides an incentive for students who pay no fee in that year and for the institutions who receive the full £1,000 towards the tuition of the incoming student. I believe that to be a significant concession. We shall monitor its effect closely. I say to the noble Earl that no further financial incentives are currently planned because this is a significant development.
      I point out to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that the Government are aware of the costs involved in supporting these programmes. We shall weigh the costs and benefits of those programmes when we consider the new Socrates programme and how much money should be spent on Socrates II. I shall not enter into the larger issue of the European Union budget which I believe is a debate for another time.
      I turn to the external factors that affect participation rates. Certainly, a positive atmosphere is important. During our presidency of the European Union in the first half of this year the Government stressed the importance of employability in a European context and, within that, the vital role to be played by education. Our approach in presenting the positive opportunities available in Europe and in providing supporting material for schools won many plaudits as well as some criticism from those who want nothing to do with Europe.

      2143
      The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other noble Lords referred to the vexed issue of languages. Much is made of our students' inability or lack of confidence in another language. I accept that that exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, suggested that not enough young people studied languages at A-level. I accept that the numbers are not as high as they might be and that there have been declines in some but not all modern languages. But I recently announced changes that will broaden the A-level curriculum to allow more subjects to be studied, including languages. I hope that when we have a system where students can study five subjects in the first year of their sixth form schools will encourage them and that those who at the moment do not take a language will do so at least to A-level.
      I am encouraged by the spread of "languages for all" strategies in many and universities and colleges. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, which organises the foreign language assistants programme for schools, has been concerned about the use of foreign language assistants in our schools. It undertook a survey a couple of years ago and is now taking action to try to arrest and reverse the decline in the use of foreign language assistants in our schools. It is promoting them and disseminating good practice with outreach of various kinds. We hope that there will be some restoration of those numbers.
      We need to do more to make the programme better known. I welcome very much the input from the UK Socrates Erasmus Council and the work that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is doing with that council. We have discussed several ideas, including a high profile relaunch to coincide with the introduction of the new programmes in January 2000, to which the noble Lord referred. We shall continue to support the work of the council in raising awareness and encouraging participation. I can confirm that the department will also publish an updated guide to the opportunities available, including all of the new participating countries. This will be available to all students and to everyone who is on the internet.
      I should like to deal now with the structure and operation of Erasmus. We recognise, as does the committee, that there is scope for improvement and that that improvement can benefit UK students and institutions. We have been playing an active part in negotiations with our partners in Europe in the structure of the new programmes, including Socrates II which contains Erasmus. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who asked about the Commission, that we are vigorously pursuing the principles of responsiveness, decentralisation and flexibility that the committee rightly stresses in its recommendations. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will also be glad to hear that. We also hope to see greater stability and less paperwork for the institutions and more decisions taken at national level. We also need to see better provision for people with disabilities. I endorse very much what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said about this, although he is not in his place at the moment. I have also asked my officials to send a copy of the
      2144
      committee's report to the European Commission and to seek a bilateral meeting in order to discuss its content and recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who is an expert on Whitehall, has drawn attention to the spirit of Jeremy Bentham which he detects in the drafting of the Government's reply. But I hope he will agree that it is a thoughtful and balanced reply that may even gain the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. If it does that I believe that it will have achieved something.
      I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and the committee for its authoritative report.
      7.9 p.m.
      Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, thank all those who have taken part in the debate, in particular the Minister, not only for her constructive speech but her helpful attitude throughout the inquiry and the evidence that she gave to the committee during the course of that inquiry.
      The purpose of the Select Committee's report is to fuel the European Union debate and to alert Her Majesty's Government to some of the underlying issues, which Ministers, who are always immensely pre-occupied, may perhaps not otherwise have grasped. It is necessary to investigate the consistency of Government policy and to stir things up a little. We may possibly have stirred things up a little in London and Brussels, and perhaps even in a number of Britain's higher education institutions. If we have achieved that, we have done our job.
      A number of useful comments have been made. I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, that next week I shall be going to Frankfurt to lecture to banking students from across the European Union. Quite often, when I am in Frankfurt, I am pained by how much less international the young people from British banks are compared with their colleagues on the Continent. If we wish to be an international financial centre and to have international companies flourishing in Britain, it is important that we have young people, not just teachers, but also financiers, professionals and company executives, who understand the world outside Britain.
      I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her remarks about the European studies course at Sussex University. I declare an interest. My wife is a professor in that faculty. From what she has told me, I am conscious that the number of applicants to study those combined courses is currently falling. That is another area that ought to concern us. Students learn from each other. British students who go abroad expand their horizons, and that can feed back into this country's prosperity. Therefore, it is a public policy priority to encourage more British students to study abroad. That is part of our underlying message. Having said that, I commend this Motion to the House.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Northern Ireland: A.5 Road Upgrade
      7.13 p.m.
      The Duke of Abercorn The Duke of Abercorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering a request to the European Union for additional funding to ensure that the Londonderry-Strabane-Ballygawley A.5 road is upgraded to the required modern standard.
      The noble Duke said: My Lords, I should like to declare all interests that may, in any way, be connected with the Question. I am president of Strabane Chamber of Commerce; a consistent, indeed persistent, traveller along the A.5 route; chairman of Amey (Belfast), a subsidiary of Amey PLC; and my family owns a disused quarry in County Tyrone, where a local quarrymaster pays a modest rent in order to ensure that the quarry remains closed.
      I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, is participating in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, was hoping to be present in order to support the Question, but commitments on the other side of the Irish Sea have prevented his attendance this evening.
      I am delighted to have the opportunity, not only to raise this Question, but also to highlight and emphasise the vital, indeed critical, importance of the A.5 road, not only to the counties of Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh, but also to the neighbouring county of Donegal. Although there are some inherent advantages in the north west, such as a rapidly growing labour force and a good third-level education infrastructure, economic progress in the region has not matched the experience elsewhere, for the reasons that I shall raise in my Question.
      The commercial, industrial and social lifeline of the west of the Province and Donegal depends directly on the A.5 road as the sole route to the eastern ports of Belfast, Larne and Dublin. This has resulted in it being designated with trans-European network status. That is imposing terminology. However, at present the current condition of the road in no way justifies that status.
      Much of the road is characterised by its twisty, undulating alignments, with poor forward visibility and, for long stretches, a complete lack of overtaking opportunities. Average vehicle speeds during peak hours on the 12-mile stretch between Londonderry and Strabane are 35 miles an hour, and on the 34 mile stretch between Strabane and Ballygawley only 39 miles an hour. Those average speeds fall well below what is expected on one of Northern Ireland's major, strategic routes. Those factors also lead to long tailbacks of traffic, and the resultant driver frustration is one of the reasons for the high accident rates on several parts of the route. Yet all the products of industry, the raw materials for that industry, and all consumer goods have to travel along the A.5 route since there is no alternative method of transport.
      Furthermore, I am convinced that the present condition of the road has a detrimental, psychological impact on those of us living in the west of the Province and Donegal because it accentuates the feeling of remoteness of those western counties from the
      2146
      considerably more prosperous counties east of the Bann, where employment opportunities are far more prevalent and obtainable.
      Again, the condition of the A.5 road deters potential mobile investment from locating in the west. For instance, the Industrial Development Board's advanced factory in Strabane remains vacant following completion some 24 months ago. Surely regional development policies are first and foremost directed towards removing the problems of consistent unemployment and low incomes and to improving the quality of life. To achieve those basic objectives it is necessary to arrest the contraction of the industrial and service sectors and then to restore and enhance the attractions of the region as a location for new investment and to realise fully the tourist potential of the area.
      Therefore, it is widely accepted that development of industries and tourism is tied closely to the creation of infrastructure facilities, such as roads, railways, ports and airports. Again, it is widely recognised that there is a direct link between lack of economic activity and the lack of efficient transport.
      In the case of Tyrone, Donegal and Fermanagh, there are no port facilities, no railways, no motorways and two modest, small airports. Thus the A.5 road remains the critical link with the rest of Ireland, both north and south, as well as the east coast gateway ports to Great Britain and Europe. The region's dependence upon this transport corridor is demonstrated by the high levels of heavy commercial vehicles (up to 19 per cent.) using the A.5 route. In other words, access to those counties is appalling.
      Surely, if the region's transport is totally dependent upon road transport, then good modern roads are a fundamental requirement. During the past 20 years, due to budget restrictions, investment on major roads in Northern Ireland has been severely curtailed, and this is especially the case in the north west of the Province. Therefore, the May announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £12 million expenditure in four key locations along the A.5 route was of real significance and a tremendous morale boost to the west of the Province and Donegal.
      The proposed bypass extension of Strabane, Newtownstewart and Omagh, along with the scheduled works at Ballymagorry, without doubt, will improve the standard of this route, avoiding tailbacks, possible accidents and constant driver frustration in those four important locations.
      It is accepted that a complete reconstruction of the route to modern standards is not presently an option. However, a recent survey by Coopers and Lybrand, commissioned by the north west region cross-border group consisting of Limavady, Strabane, Deny and Donegal councils, concluded that if a further £10 million were invested on this trans-European network, with emphasis on the establishment of climbing lanes where necessary, the route would be upgraded to modern required standards. It would thus provide the region, which has a population of 690,000, with a level playing field situation at long last, resulting in the north west no longer being in the rearguard in terms of economic development.
      Therefore, at today's costs, a modest road investment of £10 million should have a major impact and lasting benefit on the daily lives and prospects of those living in this region. It is considered that these further improvements will be required to achieve noticeable change in traffic flow to allow efficient travel along this route. Again, the upgrading of the A.5 will significantly reduce transport costs to ports and airports, thus making the area more attractive to potential investors.
      Although by nature a considerable optimist, I am really concerned that this region is far too dependent on a number of vulnerable sectors. For instance, the agriculture industry is in real and deep recession at present, while the manufacturing industry in the area has a high concentration of clothing and textile firms which will inevitably come under increasing pressure from imports in the future. Indeed, our economy in the west is already precarious. For example, the Strabane area is the highest unemployment blackspot in the European Union. In fact, successive generations of some families have failed to gain employment in the Strabane area.
      Again, according to the Irish Times of 17th August, IDA Ireland stated that County Donegal is a priority location for new inward investments. However, it stated:
      "In spite of our efforts, few companies have chosen to locate in the North West region. It is the investor who decides the location, not IDA Ireland. Our experience of dealing with clients who have located elsewhere has shown us that poor access by air and road, Northern troubles, etc, have made the region unattractive in comparison with other locations".
      The future of Fruit of the Loom, employing several thousand people in both Donegal and Derry, is causing deep concern in the north west. The Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland is experiencing the same practical difficulties as the IDA Ireland.
      Tourism is an important part of the Donegal economy, coming mostly from Belfast, the east of the Province or indeed from Dublin. Incoming tourists converge at the Ballygawley roundabout and then travel along the A.5 route. There is no alternative.
      The rebuilding of Omagh, which must be regarded as a matter of the utmost urgency following that act of raw evil last August, will require every ounce of sensitivity, creativity, drive and determination and must in no way be hampered by poor transportation and communications. Again, if Northern Ireland is to achieve lasting and permanent peace there will be an inevitable increase in tourism, commerce and, it is to be hoped, industry.
      This situation will obviously impose yet further pressure on this lifeline route. Increased economic activity in Belfast has resulted in long, early morning tailbacks on the M.1 motorway and, likewise, a huge increase in Dublin traffic has created severe traffic problems.
      I remain totally convinced that the most effective monetary assistance from the European Union to those living in the west would be a £10 million grant in aid from the roads measure of the transport sub-programme. Therefore, I trust that the Government will make an urgent request to this authority, probably in conjunction
      2148
      with the Irish Government, in order to equal the Chancellor's recognition of the importance of the A.5 route.
      I am only too aware that transport infrastructure investment is expensive and public expenditure resources are not easily accessible. However, no one can deny or counter-argue that a further provision for an improved A.5 route would play a critical role in enhancing the economic development of the region.
      Therefore, there really is a chance for a generation of the population living in the west of the Province and Donegal to realise at long, long last the real potential of the area. It would be nothing but tragic if this opportunity were not taken up by both governments and Brussels.
      7.26 p.m.
      The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, who has brought before your Lordships this important Unstarred Question. I had a difficult decision to make today; whether to take part in this debate or whether to be in Northern Ireland as a member of the all-party defence group visiting the Province this weekend. Both events run concurrently and I cannot be in two places at once. I regard this debate to be of the utmost importance and will listen to the Minister's reply with the closest attention, as I am sure will the 280,000 people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland whose lives are affected by his decision or his indecision.
      We all owe a great debt to the noble Duke, especially those who live, work and have served in the Province. Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean. In August last year a bomb exploded in Omagh. I happened to be in Estonia at the time staying with a former staff sergeant of the Greenjackets who has dual citizenship, Staff Sergeant Krepka. He, like me, had spent a happy two years in Northern Ireland serving the people there. We were fortunate to be watching the memorial service on Sky television. When my host saw the important and unimportant people in front of the town hall, he asked me whether I knew any of them. He asked, "Who is the tall man wearing the Guards tie?". I said, "That is his Grace the Duke of Abercorn, who is attending the service as Lord Lieutenant". I was asked what he was doing there, and I said that he was representing the Sovereign. I was asked, "What else does he do?". I said, "He has done an enormous amount of good for the Province, not only County Tyrone but the whole Province. We thank him.".
      I declare an interest. Twenty-six years ago last month I was serving as a soldier in Northern Ireland. I was in a civilian car bought locally. I was undertaking the kind of job where the number plates needed to be changed every two to three months. I was driving quite slowly, at about 40 miles per hour, from Omagh to Ballygawley. Suddenly, there was a bump. I lost control of the car. It slewed over to the right and a car coming in the opposite direction crashed into me. Fortunately, nobody was killed. Given the nature of my duties, it would have been ironic had I been wiped out by a car and not a terrorist.

      2149
      I was not prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. It transpired that a similar accident had happened only a week before. It was the quality of the road which was at fault, so decided the police authorities.
      Therefore, I have a question for the Minister. Will he tell the House how many people, over the past one year, five or 10 years, have died on that road? I cannot ask him, nor would I, the cost of that because death to families, relations, friends and the economy is incalculable. But perhaps the Minister can tell me how many much-valued police hours, especially in the Province, are spent dealing with accidents as a result of the poor quality of the A.5 Londonderry-Strabane-Ballygawley road. Has he received any representations from the various chief constables of the counties affected who have urged him either to supply funds from the Treasury to repair the road or exhorted him to go elsewhere, to the European Union, for funds?
      I cannot regard the £10 million as a large sum of money in proportion to the Northern Ireland budget. I should like to know whether—if there is a correlation—the cost of accidents and police time, which is costed, is near the £10 million that upgrading would cost. I believe that we should be saving money if we improved that road.
      Unlike the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, I do not have all the statistics and facts. I was grateful for the document by Coopers & Lybrand from which the noble Duke quoted. I shall reinforce what he said without giving the quotations from that document.
      However, I wonder whether the Minister has studied the report entitled Transportation Infrastructure Strategy. That report was commissioned by the Irish Central Border Network and the North West Region Cross Border Group. The objectives are most laudable. They are to improve cross-border co-operation in transportation infrastructure and to provide an analysis so that the European and central government funding authorities can be advised on the most appropriate approaches. That report, dated 1998, from four months ago, must have landed on the Minister's desk. Does he agree with the priorities? The priorities are, first, the Sligo-Enniskillen-Belfast road, secondly, the Londonderry-Belfast road, the A.6, and, thirdly and fourthly, the A.5. Are those the correct priorities?
      If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported, is giving £12 million, when will the repairs to that road start and how long will they take? Northern Ireland enjoys the prospect of relative stability and peace. One of the reasons or factors of the instability has been the lack of job opportunities. In part that has been caused by the lack of modern, upgraded transport infrastructure.
      Through my mailbag came two brochures. One was entitled Shaping our Future which was produced by the North West Region Cross Border Group. The second was produced by the Irish Central Border Area Network. In the first there is a section in which we are informed that in 1977, the two central governments jointly funded a study on cross border communication. That was 21 years ago. It is of interest to me that a heading in the glossy brochure is
      2150
      entitled "Initiating momentum". Will the Minister assure us this evening that he will not only initiate momentum but will take action and generate action to ensure that the A.5 road, the major artery between the north and south of Ireland in the west, is upgraded so that it is able to be an asset rather than a handicap to the economic well-being of all the people of Ireland?
      7.34 p.m.
      Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn has done a great deal over many years for the economic progress of the Province. Therefore, he speaks with a special authority on this matter and has raised this evening a most important subject. I support everything that he said about the importance of the A.5 road and the very strong case that there is for European Union investment assistance to upgrade it.
      All of us who have spent any time in Northern Ireland know what an important link it is. We have all spent a good deal of time being driven backwards and forwards along it. As the noble Duke said, it is important not only to the west of Northern Ireland itself but also to Donegal. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us of the Government's support for assistance from the trans-European network programme.
      It is important as economic progress is always important to every part of the United Kingdom but I believe it has an importance too to the political process. The unemployment and the economic difficulties of parts of the Province have undoubtedly been exacerbated by the troubles of the past 30 years. There is no doubt in my mind that the achievement of a peaceful Province and a peaceful future for Northern Ireland depends on economic progress and on bringing down unemployment as well as on the more obviously political events which we have spent some time discussing in the past few days.
      It is important for political reasons and for reasons of the so-called peace process as well as the economy generally. But the trans-European network programme was brought into being in recognition of the difficulty of the most distant areas of the European Union in economic terms. It is no accident that any map showing the high unemployment regions of the European Union that has been drawn at any time in the past few decades shows that unemployment is higher around the edges of the European Union. That should not surprise us. However, it is an obvious fact. It can be seen that the south of Italy, parts of the Iberian peninsula as well as the west of France, Ireland and Northern Ireland as well as the north of our own country are all areas of the highest unemployment. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that roads and transport infrastructure are extremely important to economic prosperity. The debate this evening is one very sharp example of that fact in action in one part of our country.
      The other aspect of this debate is that the timing is particularly well chosen. It is both the right year and also the right time of year. It is the right year because we have now the Belfast agreement and all that flows from it. That means that we can expect even more help

      2151
      from the Republic of Ireland in pressing the case for assistance in the European Union. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are working closely with the Republic in support of this project. I hope too, as the noble Duke said, that it receives every assistance from the Republic of Ireland in supporting the project within the European Union.
      It is also the right time of year. The EU budget process is in full swing. The details of the budget will be settled by Christmas, so now is the time to push for this project to be included in the budget for 1999. That push can come not only at government level but also within the European Parliament. The European Parliament plays a big part in settling the details of the budget.
      We need to count on the support of the three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament to push this issue hard on their colleagues and particularly on the members of the Budget Committee. I am sure that our new colleague—the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—who is not only a senior member of the European Parliament, but a senior member of the Budget Committee, will be seized of that point.
      I hope also that, for example, Mr. John McCartin, Member of the European Parliament from Leitrim, will be able to help. He too is a member of the Budget Committee. Just as important is the Irish substitute member of that committee, Mr. Pat Gallagher, who is the MEP for Donegal. I am sure he is an ally in what we are trying to achieve tonight. He has the nickname "the Cope" and has long been known as "Pat, the Cope Gallagher". So I feel additional confidence in hoping for his support for this specific proposition.
      The noble Duke drew our attention to an important matter in a timely way and I support everything he said.
      7.41 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. Before dealing with some of the specific points he made, I should like to set the debate in a slightly wider context.
      I shall shortly be publishing a statement on transport policy in Northern Ireland. That will not contain any indication of extra money, but I hope it will indicate what the Government's thinking is as regards the development of transport in all its facets in Northern Ireland and that it will be seen as a development of a White Paper published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions a few weeks ago.
      In approaching the need for roads there are three criteria, most of which have been mentioned. They are, first, the need of the economy, the need to have a transport system that is efficient to help industry and business and to encourage inward investment and tourism; secondly, to help and protect the environment by providing bypasses around towns; and, thirdly, the important question of road safety to which the noble Earl referred from his own experience.
      2152
      I am also aware that there is a great deal of pressure throughout Northern Ireland for more expenditure on roads. It has always been thus and it is felt wherever I go in Northern Ireland. Every district council I visit asks for more money to be spent on roads. I am sensitive to the feeling in some parts of Northern Ireland that those who live in the western part urge that more resources should be devoted to their area as opposed to the eastern part, including Belfast. Most of those comments have been referred to this evening.
      I fully appreciate the noble Duke's desire to have the A.5 upgraded to modern day standards and I can assure the House that the Government fully share that aspiration. The A.5 is a major strategic route. From a local perspective it is the major traffic artery in the west of Northern Ireland linking the area to Belfast; from an island of Ireland perspective it forms part of the link between Londonderry and Dublin; and from an even wider perspective it is included in the European Union's trans-European road network.
      The Government recognise that some sections of the route fall below modern-day standards in terms of alignment and that some sections have few overtaking opportunities. I know that there are many who would like to see the entire route brought up to dual carriageway standard but, regrettably, current and indeed projected traffic flows indicate that the expenditure required to achieve this could simply not be justified.
      In appreciation of the importance of the route, the previous government looked at more realistic ways of upgrading it and a number of years ago a strategy of phased improvement works was drawn up. This strategy included major schemes to bypass the towns along the route—Strabane, Omagh and Newtownstewart—and also the provision of a number of climbing lanes located along the entire route. Indeed, the previous government made a significant start with the construction of the first stage of the Strabane bypass, the first two stages of the Omagh through-pass and the construction of a climbing lane at Magheramason near Strabane. Other lesser schemes to improve sight lines and provide right-turning lanes at a number of busy junctions along the route were also carried out. In all, over £12 million was invested in the route in recent years and part funding from the European Union was secured for all of the major schemes.
      The cross-border dimension is very important and the need for a co-ordinated approach towards the future upgrading of the route has become more apparent in recent times. This need was first identified in February 1995 when the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference agreed that a joint cross-border study should be undertaken to determine a future programme for the improvement of the main Londonderry to Dublin Road. This study, which involved officials from the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland working together with representatives from the National Road Authority in the Republic of Ireland and Louth and Monaghan county councils, endorsed the previous government's strategy to upgrade the route through the

      2153
      provision of bypasses of the towns and improved overtaking opportunities which were to be carried out at a pace dictated by the availability of finance.
      However, the situation changed in 1996 when, under the previous government, funding for major road schemes was substantially reduced because of other spending priorities in Northern Ireland. At that time two of the proposed improvement schemes were postponed. This situation had a considerable impact on the proposed improvement strategy and the position was further exacerbated the following year when two further schemes were postponed.
      At that stage the future prospects for the upgrading of the route looked bleak with just one scheme at Magheramason proposed for the five-year period between 1997 and 2002. However, on 12th May this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, visited Northern Ireland to unveil his economic strategy for Northern Ireland which included a package of measures to upgrade the strategic road network. Those measures provided for £12 million to be allocated towards the upgrading of the A.5. The Government decided that those funds should be directed to the construction of a bypass of Newtownstewart, the completion of stage 3 of the Omagh through-pass, stage 2 of the Strabane bypass and the provision of a section of road realignment and widening at Leckpatrick.
      This programme of work represents the most important development in the roads infrastructure for many years in this part of Northern Ireland and will bring about significant benefits for all those who travel on the route. The intention is to complete all the work within the timescale of the present Parliament and, while this is a very challenging deadline, officials are confident that it can be achieved. Preparatory work is well under way and it is hoped that construction work on the first scheme at Leckpatrick will commence next spring. I believe and hope that the remainder of the schemes I outlined will be completed by the end of 2002.
      Looking further ahead with regard to the European Union funding aspect, negotiations are currently under way regarding the post-1999 structural funds package; that is to say, the future of objective one status which at present benefits Northern Ireland. The detailed requirements for the next round of the structural funds are still fairly uncertain as the regulations are not yet finalised. As the overall structural funds budget has not yet been agreed, it is too early to make an accurate assessment of the amount of funding which Northern Ireland might receive. However, work on the Northern Ireland structural funds plan needs to start so that it can be finalised and submitted before too long.
      Negotiations are currently taking place in Brussels regarding the position for structural funds after 1999. It is therefore too early to be definite, but the Government are well aware of the important part that objective one status has played for Northern Ireland and clearly we are looking to the future to see what arrangements can be made with Brussels which will go on being helpful. However, the negotiations will not be easy because Northern Ireland now has above the percentage of GDP which qualifies for Objective 1 status on present plans. As I said, that is still the subject of negotiations in Brussels.
      2154
      Against that background, the views of a wide variety of organisations have been sought. They include local authorities and statutory bodies. They have been asked to state in broad terms the priorities that should be addressed in the new plan and the types of activity that should be funded. I shall ensure that the Department of the Environment is aware of the concerns about the A.5 that have been expressed tonight and that those concerns are taken fully into account as part of the consultation exercise.
      Perhaps I may deal with a few deal of the specific questions that have been asked. The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, mentioned the Coopers & Lybrand report. I understand that that report has not yet been received by the department.
      The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, asked me about the number of accidents. Between 1994 and 1997, there were seven fatal accidents on that stretch of road. I am not aware that any representations have been made by the chief constable, although it may be that such representations have been made but have not been drawn to my attention. I advise the noble Earl that every district council that I have visited in the western part of Northern Ireland has made representations to me about the need to improve the A.5. I am afraid that no figures are available either in respect of the costs of policing of road accidents or in terms of the other costs associated with road accidents. The noble Earl will appreciate that that is quite a difficult exercise and would be based on certain assumptions. Regrettably, road accidents can be caused by factors other than the quality of the road.
      Noble Lords will be aware that the road accident rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to the size of the population. That continues to concern me. Other causes of accidents include people not always wearing seatbelts, excessive speed, and alcohol consumption. However, I accept that from the point of view of road safety, some roads are not as well designed or aligned as they should be. That is bound to be a contributory factor. If such figures can subsequently be made available, I shall pass them on to the noble Earl.
      I assure the House that we are certainly not going to hold back in our discussions in Brussels. I have indicated the basis of our co-operation with the government in Dublin on road schemes and many other matters. I have also indicated the measures to improve the road that are already in the pipeline. However, I am well aware that noble Lords would like more money to be spent on it. We can spend only the money that is available, and, although noble Lords may well want more money to be spent than I have indicated is possible, I believe that what the Government are proposing will make a significant difference and will improve the A.5.
      I reassure the noble Duke that we shall do everything possible to ensure that the A.5 between Londonderry and Ballygawley is upgraded to modern standards within a reasonable and achievable timescale. I have indicated the steps that will be taken within the next two or three years.
      House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.

  Immigration Deportees Serving Prison Sentences
  Immigration Deportees Serving Prison Sentences
  Haslar: Chief Inspector of Prisons' Report
  Haslar: Chief Inspector of Prisons' Report
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Boards of Visitors: Publication of Annual Reports
  Boards of Visitors: Publication of Annual Reports
  The Bangladeshi Community
  The Bangladeshi Community
  Judicial Committee
  Judicial Committee
  World Bank
  World Bank
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Underwater Archaeology
  Underwater Archaeology
  Herbicide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops
  Herbicide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops
  British Cattle Movement Service
  British Cattle Movement Service
  Intervention Board Corporate Plan
  Intervention Board Corporate Plan
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
  EU Pig Producers: State Aids
  EU Pig Producers: State Aids
  BSE
  BSE